Category: Homeopathy Articles

Once similimum is selected for a case through a process of exhaustive case taking, repertorization and material medica study, the next issue that bothers a young homeopath the most is the selection of potency, dosage and repetitions. A lot of confusions, controversies and phobias exist regarding the selection of potencies. Each homeopath has his own ways, and believes that only he is right. Young homeopaths get confused due to totally contradicting advices they get from their different teachers.

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

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

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

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

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

My inquiry for a more reliable and perfect way of preparing molecular imprinted drugs have finally resulted in presenting a new method called ‘Alpha Molecular Imprints’.

ALPHA MOLECULAR IMPRINTS will provide a most perfect method of preparing molecular imprints of drug substances, on the basis of MIT concepts

It is prepared by adding mother tincture of drug substance to equal quantity of rectified spirit, and serially diluting it in 1:1 ratio up to 80 steps, so as to cross the avogadro limit. During each step, 300 succussions are given at a rate of 1 succussion per second (5 minutes). During each step,the solution is given 10 minutes rest at a temperature of 5-10 celsius before succussion. That means, each step takes 15 minutes. Solution gets total 24000 succussion during 80 dilution steps. During succussion, bottles should not be filled more than half, to enable free movement of contents while shaking. If you are using 50 ml bottle, use only 10ml drug and 10ml diluent. If 100ml bottle is used, you can add 20ml drug and 20ml diluent. Whole process will take 20 working hours to get the finished product.

By this process, drug molecules get maximum exposure and interaction with vehicle molecules, enabling perfect molecular imprinting of all individual constituent molecules. By 80th step, all drug molecules will be removed from the medium, and only the molecular imprints representing diverse types of constituent molecules remain. Molecular imprints will be more saturated, perfect and stable than those we get from conventional ways of potentization. If used as similimum, this preparation will be acting as most effective therapeutic agent.

Since we use 1:1 dilution ratio, this product may be called ALPHA MOLECULAR IMPRINTS, to differentiate from other potency scales. May be labelled as Nux Vomica α. A drug will have only a ‘single’ potency in this scheme. If we use ALPHA MOLECULAR IMPRINTS, all confusions associated with selection of potencies will be resolved once and for all.

Exactly, I am not trying to find a new potency. I am searching for ways to get molecular imprinting done more perfectly and accurately, on the basis of MIT concepts. Better to say, I am trying to find a way of molecular imprinting, more perfect and scientific than ‘potentization’.

I am not introducing a new ‘potency scale’. In ALPHA MOLECULAR IMPRINTING, there is only one end product, not a series of potencies.

In ALPHA method, the procedure is stopped once avogadro limit is crossed. By that time, all constituent molecules will be removed, after imprinting into the medium as supramolecular clusters. We do not subscribe to the idea of ‘potency increasing’ by going to higher dilutions, which is an idea related with ‘dynamic energy’ concept.

In decimal scale of potentization, avogadro limit is crossed at 23x. In centecimal scale it happens by 12c. In ALPHA method I propose, avogadro limit is crossed by 80th step of dilution, which gives maximum exposure of drug molecules, enabling them to interact with imprinting medium very long time. Dilution is done through 80 steps, subjecting them to 24000 succussions by that time. That ensures a much higher perfection and accuracy of of molecular imprinting.

According to my view of potentization as a process of molecular imprinting, I wanted to do it in a way most appropriate to happen molecular imprinting. According to this view, dilution has to be done up to avogadro limit only, same time giving maximum exposure of drug molecules to interact with vehicle. So I selected 1:1 ratio for dilution. As per calculations, dilution would cross avogadro limit by 80th dilution step. By that time, all drug molecules will be removed. Regarding succussions, I consider it a way to break hydration shells and make them free molecular imprints. I wanted to give alternate succussions and resting period to allow formation of new hydration shells and then break them open. So i decided to give a 10 minute rest after each dilution, followed by 5 minutes succussion. When succussion was done by hand, I could do it at a rate of 1 per second. Hence, 300 succussions could be dobne by 5 minutes. Actually, it would be better if we give maximimu number of succussions during each dilution steps. I decided 5 minutes succussion from a practical point of view. In this way, we can prepare a molecular imprinted drug by 20 working hours

1:1 is the most appropriate ratio we can practically do. Maximum dilution steps within avogadro limit-that was my objective

If dilution does not cross avogadro limit, the product will contain ‘drug molecules’ also, which would act on biological molecules. I want only ‘molecular imprints’ only, which act on pathogenic molecules only. Drug molecules act exactly similar to allopathic drug action. That is why I insist to cross avogadro limit.

If we continue diluting even after crossing avogadro limit, there will be no drug molecules in them for ‘imprinting’. Just crossing avogadro limit, the product will be saturated with molecular imprints, same time without any crude drug molecules. That will be the ideal product to be used as per similia similibus curentur

Since we stop potentization at 80th step, we can do it by hand itself. If we can use a machine acting exactly similar to our hands in actions, there will not be any harm

Number of succussions, intermediary rest period and number of dilutions are all very important. They should be maximum as possible, but all should be limited below avogadro limit. There is no meaning in diluting and succussing after all molecules are removed. Because, according to me, molecular imprinting is what we want to happen

Shaking helps in mixing the drug molecules with vehicle well. Rest period facilitates formation of hydration shells around drug molecules. By keeping in low temperatures above freezing point, movements of molecules are restricted, which help in formation of hydrogen bonded shells. Succussions facilitates breaking of hydration shells and freeing of drug molecules. Serial dilutions facilitates systematic removal of drug molecules. Hence, I think all three steps are very important in effective molecular imprinting. I limited succussions to 300 per step out of practical considerations. There is no harm if you do it a bit longer. But everything should be limited below avogadro limit

I would request all my scientific-minded friends to make ALPHA MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of one or two drugs commonly used, and verify their effectiveness. I hope, this may lead to a great revolution in homeopathy. Be a part of history by participating this experiment.

GUIDELINES TO PREPARE ALPHA MOLECULAR IMPRINTS:

To start working, we should first decide the drug we intend to work up on. Before making this decision, discuss with the group and ensure other members are not doing it, so as to avoid duplication of work.

Procure a good sample of mother tincture of selected drug from a most reliable source. Only sealed bottles should be purchased. 30ml is enough.

Collect 10 high quality amber colored glass bottles of 100 ml capacity. Emplty bottles of german potentized drugs can be used, after rinsing and washing for long time in hot water, and drying well in sunlight. Well graduated stickers should be then affixed on the bottles. Keep them well corked in a dust free place.

Procure 4 pounds of high quality rectified spirit from trusted pharmacy.

Arrange a clean, dust and moisture free room. and work table.

Now we can start work:

Add 20ml mother tincture into one 100ml bottle. Then add 20ml rectified spirit into the bottle. Since bottles are graduated, no measuring utensils are required.

Cork the bottle well, Label the bottle as ALPHA 1,shake for 2-3 minutes. Keep the bottle still for 10 minutes. It will be good it it is kept at 5-10 celsius, in the lower part of refrigerator.

Then take the bottle out, and start succussing using hand using right hand, and hitting the bottle on left palm strongly, with right elbow fully abducted and making anti-clockwise motions. A rubber padding on right palm will be useful. One succussion per second (approximate), do it for 5 minutes without stopping(300 succussions approximate).

Stop succussing and immediately pour away 20 ml from the bottle.

(You can discard it or keep it for later use, in a seperate bottle labeling the dilution step on the bottle)

Add 20ml rectified spirit into the original bottle, cork well, label as ALPHA 2, shake well for 2-3 minutes and keep 10 minutes at 5-10 celsius. Then take the bottle out and give 300 succussions (5 minutes). Immediately pour away 20ml from the bottle, add 20ml rectified spirit to the bottle, cork it, label ALPHA 3, shake for 2-3 minutes, rest for 10 minutes, give 300 succussions, immediately pour away 20 ml.

Repeat this process continuously up to 80 steps of dilution and succussion. Final product is now ready. Affix the label a s ‘DRUG NAME.ALPHA’, and keep for use.

Be careful to save the discarded portion of final 10 or 20 steps, labeling well in separate bottles, for future use as back potencies below avogadro limit

Can you confidently treat a case of venomous snake bite with the potentised snake venom”?

According to my concept of MIT, potentization involves molecular imprinting, and ‘molecular imprints’ are the active principles of potentized drugs. Since ‘molecular imprints are ‘artificial binding sites’ or ‘artificial keyholes’ exactly fitting to the original molecules used for imprinting, molecular imprints should be capable of ‘binding’ and ‘deactivating’ them. That means, if MIT concept is correct, potentized drugs should antidote ‘original drug molecules’ used for imprinting.

In this context, the question raised above is very much relevant. Can anybody dare to treat a case of snake bite using potentized snake venom?

To answer this question, we have to go deeper into the molecular mechanisms involved in poisonous effects of snake venom, as well as potentization. It will lead us to answering many unanswered questions involved in homeopathic potentization and therapeutics.

When a snake bites us, it injects its venom into our blood stream. Snake venom is highly modified saliva containing zootoxins. The glands which secrete the zootoxins are a modification of the parotid salivary gland of other vertebrates. Venoms contain more than 20 different compounds, mostly proteins and polypeptides. It is a complex mixture of proteins, enzymes, and various other substances. The proteins are responsible for the toxic and lethal effect of the venom and its function is to immobilize prey, enzymes play an important role in the digestion of prey, and various other substances are responsible for important but non-lethal biological effects. Some of the proteins in snake venom are very particular in their effects on various biological functions including blood coagulation, blood pressure regulation, transmission of the nervous or muscular impulse and have turned out to be pharmacological or diagnostic tools or even useful drugs.

Proteins constitute 90-95% of venom’s dry weight and they are responsible for almost all of its biological effects. Among hundreds, even thousands of proteins found in venom, there are toxins, neurotoxins in particular, as well as nontoxic proteins, and many enzymes, especially hydrolithic ones. Enzymes make-up 80-90% of viperid and 25-70% of elapid venoms: digestive hydrolases, L-amino acid oxidase, phospholipases, thrombin-like pro-coagulant, and kallikrein-like serine proteases and metalloproteinases (hemorrhagins), which damage vascular endothelium. Polypeptide toxins include cytotoxins, cardiotoxins, and postsynaptic neurotoxins, which bind to acetylcholine receptors at neuromuscular junctions.

Compounds with low molecular weight include metals, peptides, lipids, nucleosides, carbohydrates, amines, and oligopeptides, which inhibit angiotensin converting enzyme and potentiate bradykinin. Phosphodiesterases interfere with the prey’s cardiac system, mainly to lower the blood pressure. Phospholipase A2 causes hemolysis by lysing the phospholipid cell membranes of red blood cells. Amino acid oxidases and proteases are used for digestion. Amino acid oxidase also triggers some other enzymes and is responsible for the yellow colour of the venom of some species. Hyaluronidase increases tissue permeability to accelerate absorption of other enzymes into tissues. Some snake venoms carry fasciculins, like the mambas, which inhibit cholinesterase to make the prey lose muscle control.

Snake toxins vary greatly in their functions. Two major classifications of toxins found in snake venoms include neurotoxins (mostly found in elapids) and hemotoxins (mostly found in viperids). However, there are exceptions – an African spitting cobra Naja nigricollis’s venom consists mainly of hemotoxins, while the Mojave rattlesnake’s venom is primarily neurotoxic. However, there are numerous other different types of toxins which both elapids or viperids may carry.

Snake venom contains various neurotoxic, cardiotoxic, cytotoxic and haematotoxic substances.

Fasciculins: These toxins attack cholinergic neurons by destroying acetylcholinesterase. ACh therefore cannot be broken down and stays in the receptor. This causes tetany, which can lead to death. The toxins have been called fasciculins since after injection into mice, they cause severe, generalized and long-lasting fasciculations.

Dendrotoxins: Dendrotoxins inhibit neurotransmissions by blocking the exchange of + and – ions across the neuronal membrane lead to no nerve impulse. So they paralyse the nerves.

α-neurotoxins: This is a large group of toxins, with over 100 postsynaptic neurotoxins having been identified and sequenced. α-neurotoxins also attack cholinergic neurons. They mimic the shape of the acetylcholine molecule and therefore fit into the receptors. They block the ACh flow causing feeling of numbness and paralysis.

Phospholipases: Phospholipase is an enzyme that transforms the phospholipid molecule into a lysophospholipid. The new molecule attracts and binds fat and ruptures cell membranes.

Cardiotoxins: Cardiotoxins are components that are specifically toxic to the heart. They bind to particular sites on the surface of muscle cells and cause depolarisation The toxin prevents muscle contraction. These toxins may cause the heart to beat irregularly or stop beating, causing death.

Haemotoxins: The toxin causes haemolysis, or destruction of red blood cells.

Lethal effects of venoms are due to these toxic substances which are complex protein molecules. During snake bite, these proteins are injected into the body of the prey.

Snake venom is not dangerous if ingested through alimentary tract, instead of directly injecting into blood stream. It will be digested by digestive enzymes in our intestinal tract and absorbed as aminoacids. Snake venom is a nutritious food like eggs, if cooked and ingested. We know, egg white may be very toxic if injected directly into blood stream.

When snake venom is subjected to potentization, initially the protein molecules in the venom undergo a process called ‘denaturation’.

Now we have to learn something about protein structures and phenomenon of ‘denaturation’.

Proteins are amino acid polymers. A protein is created by ribosomes that “read” RNA that is encoded by codons in the gene and assemble the requisite amino acid combination from the genetic instruction, in a process known as translation. The newly created protein strand then undergoes posttranslational modification, in which additional atoms or molecules are added, for example copper, zinc, or iron. Once this post-translational modification process has been completed, the protein begins to fold (sometimes spontaneously and sometimes with enzymatic assistance), curling up on itself so that hydrophobic elements of the protein are buried deep inside the structure and hydrophilic elements end up on the outside. The final shape of a protein determines how it interacts with its environment. The biological properties of proteins are due to their complex tertiary structure and three dimensional folding.

When a protein is denatured, the secondary and tertiary structures are altered but the peptide bonds of the primary structure between the amino acids are left intact. Since all structural levels of the protein determines its function, the protein can no longer perform its function once it has been denatured. This is in contrast to intrinsically unstructured proteins, which are unfolded in their native state, but still functionally active.

Denatured proteins can exhibit a wide range of characteristics, from loss of solubility to communal aggregation. Communal aggregation is the phenomenon of aggregation of the hydrophobic proteins to come closer and form the bonding between them, so as to reduce the total area exposed to water.

Ethyl alcohol, used as part of medium for potentization, is a very powerful ‘denaturing agent’ for protein molecules. Hence, toxic protein molecules contained in the snake venom undergo a process of ‘denaturation’ when added to alcohol-water mixture for potentization. It is these ‘denatured’ protein molecules that undergo ‘molecular imprinting’ during potentization.

It is now obvious why we cannot treat snake bites using potentized snake venom. Snake venom directly injected into the body during snake bite acts lethally due to the enzymes which are protein molecules. If we could prepare ‘molecular imprints’ of these toxic enzyme molecules without ‘denaturation’, those molecular imprints could have been used to treat snake bites effectively.

Same time, we can manage non-lethal biological effects of snake bites, which are caused by non-protein constituents of snake venom, using potentized venoms.

Obviously, symptoms produced by crude venom administered by oral route, alcoholic preparation of venom administered by oral route, and directly injected into the body during snakebite will be different from one another. That is why our provings never produce all the toxicological symptoms of snake bite.

This is applicable to all drug substances of protein nature, which would undergo denaturation at the initial stages of potentization, when added to water-ethyl alcohol medium. We have to remember this fact when discussing potentized drugs containing enzymes and other complex protein molecules.

This understanding also prompts us to search for other potential imprinting media that do not make molecular changes in proteins.

If we browse through various leading homeopathic websites, we come across hundreds of ‘research articles’ propagating diverse types of imaginative ‘theories’ and ‘hypotheses’ written in highly scholastic and ‘scientific’ language, claiming to unravel the riddles of homeopathy once and for all. The authors will be ‘scientists’ or ‘academicians’ so much revered by the homeopathic community for their high academic ‘authority’, ‘professional credentials’ and ‘institutional background’ that no average person would dare to question their wisdom. Most of them are ‘prominent faces’ and ‘representatives’ of international homeopathy.

Most funny part about these ‘knowledge explosions on internet’ is that most of us never read those article, or fail to understand even if we dare to read them. Nobody is interested in what is actually said in them. Nobody makes even a simple comment. Nobody verifies the claims made in those articles. Nobody tries to differentiate grains from pebbles. We simply wonder at this ‘great’ piece of knowledge, and go on broadcasting this ‘wonderful knowledge’ by keeping on posting these ‘links’ wherever we have access, in a desperate endeavor to ‘educate’ the whole community!

No wonder, in spite of all these ‘ground-breaking’ researches, theories and hypotheses being regularly broadcast, homeopathy still remains where samuel hahnemann left it 200 hundred years ago. Nobody could so far provide even a scientifically convincing answer to the basic question “how homeopathy works”. All these great authors only contribute their best in enhancing confusions among homeopathic community through their writings and seminars- that is all.

To safeguard ourselves from confusions being created by these ever-new flooding of ‘researches’ ‘theories’ and ‘hypotheses’, I would suggest to use following questions as touch stones for their primary evaluation whenever you are introduced to a ‘new theory’:

1. Does this theory scientifically and logically explain the exact processes involved in homeopathic potentization?

2. Does this theory scientifically and logically answer the question ‘what are the exact active principles contained in potentized medicines”?

3. Does this theory scientifically and logically explain the exact molecular mechanisms by which these active principles act up on the organism to produce a therapeutic effect?

4. Does this theory scientifically and logically explain ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge on one side, and to our homeopathic experiences on the other side?

If the answers for these FOUR FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS are found to be negative, simply dismiss those ‘theories’. They are nothing but hollow ‘scientific’ verbosity.

Research has been reported to have done and still going on at BARC and TATA INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH,  about how different strengths of different medicines produces different changes in our body, and also how same potency of different medicine produces different impressions . A prominent section of homeopathic community enthusiastically celebrate this study as a ‘great fundamental research’ in homeopathy. Some of them even claim “this study has resolved all the riddles of homeopathy scientifically”.

Even though this study is useful in proving that homeopathic potentized drugs really work by observing the changes happening in physiological values, it no way help us to prove what is actually happening during potentization, what is the exact active principles contained in potentized drugs or, what is the mechanism of molecular processes involved in homeopathic therapeutics. They only answer the question “does homeopathy works?” But they do not answer the basic question “how homeopathy works”.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Media reported as follows: BARC Medical Analyzer to enable objective study of homoeopathy

“Mumbai: Use of Medical Analyser developed by Bhabha Atomic Research Centre has shown that it would enable a better understanding of the selective action of homoeopathic medicines in different strengths on human beings.

Researches done by BARC, Regional Research Institute of Central Council for Research in homoeopathy, Mumbai, National Institute of Homoeopathy, Kolkata and Fr Muller Homoeopathic Medical College (FMHMC), Mangalore have indicated potential use of physiological variability in fundamental research in homoeopathy.

BARC develops new medical instruments:

Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) has developed a host of new generation medical instruments opening fresh dimensions to understand health care.

The approach of medical practitioners will now be more objective in terms of diagnosis and action of different drugs on human body, said BARC officials.

“Mobile ECG, Plethysmograph, Peripheral Pulse Analyser (3-channel), Tele Stress monitor, and Intent Detection System are few technologies BARC has developed. Many of these have been transferred to manufacturers,” said BARC director RK Sinha at a two-day meet on ‘Advanced Applications of Physiological Variability’ organised by the Electronics Division.

The Electronic Division began development work in the field of Physiological Variability in active collaboration with city’sGrantMedicalCollegeand the JJ Hospital, All India Institute of  Medical Sciences (New Delhi),FatherMullerMedicalCollege(Mangalore), among others.

“These instruments, which have been tried and tested, have proved that even the Science of Homeopathy, Ayurveda and their effectiveness can be understood objectively,” Sinha said.

What is BARC Medical Analyzer Software?

Variability is the sign of life; therefore higher variability in physiological parameters is generally an indicator of better health. The use of variability for the diagnosis of several diseases is age old. Because of great potential of this technique, heart rate variability monitoring is a routine feature in the patient monitoring systems available in the market for employment in intensive care units and intensive cardiac care units. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre has integrated cardiac output, stroke volume/peripheral blood flow variability; with heart rate variability for the study of these changes in variety of diseases in a PC based Software developed called Medical Analyser. It has unique feature that it yields heart rate variability, cardiac output variability, stroke volume variability / peripheral blood flow variability from a single data acquisition session from the patient when used with Impedance Cardiovasograph hardware. The data acquisition is controlled by the PC, serially connected to the acquisition unit. The variability analysis and transfer to database is performed by the PC with the help of user-friendly software.

Principle: Short term analysis of variations in a physiological
parameter in time and frequency domain

Parameters (Hardware dependent): Heart Rate, Stroke Volume, Cardiac Output, Peripheral Blood Flow with Impedance Cardiovasograph and Heart Rate, Peripheral Blood Flow with Oxygen Saturation Monitor

Method of Analysis: Fast Fourier Transform

———————————————————————————————–

MY COMMENT ON THIS REPORT:

Barc Medical analyzer enables homeopathic researchers to observe the changes in  physiological values such as Heart Rate Variability (HRV), Blood Flow Variability (BFV) and Morphology Index Variability (MIV) caused by administration of potentized homeopathic drugs. It is a great achievement, since it provides objective evidence that potentized drugs are capable of producing some sort of responses in the human organism. That proves ‘homeopathy works’!

As Dr. Rao has reported to have confessed,  ‘the reproducibility of these experiments largely depended upon the choice of indicated medicine, which was determined subjectively”. This inconsistency in ‘reproducibility of results’  attributed to the ‘subjectivity’ factor  is the greatest limitation of ‘medical analyzer study’ of homeopathic drugs. That means, if  our selection of similimum was not exact, or the potency of drug used was not genuine, we may fail in producing expected results. Such multiple variables make this study unreliable in reaching any clear conclusions. When we fail to produce results, we cannot say whether it was due to wrong selection of similimum, or due to the use of  wrongly potentized or wrongly labeled drugs, which are not so uncommon in homeopathic drug industry.

Even though this study is useful in proving that homeopathic potentized drugs really work by observing the changes happening in physiological values, it no way help us to prove what is actually happening during potentization, what is the exact active principles contained in potentized drugs or, what is the mechanism of molecular processes involved in homeopathic therapeutics. They only answer the question “does homeopathy works?” But they do not answer the basic question “how homeopathy works”.

Any fundamental research in homeopathy should provide answers to three vital questions.

1. What happens during potentization?

2. What is the exact active principles contained in potentized drugs?

3. What is the exact molecular mechanism by which these active principles act up on the organism therapeutically?

Unless a research could not help in addressing these three basic questions, it cannot be considered a ‘fundamental research in homeopathy’. Hence, studies conducted using Barc Medical Analyzer cannot be called ‘fundamental research in homeopathy’. Such baseless claims would give wrong messages to the community.

Did the researches really address these three vital questions? If  ‘yes’, what are their answers?

My answer to these basic questions:

1. Potentization involves the process of ‘molecular imprinting’.

2. Active priniciples of potentized drugs are ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent molecules of drugs used for potentization.

3. These ‘molecular imprints’ act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules, and relieves biological molecules from pathologic molecular inhibitions.

I would like to know the comments of  ‘fundamental researchers’ on these concepts I am putting forward.

We all know after 12c drugs does not contains any molecules. We all know our potentized drugs really intervene the biochemical process of living organism, and rectify pathological molecular errors.

HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS?  Answering this question should be the agenda of any ‘fundamental’ research project in homeopathy. That is the FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION of homeopathy now.

Sir,  we all Indians are proud of you for your glorious achievements as a scientist, and your contributions to the advanced studies on structure and functions of ribosomes,  that was duely recognized by the Swedish academy awarding the Nobel prize in 2009. We are very much happy to welcome you to your home land.

A statement you recently made in Chennai regarding homeopathy has created much controversy. You are reported to have said during a public address that  ‘homeopathy works on belief’ and homeopathy is a ‘fake discipline like astrology’. That statement pained homeopathic community a lot, where as it is being enthusiastically utilized by those who regularly attack homeopathy.

Actually, you were echoing the words of ‘anti-homeopathy’ skeptics of western world who are engaged in exposing the ‘pseudo-scientific’ homeopathic theoreticians propagating ‘spiritual homeopathy’ and ‘energy medicine’. I am sorry to say that you failed to realize the entirely different ground realities existing in India in the field of homeopathic education and practice.

Homeopathy has been consistently attacked in this way for last 250 years since its inception, but in spite of all these malicious attacks, homeopathy is thriving in India as a major recognized branch of public health care system.

Hope you would know India is home to around 285,000 registered homeopaths, 186 prestigious homeopathic colleges imparting UG and PG courses, over 6000 government homeopathic dispensaries and about 250 government hospitals. More than 15000 student come out of these colleges every year with BHMS degree, after completing a rigorous five and half year course of study and internship, for which they got admission by scoring top rankings in entrance examinations after 12 years of schooling in science streams. Curriculum of BHMS course constitutes Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Practice of Medicine and all subjects of modern health care knowledge. There is a Central Council of Homeopathy under Government of India, constituted as per a n Central Act passed by Indian parliament, overseeing everything in the field of homeopathic education, research and practice in India.

Homeopathy is a very important wing of public health care system in inIndia. Homoeopathic wings are working in many allopathic hospitals and dispensaries, both government and private.  Homoeopathic doctors provide treatment to millions of patients for different day to day illnesses in the public health care system. Even during sporadic and epidemic conditions, people tend to use homoeopathic drugs for prevention.  Recently, the Indian Government successfully ran a national health campaign ‘Homeopathy for a Healthy Mother & a Happy Child’, which was based exclusively on homoeopathy. Also, private homeopathic practitioners are contributing a great deal in public health care through their private or charitable clinics.

Besides clinical research, there are fundamental, drug standardization, drug proving and clinical verification research going on, both at government and private levels. For example, the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy is conducting a lot of such research, either independently or in collaboration with other research institutes or individual researchers, under an extra-mural research scheme at the Dept of AYUSH, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare of the Indian Government. Other than that, almost all homoeopathic organizations and individuals are doing their bit toward research for the further validation of homoeopathy in today’s times of evidence-based medicine. The results have been encouraging, to say the least. In fact, over the years,Indiahas learnt better ways of conducting research from their international counterparts and the recent research has been carried out as per standardized, internationally recognized methods and are therefore more acceptable.

A few exemplary results from clinical  studies include work on tubercular lymphadenitis, japanese encephalitis, etc. In addition, some administrative studies have been undertaken, like the ‘assessment of the cost effectiveness of homeopathic clinic in the cafeteria approach’ and ‘public-private partnerships in the provision of homeopathic services in the city of Delhi, where it was tried to analyze both the strengths and weaknesses of medical pluralism in India and have worked out some solutions for implementing medical pluralism more effectively in all parts of India.

These facts and figures are a clear reflection of the belief of the people ofIndiain the homeopathic system of medicine, which, in turn, is a result of the effectiveness of homeopathy in treating a wide range of illnesses, which has convinced the Indian masses over a period of time.

Sir, as a well-respected nobel-winner scientist, who is expected to be more concerned about truth, you would have considered all these facts before publicly declaring ‘homeopathy is based on belief, a fake discipline like astrology’.  Community pay much value and reverence to words you speak out, and you are expected to keep up that responsibility when commenting on sensitive topics. You should have experimented yourselves and done a little more home work about homeopathy, before echoing the malicious propaganda of ‘anti-homeopathy skeptics’.  We would not have bothered much if you had said ‘homeopathy is not scientifically well proved’, instead of declaring it is ‘fake like astrology’.

I am sure, you have nothing personally against homeopathy or homeopaths as such. You were talking your perceptions as a truthful scientist. As an individual respecting science, scientists and scientific methods, I would not blame you for making such a statement. I know you are not a homeopath- only a scientist. I understand, as a  truthful scientist, as things stand now, you cannot say ‘homeopathy is scientific’, after seeing all these nonsense theories propagated by ‘homeopathic ‘masters’ the world over.  I understand, nobody could so far even propose a scientifically viable hypothesis about how homeopathy works, a hypothesis that could be presented as a rightful candidate for verification using scientific methods. Actually, those ‘pseudo-scientific’ homeopathic theoreticians are doing the greatest harm to homeopathy than truthful scientists like you.

Homeopaths as well as millions of patients visiting them know homeopathy works. That is their personal experience. You should think more than twice before saying it is ‘mere belief’ and ‘fake’. If you had visited a few homeopathic clinics in you city, you would realize that all people visiting homeopaths are not much less knowledgeable or more ‘superstitious’ than you. Many respected members of scientific community- may not be nobel laureates- use homeopathic medicines, knowing well that it is not ‘proven according to scientific methods’, but very much confident from experience that it is not ‘fake’ or ‘mere belief’. They experience it WORKING.  If you had ever consulted a homeopath or taken a course of homeopathic medicine yourselves, you would not have made this demeaning comment against homeopathy.

But the sad thing is that nobody knows how homeopathy works. To mask this ignorance, ‘intellectuals’ among homeopaths create fanciful theories. All these theories about homeopathy  are utter nonsense- pure absurdity. Until homeopaths stop talking nonsense ‘ultra-scientific’ theories about homeopathy, we cannot expect a fair deal from scientific community. At least homeopaths  should show the humility to say: “we know homeopathy works- that is our daily experience; but we do not know how it actually works; we need the help of scientific community to resolve this riddle”.

By saying ‘homeopathy is based on belief’, what did you actually mean?  Do you mean it is based on ‘beliefs of practitioner’, or it is working on ‘beliefs of patients’?

Do you remember, when you declare homeopathy is a ‘fake discipline’, you are saying that the Act passed by Indian parliament is ‘fake’, Central council of homeopathy is ‘fake’ and those 186 homeopathic colleges inIndiaare ‘fake’?  You mean 285000 registered homeopaths, 6000 government dispensaries and hospitals are doing ‘fake’ medical practice that may ‘endanger’ human lives? According to you, BHMS and MD degrees awarded by Indian universities are all about ‘fake’ disciplines? Do you mean those millions of people thronging daily in homeopathic clinics and getting relief for their ailments are idiots attracted to ‘fake practitioners’ due to ‘belief’ only?

Dr Venkatraman, I would earnestly request you to spare a little time to verify whether homeopathy works.  If you would co-operate, we are ready to provide as many real life proofs as you need. Only when you are ever convinced homeopathy works, we would expect you to take up topic of ‘how homeopathy works’. If you are interested in that topic, I am ready to provide details of my work which try to explain and prove ‘how homeopathy works’  on the basis of ‘Molecular Imprinting’.  I am giving link to my article, hoping you can spare some time in between your busy schedules.  http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/

Until that, kindly refrain judiciously from commenting against homeopathy. You can say: “I don’t know whether homeopathy works or not. I know all those theories about homeopathy are unscientific. If homeopathy actually works, it has yet to be proved and explained according to scientific methods”.

If you exhibit the audacity to kindly modify your earlier statement in this way, homeopathic community will be much grateful to you.

Regards.

Chandran Nambiar

For Homeopathic Community

Recently, proponents of  diverse shades of ‘energy medicine’  concepts  about homeopathy are enthusiastically publicizing an article titled ‘Homeopathic Potentization Based on Nanoscale Domains’  as a ‘scientific proof’ for their pseudo-scientific ‘biophotonic’ theories.

This article jointly written by by Czerlinski G, Ypma T.(Department of Biology, Western Washington University , Bellingham, WA.) appeared in Journal of Alternative and Complement Medicines-December 2011 issue.

According to the authors, the “objectives of this study were to present a simple descriptive and quantitative model of how high potencies in homeopathy arise.”

“The model begins with the mechanochemical production of hydrogen and hydroxyl radicals from water and the electronic stabilization of the resulting nanodomains of water molecules. The life of these domains is initially limited to a few days, but may extend to years when the electromagnetic characteristic of a homeopathic agent is copied onto the domains. This information is transferred between the original agent and the nanodomains, and also between previously imprinted nanodomains and new ones. The differential equations previously used to describe these processes are replaced here by exponential expressions, corresponding to simplified model mechanisms. Magnetic stabilization is also involved, since these long-lived domains apparently require the presence of the geomagnetic field. Our model incorporates this factor in the formation of the long-lived compound.”

“Numerical simulation and graphs show that the potentization mechanism can be described quantitatively by a very simplified mechanism. The omitted factors affect only the fine structure of the kinetics. Measurements of pH changes upon absorption of different electromagnetic frequencies indicate that about 400 nanodomains polymerize to form one cooperating unit. Singlet excited states of some compounds lead to dramatic changes in their hydrogen ion dissociation constant, explaining this pH effect and suggesting that homeopathic information is imprinted as higher singlet excited states.”

“A simple description is provided of the process of potentization in homeopathic dilutions. With the exception of minor details, this simple model replicates the results previously obtained from a more complex model. While excited states are short lived in isolated molecules, they become long lived in nanodomains that form coherent cooperative aggregates controlled by the geomagnetic field. These domains either slowly emit biophotons or perform specific biochemical work at their target.”

According to the authors, potentized medicines ‘emit biophotons’ or perform specific biochemical work at their target. That is the way they explain the therapeutic action of potentized drugs.

To verify the ‘biophoton emission theory’ of homeopathic potentization, we have to know what are biophotons.

WIKIPEDIA describes biophotons : “A biophoton (from the Greek ‘Bio’ meaning “life” and ‘photo’ meaning “light”), is a photon of light ‘emitted from a biological system’ and detected by biological probes as part of the general weak electromagnetic radiation of living biological cells. The typical detected magnitude of “biophotons” in the visible and ultraviolet spectrum ranges from a few up to several hundred photons per second per square centimeter of surface area, much weaker than in the openly visible and well-researched phenomenon of normal bioluminescence, but stronger than in the thermal, or black body radiation that so-called perfect black bodies demonstrate. The detection of these photons has been made possible (and easier) by the development of more sensitive photomultiplier tubes and associated electronic equipment. Conventional sciences suggest that chemi-excitation via oxidative stress by reactive oxygen species(ROS) and/or catalysis byenzymes (i.e. peroxidase, lipoxygenase) is a common event in the biomolecular milieu.Such reactions can lead to the formation of triplet excited species, which release photons upon returning to a lower energy level in a process analogous to phosphorescence. Since there is visible bioluminescence in many bacteria and other cells it can be inferred that the (extremely small) number of photons in ultra-weak bioluminescence is a random by-product of cellular metabolism”.

It is obvious that ‘biophotons’ are light particle emitted from biological systems as by-products of cellular metabolism. How can a scientist rationally theorize about ‘emissions’ of biophotons from homeopathic drugs which are not biological systems, but mere supra-molecular formations of water and ethyl alcohol? If they are inclined to argue that these ‘biophotons’ come from drug molecules of biological origin, what about the hundreds of mineral drugs used in homeopathy?

Did these scientists bother to explain how a ‘biophoton’ (or, let it be a photon) can act upon biological organism and produce specific therapeutic effects according to the therapeutic principle ‘similia similibus curentur’?

If the ‘biophotons’ emit from potentized drugs and act upon the organism, why not our drugs produce therapeutic effects when kept near a patient? Why should we administer the drugs into the body of the individual patient? What will happen if many drugs are kept side by side in a pharmacy, all of them emitting their biophotons and absorbing biophotons emitted by other drugs? How would these scientists manage the probability of this chaotic situation?

According to the authors, their “model begins with the mechanochemical production of hydrogen and hydroxyl radicals from water and the electronic stabilization of the resulting nanodomains of water molecules”. What is this “mechanochemical production of hydrogen and hydroxyl radicals from water” happening during the simple process of serial dilution and shaking involved in potentization? Can anybody ‘produce’ ‘hydrogen and hydroxyl radicals’ from water by such a simple shaking?

See how these scientists visualize the ‘transfer’ of ‘drug power’ into the ‘nanodomains’ of water during potentization:

“Electromagnetic characteristic of a homeopathic agent is copied onto the domains. This information is transferred between the original agent and the nanodomains, and also between previously imprinted nanodomains and new ones.”

According to their view, potentization involves “copying” of  “electromagnetic characteristic of a homeopathic agent” or drug substance onto the ‘nanodomains’ of water formed by “production of hydrogen and hydroxyl radicals from water and their electronic stabilization”. This “homeopathic information is imprinted as higher singlet excited states” in the “nanodomains”. “While excited states are short lived in isolated molecules, they become long lived in nanodomains that form coherent cooperative aggregates controlled by the geomagnetic field. These domains either slowly emit biophotons or perform specific biochemical work at their target.”

Theory of ‘water domains’ getting ‘excited states’ due to ‘transfer of electromagnetic characteristics of drug substances’, and later ‘emitting biophotons’ that can act as therapeutic ‘energy’ will be obviously welcomed by proponents of ‘energy medicine’ concepts. They can utilize theory as a ‘scientific’ explanation for their occult practices of homeopathy.

But, sorry to say- there is no ‘science’ in this theory. It is only a pseudo-scientific nonsense to say ‘biophotons’ are emitted from potentized drugs. This types of ‘theories’ help only the enemies of homeopathy by providing weapons to attack and ridicule homeopathy. It no way helps homeopathy to become scientific.

To be scientific, any ‘theory’ regarding potentization should be fitting to the existing laws and principles of scientific knowledge system, and should be capable of explaining ‘similia similibus curentur’ in terms of scientific paradigms of modern biochemistry and molecular biology. Otherwise, it will be ridiculed and out-rightly rejected by the scientific community as just another pseudoscientific exercise that would only discredit homeopathy further, and alienate us from mainstream scientific medicine.

Science demands proving everything according to scientific methods. Homeopathy is so far not proved by scientific methods, and as such, scientific community has every right to say homeopathy is not a science, but a belief system.

It is our duty to prove that they are wrong.  Homeopathic theoreticians till date try to explain the ‘modus operandi’ of potentized homeopathic medicines using one or other hypotheses available or evolved by them,  which do not agree with existing scientific knowledge system, and as such, homeopathy still belongs to a class of  scientifically ‘unexplained experience’’.

The sad thing we should never forget is that we have not yet evolved even a scientifically viable working hypothesis regarding homeopathy. By the term ‘hypothesis’ we mean a ‘proposed explanation’ or “educated guess” for a phenomenon that we observe around us. Every ‘proposed explanation’ cannot be considered a ‘scientific hypothesis’. To be a ‘scientific hypothesis’, the scientific method requires that one can test the hypothesis using available scientific tools and methodology. Every new scientific hypotheses are generally based on previous observations that could not be satisfactorily be explained with the existing scientific theories. The words “hypothesis” and “theory” are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, even though a ‘scientific hypothesis’ is not exactly the same as ‘a scientific theory’. A hypothesis should be proved ‘using scientific tools’ in order to become a scientific theory. A ‘working hypothesis’ is a provisionally accepted hypothesis that is ready to be proved. Experimenters will have to test and reject several hypotheses before solving the given problem ultimately.

Testability (using existing scientific tools), Simplicity (avoiding excessive numbers of entities), Scope (apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena), Fruitfulness (hypothesis may help to explain further phenomena in the future), and Conservatism (fitting with existing recognized knowledge-systems) are considered to be the essential qualities of a good scientific hypothesis.

Viewing from this standpoint, it is very much clear that most of the presently existing most celebrated ‘theories’ or hypotheses regarding homeopathy cannot be considered ‘scientific hypotheses’ since they contain concepts and conclusions that ‘could not be tested by any scientist using currently available scientific tools and methodology’ or ‘fit with existing recognized knowledge-systems’.

When attempting to provide a scientific explanation to homeopathy, first we have to propose a ‘scientific hypotheses’. That means, a hypothesis that ‘could be tested by any scientist using currently available scientific tools and methodology’ and that ‘fits with existing recognized knowledge-systems’.

There are already many imaginative and ‘scientific’ ‘theories’ going around that seek to explain everything about homeopathy but fail to predict or offer anything of relevance. If a hypothesis fail to predict some relevant practical outcomes, then it becomes scientifically untestable and, therefore, unusable in practice.

Assumptions being proposed by a scientific hypothesis should be simple, testable and their numbers should be held to a minimum. The assumptions should also reflect the basic experience that is already generally held to be known.

Any working hypothesis about homeopathy should clearly identify a ‘biological mechanism’ that represents the action-reaction homeostasis of ‘vital processes’, which is called as the ‘vital force’ in homeopathy. It should also be capable of explaining the molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics in a way fitting to the verified scientific paradigm of modern biochemistry and molecular biology.

Once a working hypothesis is proposed, there is much more research to be done before that is accepted as a ‘scientific theory’. The hypothesis needs to offer predictions that can be repeatedly and conclusively proved or disproved in the laboratory and in the clinic with out any bias.

In this modern era of scientific enlightenment and technological advance, we can no longer hope to proceed further ahead with Homeopathy, without the help of a well proven and universally acceptable scientific methodology. We can no longer hope to depend merely upon certain set of somewhat mysterious quotations and philosophical speculations inherited from our great masters. It is very important that Homeopathy has to be first of all dealt with as a subject of science, not as a  religion or metaphysics. Essentially, the principles of  Homeopathy have yet to achieve the right to be recognized as part of modern medical science. To begin with, it has to attain acceptability among the modern scientific community, at least in terms of a rational  methodology and vocabulary.

Science is not a mere heap of lifeless and dry inflexible theories and dogmas. It is a live cognitive system, undergoing an endless process of self-renewal and growth. Science never celebrates the words of masters quoted out of context. It is the  the sum total of the ideas enwrapped in the expressed words that really matter. It is the readiness on its part to prove its propositions on practical level, to imbibe new  ideas, and to discard obsolete ones mercilessly, that makes science distinct from other intellectual activities. That is the touch-stone of scientific method. There is no water-tight compartments in the realm of science. Our approach to human knowledge should be dialectic, not dogmatic.

Human knowledge develops and unfolds itself through a never ending dialectic process of simultaneous assimilation and negation of history. It is impossible for anybody to proceed with his intellectual quest without drawing resources from the treasures of knowledge amassed by the by-gone generations. Obviously, no genius can totally overcome the objective limitations imposed upon him by the space-time context of his life and activities. Development of human knowledge should be perceived in relation with this  objective framework of  historical evolution. Man knows today much more than he knew yesterday.  Certainly he would know infinitely more tomorrow, than what he knows today. The knowledge of yesterdays, however great they might have been, were much incomplete than that of today. Tomorrow, human knowledge would be definitely more expansive and more comprehensive than that of today. The basis of scientific perspective of knowledge lies in realizing this fundamental truth.

We should never forget the objective historical context of 18^th centuryGermany, where Samuel Hahnemann  lived and developed his novel therapeutic system. Two hundred and more eventful years have passed since it happened. It is not to be seen as a sin to say that his thoughts and propositions were definitely confined  by the  limitations imposed by the infantile level of science and technology then existed there. Even though the  the essence of the therapeutic principle he developed is capable of  transcending the boundaries of centuries to come, it would be unfair to try to evaluate his achievements and contributions detached from  his objective time-space framework.

Human knowledge has attained an ever greater maturity of more than two centuries, compared with the conditions that existed when Hahnemann lived. It is  an undisputable fact that man now knows much more about the diverse phenomena of this universe than in the era of Hahnemann. Hahnemann had developed his ideas depending upon the existing knowledge about the universe available to him. Naturally it is bound to  bear the   limitations imposed  by the objective historical and geographical context.

Obviously, modern science and its methodology were in its infancy in those days. Had he happened to live in this world 200 years later, the towering genius of Hahnemann would have presented to humanity a therapeutic system totally different, and much  more advanced and scientific than what we now call Homeopathy. He would have definitely rewritten completely what we preach and practice in the name of Homeopathy today.

All these facts underlines the crucial relevance of a  complete re-reading and reclaiming of the theory and practice of Homeopathy in conformity with modern scientific and historical context. Whenever we try to learn the teachings of Hahnemann,  we  should be on the look out to understand what he would have said about those subjects, if he were elaborating them in the modern context. We should not take his written words as if they were ultimates, unquestionable and beyond any scope of further revisions and improvements. We should honour the great master by following his teachings as valuable guide to tread forward, and not as lifeless dogmas.  This is the essence of dialectical methodology.

The theory and practice of Homeopathy has been always a matter of endless controversy, since its inception two hundred years ago. Representatives of the so-called ‘official science’ were always in a state of undeclared war against it. Rather than being hailed as a possible new medical breakthrough to give better  health for all, homeopathy has been ridiculed, ignored and systematically suppressed through centuries. We repeatedly hear about ‘successful” attempts by its opponents,  to ‘disprove’ it ‘scientifically’, and time and again declaring it a ‘fraud, placebo, or pseudoscience’. In spite of all these  scorns, ridicules and ‘witch hunts’, homeopathy still exists and thrives all over the continents, alleviating pain and sufferings of millions. The rising acceptance of homeopathy not only by the millions of lay public, but by the heads of states, members of royal families and many other dignitaries all over the world, has produced a state of dilemma in the world of medicine. Either all of these millions had fallen victims to a successful  global scale ‘medical hoax’, or the ‘learned scientists’  striving to disprove homeopathy, are being proved themselves wrong.

On the other side of the matter, certain unscientific and dogmatic concepts and notions still  dominate the mindset of many who work in the field of Homeopathy today. Many of them proudly claim that they are strict  followers of  Hahnemann,  and Hahnemann alone. We can meet ‘Classical Homeopaths’ who hesitate even to refer to any book other than those written by Dr. Hahnemann.  They raise questions about the ‘scientificness’ of modern science, and engage in ‘scholarly’ discourses regarding the futility of science and scientific method! They declare themselves to be practitioners of what they call ‘True Homeopathy’. They are not real followers, but only worshippers of Samuel Hahnemann. For them, Hahnemann is omnipotent and omniscient like a God! They will not tolerate any attempt of additions or deletions to what the master has said regarding homeopathy two hundred years back. According to them, homeopathy is the only ‘ultimate’  ‘scientific’ therapeutic system, and all other medical systems are absolutely ‘unscientific’. We also meet certain clever guys who try to sell homeopathy maximum through their own private outlets, by assigning attractive trade labels such as ‘predictive’, ‘true’, ‘pure’, ‘classical’, ‘expert’, ‘elite’ and so on.  The  irony is that all these people of various colors and clowns are claiming themselves to be the  only ‘true’ disciples of a great Genius, who displayed the intellectual courage to  reform and re-write  his own ‘Organon of Medicine’  six times in his life time, as part of his unrelenting quest for truth and perfection. As this undeniable historical truth remains, it is a pity to note that people who claim themselves to be the ardent followers of the great Master, are shutting their doors on the face of all new knowledge and  scientific enlightenment with such hideous tenacity.

 Samuel Hahnemann, the great founder of Homeopathy,  was born on 10^th April 1755 in Germany. He died on 2^nd July 1843. ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ or ‘Likes Cures Like’ is the expression of a universally applicable natural therapeutic law revealed to him as a result of his extraordinary observational skills and ardent study. Based on this fundamental law of natural curative process hitherto unknown to humanity, Hahnemann laid the foundation for a  new therapeutic system called homeopathy. A detailed theoretical frame work and practical tools for this new system of therapeutics were also developed during his later years. It is the aim of this article to re-read and re-evaluate these principles in the light of modern biochemistry and other bio-physical sciences. Such a rational re-reading is expected to culminate in  providing a scientific explanation for the fundamental principles of homeopathy at large.

The epoch-making revelation of Hahnemann regarding the fundamental law of cure was of so much relevance and implications that it really deserved to be recognized in the history of human knowledge along withNewton’s Theory  of Motion, Theory of Gravitation, orDarwin’s Theory of Evolution. It was a grave unpardonable historical blunder on the part of contemporary scientific world that such a recognition did not happen. Had it been possible for them to imbibe Hahnemann’s findings in its real gravity, the fate and course of modern medicine would have been entirely different.

Physical Sciences of 18^th Century Germany was in its early infancy, and obviously, could not recognize the importance of the new therapeutic law discovered by Samuel Hahnemann. The toolbox of contemporary science and technology was not sufficiently equipped to address this task. Mindset of of the leading personalities working in diverse disciplines of  physical sciences were  governed by the world outlook of mechanistic materialism. Naturally, they could not  take up the task of assimilating  Hahnemann’s findings and propositions, which presented much more complicated theoretical and practical issues that were beyond the boundaries of their mechanistic methodologies. This situation resulted in some sort of willful neglect and apathy from the part of mainstream scientific community towards Hahnemann and his discoveries. They miserably failed to comprehend the revolutionary content and epoch-making relevance of Hahnemann’s findings. Hahnemann, whose apathy towards the contemporary medical system and its professional community is well known, may also have chosen to keep himself aloof from mainstream science. His unrelenting ideological rebellion against the influence of mechanical materialism existing in the dominant medical stream may have led him inevitably into some sort of metaphysical and idealistic  philosophical gleanings, which  dominated the contemporary non-scientific intellectual arenas. Inevitably, homeopathy was constrained to follow an independent parallel intellectual course, far removed from the mainstream science. Hence it is not really unexpected that homeopathy is reveling in an atmosphere much akin to speculatory theorizations, rather than an objective scientific activity. Even today, homeopathy is not able to free itself from the clutches of the above mentioned parallel path. Still it has not come to terms with modern mainstream Science.

As a simple and effective therapeutic system, free of any fear of unwanted side effects,  homeopathy has already gained acceptability to a great extent during the by gone two centuries. The principle of ‘Similia Similibus  Curenter’ has sufficiently proved its ‘right of existence’ through thousands and thousands of miraculous cures by homeopaths all over the world. But we cannot overlook the fact that we have not yet succeeded in explaining this principle scientifically enough. Modern physical sciences and molecular biology have accumulated a huge wealth of knowledge in recent years, unraveling even the minutest secrets of the phenomenon of life . But we have not yet been able to recreate the fundamental principles of homeopathy scientifically and convincingly enough, by taking advantage of the above mentioned modern scientific achievements. Homeopathy shall be duly recognized and respected as an advanced branch of modern molecular medicine, only when such a scientific recreation of its basic premises is attained. Until  then, acceptance of our claim that homeopathy is a science will remain confined  to ourselves alone.

A radical re-building of  the whole system of homeopathy on a rational and scientific foundation is essential, emancipating this powerful therapeutic art from the clutches of unscientific, metaphysical and vitalistic ideologies. Modern physical sciences and technologies have evolved into such a state of maturity that we can now at least attempt with their help to provide a scientific and satisfactory explanation to the centuries-old mysteries and riddles associated with this wonderful therapeutic system. Such a fundamental re-building shall obviously help in enthroning homeopathy  on its rightful status of the most advanced branch of modern medical science, unfairly denied for more than last two hundred years.

Making homeopathic prescriptions for fevers is a real challenge. Patients need immediate lowering of temperature. They are not willing to wait. Most homeopaths use mother tinctures and combinations in a desperate attempt to show’ result. Many homeopaths advice their patients to go for allopathy or self medication with paracetamol.

Prescribing for fevers and bringing down temperature with potentized drugs is very simple if we know how to do it.

Case taking is the most the decisive step in prescribing for fevers. Never try to use ‘specifics’ or mother tinctures. Collecting symptoms and finding a similimum is most important.

CONCOMITANTS are most important symptoms in finding similimum for fevers. Look for concomitants symptoms in following regions:

Abdomen(Pains, flatulence, sensation)

Rectum- (Diarrhoea-Constipation, type and color of stools)

Back(pains, sensations)

Chest(oppression, palpitation, pains)

Throat(pain, swelling, hoarseness, peculiar sensations etc)

Tongue(color, sensations, taste, other peculiarities)

Respiratory(cough, asthmatic, expectoration etc)

Nose(coryza, stuffiness, discharges, sensations etc)

Head(Pains, peculiar sensations)

Stomach(nausea, appetite, thirst, vomiting, pains, desires-aversions)

Ears(pains, discharges, tinnitus, sensations, hearing)

Extremities(pains, numbness, cramps, coldness, peculiar sensations)

Eyes(lachrymation, discolorations, sensations, swelling, visual)

Face(swelling, discolorations)

Alternating symptoms, if any

Perspiration(increased, decreased, localized, offensive, other peculiarities)

Skin(eruptions, colors, special sensations, coldness)

Sleep(positions, dreams)

Urinary(frequency, stranguary, burning, color, sediments, odor)

Mind(mental abnormalities, fears, loquacity, anger, irritability, disposition)

Physical generals(paroxysms, dropsy, trembling, weakness- chill- chilliness, vertigo)

Modalities: Time modalities, Conditional modalities

Locations: Sides, peculiar body regions

Causations: Dietary irregularities, Exposures etc.

Collect maximum available symptoms under above FOUR categories. Even if you get minimum one prominent symptom each from all these four categories, a similimum could be worked out. Repertorize to find a similimum. It will bring down temperature if used repeatedly in 30c potency.

If we have a good repertory software, and know how to use its sphisticated tools, it is a matter of a few minutes. Repertorization will be over by the time case taking is finished, if we work out the case using tools for ‘smart’ ways of case taking and repertorization.

Years back, I had a wonderful experience with prescribing for fever. My 5 year old son was suffering from fever for days. In spite of all my desperate attempts, temperature did not come down even after ten days. At night, the temperature will go up to 103 F. Whole family was very much worried. For me, it was very hard to accept failure and take him to allopath. One night at 12 pm, I was sitting sleepless at the bedside of son, who was much exhausted and asleep. Suddenly, I noticed he was SLEEPING WITH LEGS CROSSED. Without awakening him, I separated his legs. Instantly, he would cross the lower limbs again. I tried to keep is legs apart many times, but he crossed limbs again instantly. I sensed some peculiarity in his behavior, and took KENT repertory and searched for an appropriate rubric. I failed to get one. Then I searched in Boericke Repertory, and could locate following rubric:

[Boericke]Nervous system : SLEEP : Position : Must lie : Legs [with] : Crossed:- Rhod.

I decided to try RHODODENDRON. But there was no RHODO available in my medicine chest. Finally, could locate an old plastic vial labelled RHODO 30, and there was only some powdery remnants sticking in its bottom. I added some cold water into vial, and gave it to my son, without awakening him. After ten minutes, to my wonder, the boy was perspiring, temperature was gone! Next morning, he was very much normal and playing.

IT WAS A WONDERFUL EXPERIENCE THAT TAUGHT ME A GREAT LESSON IN PRESCRIBING FOR FEVERS.

As per the scientific understanding of homeopathy proposed by Dialectical Homeopathy, active principles of potentized drugs are ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent molecules contained in the drug substances used for potentization. Exactly, ‘molecular imprints’ are considered as supra-molecular clusters of water-alcohol molecules into which the three-dimensional molecular configuration of guest molecules(drug molecules) are imprinted as nanocavities. These ‘molecular imprints’ will have a specific affinity towards the original drug molecules, as well as other molecules having similar functional moieties, and can bind to them. Potentized homeopathic drugs act as therapeutic agents due to this configurational affinity towards pathogenic molecules having similar functional moieties.

According to this view, crude drug molecules will have an affinity towards their own molecular imprints due to their complementary configuration, and can specifically bind to them. As such, drug molecules should be capable of deactivating their potentized forms by binding to the molecular imprints. Due to this reason, it is commonly advised not to administer mother tinctures and lower potencies of drug substances when the patient is undergoing treatment with higher potencies of same drugs.

A question commonly raised in this connection is, why NATRUM MUR in high potencies are not antidoted by the use of molecular forms of sodium chloride as part of daily diet. If crude molecules of a drug substance could antidote its potentized forms, potentized Nat Mur should be deactivated by sodium chloride we consume. As per our experience, such an antidoting does not happen. If potentized Natrum Mur is used as similimum, it acts well even if the patient consumes sodium chloride as part of his food. Many articles used as spices and culinary during preparation of foods are also used as therapeutic agents in high potencies, and many of them do not deactivate potentized forms, where as some are found to be antidotal to potentized drugs. A logical and scientific answer is required for these reasonable questions.

When administered into the organism as medicinal agents, ‘molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs are released into the blood stream, which is a saline aqueous medium. Crude molecules of sodium chloride being consumed as food are also released into the blood stream.

The question to be answered is, how the molecular imprints of sodium chloride can exist in the blood stream without getting bound or antidoted by crude sodium cholide molecules present in blood, in spite of the configurational affinity between them.

To get an answer to this question, we should understand some important factors regarding the behavior of sodium chloride in aqueous medium.

Sodium chloride is an ionic substance, composed of positive charged sodium ions and negative charged chloride ions. In solid state, each ion is surrounded by six ions of the opposite charge as expected on electrostatic grounds. The surrounding ions are located at the vertices of a regular octahedron. In the language of close-packing, the larger chloride ions are arranged in a cubic array whereas the smaller sodium ions fill all the cubic gaps or octahedral voids between them. The attraction between the Na+ and Cl- ions in the solid is so strong that only highly polar solvents like water can dissolve NaCl well.

When dissolved in water, the sodium chloride framework present in solid state disintegrates as the Na+ and Cl- ions, and become surrounded by the polar water molecules. These solutions consist of positively charged metal-aqua complex with the formula [Na(H2O)₈], consisting of a sodium ion closely surrounded by eight water molecules. This sodium-water complex by itself acts as positively charged ion. The chloride ions are also strongly solvated, each being surrounded by an average of 6 molecules of water.

Important point to be noted here is that Na+ ions or Cl- ions never exist free in the aqueous medium, but only as surrounded and strongly solvated by water molecules. Since the sodium and chloride moieties are covered with closely packed water molecules, they cannot interact with the molecular imprints contained in potentized Natrum Mur present in the medium. Na and Cl ions have a comparatively greater affinity towards the water molecules around them, than towards molecular imprints. Due to this reason, potentized Nat Mur cannot be easily antidoted by crude sodium chloride molecules consumed as part of regular diet. This is applicable to all drug substances that are ionized and strongly solvated in aqueous medium.

I am reporting a case cured with Total Cure Prescriptions, combining ‘Constitutional Prescription’ and ‘Particular Prescription’:

Woman- 52 years, Married, A primary school teacher. Recurrent attacks of unbearable headache for last 6 years.

Headache frontal. Relief by cold applications. Agg exposure to sun heat. Vomiting gives relief to headache. Amel by sleep. Headache agg during menses.Headache worse by reading.

Menses irregular and scanty. Habitually constipated. Hot flushes. Aversion to salt food. Very obese and over weight. Chilly. Violent bouts of anxiety at morning on waking. Very troublesome thoughts of death always. Always sits idle. Aversion to do any work.

Rubrics selected:

[Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Vomiting : Amel
[Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Sleep : Amel
[Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Forehead, in
[Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Menses : During
[Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Cold applications amel
[Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Reading : Agg
[Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Sun, from exposure to
[Kent]Stomach : AVERSION to : Salt food
[Kent]Rectum : CONSTIPATION
[Kent]Genitalia – Female : MENSES : Scanty
[Kent]Generalities : OBESITY
[Kent]Generalities : COLD REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s
[Kent]Genitalia – Female : MENOPAUSE
[Kent]Generalities : HEAT, flushes of
[Kent]Mind : ANXIETY : Morning : Waking: On
[Kent]Mind : COMPANY : Aversion to
Kent]Mind : DEATH : Thoughts of
Kent: Mind : INDOLENCE, aversion to work

Repertorisation Result – Totality Method Using – All Symptoms:

Sep.(92/15), Graph.(90/13), Lach.(84/14), Calc.(80/14), Nat-m.(76/12), Sulph.(73/12), Carb-v.(72/12), Ign.(71/13), Puls.(71/12)
——————————————————————————–

Then the case was again repertorised using MENTALS and GENERALS to determine CONSTITUTIONAL PRESCRIPTION

[Kent]Rectum : CONSTIPATION
[Kent]Genitalia – Female : MENSES : Scanty
[Kent]Generalities : OBESITY
[Kent]Generalities : COLD REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s
[Kent]Genitalia – Female : MENOPAUSE
[Kent]Generalities : HEAT, flushes of
[Kent]Mind : ANXIETY : Morning : Wakin: On
[Kent]Mind : COMPANY : Aversion to
Kent]Mind : DEATH : Thoughts of
Kent: Mind : INDOLENCE, aversion to work

Graph.(71/10), Sep.(60/9), Chin.(51/8), Lach.(47/7), Carb-v.(46/7), Calc.(45/7), Phos.(45/7), Psor.(45/7), Con.(43/7),
———————————————————————————-

Then repertorization was done using HEADACHE symptoms only, to determine the PARTICULAR PRESCRIPTION for HEADACHE:

[Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Vomiting : Amel
[Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Sleep : Amel
[Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Forehead, in
[Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Menses : During
[Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Cold applications amel
[Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Reading : Agg
[Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Sun, from exposure to

Glon.(34/7), Calc.(29/6), Lach.(29/6), Nat-m.(28/5), Bry.(26/5), Sulph.(25/5), Acon.(24/5), Sep.(24/5), Bell.(23/4)

GRAPHITES was selected as CONSTITUTIONAL PRESCRIPTION, and GLONOINE was selected as PPARTICULAR PRESCRIPTION.

GLONOINE 30 was given 3 hly during attacks of headache. GRAPHITES 30 was given twice daily. Headache was relieved instantly, and she was completely cured by three months. Her general health improved. Later she said: “Doctor, by your treatment I got cure for ‘many’ complaints I did not reveal to you, thinking that they may be treated after headache is cured”.

Choice between SEP and GRAPH was a tough decision in this case. Finally I opted for GRAPH. The final out come proved that I was right.

———————————————————————————–

RUBRICS EXTRACTED USING SIMILIMUM ULTRA SOFTWARE:

1. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Vomiting : Amel.:- Arg-n., Asar., Calc., Cycl., Gels., Glon., Kali-bi., Lac-d., Lach., Manc., Op., Raph., Sang., Sep., Sil., Stann., Sul-ac., Tab.

 2. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Sleep : Amel.:- Acon., Bad., Glon., Hell., Ign., Pall., Sep., Sil.

3. [K ent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Forehead, in:- Acet-ac., Acon., Aesc., Aeth., Agar., Ail., All-c., Aloe., Alum., Alumn., Am-c., Am-m., Ammc., Anac., Ang., Ant-c., Ant-t., Apis., Apoc., Aran., Arg-m., Arg-n., Arn., Ars., Ars-i., Arum-t., Arund., Asaf., Asar., Aster., Aur., Bapt., Bar-c., Bar-m., Bell., Berb., Bism., Bor., Bov., Brom., Bry., Bufo., Cact., Caj., Calad., Calc., Calc-p., Calc-s., Camph., Cann-s., Canth., Caps., Carb-ac., Carb-an., Carb-s., Carb-v., Card-m., Caul., Caust., Cedr., Cham., Chel., Chim., Chin., Chin-a., Chin-s., Chlol., Cic., Cimic., Cina., Cinnb., Cist., Clem., Cob., Coca., Coc-c., Cocc., Colch., Coll., Coloc., Con., Corn., Croc., Crot-c., Crot-h., Crot-t., Cupr., Cupr-ar., Cur., Cycl., Dig., Dios., Dros., Dulc., Echi., Elaps., Elat., Eupho., Euphr., Ferr., Ferr-ar., Ferr-i., Ferr-p., Fl-ac., Form., Gels., Gins., Glon., Gran., Graph., Grat., Guai., Gymn., Ham., Hell., Helon., Hep., Hipp., Hura., Hydr., Hydr-ac., Hyos., Ign., Ind., Iod., Ip., Iris., Jug-c., Kali-ar., Kali-bi., Kali-c., Kali-chl., Kali-i., Kali-n., Kali-p., Kali-s., Kalm., Kreos., Lac-c., Lac-d., Lach., Lachn., Lact., Lact-ac., Laur., Lec., Led., Lept., Lil-t., Lith., Lyc., Lycps., Lyss., Mag-c., Mag-m., Mag-s., Manc., Mang., Med., Meli., Meny., Merc., Merc-c., Merc-i-f., Merc-i-r., Merl., Mez., Mosch., Mur-ac., Mygal., Naja., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nat-p., Nat-s., Nit-ac., Nux-m., Nux-v., Ol-j., Olnd., Op., Osm., Ox-ac., Par., Petr., Ph-ac., Phel., Phos., Phys., Phyt., Pic-ac., Pip-m., Plan., Plat., Plb., Podo., Psor., Ptel., Puls., Ran-b., Raph., Rheum., Rhod., Rhus-t., Rhus-v., Rumx., Ruta., Samb., Sang., Sars., Sec., Sel., Seneg., Sep., Sil., Sol-n., Spig., Spong., Stann., Staph., Stict., Stram., Stront., Stry., Sul-ac., Sulph., Syph., Tab., Tarax., Tarent., Tell., Teucr., Thea., Ther., Thuj., Til., Tril., Trom., Uran., Ust., Valer., Verat., Verat-v., Verb., Vib., Viol-t., Xan., Zinc., Zing.

 4. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Menses : During:- Acon., Agar., Aloe., Alum., Am-c., Am-m., Ant-c., Apis., Arg-n., Ars., Asar., Bell., Berb., Bor., Bov., Brom., Bry., Bufo., Cact., Calc., Calc-p., Calc-s., Canth., Carb-an., Carb-v., Cast., Caust., Cham., Chin., Chin-a., Cic., Cimic., Cocc., Coff., Coloc., Con., Cub., Cupr., Cur., Cycl., Dulc., Eupi., Ferr., Ferr-ar., Ferr-p., Gels., Gent-c., Glon., Graph., Hep., Hyos., Hyper., Ign., Kali-ar., Kali-bi., Kali-c., Kali-n., Kali-p., Kali-s., Kalm., Kreos., Lac-d., Lach., Laur., Lyc., Mag-c., Mag-m., Mag-s., Med., Murx., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nat-p., Nit-ac., Nux-m., Nux-v., Phos., Plat., Puls., Rat., Rhod., Sang., Sep., Sil., Stann., Sulph., Verat., Xan., Zinc.

5. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Cold applications amel.:- Acon., Aloe., Alumn., Am-c., Ant-c., Ant-t., Ars., Asar., Aur-m., Bell., Bism., Bry., Bufo., Calc., Calc-p., Caust., Cedr., Cham., Chin-s., Cinnb., Cycl., Eupho., Euphr., Ferr., Ferr-ar., Ferr-p., Glon., Ind., Iod., Kali-bi., Kalm., Lac-c., Lac-d., Lach., Led., Meny., Merc-c., Merl., Mosch., Myric., Nat-m., Phos., Plan., Psor., Puls., Seneg., Spig., Stram., Sulph., Zinc.

 6. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Reading : Agg.:- Agn., Apis., Arg-m., Arn., Asaf., Aur., Bor., Bov., Bry., Calc., Calc-s., Carb-s., Carb-v., Caust., Cham., Chel., Chin-s., Cimic., Cina., Cinnb., Clem., Coca., Cocc., Coff., Crot-t., Ery-a., Ferr-i., Glon., Helon., Ign., Lach., Lyc., Lyss., Merc., Mez., Nat-m., Nat-s., Nux-v., Olnd., Op., Par., Ph-ac., Plat., Ptel., Ruta., Sabad., Sep., Sil., Sulph., Tub.

7. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Sun, from exposure to:- Acon., Act-sp., Agar., Aloe., Ant-c., Arum-t., Bar-c., Bell., Brom., Bruc., Bry., Cadm., Calc., Calc-s., Camph., Cann-i., Carb-v., Cast-v., Chin., Chin-s., Cocc., Euphr., Gels., Genist., Glon., Hipp., Hyos., Ign., Lach., Manc., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nux-v., Puls., Sel., Stram., Sulph., Syph., Ther., Valer., Zinc.

8. [Kent]Stomach : AVERSION to : Salt food:- Acet-ac., Carb-v., Card-m., Cor-r., Graph., Nat-m., Sel., Sep., Sil.

9.  [Kent]Rectum : CONSTIPATION:- Abies-n., Abrot., Aesc., Aeth., Agar., Agn., Alet., Aloe., Alum., Alumn., Ambr., Am-c., Am-m., Ammc., Anac., Anan., Ang., Ant-c., Apis., Arg-m., Arg-n., Arn., Ars., Ars-i., Arund., Asaf., Asc-c., Asc-t., Aster., Aur., Aur-m., Bad., Bar-c., Bar-m., Berb., Bol., Bor., Bov., Brach., Bry., Cact., Calad., Calc., Calc-p., Calc-s., Camph., Cann-s., Carb-ac., Carb-an., Carb-s., Carb-v., Card-m., Casc., Caul., Caust., Chel., Chim., Chin., Chin-a., Chin-s., Chr-ac., Cimx., Cina., Clem., Coca., Cocc., Coff., Colch., Coll., Coloc., Con., Cop., Cor-r., Croc., Crot-c., Crot-h., Crot-t., Cub., Cupr., Cycl., Daph., Dig., Dios., Dulc., Elaps., Ery-a., Euon., Ferr., Ferr-ar., Ferr-i., Ferr-p., Fl-ac., Form., Gamb., Graph., Guai., Hell., Hep., Hippoz., Hydr., Hydrc., Hyos., Hyper., Ign., Iod., Iris., Jab., Jac-c., Jatr., Kali-ar., Kali-bi., Kali-br., Kali-c., Kali-chl., Kali-i., Kali-p., Kali-s., Kreos., Lac-d., Lach., Lact-ac., Laur., Led., Lept., Lil-t., Lyc., Lycps., Mag-c., Mag-m., Mag-s., Manc., Mang., Med., Meli., Meny., Merc., Merc-c., Merc-d., Merc-i-f., Mez., Mosch., Mur-ac., Murx., Myric., Naja., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nat-p., Nat-s., Nicc., Nit-ac., Nux-m., Nux-v., Oena., Olnd., Op., Osm., Ox-ac., Paeon., Pall., Petr., Ph-ac., Phos., Phyt., Plat., Plb., Podo., Psor., Ptel., Puls., Pyrog., Raph., Rat., Rhus-t., Rob., Ruta., Sabad., Sabin., Sang., Sanic., Sars., Sec., Sel., Seneg., Sep., Sil., Spong., Squil., Stann., Staph., Stram., Stry., Sul-ac., Sulph., Sumb., Tab., Tarent., Tell., Ter., Ther., Thuj., Tril., Tub., Urt-u., Ust., Vario., Verat., Verb., Vesp., Vib., Viol-o., Zinc.

 10. [Kent]Genitalia – Female : MENSES : Scanty:- Acon., Alum., Alumn., Am-c., Anac., Apis., Arg-n., Ars., Art-v., Asaf., Aur., Bar-c., Berb., Bov., Bufo., Cact., Calc., Calc-ar., Calc-s., Cann-i., Carb-an., Carb-s., Carb-v., Caul., Caust., Cic., Cimic., Cocc., Con., Crot-t., Cub., Cupr., Cur., Cycl., Dig., Dros., Dulc., Erig., Euphr., Ferr., Ferr-ar., Ferr-p., Form., Goss., Graph., Helon., Hep., Ign., Kali-ar., Kali-br., Kali-c., Kali-p., Kali-s., Kalm., Lac-c., Lac-d., Lach., Lam., Lil-t., Lob., Lyc., Mag-c., Mang., Merc., Mez., Naja., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nat-s., Nicc., Nit-ac., Nux-m., Nux-v., Oena., Ol-an., Petr., Phos., Plb., Psor., Puls., Ruta., Sabad., Sang., Sars., Seneg., Sep., Sil., Staph., Stram., Stront., Sulph., Ter., Thuj., Ust., Valer., Verat., Verat-v., Vib., Xan., Zinc.

 11. [Kent]Generalities : OBESITY:- Agar., Ambr., Am-m., Ant-c., Asaf., Aur., Bar-c., Bor., Bry., Calc., Calc-ar., Camph., Canth., Caps., Chin., Cocc., Con., Cupr., Eupho., Ferr., Graph., Guai., Iod., Ip., Kali-bi., Kali-c., Lac-d., Lach., Laur., Lyc., Mag-c., Merc., Mur-ac., Nat-c., Nux-m., Olnd., Op., Plat., Plb., Puls., Sabad., Sars., Seneg., Sep., Sil., Spig., Spong., Sulph., Thuj., Verat.

 12. [Kent]Generalities : COLD REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s):- Abrot., Acet-ac., Acon., Agar., Agn., Alum., Alumn., Alum-sil., Am-c., Apoc., Arg-m., Ars., Ars-s-f., Asar., Aur., Aur-a., Aur-s., Bad., Bar-c., Bar-m., Bell., Benz-ac., Bor., Brom., Cadm., Calc., Calc-ar., Calc-f., Calc-p., Calc-sil., Camph., Canth., Caps., Carb-an., Carb-s., Carb-v., Card-m., Caul., Caust., Cham., Chel., Chin., Chin-a., Cimic., Cist., Cocc., Coff., Colch., Con., Cycl., Dulc., Euphr., Ferr., Ferr-ar., Form., Graph., Guai., Hell., Helon., Hep., Hyos., Hyper., Ign., Kali-ar., Kali-bi., Kali-c., Kali-chl., Kali-p., Kalm., Kreos., Lac-d., Mag-c., Mag-p., Mang., Mosch., Mur-ac., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nit-ac., Nux-m., Nux-v., Ox-ac., Petr., Ph-ac., Phos., Plb., Podo., Psor., Pyrog., Ran-b., Rheum., Rhod., Rhus-t., Rumx., Ruta., Sabad., Sars., Sep., Sil., Spig., Stann., Staph., Stram., Stront., Sul-ac., Ther., Valer., Viol-t., Zinc.

13.  [Kent]Genitalia – Female : MENOPAUSE:- Agar., Aloe., Apis., Arg-n., Bar-c., Bry., Calc., Chin., Cimic., Cocc., Coff., Con., Croc., Crot-c., Crot-h., Cycl., Gels., Glon., Graph., Helon., Hydr., Ign., Kali-bi., Lach., Mang., Mosch., Murx., Nit-ac., Phos., Psor., Puls., Sang., Sel., Sep., Sul-ac., Sulph., Tab., Ter., Ther., Ust., Verat., Xan.

 14. [Kent]Generalities : HEAT, flushes of:- Acet-ac., Acon., Aesc., Agn., Ail., Alum., Alumn., Ambr., Am-c., Aml-n., Am-m., Ang., Ant-t., Apis., Arn., Ars., Ars-i., Arum-t., Asar., Aur., Bapt., Bar-c., Bell., Berb., Bism., Bor., Bov., Brom., Bry., Bufo., Cact., Calc., Calc-s., Carb-an., Carb-s., Carb-v., Caust., Cham., Chel., Chin., Chin-s., Cimx., Cocc., Coff., Colch., Coloc., Corn., Croc., Crot-h., Crot-t., Cupr., Dig., Elaps., Eup-per., Ferr., Ferr-ar., Ferr-i., Ferr-p., Gamb., Glon., Graph., Helon., Hep., Hura., Hyos., Ign., Iod., Kali-s., Kreos., Lach., Lact-ac., Lob., Lyc., Lyss., Mag-m., Mang., Meny., Merc., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nat-p., Nat-s., Nit-ac., Nux-v., Olnd., Op., Ox-ac., Petr., Ph-ac., Phos., Plat., Podo., Psor., Puls., Raph., Rhus-t., Rumx., Ruta., Sabad., Sabin., Sang., Seneg., Sep., Sil., Spig., Spong., Stann., Sul-ac., Sulph., Sumb., Teucr., Thuj., Tub., Valer., Xan., Zinc.

 15. [Kent]Mind : ANXIETY : Morning : Waking, on:- Alum., Anac., Carb-an., Carb-v., Caust., Chel., Chin., Cocc., Graph., Ign., Ip., Lach., Lyc., Mag-c., Mag-m., Mag-s., Nat-m., Nit-ac., Nux-v., Phos., Plat., Puls., Rhus-t., Sep., Squil.

 16. [Kent]Mind : COMPANY : Aversion to:- Acon., Aloe., Alum., Ambr., Anac., Anan., Ant-c., Ant-t., Atro., Aur., Aur-s., Bar-c., Bar-m., Bell., Bry., Bufo., Bufo-s., Cact., Calc., Calc-p., Calc-s., Cann-i., Carb-an., Carb-s., Carb-v., Cedr., Cham., Chin., Cic., Cimic., Cinnb., Clem., Coca., Coloc., Con., Cop., Cupr., Cur., Cycl., Dig., Dios., Elaps., Eug., Ferr., Ferr-i., Ferr-p., Fl-ac., Gels., Graph., Grat., Ham., Hell., Helon., Hep., Hipp., Hydr., Hyos., Ign., Iod., Jug-c., Kali-bi., Kali-br., Kali-c., Kali-p., Kali-s., Lac-d., Lach., Led., Lyc., Mag-m., Mang., Meny., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nat-p., Nicc., Nux-v., Oxyt., Petr., Phos., Pic-ac., Plat., Psor., Ptel., Puls., Rhus-t., Sec., Sel., Sep., Stann., Sul-ac., Sulph., Tarent., Tep., Thuj., Til., Ust., Verat.

 17. [Kent]Mind : DEATH : Thoughts of:- Acon., Agn., Am-c., Apis., Ars., Camph., Cann-i., Carb-an., Caust., Chel., Con., Crot-c., Crot-h., Cupr., Ferr., Ferr-ar., Graph., Hura., Kali-ar., Kali-c., Op., Psor., Rob., Stram., Tarent., Verat., Zinc.

 18. [Kent]Mind : INDOLENCE, aversion to work:- Abrot., Acon., Aesc., Agar., Ail., Aloe., Alum., Am-c., Am-m., Anac., Ant-c., Ant-t., Apis., Apoc., Arg-n., Arn., Ars., Ars-h., Ars-i., Asaf., Asar., Aur., Aur-m., Bapt., Bar-c., Bell., Bor., Brom., Bry., Bufo., Calc., Calc-p., Camph., Caps., Carb-ac., Carb-s., Carb-v., Caust., Cham., Chel., Chin., Chin-a., Chin-s., Cic., Cinnb., Cob., Coca., Cocc., Coc-c., Colch., Con., Croc., Crot-h., Crot-t., Cycl., Dig., Dios., Dirc., Dulc., Erig., Euphr., Ferr-p., Gamb., Graph., Grat., Guai., Helon., Hep., Hura., Hyos., Ign., Indg., Iod., Ip., Jug-r., Kali-ar., Kali-br., Kali-c., Kali-p., Kali-s., Lac-c., Lac-d., Lach., Lact-ac., Laur., Lyc., Mag-c., Mag-m., Mag-s., Manc., Meli., Meph., Merc., Mez., Mill., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nat-p., Nit-ac., Nux-v., Olnd., Op., Osm., Petr., Ph-ac., Phos., Pic-ac., Plat., Plb., Psor., Puls., Ran-s., Rheum., Rhus-t., Rob., Ruta., Sabad., Sabin., Sang., Sars., Sec., Sep., Spig., Spong., Squil., Stann., Stram., Stront., Sulph., Tab., Tarent., Teucr., Ther., Thuj., Verb., Zinc., Zing.

One of the most wide spread and unshakable beliefs among homeopaths is that “camphor is universal antidote to homeopathic drugs- camphor bottles should be kept away from other drugs”. They consider not only crude camphor, but even potentized camphor can antidote all other homeopathic drugs.

Is there any scientific basis for this belief? After studying the molecular structure of camphor and understanding the mechanism of its interactions, I think there could be some amount of truth in it, though somewhat distorted and far stretched. Camphor preparations containing molecular forms of camphor, such as crude camphor, mother tincture, low potencies below 12c as well as various camphor products can antidote a wide class of potentized homeopathic drugs- not ‘universal’.

Camphor is a volatile organic aroma compound with chemical formula C10H16O, belonging to the class known as terpenoids. When kept open, its molecules would easily diffuse into the atmosphere.

Camphor is a cyclic terpene, having a C=O moeity in its functional group. Such compounds are called carbonyl compounds, which also include aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acid, esters, amides, enones, acyl halides, acid unhydrides etc. Most of these substances are aroma compounds, which are responsible for the property known as fragrance and flavors. Compounds that contain C-O bonds each possess differing reactivity based upon the location and hybridization of the C-O bond, owing to the electron-withdrawing effect of sp hybridized oxygen.Medicinal properties of various vegetable substances and some animal products are mostly due to the presence of molecules having highly reactive C=O moeity in their functional groups.

In organic chemistry, functional groups are specific groups of atoms within molecules that are responsible for the characteristic chemical reactions of those molecules. The same functional group will undergo the same or similar chemical reactions regardless of the size of the molecule it is a part of. However, its relative reactivity can be modified by nearby functional groups.

The word moiety is often used synonymously to “functional group,” but to be more specific, a moiety is a part of a molecule that may include either whole functional groups or a parts of functional groups as substructures. The atoms of functional groups are linked to each other and to the rest of the molecule by covalent bonds. When the group of covalently bound atoms bears a net charge, the group is referred to more properly as a polyatomic ion or a complex ion. Any subgroup of atoms of a compound also may be called a radical, and if a covalent bond is broken homolytically, the resulting fragment radicals are referred as free radicals.

Drug molecules act upon the biological molecules in the organism by binding their functional groups to specific active groups on the complex biological molecules. Here, the functional groups of drug molecules called ligands, and the biological molecules are called targets. Ligand-target intercation is always determined by a ‘key-lock’ relationship due to complementary configurational affinities.

It is to be specifically noted that same functional group will undergo the same or similar chemical reactions regardless of the size or configuration of of the molecule it is a part of. However, its relative reactivity can be modified by nearby functional groups known as facilitating groups. That means, different types of drug molecules or pathogenic molecules having same functional groups and facilitating groups can bind to same biological molecules, and produce similar molecular inhibitions and symptoms. Homeopathic principle of ‘similimum’ is well explained by this understanding. If a drug molecule can produce symptoms similar to symptoms of a particular disease, it means that the drug molecule and disease causing molecule has same functional groups on them. Obviously, similarity of symptoms means similarity of functional groups of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules. To be similimum, the whole molecules need not be similar, but similarity of functional groups is enough.

Potentized drugs would contain the molecular imprints of drug molecules, along with molecular imprints of their functional groups. These molecular imprints will have specific configurational affinity towards any molecule having same functional groups, and can bind and deactivate them.

As said above, most of the vegetable and animal drugs contains diverse types of aromatic drug molecules and esters having C=O functional groups, which are also present on camphor molecules. Potentized homeopathic drugs would contain molecular imprints of this functional groups, which can be easily deactivated by crude camphor molecules as well as other aromatic molecules. Molecules of Volatile substances such as camphor would easily diffuse into atmosphere and nearby potentized drugs, and bind to molecular imprints of C=O functional groups they contain. It would result in deactivation of molecular imprints, which we call antidoting.

I hope, I have scientifically explained the molecular mechanism of the phenomenon of antidoting of potentized drugs by perfumes and strong smelling substances. Most perfumes contains esters, which have C=O functional groups.

Now it is obvious that only crude camphor can antidote potentized drugs. Our belief that potentized camphor is a ‘universal’ antidote is totally baseless.

This article may seem to be some what provocative. Excuse me for that. Speaking hard truths may feel bitter and provocative. Ancient Indian scriptures warning me: “sathyam bruyal, priyam bruyal; na bruyal sathyam apriyam”. I know, I am speaking ‘sathyam apriyam’.

Most homeopaths are ‘believers’. For them, homeopathy is a sacred ‘belief system’. They ‘believe’ that ‘homeopathy is ultimate science’ and ‘our master’ is ‘greatest scientist of all times’. They ‘believe’ in master, ‘believe’ in organon’, ‘believe’ in ‘similia similibus curentur’, ‘believe’ in ‘vital force’, ‘believe’ in ‘dynamic drug energy’, ‘believe’ in ‘miasms’, ‘believe’ in ‘immutable fundamental principles’, ‘believe in ‘single drug-single dose’, ‘believe’ in ‘hering laws’, ‘believe’ in ‘drug relationships’, ‘believe’ in ‘words of stalwarts’, ‘believe’ in ‘teachers’ and ‘gurus’. This list of ‘homeopathic beliefs’ is fascinating as well as unending. They ask me: “do you believe in homeopathy?”

They hesitate to accommodate new knowledge. They never ask ‘why-what-how’ about their beliefs. They would never tolerate anybody asking such hard questions

Most of them prefer to be die-hard fundamentalists- homeopathic fundamentalists. Tougher than even those dreaded religious fundamentalists. They behave themselves like ‘faith-healers’ than scientific medical professionals and physicians. To talk logic, reason and science to such a closed-minded ‘believers community’ is a tough task indeed- and dangerous to some extent.

Without displacing our deep-rooted ‘blind beliefs’ with ‘scientific knowledge’, we cannot hope homeopathy to become a scientific medical system. Study, research, experiment, learn, know and apply- that is the way of science. Not blind believing and following.

One of the unshakable beliefs among homeopaths is regarding the ‘great damage’ that could be done to the patient by giving an ‘unnecessary’ dose of potentized drug, including untimely repetition of even indicated drug. Did anybody any body conduct any scientific experiments to verify whether this ‘belief’ is right or wrong? Never! They would claim, they had such ‘experiences’.

Some homeopaths have a wonderfully perverted sense of ‘cause-effect’ relationship. They consider every ‘before-after’ chronological relationship as cause and effect, and jump into queer conclusions. Once they give a ‘single’ dose of drug to the patient, everything that ‘follows’ that act will be attributed as the ‘miraculos effect’ of their ‘single dose’. Many ‘cures’, many ‘aggravations’, many ‘side effects’ are actually the product of this perverted understanding of ‘cause and effect’.

Once I heard a ‘teacher’ talking at a seminar. He was talking about the probable consequences of ‘unwanted repetitions’ of potentized drugs. He explained his experience of an incident of his middle aged patient having a serious heart attack after an ‘untimely’ second dose of lachesis 200, which was given for an eczema. First dose was given, and there was ‘miraculous’ improvement. after one weak, he happened to give a second dose, which was ‘untimely hurried’. That night, doctor got a phone call informing him that the patient was admitted in ICU following a massive cardiac arrest. ‘I was very sorry for that, because that cardiac arrest was due to the driving of disease to inner layer by untimely repetition of lachesis”- said the doctor.

It is common sense that a ‘cardiac arrest’ in a middle aged man is not that much ‘sudden’ as we think. There should be hyperlipidemia, atherosclerosis, narrowing of coronary arteries happening through years, which finally led to the blockage of arteries and heart attack. Why should a homeopath relate that ‘heart attack’ to a ‘dose of lachesis 200? Only logic is, that happened ‘following’ that dose!

We hear this type of incidents and experiences reported by homeopaths in their practice. Somebody said: “my patient got delirious attack’ after a dose ofBell200. Another homeopath argues: “A patient showed eruptions all over body after a dose of merc sol 200, that is a proof that homeopathy drugs have dangerous side effects”.

Why not these friends do some experiments by giving bell 200 or merc sol to a few more persons and watching the outcome before reaching this type of conclusions? At least on some pet animals?

Dear friends, ‘cause-effect’ relationship is different from ‘Before-After’ relationship. Kindly use some logical thinking and rational experiments before declaring foolish conclusions. That is scientific method.

Another unshakable ‘homeopathic belief’ is regarding the ‘dangers’ of ‘mixing’ two or more drugs. Did anybody ever conduct a scientific study to verify it? Never. But they ‘believe’ so. Remember, we are not even sure about the active principles of potentized drugs. We just ‘believe’ that our drugs contain ‘dynamic drug energy’, only because our ‘great master’ said so! Without knowing the active principles and their interactions, how can we say ‘mixing’ of drugs is harmful?

Homeopaths ‘believe’ in ‘vital force’ and ‘dynamic drug energy’, even though they know all the sciences they learned in schools and colleges do not justify those beliefs. They ‘believe’, only because they are expected to ‘believe’ all those absurd things as the ‘true followers’ of our ‘great master’. They are trained not to ask “why?”.

Take the ‘belief’ regarding ‘drug relationships’. Nobody ask whether any scientific studies were ever done on that subject. Without any scientific proof, we repeat what we were taught by our teachers or read in books- Drug A  will antidote Drug B, Drug C is complementary to Drug D, Drug X is inimical to Drug Y and so on, very well ‘proving’ from hundreds of daily experiences that all these things are utter nonsense!

Hahneman was a great philosopher, innovator, physician and visionary. But he was a human being- not a prophet or a god. He lived and worked in 18^th centuryGermany. His works, ideas and theories would bear the historical marks of time-space he lived and developed his ideas- of course its limitations also. In spite of his great vision that transcends the boundaries of centuries to come, hahnemann also made a lot of speculations that are obviously unscientific in the present knowledge context.

Organon is a great work, unmatched in history of medical literature. But that does not mean each and every words of organon are ‘immutable’ truths. If you study organon with a rational and scientific mindset, you will see that there are a lot of unscientific ideas in organon, necessitated by the infantile state of scientific knowledge available to hahnemann 250 years ago. But homeopaths prefer to ‘believe’ organon is ‘ultimate science’.

We can learn it in two different ways- dogmatic way or creative way.

Most homeopaths prefer to study organon and other works of hahnemann in the dogmatic way. The teacher or his ‘words’ are considered to be the ultimate authority here. His words are the ultimate truth. Master is considered to be beyond any mistakes, a ‘know-all’ without any limitations. The learner’s only duty is to grasp what is spoken by the master. Questions should be asked only to clear any doubts regarding ‘master’s words- only to clearly understand the meaning of what he is saying. His theories should be discussed only to learn it ‘perfectly’. If you try to question the correctness of ‘master’s words it will never be tolerated. Only permitted relationship between the teacher and learner is ‘guru-disciple’ relationship. Here learning means ‘believing’ and ‘following’.

The other way of learning is ‘creative learning’. Here, the learning by itself becomes a creative process. The books, the ideas, the theories and even the teacher- all are tools for the learner in this creative process. Utilizing these available materials and tools, the learner creates his own ideas through this process of learning. In this process, he will have to discard what ever he finds incorrect or unfitting to the ever-growing knowledge system. Learner digests and assimilates the ideas he get from books or teachers. He asks question like ‘why-how-what’ regarding everything preached. He earnestly verifies the correctness of every idea before they are accepted. Every lesson is dissected, analyzed, verified and then synthesized in a new higher dimension. Creative learning involves creation of new ideas using existing ones.

Homeopathy can be learned either way- dogmatically or creatively. My method of learning is latter one. I prefer to call this method ‘dialectical learning’. I cannot copy the words of ‘masters’ and ‘quote them as ultimate truth. Since most of the concepts, ‘tenets’ and ‘doctrines’ of homeopathy still remain unverified in a scientific way, I need answers for ‘what-why-how” about them to satisfy my scientific mind. Dogmatic preachers and learners may find it difficult to follow or tolerate what I say about homeopathy. I beg to be excused.

According to my scientific approach, there are no unquestionable ‘basic tenets’ in homeopathy- as in any science. Accept nothing as ‘ultimate truth’, only because it was spoken by a ‘master’.

Learning Hahnemann does not mean merely reading and reciting Organon, Chronic Diseases, Materia Medica and other works written by him. We should read not only the printed lines, but read in between lines. I call it ‘Creative Reading’. Creating our ‘own’ ideas by reading what was written by hahnemann. We should use our ‘own’ brains, our ‘own’ logic, living in our ‘own’ space-time context. Do not be misguided by reading the works of ‘interpreters’, before you are ideologically well-equipped.

How should we learn the ‘master’ and his works?

1. Always keep abreast with modern scientific knowledge

Only by keeping ourselves armed with latest scientific knowledge as well as modern tools of scientific methods, we can identify what is scientific and what is unscientific in hahnemann’s theories and observations. Scientific world out look will keep us always on right path.

2. Read in between lines

Reading ‘in between lines’ means, understanding beyond the meaning of words we read.Readingis an interaction between the author and the reader. What is written in texts would reflect only fractions of author’s real thought process. Understanding his thought process is essential to grasp the real meaning of his words. There would be a lot of ideas lying hidden between lines, that could be read by an intelligent reader.

3. Creative Reading

‎’Creative reading’ involves the synthesis of new ideas through the process of reading, which were so far unknown to the reader and not said by the author. Here, reading becomes a creative process. Some ideas getting from the author acts like a spark that ignites the mind of reader, and leads to synthesis of new ideas. We should consciously build up a habit of ‘creative reading’.

4. Use our ‘own’ brains, our ‘own’ logic

We should “use our own brains, our own logic” while reading the works of hahnemann. Hahnemann is explaining his theories on the basis of his experiences and observations. He used his brain and his logic in doing so. We should ask ourselves ‘what-why-how’ of everything hahnemann said. This way of learning is called ‘dialectic’ learning, which is different from ‘dogmatic’ learning.

5. Live in our ‘own’ space-time context.

“Live in our ‘own’ space-time context”. Knowledge is evolving through space and time. Hahnemann was talking 250 years ago, sitting inGermany. That was his ‘space-time context’. He developed his concepts and theories utilizing the knowledge available to him in his ‘space-time context’. Human knowledge has evolved a lot there after. We know many things regarding phenomena of nature that hahnemann was not fortunate to know. Now we should learn hahnemann in the light of latest scientific knowledge available to us.

6. Do not be misguided by the works of ‘interpreters’

‎Do not be misguided by reading the works of interpreters. This is very important if you want to understand what hahnemann really said. Interpreters had done great damage to homeopathy and original teachings of hahnemann. Many people learn homeopathy using the books written by various authors who interpreted hahnemann’s teachings according to their whims and fancies. The most outstanding example is theory of miasms. IIf you read hahnemann’s ‘chronic diseases’ carefully, it would be very clear that hahnemann was talking about miasms as a ‘chronic disease dispositions caused by the infectious agents of itch, syphilis and gonorrhoea’. He did not hink about ‘miasms’ unrelated with ‘infectious materials’. But the interpreters made ‘miasmatic analysis a total mess, dragging even genetics and heridity into it. Now, most homeopaths learn ‘miasms’ from interpreters. We have lot of such examples where interpreters have totally misguided homeopathy. We should learn homeopathy from original works of hahnemann, using our own brains and logic, to keep ourselves not misguided.

The fundamental therapeutic principle of homeopathy is expressed as “Similia Similibus Curentur”. To establish homeopathy as an advanced branch of modern medical science, we have first to explain this principle in a way acceptable to scientific community.

We cannot engage in a meaningful discourse regarding the phenomena of pathology and therapeutics without a proper understanding of the protein and enzyme chemistry, and the complex kinetics of their molecular interactions.  Proteins are a class of highly complex nitrogen-containing bio-molecules, functioning as the primary carriers of all the bio-chemic processes underlying the phenomenon of life.  There exist millions of protein molecules belonging to thousands of protein types in a living organism. Each protein molecule is formed by the polymerization of monomers called aminoacids, in different proportions and sequences. Each protein type has its owns pecific role in the bio-chemic interactions in an organism. Most of the aminoacids necessary for the synthesis of proteins are themselves synthesized fromtheir molecular precursers inside the body. A few types of aminoacids cannot be synthesized inside the body, and have to be made available through food. These are called essential aminoacids. There are specific protein molecules assigned for each bio-chemic process that take place in the body. Various proteins play different types of roles, like biological catalysts or enzymes, molecular receptors, transport molecules,hormones  and antibodies. Some proteins function as specialized molecular switches, systematically switching on and off of specific bio-chemic pathways. Proteins are synthesized from amino acids, in conformity with the neucleotide sequences of concerned genes, with the help of enzymes, which are themselves proteins. ‘Protein synthesis’ and ‘genetic expression’ are very important part of vital process. It may be said that genes are molecular moulds for synthesizing proteins. There are specific genes,bearing appropriate molecular codes of information necessary for synthesizing  each type of protein molecule. Even the synthesis of these genes happens with the help of various enzymes, which are protein molecules. There is no any single bio-molecular process in the living organism, which does not require an active participation of a protein molecule of any kind.

The most important factor we have to understand while discussing proteins is the role of their three-dimensional spacial organization evolving from peculiar di-sulphide bonds and hydrogen bonds. Water plays avital role in maintaining the three dimensional organization of proteins intact, thereby keeping them efficient to participate in the diverse biochemical processes.  Proteins exhibits different levels of molecular organization: primary, secondary, tertiary  and quaternary. It is this peculiar three dimensional structure that decides the specific bio-chemic role of a given protein molecule. More over, co-enzymes and co-factors such as metal ions and vitamins play an important role in keeping up this three-dimensional structure of protein molecules intact, thereby activating them for their specific functions.

Whenever any kind of error occurs in the particular three-dimensional structure of a given protein molecule, it obviously fails to interact with other bio-molecules to accomplish the specific functions it is intended to play in the concerned bio-chemic processes. Such a failure leads to harmful deviations in several bio-chemic processes in the organism, that require the participation of this particular protein, ultimately resulting in a cascading of multitude of molecular errors. This is the fundamental molecular mechanism of pathology, which we perceive as disease of some or other category.  These deviations in bio-chemic pathways are expressed as various groups of subjective and objective symptoms of disease. The organic system exhibits a certain degree of ability and flexibility to overcome or self repair such molecular deviations and preserve the state of homeostasis required to maintain life. Anyhow, if these deviations happen in any of the vitally decisive bio-chemic pathways, or, if these are beyond self repair, the bio-chemic processes ultimately stop and death happens.

Broadly speaking, the molecular errors which underlie diverse conditions of pathology belong to any of the following types:

1. Nutritional deficiencies of amino acids: Any shortage inthe availability of various amino acids and their precursers may lead to non-production of proteins in the organism. In some cases, it may result in the production of defective proteins.

2. The absence or defects of appropriate genetic materials,coding the information required for the production of various protein molecules utilizing amino acids, may inevitably lead to total failure of protein synthesis, or to production of defective proteins. These come under the class of genetic proteinopathies.

3. The deficiencies or errors related with the enzymes required for genetic expression in the process of protein synthesis and post-translational transitions may lead to non production of essential proteins, or may lead to production of defective proteins.

4. Any deficiencies or structural defects of co–factors and co-enzymes which help the protein molecules maintain their specific three-dimensional structure and activate them. This may be due to the nutritional deficiencies of essential elements and vitamins, or due to some errors in their metabolic pathways.

5. The absence of congenial physiologic conditions for protein molecules to remain active. Dehydrations, deviations of pH in the internal medium, variations of temperature, harmful radiations etc. may deactivate the protein molecules.

6. The absence or structural defects of certain substrate molecules which are to interact  with proteins in bio-chemic processes.

7. The inability of substrates to interact with protein molecules due to binding of any foreign molecules or ions on themselves.

8. Molecular inhibitions of protein molecules, resulting from binding with exogenic or endogenic foreign molecules or ions, including metabolites.

It is obvious that almost all conditions of pathology we normally confront, including those resulting from genetic origin, are involved with some or other errors or absence of some protein molecules that are essential for concerned bio-chemic processes. Moreover, most of such molecular errors other than of genetic origin, arise due to binding of some exogenic or endogenic foreign molecules or ions on the active, binding or allosteric sites of protein molecules, effecting changes in the three-dimensional configurations of protein molecules. A host of diseases originating from viral-bacterial infections, allergies, poisoning, drugs, food articles etc, belong to this category.

The most important factor we have to bear in mind when talking about kinetics of proteins in general, and enzymes in particular is their highly defined, peculiar specificity. Each type of protein molecules,  or some times even some partof a single protein molecule, is designed in such a way that it can bind only with a specific class of molecules, and hence participate in a specific type of bio-chemic interaction only. This functional specificity is ensured through the peculiar three-dimensional configuration of the protein molecules, exhibited through their characteristic folding and spacial arrangement. Reactive chemical groups known as active sites, binding sites, and regulatory sites are distributed at specific locations on this three dimensional formations of protein molecules. These chemical groups can interact only with molecules and ions having appropriate spacial configurations that fits to their shape. This phenomenon can be compared with the relationship existing between a lock and its appropriate key. Just as a key with an exactly fitting three dimensional shape alone can enter the key hole of a lock and open it, molecules with exactly fitting three dimensional structure alone can establish contact and indulge in chemical activities with specific protein molecules. This key-lock relationship with substrates defines   all biochemical interactions involving proteins, ensuring their optimum specificity. Obviously, any deviation in the three dimensional configuration of either lock or key makes their interaction impossible.

It has been already explained that the primary basis of any state of pathology is some deviations occurring in the biochemical processes atthe molecular level. Endogenic or exogenic foreign molecules or ions having any configurational similarity to certain biochemical substrates can mimic as original substrates to attach themselves on the regulatory or the active sites of proteins, effecting changes in their native    3-D configuration, thereby making the munable to discharge their specific biochemical role. This situation is called a molecular inhibition, which leads to pathological molecular errors. It iscomparable with the ability of objects having some similarity in shape with that of key, to enter the key hole of a lock and obstructing its function. As a result of this inhibition, the real substrates are prevented from interacting with the appropriate protein molecules, leading to a break in the normal biochemical channels. This type of molecular errors are called competitive inhibitions. It is in this way that many types of drugs, pesticides and poisons interfere in the biochemical processes, creating pathologic situations. Such substances are known as anti-melabolities.

Homeopathy has devised its own method of closely following even the minutest deviations in the biochemical processes in the organism,through a special strategy of monitoring and recording the perceivable symptoms caused by such deviations. Obviously, deviations in a particular biochemical pathway resulting from such a  molecular 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. Homoeopathy chases these train of symptoms to their minutest level, from periphery to interior, in order to study the exact molecular errors underlying any particular state of pathology. Not even the sophisticated tools of ultra-modern technologies can monitor those molecular errors with such perfection. Then, those pathological molecular inhibitions are removed by applying appropriate therapeutic agents, selected on the basis of ‘law ofsimilars’ or ‘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 scientific world had realized and recognized this truth, and incorporated this wonderful tool into their armamentarium. Obviously, “similia similibus curentur” is the most effective technique of  identifying and removing the pathological molecular inhibitions in the organism.

We time and again hear our critics sarcastically declaringthat homeopaths indulge in a totally unscientific way of medical practice, considering the external symptoms alone, and accuse that the basic causes of diseases are not dealt with in homoeopathic treatment. ‘Homoeopaths treat only the symptoms, not the disease’- they say. Even now these learned friends utterly fail to understand the logic of homoeopathy, and the fact that it is a highly scientific method of therapeutics. 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 train of symptoms represent a specific molecular error that had occurred in a particular biochemical pathway. These symptoms invariably indicates the specific type and character of the endogenic or exogenic foreign molecules or ions responsiblefor the particular molecular inhibition. By studying the train of symptoms carefully and systematically, homoeopaths are really observing  these exact molecular inhibitions. This symptomatology-based analytical method of homoeopathy  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 the drugs  could produce in healthy organism- this is the scientific essence of  “similia similibuscurentur”.

If a drug substance is introduced to a healthy living organism, which exists in state of comparatively dynamic equilibrium,constituent molecules of that drug substance are conveyed by the internal transport systems, and bind by their configurational affinity to any of the complex bio-molecules engaged in natural biochemical processes. As a result of such molecular binding, the bio-molecules are subjected to deviations in their three-dimensional configurations, and becomes incapacitated to deliver their natural molecular functions. All the biochemical processes mediated or participated by those bio-molecules are affected, and dependent biological pathways are subsequently blocked. Since different biological pathways are inter-depedent, deviations in one pathway naturally affects the dependent ones also. The cascading of molecular deviations influence the neuro mediator-neurotransmitter  systems and  endocrine systems and finally manifest in the form of  particular groups of subjective and  objective symptoms. This is the real molecular kinetics of pathology.

Homoeopathy has devised its own peculiar way of experimenting and documenting the properties of medicinal substances inrelation with their capability to produce various pathological conditions. This is called drug proving. For proving a particular drug substance, it is introduced into a healthy organism, and, the subjective and objective symptoms and their modalities representing the diverse molecular deviations caused by the drug, are carefully observed and recorded. Each specific group of symptoms that appear as part of diverse pathological conditions are thus artificially created in healthy individuals. These symptoms are compiled as a materia medica of the substance used.

Small quantities of a particular drug material are administered to a large controlled volunteer group of apparently healthy individuals, as part of this drug proving program. (Some drug provings,especially with highly toxic substances, are conducted using their highly potentized forms. In such instances, proving happens through a different molecular mechanism, since potentized drugs contain only ‘molecular imprints’, instead of original drug molecules. We shall discuss this mechanism later). When we introduce a sample of drug substance into the living organism for ‘proving’,its constituent molecules are instantly subjected to various processes such as disintegration, ionization, hydration and certain chemical transformations.Individual constituent molecules are carried and conveyed through blood and other internal transport systems into the cells in different parts of the body.They interact with various enzymes, receptors, metabolites and other biological molecules inside the organism. The drug molecules get themselves bound to various bio-molecules participating in the essential biochemical activities in the organism. These interactions are decided and directed by the specific properties such as configuration and charge of active groups of individual drug molecules, and their specific affinity towards biological target molecules. The three dimensional structureof the individual drug molecules, and that of the concerned bio-molecules are the decisive factors in this process of formation of molecular binding between them. This peculiarity is called molecular affinity. It is very important to note that drug substances interact with different biological molecules, not as as ingular entity, but as individual constituent molecules and ions. These individual drug molecules and ions are capable of binding to some or other biological molecules, effecting configurational changes in them, and thereby inhibiting the essential bio-chemical processes which can take place only with their presence and mediation. Such molecular inhibitions in various bio-chemical pathways result in a condition of pathology, expressed in the form of a train of subjective and objective symptoms, due to the involvement of various neuro-mediator and neuro-transmitter systems.

On the surface of any bio-molecules belonging to protein category, with their  characteristic three dimensional organization, there will be different functional groups suitable for engaging in various types of biochemical bonds. These functional groups belong mainly to two categories. Certain functional groups play a rolein establishing contacts between molecules, and are called ‘binding groups’.Functional groups performing real chemical processes are known as ‘active groups’. Different types of binding sites and active sites exist on the same complex bio-molecule. We can compare these binding  sites and the active sites of bio-molecules to the three dimensional key-holes of ordinary mechanical locks, and their ligands to ‘keys’. A key will be suitable only to the particular  complimenting key- hole with exact three dimensional structure that fits to the shape of the key.  In the same manner, various molecules engaged in biochemical processes identifies and interacts with their ligands with the help of peculiarities of their spacial configurations.  A different key, with a three dimensional structure only partially similar to that of the original key,  may partially enter in the key-hole, but it fails to open the lock, and results in mechanically obstructing the key-hole. Molecular mechanism underlying  a disease process may be broadly compared to such an obstruction and inhibition of molecular locks by binding of  some foreign molecules, partially similar to but different from original ones mimickingas the real ligands. Due to such an inhibition, the particular bio-molecule becomes incapable of interacting with its real molecular keys or ligands,thereby hindering the concerned normal biochemical process. This situation amounts to a pathology at molecular level. We can also visualize a different scenario of molecular inhibition, where the original key or ligand itself becoming structurally deformed, thereby hindering its interaction with its appropriate molecular lock.  There may also be such occasions as some dirt getting collected inside the key-hole, orthe key or the keyhole  itself has some inherentmanufacturing defects etc.  All such presumed situations are possible in the case of bio-molecules also, and mayresult in bio-molecular inhibitions of some sort or other

Even though modern biochemistry and molecular medicine has made great strides in the study of diverse molecular inhibitions related with diseases, still there are grave limitations. It is imperative that modern science should strive to find out means to define the exact bio-molecular deviations and inhibitions  responsible for  each and every one of the multitude of diverse symptoms and modalities expressed in particular disease conditions, in order to evolve a most scientific method of removing such inhibitions.  We may hope, that such a day will not be too far, when it could be possible for humanity to devise a perfect technology to recognize and rectify each and every pathological molecular processes. That should be the ultimate aim of biochemistry and molecular medicine of the future. Until that happen, the most reliable practical technology available forus is the homoeopathic method of studying the underlying molecular processes of diseases by minutely observing the expressed symptoms, the language of nature. Here lies the paramount importance of the homoeopathic theory of similimum and drug proving. Homeopathy considers “totality of symptoms” as the only clue to the understanding of molecular level pathology, as well as deciding the appropriate therapeutic tools to rectify that molecular errors. Viewing from this perspective, “similia similibus curentur” is a highly scientific principle of therapeutics, deserving to be greatly honored by modern science at least incoming days.

Homeopathy, as a specialized branch of modern molecular medicine, may be defined as the therapeutic technique of removing the the molecular blocks  and relieving the biological molecules from  pathologic inhibitions  (curentur), by selectively capping and de-activating the interactive groups of pathogenic molecules, utilizinging the three-dimensional complementary configurational affinity of the molecular imprints (potencies) of same or similar molecules (similimum).

For more than last two hundred years, “Potentization” remained a mystery, which could not be subjected to a scientific experimentation or rational explanation. Now for the first time, we are in a position to solve this elusive phenomenon, in the light of modern scientific knowledge.

Potentization can now be logically explained on the basis of “molecular imprinting”.

First stage of potentization involves division of complex drug molecules into simpler constituents. When a medicinal substance is subjected to homeopathic potentization, if it is not soluble in water or alcohol, it is first mixed with sugar of milk and subjected to repeated trituration. Then the substance is  potentized using alcohol–water mixture as medium. If the medicinal substance is by itself soluble in water or alcohol, potentisation is done directly in that medium. During the initial stages of  this process individual molecules contained in the medicinal substance are liberated from their inter-molecular bonds, or ionized. Crude drug substance undergoes this division into individual molecules and ions, due to the mechanism of violent trituration and shaking.Inter-molecular bonds are broken, and the constituent molecules and ions are liberated. As a result, these ions and molecules become more virulent, capable of exhibiting their interaction potentials to their full extent, and become ready to undergo hydration in water-alcohol medium. Since the individual properties of drug molecules come out in their totality, it is observed that even seemingly inert substances become powerful drugs due to the division during first phase of potentization. Insoluble substances thus become soluble in water. The difference between crude Lyco and Lyco 6x, crude Silica andsilicea 6x, crude table salt and Natrum Mur 6x etc are examples for this phenomenon. This first phase may be called ‘liberation phase’.

Second stage of potentization involves actual hydration and molecular imprinting of individual drug molecules and ions. This phase may becalled ‘imprinting phase’.

Molecules, ions and colloidal particles, liberated through the first phase undergoes process of hydration and molecular imprinting in water- ethyl alcohol mixture during second phase. Each individual molecule orion is naturally subjected to hydration and molecular imprinting, independently of others. Individual drug molecules act as ‘guest’ molecules in this imprinting process. Obviously, potentized homeopathic medicines consist of a mixture of independent molecular imprints of constituent molecules contained inthe drug substance. This is an important point to be specifically noted. When Nux Vomica is potentized, it is not Nux Vomica as such getting imprinted, but its individual constituent molecules, independently of one another. During the peculiar process of serial dilution and shaking done as part of potentization,concentration of drug molecules gradually decrease in the medium, while concentration of empty hydration shells or ‘molecular imprints’ increase. The memory of the three dimensional structure of each individual drug molecule  will remain imprinted into these empty hydration shells, in a complementary negative configuration. These complementary factors are called ‘hydrosomes’, which means ‘nano-cavities of water’. Hydrosomes are capable of acting as ‘counteractive complementary factors’ (CCF) towards pathological molecules during therapeutic process, if the pathologic molecules are similar in configuration to the drug molecules used as ‘guest’ molecules. We can conceive these hydrosomes as the 3-D finger-prints of drug molecules used as ‘guest’ molecules, and hence capable of fitting exactly to the three dimensional configuration of any similar molecules. We should remember that these hydration shells or molecular imprints of each constituent drug molecules act as therapeutic agents, independently of one another. Here we also understand that what we consider as a ‘single medicine’ in homeopathy is in reality only a mixture of hydrosomes which bear molecular imprints of different types of constituent molecules which are independent.

Potentization can now be explained as a process in which molecular imprints of drug molecules are formed and stabilized. At a particular stage of potentization all the drug molecules are completely removed from the potentizing medium. This stage depends up on the exact size of individual drug molecules subjected to imprinting. Large molecules disappear much earlier, and smaller ones at higher stage. Anyhow, when the potentization crosses 12C, even the smallest drug molecules will be completely removed. We can understand this stageby calculating on the basis of Avagado’s number and molecular weight. At potentazation some where above 12C, we may reach a state in which all theoriginal drug  molecules become totally absent. If  the potentization is carried still higher, there will be no drug molecules for imprinting. Advisability of potentization after this stage have to be considered on the basis of studies regarding the possibility of duplication of existing molecular imprints, as in the case of duplicating of crystals and clathrates. More research studies are required in this matter.

As of now, there are no ample scientific data available, helpful to explain the admissibility of homeopathic medicines being potentized above 12C. May be that, even after the removal of all drug molecules from the medium,copies of existing molecular imprints are serially generated in higher and higher potencies, there by saturating the medium with more and more molecular imprints. Until that could be proved, I would suggest 12-30c as the most appropriate homeopathic potency for therapeutic purpose.

Potentized homeopathic medicine, when introduced into the organism by any route, is carried by the body fluids, and transported to different parts of body by internal transport system. When the nanocavities of‘molecular imprints’ contained these preparations come in the vicinity of active groups of pathological foreign molecules, having similarity to the original ‘guest’ molecules used for imprinting, these ‘molecular imprints’ selectively bind to the pathological molecules due to configurational affinity. By this process, pathological foreign molecules are prevented from binding to biological molecules, thereby relieving the biological molecules from pathological molecular blocks. This can be concieved as some sort of ‘molecular scavenging’ or ‘entrapping’ of pathological molecules, by ‘hydrosomes’ or molecular imprints contained in the potentized medicines.

The concept of ‘similimum’ can now be investigated here with a new scientific perspective. We have seen during our earlier discussions, how the individual constituent molecules of a drug substance introduced into the organism during drug proving creates molecular blocks, leading to inhibitions of certain bio-chemic pathways, expressed by a specific train of subjective and objective symptoms. These symptoms are called ‘drug symptoms’, and compiled in the materia medica of that particular drug substance. When similar train of symptoms appears in an organism during a disease condition, it means that, the pathological foreign molecules responsible for the disease has been attacking same biological molecules, causing similar molecular blocks and bio-chemic inhibitions, expressing similar subjective and objective symptoms. The fact that both drug molecules and pathologic molecules could attack same biological molecules in an identical way, shows that the drug molecules and pathologic molecules were having some factors (chemical groups) with similar spacial configurations. Due to such a configurational similarity to the pathological molecules, the ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules contained in the potentized preparations will be having a counteractive configurational affinity towards the pathologic molecules. Due to the configurational affinity, these molecular imprints or ‘hydrosomes’ can selectively bind to the active groups of pathologic molecules, when coming in their vicinity. This is the exact molecular kinetics of homeopathic therapeutics, underlying the fundamental principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’.

When we apply a highly potentized homeopathic drug as a therapeutic agent on the basis of similarity of symptoms, we are actually using  the ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’ of individual constituent drug molecules,having complementary configurational affinity towards the pathologic molecules,so that they can bind and inactivate the pathological molecules by capping their active groups.

Now we are in a position to re-define ‘similia similibuscurentur’ more accurately, clearly distinguishing between low potencies and high potencies.

Original drug molecules, contained in crude drugs and low potencies, if having configurational similarity to the active groups of pathological molecules, can compete with the pathological molecules in binding to the target bio-molecules, and in that process, relieve the bio-molecules from pathological inhibitions. In this case, drug molecules act as ‘competitive molecular factors’ (CMF) towards pathologic molecules. It should be understood that crude drugs and low potencies act as therapeutic agents by this ‘competitive’ mechanism, even though selected according to the principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’.

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

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

We can sum up the fundamental concepts of DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY as follows:

“Similia Similibus Curentur” is logically explained on the basis of modern scientific understanding of molecular kinetics of pathology and therapeutics. As per this view, a state of pathology arises as deviations in some or other biological channels, expressed in the form of specific trains of subjective and objective symptoms, that may be called “symptom complexes”. These biochemic deviations are caused by specific molecular errors occurring in the organism, resulting from certain molecular blocks in bio-molecules created by binding of endogenic or exogenic pathological molecules. There may be multitudes of molecular errors existing in the organism, represented by multitudes of separate ‘symptom complexes’. Therapeutics involves the removal of these molecular blocks using appropriate molecular agents called ‘drugs’. Homeopathy is a special form of therapeutics, in which ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules are utilized instead of original ‘drug molecules’, selected on the basis of their proven capacity to interfere in the biochemical processes.

“Potentization”is explained on the basis of modern technology of “Molecular Imprinting”. Duringthe homeopathic process of ‘potentization’, individual constituent molecules contained in the drug substances are imprinted into water/alcohol matrix. As such, potentized medicines contains supra-molecular ‘clusters’ of water/ethyl alcohol, into which the configurational memory of drug molecules are imprinted in the form of 3-dimensional nanocavities. These nanocavities or ‘molecular imprints’ are the real active principles of potentized medicines. When introduced into the organism, these ‘molecular imprints’ can specifically bind to the pathological molecules having configurational similarity to those used for molecular imprinting, thereby relieving the biological molecules from pathological inhibitions.

I think we have to re-invent ‘miasm of sycosis’ of Hahnemann on the basis of modern understanding of gonorrhoea and Human Papillomma Virus infections.

We are taught that ‘sycosis’ is the miasm of gonorrhoea. But on closely observing the symptoms said to be of ‘sycotic miasm’, we can understand that many of those symptoms like warts belong to human papilloma virus infection. Gonorrhoea and HPF comes mostly as mixed infections. Since much information was not available during Hahnemann’s time about HPF as the causative agent of ‘ano-genital warts’ or ‘figwart disease’ and ‘uterine fibromas’, he attributed all these complaints and symptoms to gonorrhoea, and called it ‘sycotic miasm’. In most occasions he refers his miasm of ‘sycosis’ as ‘miasm of figwart disease’, not ‘miasm of gonorrhoea.. ‘Figwart disease is not gonorrhoea; it is Human Papilloma Virus disease.  It is obvious that hahnemann was confused about gonorrhoea and figwart disease. Since he could not differentiate between gonorrhoea and HPF, he wrongly considered ‘figwart disease’ as part of gonorrhoea.

In Chronic Diseases : Para 9, Hahnemann says: 

“In Europe and also on the other continents so far as it is known, according to all investigations, only three chronic miasms are found, the diseases caused by which manifest themselves through local symptoms, and from which most, if not all, the chronic diseases originate; namely, first, SYPHILIS, which I have also called the venereal change disease; then sycosis, or the fig-wart disease, and finally the chronic disease which lies at the foundation of the eruption of itch; i. e., the PSORA; which I shall treat of first as the most important”.

See, here hahnemann does not even mention gonorrhoea when introducing ‘sycosis’. He said “sycosis, the figwart disease”. Obviously, he is confused between ‘figwart disease’ and ‘gonorrhoea’ as the causative infectious agent behind sycotic miasm.

In Chronic Diseases, Hahnemann says about SYCOSIS as follows:

“First, then, concerning sycosis, as being that miasma which has produced by far the fewest chronic diseases, and has only been dominant from time to time”.

“This figwart-disease, which in later times, especially during the French war, in the years 1809-1814, was so widely spread, but which has since showed itself more and more rarely, was treated almost always, in an inefficient and injurious manner, internally with mercury, because it was considered homogeneous with the venereal chancre-disease; but the excrescences on the genitals were treated by Allopathic physicians always in the most violent external way by cauterizing, burning and cutting, or by ligatures”.

“These excrescences usually first manifest themselves on the genitals, and appear usually, but not always, attended with a sort of gonorrhoea from the urethra, several days or several weeks, even many weeks after infection through coition; more rarely they appear dry and like warts, more frequently soft, spongy, emitting a specifically fetid fluid (sweetish and almost like herring-brine), bleeding easily, and in the form of a coxcomb or a cauliflower (brassica botrytes). These, with males, sprout forth on the glans and on, or below, the prepuce, but with women, on the parts surrounding the pudenda; and the pudenda themselves, which are then swollen, are covered often by a great number of them. When these are violently removed, the natural, proximate effect is, that they will usually come forth again, usually to be subjected again, in vain, to a similar, painful, cruel treatment. But even if they could be rooted out in this way, it would merely have the consequence, that the figwart-disease, after having been deprived of the, local symptom which acts vicariously for the internal ailment, would appear in other and much worse ways, in secondary ailments; for the figwart-miasm, which in the whole organism, has been in no way diminished, either by the external destruction of the above-mentioned excrescences, or by the mercury which has been used internally, and which is in no way appropriate to sycosis.”

From the above paragraph, it is clear that hahnemann was talking about “figwart disease” or Human Papiloma Virus infection. Since it “appear usually, but not always, attended with a sort of gonorrhoea from the urethra”, he confused it as gonorrhoea itself, as in his time, HPV infection was not known as such, where as gonorrhoea was well known.

Hahnemann continues:

“Besides the undermining of the general health by mercury, which in this disease can only do injury, and which is given mostly in very large doses and in the most active preparations, similar excrescent then break out in other parts of the body, either whitish, spongy, sensitive, flat elevations, in the cavity of the mouth on the tongue, the palate and the lips, or as large, raised, brown and dry tubercles in the axillae, on the neck, on the scalp, etc., or there arise other ailments of the body, of which I shall only mention the contraction of the tendons of the flexor muscles, especially of the fingers.”

(Usually in gonorrhoea of this kind, the discharge is from the beginning thickish, like pus; micturition is less difficult, but the body of the penis swollen somewhat hard; the penis is also in some cases covered on the back with glandular tubercles, and very painful to the touch.)

(The miasm of the other common gonorrhoeas seems not to penetrate the whole organism, but only to locally stimulate the urinary organs. They yield either to a dose of one drop of fresh parsley-juice, when this is indicated by a frequent urgency to urinate, or a small dose of cannabis, of cantharides, or of the copaiva balm, according to their different constitution and the other ailments attending it. These should, however, be always used in the higher and dynamizations (potencies), unless a psora, slumbering in the body of the patient, has been developed by means of a strongly affecting, irritating or weakening treatment by Allopathic physicians. In such a case frequently secondary gonorrhoeas remain, which can only be cured by an anti-psoric treatment.)

Please note, hahnemann saying “miasm of other gonorrhoeas seems not penetrate the whole organism, but only to locally stimulate the urinary organs. They yield either to a dose of one drop of fresh parsley-juice, when this is indicated by a frequent urgency to urinate, or a small dose of cannabis, of cantharides, or of the copaiva balm, according to their different constitution and the other ailments attending it.”

By “other gonorrhoeas” he actually refers to gonorrhoeas not related with figwart disease or HPV infection. It is obvious that the ‘chronic miasm of sycosis” he talks about is not that of gonorrhoea, but HPV infection. He considered “other gonorrhoeas” do not penetrate the whole organism.

Let us listen to hahnemann again: 

“The gonorrhoea dependent on the figwart-miasma, as well as the above-mentioned excrescences (i.e., the whole sycosis), are cured most surely and most thoroughly through the internal use of Thuja, which, in this case, is Homoeopathic, in a dose of a few pillets as large as poppy seeds, moistened with the dilution potentized to the decillionth degree, and when these have exhausted their action after fifteen, twenty, thirty, forty days, alternating with just as small a dose of nitric acid, diluted to the decillionth degree, which must be allowed to act as long a time, in order to remove the gonorrhoea and the excrescences; i.e., the whole sycosis. It is not necessary to use any external application, except in the most inveterate and difficult cases, when the larger figwarts may be moistened. every day with the mild, pure juice pressed from the green leaves of Thuja, mixed with an equal quantity of alcohol.”

We know, all people who test positive for gonorrhea are normally asked to be tested for other sexually transmitted diseases such as HPF, chlamydia, syphilis and human immunodeficiency virus, as all these infections may come as mixed infections.

We have to study gonorrhoea and HPV to understand the ‘miasm of sycosis’ in a scientific perspective.

GONORRHEA:

Gonorrhea is a common sexually transmitted infection caused by the bacterium Neisseria gonorrhoeae. The usual symptoms in men are burning with urination and penile discharge. Women, on the other hand, are asymptomatic half the time or have vaginal discharge and pelvic pain. In both men and women if gonorrhea is left untreated, it may spread locally causing epididymitis or pelvic inflammatory disease or throughout the body, affecting joints and heart valves.

Gonorrhea is caused by the bacteria Neisseria gonorrhoeae. The infection is transmitted from one person to another through vaginal, oral, or anal sex. Men have a 20% risk of getting the infection from a single act of vaginal intercourse with an infected woman. The risk for men who have sex with men is higher. Women have a 60–80% risk of getting the infection from a single act of vaginal intercourse with an infected man. A mother may transmit gonorrhea to her newborn during childbirth; when affecting the infant’s eyes, it is referred to as ophthalmia neonatorum.

One of the complication of gonorrhea is systemic dissemination resulting in skin pustules or petechia, septic arthritis, meningitis or endocarditis. This occurs in between 0.6 and 3.0% of women and 0.4 and 0.7% of men.

In men, inflammation of the epididymis (epididymitis); prostate gland (prostatitis) and urethral stricture (urethritis) can result from untreated gonorrhea. In women, the most common result of untreated gonorrhea is pelvic inflammatory disease. Other complications include: perihepatitis, a rare complication associated with Fitz-Hugh-Curtis syndrome; septic arthritis in the fingers, wrists, toes, and ankles; septic abortion; chorioamnionitis during pregnancy; neonatal or adult blindness from conjunctivitis; and infertility.

Neonates coming through the birth canal are given erythromycin ointment in eyes to prevent blindness from infection. The underlying gonorrhea should be treated; if this is done then usually a good prognosis will follow.

Nearly 50% of people infected with gonorrhea also are infected with chlamydia.

HUMAN PAPILLOMA VIRUS (HPF):

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a member of the papillomavirus family of viruses that is capable of infecting humans. Like all papillomaviruses, HPVs establish productive infections only in the stratified epithelium of the skin or mucous membranes. While the majority of the nearly 200 known types of HPV cause no symptoms in most people, some types can cause warts (verrucae), while others can – in a minority of cases – lead to cancers of the cervix, vulva, vagina, and anus in women or cancers of the anus and penis in men.

More than 30 to 40 types of HPV are typically transmitted through sexual contact and infect the anogenital region. Some sexually transmitted HPV types may cause genital warts. Persistent infection with “high-risk” HPV types—different from the ones that cause skin warts—may progress to precancerous lesions and invasive cancer.  HPV infection is a cause of nearly all cases of cervical cancer, however, most infections with these types do not cause disease.

Most HPV infections in young females are temporary and have little long-term significance. 70% of infections are gone in 1 year and 90% in 2 years. However, when the infection persists—in 5% to 10% of infected women—there is high risk of developing precancerous lesions of the cervix, which can progress to invasive cervical cancer. This process usually takes 15–20 years, providing many opportunities for detection and treatment of the pre-cancerous lesion. Progression to invasive cancer can be almost always prevented when standard prevention strategies are applied – however the lesions still cause considerable burden necessitating preventive surgeries which do in many cases involve loss of fertility.

In more developed countries, cervical screening using a Papanicolaou (Pap) test or liquid-based cytology is used to detect abnormal cells which may develop into cancer. If abnormal cells are found, women are invited to have a colposcopy. During a colposcopic inspection biopsies can be taken and abnormal areas can be removed with a simple procedure, typically with a cauterizing loop or—more common in the developing world—by freezing (cryotherapy). Treating abnormal cells in this way can prevent them from developing into cervical cancer.

Pap smears have reduced the incidence and fatalities of cervical cancer in the developed world, but even so there were 11,000 cases and 3,900 deaths in theU.S.in 2008. Cervical cancer has substantial mortality in resource-poor areas; worldwide, there are an estimated 490,000 cases and 270,000 deaths.

Gonorrhoea has nothing to do with ‘figwart disease’, which hahnemann considers as the basis of ‘sycosis’. Based on above discussions, it is obvious that what hahnemann considered ‘miasm of sycosis’ was actually the miasm of ‘human papillomma virus infection’, which is a sexually transmitted disease, commonly appearing as mixed infection along with gonorrhoea. Most of the symptoms attributed to ‘sycosis’ are actually the long term effects of antibodies generated in the organism against HPV, rather than gonorrhoea.

Shall we consider a ‘cancer miasm’? This question is frequently asked whenever the topic ‘miasms’ is discussed. Since hahnemann has talked about only three chronic miasms (psora, syphilis and sycosis), ‘classical’ homeopaths will not agree to the proposals regarding new miasms other than these three. But some homeopaths talk about miasms such as tuberculous, typhoid, vaccinosis, cancer, malaria etc etc.

According to my interpretation of miasms as chronic disease dispositions caused by off-target actions of anti-bodies generated against ‘alien proteins’ such as infectious agents, we need not limit the number of miasms in three hahnemann explained. Any infectious disease that can generate antibodies in the organism can act as a causative factor of chronic miasms. Vaccinations, which induce production of anti-bodies in the organism, have to be considered as miasmatic factors. More over, history of allergic reactions towards any ‘alien proteins’ entering the organism, such as various allergens,  bites and stings of insects and serpents, and anaphylactic reactions also have to be considered as ‘miasms’.

How can we explain the concept of ‘cancer miasm’ from this ‘anti-body’ view point?

Cancer is not an infectious disease, or it does not involve ‘alien’ proteins entering from outside. But, we know, cancer cells contain some mutant genes that are different from ‘native genetic substance’ of organism. These mutant genes can synthesize proteins that are in fact ‘alien’  to the immune system of organism, and antibodies will be produced against these ‘alien’ proteins. In most cases, cancer cells will be destroyed by the immune system before the appearance of observable cancer manifestations. But, these antibodies remain, and will act as miasms, by their ‘off-target’ actions upon various bilogical molecules. As such, ‘cancer miasm’ is a reality.

But it is obvious that there cannot be ‘cancer miasm’ without an immune process happened against ‘cancer’ proteins at any point of time in the individual’s life history. We should remember, our genetic material may anytime go astray due to the action of various environmental factors such as carcinogenic substances and ionizing radiations to which we are constantly exposed.  Metabolic bye-products such as free radicals, which are regularly produced in our body, may also create mutations in our genes. Such mutant genes may lead to the production of cancerous cells, which are constantly identified, located, entrapped and destructed by the scavengers of our immune system. These mutant cells grow into cancer disease only in very rare occasions, when our immune system fail in its duties. That means, production and destruction of mutant genes and cancer cells are a constant process in the organism.

Destruction of mutant genes and cancer cells involves production of antibodies also against the proteins synthesized by them. These ‘cancer antibodies’ will remain in the system even after ‘cancer cells’ are destroyed. These antibodies generated against ‘alien’ proteins synthesized by mutant genes can travel in the organism, migrate to different parts and may bind to various biological molecules having configurational affinity. Such ‘off-target’ bindings lead to molecular inhibitions of biological molecules, which amount to molecular level pathologies similar to any miasmatic chronic disease. That means, antibodies generated against cancer cells would act as ‘cancer miasms’, causing disease dispositions of chronic nature. Obviously, not only in persons of known history of cancer, but almost all seemingly ‘cancer-free’ people may carry cancer antibodies.

Cancer antibodies, or cancer miasms can be effectively combated using cancer nosodes such as ‘carcinocin’, ‘schirinum’ etc, which are potentized cancer products, which would contain molecular imprints of ‘cancer proteins’ as well as ‘cancer antibodies’. Molecular imprints of cancer antibodies act therapeutically by competing with cancer antibodies in binding to the biological molecules, where as molecular imprints of cancer proteins directly bind to the cancer proteins themselves. Molecular imprints cannot interfere in the interactions of antibodies with cancer cells, as they are their natural ligands. That means, even while rectifying the ‘miasmatic’ effects of cancer antibodies, carcinocin nosode will not by any way reduce the anti-cancer fight of our immune system.

This study clearly shows the importance of regular use of cancer  nosodes in the management of various diseases of chronic nature.

“First you prove your theories, then only try to change the fundamentals of homeopathy”- says some friends who are not so much ‘friendly’ to me or my ideas.

Sir, I am not “trying to change fundamental laws of homeopathy”. I am only trying to “explain fundamental observations” of homeopathy in terms of modern science. 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 laws’ in homeopathy which anybody proved “as per modern science”. Not even “explained” as per modern science”. But we teach, learn and practice those “unproved” laws without any hesitation. you never asked anybody to “prove” them before accepting. But you are asking me to “prove first of all”. Why this prejudice, sir?

I have noticed that the comment “first you prove your molecular imprints, only then you talk about fundamental principles of homeopathy” comes mostly from people prejudiced against me- whether it be personal or theoretical. 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 ‘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!

Sir, 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’.

I know there are many homeopaths who understand well and are happy to welcome my scientific explanations of homeopathy on the basis of ‘molecular imprints’ concept. But even those friends find it difficult to agree with me when I start talking about my concepts regarding selection of potency, repetition, drug relationships, single/multiple drug issue, combining of drugs and such other issues that demand drastic changes in their comfortable ways of practicing homeopathy.

I would like to make it clear that I did not produce any ‘theories’ artificially. All these 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 our 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.

Let us examine what actually happens during potentization.

During trituration of crude drugs, and during early stages of dilution and succussion, individual molecules contained in the drug substance are liberated by breakage of inter-molecular bonds that held them together. By this process,drug molecules get ionized and more reactive, and even insoluble substances thereby become soluble in the water-alcohol medium. Triturations and lower dilutions are biologically more active than crude drugs and mother tinctures, due to these free molecules and and ions they contain.

Drug molecules are subjected to a process of ‘hydration’ when they are dissolved in water-alcohol mixture. Hydration takes place by the water-alcohol molecules arranging themselves around independent drug molecules, and forming a supra-molecular network around them through hydrogen bonding. These supra-molecular networks are called ‘hydration shells’. Hydrogen bonds of water molecules are normally weak, but presence of comparatively heavy ethyl alcohol molecules attached to them make the hydration shells more stable. A clathrate-like supra-molecular ‘host-guest’ complexes are formed, where drug molecules act as ‘guests’ and water-ethyl alcohol molecules as ‘hosts’. This is what happen during early stages of potentization.

During serial process of diluting and violent shaking, ‘guest’ molecules happen to escape from ‘guest-host’ complexes, and empty ‘hydration shells’ remains. Formation of new ‘guest-host’ complexes and generation of empty ‘hydration shells’ continues. Due to serial dilutions, the concentration of drug molecules is reduced by each stage, same time increasing the concentration of empty ‘hydration shells’. By the time potentization crosses 12c or Avogadro’s limit, the medium become totally devoid of all drug molecules, and will be concentrated by only empty ‘hydration shells’ representing diverse types of constituent drug molecules.

It has been reported to have observed that supra-molecular formations of water, being part of ‘clathrate’ complexes can maintain their network structures even after the ‘guest’ molecules are removed from them. More over, ‘clathrates’ are found to have behaving some what like crystals, and existing ‘clathrates’ can induce the formation of similar networks even in the absence of ‘guest’ molecules’. All these complex factors have to be taken into account when studying the molecular processes involved in potentization.

As such, homeopathic potencies above 12c contains only empty ‘hydration’ shells remaining after the removal of drug molecules from the ‘guest-host’ complexes formed during earlier stages of dilutions. These empty ‘hydration shells’ are actually supra-molecular clusters of water-ethyl alcohol molecules, carrying 3-dimensional nanocavities remaining after removal of ‘guest’ drug molecules. Actually, these nanocavities are ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules, which can act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules similar to the drug molecules in their molecular configurations. This ‘configurational affinity of ‘molecular imprints’ towards specific pathogenic molecules make them powerful therapeutic agents. Similia Similibus Curentur is logically explained in terms of these molecular imprints.

Since I consider molecular imprints as the active principles of potentized drugs, I do not subscribe to the idea that ‘higher’ potencies are more ‘powerful’, and I see no special benefit by using ‘higher’ potencies.

I think 12c is enough for completing molecular imprinting and removal of all drug molecules from the medium. What happens at molecular level during further potentization is still an open question for me. In supra-molecular chemistry, there is research going on regarding a phenomenon known as ‘induced molecular assembly’. That means, supra-molecular clusters acting as templates and inducing other molecules to form similar clusters. We know, ‘induced molecular assembly’ is involved in crystallization, clathrate formation etc. Even ‘prions’, which are misfolded proteins, multiply by ‘induced misfolding’. Antibodies, which are ‘molecular imprinted proteins’, also multiply by ‘inducing’ other globulin proteins to change configuration. Molecular imprints, which are supra-molecular clusters of water, may also multiply by the process of ‘induced molecular assembly’, where existing ‘molecular imprints’ may act as templates and induce formation of similar molecular imprints. It is only a possibility, which need in-depth study, which may provide us a rational way of resolving the riddle of high potencies. For the time being, I leave it as an open question.

Even though ‘molecular imprints’ may be formed in higher potencies through the process of ‘induced molecular assembling’, by no way that makes higher potencies more ‘powerful’ or ‘potent’. By 12c, all drug molecules will be removed from the medium, and medium gets saturated with ‘molecular imprints’. 12c will be ideal homeopathic. therapeutic agent. I see no special benefits by going ‘higher’. But, diluting medicines while administering by mixing with water may be beneficial, by increase the number of molecular imprints.

Triturations and low potencies containing original drug molecules act as ‘competitive’ factors towards pathogenic molecules in binding to biological molecules. But, ‘molecular imprints’ contained in potencies above 12c act as ‘complementary’ factors, binding directly to specific pathogenic molecules due to their configurational affinity. Obviously, low potencies and high potencies act therapeutically by different molecular mechanisms.

Without freeing homeopathy from the malignant influence of diverse shades of ‘energy medicine’ theories and their highly influential international propagators, we cannot hope to establish homeopathy as a scientific medical practice.

‘Homeopathy is energy medicine’- this theory is widely propagated world over by proponents of diverse colors of occult and pseudo-scientific practices destroying the scientific credentials of homeopathy.  They propagate ‘vibration theory’, ‘bio-magnetism’,’wave theory’, ‘electro-magnetic radiations’,  ‘frequencies’, ‘resonance theory’, ‘energy medicine’ and various other theories, pretending themselves to be ‘ultra-scientific’. They would discuss topics such as ]how the electro-magnetic signals are produced’, ‘the basic bakground radiation’,  and how ‘piezo electicity is generated during potentization’.

These theoreticians promote occult practices in the label of homeopathy, such as hair transmission, telephone transmission, photo transmission, mp3 file transmission, telepathy, radionics, dowsing, spiritual homeopathy and such things. I consider all these theories as ‘unscientific’, which harm the interests of homeopathy by providing arms and fuels to ‘anti-homeopathic’ skeptics. Without abandoning these ‘ultra-science’ and ‘fringe-science’ theories, we cannot make homeopathy a medical science.

These people construct fanciful theories about potentization and homeopathic therapeutics.  They would mix up ‘Energy transfer’,  ‘conversion of matter into energy’ and ‘law of conservation of energy’.

By the concept of ‘energy transfer’, they mean that the ‘drug energy’ is transferred to the medium as ‘vibrations’ during potentization, and these ‘vibrations’ interacts with the vibrations of organism and heals the organism due to ‘resonance’ phenomenon. This theory is most dear to proponents of all sort of occult practices, including ‘spiritual healing’.

Many homeopaths fall prey to the influence this unscientific theories knowingly or unknowingly, and ultimately fail to understand even if anybody talk about homeopathy in scientific language to them.

Many homeopaths believe that drug substances are converted to ‘energy’ during potentization. ‘Matter’ getting ‘converted’ to ‘energy’ during potentization is a concept widely propagated by people trying to establish that homeopathy is ‘energy medicine’. I would request them to seriously think over the point I try make out here. No doubt, “matter is nothing but a package of ENERGY as you say. But do you think matter can be ‘unpacked’ into energy by the simple process of ‘succussion and dilution’ involved in potentization? Do you know how much energy you need to break even the chemical bonds that holds atoms together in a molecule? ‘Converting matter into energy’ means not only breaking of chemical bonds, but breaking atoms into subatomic particles, and subatomic particles into ‘energy’. How can anybody imagine we can make atomic division happening through our simple process of potentization? Even if you make it to happen, how can this ‘energy’ you expect to preserve the ‘medicinal properties’ of drug substances? Do you know ‘medicinal properties’ of drug substances are related with the structure and properties at molecular level?

When matter is converted to energy, that energy will be same, whether you make it from sulphur, nux vomica or calcarea. Once you break the inter-atomic bonds within molecules, the atoms cannto preserve the properties of molecules from where they came from. An oxygen atom will have the properties of oxygen atom only, whether it come from nux, water or any other molecule. When you divide the atoms further into subatomic particles, protons and electrons will be same, irrespective of atoms they came from. If you further divide atoms to ‘release’ energy, the energy so produced will not differ according to the atoms it originated. With this primary scientific knowledge, how could yo imagine the ‘drug energy’ of complex substance to be preserved in the ‘energy’ produced by ‘unpacking’ of matter? Please remember, the medicinal property is decided by the molecular structure and chemical properties of drug substances, not by the universal ‘atomic energy’.

You know, water contains hydrogen and oxygen atoms. But the properties of water is not exhibited by hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen coming from water or any other source will have same properties. If hydrogen is divided into protons and electrons, they will not show any property of hydrogen. Protons coming from division of any atom will be similar in properties. If we further split these subatomic particles into ‘energy’, how can you expect that energy to show the properties of water?

Medicinal properties of substances are decided by their molecular level structure an chemical properties. That cannot be preserved in the ‘energy’ generated by division of that matter into subatomic level. This is primary scientific knowledge, even any high school student knows. But homeopaths prefer to forget all science they learned, in their eagerness to justify the unscientific theories they learned in the name of homeopathy. This is a very disappointing situation

For example, Atropine is a chemical compound with formula C17H23NO3 . It acts upon biological molecules and produce various molecular errors, expressed through certain groups of symptoms. But, if we divide that atropine into carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen, they will have properties entirely different from atropine. That is why i say, medicinal properties of drugs are determined by the structure and properties of molecules, not the ‘energy’ packed in them

During discussions on a homeopathic group regarding ‘active principles’ of potentized drugs, a homeopath posted: “The ingredient in a remedy is electromagnetic energy. In trituration, we make nano-particles, which means electrons are rubbed off the molecule. Those electrons are negatively charged and also charge the lactose. The lactose dissolves in water, and so the water get charged. Succussion is the amplification of that electromagnetic charge.”

When you say the electrons getting ‘rubbed off’ from the drug molecules, and ‘charge’ the lactose, and while the lactose dissolve in water the ‘water get charged’, and this ‘charge’ of water is the ‘ingredient’ of potentized medicine, acting as ‘electro-magnetic energy’, and ‘succussion’ is ‘amplification’ of that ‘charge’, a lot of questions will have to be answered.

1. How the simple ‘electrons’ ‘rubbed off’ from the ‘drug molecules’ carry the properties of complex drug molecules and transfer these properties to the lactose? According to your theory, only ‘electrons’ ‘rubbed off’ involve in activating the ‘lactose’. If so, ‘drug molecules’ have no role in this ‘charging’ process. Do you think ‘electrons’ ‘rubbed off’ from a complex molecule can represent the whole molecule, which contains different types of atoms?

2. Let us accept your theory of lactose getting charged by the ‘electrons’ ‘rubbed off’ from the drug molecules. ‘getting charged’ means, the energy level of lactose molecules are raised to a higher level. According to quantum understanding, any atom or molecules raised to a higher level would return to its ground energy state in a short time by radiating energy, once the ‘process of charging’ is stooped. If so, the lactose charged by trituration will lose its ‘energy’ it is kept for some time. Do you think triturated drugs will lose its medicinal properties if kept for some time?

3. When you say the ‘lactose’ dissolve in water and water also get charged, have you got any idea about the ‘nano-particles’ of drugs created during trituration? What would be its role, if water is getting charged by the ‘charged lactose’?

4. Now, coming to the ‘amplification’ of charges during succussion. How this amplification happens, and how can this amplification increase the medical properties?

5. What is according to you the mechanism by which this ‘charged water’ interfere in the biological process? If it is through ‘electromagnetic radiation’, is it necessary that the ‘charged water’ should be introduced into the body for therapeutic action? Why not this ‘electromagnetic radiation’ act up on the patient when kept nearby?

6. ‘Charged water’ also would return to ground level energy state by discharging ‘electromagnetic radiation’. That means, when potentized medicine would lose its medicinal properties by dissipating its extra energy when kept for some time. Do you agree?

7. When we keep two potentized medicines nearby in our pharmacy, both will be constantly discharging ‘electromagnetic radiation’. Would there be a chance for interacting of these ‘radiations? What if one drug absorbs the radiation coming from other? Or, do you think this EMR will work only when the medicine is inside the body of the patient?

8. Do you think the ‘electrons’ rubbed of during trituration and ‘charging the lactose and then water, can emit EMRs specific to those drugs? Remember, even a single drug contains diverse types of complex molecules. Do you say these electrons can impart the ‘charged water’ the ‘energy’ to emit NUX EMRs, SULPH EMRs and the like? By what mechanism?”

Proponents of ‘bio-magnetic theory of homeopathy’ say that the “key’ to how the homeopathic remedy is able to conduct its medicinal power to the living organism is: “just as nerves conduct feelings, so the biological organism’s complex bioelectric system reacts electromagnetically to exogenous entities. One magnetic field is perturbed by another, and the H bond net produces a unique bio-magnetic field that acts on the electro-immune system”.

But this theory does not agree with the molecular explanations provided by modern biochemistry regarding the mechanism of pathology and therapeutics or understandings of modern life sciences.

The ‘bio-magnetic’ theory of ‘healing’ is already in vogue among the propagandists of ‘hair transmission’, ‘photo transmission’, ‘radionics’, ‘dowsing’ and such pseudoscientific practices in the name of homeopathy. They also talk about theories like ‘biological organism’s complex bioelectric system’, ‘bio-magnetic field that acts on the electro-immune system’, ‘one magnetic field is perturbed by another’ and such things. If we agree to this theory, it would ultimately lead to the ratification of all ‘occult’ practices done under the label of homeopathy. That would not by any way help in taking homeopathy into mainstream science and scientific medical science.

There are also some ‘prominent’ modern theoreticians who propagate the concept that “homeopathy remedy makes use of a spiritual remedy, not a material one, and that its influences are transmitted beyond the physical limits of the material organism”.

How can we have a scientific dialogue with such people who practice homeopathy as ‘spiritual remedy’, ‘not material one’, ‘transmitted beyond the limits of material organism?

If homeopathy is a ‘spiritual remedy’, why should we keep it in corked bottles? How can we prevent that ‘spiritual remedy’, which is not ‘material one’ from escaping from the bottles? If it is not acting on ‘tongue or point of entry’, why should we apply that ‘spiritual remedy’ on our tongue? It it is “transmitted beyond material organism”, why should the patient take the drug into his ‘material organism? What is this ‘electro-immune system they talk about, that modern science could not so far recognize? Immune system acts through molecular interactions, not ‘electromagnetically’.  More over, they forget that ‘electro-magnetic forces’ are not ‘spiritual’ forces, but physical forces. These types of ‘spiritual electromagnetic’ explanations never help in making homeopathy a scientific medical system.

These ‘spiritual homeopaths’ always mix up homeopathy with theology and religion, dragging theism and atheism into discussions to create controversies.

One international promoter of ‘spiritual homeopathy’ even declared that “homeopathy is a religious sacrament”! He wrote that “homeopathic remedy, lodged in the pilules, is a product of the mind, the science is merely mummery”. According to him,  “radiant forces of the homeopathic remedy do indeed “escape” from the bottle, just as light “escapes” from the bulb, and some people can sometimes consciously feel those forces, and they can be detected outside the bottle”!

How can I discuss science of homeopathy with people saying “experienced practitioner can transmit the remedy spiritually”?

Practitioners of hair transmissions, photo-taransmission, dowsing, radionics and such other street occults in homeopathy would of course admire your wisdom for your “scientific” and “electromagnetic” theories, which culminates in your wonderful statement “most practiced of those found that it could be transmitted without word or action, even at great distance”! If ‘drug energy’ can be transmitted to me from long distances through a hair, nail, blood or other tissues removed from my body, and even photographs, how can I dare to throw away my hair in a garbage pit? What if somebody unknowingly deposits some toxic substances on it? How can I entrust my blood sample to a clinical lab, without fearing that they can do some mischief to me by putting some harmful medicines in my blood sample? I think I have to be very cautious to preserve my cut hair and nail without reaching the hands of my enemies!

A few months back, a lady homeopath from US came and posted an article on my page, explaining her dispensing methods. After exhaustive case taking and repertorization she selects a similimum. Then she writes the name of drug on a piece of paper and places on a table. Then she would place a glass of water on that paper and keep it there for 30 minutes to ‘potentize’ the water with medicinal energy. Then she would ask the patient to take this ‘energized’ water in teaspoon doses. She was practicing this ‘method’ for last 5 years with ‘miraculous results”! I asked her in which language I should write on the paper, and whether abbreviation is enough. She got annoyed and started educating me regarding ‘fringe science’, ‘ultra-science’ and ‘energy medicine’. She used all sorts of scientific terms from quantum science to explain her theory, and told a lot about ‘unscientificness’ of modern science. It ended in a bitter encounter of words, and she quit cursing me!

We know a lot of ‘homeopaths’ use ‘radionics machines’ to select similimum and potencies in their clinical practice. The concept behind radionics originated in the early 1900s with Albert Abrams (1864–1924), who became a millionaire by leasing radionic machines which he designed himself. Radionics also is the use of blood, hair, a signature, or other substances unique to the person as a focus to supposedly heal a patient from afar. In one form of radionics popularised by Abrams, some blood on a bit of filter paper is attached to a device Abrams called a dynamizer, which is attached by wires to a string of other devices and then to the forehead of a healthy volunteer, facing west in a dim light. By tapping on on his abdomen and searching for areas of “dullness”, disease in the donor of the blood is diagnosed by proxy. Handwriting analysis is also used to diagnose disease under this scheme. Having done this, the practitioner may use a special device known as an oscilloclast or any of a range of other devices to broadcast vibrations at the patient in order to attempt to heal them.

Albert Abrams claimed to detect such frequencies and/or cure people by matching their frequencies, and claimed them sensitive enough that he could tell someone’s religion by looking at a drop of blood. He developed thirteen devices and became a millionaire leasing his devices, and the American Medical Association described him as the “dean of gadget quacks,” and his devices were definitively proven useless by an independent investigation commissioned by Scientific American in 1924. Indeed, Abrams’ black boxes had no purpose of their own, being merely obfuscated collections of wires and electronic parts.

Radionics devices contradict principles of biology and physics, and no scientifically plausible mechanism of function is posited. In this sense, they can be described as magical in operation. No plausible biophysical basis for the “putative energy fields” has been proposed, and neither the fields themselves nor their purported therapeutic effects have been convincingly demonstrated.

No radionic device has been found efficacious in the diagnosis or treatment of any disease.

Similar to ‘hair transmissionists’, proponents of radionics also uses terms such as “frequency”, “energy”, and “vibrations’ not in its standard meaning but to describe an imputed energy type, which does not correspond to any property of energy in the scientific sense. Radionics is not based on any scientific evidence, and contradicts the principles of physics and biology and as a result it has been classed as pseudoscience and quackery by men of scientific mind set all over the world.

If any body want to ‘practice’ occult healing techniques, it is their choice. But when they link those unscientific practices with homeopathy, and conduct ‘courses’ and seminars for attracting homeopaths into it, it is a different matter. Homeopathy is a system of therapeutics. Any ‘therapeutic’ system uses one or other drug substance into the body of the patient. Nobody can practice ‘drug transmission’ in the name of homeopathy. We should be aware of the harm these people are doing to our attempts to make homeopathy accepted as part of modern scientific medical practice. Adding something that goes completely against accepted scientific knowledge system into homeopathy will create a lot of difficulties to the homeopathic profession who try it it to establish as a scientific therapeutics. These theoreticians are making homeopathy a subject of constant mockery before the scientific community. I feel very much disgusted to see even homeopaths with ‘credentials’ being part of these unscientific practices.

Until a scientific revolution happens in homeopathy, it will be a fertile land for all sorts of ‘system builders’, ‘energy healers’, ‘occult practitioners’, and all those who make their own ‘brands’,’theories’, ‘laws’, ‘charts’, ‘principles’ and ‘methods’. They will continue to conduct seminars, sell ‘theoretical’ books, amass money and misguide the budding young generation of homeopaths into total darkness and chaos. They will build groups of ‘dedicated followers’ and continue to threaten anybody who raises any questions. Homeopathy will remain a subject of ever-lasting mockery before the scientific community.

Most disappointing part of the story is that all those people promoting these unscientific streams of homeopathy are men of great ‘credentials’, recognitions’ and ‘authorities’. That UK-based ‘international’ homeopath (Kaviraj) who claims to make excellent ‘results’ even in ‘incurable’ cases by using ‘medicines’ in the eyes of photographs of patients downloaded from computer around the world is also a man of ‘great credentials’. Same with ‘masters’ of ‘hair transmission’ method in India- Dr Sahani heads many academic bodies overseeing homeopathic education in Indian homeopathic colleges! That man who sent ‘mp3 files of drugs’ toHaitialso is a revered name in international homeopathy (Peter Chappel)). ‘Five-cups -spoon’ method also is contributed by a famous Indian ‘Master’ homeopath. We cannot question them, because they are men of great credentials and positions. They are placed beyond any questioning!

Until and unless we succeed in understanding the exact active principles of homeopathic drugs, and the real mechanism of their therapeutic action, this will go on. And people will ‘follow’ the ‘foolishness’ of ‘masters’ having ‘credentials’ and ‘positions’.

All those ‘masters’ I referred above conducts seminars, write books, and are ‘followed’ by thousands of homeopaths. I was warned by such ‘followers’ not to touch their ‘masters’ which they say are sleeping lions. And I am warned that I will have no ‘place to run’ if I disturb them. But I have decided to listen only to ‘what is said’, ignoring ‘who said it’, and I believe, only that way we can make homeopathy a scientific medical system.

If anybody claims “took the mp3 files of drugs and gave the vibration of the remedy, it worked”! why should we hesitate to call them ‘unscientific’? I don’t think there is anything to ‘investigate’ in it. If a ‘homeopath’ claims he is treating ‘patients all over the world sitting in UK’, sending ‘medicinal energy’ by applying drugs in the eyes of photographs downloaded from computer, what investigation you are talking about to be conducted to call him a ‘fraud’? Same with ‘hair transmission’, dowsing’, ‘radionics’ and such things, which are beyond any doubt unscientific, as far as i am concerned. Should we swallow all these garbage to ‘prove’ that we are not prejudiced?

There is a saying in malayalam: “Even on the milk-filled udder of cow, mosquitoes relishes only blood”. There are many scientific things in ORGANON that is useful; but these people are looking for whatever unscientific things hahnemann talked about, because that only satisfies their appetite! I fear these people may argue ‘mesmerism’ is a ‘fundamental law’ of homeopathy, and those who do not believe and practice mesmerism are not real homeopaths, since hahnemann have mentioned about mesmerism in organon. And Organon is our ‘bible’!

Regarding Hahnemann’s mentioning of “mesmrism” in one of the last paragraphs of organon, it was not part his “updating the system”, and he never related with homeopathy. He mentioned about mesmerism as part of his discussions regarding “additional measures” that can be used “along” with homeopathy, such as fomentation, galvanism, mineral baths, massage, and such things. In aphorism he clearly states that “mesmerism” “differs so much in its nature from all other therapeutic agents”. That shows that hahnemann never considered “mesmerism” as part of homeopathy, which is a therapeutic system. Hahnemann happened to support ‘mesmerism’ due to his primtive state of scientific knowledge available to him at that time. Not only mesmerism, there a lot of “unscientific” observations made by hahnemann. A scientifi minded modern man can differentiate what is ‘scientific’ and what is ‘unscientific’ in hahnemann.

Anybody has the right to “explore possibilities” of “transmission of homeo drug energy from a distance”. But until your concept is proved using “scientific methods” such “exploring” has to be done on “experimental basis”, and not as a “regular practice”. It is obviously wrong, unethical and illegal to conduct seminars and course to propagate such a “system” until it is scientifically verified by an authentic scientific body, especially claiming it is part of homeopathy. According to my scientific knowledge and rational thinking, I need not wait for any experiments to call these “photo transmissions” and “drug transmissions” as unscientific absurdity.

Some ‘modern masters’ pretend that homeopathy will become a ‘medical science’ by merely sprinkling some scientific and ultra-scientific terms such as ‘genetic’, ‘quantum’, ‘embryonic’, ‘particles’, ‘vibrations’ ‘resonance’, ‘energy field’, ‘teleportation’, ‘radiations’, ‘frequency’, ‘string’ and the like here and there in their articles and lectures.

Same time they would talk about ‘unscientificness’ and ‘limitations’ of modern science.

Next moment they would explain homeopathy in terms of ‘vital force’, ‘dynamic energy’, ‘mind remedy’, ‘spiritual remedies’, ‘hair transmissions’, ‘photo-transmissions’, ‘radionics’, and such other absurd occult practices. These people make homeopathy a subject of unending laughter and mockery before the scientific community.

Every thing hahnemann said cannot be ‘scientific’. He said a lot of ‘scientific’ and ‘unscientific’ things. Remember, he was talking 200 years ago!. We should be capable of identifying what is ‘scientific’ and what is ‘unscientific’ in what hahnemann said

Now, we have enough scientific tools to verify all these things, and we should utilize them judiciously. I would never say homeopathy as such is scientific. There are a lot of unscientific garbage in it. In my opinion, ‘similia similibus curentur’ reflects an ‘objective’ reality interpreted and explained by hahnemann ‘subjectively’ in a very unscientific way. Same way, ‘potentization’ also is an ‘objective phenomenon interpreted unscientifically. I am asking to discard all those unscientific things from homeopathy, and take its scientific kernel forward.

If all these types of occult practice is being claimed to be homeopathy, real homeopaths should feel ashamed. How can we face the scientific community and talk about scientific explanation of homeopathy, especially when these ‘spiritual homeopaths’ are the ‘representative faces’ of homeopathy before the international community?

The ‘experiences’ these people vouch as ‘miracles of drug transmission through hair and photographs’ is nothing new to us. The are a lot of black magicians doing wonderful occult black magics in Indian villages, especially tribal areas, who uses hair, blood, nails, foot prints, and even ‘shadows’ of enemies to ‘send evil forces’ to harm them. Only difference is that our theoreticians claim to send ‘medicinal forces’ of potentized homeopathic drugs instead of ‘evil forces’. All those ancient occult practices existed here in the name of ‘experience the same way as present day occult homeopaths thrive. They also do good ‘business’ even now, and could produce many ‘genuine’ witnesses to authenticate their claims.

These people are not interested in real scientific understanding of homeopathy. All of them are marketing their own ‘theories’ and ‘methods’, and have built up a closed community of ardent followers around them. They fear any new wave of scientific understanding in homeopathy would sweep away their sand hills of fame and fortunes. That is why they are desperately fighting tooth and nail to resist any attempts of real scientific awareness.

By ‘scientific homeopathy’, I mean an open system of theory and practice of Homeopathy that fits to our existing scientific knowledge system, which could be verified with available scientific methods and tools, with the involvement of scientific community. At least, we have to make it a theory and practice that do not go against fundamental principles of modern science.

By ‘scientific homeopathy’, I mean a theory and practice of homeopathy that fits into the scientific paradigms of modern biochemistry, molecular biology and life sciences.

By ‘scientific homeopathy’, I mean a theory and practice of homeopathy that would agree with the scientific knowledge provided by modern physiology, pathology and therapeutics.

By scientific homeopathy’, I mean an understanding of homeopathic drugs that can be explained using the language and concepts of modern material sciences, medical science and pharmacology.

Classical concepts of ‘miasms’ and methods of ‘miasmatic analysis’ for selecting ‘anti-miasmatic’ drugs will undergo drastic changes when we accept the definition of homeopathy as ‘Molecular Imprints Therapeutics’. According to new approach, hahnemann’s concept of miasms is redefined as chronic disease dispositions due to ‘off-target’ molecular inhibitions caused by antibodies formed against ‘alien’ proteins including infectious agents entering the organism. Most of these antibodies exist life-long inside the organism, causing diverse types of chronic diseases which include so-called auto-immune diseases also. To combat these chronic effects of anti-bodies, specific nosodes and other ‘anti-miasmatic’ remedies containing ‘molecular imprints’ that could de-activate these antibodies will have to be used. Anti-miasmatic ‘molecular imprints’ will have to be selected on the basis of infectious diseases, vaccinations and anaphylactic histories. Properly selected specific anti-miasmatic drugs will have to be used along with symptomatically selected drugs, especially in ‘total cure’ prescriptions.

Theoretically, ‘totality of symptoms’ include symptoms of ‘miasms’ also. I think ‘symptoms’ need not be the ‘only’ factor to considered if we have an exact understanding of ‘molecular level pathology’. Symptoms are only ‘one of the tools’ for identifying pathological molecular errors and selecting remedial agents’. When we know the ‘causative’ factors. we can prescribe without considering symptoms. Locating the ‘molecular errors’ is the primary concern, whatever be the tools we utilize for that.Theoretically, ‘totality of symptoms’ include symptoms of ‘miasms’ also. I think ‘symptoms’ need not be the ‘only’ factor to considered if we have an exact understanding of ‘molecular level pathology’. Symptoms are only ‘one of the tools’ for identifying pathological molecular errors and selecting remedial agents’. When we know the ‘causative’ factors. we can prescribe without considering symptoms. Locating the ‘molecular errors’ is the primary concern, whatever be the tools we utilize for that.

Materia medica of nosodes are much imperfect, and repertories do not represent them in due importance. Due to this limitation, we never get nosodes as similimum through symptomatic repertorization.

Not only past ‘illness’, we should also consider history of vaccinations and ‘allergies’, when we define miasms as antibodies against ‘alien proteins’.

So called ‘allergies’ have to be considered from miasmatic point of view. Allergic sensitizations happen due to the interaction of immune system with ‘allergens’ which are in most cases alien proteins. Potentized allergens would contain molecular imprints of these alien proteins, and hence should be considered as nosodes.

Allergy is actually the reaction of organism towards an ‘alien’ protein entering the organism. Antibodies are formed as a mechanism for trapping, marking and destructing these alien proteins, which are harmful to the system as they are proteins that do not match to the ‘genetic blueprint’ of the organism. As such, we can say, allergy is the reaction of organism towards proteins that do not match to its own genetic blueprint. That is why they become ‘aliens’. Even ‘egg albumin’, ‘saliva’ or ‘serum’ of an animal belonging to another species become deadly poisons due to the mismatch of genetic blueprint and protein molecules.

You can see, the MIT approach makes the concept of ‘miasms’ much broader than classical approach. Instead of three miasms originating from three major infectious diseases that was widely prevalent during hahnemann’s time, now we can see all ‘chronic disease’ dispositions originating from antibodies formed against diverse types of ‘alien’ proteins. This approach help us to perceive so-called ‘auto-immune’ diseases from a new angle. It is known that many ‘auto-immune’ diseases such as psoriasis, vitiligo and chrohn’s disease actually begins after some infections or allergic sensitizations, which shows the currently accepted ‘auto immunity’ theory will have to be re examined. In my opinion, so-called ‘auto-immune’ diseases are also caused by off-target molecular inhibitions created by antibodies formed against alien proteins. In other words, auto-immune diseases are also ‘mismatic’ in origin, and can be treated with appropriate nosodes.

Obviously, re-evaluation of the concept of ‘auto-immune diseases’ in modern medical science is a very important implication of MIT definition of homeopathy.

When I posted an opinion poll to know how homeopaths think about the effects of certain physical influences such as exposure to sunlight, ionizing radiations etc on the medicinal properties of potentized drugs, I was shocked to note that we have no any idea regarding even such preliminary facts about our therapeutic tools. Everybody opines according to his whims and fancies. It is very much disappointing to know that homeopathic community has not even ‘researched’ on these primary questions. Everybody talk about ‘big research’ only. We know a lot about organon, miasms, similimum, vital force and such ‘big’ things, but know very little about ‘small’ things. It is really pathetic.

I would request scientific-minded professors of homeopathic medical colleges to guide their PG students to take up some research projects for answering some questions, which are very primary steps in the scientific understanding of our drugs.

Questions to be researched are: What are the effects of following influences on medicinal properties of homeopathic drugs potentized above 12c? 

1. Exposure to direct sunlight

2. Exposure to strong artificial light including fluorescent lights

3. High temperature

4. Refrigeration

5. Ionizing radiations

6. Exposure to strong magnetic fields

7. Exposing to perfumes, volatile oils, strong odors

8. Keeping near computers-mobile phones-electronic gadgets

9. Exposing to electric currents

10. Nearness of mobile towers

11. Violent shaking

Projects can be undertaken for comparative study of potentized drugs and control solutions(water-ethyl alcohol mixture) regarding following physical parameters:

1. Evaporation rates

2. Freezing points

3. Boiling points

4. Browninan motions

5. Viscosity and flow rates

6. Solvent properties

7. Refraction of light

8. Absorption of light

9. Transmission rates of sound

Outcomes of all these studies will be helpful in resolving the fundamental question- ‘what is the exact process involved in potentization”?

A word of caution: Never use commercial samples of potentized drugs for research studies. They are not so much reliable. We should prepare our own samples under strictly monitored conditions to ensure genuine potencies. Never use so-called ‘back potencies’ supplied by commercial manufacturers. We should start potentization from the crude samples themselves.

I am publishing the full text of a Facebook Discussion that happened between John Benneth and myself over science of homeopathy.  From the bitter experience of this encounter, I decided I would here after keep away from discussing those pseudo scientific theories destroying the scientific credentials of homeopathy such as ‘vibration theory’, ‘bio-magnetism’,’wave theory’, ‘frequencies’, ‘resonance theory’, ‘energy medicine’ and the like. These theories are propagated by those who practice occults in the label of homeopathy, such as hair transmission, telephone transmission, photo transmission, mp3 file transmission, radionics, dowsing, spiritual homeopathy etc. I am not at all interested in discussing these topics, as I am sure I cannot convince these ‘theoreticians’, or they cannot convince me. Ultimately it may lead into futile arguments and personal bitterness. My position is clear. I consider all these theories as ‘unscientific’, which harm the interests of homeopathy by providing arms and fuels to ‘anti-homeopathic skeptics. Without abandoning these ‘ultra-science’ and ‘fringe-science’ theories, we cannot make homeopathy a medical science. We have to explain homeopathy in terms of modern science, in a way fitting to scientific paradigms, in a way understandable and acceptable to scientific community. We have to ‘prove’ our theories and concepts according to scientific methods.

During initial stages of this conversation, you can see John Benneth was all praise for me and my ‘structural explanation’ of homeopathy. He said: “given the excellence of Dr. Nambiar’s presentation, I am very interested to see that it gets due attention, as the structural theory is the key to understanding the homeopathic mechanism”. He said “it is my opinion that you are to be complimented for you’re explanation of the physical aspects of this phenomenon”. But he turned completely hostile to me once I made it clear that my explanations have nothing to do with the ‘energy medicine’ and ‘spiritual medicine’ concepts he was trying to propagate under the camouflage of ‘scientific homeopathy.

Please note his remark: “Just because homeopathy is a religious sacrament is not reason to not scientifically study the structure of the remedy, and similarity, just because we understand the remedy scientifically is not a reason to dismiss its spiritual aspects.”  For him, ‘homeopathy is a religious sacrament’, and its scientific understanding will not “dismiss its spiritual aspects”.

John Benneth and people like him talk about ‘clathrates’, ‘intermolecular forces’, ‘supra-molecular clusters’, ‘physico-chemical structures’ ‘piezo-electricity’, ‘hydrogen bonded networks’,  and such seemingly scientific concepts only to ‘prove’ that all these things are “concordant with Hahnemann’s dynamis theory”! They merely hope to utilize these scientific terms to make their theory of ‘spiritual homeopathy’ appear scientific.

John Benneth says:

1. “Homeopathy remedy makes use of a spiritual remedy, not a material one”.

2. “Its influences are transmitted beyond the physical limits of the material organism.”

3. “The remedy, lodged in the pilule, is a product of mind”!

4. “Its radiant forces escape from the bottle, just as light escapes from the bulb, and some people can sometimes consciously feel those forces, and they can be detected outside the bottle while they are in the bottle!”

5. “The experienced practitioner can transmit the remedy spiritually”!

6. “Science is merely mummery”!

HOPE YOU GOT AN OVER-ALL IDEA ABOUT THE ‘SCIENCE OF SPIRITUAL HOMEOPATHY’ AND ‘ENERGY MEDICINE’ PROPAGATED BY JOHN BENNETH!

 Please listen the text of actual conversation:

Chandran Nambiar K C:

Key-Lock mechanism involved in bio-molecular interactions is well explained in Biochemistry. Supra-molecular properties of water such as hydrogen bonding, supra-molecular networks, clathrate formation, polymer-like behavior etc. are studied by physical scientists. Molecular Imprinted Polymers is a well-developed technology. Therapeutic properties of potentized drugs and their spectroscopic studies are already available. If we corroborate all these available scientific information logically, you will see that there remains very little to be ‘proved’ in the scientific explanation of ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ and ‘Potentization’ on the basis of ‘molecular imprinting’ and modern biochemistry. It is only a matter of collecting, understanding and logical synthesizing scientific information available from various resources.

 John Benneth:

  The structural explanation for homeopathy is really nothing new. If we track back the history of clathrate hydrates, it will be seen that hydrates were first noted exactly 200 years ago (1811) by Sir Humphry Davy and Michael Farraday. Mendeleev & 19th cent. French scientists noted them during the 19th century, and by 1911 van der Waals rec’d the Noel prize for his explantion of intermolecular forces. Powell named supramolecular structures in water “clathrates” in the 1940’s and Barnard first suggested hydrogen bonding to explain the NMR analysis of high potencies in the ’60s (Smith and Boericke at Hahnemann in Philadelphia). The point in outlining this is that the physico-chemical explanation has been right under our noses for as long as homeopathy has been around, and is concordant with Hahnemann’s dynamis theory. As I may have already stated, I presented this history and the hydrogen bond theory at Hahnemann College (London, Sept.) & the Cavendish at Cambridge in October of last year, and with all previous explanations, such as Barnard’s, it has been ignored for the most part. So given the excellence of Dr. Nambiar’s presentation, I am very interested to see that it gets due attention, as the structural theory is the key to understanding the homeopathic mechanism. I suggest the homeopathic community fund collaboration for a book on the subject. Classical science (Chaplin) has now admitted that the hydrogen bonded network can indeed store and transmit information concerning solutes. This is a huge admission for homeopathy. We must consolidate this data for the advancement of medicine. There are only two pieces left of the puzzle, the first being how it is that the EM signal is generated, (which I believe is piezo electricity), and second, how it triggers biochemical action, which of course is biomagnetic . . once again, intermolecular forces, which describes telepathy and spirtual healing. Voila!

Chandran Nambiar K C:

  ‎@John Benneth : Sir, why cant we try to explain this ‘puzzle’ in terms of ‘molecular imprinting’? Why should we go for ‘biomagnetc’ or electromagnetic explanations, and drag ‘telepathy and spirtual healing’ into this topic? Please think in terms of ‘molecular imprints’ which are tree-dimensional negative imprints formed in water/alcohol matrix, which can act on pathogenic molecules by complimentary configurations. This ‘molecular imprint’ concept seems to be more fitting to the ‘key-lock’ mechanism involved in biomolecular interactions. I think it is very simple, logical and scientific explanation, fitting well to the existing explanations of pathology and therapeutics accepted by modern science. Kindly think that way, updating yourself on the modern technology of ‘molecular imprinting in polymers’.

Chandran Nambiar K C:

  ‎’Molecular imprints’ of drug molecules can act as artificial ‘binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules having complementary configuration, just as a lock and key binds each other. If we understand this mechanism, which is well accepted in biochemistry, we need not have to worry about “how it is that the EM signal is generated, (which I believe is piezo electricity), and second, how it triggers biochemical action”.

Chandran Nambiar K C:

  If we could perceive potentization as a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, which involves the preparation of three dimensional ‘imprints’ of drug molecules, which can act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules having configurational similarity to drug molecules used for imprinting, everything will be very simple to understand and explain.

John Benneth:

  No problem. I’m not here to rewrite the literature and I’m not contradicting what you are asserting for a structural model, Dr. Nambiar, and it is not my intention to argue with you, and yes, we can set the “spiritual” issues aside for a moment, for they are only another way of referring to the action of intermolecular forces, which have already been elaborated on by the material sciences. Last night I had a long discussion with Prof. Martin Chaplin on the subject of the structural aspects of this problem, and I have yet to see any fundamental disagreement in the literature regarding hydrogen bond structure in liquid aqueous solutions, and once again, it is my opinion that you are to be complimented for you’re explanation of the physical aspects ofthis phenom. What is missing so far regarding the supramolecular aspects (Montagnier, Demangeat, Anagnostatos, Nambiar, Lessel) is how the electromagneitc signal is produced, and I submit to you it is akin to the piezo electric effect, the pressures, suggested by Montagnier, coming from the Schumann resonance, the basic bakground radiation. What we need is the input of someone who understands how piezo electircity is produced to verify the piezo electic theory for homeopathic remedies. The other thing that is missing is how the hydrogen bond network influences biological action, and I believe that this is also easily answered. Linus Pauling suggested that the narcotic effect of clathrates are what give alohol its narcotic effect. Add that piece of information (how clathrates create a narotic effect) to Chaplin’s assertion that water can indeed store and transmit information through its hydrogen bonded network . . and we have a complete proposition of how the homeoapthic remedy is able to conduct its medicinal power to the living organism. Just as nerves conduct feelings, so the biologial organism’s complex bioelectric system reacts electromagnetically to exogenic entities. One magnetic field is perturbed by another, and the H bond net produces a unique biomagnetic field that acts on the electro-immune system. That is the key.

Chandran Nambiar K C:

  ‎@John Benneth : Thank you sir. No question of arguing. This is healthy discussion, Which I was looking forward for a long time. I cannot understand why you ignore my repeated suggestions to discuss regarding ‘molecular imprints’ concept regarding “how the hydrogen bond network influences biological action”. I understand that even though we agree up on the ‘structural aspect’ of potentized drugs, you disagree with me regarding ‘molecular imprint’ concept.

If we could perceive potentization as a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, which involves the preparation of three dimensional ‘imprints’ of drug molecules, which can act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules having configurational similarity to drug molecules used for imprinting, everything will be very simple to understand and explain.

You are trying to discuss “how the electromagneitc signal is produced”, “the basic bakground radiation”, “input of someone who understands how piezo electircity is produced to verify the piezo electic theory for homeopathic remedies” and such theories for a “proposition of how the homeoapthic remedy is able to conduct its medicinal power to the living organism”.

According to your theory, the “key’ how the homeoapthic remedy is able to conduct its medicinal power to the living organism is: “Just as nerves conduct feelings, so the biologial organism’s complex bioelectric system reacts electromagnetically to exogenic entities. One magnetic field is perturbed by another, and the H bond net produces a unique biomagnetic field that acts on the electro-immune system”.

It is clear that our perceptions differ, at least on the mechanism of “how the homeoapthic remedy is able to conduct its medicinal power to the living organism”.

Chandran Nambiar K C:

  One again I request you to consider the concept of “molecular imprints” contained in potentized drugs acting as “artificial binding sites” for the pathogenic molecules and removing the molecular inhibitions in biochemic pathways, as the mechanism of therapeutic action of potentized drugs. Such a concept will be more fitting to the molecular explanation of pathology and therapeutics developed by modern science.

Chandran Nambiar K C:

 I disagree with your theory that “the biologial organism’s complex bioelectric system reacts electromagnetically to exogenic entities”, and “one magnetic field is perturbed by another, and the H bond net produces a unique biomagnetic field that acts on the electro-immune system”. This theory do not agree with the molecular explanations provided by modern biochemistry regarding the mechanism of pathology and therapeutics”.

Chandran Nambiar K C:

  The theory you are talking about is already in vogue among the propagandists of ‘hair transmission’, ‘photo transmission’, ‘radionics’, ‘dowsing’ and such pseudoscientific practices in the name of homeopathy. They also talk about theories like ‘biologial organism’s complex bioelectric system’, ‘biomagnetic field that acts on the electro-immune system’, ‘one magnetic field is perturbed by another’ and such things. If we agree to your theory, it would ultimately lead to the ratification of all ‘occult’ practices done under the label of homeopathy. That would not by any way help in taking homeopathy into mainstream science and scientific medical science.

John Benneth:

  It’s of little consequence to me what allopaths and their hostages think of me for suggesting something anyone can see to be true. The infinitessimal dose does not act on the tongue or point of entry, unless it is a remedy that specifically acts on the tongue or point of entry. How do you explain that with your “artificial binding site” theory, without invoking the entire electro-immune system? How do you explain the dramatic reaction by some people to a remedy and no reaction by others, without eplaining it in electromagnetic terms. And so it remains my contention the homeoapthy remedymakes use of a spriitual remedy, not a material one, and that its influences are transmitted beyond the physical limits of the material organism.

Chandran Nambiar K C:

  ‎@John Benneth : Sir, it is clear that we differ much regarding our perceptions of homeopathy.

You believe “homeopathy remedy makes use of a spiritual remedy, not a material one, and that its influences are transmitted beyond the physical limits of the material organism”

How can we have a scientific dialogue on your concepts of homeopathy as a “spiritual remedy”, “not material one”, “trasmitted beyond the limits of material organism”?

I am not an allopath, nor a “hostage of allopaths”. I try to see everything in the light of modern science, and verify every claims and theories using scientific methods. I cannot compromise with theories that are evidently unscientific or pseudoscientific.

Chandran Nambiar K C:

  If homeopathy is a ‘spiritual remedy’, why should we keep it in corked bottles”. How can we prevent that ‘spiritual remedy’, which is not ‘material one’ from escaping from the bottles? If it is not acting on ‘tongue or point of entry’, why should we apply that ‘spiritual remedy’ on our tongue? It it is “transmitted beyond material organism”, why should the patient take the drug into his “material organism”? What is this “electro-immune system” that modern science could not so far recognize? Immune system acts through molecular interactions, not ‘electromagnetically”. These types of “spiritual” explanations never help in making homeopathy a scientific medical system.

John Benneth:

  The intermolecular forces you are referring to here are indeed electromagentic, the provenance of the atom is nothing more than electricity. Only atheists believe that the influene of the atom ends at its materially detectable edge. The radiant forces of the homeoapthic remedy do indeed “escape” from the bottle, just as light “escapes” from the bulb, and some people can sometimes conciously feel those forces, and they can be detected outside the ottle whilethey are in the bottle. The eperienced practitioner can transmit the remedy spiritually. The remedy, lodged inthe pilule, is a prouct of the mind, the science is merely mummery. Hahnemann the master recognized that, and he reognized that similar forces could be transmitted from the hand of a Mesmerist, and the most practiced of those found that it could be transmitted without word or action, even at great distance. The real world does not cowtow to science, it is nothing more than a delusion that obseration must conform to theory. No, it is the job of science to explain these things to atheists, much like handing a rattle to a baby. Your work is in concordance with the historical, classical literature on the subject of how these spritiual forces affect the homeopathic remedy at the moleular level, and I commend you for its excellence in execution, but I have never said that it adds anything substantially new to what we already know. As Professor Rustum Roy pointed out, the literature is quite extensive on the subject, but few people have read it. Obviously you have, and you are a rarity, but to date I have not seen you make any reference to it. How do you know what you know? Now, what would be new is to explain how these aqueous polymers transmit their unique signals, and how these signals are biologically effective. Just because homeopathy is a religious sacrament is not reason to not scientifally study the structure of the remedy, and similarily, just because we understand the remedy scientically is not a reason to dismiss its spiritual aspects.

Chandran Nambiar K C:

  SIR, I JUST PREFER NOT TO ARGUE. Your last comment clearly shows there is no chance for hoping any converging point in between us. I am here to discuss science. EXCUSE ME, PLEASE.

Chandran Nambiar K C:

  Kindly read the topic I posted for discussion:

Key-Lock mechanism involved in bio-molecular interactions is well explained in Biochemistry. Supra-molecular properties of water such as hydrogen bonding, supra-molecular networks, clathrate formation, polymer-like behavior etc. are studied by physical scientists. Molecular Imprinted Polymers is a well-developed technology. Therapeutic properties of potentized drugs and their spectroscopic studies are already available. If we corroborate all these available scientific information logically, you will see that there remains very little to be ‘proved’ in the scientific explanation of ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ and ‘Potentization’ on the basis of ‘molecular imprinting’ and modern biochemistry. It is only a matter of collecting, understanding and logical synthesizing scientific information available from various resources.”

It is science. I am not interested in discussing ‘spirituality”, “fringe science” or “beyond science” theories as part of this discussion. I am not concerned about the “spiritual aspects” of homeopathic remedies. I donot consider homeopathy is a “religious sacrament”. We cannot convert this scientific discussion into a dialogue between “atheism and theism”. No real scientific-minded person would say “real world does not cowtow to science, it is nothing more than a delusion that obseration must conform to theory”. There is no meaning in arguing with a man saying “homeopathic remedy, lodged inthe pilule, is a prouct of the mind, the science is merely mummery”. I have no comment when somebody say “radiant forces of the homeoapthic remedy do indeed “escape” from the bottle, just as light “escapes” from the bulb, and some people can sometimes conciously feel those forces, and they can be detected outside the bottle”! How can I discuss “science of homeopathyy” when you say “experienced practitioner can transmit the remedy spiritually”?

Practitioners of hair transmissions, photo-taransmission, dowsing, radionics and such other street occults in homeopathy would of course admire your wisdom for your “scientific” and “electromagnetic” theories, which culminates in your wonderful statement “most practiced of those found that it could be transmitted without word or action, even at great distance”!

Sir, let us say GOODBYE at this point.

Reading this title, even my most optimistic homeopath friends would accuse me of making an over-exaggerated and far extended claim about homeopathy.  They would wonder how I dare to relate homeopathy with modern molecular medicine, which according to them are mutually incompatible and inimical. For scientific people it would be difficult even to imagine how a 250 year old and still unproved therapeutic system such as homeopathy could be claimed to be an advanced medical discipline. Homeopathy is considered by the scientific community as a nonsense theory based on unscientific philosophy of vitalism, where as the proponents of homeopathy still try to explain and market it as a ‘spiritualistic’ healing art.

In this peculiar intellectual context, I am aware it will be extremely difficult for both scientific community as well as homeopathic community to accept my claim that homeopathy is an ‘advanced branch of modern molecular medicine’. I will have to struggle much to present the logic behind my statement in a convincing way.

If anybody asks me to explain what is homeopathy, I would prefer to say it is MIT or Molecular Imprints Therapeutics. I think that reply would specifically define in minimum words my scientific meaning of ‘similia similibus curentur’, the fundamental therapeutic principle of homeopathy.

If I am asked to explain further, now I am confident enough to say it is a higher specialized branch of modern Molecular Medicine. It is based on the therapeutic principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’, which scientifically means “endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules that cause diseases by binding to the biological molecules can be entrapped and removed using molecular imprints of drug molecules which in molecular form can bind to the same biological molecules, utilizing the complementary configurational affinity between molecular imprints and pathogenic molecules”.

My claim of homeopathy as a specialized branch of modern molecular medicine evolves from my understanding of homeopathic potentization as a process of molecular imprinting. Conventionally, molecular imprinting is a technology of preparing three dimensional artificial binding sites for molecules in polymer matrixes, which are widely used in many biological assays, molecular separation protocols and many other laboratory applications. From studying the ‘polymer-like’ behavior of water in its ‘supra-molecular’ structural level, I am fully convinced that water, especially water-ethyl alcohol mixture can also be used as a medium for molecular imprinting similar to polymers, and the ‘molecular imprints’ thus produced can be safely used as therapeutic agents. They would act as selective artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules. In my opinion, this phenomenon of molecular imprinting is involved tin homeopathic potentization, and the active principles of potentized drugs are ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules.

Through this definition, potentization becomes a branch of modern drug designing technology, and homeopathy becomes branch of modern molecular medicine.

 Molecular medicine is the most advanced, most scientific and recently originated discipline in modern medical science. It is a broad field, where physical, chemical, biological and medical techniques are used to describe molecular structures and mechanisms, identify fundamental molecular and genetic errors of pathology, and to develop molecular interventions to correct those errors.

The molecular medicine perspective emphasizes cellular and molecular phenomena and interventions rather than the previous conceptual and observational focus on patients and their organs.

History of modern molecular medicine is very recent in origin. The groundwork for establishing the field of molecular medicine is considered to be laid in 1949, with a paper on “Sickle Cell Anemia, a Molecular Disease” published in Science magazine by Linus Pauling, Harvey Itano and others. In 1956, Roger J. Williams wrote Biochemical Individuality,a prescient book about genetics, prevention and treatment of disease on a molecular basis.  Another paper in Science by Pauling in 1968,introduced and defined this view of molecular medicine that focuses on natural and nutritional substances used for treatment and prevention.

‘Biological revolution’ of 1970s gave great impetus to molecular medicine perspective, and led to the introduction of many innovative techniques and commercial applications.

Now, Molecular medicine is a new scientific discipline in many medical universities. Combining contemporary medical studies with the field of biochemistry, it offers a bridge between the two subjects. At present only a handful of universities offer the course to undergraduates. With a degree in this discipline the graduate is able to pursue a career in medical sciences, scientific research, laboratory work and postgraduate medical degrees.

Molecular Medicine covers research on molecular pathogenesis of disease and translation of this knowledge into specific molecular tools for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention.

‘Molecular pathology’ and ‘proteomics’ are emerging disciplines associated with molecular medicine, and focuses in the study and diagnosis of disease through the examination of ‘molecules’ within organs, tissues or bodily fluids. Molecular pathology shares some aspects of practice with both anatomic pathology and clinical pathology, molecular biology, biochemistry, proteomics and genetics, and is sometimes considered a “crossover” discipline. It is multi-disciplinary in nature and focuses mainly on the sub-microscopic aspects of disease and unknown illnesses with strange causes.

It is a scientific discipline that encompasses the development of molecular and genetic approaches to the diagnosis and classification of various human diseases, the design and validation of predictive biomarkers for treatment response and disease progression, the susceptibility of individuals of different genetic constitution to develop cancer, and the environmental and lifestyle factors implicated in pathogenesis.

Exactly, ‘proteomics’ is the basis of ‘molecular pathology’. ‘Proteomics’ is the large-scale study of proteins, particularly their structures and functions. Proteins are vital parts of living organisms, as they are the main components of the physiological metabolic pathways of cells. The term “proteomics” was first coined in 1997 to make an analogy with genomics, the study of the genes. The word “proteome” is a blend of “protein” and “genome“, and was coined by Marc Wilkins in 1994. The proteome is the entire complement of proteins, including the modifications made to a particular set of proteins, produced by an organism or system. This will vary with time and distinct requirements, or stresses, that a cell or organism undergoes. After genomics, proteomics is considered the next step in the study of biological systems. It is much more complicated than genomics mostly because while an organism’s genome is more or less constant, the proteome differs from cell to cell and from time to time. This is because distinct genes are expressed in distinct cell types. This means that even the basic set of proteins which are produced in a cell needs to be determined.

Scientists are very interested in proteomics because it gives a much better understanding of an organism than genomics. First, the level of transcription of a gene gives only a rough estimate of its level of expression into a protein. An mRNA produced in abundance may be degraded rapidly or translated inefficiently, resulting in a small amount of protein. Second, as mentioned above many proteins experience post-translational modifications that profoundly affect their activities; for example some proteins are not active until they become phosphorylated. Methods such as phosphoproteomics and glycoproteomics are used to study post-translational modifications. Third, many transcripts give rise to more than one protein, through alternative splicing or alternative post-translational modifications. Fourth, many proteins form complexes with other proteins or RNA molecules, and only function in the presence of these other molecules.

One of the most promising developments to come from the study of human genes and proteins has been the identification of potential new drugs for the treatment of disease. This relies on genome and proteome information to identify proteins associated with a disease, which computer software can then use as targets for new drugs. For example, if a certain protein is implicated in a disease, its 3D structure provides the information to design drugs to interfere with the action of the protein. A molecule that fits the active site of an enzyme, but cannot be released by the enzyme, will inactivate the enzyme. This is the basis of new drug-discovery tools, which aim to find new drugs to inactivate proteins involved in disease. As genetic differences among individuals are found, researchers expect to use these techniques to develop personalized drugs that are more effective for the individual.

Understanding the proteome, the structure and function of each protein and the complexities of protein–protein interactions will be critical for developing the most effective diagnostic techniques and disease treatments in the future.

Without a clear understanding of concepts and methods of ‘molecular pathology’ and ‘proteomics’, one cannot follow my discussions of ‘scientific homeopathy. In this article I was trying to prepare the factual ground for understanding scientific discussions about homeopathy. Let us do that first. If any body ask why discuss all these things with homeopathy, I would say your question is like asking an engineer engaged in leveling of ground for constructing a house entrusted to him, that “you were entrusted to build my house, not to level the ground”. Without leveling the ground how can a house could be started constructing?

Proteins are macromolecules with complex structures and functions, and they act as the ‘molecular carriers of life process’. There is not a single biochemic reaction happening without the involvement of proteins in their capacities as enzymes, receptors, immune factors, structural factors and so on. First we have to understand ‘vital processes’ in terms of protein interactions. We have to understand the complex dynamics of ‘ligand-receptor’, ‘substrate-enzyme’ and ‘antigen-antibody’ interactions. Then we have to study the dynamics of ‘protein molecular inhibitions’, and the role of these inhibitions in the creation of pathological ‘molecular errors’. Only then we can understand the exact mechanism of how the pathogenic agents causes diseases. Then we can study therapeutics in terms of removal of these ‘molecular inhibitions’. Then I can explain the actual process involved in drug proving in terms of creating ‘molecular inhibitions’ caused by constituent molecules of our drug substances. Then we can understand ‘symptoms’ as expressions’ of ‘molecular errors’. Then my concept of drug potentization as ‘molecular imprinting’ and active principles of potentized drugs as ‘molecular imprints’ could be clearly understood. Then, i can explain how the ‘molecular imprints’ removes ‘protein inhibitions’ by their complementary configurational affinities to pathogenic molecules. That way we can understand the real molecular dynamics of homeopathic therapeutics involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’. Then you will understand my concepts of ‘miasms’ as ‘antibody mediated’ diseases caused by ‘off-target’ molecular inhibitions created by antibodies formed against exogenous’ proteins.

Modern drug designing technology, including computer aided drug designing, which is involved with designing of target specific drugs for rectifying molecular level pathologies, is an off-shoot of molecular medicine.

‘Drug designing’ is an advanced branch of modern pharmaceutical chemistry, which is involved with the process of developing new medicinal substances appropriate to the specific  biological targets in the organism. Such a ‘designer drug’ is most commonly a small organic molecule which can inhibit or activate the functioning of a target biomolecule such as a protein, thereby resulting in a therapeutic process in the organism. Essentially, ‘drug designing’ involves the development of small molecules that are complementary in ‘shape’ and ‘charge’ to the biomolecular target to which they interact and therefore will bind to it. Modern drug designing protocols utilize computer modeling techniques also. This type of modeling is known as ‘computer-aided drug design’. Actually, ‘drug design’ is involved with ‘ligand’ design. Prediction of binding affinity of molecules to be designed is the first step in a successful modeling technique.  Many other properties such as bioavailability, metabolic half life, lack of side effects, also should be optimized before a designed ‘ligand’ can become a safe and efficacious drug. Most of these ‘other’ characteristics are often very difficult to optimize using presently available drug design techniques.

Selection of drug target is most important in “drug designing”. A drug target is typically a key molecule involved in a particular metabolic or signaling pathway that is specific to a disease condition or pathology, or to the infectivity or survival of a microbial pathogen. Most of the therapeutic inteventions aim to inhibit the functioning of the ‘pathologic’ pathway in the diseased state by causing a key molecule to stop functioning. Drug molecules may be designed that bind to the active region and inhibit this key molecule. Some other therapeutic interventions  actually enhance the ‘normal’ biochemical pathway by promoting specific molecules in the ‘normal’ pathways that may have been affected in the diseased state. Main challenge in all ‘drug therapies’ including ‘designer drugs’ is that  these drug molecules should not affect any other important “off-target” molecules or ‘antitargets’ that may be similar in appearance to the target molecule, since drug interactions with off-target molecules may lead to undesirable side effects.

Designer drugs are small organic molecules produced through chemical synthesis, but biopolymer-based drugs (also known as biologics) produced through biological processes are becoming increasingly more common in modern drug designing.

‘Ligand-based drug design’ and ‘structure-based drug design’ are two major technologies now utilized in drug designing technologies.

Ligand-based drug design is based on the knowledge of other molecules that can bind to the biological target of interest. These other molecules may be used to derive a ‘pharmacophore’ which defines the minimum necessary structural characteristics a molecule must possess in order to bind to the target. In other words, a model of the biological target may be built based on the knowledge of what binds to it and this model in turn may be used to design new molecular entities that interact with the target.

Structure-based drug design is based on the knowledge of the three dimensional structure of the biological target obtained through methods such as x-ray crystallography or NMR spectroscopy. Using the structure of the biological target, candidate drugs that are predicted to bind with high affinity and selectivity to the target may be designed using interactive graphics.

Main draw back of ‘designer drugs’ is that  there is a chance for these drug molecules affecting “off-target” molecules or ‘antitargets’ having similarity to the target molecules. Such interactions with off-target molecules may lead to grave consequences. Optimizing of various factors such as bioavailability, metabolic half life, and lack of side effects are the real challenges facing “drug designing” technology.

‘Molecular imprinting in polymers’ is a fast grownig research area that may be interesting to people engaged in developing “drug designing” techniques. A lot of research is currently going on over this subject the world over. This technology involves the imprinting of synthetic polymer substances using enzymes or such macromolecules as ‘guest’molecules. As a result of imprinting, nano cavities with 3-d spacial configurations complementary to the ‘guest’ molecules will be created in the interaction surfaces of the polymers. These imprinted polymers, by virtue of the nanocavities they contain can be used to bind molecules with configurational similarity to ‘guest’ molecules. They are at present widely used in various laboratory assays as powerful adsorption surfaces. MIPs are also found to be of much practical use in various areas of science  and technology .

Molecular imprinted polymers of today cannot be used as therapeutic agents, since they are totally foreign substances to the organism. More over, native enzymes can not degrade the polymers even if they can play a therapeutic role in the organism.

Molecular imprinting may become part of future drug designing techniques, only if the search for safer substances and methods for molecular imprinting happens to be successful.

Biopolymer-based drugs (also known as biologics) produced through biological processes are becoming increasingly more common in modern drug designing. But the revolutionary concept of molecular imprinting in proteins is only in its emerging stage, which may have implications in drug designing techniques. It has already been acknowledged that the biological molecules presently classified as antibodies are nothing but native globulin proteins subjected to natural molecular imprinting process with foreign pathologic proteins acting as ‘guest’ molecules. Scientists have already realized the fact that the much discussed pathologic molecules known as ‘prions’ are nothing but disfigured protein molecules subjected to molecular imprinting. Protiens, being polymers with complex and flexible tertiary structures,  are expected to be a very good medium for molecular imprinting. Different types of protein based substances, subjected to artificial molecular imprinting, may  evolve in the future as effective therapeutic agents and laboratory reagents.

Apart from protein molecules, different types of biopolymers such as polysaccharides and nucleic acids also may be experimented as medium for molecular imprinting.

Native proteins extracted from the patients could be subjected to molecular imprinting with appropriate ligands or other pathologic molecules acting as ‘guest’ molecules and used as target oriented therapeutic agents.  But the problem remains that such imprinted proteins can be used only in the individual whose proteins are used for imprinting. Otherwise it may result in grave anaphylactic reactions. Moreover these imprinted proteins may remain in the organism for very long periods, without undergoing degradation, and cause ever new pathological molecular blocks. Such issues have to be addressed properly.

Our protracted search for a safe and reliable universal medium for molecular imprinted drug designing finally takes us to the study of wonderful physico-chemical properties of the most abundant substance on earth called water. But the concept and technology of molecular imprinting in water still remains in very infantile stage. The author is of the opinion that with its strange polymer-like behaviours, capable of forming hydrogen-bonded supra-molecular structures, water can be the ideal candidate for molecular imprinted drug designing in future.

Though in a slighly lesser level, Ethyl Alcohol and Lactose are also capable of forming polymer-like supra-molecular formations through hydrogen bonding, and hence may be onsidered as candidates for molecular imprinting experiments. Possibilities of these substances in combination with water also have to be explored.

Water (H2O) is a wonderful substance with strange physico–chemical properties arising from its peculiar supra-molecular structure. Water is a solvent with higher polarity than similar liquids. H–O–H bond angle is 105 degrees. That means, water molecule is a dipole. Because of this peculiarity, water molecules can exist like a supra-molecular network through hydrogen bonding.  A minimum number of five water molecules will be contained in this network. Such supra-molecular formations are called pentamers. Most of the wonderful properties of water arise from this peculiar capacity of hydrogen bonding and resultant supra-molecular formations. Water molecules (H2O) are symmetric (point group C2ν) with two mirror planes of symmetry and a 2-fold rotation axis. The hydrogen atoms may possess parallel or antiparallel nuclear spin. The water molecule consists of two light atoms (H) and a relatively heavy atom (O). The approximately 16-fold difference in mass gives rise to its ease of rotation and the significant relative movements of the hydrogen nuclei, which are in constant and significant relative movement.

Although not often perceived as such, water is a very reactive molecule available at a high concentration. This reactivity, however, is greatly moderated at ambient temperatures due to the extensive hydrogen bonding. Each water molecules possess a strongly nucleophilic oxygen atom that enables many of life‘s reactions, as well as ionizing to produce reactive hydrogen and hydroxide ions. Reduction of the hydrogen bonding at high temperatures or due to electromagnetic fields results in greater reactivity of the water molecules.

As liquid water is so common-place in our everyday lives, it is often regarded as a ‘typical’ liquid. In reality, water is most atypical as a liquid, behaving as a quite different material at low temperatures to that when it is hot. It has often been stated that life depends on these anomalous properties of water. In particular, the high cohesion between molecules gives it a high freezing and melting point, such that we and our planet are bathed in liquid water. The large heat capacity, high thermal conductivity and high water content in organisms contribute to thermal regulation and prevent local temperature fluctuations, thus allowing us to more easily control our body temperature. The high latent heat of evaporation gives resistance to dehydration and considerable evaporative cooling. Water is an excellent solvent due to its polarity, high dielectric constant and small size, particularly for polar and ionic compounds and salts. It has unique hydration properties towards biological macromolecules (particularly proteins and nucleic acids) that determine their three-dimensional structures, and hence their functions, in solution. Hydration of biological molecules results in formation of gels that can reversibly undergo the gel-sol phase transitions that underlie many cellular mechanisms. Water ionize and allows easy proton exchange between molecules, thus contributing to the richness of the ionic interactions in living organisms.

In reality, hydrogen bonding is a special type of dipole force. It is a force of attraction formed between partial electro negative atoms which is part of another molecule. The reason for strength is the partial positive charge attained by hydrogen. Hydrogen is capable of establishing similar bonds with the atoms of nitrogen, fluorine and oxygen. That is to say that the basis of hydrogen bonding is the attraction between one hydrogen atom which is part of a molecule which is attached to oxygen or nitrogen and  oxygen or nitrogen which remains part of another molecule. This force is less powerful than the co–valent bonds which keeps the atoms inside molecule bound together. But these less powerful bonds are responsible for the wonderful bio–chemical qualities of water.

In the ordinary liquid state, in spite of 80% of the electrons being concerned with bonding, the three atoms in water do not stay together, as the hydrogen atoms are constantly exchanging between water molecules due to protonation/deprotonation processes. Both acids and bases catalyze this exchange and even when at its slowest (at pH 7), the average time for the atoms in an H2O molecule to stay together is only about a millisecond. As this brief period is, however, much longer than the timescales encountered during investigations into water’s hydrogen bonding or hydration properties, water is usually treated as a permanent structure.

The presence of ethyl alcohol in water is considered to be a factor reducing the rate of protonation/deprotonation processes, thereby enhancing the stability of hydration shells.

Hydrogen bond strength can be affected by electromagnetic and magnetic effects.

Any factors, such as polarization, that reduces the hydrogen bond length, is expected to increase its covalency. There is still some dispute over the size of this covalency, however any covalency will increase the network stability relative to purely electrostatic effects. As hydrogen bond strength depends almost linearly on its length (shorter length giving stronger hydrogen bonding), it also depends almost linearly (outside extreme values) on the temperature and pressure.

Hydrogen bonded chains (that is, O-H····O-H····O) are cooperative; the breakage of the first bond is the hardest, then the next one is weakened, and so on. Thus unzipping may occur with complex macromolecules held together by hydrogen bonding, for example, nucleic acids. Such cooperativity is a fundamental property of liquid water where hydrogen bonds are up to 250% stronger than the single hydrogen bond in the dimer. A strong base at the end of a chain may strengthen the bonding further.

 At this stage we have to understand a few facts about Ethyl Alcohol(CH3- CH2 – OH ). The molecules of alcohol also have the dipole structure as water molecules. It is possible for them to establish mutual connection through hydrogen bonding. The molecular weight of alcohol molecul is 46. The molecular weight of water(H2O) is 18. That means that the number of water molecules contained in 18 gram of water and the number of alcohol molecules contained in 46 gram of ethyl alcohol are equal. When alcohol and water are thoroughly mixed alcohol molecules network with water molecules through hydration bonds, The mobility of water molecules is restricted by the bonds established with alcohol molecules. Hence, hydration shells formed in alcohol–water mixture are comparatively more stable. The count of alcohol molecules and the count of water molecules contained in their mixture in 73:27 ratio will be equal. (73% w/w. alcohol and 27% w/w water) This mixturei is known as (40 power   spirit).

Ideal medium for molecular imprining is supposed to contains 87% w/w of alcohol and 13% w/w of water. In this ratio, the number of alcohol molecules will be about more than that of of water molecules. Such a ratio will be very suitable for the production of stable hydration shells. More over, the presence of ethyl alcohol in water is considered as a factor reducing the rate of protonation/deprotonation processes, thereby enhancing the stability of hydration shells.

We know that water is a good solvent. Let us see what happens when some foreign molecules are made to dissolve in water. If a foreign(called ‘guest’) molecule, ion,  or colloidal particle happens to enter the matrix of 3-dimensional dynamic network of water molecules, they are entrapped inside this network. Water molecules arrange themselves around the ‘guest’ molecule in a peculiar way by the formation of hydrogen bonding. These formations of water molecules around the ‘guest’ molecules is known as hydration shells. These hydration shells exist in a dynamic state, and are more or less unstable. The ‘guest’ molecules dissolved in water exist in a state of being entrapped inside these hydration shells. This phenomenon can be seen both in ionic solutions and colloidal solutions. Obviously, hydration shells assume an internal spacial arrangement exactly fitting to the 3-dimensional spacial configuration of the ‘guest’ molecule entrapped in them. If we could devise some technique to remove the entrapped ‘guest’ molecules from these hydration shells, without disturbing the hydrogen bonds between the constituent water molecules, these hydration shells can retain the molecular memory of the molecular configurations of the removed ‘guest’ molecules. This rarely studied phenomenon underlies the much debated controversial ‘molecular memory of water’. Actual mechanism and forces underlying this phenomenon have to be investigated minutely by physical scientists. Minute changes occurring in the electron clouds of atoms of water molecules during the formation of hydration shells may be one factor responsible for this phenomenon. It has been well proven that these hydration shells later show a peculiar capability to differentially recognize the original ‘guest’ molecules which were  responsible for their formation. This may be due to the existence of some imprinted memory of those host molecules retained in the hydration shells. This imprinting of memory may be compared to formation of finger prints. As in the case of finger prints, configuration of these molecular imprints also will be a complementary negative of ‘guest’  molecules.  These empty hydration shells, or supra-molecular formations of water subjected to molecular imprinting, may be called ‘hydrosomes’, which means, minute ‘cavities of water’.

Homeopathic process of potentization may be a crude method of preparing hydrosomes, imprinted with various drug molecules(‘guest’), for utilizing as therapeutic agents.  It should be specially noted that the medium used for homeopathic potentisation is not pure water, but it is mixed with ethyl alcohol in a particular ratio. It may be  inferred that the presence of camparatively heavy ethyl alcohol molecules in this mixture may be contributing to stabilize the hydrosomes, preventing their easy dissociation.  The convergent forces of rotational movements to which the mixture is subjected as part of homeopathic potentization, may also be a contributing factor in stabilizing the empty hydration shells.

This peculiar 3-d configuration of ‘hydrosomes’ are destroyed only when the energy level of water molecules are disturbed by the effect of heat,  electricity, magnetism and other electro magnetic radiations. As stated earlier the hydration shells formed in pure water are comparatively unstable. Here lies the importance of the fact that homeopathic potencies are made using alcohol- water mixture.

Information we recently receive from various research institutions, regarding the wonderful  supra-molecular structures of various materials and their hitherto unknown peculiar properties, may greatly contribute in our  efforts to devise a protocol for molecular imprinted drug designing using water. Studies on  ‘water clusters’, ‘crystalline structure of water’, ‘shape memory property’, ‘molecular imprinting’,  ‘nano technology’,  ‘clathrate formations’ and other diverse phenomena are offering promising indications in this direction. We have to utilize all these new revealations in our scientific study regarding the possibility of developing a technology of drug designing by molecular imprinting in water.

We all know that water exists as ice crystals in its solid form. But it has been recently observed that water can exist even in its liquid form in crystals. In reality, water formed by melting of ice is in a state of liquid crystals. The lattice structure which is formed through hydration bonds is responsible for this phenomenon. Molecular imprinting in water is much interested in this area of research pertaining to this peculiar crystalline nature of water. It is believed that in the process of molecular imprinting of water using ‘guest’ molecules,  this crystalline structure of water plays a crucial role. It is likely that more advanced studies about dynamics of crystallization of water may help us to evolve a perfect technology for molecular imprinting in water.

The studies about Clathrate Compounds or host-guest compounds in supra-molecular chemistry is an area in which we should have sincere interest. Clathrates are the molecular networks which are formed when gases dissolve  in water under high pressure. They exist in a peculiar host–guest relationship. The studies about this phenomenon are still in their infancy. Clathrates have a crystalline nature,  existing as molecular networks,  formed by a process of water molecules arranging around the guest molecules. The studies about the dynamics of clathrate formation are also likely to help in evolving a perfect protocol for molecular imprinting in water. Even if  the host molecules are removed from clathrates, the network of water molecules have been found to remain intact. More over, the existing clathrates can induce the formation of similar clathrates. It will be very useful to consider these above discoveries connecting them with the phenomenon of molecular imprinting.

A lot of studies has been so far published regarding shape memory materials.  Several alloys having  crystalline structure have been observed to possess shape memory property. Such materials are known as SMART materials. This phenomenon also has to be understood well while trying to evolve a molecular imprinting technique of drug designing.

It is in the phenomenon of ‘molecular memory of water’ itself that we naturally land on when we attempt to develop molecular imprinted drugs. We have already seen that the alcohol–water molecules contained in the medium used for imprinting  arrange themselves around the ‘guest’ molecules, and form hydration shells. We should develop a way to systematically remove the ‘guest’  molecules entrapped in the hydration shells, so that empty hydration shells or ‘hydrosomes’ remain. These ‘hydrosomes’ will be imprinted with the three-dimensional ‘finger print’ of ‘guest’ molecules used for imprinting.

When molecular imprinted water is introduced into the organism by any route, is carried by the body fluids, and transported to different parts of body. When molecular imprints come in the vicinity of ligands or active groups of pathological foreign molecules having similarity to the original ‘guest’ molecules, these molecular imprints selectively bind to those pathological molecules. By this process, pathological foreign molecules are prevented from binding with biological molecules, thereby relieving the biological molecules from pathological molecular blocks. This can be described as some sort of ‘molecular scavenging’ or entrapping of pathological molecules, by ‘hydrosomes’ or “molecular imprints”.

According to modern scientific view, life exists through a series of inter-dependant and inter-connected complex chains of biochemical pathways, mediated by a highly organized and diversified class of organic bio-polymers known as proteins, which are considered to be ‘molecular carriers of life’.

Different types of proteins are synthesized according to the requirements from the building blocks known as amino acids, utilizing the genetic blueprint preserved in the DNA. Deficiency or malformation of protein molecules causes derangements in biochemical pathways. Nutritional deficiencies of building materials, errors in genetic blueprint or errors in various stages of genetic expressions may cause such deficiency or malformation of essential protein molecules, which are considered to be molecular errors underlying a broad class of ‘genetic diseases’ and ‘deficiency diseases’.

More over, exogenous or endogenous molecules or ions may bind to the essential protein molecules and lead to ‘molecular inhibitions’ of those proteins, thereby temporarily or permanently deactivating them. Such molecular inhibition and deactivation of essential protein molecules lead to the derangement of concerned biochemical pathways, leading to breakdown of vital processes, which amounts to a state of molecular level pathology. These exogenous and endogenous pathogenic molecules include environmental molecules, drugs, toxins, food articles, metabolic bye-products, infectious agents, antibodies or miasms and various such factors.

Primary basis of any state of pathology is some derangements occurring in the biochemical processes at the molecular level. Endogenous or exogenous foreign molecules or ions having any configurational similarity to certain biochemical ligands can mimic as original ones to attach themselves on the regulatory or the active sites of proteins, effecting changes in their native 3-D configuration, thereby making them unable to discharge their specific biochemical role. This situation is called a molecular inhibition, which leads to pathological molecular errors. It is comparable with the ability of objects having some similarity in shape with that of key, to enter the key hole of a lock and obstructing its function. As a result of this inhibition, the real substrates are prevented from interacting with the appropriate protein molecules, leading to a break in the normal biochemical channels. This type of molecular errors are called competitive inhibitions. It is in this way that many types of drugs, pesticides and poisons interfere in the biochemical processes, creating pathological situations.

Homeopathy has devised its own method of closely following even the minutest deviations in the biochemical processes in the organism, through a special strategy of monitoring and recording the perceivable symptoms caused by such deviations. Obviously, derangement in a particular biochemical pathway resulting from such a nano-level molecular 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. Homoeopathy chases these trains of symptoms to their minutest level, from periphery to interior, in order to study the exact molecular errors underlying any particular state of pathology. Not even the sophisticated tools of ultra-modern technologies can monitor those molecular errors with such perfection. Then, those pathological molecular inhibitions are removed by applying appropriate therapeutic agents, selected on the basis of ‘law of similars’ or ‘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 scientific world had realized and recognized this truth, and incorporated this wonderful tool into their armamentarium. Obviously, “similia similibus curentur” is the most effective technique of identifying and removing the pathological molecular inhibitions in the organism.

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 endogenic or exogenic foreign molecules or ions responsible for the particular molecular inhibition. By studying the train of symptoms carefully and systematically, homoeopaths are really observing these exact molecular inhibitions. This symptomatology-based analytical method of homoeopathy 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 the drugs could produce in healthy organism- this is the scientific essence of “similia similibus  curentur”.

If a drug substance in molecular form is introduced to a healthy living organism, which exists in state of comparatively dynamic equilibrium, constituent molecules of that drug substance are conveyed by the internal transport systems, and bind by their configurational affinity to any of the complex bio-molecules engaged in natural biochemical processes. As a result of such molecular binding, the bio-molecules are subjected to deviations in their three-dimensional configurations, and becomes incapacitated to deliver their natural molecular functions. All the biochemical processes mediated or participated by those bio-molecules are affected, and dependent biological pathways are subsequently blocked. Since different biological pathways are inter-depedent, deviations in one pathway naturally affects the dependent ones also. The cascading of molecular deviations influence the neuro mediator-neuro transmitter systems and endocrine systems and finally manifest in the form of particular groups of subjective and objective symptoms. This is the real molecular kinetics of pathology.

Homeopathy has devised its own peculiar way of experimenting and documenting the properties of medicinal substances in relation with their capability to produce various pathological conditions. This is called drug proving. For proving a particular drug substance, it is introduced into a healthy organism, and, the subjective and objective symptoms and their modalities representing the diverse molecular deviations caused by the drug, are carefully observed and recorded. Each specific group of symptoms that appear as part of diverse pathological conditions are thus artificially created in healthy individuals. These symptoms are compiled as a materia medica of the substance used.

Even though modern biochemistry and molecular medicine has made great strides in the study of diverse molecular inhibitions related with diseases, still there are grave limitations. It is imperative that modern science should strive to find out means to define the exact bio-molecular deviations and inhibitions responsible for each and every one of the multitude of diverse symptoms and modalities expressed in particular disease conditions, in order to evolve a most scientific method of removing such inhibitions. Homeopathy considers “totality of symptoms” as the only clue to the understanding of molecular level pathology, as well as deciding the appropriate therapeutic tools to rectify that molecular errors. Viewing from this perspective, “similia similibus curentur” is a highly scientific principle of therapeutics, deserving to be greatly honored by modern science at least in coming days.

Potentized homeopathic drugs contain ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’, which can bind to the exogenous and endogenous pathogenic molecules having complementary affinity, thereby relieving the protein molecules from molecular inhibitions. This is the molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics. ‘Hydrosomes’ or ‘Molecular Imprints’ are nanocavities formed in the ‘supra-molecular clusters of water and ethyl alcohol’, by a process of ‘molecular imprinting’ involved in potentization. When introduced into the organism, they act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules having complementary configurational affinity, thereby relieving the biological molecules from pathological molecular inhibitions. This is the most rational and logical explanation of molecular dynamics of homeopathic therapeutics.

‎’Molecular imprints’ can be compared to ‘antibodies’. Antibodies are native proteins subjected to ‘molecular imprinting’ by ‘antigens’, and acting as binding sites for the specific antigens. ‘Molecular imprints’ in potentized drugs are supra-molecular clusters of water/alcohol, subjected to ‘molecular imprinting’ by constituent molecules of drug substances, and acting as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules having configurational similarity to drug molecules used for imprinting.

It is obvious that potentized drugs cannot rectify molecular errors arising from genetic errors and nutritional deficiencies. Scope of homeopathy is limited to the diseases originating from molecular inhibitions of proteins by exogenous or endogenous molecules. Homeopaths should remember these fundamental factors while discussing scope and limitations of homeopathy.

In scientific terms ‘similia similibus curentur’ means, “pathological molecular inhibitions underlying a disease and expressed through specific groups of subjective and objective symptoms can be removed by applying ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules, which in crude form could produce similar molecular inhibitions expressed through similar groups of symptoms”.

So far, we understood ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ as ‘similarity of symptoms produced by drugs as well as diseases’. According to modern scientific understanding, we can explain it as ‘similarity of molecular errors produced by drug molecules and pathogenic molecules’ in the organism. To be more exact, that means ‘similarity of molecular configurations of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules’. Potentized drugs contains ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent molecules of drug used for potentization. ‘Molecular imprints’ are three-dimensional negatives of molecules, and hence they would have a peculiar affinity towards those molecules, due to their complementary configuration. ‘Molecular imprints’ would show this complementary affinity not only towards the molecules used for imprinting, but also towards all molecules that have configurations similar to those molecules. Homeopathy utilizes this phenomenon, and uses molecular imprints of drug molecules to bind and entrap pathogenic molecules having configurations similar to them. Similarity of configurations of drug molecules and pathogenic molecules are identified by evaluating the ‘similarity of symptoms’ they produce in organism during drug proving and disease. This realization is the the basis of scientific understanding of homeopathy I propose.

To be recognized as a scientific medical system, we should explain ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ before the scientific community in a way fitting to the existing scientific paradigms, and should submit ourselves to be verified in accordance with scientific methods.

“Endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules that cause diseases by binding to the biological molecules can be entrapped and removed using molecular imprints of drug molecules which in molecular form can bind to the same biological molecules, utilizing the complementary configurational affinity between molecular imprints and pathogenic molecules”.

This scientific definition of ‘similia similibus curentur’ is the foundation of my claim that homeopathy is advanced branch of modern molecular medicine.

I do not think modern medicine is irrelevant or unscientific. Exactly, modern medicine has been advancing in parallel with human scientific knowledge. It plays main role in the health care system all over the world. Allopathy Hahnemann talks about is no more. It is not fair to call ‘modern medicine’ as allopathy. Modern medicine is ‘molecular medicine’, based on scientific understanding of vital processes. Remember this point when quoting ‘ant-allopathy’ statements of our masters.

Fundamental difference between homeopathy and modern medicine is that  ‘modern medicine’ uses ‘drug molecules’ as therapeutic agents, where as homeopathy uses ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules. This is a very important difference, indeed.

Modern medicine has recently advanced into Molecular Medicine, where  drugs are selected on the basis of scientific understanding of pathological molecular errors in vital processes.

Homeopathy selects drugs on the basis of ‘totality of symptoms’, which are the real indicators of those pathological molecular errors. As such, homeopathy can be defined as a specialized higher branch of ‘modern molecular medicine’.

Since ‘modern medicine’ uses highly reactive ‘drug molecules’ as therapeutic agents, they can create dangerous ‘off-target’ molecular errors in the organism. That is the main draw back of ‘modern medicine’. Since homeopathy uses only ‘molecular imprints’, they cannot cause any ‘off-target’ molecular errors. Hence homeopathy is very safe when compared to modern medicine.

Since ‘modern medicine’ requires a clear understanding of pathological molecular processes to decide an appropriate therapeutic agent, they cannot treat many diseases which are not well understood. For homeopathy, knowing the exact molecular error behind the pathology is not necessary, since homeopathy identifies the molecular errors and their remedial agents by observing subjective and objective ‘symptoms’ that express the molecular errors. As such, homeopathy can cure any disease even without knowing the underlying molecular errors, merely on the basis of ‘symptoms’. This is a great advantage for homeopathy. Whereas modern medicine can hope for an effective treatment only for well understood diseases, that to with possibility of unwanted side effects, homeopathy can treat any disease effectively and safely.

Existing more than 250 years as an independent therapeutic system totally alienated from mainstream scientific knowledge,  I think time is now ripe for homeopathy to converges into modern molecular medicine, as an advanced branch of medical science. The great divide between ‘allopathy and homeopathy’ could now be effectively bridged through my scientific explanation of potentization and similia similibus curentur. Once the people belonging to molecular medicine realizes the historical implications of this convergence, I hope they would also utilize ‘molecular imprinting’ as part of their target-specific drug designing technology.

As a simple and effective therapeutic system, free of any fear of unwanted side effects, homeopathy has already gained acceptability to a great extent during the by gone two centuries. The principle of ‘Similia Similibus Curenter’ has sufficiently proved its ‘right for existence’ through thousands and thousands of miraculous cures by homeopaths all over the world. But we cannot overlook the fact that we have not yet succeeded in explaining this principle scientifically enough.

Modern life sciences, especially biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology have accumulated a huge wealth of knowledge in recent years, unraveling even the minutest secrets of the phenomenon of life. But we have not yet been able to recreate the fundamental principles of homeopathy scientifically and convincingly enough, by taking advantage of the above mentioned modern scientific achievements.

Homeopathy shall be duly recognized and respected as an advanced branch of modern molecular medicine, only when such a scientific recreation of its basic premises is attained. Until then, homeopathy will remain a dogmatic  ‘healing art’, not a ‘scientific medical system’.

According to modern scientific view, life exists through a series of inter-dependant and inter-connected complex chains of biochemical pathways, mediated by a highly organized and diversified class of organic bio-polymers known as proteins, which are considered to be ‘molecular carriers of life’.

Different types of proteins are synthesized according to the requirements from the building blocks known as amino acids, utilizing the genetic blueprint preserved in the DNA. Deficiency or malformation of protein molecules causes derangements in biochemical pathways. Nutritional deficiencies of building materials, errors in genetic blueprint or errors in various stages of genetic expressions may cause such deficiency or malformation of essential protein molecules, which are considered to be molecular errors underlying a broad class of ‘genetic diseases’ and ‘deficiency diseases’.

More over, exogenous or endogenous molecules or ions may bind to the essential protein molecules and lead to ‘molecular inhibitions’ of those proteins, thereby temporarily or permanently deactivating them. Such molecular inhibition and deactivation of essential protein molecules lead to the derangement of concerned biochemical pathways, leading to breakdown of vital processes, which amounts to a state of molecular level pathology. These exogenous and endogenous pathogenic molecules include environmental molecules, drugs, toxins, food articles, metabolic bye-products, infectious agents, antibodies or miasms and various such factors.

Primary basis of any state of pathology is some derangements occurring in the biochemical processes at the molecular level. Endogenous or exogenous foreign molecules or ions having any configurational similarity to certain biochemical ligands can mimic as original ones to attach themselves on the regulatory or the active sites of proteins, effecting changes in their native 3-D configuration, thereby making them unable to discharge their specific biochemical role. This situation is called a molecular inhibition, which leads to pathological molecular errors. It is comparable with the ability of objects having some similarity in shape with that of key, to enter the key hole of a lock and obstructing its function. As a result of this inhibition, the real substrates are prevented from interacting with the appropriate protein molecules, leading to a break in the normal biochemical channels. This type of molecular errors are called competitive inhibitions. It is in this way that many types of drugs, pesticides and poisons interfere in the biochemical processes, creating pathological situations.

Homeopathy has devised its own method of closely following even the minutest deviations in the biochemical processes in the organism, through a special strategy of monitoring and recording the perceivable symptoms caused by such deviations. Obviously, derangement in a particular biochemical pathway resulting from such a nano-level molecular 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. Homoeopathy chases these trains of symptoms to their minutest level, from periphery to interior, in order to study the exact molecular errors underlying any particular state of pathology. Not even the sophisticated tools of ultra-modern technologies can monitor those molecular errors with such perfection. Then, those pathological molecular inhibitions are removed by applying appropriate therapeutic agents, selected on the basis of ‘law of similars’ or ‘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 scientific world had realized and recognized this truth, and incorporated this wonderful tool into their armamentarium. Obviously, “similia similibus curentur” is the most effective technique of identifying and removing the pathological molecular inhibitions in the organism.

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 endogenic or exogenic foreign molecules or ions responsible for the particular molecular inhibition. By studying the train of symptoms carefully and systematically, homoeopaths are really observing these exact molecular inhibitions. This symptomatology-based analytical method of homoeopathy 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 the drugs could produce in healthy organism- this is the scientific essence of “similia similibus curentur”.

If a drug substance in molecular form is introduced to a healthy living organism, which exists in state of comparatively dynamic equilibrium, constituent molecules of that drug substance are conveyed by the internal transport systems, and bind by their configurational affinity to any of the complex bio-molecules engaged in natural biochemical processes. As a result of such molecular binding, the bio-molecules are subjected to deviations in their three-dimensional configurations, and becomes incapacitated to deliver their natural molecular functions. All the biochemical processes mediated or participated by those bio-molecules are affected, and dependent biological pathways are subsequently blocked. Since different biological pathways are inter-depedent, deviations in one pathway naturally affects the dependent ones also. The cascading of molecular deviations influence the neuro mediator-neuro transmitter systems and endocrine systems and finally manifest in the form of particular groups of subjective and objective symptoms. This is the real molecular kinetics of pathology.

Homeopathy has devised its own peculiar way of experimenting and documenting the properties of medicinal substances in relation with their capability to produce various pathological conditions. This is called drug proving. For proving a particular drug substance, it is introduced into a healthy organism, and, the subjective and objective symptoms and their modalities representing the diverse molecular deviations caused by the drug, are carefully observed and recorded. Each specific group of symptoms that appear as part of diverse pathological conditions are thus artificially created in healthy individuals. These symptoms are compiled as a materia medica of the substance used.

Even though modern biochemistry and molecular medicine has made great strides in the study of diverse molecular inhibitions related with diseases, still there are grave limitations. It is imperative that modern science should strive to find out means to define the exact bio-molecular deviations and inhibitions responsible for each and every one of the multitude of diverse symptoms and modalities expressed in particular disease conditions, in order to evolve a most scientific method of removing such inhibitions. Homeopathy considers “totality of symptoms” as the only clue to the understanding of molecular level pathology, as well as deciding the appropriate therapeutic tools to rectify that molecular errors. Viewing from this perspective, “similia similibus curentur” is a highly scientific principle of therapeutics, deserving to be greatly honored by modern science at least in coming days.

Potentized homeopathic drugs contain ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’, which can bind to the exogenous and endogenous pathogenic molecules having complementary affinity, thereby relieving the protein molecules from molecular inhibitions. This is the molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics. ‘Hydrosomes’ or ‘Molecular Imprints’ are nanocavities formed in the ‘supra-molecular clusters of water and ethyl alcohol’, by a process of ‘molecular imprinting’ involved in potentization. When introduced into the organism, they act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules having complementary configurational affinity, thereby relieving the biological molecules from pathological molecular inhibitions. This is the most rational and logical explanation of molecular dynamics of homeopathic therapeutics.

‎’Molecular imprints’ can be compared to ‘antibodies’. Antibodies are native proteins subjected to ‘molecular imprinting’ by ‘antigens’, and acting as binding sites for the specific antigens. ‘Molecular imprints’ in potentized drugs are supra-molecular clusters of water/alcohol, subjected to ‘molecular imprinting’ by constituent molecules of drug substances, and acting as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules having configurational similarity to drug molecules used for imprinting.

It is obvious that potentized drugs cannot rectify molecular errors arising from genetic errors and nutritional deficiencies. Scope of homeopathy is limited to the diseases originating from molecular inhibitions of proteins by exogenous or endogenous molecules. Homeopaths should remember these fundamental factors while discussing scope and limitations of homeopathy.

In scientific terms ‘similia similibus curentur’ means, “pathological molecular inhibitions underlying a disease and expressed through specific groups of subjective and objective symptoms can be removed by applying ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules, which in crude form could produce similar molecular inhibitions expressed through similar groups of symptoms “.

So far, we understood ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ as ‘similarity of symptoms produced by drugs as well as diseases’. According to modern scientific understanding, we can explain it as ‘similarity of molecular errors produced by drug molecules and pathogenic molecules’ in the organism. To be more exact, that means ‘similarity of molecular configurations of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules’. Potentized drugs contains ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent molecules of drug used for potentization. ‘Molecular imprints’ are three-dimensional negatives of molecules, and hence they would have a peculiar affinity towards those molecules, due to their complementary configuration. ‘Molecular imprints’ would show this complementary affinity not only towards the molecules used for imprinting, but also towards all molecules that have configurations similar to those molecules. Homeopathy utilizes this phenomenon, and uses molecular imprints of drug molecules to bind and entrap pathogenic molecules having configurations similar to them. Similarity of configurations of drug molecules and pathogenic molecules are identified by evaluating the ‘similarity of symptoms’ they produce in organism during drug proving and disease. This realization is the the basis of scientific understanding of homeopathy I propse.

To be recognized as a scientific medical system, we should explain ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ before the scientific community in a way fitting to the existing scientific paradigms, and should submit ourselves to be verified in accordance with scientific methods.

I am re-posting an article on Hering’ Law, Presented by Dr. André Saine, D.C., N.D., F.C.A.H.  at the Second Annual Session of the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians in Seattle, Washington, April 16-17, 1988, and Published on Canadian Academy of Homeopathy Website. http://www.homeopathy.ca/articles_det12.shtml

Dr. André Saine is the Dean of the Canadian Academy of Homeopathy Dr. André Saine is a graduate of National College of Naturopathic Medicine in Portland, Oregon and has been the Dean of the Canadian Academy of Homeopathy since 1986. He has taught homeopathy extensively in North America and Europe for over 25 years to health care professionals.

Introduction

In homeopathy today, Hering’s law is widely recognized as the second law of cure, the first law of cure being similia similibus curantur, or like cures like. Hering’s law pertains to the direction in which the symptoms of the patient will disappear during a cure under homeopathic treatment.

In his second lecture on homeopathic philosophy given in 1900 to the Post-Graduate School of Homœopathics, Kent said:

• “The cure must proceed from centre to circumference. From centre to circumference is from above downward, from within outwards, from more important to less important organs, from the head to the hands and feet.”
• “Every homœopathic practitioner who understands the art of healing, knows that the symptoms which go off in these directions remain away permanently. Moreover, he knows that symptoms which disappear in the reverse order of their coming are removed permanently. It is thus he knows that the patient did not merely get well in spite of the treatment, but that he was cured by the action of the remedy. If a homœopathic physician goes to the bedside of a patient and, upon observing the onset of the symptoms and the course of the disease, sees that the symptoms do not follow this order after his remedy, he knows that he has had but little to do with the course of things.” (1)

HereKentdoes not differentiate between acute and chronic disease in the application of the law. It is reasonable to assume, because of the lack of precision, that he meant all diseases, acute and chronic of venereal and non-venereal origin, would disappear in the direction described above.

When first studying homeopathy, I listened to the teachers and read the “classic” modern works, and assumed, like my fellow colleagues, that Hering’s law had been an irrefutable fact recognized by Hering and the many succeeding generations of homeopaths, and that all patients, (All italics used throughout this paper indicate my own emphasis of pertinent points.) acute and chronic, without an exception, would, at all times, be cured in the afore-mentioned direction under careful homeopathic treatment.

Later as a practitioner, I carefully applied myself to put the general homeopathic training I had received to the test. Since then, I have been able to substantiate most but not all of the rules, principles and laws contained in the homeopathic doctrine promulgated by several generations of homeopaths.

So far, however, I have been unable to substantiate Hering’s law. Indeed, very rarely do I see, for instance, in a patient with chronic polyarthritis, the symptoms disappearing from the head first and then to the hands and feet. More often, the pain and other joint symptoms disappear in the reverse order of their appearance, even if it is from below upwards. In other words, if the arthritis manifested itself, as it happens at times, first in the knees and then in the ankles, the ankles would get better before the knees.

Or in a patient affected by a complex of essentially functional complaints such as fatigue, anxiety, irritability, difficult digestion, joint pain and acne, rarely would I see the disappearance of the emotional disturbance first, then the poor digestion followed by the joint pain and lastly the acne. With the simillimum most symptoms begin to improve simultaneously and disappear in the reverse order of their appearance, and not necessarily from above downwards and from inside outwards. In fact it is not uncommon that in such cases the acne, the last to have appeared, would disappear readily and the emotional state (the oldest symptom) would be the last to completely disappear.

While treating a patient with an acute febrile disease that had progressed in the first stage from chills to fever, then to perspiration and lastly to weakness, I would observe a rapid and gentle recovery but without the patient re-experiencing the perspiration, then the fever and lastly the chills. While recovering from acute diseases under homeopathic treatment, the patient does not re-experience the original symptoms one by one in the reverse order of their appearance. Many more troublesome exceptions similar to the above could be cited.

What was wrong with Hering’s law as quoted above from Kent’s Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy? Had I misunderstood the law?

According to Webster’s dictionary, a law is defined as a sequence of events that occurs with unvarying uniformity whereas a rule permits exceptions, and a dogma rests on opinion. Was this lack of confirmation of the said law due to “suppressive” homeopathic treatment as suggested by a number of theoretical and perhaps dogmatic homeopaths? If so, why have these so called “purists” not stood up and proven that all their cured cases followed the said law? To my knowledge this proof has not been forthcoming.

Was I the only practitioner in this position?

I questioned teachers and colleagues, some with many years of experience. Few could answer my questions and none has been able to substantiate from their own experience without the shadow of a doubt that Hering’s law was a true law of nature. It seems that most were in the same situation as me, even the supposed authorities would discuss the matter but in private with the author. It seems that we all had classic cases of cure from above downwards, from within outwards, from more to less important organs and in the reverse order of appearance of symptoms. But these absolutely “perfect” cases were only occasional. The majority of cured cases did not fulfill all the four citedcriteria.

So I decided to go back to the sources.

On one hand, neither Kent, in his Lectures on Homœopathic Philosophy of 1900, nor Stuart Close, in The Genius of Homœopathy of 1924, nor Herbert Roberts, in The Principles and Art of Cure by Homœopathy of 1936 while discussing the above law, refer to it as Hering’s law. (1-3) None of these three authors makes any reference to Hering in their lectures on the law of direction of cure. On the other hand, Garth Boericke, in A Compendium of the Principles of Homœopathy of 1929, refers to it as Hering’s rule but not as a law. (4) Confusing, isn’t it? Did Hering ever formulate a law on the direction of cure? If he did, why was his name not clearly associated with the law and was it as a law or a rule? Why was the literature so ambiguous?

At this point, I realized that the sources had to be explored further. The answers would all have to be within the literature of the nineteenth century. After a thorough examination of this literature I have so far been unable to find any of Hering’s famous contemporaries and close colleagues discussing or making any reference to a law of direction of cure. Writings of Boenninghausen, Jahr, Joslin, P.P. Wells, Lippe, H.N.Guernsey, Dunham, E.A. Farrington, H.C. Allen, Nash, etc, were all silent.

When Hering died in 1880, colleagues all over the world assembled to pay tribute to the great homeopath. His many accomplishments were recalled. Strangely, none made any mention of a law of direction of cure promulgated by Hering. (5) Arthur Eastman, a student who was close to Hering during the last three years of the venerable homeopath, published in 1917 Life and Reminiscences of Dr. Constantine Hering also without mentioning a law pertaining to direction of cure. (6) Calvin Knerr, Hering’s son-in-law, published in 1940, 60 years after Hering’s death, the Life of Hering, a compilation of biographical notes. (7) Again no mention is made of the famous law. Not only confusing, but also puzzling.

Obviously, the sources had to be further explored. Here are the fruits of this exploration.

THE HISTORY RELATED TO THE FORMULATION OF HERING’S LAW

1. Hahnemann – 1811
   With the first publication of his Materia Medica Pura in 1811, Hahnemann inaugurated a new arrangement of the symptoms: from above downwards, from inside outwards, but also from the parts to the generals.
2. Hahnemann – 1828
   In 1828, Hahnemann published his first observations and theories on chronic diseases. (8) I summarize here the points most pertinent to the present discussion:

• “All diseases, acute and chronic of non-venereal origin, come from the original malady, called psora. (page 7)
• “A skin eruption is the first manifestation of psora. (page 38)
• “The skin eruption acts as a substitute for the internal psora (page 11) and prevents the breaking out of the internal disease. (page 13)
• “The more the skin eruption spreads the more it keeps the internal manifestations of psora latent. (page 40)
• “But when the skin eruption is suppressed with an external application or other influences the latent psora goes unnoticed and its internal manifestation increases. Then “it originates a legion of chronic diseases.”(page 12) Incidently, for Hahnemann, a suppressed skin eruption is not driven into the body as it was popularly thought in his time, and even today by most homeopaths, but rather the vital force is compelled “to effect a transference of a worse form of morbid action to other and more important parts.” (Introduction of the Organon of Medicine page 62) (9)
• “Latent psora, an abnormal susceptibility to disease, will manifest itself as severe diseases after exposure to stress (or as he calls it, unfavorable conditions of life) acute infections, trauma and injuries, exhaustion from overworking, lack of fresh air or exercise, frustration, grief, poor nutrition, etc, and by “incorrect and weakening allopathic treatment”. (page 48)
• “During the treatment of chronic diseases of non-venereal origin withantipsoric remedies, the last symptoms are always the first to disappear, “but the oldest ailments and those which have been most constant and unchanged, among which are the local ailments, are the last to give way.”(page 135)
• “If old symptoms return during an antipsoric treatment, it means that the remedy is affecting psora at its roots and will do much for its thorough cure(page 135). If a skin eruption appears during the treatment while all other symptoms have so far improved the end of the treatment is close.”

1. Hahnemann – 1833-43
   In paragraphs 161 and 248 of the fifth and sixth edition of the Organon of Medicine of 1833 and 1843 respectively, Hahnemann says that in the treatment of old and very old chronic disease, aggravation of the original disease does not appear if the remedy is accurately chosen and given in the appropriate small doses, which are only gradually increased. “When this is done, these exacerbations of the original symptoms of the chronic disease can appear only at the end of the treatment, when the cure is complete or nearly complete.” The original symptoms of a chronic disease should be the last to aggravate or become more prominent before disappearing. (10)In paragraph 253 of the same work, the author states that in all diseases, especially in quickly arising (acute) ones, of all the signs that indicate a smallbeginning of improvement (or aggravation) that is not visible to everybody, the psychic condition of the patient and his general demeanor are the most certainand revealing.

   In paragraph 225, Hahnemann states that some psychic diseases are not the extension of physical disease but, “instead, with only slight physical illness, they arise and proceed from the psyche, from persistent grief, resentment, anger, humiliation and repeated exposure to fear and fright. In time such psychic diseases often greatly harm the physical health.” In other words, Hahnemann had recognized the existence of psychosomatic diseases, those diseases which progress from within outwards and from above downwards.

   This is the background that now leads us to Hering, who, among all Hahnemann’s students, was most similar to him. Like Hahnemann, Hering was a true scientist who totally adopted the inductive method in his scientific pursuits.

2. Hering – 1845
   In 1845, Hering published in the preface of the first American edition of Hahnemann’s Chronic Diseases an extract of an essay which was never published elsewhere, called “Guide to the Progressive Development of Homœopathy”.In this essay, Hering writes:

• “Every homœopathic physician must have observed that the improvement in pain takes place from above downward; and in diseases, from within outward. This is the reason why chronic diseases, if they are thoroughly cured, always terminate in some cutaneous eruption, which differs according to the different constitutions of the patients.
• “The thorough cure of a widely ramified chronic disease in the organism is indicated by the most important organs being first relieved; the affection passes off in the order in which the organs had been affected, the more important being relieved first, the less important next, and the skin last.(page 7)
• “Even the superficial observer will not fail in recognising this law of order.
• “This law of order which we have pointed out above, accounts for numerous cutaneous eruptions consequent upon homœopathic treatment, even where they never had been seen before; it accounts for the obstinacy with which many kinds of herpes and ulcers remain upon the skin, whereas others are dissipated like snow. Those which remain, do remain because the internal disease is yet existing… It lastly accounts for one cutaneous affection being substituted for another.” (11) (page 8)

Here Hering assumes that all chronic diseases (it is likely that he is referring here to diseases of psoric origin, i.e., non-venereal) progress from less to more important organs and disappear in the reverse order. This is compatible with Hahnemann’s theory that all chronic diseases of non-venereal origin manifest themselves first on the skin then internally. (Concerning the theories of Hahnemann, Hering wrote in 1836 in the first American edition of the Organon of Medicine: Whether the theories of Hahnemann are destined to endure a longer or a shorter space, whether they be the best or not, time only can determine; be it as it may however, it is a matter of minor importance. For myself, I am generally considered as a disciple and adherent of Hahnemann, and I do indeed declare, that I am one among the most enthusiastic in doing homage to his greatness; but nevertheless I declare also, that since my first acquaintance with homeopathy, (in the year 1821), down to the present day, I hve never yet accepted a single theory in the Organon as it is promulgated. I feel no aversion to acknowledge this even to the venerable sage himself. It is the genuine Hahnemannean spirit totally to disregard all theories, even those of one’s own fabrication, when they are in opposition to the results of pure experience. All thoeries and hypotheses have no positive weight whatever, only so far as they lead to new experiments, and afford a better survey of the results of those already made. (page 17) (12)

1. Hering – 1865
   It seems that Hering did not further elaborate on this subject, at least in the American literature, until 20 years later. In 1865, he published an article in the first volume of The Hahnemannian Monthly called “Hahnemann’s three rulesconcerning the rank of symptoms”. Hering states in this article that:

• “The quintessence of Hahnemann’s doctrine is, to give in all chronic diseases, i.e., such as progress from without inwardly, from the less essential parts of our body to the more essential, from the periphery to the central organs, generally from below upwards – to give in all such cases, by preference, such drugs as are opposite in their direction, or way of action, such as act from within outward, from up downward, from the most essential organs to the less essential, from the brain and the nerves outward and down to the most outward and the lowest of all organs, to the skin… All the antipsoric drugs of Hahnemann have this peculiarity as the most characteristic; the evolution of their effects from within towards without. (page 6-7)
• “Hahnemann states, in his treatise on Chronic Diseases, American translation p.171: Symptoms recently developed are the first to yield. Older symptoms disappear last. Here we have one of Hahnemann’s general observations, which like all of them, is of endless value, a plain, practical rule and of immense importance.
• “The above rule might also be expressed in the following words: In diseases of long standing, where the symptoms or groups of symptoms have befallen the sick in a certain order, succeeding each other, more and more being added from time to time to those already existing, in such cases this order should be reversed during the cure; the last ought to disappear first and the first last.” (page 7-8) (13)

It is very clear here that Hering makes no mention of a law but rather of a rule, that the symptoms ought to disappear in the reverse order of their appearance during the homeopathic treatment of patients with chronic disease of psoric origin, the ones that progress from without inwardly, from less important to more important organs and generally from below upwards.

1. Hering – 1875
   In 1875, Hering published the first volume of Analytical Therapeutics of the Mindin which he stated that “only such patients remain well and are really cured, who have been rid of their symptoms in the reverse order of their development”.(page 24) (14) Here Hering makes no mention of the three other propositions regarding the direction of cure: from above downwards, from within outwards and from the more important to the less important organs. Why? Were they not considered as important to evaluate the direction of cure as stated in previous years?In the same work, Hering also explains that he adopted Hahnemann’s arrangement of the materia medica: “First inner symptoms, then outer ones. This order we have now uniformly preserved throughout the whole work.” (page 21) In explaining why he adopted this arrangement he says: “The arrangement as well as the style of printing, has the one object especially in view, viz.: to make it as easy as possible for the eye, and through the eye, for the mind to find what is looked for.” He makes no mention of this arrangement corresponding to a direction of cure, as it has been suggested by some well wishing homeopaths.

   The origin of the term “Hering’s law”
   Where does the term “Hering’s law” come from as it seems never to have been mentioned in the literature during Hering’s time? The earliest mention I have been able to find in the homeopathic literature dates from 1911, in an article published by Kent in the first volume of the Transactions of the Society of Homœopathicians called “Correspondence of Organs, and the Direction of Cure”.Kent writes:

• “Hering first introduced the law of direction of symptoms: from within out, from above downward, in reverse order of their appearance. It does not occur in Hahnemann’s writings. It is spoken of as Hering’s law. There is scarcely anything of this law in the literature of homœopathy, except the observation of symptoms going from above to the extremities, eruptions appearing on the skin and discharges from the mucous membranes or ulcers appearing upon the legs as internal symptoms disappear.
• “There is non-specific assertion in the literature except as given in the lectures on philosophy at the Post- Graduate School.” (15)

It is reasonable to assume that Kentwas the one that officialized the term “Hering’s law” and so inadvertently popularized the concept of the existence of a clear and precise law of direction of cure. (At least up till 1899, at Kent’s Post-Graduate School of Homeopathics, the directions of cure were still called “theThree Directions of cure [given by Hahnemann].) (16) By using the name of Hering it is reasonable to say that Kent thus created false and misleading historical assumptions. Since H.C. Allen had died two years previously (1909), the profession, at least in North America, had no other leaders capable to refute Kent and defend the classic Hahnemannian tradition. (It is to be remembered that in 1908 H.C. Allen had severely criticized the materia medica of the new synthetic remedies that Kent had been publishing since 1904 in The Critique. Kent was at the time the associate editor of this journal in which, almost monthly, he had been publishing the materia medica of a new synthetic remedy, each of very questionable value. During an open session at the annual meeting of the International Hahnemannian Association, Allen and G.P. Waring accused Kent of publishing materia medica that was “without proving or any clinical experience”, which would have been completely contrary to the strict inductive method intrinsic to homeopathy. (17)

Kent then stopped permanently the publication of these synthetic remedies, even the ones that he had previously promised for upcoming publication in The Critique. (18) Although Kent continued to publish regularly in The Critique until 1911 he restricted his articles to reporting clinical cases rather than materia medica. Never was a synthetic remedy ever published by Kent after the initial criticism of Allen even in his own journal, The Homœopathician, that he founded in 1912. Furthermore, when Kent published the second edition of his Lectures on Homœopathic Materia Medica in 1912 [the first edition was in 1904], all the synthetic remedies published between 1904 and 1908 were omitted.)

In this same article, Kent says that in the course of treatment of a patient suffering with a psychic disease of the will (problems of affections, grief, anger, jealousy, etc), the heart or liver will be affected as the treatment progresses.

While in a patient suffering from a mental disease (problems of the intellect), the stomach or the kidney will be affected during appropriate homeopathic treatment. Were these comments on the direction of cure and correspondence of organs based on Kent’s impeccable and meticulous observations or was he rather formulating hypotheses? He does not explain further but he does mention later in the same paper that “through familiarity with Swedenborg, I have found the correspondences wrought out from the Word of God harmonious with all I have learned in the past thirty years. Familiarity with them aids in determining the effect of prescriptions.” (15)

Nowhere was I able to find in the writings of Kent, including in a collection of not yet republished lesser writings, any other mention of Hering’s law as to the direction of cure.

Discussion and Conclusion

First let us briefly review the highlights of what has been so far demonstrated:

• Between 1828 and 1843, Hahnemann enunciated his theories of chronic diseases and described his observations and rules about the progression and resolution of these chronic diseases. One key point of his theory is that a skin eruption is the first manifestation of psora, which is the source of all chronic diseases of non-venereal origin. In chronic disease the presentingsymptoms of the patient (“those ailments which have been most constant and unchanged”) may aggravate and will disappear in the reverse order of their appearance with the correct antipsoric remedies in the correct posology. Possibly, old symptoms may return during an antipsoric treatment. In all diseases, if after a homeopathic remedy the psychic symptoms are the first to improve or aggravate it is a most certain sign of curative change. For Hahnemann this inside outward improvement was not a law but rather a most certain sign of curative change. Finally not all diseases progress from outside inwards but certain diseases (psychosomatic diseases) can progress from within outwards.
• In 1845, Hering enunciated the original observations of Hahnemann as a law of order in a work never to be published. In this law he mentions essentially four points, that “the improvement in pain takes place fromabove downward; and in diseases, from within outward… Chronic diseases if thoroughly cured, always terminate in some cutaneous eruption” and lastly “the thorough cure of a widely ramified chronic disease in the organism is indicated by the most important organs being first relieved; the affection passes off in the order in which the organs had been affected, the most important being relieved first, the less important next, and the skin last”. As a reader I do not clearly sense that Hering is officially proclaiming the original observations of Hahnemann as an absolute law but rather that there is a “law of order” during a curative process. Also I was unable to find Hering or any of his contemporaries referring further to this unpublished work or to a law of direction of cure.
• In 1865, Hering described these observations not as a law but asHahnemann’s general observations or as plain practical rules. Essentially he emphasizes the proposition that the symptoms should disappear in the reverse order of their appearance during the treatment of patients with chronic psoric diseases.
• In 1875, Hering now discussed only one proposition, that the symptoms will disappear in the reverse order of their appearance. The three other propositions are now not mentioned at all.
• All the illustrious contemporaries of Hering seems to remain silent on this point, at least from my review of the literature.
• In 1911,Kent, almost arbitrarily, calls the original observations of Hahnemann “Hering’s law”.

Now, with Kent’s powerful influence, most modern works and presentations on homeopathy began to declare Hering’s law as an established fact and seemingly assumed that it has been thoroughly verified since the beginning of homeopathy, although no author, to my knowledge, has so far been able to substantiate what each is repeating from the other. Here is one clear sign which indicates how profoundly the homeopathic profession of today has been cut off from its original and most essential sources. During the years of its decline in the U.S. the profession experienced a gradual discontinuity from its original foundation and started to rely more and more on a neo-foundation dating back to the turn of the present century. Each new generation of homeopaths has readily accepted Hering’s law as a perfect law of cure and so unintentionally perpetuated a misleading assumption. For students it is an attractive concept but we clinicians must stand up and report our observations even if they are contrary to the teaching we have received.

From reviewing the literature, it seems unlikely that the law formulated by Kent in 1911 is a fair represention of Hering’s overall understanding of a direction of cure and that neither Kent nor anyone else has been able thus far to clinically demonstrate that the original observations of Hahnemann constituted in fact a perfect law of nature. But if we assume, for a moment, that the law formulated by Kent is true, would all symptoms then have to disappear, not only in the reverse order of their appearance, but also from above downwards, from within outwards and from more important to less important organs?

To comply with this law it would mean that all diseases to be curable must proceed from outside inwards, from below upwards and from less important to more important organs. Many acute diseases and a whole list of chronic diseases such as psychosomatic diseases and others that develop from within outwards (for example cases of arthritis followed by psoriasis), or diseases that develop from above downwards, as in certain cases of polyarthritis, would then be theoritically incurable. Or (since we know this not to be the case) they are curable, but represent notable exceptions to Kent’s formulation of a law of direction of cure.

In many cases of chronic disease the direction of disappearance of symptoms will contradict at least one of the four propositions. I assume that we all agree that the enunciation of a law must be based on impeccable observations. A law, if it is to be called a law, must explain all observable phenomena of direction of cure. It is unacceptable to use limited or even selected clinical phenomena to confirm a supposed law.

This situation appears to exist when certain homeopaths in their attempts to defend “pure” homeopathy subscribe to the position that what is observed as contrary to Hering’s law, as formulated by Kent, is only due to poor prescribing, suppressive at times, palliative at best but surely not curative. For them what is wrong, is not the law but the prescription: “the simillimum was not given.”

Personally I use and can daily confirm the original observations of Hahnemann concerning the direction of cure and have found them extremely helpful to evaluate the evolution of diseases or of cure but I have not been able to substantiate these observations as a law and have not yet found a colleague with such substantiation. I use them as plain practical rules.

Probably by the end of my career, homeopathy will have become widely accepted. I would then resent it if a group of objective scientists clinically investigate the principles of homeopathy, and find numerous exceptions not abiding to our idealistic or dogmatic conception of Hering’s law; thus renderiing it only “a plain, practical rule“. I would similarly resent having a group of scientists saying that for the last hundred or more years the homeopathic profession has been blindly erring in assuming that Hering’s law was an irrefutable fact.

Five of the many plagues that have hindered the growth of homeopathy are ignorance, egotism, dogmatism, idolatry and the diversion from the inductive method. In his last address to the profession in an article published in the August 1880 (Hering died on July 23, 1880.) issue of the North American Journal of Homœopathy, Hering warned us that “if our school ever gives up the strict inductive method of Hahnemann we are lost, and deserve to be mentioned only as a caricature in the history of medicine.” (19) Indeed, since its early beginning the tendency to rationalize the practice of medicine has also constantly threatened homeopathy. Hahnemann, who had a thorough understanding of the history of medicine, knew that the only sure way was based on the experimental method. Hering demonstrated the same rigor. Unfortunatively, we can not say the same of Kent. Let us now start carefully observing and reporting any facts that would help to perfect Hahnemann’s original observations. If a direction of cure can be expressed within the context of a law, then so be it. But until demonstrated otherwise, it should remain “a plain, practical rule”. The law that we suspect still needs to be rightly formulated.

At present it seems appropriate to refer to these observations as the rules of the direction of cure. To refer to these as Hahnemann’s or Hering’s rules may further prolong the confusion. From my personal experience, it appears that the four rules are not applicable to all cases and that there is a hierarchy among them, i.e., they do not have equal value. The first indication that a disease is being cured under homeopathic treatment is that the presenting and reversible(Many symptoms related to irreversible lesions can not be expected to totally disappear; consequently the more a symptom is related to organic changes, the less likely, or more slowly it will disappear. The greater the irreversibility of the pathology the greater the symptoms will linger. The practitioner can easily be confused by these important exceptions, which are often not well perceived. Therefore this rule [of symptoms disappearing in the reverse order of appearance] is generally less applicable to symptoms deriving from organic lesions.) symptoms of the disease will disappear in the reverse order of their appearance.

This confirms the observations as pointed out originally and plainly by Hahnemann in The Chronic Diseases and later by Hering in 1865 and 1875. This means that during the treatment of patients suffering with chronic diseases of non-venereal origin and also at times with acute diseases, the presentingsymptoms of the patient’s chronic dynamic disease (as opposed to the symptoms resulting essentially from gross error of living) will disappear in the reverse order of their appearance. So the presenting symptoms that have developed in the order of A B C D E seem to consistently disappear in the order of E D C B A. This rule seems to have supremacy over the other three rules: from more important to the less important organs, from within outwards and from above downwards.

The word “presenting” is here emphasized in order to state perfectly clearly that the symptoms that will disappear in the reverse order of the their appearance are only the presenting symptoms, and that it is not at all expected that every ailment experienced by the patient in his past will again be re-experienced under homeopathic treatment. In fact only a few of these old symptoms and conditions will reappear during a homeopathic treatment, usually the ones that have unmistakably been suppressed by whatever influences. Beside antipathic treatment that will suppress symptoms and normal functions of the organism (perspiration or menses) there are other measures which will cause suppression of symptoms, first, dissimilar diseases, natural or artificial; second, external influences such as exposure to cold temperature, (i.e., suppressed menses from getting the feet wet); and lastly, internal influences that cause the person to suppress emotions such as anger or grief. This rule concerning cure in the reverse order of appearance of the presenting and reversible symptoms of the disease is the most important of the four as it is observable in almost all cases. The importance of this rule is well emphasized by Hering in 1865 when he mentioned:

• “This rule enables the Hahnemannian artist not only to cure the most obstinate chronic diseases, but also to make a certain prognosis when discharging a cases, whether the patient will remain cured or whether the disease will return, like a half-paid creditor, at the first opportunity.” (12)

The second most important (applicable) rule in the hierarchy is that cure will proceed from more important to less important organs. Third in importance is the rule that cure will proceed from within outwards. Fourth, least important and least often observable, the cure will proceed from above downwards. Hahnemann’s observation thatof all the signs that indicate a small beginning of improvement, the psychic condition of the patient and his general demeanor are the most certain and revealing is seen as the source of the last three rules. “The very beginning of improvement is indicated by a sense of greater ease, composure, mental freedom, higher spirits, and returning naturalness.” (paragraph 253) 10 This original observation of Hahnemann, which is verified daily, does not contradict the first rule in any case because the first sign of improvement can be and is often different than the symptom that would firstdisappear.

Consequent to Hahnemann’s theory, (that all diseases, acute and chronic of non-venereal origin, come from the original malady called psora and its first manifestation is a skin eruption) all cases of chronic disease of dynamic origin must develop a skin eruption to be totally cured. As it seems unfeasible to demonstrate, it should at best be used as a working hypothesis and not as a law. For a law to exist it must be demonstrable without exception. Hahnemann had a clear opinion about the role of the physician as theorist when he wrote in the preface to the fourth volume of The Chronic Diseases:

• “I furnished, indeed, a conjecture about it [on how the cure of diseases is effected], but I did not desire tocall it an explanation, i.e., a definite explanation of the modus operandi. Nor was this at all necessary, for it is only incumbent upon us to cure similar symptoms correctly and successfully, according to a law of nature [similia similibus curantur] which is being constantly confirmed; but not to boast with abstract explanations, while we leave the patients uncured; for that is all which so-called physicians have hitherto accomplished.” (8)

To end this thesis, I would like to leave you with the spirit of some pertinent thoughts of Constantine Hering. In 1879, in the last two paragraphs to the preface of his last work, The Guiding Symptoms of our Materia Medica, he writes:

• “It has been my rule through life never to accept anything as true, unless it came as near mathematical proof as possible in its domain of science; and, in the other hand, never to reject anything as false, unless there was stronger proof of its falsity.
• “Some will say, “but so many things – a majority of all observations – will thus remain between the two undecided.” So they will; and can it be helped? It can, but only by accumulating most careful observations and contributing them to the general fund of knowledge.” (20)

And finally he wrote in 1845 in the preface of Hahnemann’s Chronic Diseases:

• “It is the duty of all of us to go farther in the theory and practice of Homœopathy than Hahnemann has done. We ought to seek the truth which is before us and forsake the errors of the past.” (page 9) (11)

References

1. Kent JT. Lectures on Homœopathic Philosophy. 2nd Ed. Chicago: Ehrhart & Karl, 1929.

15. Close S. The Genius of Homœopathy.Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1924.

16. Roberts HA. The Principles and Art of Cure by Homœopathy. 2nd Revised Edition. Rustington: Health Science Press, 1942.

17. Boericke G. A compend of the Principles of Homœopathy for Students in Medicine.Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1929.

18. Raue CG, Knerr CB, Mohr C, eds. A Memorial of Constantine Hering.Philadelphia: Press of Globe Printing House, 1884.

19. Eastman AM. Life and Reminiscences of Dr. Constantine Hering.Philadelphia: Published by the family for private circulation, 1917.

20. Knerr CB. Life of Hering.Philadelphia: The Magee Press, 1940.

21.HahnemannSC.The Chronic Diseases. Trans. by LF Tafel.Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1896.

22. Hahnemann SC. Organon of Medicine. Trans. byW Boericke.Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1920

23. Hahnemann SC. Organon of Medicine. Trans. by J Kunzli.Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher, 1982.

24. Hering C. Preface. InHahnemannSC.The Chronic Diseases. Trans. by CJ Hempel. New-York: William Radde, 1845.

25. Hering C. Preface to the first American edition. In the Organon of Homœopathic Medicine. New-York: William Radde, 1836.

26. Hering C. Hahnemann’s Three Rules Concerning the Rank of Symptoms. Hahnemannian Monthly 1865;1:5-12.

27. Hering C. Analytical Therapeutics of the Mind. Vol 1.Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1875.

28. Kent JT. Correspondence of Organs, and Direction of Cure. Trans Soc. Homœopathicians 1911;1:31-33.

29. Loos JC. Homœopathic Catechism. Journal of Homœopathics 1898-1899;2:480-488.

30. Mastin JM. Editorial. Critique 1908;15:277-278.

31. Mastin JM. Editorial. Critique 1907;14:228-229.