Category: Uncategorized

HOMEOPATHY has an ‘applied’ as well as a ‘theoretical’ part.

We should approach homeopathy not as ‘applying’ some theories, but making theories for ‘explaining’ what is experienced and applied. Hahnemann developed homeopathy not by making theories first, but by observing and experimenting real objective phenomena of nature, and then making theories to explain what he observed.

Applied part of homeopathy is primary, and it represents the objective reality, where as theoretical part is only a subjective explanation of this objective reality. Even if subjective part is proved scientifically wrong, objective part will remain, because it represents truth. We can explain this objective truth in a different way, more correctly, more rationally and more scientifically. Theory of homeopathy may change, but truth of homeopathy will not change.

What we call ‘theory of homeopathy’ is essentially a SUBJECTIVE explanation hahnemann provided for his OBJECTIVE observations regarding a peculiar kind of relationship between ‘drug and disease’ and the phenomenon of cure on the basis of that relationship. We have to differentiate between these ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ parts of homeopathy

Subjective or theoretical part of homeopathy is bound to have limitations, since it is based on the primitive forms of scientific knowledge available to hahnemann 250 years ago, when modern science was in its infantile stage of evolution.

When scientific community say ‘homeopathy is unscientific’, I will have to agree with that statement, in the meaning that ‘theory of homeopathy’ as it stands today is ‘unscientific’ and ‘scientifically implausible’. Many things in present theory of homeopathy are evidently incompatible with our most advanced and well proven scientific knowledge system.

According to SCIENTIFIC METHOD, anything not explained and proved scientifically are labelled UNSCIENTIFIC.

I do not think everything ‘not scientifically proved’are ‘scientifically implausible’. If something ‘really exists’, it could be and should be scientifically explained and proved in accordance with scientific method. Until that happens, it should not be considered ‘scientifically implausible’.

There are many phenomena which really exists or WORKS, but not ‘still’ scientifically explained or proved. But they are not ‘scientifically implausible’. Many things we NOW call ‘scientific’ were not ‘scientific’ in yesterdays, since they were not explained or proved scientifically. Gravitation, electricity, magnetism and many phenomena existed and worked here for centuries without any scientific explanation or proving- but everybody really experienced it.

My request to scientific community is, do not label or cast aside homeopathy as ‘unscientific’ or ‘scientifically implausible’, only because it is presently explained using most unscientific and scientifically implausible theories. Do not ignore the ‘objective truth’ involved in homeopathy that is being proved through thousands of cures experienced by homeopaths everyday.

At least, wait for a scientific theory of homeopathy to evolve in near future.

Renin or angiotensinogenase, is the key enzyme produced in kidneys that modulates body’s renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) that mediates volume of extracellular fluids such as blood plasma, lymph and interstitial fluid, as well as arterial vasoconstriction. Thus, RENIN regulates the body’s mean arterial blood pressure.

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

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

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

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

In normal physiological conditions, once the reduced blood pressure is raised to the adequate level, production of RENIN in kidneys is stopped by a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK mechanism, where angiotensin II act upon the special ‘angiotensin II receptors’ on the cell membranes of juxtaglomerular apparatus of kidneys. By this process, level of RENIN in blood stream is maintained with in limits, thereby preventing hypertension. Same way, production of catecholamines such as adrenalin which also plays a role in inducing production of RENIN and maintaining blood pressure high, is stopped by negative feedback action of adrenalin upon adrenogenic receptors on cells of adrenal cortex.

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

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

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

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

According to MIT view, PSORIASIS is caused by ‘off-target’ actions of antibodies generated in the body against various ‘alien proteins’ such as infectious agents of ITCH. As such, it is a MIASMATIC disease belonging to the PSORA. When these antibodies attack the cells of skin, misinterpreting them as pathogenic antigens, a series of biochemical process set in, resulting in inflammatory changes and hyperkaratinization of epidermal layers amounting to a state of PSORIASIS.

According to ‘immunological’ view proposed by modern researchers, psoriasis develops when the immune system mistakes a normal skin cell for a pathogenic agent, and sends out faulty signals that cause overproduction of new skin cells that appear as psoriatic lesions. This model also broadly fits to the MIT ‘miasmatic’ model, only difference being that ‘immunological model’ does not mention about the role of ‘antibodies’ formed against previous infections.

Other than skin, psoriasis can also cause inflammation of the joints, which is known as psoriatic arthritis. This similar to the arthritis produced by antibodies of streptococcus throat infections. Between 10% and 30% of all people with psoriasis also has psoriatic arthritis.

The cause of psoriasis and its molecular level pathology is not fully understood yet. Over and above immunological or miasmatic aspects, it is believed to have a genetic component also, and ‘genetic expressions’ leading to local psoriatic changes can be triggered by an injury to the skin, thereby attracting ‘mismatic’ antibodies into dermal cells.

Various environmental factors have been suggested as aggravating to psoriasis, including oxidative stress, mental stress, withdrawal of systemic corticosteroids, as well as exposure to various other environmental factors such as chemicals. All these factors create a favorable environment for the attack of dermal cells- keratinocytes’ by ‘miasmatic’ antibodies.

Existing hypothesis is that the disease as being an immune-mediated disorder in which the excessive reproduction of skin cells is secondary to factors produced by the immune system. T cells -which normally help protect the body against infection- become active, migrate to the dermis and trigger the release of cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha TNFα, which cause inflammation and the rapid production of skin cells. It is not yet clearly known what initiates the activation of the T cells. Antibodies generated against various alien proteins such as infectious agents entering the body may play such a role, through their off-target actions.

This immune-mediated or miasmatic model of psoriasis has been supported by the observation that various immunosuppressant medications can clear psoriasis plaques. However, the role of the immune system is not fully understood, and it has recently been reported that an animal model of psoriasis can be triggered in mice lacking T cells. Animal models, however, reveal only a few aspects resembling human psoriasis. Compromised skin barrier function has a role in psoriasis susceptibility.

Psoriasis is considered as a fairly idiosyncratic disease, since majority of cases of psoriasis may worsen or improve without any apparent reason. Studies of the factors associated with psoriasis tend to be based on small, samples of individuals belonging to hospital samples. These studies tend to suffer from representative issues, and an inability to tease out causal associations in the face of other unknown intervening factors. Conflicting findings are often reported in such studies. Nevertheless, the first outbreak is sometimes reported following a mental or physical stress, skin injury, and streptococcal infections, which attract ‘immune bodies’ to attack the certain skin cells, by mistaking them as pathogenic agents. Conditions that have been reported as accompanying a worsening of the disease also include infections, stress, and changes in season and climate. Certain medicines, including lithium salt, beta blockers and the antimalarial drug chloroquine have been reported to trigger or aggravate the disease.

Excessive alcohol consumption, smoking and obesity may exacerbate psoriasis or make the management of the condition difficult or perhaps these co-morbidities are effects rather than causes. Hairsprays, some face creams and hand lotions, are also considered to cause an outbreak of psoriasis. In 1975, Stefania Jablonska and collaborators advanced a new theory that special antibodies tend to break through into the lower layers of the skin and set up a complex series of chemical reactions, which comes very close to MIT interpretation of miasms as ‘off target actions’ of antibodies.

Psoriasis occurs more likely in dry skin than oily or well-moisturized skin, and specifically after an external skin injury such as a scratch or cut , which is known as Koebner phenomenon. This is believed to be caused by an infection, in which the infecting organism thrives under dry skin conditions with minimal skin oil, which otherwise protects skin from infections. The case for psoriasis is opposite to the case of athlete’s foot, which occurs because of a fungus infection under wet conditions as opposed to dry in psoriasis. This infection induces inflammation, which causes the symptoms commonly associated with psoriasis, such as itching and rapid skin turnover, and leads to drier skin, as the infecting organism absorbs the moisture that would otherwise go to the skin. All these observations authenticate the role ‘miasmatic’ antibodies producing ‘off-target’ inhibitions in certain biochemical process in skin cells, resulting in PSORIASIS.

Psoriasis has a large hereditary component, and many genes are associated with it, but it is not clear how those genes work together. Most of them involve the immune system, particularly the major histo-compatibility complex (MHC) and T cells. The main value of genetic studies is they identify molecular mechanisms and pathways for further study and potential drug targets.

Classic genome-wide linkage analysis has identified nine locations on different chromosomes associated with psoriasis. They are called psoriasis susceptibility 1 through 9 (PSORS1 through PSORS9). Within those loci are genes. Many of those genes are on pathways that lead to inflammation. Certain variations or mutations of those genes are commonly found in psoriasis.

The major determinant is PSORS1, which probably accounts for 35–50% of its heritability. It controls genes that affect the immune system or encode proteins that are found in the skin in greater amounts in psoriasis. PSORS1 is located on chromosome 6 in the MHC, which controls important immune functions. Three genes in the PSORS1 locus have a strong association with psoriasis vulgaris: HLA-C variant HLA-Cw6, which encodes a MHC class I protein; CCHCR1, variant WWC, which encodes a coiled protein that is overexpressed in psoriatic epidermis; and CDSM, variant allele 5, which encodes corneodesmosin, which is expressed in the granular and cornified layers of the epidermis and upregulated in psoriasis.

Genome-wide association scans have identified other genes that are altered to characteristic variants in psoriasis. Some of these genes express inflammatory signal proteins, which affect cells in the immune system that are also involved in psoriasis. Some of these genes are also involved in other autoimmune diseases.

Two major genes under investigation are IL12B on chromosome 5q, which expresses interleukin-12B; and IL23R on chromosome 1p, which expresses the interleukin-23 receptor, and is involved in T cell differentiation. T cells are involved in the inflammatory process that leads to psoriasis.
These genes are on the pathway that ends up upregulating tumor necrosis factor-α and nuclear factor κB, two genes that are involved in inflammation.
Recently the first gene directly linked to psoriasis has been identified. Studies have suggested that a rare mutation in the gene encoding for the CARD14 protein plus an environmental trigger was enough to cause plaque psoriasis, which is the most common form of psoriasis.

In psoriasis, immune cells move from the dermis to the epidermis, where they stimulate skin cells or keratinocytes to proliferate. Psoriasis does not seem to be a true autoimmune disease. In an autoimmune disease, the immune system confuses an outside antigen with a normal body component, and attacks them both. But in psoriasis, the inflammation does not seem to be caused by outside antigens, although DNA does have an immunostimulatory effect. Researchers have identified many of the immune cells involved in psoriasis, and the chemical signals they send to each other to coordinate inflammation. At the end of this process, immune cells, such as dendritic cells and T cells, move from the dermis to the epidermis, secreting chemical signals, such as tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-1β, and interleukin-6, which cause inflammation, and interleukin-22, which causes keratinocytes to proliferate.

The immune system consists of an innate immune system, and an adaptive immune system. In the innate system, immune cells have receptors that have evolved to target specific proteins and other antigens that are commonly found on pathogens. In the adaptive immune system, immune cells respond to proteins and other antigens that they may never have seen before, which are presented to them by other cells. The innate system often passes antigens on to the adaptive system. When the immune system makes a mistake, and identifies a healthy part of the body as a foreign antigen, the immune system attacks that protein, as it does in autoimmunity.

In psoriasis, DNA is an inflammatory stimulus. DNA stimulates the receptors on plasmacytoid dendritic cells, which produce interferon-α, an immune stimulatory signal (cytokine). In psoriasis, keratinocytes produce antimicrobial peptides. In response to dendritic cells and T cells, they also produce cytokines, such as interleukin-1, interleukin-6, and tumor necrosis factor-α, which signals more inflammatory cells to arrive and produces further inflammation.

Dendritic cells bridge the innate and adaptive immune system. They are increased in psoriatic lesions and induce the proliferation of T cells and type 1 helper T cells. Certain dendritic cells can produce tumor necrosis factor-α, which calls more immune cells and stimulates more inflammation. Targeted immunotherapy, and psoralen and ultraviolet A (PUVA) therapy, reduces the number of dendritic cells.

T cells move from the dermis into the epidermis. They are attracted to the epidermis by alpha-1 beta-1 integrin, a signalling molecule on the collagen in the epidermis. Psoriatic T cells secrete interferon-γ and interleukin-17. Interleukin-17 is also associated with interleukin-22. Interleukin-22 induces keratocytes to proliferate. One hypothesis is that psoriasis involves a defect in regulatory T cells, and in the regulatory cytokine interleukin-10.

All the factors detailed above strongly support the MIT model of PSORIASIS, according to which it is a disease caused by miasm of PSORA, or ‘off-target’ actions of antibodies generated in the body against various ‘alien proteins’ such as infectious agents of ITCH. Homeopathic treatment of psoriasis should be based on this perspective.

MIT is trying to explain homeopathy in terms of removal of pathological molecular inhibitions using molecular imprints of drug molecules contained in potentizef drugs. As such, it is essential that homeopaths should learn the fundemental molecular kinetics of protein inhibition and activation, for understanding the scientific explanations regarding biological mechanism of SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR.

A protein inhibitor is a molecule , which binds to proteinsand decreases their activity. Since blocking an essential protein’s activity can produce derangements in the whole down stream molecular processes in that particular biochemical pathway, it leads to a state of pathology. Bacterial and viral toxins, various endogenous or exogenous chemical molecules, drugs and toxic substances can act as protein inhibitors. Protein inhibitors are also used as anti-microbial drugs, herbicides and pesticides .

Not all molecules that bind to proteins are inhibitors; activators also bind to proteons and increase their enzymatic activity. Normal biological ligands of proteins bind to them as part of normal biochemocal interactions and conversions.

The binding of an inhibitor can stop a natural ligand from entering the protein’s active site and/or hinder the protein from performing its normal interactions with ligands.Inhibitor binding is either reversible or irreversible. Irreversible inhibitors usually react with the protein and change it chemically via covalent bond formation. These inhibitors modify key amino acid residues needed for the activity of that particular protein. In contrast, reversible inhibitors bind non-covalently and different types of inhibition are produced depending on whether these inhibitors bind to the protein, the protein-ligand complex, or both

Many drug molecules are protein inhibitors, so their discovery and improvement is an active area of research in biochemistry and pharmacology. A medicinal protein inhibitor is often judged by its lack of binding to other proteins, and its minimum concentration needed to inhibit the target proteins. A high specificity and minimum concentration ensure that a drug will have few side effects and thus low toxicity.

Protein inhibitors also occur naturally in the body, and are involved in the regulation of metabolism. For example, enzymes in a metabolic pathway can be inhibited by downstream products. This type of negative feedback slows the production line when products begin to build up and is an important way to maintain homeostasis in a living system.

Natural protein inhibitors can also be poisons and are used as defences against predators or as ways of killing prey.

Reversible inhibitors bind to proteins with non-covalent interactions such as hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic interactions and ionic bonds. Multiple weak bonds between the inhibitor and the active site combine to produce strong and specific binding. In contrast to natural ligands and irreversible inhibitors, reversible inhibitors generally do not undergo chemical reactions when bound to the proteins and can be easily removed by dilution or dialysis.

There are four kinds of reversible protein inhibitors.

In competitive inhibition, the natural ligand and the inhibitor cannot bind to the protein at the same time. This usually results from the inhibitor having an affinity for the active site of a protein where the natural ligand also binds; the natural ligand and inhibitor compete for access to the protein’s active site. This type of inhibition can be in certain occasions overcome by sufficiently high concentrations of natural ligand, by out-competing the inhibitor. Competitive inhibitors are often similar in structure to the natural ligand of the protein.

In uncompetitive inhibition , the inhibitor binds only to the protein-ligand complex, it should not be confused with non-competitive inhibitors. This type of inhibition causes a decrease in rate of normal biochemical processes and conversions.

In mixed inhibition , the inhibitor can bind to the protein at the same time as the natural ligand. However, the binding of the inhibitor affects the binding of the natural ligand, and vice versa. This type of inhibition can be reduced, but not overcome by increasing concentration of natural ligand. Although it is possible for mixed-type inhibitors to bind in the active site, this type of inhibition generally results from an allosteric effect where the inhibitor binds to a different site on a protein. Inhibitor binding to this allosteric site changes the three dimensional conformation of the protein so that the affinity of the natural ligand for the active site is reduced.

Non-competitive inhibition is a form of mixed inhibition where the binding of the inhibitor to the protein reduces its activity but does not affect the binding of natural ligand. As a result, the extent of inhibition depends only on the concentration of the inhibitor.

Natural ligands as well as products also can some time act as protein inhibitors. This happens where either the natural ligand or the product of an enzyme reaction inhibit the same enzyme’s activity. This inhibition may follow the competitive,uncompetitive or mixed patterns. In natural ligand inhibition there is a progressive decrease in activity at high ligand concentrations. This may indicate the existence of two substrate-binding sites in the enzyme. At low substrate, the high-affinity site is occupied and normal kinetics are followed. However, at higher concentrations, the second inhibitory site becomes occupied, inhibiting the enzyme.

Product inhibition is often a regulatory feature in metabolism and can be a form of negative feedback .

Irreversible inhibitors usually covalently modify a protein, and inhibition can therefore not be reversed. Irreversible inhibitor often contain reactive functional groups such as nitrogen mustards , aldehydes , haloalkanes, alkenes, Michael acceptors, phenyl sulfonates , or fluorophosphonates . These electrophilic groups react with amino acid side chains to form covalent adducts. The residues modified are those with side chains containing nucleophiles such as hydroxyl or sulfhydryl groups; these include the amino acids serine, cysteine, threonine or tyrosine. Irreversible inhibitors are generally specific for one class of proteins and do not inactivate all proteins; they do not function by destroying protein structure but by specifically altering the active site of their target.

Proten inhibitors are found in nature and are also designed and produced as part of pharmacology and biochemistry . Natural poisons are often protein inhibitors that have evolved to defend a plant or animal against predators . These natural toxins include some of the most poisonous compounds known. Artificial inhibitors are often used as drugs, but can also be insecticides such as malathion, herbicides such as glyphosate , or disinfectants uch as triclosan .

The most common uses for protein inhibitors are as drugs to treat disease in modern medicine. Many of these inhibitors target a human enzyme and aim to correct a pathological condition.

An example of a medicinal protein inhibitor is sildenafil (Viagra), a common treatment for male erectile dysfunction. This compound is a potent inhibitor of cGMP specific
phosphodiesterase type 5, the enzyme that degrades the signalling molecule cyclic guanosine monophosphate. This signalling molecule triggers smooth muscle relaxation
and allows blood flow into the corpus cavernosum , which causes an erection. Since the drug decreases the activity of the enzyme that halts the signal, it makes this signal last for a longer period of time.

Another example of the structural similarity of some inhibitors to the natural ligands of the proteins they target is seen in the the anti-cancer drug methotrexate and folic acid. Folic acid is a natural ligand of dihydrofolate reductase , an enzyme involved in making nucleotides that is potently inhibited by methotrexate. Methotrexate blocks the action of dihydrofolate reductase and thereby halts the productionnof nucleotides. This block of nucleotide biosynthesis is more toxic to rapidly growing cells than non-dividing cells, since a rapidly growing cell has to carry out DNA replication , therefore methotrexate is often used in cancer chemotherapy.

Drugs also are used to inhibit enzymes needed for the survival of pathogens. For example, bacteria are surrounded by a thick cell wall made of a net-like polymer called peptidoglycan. Many antibiotics such as penicillin and vancomycin inhibit the enzymes that produce and the cross-link the strands of this polymer together. This causes the cell wall to lose strength and the bacteria to burst.

Drug design is facilitated when an enzyme that is essential to the pathogen’s survival is absent or very different in humans. In the example above, humans do not make peptidoglycan, therefore inhibitors of this process are selectively toxic to bacteria. Selective toxicity is also produced in antibiotics by exploiting differences in the structure of the ribosomes in bacteria, or how they make fatty acids.

Protein inhibitors are also important in metabolic control. Many metabolic pathways in the cell are inhibited by metabolites that control protein activity through allosteric regulation or substrate inhibition. However,nmetabolic pathways are not just regulated through inhibition since proteinbactivation is equally important.

Many herbicides and pesticides are protein inhibitors. Aetylcholinesterase is an enzyme found in animals from insects to humans. It is essential to nerve cell function through its mechanism of breaking down the neurotransmitter acetylcholine into its constituents, acetate and choline. This is somewhat unique among neurotransmitters as most, including serotonin, dopamine , and norepinephrine, are absorbed from the synaptic cleft rather than cleaved. A large number of acetylcholineesterase inhibitors are used in both medicine and agriculture. Reversible competitive inhibitors, such as edrophonium , physostigmine , and neostigmine , are used in the treatment of myasthenia gravis and in anaesthesia. The carbamatenpesticides are also examples of reversible AChE inhibitors. The organophosphate insecticides such as malathion, parathion , and chlorpyrifos irreversibly inhibit acetylcholinesterase. The herbicide glyphosate is an inhibitor of 3-phosphoshikimate 1-carboxyvinyltransferase, other herbicides, such as the sulfonylureas inhibit the enzyme acetolactate synthase. Both these enzymes are needed for plants to make branched-chain amino acids . Many other enzymess are inhibited by herbicides, including enzymes needed for the biosynthesis of lipids and carotenoids andnthe processes of photosynthesis and oxidative phosphorylation. NTo discourage seed predators , pulses contain trypsin inhibitors that interfere with digestion.

Animals and plants have evolved to synthesise a vast array of poisonous products including secondary metabolites , peptides and proteins that can act as inhibitors. Natural toxins are usually small organic molecules and are so diverse that there are probably natural inhibitors for most metabolic processes.

The metabolic processes targeted by natural poisons encompass more than enzymes in metabolic pathways and can also include the inhibition of receptor, channel and structural protein functions in a cell. For example, paclitaxel (taxol), an organic molecule found in the Pacific yew tree , binds tightly to tubulin dimers and inhibits their assembly into microtubules in the cytoskeleton .

Many natural poisons act as neurotoxins that can cause paralysis leading to death and have functions for defence against predators or in hunting and capturing prey. Some of these natural inhibitors, despite their toxic attributes, are valuable for therapeutic uses at lower doses. An example of a neurotoxin are the glycoalkaloids, from the plant species in the Solanaceae family (includes potato , tomato and eggplant), that are acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. Inhibition of this enzyme causes an uncontrolled increase in the acetylcholine neurotransmitter, muscular paralysis and then death.

Neurotoxicity can also result from the inhibition of receptors; for example, atropine from deadly nightshade ( Atropa belladonna ) that functions as a competitive antagonist of the muscarinic acetylcholine receptors . Although many natural toxins are secondary metabolites, these poisons also include peptides and proteins. An example of a toxic peptide is alpha-amanitin , which is found in relatives of the death cap mushroom. This is a potent enzyme inhibitor, in this case preventing the RNA polymerase II enzyme from transcribing DNA. The algaltoxin microcystin is also a peptide and is an inhibitor of protein phosphatases. This toxin can contaminate water supplies after algal blooms and is a known carcinogen that can also cause acute liver hemorrhage and death at higher doses.

Proteins can also be natural poisons or antinutrients , such as the trypsin inhibitors that are found in some legumes , as shown in the figure above. A less common class of toxins are toxic enzymes: these act as irreversible inhibitors of their target enzymes and work by chemically modifying their substrate enzymes. An example is ricin , an extremely potent protein toxin found in castor oil beans . This enzyme is a glycosidase that inactivates ribosomes. Since ricin is a catalytic irreversible inhibitor, this allows just a single molecule of ricin to kill a cell.

According to MIT HYPOTHESIS, active principles of post-avogadro  potentized drugs are MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of individual chemical molecules contained in the drug substances used for potentization.

As per this hypothesis, ‘molecular imprints’ are hydrogen-bonded supramolecular formations of  water-ethyl alcohol molecules, into which the three-dimensional  spacial conformations of drug molecules are imprinted or engraved as nanocavities, through a process of host-guest interactions or  MOLECULAR IMPRINTING  involved in the process of potentization.

These ‘molecular imprints’ can act as artificial binding sites or key holes for binding to the original drug molecules as well as any pathogenic molecule conformationally similar to the drug molecules.

When applied as therapeutic agent, these molecular imprints specifically bind to the pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity, thereby deactivating them and relieving the biological molecules from pathological molecular inhibitions.

This is the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure as proposed by MIT HYPOTHESIS.

Actually, the biological mechanism of cure proposed in this model is not a new idea. It is well accepted in modern molecular medicine and pharmacology, and is the basis of target-specific drug designing techniques currently very popular in pharmaceutical researches. There remains nothing to be proved on this idea.

Molecular imprinting in polymers (MIP) also is recently a very popular research area, a technique used in developing artificial binding sites in polymer matrices through a process of molecular level ‘host-guest’ interactions. These ‘molecular imprinted polymers’ are currently utilized in various laboratory procedures as molecular binding and filtering agents.

What I have been trying to do by MIT hypothesis is to adapt these well-accepted scientific concepts into the theoretical frame work of homeopathy, so that a scientific model could be developed to explain the biological mechanism of homeopathic  cure. MIT hypothesis explains homeopathic potentization in terms of ‘molecular imprinting in water’, and homeopathic cure in terms of removal of molecular inhibitions.

Only thing remaining to be scientifically proved is that potentized homeopathic drugs contain ‘molecular imprints’. It raises the question whether water-ethyl alcohol mixture can act as a medium for molecular imprinting, similar to polymers. Various studies regarding supra molecular properties of water indicate some ‘polymer-like’ properties of water and formations of hydrogen-bonded nanoclusters in a micro-environment, which obviously opens up possibilities of molecular imprinting in water-ethyl alcohol matrix.

IF WE COULD EXPERIMENTALLY PROVE:

a) high dilution drugs really work as curative agents when applied according to indications,

b) high dilution drugs works not only in living bodies, but also up on ‘in vitro’ biological samples,

c) high dilution drugs cannot interfere or prevent the normal interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands,

d) high dilution drugs can antidote the biological effects of same drugs used in crude or molecular forms,

e) biological properties of high dilution drugs are different or reverse to those of same drugs in molecular forms,

f) high dilution drugs do not contain original drug molecules,

g) high dilution drugs and unpotentized water-alcohol mixture are similar in their chemical structure and properties,

h) high dilution drugs differ from unpotentized water-alcohol mixture regarding physical properties and various physical parameters,

i) high dilution drugs  differ from unpotentized water-alcohol mixture regarding supra-molecular arrangements by formation of nano-clusters as could be observed by difference in spectroscopic studies,

j) Medicinal properties of high dilution drugs could be destroyed by applying strong heat, electric currents or other forms of electromagnetic energy, which will also change the characteristic physical properties of those potentized drugs,

MIT HYPOTHESIS COULD BE CONSIDERED SCIENTIFICALLY PROVED.

Analysis Of Some Important Scientific Studies That Indirectly Validates MIT Concepts

1. Study indicates Potentized Drugs and Parent Drugs behave differently in biological interactions- Another scientific evidence that supports MIT concepts:

If the concepts of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS are true, potentized drugs should not ‘mimic’ the properties of their crude ‘molecular forms’ as most people believe, but should act in opposite directions in biological environments. If we could experimentally prove it is actually so, that would be further proof for the validity of MIT concepts.

This question whether potentized drugs interact with biological molecules in a way different from their parent drugs is very important in the scientific understanding of molecular processes involved in homeopathic potentization and therapeutics. There are many homeopaths believing that during potentization, the medicinal properties of drugs are some way or other transferred to the potentizing medium, and hence potentized medicines can interact with human organism in the SAME way as the original drugs do.

On the contrary, only MIT proposes that potentization involves a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, in which the spacial configuration of drug molecules are imprinted into the medium as 3-D nano cavities, which can act as recognition sites towards original drug molecules or other molecules similar in configuration. As per this view, potentized medicines contain only ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules, which are complementary in configuration to the drug molecules. When applied for therapeutic purpose, these molecular imprints bind to the pathogenic molecules, and not to the biological targets. Molecular imprints act by removing the existing. molecular inhibitions, where as crude molecules produce molecular inhibitions of biological molecules. That means, molecular imprints should not act in a way SIMILAR to original molecules, in order to produce a therapeutic effect.

In order to prove this concept, we have to experimentally prove that potentized medicines can not interact with biological molecules in the same way as original drug molecules used for potentization. Such an experiment is essential part of ‘proving’ MIT concepts.

Here I am reproducing a previously published report regarding such an experiment already conducted by a team of eminent scientists in Germany five years back. It is published in “The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. May 2006, 12(4): 359-365. doi:10.1089/acm.2006.12.359”http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2006.12.359

The team conducted this experiment to verify whether potentized HgCl2 (Mercurius corrosivus) affect the activity of Diastase and α-Amylase in a way similar to crude form of HgCl2.

Research team consisted of: 1. Claudia M. Witt, M.D. Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany. 2. Michael Bluth, M.D. Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany. 3. Stephan Hinderlich, Ph.D. Institute for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany. 4. Henning Albrecht, Ph.D. Karl and Veronica Carstens-Foundation, Essen, Germany. 5. Rainer Lüdtke, M.Sc. Karl and Veronica Carstens-Foundation, Essen, Germany. 6. Thorolf E.R. Weisshuhn Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany. 7. Stefan N. Willich, M.D., M.P.H. Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany.

Their objective was to test for a stimulating or inhibiting effect of high potencies of the homeopathic remedy HgCl2 (Mercurius corrosivus) on two sugar hydrolases- (α-amylase from hog pancreas and diastase extract from winter barley)

High potencies of HgCl2 were produced using stepwise dilution plus shaking. Controls included potentized solvent (aqua bidestillata), equimolar dilutions without shaking, and enzyme-free references. Tested were potencies with dilution factors 1:200 (CC) on diastase extract from winter barley, and 1:100 (C) on α-amylase from hog pancreas. Enzyme activity was colorimetrically determined by Lugol’s iodine-starch reaction.An inhibiting effect of HgCl2 on enzyme activities was observed only in low potencies and dilutions (which contained molecules of HgCl2). Statistically significant differences between potencies and controls were not found in randomized and blinded experiments.

This experimental design provided independent reproducible results of cell-free in vitro assays. However, it did not indicate an effect of potentized HgCl2 on hydrolases. The researchers conclusion was that demonstrating potency effects may require additional experimental features.

My Interpretations:

Reported experiments and the results they obtained may help us in designing and conducting further in vitro experiments to prove the hypothesis put forward by DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY regarding potentization.

HgCl2 is known in homeopathy as Merc Cor. Crude HgCl2 is a known inhibitor of glucose hydrolases such as diastase and α-amylase.

Reported experiments show that similar to crude forms, lower dilutions of this compound also inhibits the hydrolyzing activity of those sugar hydrolase enzymes. Obviously, these lower dilutions contain molecules of HgCl2, and hence the inhibitory action on enzymes.

Same time, these experiments clearly showed that higher potencies of HgCl2 have no inhibitory action on those enzymes. That means, highly potentized HgCl2 cannot ‘mimic’ the original compound as expected by some theoreticians.

This finding, though considered by the researchers as a set back to their expectations, has serious implications in proving the concepts of MIT regarding potentization.

This experiment proves that through the potentization process, the properties of original drugs are not transferred to the potenizing medium in such a way so as to enable it to ‘mimic’ the original drugs.

We homeopaths know beyond any doubt that potentized HgCl2 or Merc Cor produces expected therapeutic effects when administered on the basis of principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’. That means, potentized HgCl2 contains some active principles having specific biochemical properties. Since the present experiments have shown that potentized HgCl2 cannot ‘mimic’ the biochemical properties of original compound, a logical and scientific explanation regarding the real molecular mechanism involved in potentization as well as therapeutic action becomes very much necessary.

Only possibility is ‘molecular imprinting’, as proposed by MIT.

Now, we have to repeat these in vitro experiment to verify whether higher potencies of HgCl2 can reactivate the enzymes already inhibited by lower potencies or crude forms of the same compound.

Even though the reported experiment was not intended or designed to prove MIT concepts, it indirectly contributes in proving it

2. Experimental evidences that prove potentized drugs can reverse the biological effects of MOLECULAR FORMS of same drugs- a strong validation of MIT concepts:

 Can MOLECULAR IMPRINTS contained in potentized drugs antidote or REVERSE the biological effects of DRUG MOLECULES in the crude forms of same drugs?

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

Most homeopaths maintain that medicinal properties of crude drugs are transferred to the medium during potentization. They may call it ‘vibrations’, ‘electromagnetic signals’, ‘medicinal memory’, ‘dynamic power’ or anything like that. But all those theories are based on the concept that potentized medicines can ‘mimic’ the MEDICINAL properties of parent drugs. They think potentized drugs act SIMILAR to crude drugs.If potentized medicines were really ‘mimicking’ the medicinal properties of parent drugs, they should be able to produce similar biological effects. But it is seen from the many in vitro experiments that potentized medicines could not act the SAME way as parent drugs on biological molecules. Whereas the molecular forms of HgCl2 inhibited the sugar hydrolases, potentized HgCl2 was not able to produce such a result.

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

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

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

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

Through these experiments, the team could prove that both Cad Sulph-30 and 200 were able to combat cadmium induced genotoxic effects in mice. From the results of the reported investigation it is revealed that both Cad Sulph-30 and Cad Sulph-200 showed remarkable potential to reduce genotoxic effects produced by CdCl2. In the study the homeopathic drug apparently enhanced/activated the process of maintaining the structural integrity of chromosomes and sperm either protecting them from the destructive ability of CdCl2 in causing DNA damage or else, by enhancing the process of repair of DNA already damaged by activating specific enzyme systems to repair the damage. Even in the absence of a single original drug molecule both Cad Sulph-30 and 200 elicited spectacular ability of protection/repair to damaged chromosomes and sperm, a fact which would lead one to speculate that the drugs must have acted through the genetic regulatory mechanisms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

INDIRECTLY, THESE STUDIES STRONGLY SUPPORT IN PROVING THE “MOLECULAR IMPRINTING” HYPOTHESIS PROPOSED BY MIT REGARDING MOLECULAR MECHANISM OF POTENTIZATION AND HOMEOPATHIC THERAPEUTICS.

3. A scientific study that endorses the concept of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING involved in homeopathic potentization:

Explanations of potentization in terms of molecular imprinting implies a supra-molecular rearrangement of potentizing medium, resulting in the formation of nanostrutures called as molecular imprints. Obviously, any study that indicates such a supra-molecular rearrangement could be considered as an evidence toendorse MIT concepts.

Tanmoy Maity Department of Electrical Engineering,Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, Jharkhand 826004,India), D. Ghosh & C.R. Mahata ( Department of Electrical Engineering, Bengal Engineering and Science University, Shibpur, Howrah 711103, West Bengal, India) has published a research paper regarding Effect of dielectric dispersion on potentised homeopathic medicines, which I think is of immense implications in our understanding of active principles of our drugs as ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’.

This report is available on http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491609001258

This paper reports dielectric dispersion occurring inpotentised homeopathic medicines subjected to variable frequency electric field using an instrumentation method developed by the authors. Oscillations occur in thedirection of electric field, and are usually termedlongitudinal/acoustic-mode vibrations.

The test material was lactose soaked with homeopathic medicine. Multiple resonance frequencies, forming afrequency-set, were observed repeatedly for each medicine.

The team reports experimental results for three potencies of Cuprum metallicum ( Cuprum met ) in the frequency range of 100 kHz–1 MHz. Each exhibits a set of resonance frequencies, which may be termed as its characteristic set. As the frequency-set of each medicineis different from those of others, each medicine may, therefore, be identified by its characteristic frequency-set. This suggests that potentised homeopathic medicines, which are chemically identical with the vehicle, differ from one another in the arrangement of vehicle molecules. According to them, these “experiments show that potentised homeopathic medicines, which are chemically identical with the vehicle, differ from one another in the arrangement of vehicle molecules”.

“Difference in arrangement of vehicle molecules” strongly indicates the presence of “supra-molecular clusters of water and ethyl alcohol, into which the three-dimensional configuration of drug molecules are imprinted as nanocavities” as proposed by the hypotheses proposed by MIT.

The observation that “the resonance frequencies frequency-set of each medicine is different from those of others” strongly indicates clusters of water-ethyl alcohol molecules specifically rearranged in accordance with the shapes of constituent molecules of drug substance used for potentization.

Such a re-arrangement of vehicle molecules strongly indicates the process of ‘molecular imprinting’ happening during homeopathic potentization. Present work is a decisive step in the scientific understanding of homeopathy.

4. An important IN VITRO research work that disproves the role of ‘vital force’ in homeopathy, and supports the ideas proposed by MIT regarding the biological mechanism of high dilution therapeutics: 

The MODEL proposed by MIT regarding biological mechanism of homeopathic drug action does not consider VITAL FORCE as a factor, which totally disagree with the models most homeopaths propagate. MIT considers therapeutics as a MOLECULAR level process, and explains ‘similia similibus curentur’ in terms of modern biochemistry.

According to ‘classical homeopathy, disease and cure takes place only at the level of ‘vital force’, which is an ‘immaterial’, ‘spirit like’ force animating the living organism. According to this theory, potentized drugs should act only up on the living organism as a whole, animated by ‘vital force’ and having ‘mind’ and ‘nerve tissue’.

If this vitalistic model of homeopathy is right, potentized drug should ACT only on LIVING ORGANISMS, having mind and nervous tissue. Any evidence that proves potentized drug can act on CHEMICAL MOLECULES devoid of nerve cells, mind and vital force, will inevitably prove this ‘vital force’ theory wrong.

We have a RESEARCH report that clearly PROVES that potentized drugs act on biological molecules through a mechanism similar to the action of modern drugs. That means, we have to explain the dynamics of homeopathic therapeutics in accordance with the principles of modern biochemistry and molecular medicine. This report ratifies the model proposed by MIT.

This study also proved that potentized homeopathic drugs have cannot produce any BAD EFFECTS upon healthy cells, which disproves the theory that homeopathic drugs used without indications may harm the organism. MIT always maintains that molecular imprints cannot PRODUCE molecular inhibitions, but only REMOVE molecular inhibitions.

I am referring to a recent study published in the February2010 issue of the International Journal of Oncology has documented that homeopathic remedies applied to breast cancer cells caused significant cell death, while resulting in nearly indiscernible harm to normal breast cells. The study, done by the respected MD Anderson Cancer Center, was entitled, ‘Cytotoxic effects of ultra-dilutedremedies on breast cancer cells’. (“Cytotoxic effects ofultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells”; Frenkel etal, International .Journal of Oncology, 36: 395-403, 2010)

Report says:

“This reported study was done same way as any new chemotherapeutic drugs are tested. The researchers proved that homeopathic remedies have similar effects to chemotherapy on breast cancer cells but without affecting normal cells. This is the first study that evaluated the effect of homeopathic remedies on breast cancer cells using same methodology used for chemotherapeutic drugs”.

“Modern automated equipment was used to test the effects of four homeopathic remedies on two adenocarcinoma cell lines. Controls of normal breast cells and cells treated only with solvent were done”.“Cell lines were cultured and treated with solvent orsolvent with one of four remedies added: Carcinosin 30C,Conium maculatum 3C, Phytolacca decandra 200C, andThuja occidentalis 30C”.

“The results were remarkable. The viability of cells treated only with solvent were inhibited, on average, by20-30% in the three cell lines, to a maximum of 35% at the longest exposures. All four remedies further inhibited viability in the two breast cancer cell lines, but did not show a significant reduction in the normal cell lines. The amount varied by cell line, remedy, concentration of remedy, and time. One of the cancer cell lines was less viable in the face of homeopathic remedies than the other.”

“The two most effective remedies on these cell lines were Carcinosin and Phytolacca. At 5µl/ml, they reduced viability in one cancer cell line at 48 & 72 hours by50-65%, and at 10µl/ml, viability was reduced by65-70%. In the other cancer cell line at the same times,5µl/ml concentrations reduced viability by 60-75% and at10µl/mo, viability was reduced by 70-80%. The maximum viability reduction by solvent alone in the two cancer cell lines was 30-35%.”

“The effects of all the remedies on the normal cell linewere nearly indistinguishable from the solvent’s effect, which showed potentized drugs has no action upon normal cells.”

Let us examine the implications of this scientific study on homeopathic theory and practice from a different angle. In my opinion, this scientific study has following implications upon homeopathy:

First of all, this study proved the efficacy of potentized homeopathic drugs on cultured samples of cancer cells, thereby providing a fitting answer to the distracters of homeopathy who argue that potentized drugs have only placebo effect.

This study done by Frenkel and his team provides compelling evidence that homeopathic remedies have an impact on living cells, and may indicate an ability to distinguish between healthy and diseased tissues. It doesn’t demonstrate how homeopathic remedies work, though it does provide some evidence for cellular changes they produce in some cancerous cells.

At the very least, Frenkel’s team has shown that homeopathy and its remedies work without any role of ‘placebo effect’ as some people wrongly allege. Nobody can say ‘placebo’ can work on biological molecules outside the organism.

Secondly, even though my inference may not be acceptable to ‘classical homeopaths’, this study scientifically disproves the homeopathic theory regarding mode of action of potentized drugs, and role of ‘vital force’ in the action of potentized drugs.

Most homeopaths maintain that the ‘dynamic medicinal energy’ of potentized drugs act upon the organism through ‘nerve signals’, which is proved incorrect through this study, since ‘cancer cell cultures’ used for here do not contain nerve cells.

According to ‘classical homeopaths’, ‘dynamic drug energy’ acts up on ‘vital force’, which cures the disease first at ‘mental level’. It is believed that the ‘mind’ in turn cures the disease in the ‘physical body’. There is no ‘mind’ or ‘vital force’ present in cell cultures, and as such, this study totally disproves the whole theory of ‘vital force’ in the homeopathic drug action.

According to ‘classical homeopathy, disease and cure takes place only at the level of ‘vital force’, which is an ‘immaterial’, ‘spirit like’ force animating the living organism. According to this theory, potentized drugs should act only up on the living organism as a whole, animated by ‘vital force’ and having ‘mind’ and ‘nerve tissue’.

The present study is not conducted on living individuals, but in vitro cell cultures, same way as modern chemotherapeutic drugs are tested. Cell cultures do not contain nerve cells, mind or vital force, which totally disproves the theory of vital force, nerves and mind as factors in homeopathic therapeutic process

Thirdly, this study has documented that homeopathic remedies applied to breast cancer cells caused significant cell death, while resulting in no harm to normal breast cells. That shows potentized homeopathic drugs have no action upon healthy cells, which disproves the theory that homeopathic drugs used without indications may harm the organism.

Lastly, since this in vitro study was conducted in the same way as modern chemotherapeutic drugs, it clearly proves that potentized drugs act on biological molecules through a mechanism similar to the action of modern drugs. That means, we have to explain the dynamics of homeopathic therapeutics in accordance with the principles of modern biochemistry and molecular medicine.

I think this study is a decisive step in PROVING the biological model of homeopathic drug actions proposed by MIT, and the over all the scientific understanding of homeopathy.

5. A remarkable RESEARCH work that supports the concept of MIT:

One of the questions listed to be proved as part of scientific verification of MIT concepts was, whether potentized drugs, devoid of any original drug molecules, differ from untreated diluent medium in its molecular level structure. If MIT is right, they should differ, since ‘molecular imprinting’ is envisaged as formation of hydrogen-bonded supra-molecular nano-structures ofwater-ethyl alcohol molecules.

An elaborate study conducted by a research group, even though without any idea of molecular imprinting involved in potentization, rightly observes that the homeopathic potencies and their original diluent medium differ from each other with respect to the number of H-bonded water species and their H-bonding strengths. I think this study contributes much in proving MIT concepts right.

Even though the authors could not understand the real process of “MOLECULAR IMPRINTING” involved in the phenomenon, their observation amply proves that the supra-molecular structure of potentized medicines differs from ethyl alcohol/water mixture, even though their chemical composition remained the same. That means, through the process of potentization, supra-molecular structure of ethyl alcohol/water mixture has undergone fundamental changes. Obviously, it is through thesestructural changes that the medicinal properties of drug molecules are transferred to the diluent medium.

This difference in the structure of potentized medicines from their original medium, the specificity of medicinal properties exhibited by potentized medicines, and the fact that potentized medicines exhibit medicinal properties just opposite to that of parent drugs can be satisfactorily explained only on the basis of “molecular imprinting’ as proposed by MIT.

This remarkable study regarding the variation in FourierTransform Infrared Spectra of some homeopathic potencies and their diluent media, conducted byN.C.SUKUL, Ph.D., SUDESHNA GHOSH, M.Sc., A.SUKUL, Ph.D., and S.P. SINHABABU, Ph.D. It ispublished in THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE ANDCOMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, Volume 11, Number 5,2005, pp. 807–812. The report is available at this link:http://www.homeopathy.org/research/basic/acm-2005-11_11.pdf

Published report reads as follows: “The aim of this study was to determine whether potentized homeopathic drugs and their diluent media differ from each other with respect to their Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectra. FTIR spectra of Nux vomica 30C, Lycopodium 30C, Santonin 30C, Cina 30C, Cina 206C, Cina 1006C, and their diluent media (90% ethanol and Ethanol) 30C were obtained in the wave number range of 2000–1000 cm_1at 20°C. Potassium bromide powder soaked with the potencies, pressed into pellets, and air dried were used to measure the spectra. Because water structures in homeopathic potencies are thought to carry specific information on drug molecules and because O-H bendingvibrational band (v2) exclusively belongs to water, the study was restricted to the bands in that wave numberregion. Alcohol has no absorption in the O-H binding region.

The potencies were found to differ from each other and their diluent media in the number of v2 bands, their wavenumber (cm_1), shape, and half-width (cm_1) of the bands.

The number and other characteristics of the v2 band represent the number of hydrogen-bonded water species and their hydrogen-bonding strength, respectively. The potencies and their diluent media therefore differ frome ach other in the number of hydrogen-bonded water species and their hydrogen-bonding strength. The observation that KBr pellets soaked with a potentized drug retains its specific spectral absorption properties simply confirms that medicated sucrose globules, used in homeopathic dispensing, are capable of retaining the therapeutic properties of the drug.

Drugs are prepared and stored in aqueous ethanol. Sucrose globules soaked with liquid potencies retain therapeutic properties of the drugs for a long time. Water also serves as a good medium but it does not keep the properties of a potency for long. It has been suggested that water structures in a potentized drug are responsible for carrying the information of drug molecules or particles present in the mother tincture. Ethanol molecules are thought to promote or to preserve water structures characteristic of a potentized drug.1A basic quality of a hydrogen-bonded solvent such as water is the hydrogen bond strength.

Physicochemical properties of the water in aqueous alcohol mixtures have been studied widely by such techniques as X-ray or light scattering, dielectric relaxation, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging et cetera.

Among these methods, infrared (IR) spectroscopy is oneof the most promising for the study of the distribution of hydrogen- bonding strengths of the water molecules in the mixtures because of the short time scale of measurements. There are two kinds of fundamental vibrations for molecules: (1) stretching, in which thedistance between two atoms increase or decrease but the atom remains in the same bond axis; and (2) bending, in which the position of the atom changes relative to the original bond axis. Infrared radiation causes vibrational excitation of the molecular framework of a compound. Inaqueous alcohol O-H stretching vibrational bands of water(v1 and v3) overlap the alcoholic O-H band. For this theIR spectra in the stretching region are of no use for studying hydrogen bonds of the water molecules in water/alcohol mixtures. In the region of bending vibrational band of water (v2), alcohols have no absorption bands. The purpose of the present work is to study v2 bands through Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy in 90%ethanol, Ethanol 30C, and some potentized drugs such as Nuxvomica 30C, Lycopodium 30C, Santonin 30C, Cina 30C,Cina 206C, and Cina 1006C prepared in 90% ethanol. Conventionally vibrations are labeled in decreasing frequency within their symmetry type. The symmetric vibrations of H2O are labeled v1 for the highest fully symmetric frequency (3651.7 cm_1) and v2 for the nexthighest (1595.0 cm_1).7 FTIR spectroscopy provides simultaneous and almost instantaneous recording of the whole spectrum in the infrared region while minimizing background noise.

Nux vomica 30C, Lycopodium 30C, Santonin 30C,and Cina 30C were prepared by successive dilution(1:100 v/v) with 90% ethanol followed by succussion in30 steps from the respective mother tinctures in thislaboratory.8 Cina 200C and Cina 1000C, purchased fromM. Bhattacharyya and Co. (Calcutta, India), were further diluted (1:100) and succussed with 90% ethanol in 6more steps to prepare Cina206C and Cina 1006C. All of these potencies have the same absorbance (3.135) at 255nm, showing similar concentrations of ethanol (90%). The purpose was to replace the manufacturer’s aqueous ethanol in Cina 200C and Cina 1000C with the ethanol in this laboratory so that the diluent medium (90% ethanol)of all the test potencies would be of the same quality.Ethanol was obtained from Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Calcutta, India). Sterile deionized and double-distilled water was added to absolute ethanolto prepare 90% ethanol, which served as the diluents medium of all potenties as well as the control.

FTIR spectra were measured at 20°C by a Jasco FTIR spectrometer (Jasco, model 420, Japan). The wave number resolution was 4 cm_1. Spectra were obtained inthe wave number range of 2000–1000 cm_1. Potassium bromide powder (_150 mg) was soaked with 90% ethanol(_0.15 mL) or any of the six potencies tested. The drug-soaked powder was mixed thoroughly with a mortar and pestle, spread in thin film (1 mm deep) in a petri dish,and allowed to dry at 30°C (50% humidity). The powder was then pressed into small equal-sized pellets. The KBr pellets, which simulate sucrose globules soaked with a potency, were exposed to IR radiation in the spectrometer. Five pellets were prepared for each drug orthe diluent medium, and the IR spectra measured.

Data were analyzed by one way analysis of variance. Different potencies and their diluent media (90%ethanol, Ethanol 30C) differ significantly ( p _ 0.01) fromeach other with respect to the positions of bands in the wave number regions, their half-widths, and their absorption intensities except the wave numbers. ……..Because all KBr pellets were prepared under similar conditions, it is quite unlikely that they have different amounts of water in them. In earlier work the present authors observed a marked variation in O-H bending vibration among 90% ethanol, Nux vom 30C (unsuccussed), and Nux vom 30C succussed. 5  The results of the present study show that potentized drugs differ from each other and also from their diluent medium,90% ethanol, in the number of v2 bands. The number of observed v2 bands should provide the number of water species with different hydrogen-bonding strengths.6 Theremay be a few more water species than those actually observed by v2 bands in the spectra. According to Mizuno (personal communication, June 2003), IR spectroscopy has superior power in that different water species are distinctive from each other, but it is very difficult to resolve the curve into components. Mizuno further observed that there was no linearity in the absorption intensities of different bands. Thus different potentized drugs have different water species with different hydrogen-bonding strengths. The v2 bands have different half-widths in different potencies. The broadening of v2 bands has been attributed to the distribution of hydrogen-bonding strengths and vibrational coupling. 6The v2 band of pure water has an unusually broad width of 82 cm_1 at half-maximum. The v2 band is found to be narrower with an increase in the alcohol concentration. The narrowing of the v2 band is considered to be caused by the weakening of the vibrational coupling as a result of dilution by the alcohol. The concentration of ethanol was the same (90%) in all the potencies tested. The variation in the half-width of the v2 band may thus be caused by influence of original molecules at the start of the dilution process and also by succussion. Previously the present authors observed that succussion caused blue shift of the v2 in Nux vomica 30C.In each column of Table 1 the band of different drugs showed either a blue or red shift. Blue shifts represent the formation of stronger hydrogen bonds among water molecules. This has also been confirmed by1H-NMR studies. It has long been known in clinical practice that sucrose globules soaked with a liquid potentized drug retain all the therapeutic properties of the drugs. FTIR spectra of KBr pellets soaked with potentized drugs simply confirm the long-standing clinical observation.

Cowan et al. demonstrated that the three-dimensional structure of liquid water loses its memory of molecular arrangement through the H-bond network in about 50 fs. The work was based on O-H stretching vibrations of pureH2O. Pure water is not comparable to a homeopathic potency that is prepared by successive dilution and succession from a mother tincture and preserved in 90% ethanol. Ethanol molecules with large nonpolar parts can preserve or promote water structures specific to a homeopathic potency. The efficacy of a homeopathic potency prepared in pure water is very short-lived. An electrostatic component is usually the dominant force contributing to H-bonding. Succussion or any mechanical agitation would therefore make the H-bonding strong er in a homeopathic potency. In ethanol solution the sequential H-bond dissociation and reassociation occur between the same OH groups. In water the broken bonds probably reform to give the same H-bond. Dissociation is a rare event occurring only twice a day, that is, once for every 1016 times the H-bond breaks. Thus clusters can persist for much longer times. The relative proportions of different polymers of water preserved by ethanol  are at dynamic equilibria of specific geometric configurations. It is assumed that this dynamic geometric configuration of water clusters in a collective way confers specificity on a potentized homeopathic drug. The homeopathic potencies used in the present study were prepared in 90% ethanol and soaked in KBr pellets. Here water structures were preserved by ethanol and their random.

Based on the study findings several conclusions can be drawn. First, in the FTIR spectra of aqueous alcohol mixtures O-H bending vibrational bands (v2) exclusively belong to water. Nux vomica 30C, Lycopodium 30C,Santonin 30C, Cina 30C, Cina 206C, and Cina 1006C differ from each other and also from their diluent medium,90% ethanol, in the number of v2 bands, their wave-number (cm_1), their shape, and half-width (cm_1) in the FTIR spectra.

6. ‘Thermo-Luminance Studies Of Ultra-high Dilutions’ Provides Proof For ‘Molecular Imprinting’

“Potentized medicines contain supra-molecular clusters of water/ethyl alcohol, different from control medium, which will be evident from spectroscopic studies.”

This was one of my predictions proposed to be verified, as part of proving the concept of ‘molecular imprinting’ according to scientific methods.

I think the remarkable work discussed below, done by Louis Rey on thermo-luminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride, and published in December 2002, provides crucial support as a very strong proof for this very important prediction.

As per the reported work, ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride (10−30g cm−3) have been irradiated by X- and gamma rays at 77 K, then progressively re-warmed to room temperature. During that phase, their thermo-luminescence has been studied and it was found that, despite their dilution beyond the Avogadro number, the emitted light was specific of the original salts dissolved initially.

This wonderful observation that  high dilutions of salts very much above avogadro number retains the specific thermo-luminance patterns reminding of of original salts seems to be very crucial. This phenomenon could be well explained only in terms of supramolecular nanostructures of water carrying the imprints of exact ‘conformations’  of ‘individual’ molecules of salts, as explained by MIT concepts.

Thermo-luminance studies have been developed and utilized so far as a “tool to study the structure of solids, mainly ordered  crystals”. In the present study, the researchers successfully utilized it in ultra-high aqueous dilutions, which demonstrates the short range ‘crystalline’ character of water as well as high dilution preparations.

Actually, the researchers took up this work to ‘challenge’ the ‘water memory’ theory, but proved it otherwise. They confess in their report: “we thought that it would be of interest to challenge the theory according which preexistent ‘structures’ in the original liquid, developed around some added chemicals, could survive a great number of successive dilutions when done under vigorous mechanical stirring”.

Another important point to be noted is that the researchers did not use ‘commercial samples’ as most ‘researches’ do, but prepared themselves 15c dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride under the guidance of boiron labs. This fact provides more scientific credence to this study.

The study “showed quite clearly that the initial addition of a solute (NaCl and LiCl) in the original D2O leaves a permanent  effect even when, by successive dilutions made under strong vibration, all traces of solute have disappeared.” The results were reproduced in several repeated experiments, “beyond any ambiguity”.

It should be specifically pointed out, researchers had no any idea of Molecular Imprinting. They propose the following hypothesis for explaining their observation:

“As a working hypothesis, we propose that this phenomenon results from a marked structural change in the hydrogen bond network initiated at the onset by the presence of the dissolved ions and maintained in the course of the dilution process, probably thanks to the successive vigorous mechanical stirrings.”

See, this hypothesis comes very close to the concept of Molecular Imprinting!

Thermally stimulated luminescence—often called thermo-luminescence—is a well known phenomenon amongst the thermally stimulated processes (thermally stimulated conductivity—thermally stimulated electron emission—thermogravimetry—differential thermal analysis and differential scanning calorimetry, etc.). Its theory and applications have been fully developed inter alia by McKeever, Chen and Visocekas and it proved to be a most interesting tool to study the structure of solids, mainly ordered  crystals. To that end, the studied material is “activated” at low-temperature, usually by radiant energy (UV, X-rays, gamma rays, electron beams, or neutrons) which most generally creates electrons–holes pairs which become separately “trapped” at different energy levels. Then, when the irradiated material is warmed up, the heating serves as a trigger to release the initially accumulated energy and the trapped electrons and holes move and recombine. A characteristic glow is emitted most often under the shape of different successive peaks according to the depths of the initial traps. As a general rule this phenomenon is observed in ordered crystals though it can be equally seen in disordered materials such as glasses. In that mechanism, imperfections in the lattice play a major role and are considered to be the place where luminescent centres appear. Thus, thermoluminescence is a good tool to study these imperfections and understand how they appear in the crystal.

This is exactly along those lines that the researchers carried our first investigations, starting, this time, from liquids which were turned into stable solids by low-temperature cooling.

Working essentially with water—mainly deuterium oxide—they have shown that the thermoluminescent glow of irradiated hexagonal ice consisted in two major peak areas—Peak 1 near 120 K and Peak 2 near 166 K  having well-defined emission spectra the D2O samples giving a much higher signal than the H2O ones.

In both cases, un-irradiated samples gave no signals whatsoever. For both D2O and H2O it was shown that the relative intensity of the thermoluminescence glow was a function of the irradiation dose and, that at least for Peak 2, it did show a maximum between 1 and 10 kGy .

As a first hypothesis on the nature of the emission itself it has been suggested by Teixeira that Peak 2 could be connected to the hydrogen-bond network within the ice which, in turn, could result from the structure of the original liquid sample, whilst Peak 1 looked to be closely related to the molecule. This strengthens the views on the involvement of hydrogen bonds in this mechanism.

To develop this concept further, the researchers did select to study the effect of lithium chloride on the thermoluminescence of irradiated D2O ice since this particular substance is known to suppress hydrogen bonds. The result, indeed, is spectacular and, at the relatively low concentration of 0:1M,  Peak 2 is totally erased whereas the basic emission of Peak 1 remains almost unchanged.

At that point the researchers thought that it would be of interest to challenge the theory according which pre-existent “structures” in the original liquid, developed around some added chemicals, could survive a great number of successive dilutions when done under vigorous mechanical stirring.

To that end they prepared, courtesy of the BOIRON LABORATORIES, ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride by successive dilutions to the hundredths, all done under vigorous mechanical stirring (initially 1 g in 100 cm3, then 1 cm3 of this solution in 99 cm3 of pure D2O … and so on) until they  reached— theoretically—at the 15th dilution, a “concentration” of10−30 g cm−3. A reference sample of D2O alone was also prepared according to this technique, still keeping vigorous agitation (150 strokes=7:5 s at each successive “dilution” step).

They did proceed, then, to the “activation” of these materials by irradiation according the following experimental protocol.

One cubic centimeter of each solution is placed in aluminium test cavities of 20 mm diameter and 2 mm depth and frozen to −20◦C on a cold metallic block. The frozen systems are kept 24 h at −20◦C to achieve stability into their crystallization patternand they are immersed into liquid nitrogen and kept at −196◦C for 24 h.

In a first set of experiments the frozen ice disks are irradiated at 77 K with 100 kV X-rays to achieve a dose of 0:4 kGy (30 min). Previous determinations were done to check that the disks having identical positions in the field did receive the same dose (dosimetry has been done using Harwell, FWT, and alanine dosimeters).

After irradiation, all the “activated” samples are transferred into a liquid nitrogen container and kept, there, for a week-time, to even out whatever small differences could exist between them.

Finally, all samples are placed in the thermoluminescence equipment and their respective glow recorded—with both a photo-multiplier and a CCD camera connected to a spectrograph—in the course of rewarming  (3=min) between 77 and  13 K, as has been done in our previous published experiments.

Much to their surprise, the experimental results do show—without any ambiguity— that for an X-ray dose of 0:4 kGy the thermoluminescence glows of the three  systems were substantially different . These findings did prove to be reproducible in the course of many different identical experiments.

To compare the curves between them the researchers normalized the emitted light readings taking Peak 1 as the reference. In doing so, we obtain for Peak 2 the different curves presented which show quite clearly that the initial addition of a solute (NaCl and LiCl) in the original D2O leaves a permanent  effect even when, by successive dilutions made under strong vibration, all traces of solute have disappeared.  More remarkable were the fact that, by far, lithium chloride demonstrates a stronger hydrogen bond suppressing “ghost” effect which could be related to the larger size of the lithium ion.

A second set of experiments done with gamma rays (courtesy of CELESTIN Reactor, COGEMA, Marcoule), at a higher dose (19 kGy) did confirm these findings

It appears, therefore, that the structural state of a solution made in D2O can be modified by the addition of selected solutes like LiCl and NaCl. This modification remains even when the initial molecules have disappeared and the effect is the same at different irradiation doses (0.4 –19 kGy) and for different radiant sources (X-rays, gamma rays). As a working hypothesis, the researchers propose that this phenomenon results from a marked structural change in the hydrogen bond network initiated at the onset by the presence of the dissolved ions and maintained in the course of the dilution process, probably thanks to the successive vigorous mechanical stirrings.

Researchers had no any idea of Molecular Imprinting. They proposes the following hypothesis for explaining their observation:

“As a working hypothesis, we propose that this phenomenon results from a marked structural change in the hydrogen bond network initiated at the onset by the presence of the dissolved ions and maintained in the course of the dilution process, probably thanks to the successive vigorous mechanical stirrings.”

See, this hypothesis comes very close to the concept of Molecular Imprinting!

If we fail to explain the observations of this monumental research in terms of Molecular Imprinting, there remains the danger that it will be hijacked by ‘energy medicine’ theoreticians, by interpreting in terms of ‘essence of drugs’, ‘information’, ‘vibrations’ and the like. Actually, Jan Scholten has already done that exercise, by saying ‘information’ of drugs  imprinted in water are the cause of thermoluminence observed by the researchers. Then he very cleverly fits this thermoluminence into his energy medicine frame work of ‘bioluminence’, vibrations, vital force, resonance and other pseudoscientific theories.

To be specific, precise and fitting to modern scientific knowledge system and its accepted paradigms, it is better to say ‘molecular imprints’ of original drug molecules are the cause of similarity of thermoluminence the researchers could observe. Such an explanation will clearly demonstrate that we are talking about the ‘complementary’ shape of drug molecules imprinted into nanostructures of water, which produce therapeutic effects by acting as ‘artificial binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules.

(Read this report  in its full form at http://www.janscholten.com/janscholten/Evidence_files/Rey.thermoluminescence.pdf  E-mail address: louis.rey@bluewin.ch (L. Rey)

7. I Feel Really Sorry For Wrong Interpretations Of This Great Research Work On Homeopathy:

Here is is an excellent work, even though I do not agree with their interpretations and conclusions. Had it been interpreted correctly, this work would have contributed a lot in the MIT concepts. I feel really sorry for wrong interpretations of this great research work on homeopathy.

I could locate this very important research work ”Homeopathy emerging as nanomedicine” by Rajendra Prakash Upadhyay (Department of Bio-chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi, New Delhi, Indi a), Chaturbhuja Nayak (Central Council for Research in Homeopathy, New Delhi, India ) Published in Int J High Dilution Res 2011; 10(37): 299-310. Read the full text of original article on this link: http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/525/551

I am quoting the ABSTRACT of their work here:
————————————————————————————–
ABSTRACT

Background: Homeopathy is a time-tested two-century old empirical system of healing. Homeopathic medicines are prepared through a characteristic process known as potentization, where serial dilutions are performed with strong strokes at each step of dilution. Homeopathy is controversial because most medicines do not contain one single molecule of the corresponding starting-substance.

Aim: To investigate a possible nanoscience mechanism of action of homeopathic medicines.

Methodology: Ultra-pure samples were prepared and were examined under scanning (SEM) and transmission electron microscope (TEM) along with selected area nanodiffraction (SAD) and energy-dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX). Also trace element analysis (TEA) for silicon was performed.
Results: Homeopathic medicines showed not to be „nothing‟, but exhibited nanoparticles and conglomerates of them, which had crystalline nature and were rich in silicon.

Conclusions: During the violent strokes involved in potentization, information arising from the serially diluted starting-substance might be encrypted by epitaxy on silicon-rich crystalline nanoparticles present in the resulting homeopathic medicine. The „size‟ of the information encrypted on nanoparticles might vary together with the degree of dilution. As homeopathic medicines exhibit healing effects, these nanoparticles along with the interfacial water on their surface might carry this information – which biological systems are able to identify – to the target. As various forms of silica are known to interact with proteins and cells of the immune system, homeopathy might represent a nanomedicine system. Possible confirmation, however, requires further research in materials and interfacial water.
—————————————————————————————–
It is an excellent work, even though I do not agree with their interpretations and conclusions. Had it been interpreted correctly, this work would have contributed a lot in the MIT concepts.

SEE THE FINAL DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS OF research paper by Rajendra Prakash Upadhyay and Chaturbhuja Nayak:

“Discussions: The dose of homeopathic medicine a patient takes may contain few (or zero) molecules/atoms of the starting-substance, but this fact alone does not make homeopathic medicines a variety of nanomedicines [12]. Toumey [12] compared homeopathic to nanomedicines, and quoting the example of nanomedicine Aurimune®, argued that nanomedicines differ from homeopathic medicines. The major difference is the use of a known amount of medicine in case of nanomedicines compared to homeopathic medicines. In addition, gold nanoparticles in nanomedicine Aurimune® act as the carriers of the active agent to the target.

In the case of homeopathic medicines, crystalline silica (or silicon) nanoparticles (along with other trace elements leaching from the glass wall of the vial) with interfacial water on their surface may acquire the structural information of the starting-substance during the process of potentization. In medium and high potencies, which are commonly used in clinical practice, the presence of starting-source is likely to be zero but it is “immaterial”. It may be argued that what matters here is the “size” of the possible encrypted information, perhaps with the electromagnetic signature of the starting-substance. Such “size” might derive from the dilution level of the homeopathic medicine, since homeopathic medicines in different potencies exhibit different effects and properties. Furthermore, silica (or silicon) nanoparticles might also act as carriers of information. Such nanocarriers might convey the information of the starting-substance – which biological systems are able to identify – to the target, which the starting-substance molecules in themselves are not able to reach. The target, however, is unlikely to be local because homeopathy is rated a holistic therapy assumed to work by means of the immune system. It is worth to remark that various forms of silica are known to interact with proteins and cells of the immune system [13].

As homeopathic medicines might have both the “size” of the information of the diluted away starting-substance and the carriers needed to convey this information – which biological systems are able to identify – to the target, they may qualify as nanomedicines. Consequently, the nature, composition and surface features of the crystalline material (along with interfacial water) present in homeopathic medicines compared to controls have paramount importance. These must be further investigated, while keeping an eye also on possible electromagnetic emission. This investigation requires suitable developments in the fields of materials and interfacial water.

Conclusions: Three homeopathic medicines very frequently used in clinical practice were found not to be “nothing”, but exhibited high nanoparticle contents. Such nanoparticles were rich in silicon and had crystalline nature. During the strong strokes of potentization, the nanoparticles might acquire the information of the diluted away starting-source encrypted on them by means of epitaxy. As various forms of silica are known to interact with proteins and cells of the immune system, these nanoparticles (along with the interfacial water on their surface) might also act as carriers of this information to the target. The “size” of information might be related with the dilution degree of medicines. Under such possible conditions, homeopathy qualifies as a nanomedicine system not requiring high technology. For confirmation and further elaboration purposes, new research in materials and interfacial water are required”

The authors say : “In the case of homeopathic medicines, crystalline silica (or silicon) nanoparticles (along with other trace elements leaching from the glass wall of the vial) with interfacial water on their surface may acquire the structural information of the starting-substance during the process of potentization”. This is a very important observation. But they failed to explain this ‘acquiring’ of information in terms of molecular imprinting. Could they interpret this phenmenon using the concept of molecular imprinting, and explain how these molecular imprints act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules, the picture would have been entirely different. Only ‘molecular imprinting’ can explain the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure in a way fitting to the paradigms of mdern biochemistry and ‘ligand-target’ interactions.

In the absence of idea of molecular imprinting, they try to utilize the concept of “possible encrypted information, perhaps with the electromagnetic signature of the starting-substance”, which could lead to hijacking of this valuable research work by energy medicine theorists who propagate pseudoscience. The statement “the target, however, is unlikely to be local because homeopathy is rated a holistic therapy assumed to work by means of the immune system” is pregnant with such possibilities. ‘Targets are unlikely to be local’, but ‘holistic’ is a statement that destroys the scientific credibility of this great work. Concept of ‘holistic target’ instead of ‘local’ or molecular targets is nothing but an attempt to satisfy ‘vital force’ theory. The statement “must be further investigated, while keeping an eye also on possible electromagnetic emission” is also a departure from genuine scientific interpretations of this research. Explaining mechanism of drug actions in terms of ‘electromagnetic emissions’ and ‘resonance’ is a subject very dear to ‘energy medicine’ homeopaths, but it contradicts existing scientific concepts regarding biological mechanism of cure.

The conclusion that “During the strong strokes of potentization, the nanoparticles might acquire the information of the diluted away starting-source encrypted on them by means of epitaxy” shows they have no slightest inclination of molecular imprinting.

Epitaxy actually refers to the deposition of a crystalline overlayer on a crystalline substrate, where the overlayer is in registry with the substrate. In other words, there must be one or more preferred orientations of the overlayer with respect to the substrate for this to be termed epitaxial growth. The overlayer is called an epitaxial film or epitaxial layer. The term epitaxy comes from the Greek roots epi, meaning “above”, and taxis, meaning “in ordered manner”. It can be translated “to arrange upon”. For most technological applications, it is desired that the deposited material form a crystalline overlayer that has one well-defined orientation with respect to the substrate crystal structure.

By explaining potentization in terms of ‘epitaxy’ instead of ‘molecular imprinting’, the authors obviously misinterprets their scientific observations. In epitaxy, it is drug molecules that are carried- not ‘information” of drug molecules. Information can be carried in the absence of drug molecules only by molecular imprinting. Epitaxy is about carrying a layer of drug molecules -not information- on a carrier matrix, which cannot happen in high dilutions.

I request the authors to re-interpret their observations in the light of ‘molecular imprinting’, which would make their work a great historical milestone in the scientific understanding of homeopathy

8. Luc Montagnier’s Works On ‘Ultra-Dilutions’ – Right Observations, Wrong Interpretations:

Luc Antoine Montagnier is a French virologist and joint recipient with Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Harald zur Hausen of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, for his discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

In 2009 he published a paper regarding detection of electromagnetic signals from bacterial DNA (M. pirum and E. coli) in water that had been prepared using agitation and high dilutions, and similar research on electromagnetic detection of HIV DNA in the blood of AIDS patients treated by anti-retroviral therapy. While homeopaths claim his research as support for homeopathy, many scientists have greeted it with scorn and harsh criticism. Because the research used high dilutions, homeopaths claimed it supported homeopathy, even though it didn’t mention homeopathy or use ultra-high dilutions.

He was also questioned on his beliefs about homeopathy, to which he replied: “I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules.”

He did admit that he wasn’t working with the very high dilution levels normally used in homeopathy: “We find that with DNA, we cannot work at the extremely high dilutions used in homeopathy; we cannot go further than a 10-18 dilution, or we lose the signal. But even at 10-18, you can calculate that there is not a single molecule of DNA left. And yet we detect a signal.”

Luc Montagnier’s observation that ‘high dilutions’ contain “water structures which mimic the original molecules.” is very important for homeopathy. But, he never explained the exact molecular mechanism by which this ‘mimicking’ happens, and more important, did not take up the task of explaining the dynamics of homeopathic therapeutics involved in ‘simila similibus curentur’. The result was, people interested in ‘ultra-scientific’ and ‘dynamic’ interpretation of homeopathy actually hijacked his theory. Only because he said he could detect ‘electromagnetic signals’ showing the presence of ‘molecular memory of dugs’ in high dilutions, these theoreticians used it to rationalize their pseudoscientific concepts of ‘resonance’, ‘vibrations’, frequencies’, ‘drug transmissions’, ‘radionics’, ‘drug teleportation’ and the like they use in explaining homeopathy. Luc Montagnier’s limitation lies in the fact that he could not understand the concept of ‘molecular imprinting’.

If he could have explained the phenomenon he observed in terms of  ‘molecular imprinting’, instead of ‘mimicking’ and ‘vibrations’, the situation would have been entirely different. If he could have gone a bit forward and explained the source of ‘electromagnetic signals’ as ‘molecular imprints’, he could have avoided the ‘occult’ homeopaths and ‘spiritual homeopaths hijacking and misusing his statements for their ulterior motives.

To be more exact, Montagnier should have said: “high dilutions of something are not nothing- hey are water structures which are ‘three-dimensional negative molecular imprints’ of original molecules.” NOT MIMICS. That could have made a big difference for homeopathy.

According to Luc Montaigner, the ‘nanostructures’ formed in high dilutions are ‘mimics’ of original molecules. But in terms of  modern molecular imprinting technology, ‘molecular imprints’ are 3d structures with configurations just complementary to original molecules. If we consider original molecules as ‘keys’, montaigner consider ‘nanostructures’ as duplicate keys. According to my concept, ‘molecular imprints’ are ‘artificial key holes’ that could act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for original keys or keys similar to them. Molecular imprints bind to the pathogenic molecules due to complementary configuration, exactly like a key hole binds to a key. MOLECULAR IMPRINTING PRODUCES ARTIFICIAL KEY-HOLES, NOT DUPLICATE KEYS. Once we understand this difference in perceptions, it would be easy for us to understand ‘similia similibus curentur’ scientifically.

Only ‘three-dimensional negative molecular imprints’ can explain the molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics, where potentized drugs are not acting similar to original drug molecules, but just as exact ‘opposites’. That is ‘similia similibus curentur’.

“I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules.”

Bnveneste also, similar to Montagnier, perceived potentized drugs as “water structures which mimic the original molecules”. Both of them were wrong.

I say, potentized drugs are “water structures which are ‘three-dimensional negative molecular imprints’ of original molecules.” I am trying to explain homeopathy on the basis of this “molecular imprint” concept.

In his article “DNA Between Physics and Biology”, Luc Montaigner explains about his famous experiment in which he used ‘nano-water structures’ mimicking specific dna fragments contained ‘ultra dilutions’ to induce in vitro synthesize of similar dna fragments using nucleotide primers and plymeraze enzyme as follows:

“Now we undertake the most critical step: to investigate the specificity of the induced water nanostructures by recreating from them the DNA sequence. For this we add to the tube of signalized water all the ingredients to synthesize the DNA by polymerase chain reaction (nucleotides, primers, polymerase). The amplification was performed under classical conditions (35 cycles) in a thermocycler. The DNA produced was then submitted to electrophoresis in an agarose gel. Indeed, a DNA band of the expected size of the original LTR fragment was detected . We further verified that this DNA had a sequence identical or close to identical to the original DNA sequence of the LTR. In fact, it was 98% identical (2 nucleotide difference) out of 104. This experiment was found to be highly reproducible (12 out of 12) and was also repeated with another DNA sequence from a bacterium, Borrelia burgdorferi, the agent of Lyme disease. It clearly shows that the water nanostructures and their electromagnetic resonance can faithfully perpetuate DNA information…”

Instead of this vague theorizing about “water nanostructures and their electromagnetic resonance can faithfully perpetuate DNA information”, he could have explained this phenomenon in a more rational way, if he could understand the concept of ‘molecular imprinting’ involved in high dilutions.

According to my view, it is not the ‘electro magnetic resonance’ or ‘mimicking’ that induced dna synthesis in his experiments. Actually, the high dilutions of dna solutions he preapared contained ‘molecular imprints’ of specific dna fragments. When he added nucleotide primers and polymerase enzymes into this molecular imprinted water medium, molecular imprints could have held the nucleotide primers in the correct sequence and position similar to that of original dna fragment. Then, the polymeraze enzyme could have connected these primers to form dna molecules exactly similar to original one. Here, ‘molecular imprints’ acted as ‘templates’, and helped in arranging nucleotide primers in correct sequence by binding to them, due to the specific configurational affinity.

Since he had no any idea of molecular imprinting, he tried to explain this phenomenon in terms of ‘electromagnetic resonance’, which led to ultra-scientific interpretations. This limitations helped the ‘energy medicine’ theorists to hijack and misuse the works of luc montaigner.

A few days back, one of my friends posted this link on my wall : http://www.normanallan.com/Sci/bs.html.

Many homeopaths point to this link as the most scientific and authoritative reference for research evidences in favor of homeopathy. This article titled “Beyond Substance” by Norman Allan, Ph.D.is about the much discussed findings regarding the so-called “GHOST-DNA” molecules in ultra-diluted aqueous solutions of viral DNA. This work was referred to the name of Professor Mounir AbouHaidar and his colleagues, Dr. Mohammed Eweida and Michael Dobbs. Exactly, this GHOST DNA concept is same as that of Luc Montagnier. If you read the article carefully, you will understand how clever our ‘pseudoscientists’ are in hijacking scientific studies and misuse them for pseudoscientific explanations of homeopathy. Hence, I think it is worth analyzing the observations and conclusions of this article in detail.

This article titled “Beyond Substance” by Norman Allan, Ph.D.is about the much discussed findings regarding the so-called “GHOST-DNA” molecules in ultra-diluted aqueous solutions of viral DNA. This work was referred to the name of Professor Mounir AbouHaidar and his colleagues, Dr. Mohammed Eweida and Michael Dobbs.  

I find this article is a classical example of how scientific studies are misused for pseudo-scientific explanations of homeopathy.

“The team found that a solution of viral DNA, diluted beyond substance in the manner of homeopathy, can physically bind its substantial, molecular, complementary strand. This implies that the water “remembers” the substance that was in it. It behaves as though the DNA – even though diluted beyond substance – were still there. The ramifications of this phenomenon deeply effects ours understanding of physics, medicine, and of psychology, and as I hope to explain may prove to be a key to our understanding consciousness”.

“In Prof. AbouHaidar’s viral assay a solution of DNA, the genetic ribbon – even after it has been serially diluted until there was no substance left – binds its labeled complementary strand. This means water can be patterned; can carry a signal, and in this sense “remembers”. Water prefers to be ordered, to be patterned, prefers this to our usual conception of liquid as random. Water is stressed by, rather than enjoying amorphous chaos. It prefers to be organized, to behave like a crystal. So water takes whatever substance we put in it, be that salt, or sulphur, or viral DNA, as a seed from which to organize a pattern”.

Based on this research finding, the author tries to explain the homeopathic potentization according to his speculative theorizations.

He expects that if the observed “phenomenon can be replicated, we have a scientific revolution, a paradigm shift, possibly as vast as the discovery of electricity some two hundred and fifty years ago: vast because, as with electricity, it shows us whole new dimensions of order underpinning the phenomenal world, and there is no predicting where all of this may lead”.

The author, himself a physical scientist, explains how he was attracted to this work:

“Jacque Benveniste was a prominent French immunologist, chief immunologist at the government’s research institute, INSERM. When two of his research assistants asked him if they might conduct an experiment into homeopathy, believing a happy coworker is a good coworker, Benveniste said they might. They showed the results to Benveniste, and he became curious.

If you take an antigen, and dilute it homeopathically – again, diluted until there is no substance – it will still generate an immunological response in certain white blood cells. In this case Benveniste, and his colleagues, were looking at basophils.

 Benveniste took these findings to the most prestigious scientific journal, Nature. Because of Benveniste’s prominence Maddox, the editor of Nature, said he would publish the work if Benveniste could find three reputable laboratories that could replicate his findings. “That should get rid of him,” thought Maddox.

Bruce Pomeranz, of the University of Toronto, was one of the researchers that “replicated” the work, along with labs in Milan and Tel Aviv.

In June 1988 the journal Nature, the gatekeeper of scientific orthodoxy, published Benveniste’s ultradilution (homeopathy) paper. The implications of this work are revolutionary, a paradigm shift it there ever was one. There are a lot of people who would rather fight than shift. Nature, the journal, as part of their publishing arrangement with Benveniste, sent a team to investigate his lab. The team included Randy the Magician, to look for sleight of hand, Walter Stewart, a biologist and statistician who had made his reputation as a figure crunching fraud-detector, and the editor, Maddox himself, who had a background in physics. It did not, however, include a cell biologist who might understand the nuances of Benveniste’s experiment. The team had already made up their minds (as Walter Stewart wrote in “Omni”). They knew there had to be a problem with the experiment because in their view the experiment was impossible. In the lab, Beneviniste and his team demonstrated the phenomenon to them three times, but the Nature team had determined before hand that it was an impossible experiment, and not knowing what else to doubt they decided that they couldn’t trust Beneveniste”blind”. The visiting team therefore insisted on adding their own “blind” to the procedure. To do this they introduced an extra manipulation of the samples (they moved the samples into new tubes). Of course this added procedure might or might not effect the outcome of an already delicate experiment. The investigating team sealed their extra code in an envelope, wrapped that up in silver foil (to foil X-ray eyes), and stuck it on to the ceiling of the lab with a video camera trained on it.! When, in this one trial, this new variation of the experiment no longer worked, Maddox announced that the whole affair was a delusion, or a fraud. Such is the stature of the journal, Nature, that the “expert’s” pronouncement was treated with gravity. “In our view, ultradilution should not work. Therefore it does not. Trust us. We’ve looked. We’ve tried it.” (I paraphrase.) This was all every unscientific, yet here the matter rests. (Work by Professor M Roberfroid, Madeleine Ennis, and colleagues, has since vindicated Beneviniste’s work and homeopath.)

 Now our name was on this controversial Benveniste ultradilution paper, and we’re a very respectable laboratory, so there was a large section of the world, at least here in Canada, that looked to us to see what we’d finally have to say on the matter. “We have promising preliminary results,” was all the Professor could say. That, and “No comment.” So when Prof. AbouHaidar’s team stumbled on the incredible that DNA diluted (one part in ten) eighteen or twenty five times (diluted beyond substance) still binds its complementary strand – they came to see us”.

This was how by Norman Allan, Ph.D, author of present article became involved in this work.

The work was done as follows:

“Prof. AbouHaidar is a virologist; a Professor with tenure at the University of Toronto. Professor AbouHaidar was working on a viral assay. You’d take a plant from a field – he was working with potatoes – grind it up, run it through the Professor’s assay, and it would tell you whether there was any of a particular virus present in those potatoes. It works like this: you take a virus, which in this case was a DNA virus, and you “digest it”, splitting each bit of viral DNA into two single complementary strands. Then you divide this digest into two parts. At this point the two parts are (statistically) identical. Take one half of this now single stranded DNA and call it the “target”. Take the other half and call it the “probe”.

The target is spotted out on a filter paper – that is to say, you put a drop of it on a microfilter to make a spot. Then you dilute what’s left one part in ten, and put a drop of the dilute solution at a second spot. Then dilute again one part in ten, and spot it out again. Keep diluting and spotting out the successive dilutions. This is to test how sensitive the assay is. After all, we may be looking for a little bit of virus in a whole field of potatoes. We need a sensitive assay.

 Having spotted out all these successive dilutions, we take the filter paper and bake it at 80 degrees centigrade. After baking, the target won’t wash off. Next let us consider the probe. The probe, remember, in this explanation, the probe is made up of the same single stranded viral DNA fragments. These we’re going to label so we can see them. We mix them with avidin-biotin. The avidin binds to the DNA, and the biotin will bind to a stain, so we’ll get a dark spot where our DNA-avidin-biotin binds the stain.

Now we take our probe and wash it over the targeted filter paper. Where the DNA in the probe finds its complementary strand in the target it binds to it. Next we wash the probe and target, and only where the probe has bound to its complementary strand will there be any of the probe be left. The rest is washed away. Then we ‘develop’ the probe/target filterpaper with our stain. Only where the labeled probe has bound to the target will we see any stain. In the test as set it up, the stain gets lighter and lighter with each dilution. It’s dark, almost black, in the first couple of dilutions, but fades out of sight at about the seventh dilution.

That’s the assay AbouHaidar was refining. (Actually, it’s Dr. Southern’s dot-blot test, so it’s called “Southern blot”, though Dr. Western’s “Western dot-blot”  predates it and is more widely used.). Mohammed Eweida was a postdoc working in Prof. AbouHaidar’s lab with this Southern blot assay. Mohammed Ewieda wasn’t very happy about his situation. I don’t know why, but he was out of there: he was off to the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm in the summer: and so, perhaps to kill time, he spotted out the dilutions eighteen times, even though the staining was lost to sight at the seventh, and and he got a dark spot at the eighteenth dilution!

 “Look at that,” said Dr. Eweida to Michael Dobbs, a postgraduate student working in the lab. Some months before Mike Dobbs had been to Jacque Benveniste’s lecture on ultradilution. (In Homeopathy substances are diluted beyond the infinitesimal till there’s no substance left, which is what is meant by “ultradilution”.) So, when Mohammed showed Michael his anomalous result with an unexpected spot at the eighteenth dilution Michael thought, incredulously, “ultradilution”. “Eh, Mohammed,” he said. “Do that again.” Dr. Eweida repeated the viral assay, this time taking it out to the fiftieth decimal (one in ten) dilution. (That’s 10-50 where ten to the minus 30 is like a drop in the ocean, and 10-37 is like a drop in a million oceans. At 10-26 we pass “Avagadro’s number [which relates to the number of molecules in a “gram molecule”] and would no longer expect to find a single molecule in a gram.) Again there was a dark spot that shouldn’t be there at the eighteenth dilution, and now there were also stained spots at the 19th dilution, and the 25th and 26th, and the 38th, and 43rd dilution, but not at the dilutions in between.  At the 25th and 26th dilutions there is certainly no substance left in the solution. We have passed Avagadro’s number. There is no DNA left in the target. And yet the undiluted complementary strands in the probe (labeled with avidin-biotin) binds to the target!  They can not be binding to a substance, not to molecular DNA. They may be binding to a signal, an electrical signal imprinted into the nitrocellulose. They are binding to something!

 At first sight, to some, this has seemed to contradict classical science. “How can water, with nothing in it, remember what was there formerly, but is no longer there?” But here were Prof. AbouHaidar and Dr. Eweida, here they were with these filterpapers, dozens of them, with dark spots at the 18th and 19th dilution, and the 25th and 26th. Sometimes the pattern moved a little: sometimes only the 18th turned dark, once it was the 17th.

 Well, Prof. AbouHaidar when he first saw it, suspected a joke. And when Dr. Eweida repeated it yet again, Menir AbouHaidar suspected a hoax. So he tried it himself, and there it was. No hoax.

 What to do next? One of the next things that Prof. AbouHaidar did was to come and see us, Dr. Pomeranz and his research team. From here on in I’m going to call Dr. Pomeranz, the Professor. The Professor’s lab (where I had worked for seven years) was one of the labs that replicated Benveniste’s work with ultradilute antigens. The Professor’s name was on Benveniste’s controversial paper, so Prof. AbouHaidar came to talk to us, in confidence, to hear what we could tell them. “Do it again,” we said. And they did.

What does all this mean? It suggests a multitude of things. First let’s look at the patterning of water. If you put, say, one part salt in a hundred parts of water, it seems that the salt will pattern the water – the water mirrors the salt’s “vibration”. Certainly with Prof. AbouHaidar’s DNA we seem to see an electrical patterning that comes back into register with the original space/charge patterning at the 18th dilution.”

Based on these observations, the author tries to explain homeopathy as follows:

 “Now if homeopathic [ultradilute, potentiated] remedies are having effects on organisms – they cured my cat – one of the implications, it seems, is that the body has vibrational fields, patterned energy fields, on which these (vibrational, patterned) remedies can work. Many people, particularly those on the fringe of science, and beyond, have been saying this for years. But no one has demonstrated it in any convincing or replicable manner. This is where Prof. AbouHaidar’s discovery is so special. Finally we have a handle into this realm of vibration.”

Obviously, the author is caught in the “theory of vibrations” in his interpretations. This is a clear example of how a scientist slips and falls into “pseudoscience”. He understands he is moving into the realm of ‘fringe science’ and ‘beyond science’. And now he is trying to utilize “AbouHaidar’s discovery” to rationalize the speculations of ‘fringe science’ and ‘beyond science’, which “have been saying this for years”.  He tries to utilize this unexplained phenomenon as a “handle into this realm of vibration”. The intention of the author is clear now. This shows how science can be used to rationalize ‘unscientific’ theories.

How does homeopathy work in practice? As a scientist, we would expect from the author an explanation that would fit to the existing scientific knowledge system available to modern biochemistry, molecular biology and medical science. But to our total dismay, he comes with totally unscientific and irrational concepts and arguments. He says:

 “How does homeopathy work in practice? At its simplest level, let’s say you’re in an accident, traumatized, the body goes into a particular pattern of vibration, in this case a kind of ‘shock’, Often people seem to get stuck in these patterns. Tinctures made from the plant Arnica have a vibratory pattern that (we may imagine) closely resembles this vibratory pattern associated with traumatic shock. Empirically it has been observed, again and again, that the potentised remedy prepared from Arnica helps physically traumatised people to heal. So, it may be that the body becomes locked in a particular oscillatory pattern, and the remedy, the “similar”, helps to jog it free, to loosen that pattern’s hold on the body so the body can stop repetitively singing that song”

How is it? Is he talking science? Do these words reflect a scientific mind? We had many times heard this pseudo-scientific ‘theory of vibrations’ from so-called vitalists, classical homeopaths and metaphysical theoreticians. But it is a real pity to hear this from a reputed scientist. As a scientist, we would expect him to talk about the bio-chemical derangements caused by traumas, and how the constituent molecules of arnica tincture rectify these bio-molecular errors. How could  the author reach such unscientific conclusions from the reported research findings? The researchers only observed the presence of some sort of ‘memory’ of DNA molecules in ultra-dilutions in water. They said nothing about the mechanism of this ‘memory’. Obviously, the author utilizes these findings to rationalize his ‘fringe science’ speculations. This is unfair and unethical as far as a scientist is concerned.

He continues his imaginative speculations further:

 ”A further implication of homeopathy is seen in the fact that the personality, the emotional make-up, the thought patterns, of patients are the most important guiding feature in deciding which remedy to use. The “mentals” are given more weight then the physical symptoms. The implication of this is that mind, that thought and emotion, are patterns”.

We expect to hear a scientist explain “thought and emotions” on the basis of neurochemistry, where as this ‘scientist’ is talking about ‘patterns’. Wonderful!.

His interpretation of ‘patterns’ in water formed by adding salt shows his total ignorance regarding the process of ‘hydration’ in aqueous solutions. Every science student knows that so-called patterning is nothing but supra-molecular clustering of water molecules through hydrogen bonding. I think he uses the terms like ‘patterns’ and vibrations’ to take this phenomenon into the realm of ‘fringe science’ which seems to be a subject very dear to him.

Instead of speculating over ‘patterns’ and ‘vibrations’, and discussing ‘fringe science’ and ‘beyond science’, this phenomenon could have been scientifically explained on the basis of “Molecular Imprinting”. Such an explanation would fit in to the existing scientific knowledge-system perfectly. More over, based on this concept, we can provide scientific explanation to the molecular mechanism of therapeutic action of potentized homeopathic medicines, fitting to modern biochemistry and molecular biology. HOMEOPATHY COULD BE DEALT WITH NOT AS A ‘FRINGE SCIENCE” or “BEYOND SCIENCE”. BUT AS REAL SCIENCE!

 Let us listen to what the author says further on this subject:

“Come back to the one part salt in a hundred parts water. If we take this salt water and dissolve it again one part in a hundred in clear water, and shake it, it again patterns the water, but this time with some changes. Remember it’s at the 18th and 19th dilution that AbouHaidar’s target bound the probe (at least, that was the case in the first sample that MAME showed us). At the 15th, 16th, there was nothing. This suggests that we are seeing something similar to the interference phenomenon that occurs with harmonic overlays. This is a fairly well known phenomenon (e.g. “Poincare’s recurrence”, see below). However here because it’s a dilution procedure, the harmonics are going to include lower frequency multiples, “subharmonics”, of the original signal as well as the more usual higher frequency harmonics.

 It is very funny to see how hastily the author jumps to his pre-determined conclusions such as ‘interference’ phenomenon and ‘frequency harmonics’, based simply on the observed phenomenon of ‘patterning’ of water in salt solutions. Before that he should have applied some thought regarding ‘hydrogen bonding’, hydration’ and ‘supra-molecular clustering’, and also the probability of ‘molecular imprinting’.

 “Imagine a conjurer’s rope. Take a segment out of that magician’s rope – say one foot out of ten – and hold it taut between your hands, and twang it. Now (by magic) put it back in the original rope. The note, the vibration, in the small piece will pattern and inform the longer piece. The longer piece will now carry that information, but it will also, during the process, generate harmonics, multiples of that original note. But note, in the dilution process (which the homeopaths have traditionally called “potentiation”) it becomes intuitively apparent that we will be generating both harmonics andsubharmonics of the original pattern. And this explains one of the mysteries of homeopathy”

How can see declare that “this explains one of the mysteries of homeopathy”? Obviously, he is overtly trying to ‘prove’ his concepts of ‘vibration theory’ in homeopathy utilizing the unexplained phenomenon observed by the research team..

“It is part of the traditional homeopathic wisdom that the higher potencies, the higher dilutions, are stronger and deeper acting than the lower potencies: that the mother tincture and the low potencies act superficially, at a surface level, at skin level, and at the physical level, while the high potencies act deeper and begin to effect emotions, thoughts, personality – and they are also, the high potencies, much stronger.”

 Author tries to utilize the “traditional wisdom’ of homeopathy to rationalize his speculations. As a scientist, we expect from him rational explanations for those “traditional wisdom” on the basis of “scientific wisdom”. Not the other way.

 “If I were going to treat you, say, with salt, sodium chloride (in Homeopathy we latinize it and call it Nat mur, short for Natrium muraticum). Now why would I treat you with Nat mur. Nat mur is one of the polycrests, which is to say it has power over an extremely broad range of symptoms, and with Nat mur, for sure, I would be guided in large part by personality and etiology (causation). Nat mur is seen in problems caused by grief where the person internalises. With that internalizing there’s a withholding and a holding. The person is likely to brood. “Attachment” is a key word with nat mur, and yet they don’t like to be consoled.  Consolation will irritate them. The substance, salt, will cause (this pattern, this disposition) these problems, and it will also cure them. That’s why we call this type of medicine homeopathy: we treat like with like. This thought, that “like cures like” was Hahnemann’s great “law”. Now this, to me, is not intuitively apparent. But it is a piece of empiricism that was first recorded by Hippocrates, was reiterated by Paracelsus, and explored and developed into a fine art and science by Hahnemann at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century. Hahnemann experimented on himself. His first experiment was to take quinine. Quinine gave him ague-like fevers!”

As per the author this is the “scientific” explanation for the mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics. The wonder is that this ‘explanation’ comes from a “scientist”. According to him, “internalized grief” creates them “changes in pattern” in the “emotions” of an individual. “The substance, salt, will cause (this pattern, this disposition) these problems, and it will also cure them”. “That’s why we call this type of medicine homeopathy: we treat like with like”. How would this “explain the mysteries of homeopathy” as the author claim? To become a scientific explanation, he would have told us how “grief” creates the pathological disturbances in an individual, and what are the neuro-chemical errors happening at molecular level in various related biological pathways. We would also expect him to explain how sodium chloride creates similar biochemical changes individuals. If he wants to “explain the mysteries of homeopathy”, he should also explain what is the active principles in potentized sodium chloride, and how these active principles interact with the biochemical molecules and relieve the organism from the molecular errors caused by “grief”. That is the way a real scientist would talk about a science of therapeutics. Instead, the author talks about “patterns” created by “grief” and “patterns” created by “sodium chloride”. This is not the language of a scientist. We had already had this type of pseudoscientific “explanations’ ad nauseum fro the “gurus” and “masters” of “classical homeopathy”.

After making all these big noises about “explaining the mysteries” of homeopathy on the basis of  concepts like “fringe science”, “beyond science”, “beyond substance”, “harmonics”, “resonance”, “vibrations” etc., it is quite wonderful how the author concludes”

“How do I know all this is what is going on? I don’t. I do know that homeopathy cured my cat. I know that MAME’s ultradilute DNA bound molecular DNA And then we have the well conducted clinical trials of Reilly published in Lancet that demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that a phenomenon exists. Homeopathic remedies are reproducibly significantly more effective than placebo controls (Reilly 94). We know the phenomenon exists. What I’ve written here is my groping for an explanation.”

See his confession: “ What I’ve written here is my groping for an explanation.”. That means, all through this article we were “groping” along with him! Kindly read further: 

“In May 1989 MAME submitted a paper on this ultradilute DNA phenomena to Nature. And Maddox, the editor, sat on it. In the summer of 1989 the University of Toronto opened a new botany building, and Prof. AbouHaidar moved his lab out of its old quarters. After the move and some initial difficulties for a short while the ultradilute experiment ran as before, though the pattern (18, 19, 25, 26) became more chaotic. But then shortly after the move, they lost the phenomenon! It no longer worked. They tried it a few times, and moved back to their mainstream work, genetic engineering, with the world not even ruffled.”

 “It was not my impression that procedures, protocols, were clearly and precisely defined in AbouHaidar’s lab. (Elizabeth once characterized their work as “bucket chemistry”.) Nonetheless the phenomenon seemed to be robust up to the move, and for a short while after the move. As far as I am aware, apart from Elizabeth and my follow up in 1992/93, there has been no further work done with the phenomenon”

”The fact that when MAME moved labs the phenomenon vanished is itself fascinating”.

 “So I urge anyone who has the opportunity to look for ultradilute activity, whether in dot-blots or in other assays, to do so. We stand on the threshold of a new science, a level of patterning in the natural world hitherto overlooked, and who can say where this knowledge might lead”

 Dear friends, is this not the same proverbial situation we say “the mountain delivering a mouse”! The whole verbosity has finally faded into nothing!

According to Luc Montaigner, the ‘nanostructures’ formed in high dilutions are ‘mimics’ of original molecules.  Scientifically, ‘molecular imprints’ are 3d structures with configurations just complementary to original molecules. If we consider original molecules as ‘keys’, montaigner consider ‘nanostructures’ as duplicate keys. According to my concept, ‘molecular imprints’ are ‘artificial key holes’ that could act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for original keys or keys similar to them. Molecular imprints bind to the pathogenic molecules due to complementary configuration, exactly like a key hole binds to a key. MOLECULAR IMPRINTING PRODUCES ARTIFICIAL KEY-HOLES, NOT DUPLICATE KEYS. Once we understand this difference in perceptions, it would be easy for us to understand ‘similia similibus curentur’ scientifically.

Concept of ‘Molecular imprinting in Water’ involved in homeopathic potentization could have many unpredictable and unforeseen implications in the field of genetic engineering and gene therapy. Molecular imprints of genes or ‘DNA fragments’ could be utilized as templates for preparing ‘designer genes’ as per requirement in laboratories, that could be utilized for ‘genetic repairing’ protocols.

Extract the required genes or DNA fragments from healthy genomes and potentize them according to homeopathic procedures. These potencies would obviously contain ‘molecular imprints’ of DNA fragments used for potentization.

Add these potentized ‘DNA’ to a mixture of neucleotide primers and DNA polymerase enzymes involved in the biochemical process of DNA synthesis. ‘Molecular imprints’ can act as templates and selectively bind and hold the neucleotide primers in correct positions and sequences exactly similar to original DNA fragments used for imprinting. Polymerase enzymes will then link the individual neucleotides together to form DNA fragments exactly similar to original ones in terms of neucleotide structure and sequence.

This is a possibility I foresee when thinking about ‘molecular imprints’. Interested scientists are free to work upon this idea.

All the published scientific studies regarding PHYSICAL properties of potentized homeopathic drugs have shown that the SPECTRA of light REFLECTED by them have FREQUENCIES different from that we obtain from unpotentized water-ethyl alcohol mixture.

Based on the reported observations of changed ‘frequencies’ homeopathic ‘theoreticians’and ‘intellectuals’ make a lot of fancifull theories about homeopathy. They believe and try to make others believe that these observations have proved their ‘energy medicine’ theories. According to them, potentized drugs produce cures by acting on ‘vital force’ by ‘resonance of frequencies’. Vital force of each individual vibrates in specific frequencies. Disease is caused by derangement of these vibrations. Potentized ‘similimum’ having most similar vibrations can rectify the derangement of vibrations of vital force through ‘fesonance’, thereby restoring the health.

Where as some ‘theoreticians’ say the ‘vibrations’ of potentized drugs are due to ‘electromagnetic radiations’, some others say it is ‘radioactivity’. Most of them use the terms ‘radioactivity’ and ‘electromagnetic radiations’ as interchangeable equivalents, displaying their utter ignorance regarding the topics they are talking about.

Actually, observations of difference in spectra of light reflected by potentized drugs and unpotentized water-alcohol mixture has to be understood and interpreted with a rational and scientific perspective. All these studies were done using different techniques of SPECTROSCOPY, which is the most accurate and reliable method of studying the molecular level and atomic level structure and conformation of matter. Even though there are different techniques, instruments and methods currently employed in spectrometry, basically it is all about sending LIGHT RAYS of known frequency into the sample to be probed, and then studying the REFLECTED or TANSMITTED rays by measuring the change in their frequencies. Analyzing the CHANGES happened in the frequencies of light SPECTRA, scientists reach conclusions about the particle level structure and organization.

Not only potentized drugs, any MATERIAL particle in this universe will show changes in reflected or transmitted SPECTRA OF LIGHT, when they are subjected to spectroscopic studies.

Difference in spectra of light reflected from potentized drugs and unpotentized water-alcohol medium proves that certain changes occur in the supra-molecular arrangement of water-ethyl molecules during potentization. Such an observation no way proves potentized drug act as medicinal agents using RESONANCE OF FREQUENCIES. Supra- molecular changes in potentizing medium happening during potentization should be understood in terms of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING, which will help us in explaining biological mechanism of high dilution therapeutics and ‘similia similibus curentur’ in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge system.

Theorizations of ‘energy medicine’ proponents based on weird and ‘hijacked’ interpretations of published scientific studies only demonstrates their ignorance regarding principles and methods of modern science.

———————————————————————————————

It is a clinically experienced and experimentally verified fact that potentized drugs act upon organism in a way exactly opposite to the parent drugs. Actually, this observation is the basis of homeopathic ‘drug proving’ as well as ‘similia similibus curentur’.

Why a drug substance in ‘potentized’ form act upon living organism in a reverse direction to its action in crude or ‘molecular’ form? What may be the molecular mechanism involved in this ‘reverse’ action?

Whole riddles of homeopathy will be resolved once we could explain this phenomenon of ‘reverse action’ rationally and scientifically in a way fitting to modern biochemistry and kinetics of biomolecular interactions.

Phenomenon of ‘reverse actions’ of potentized forms and crude forms of same drug substance could be rationally explained only if we perceive potentized drugs in terms of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug molecules, and understand these molecular imprints as three-dimensional nanocavities depressions ‘engraved’ into a water-ethyl alcohol supra-molecular matrix.

Beyond any doubt, only MIT concepts can answer the fundamental questions of homeopathy, and resolve the riddles haunting this wonderful therapeutic art.

——————————————————————————————–

I am trying hard to explore the BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM of ‘similia similibus curentur’ in terms of modern biochemistry and molecular imprinting. When somebody intervenes my discussions and try to ‘teach’ me their ‘energy medicine’ theory that “root cause of diseases is the deranged flow of vital energy happening at spiritual level”, I simply loose my cool!

——————————————————————————

My concern is not about INVENTING ‘new theories’, ‘new methods’ or ‘new drugs’ in homeopathy. My work is all about RE-INVENTING ‘homeopathy’ itself. RE-BUILDING homeopathy. You cannot reconstruct something, without deconstructing something.

————————————————————————————

It is a very tough and tiring job to talk to a community who either do not understand what I am talking about, or are not interested in the topics I am talking about. Still, I keep on talking, day in and day out, because it is my mission. I have no other options. Once you fall into waters, you have to keep on swimming and swimming, if you want to stay alive without drowning!

————————————————————————————

Active principles of many drug substances as wel as pathogenic agents, especially of plant and animal origin, are protein molecules. Preparing MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug molecules and pathogenic molecules of PROTEIN nature poses a big challenge. Biological properties and drug properties- whether it be pathogenic or therapeutic- properties of potein molecules are determined by their three-dimensional conformations, in capacity of which they bind to specific biological targets. Once this three-dimensional tertiary structure of protein molecules are disturbed, their biological and medicinal properties undergo drastic changes.

When CRUDE or molecular forms of drug substances of biological origin are introduced into body for drug proving, or as part of accidental poisoning, environmental exposures, ingestion or infections, protein molecules contained in them act up on their body and produce symptoms by their properties as arising from their specific three-dimensional PROTEIN structures.

We need exact MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug molecules and pathogenic molecules for using them as perfect and target-specific therapeutic agents according to the principle SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR.

Protein molecules will change their three-dimensional conformation and undergo a process of DENATURATION if they are allowed to interact with alcohol, since it is a very powerful denaturing agent. Since we use ethyl alcohol for preparing medicinal tinctures, and water-ethyl alcohol mixture as potentizing medium, there exist chances of protein molecules contained in our drug substances undergoing denaturation before they are potentized. As such, we get only MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of those denatured protein molecules in our potentized drugs- not exact molecular imprints of original protein molecules. This makes a big difference regarding the medicinal properties of potentized drugs prepared from drug substances consisting of protein molecules as their active ingredients. This explains why we fail to cure life threatening emergencies of snake- bites using potentized venom, or cancer using carcinosin, or any particular infectious disease using its own specific causative agent or disease product in potentized form.

This factor points to the necessity of evolving new molecular imprinting protocols and molecular imprinting medium that do not contain ethyl alcohol, especially for potentizing drug substances of BIOLOGICAL origin.

———————————————————————————————–

Modern scientists so far studied only MOLECULAR IMPRINTED SYNTHETIC POLYMERS. The fact is, not only SYNTHETIC polymers, but any NATURAL POLYMER such as PROTEINS, CARBOHYDRATES, NUCLEIC ACIDS, FATS, and even WATER, which as POLYMER-LIKE properties at SUPRA MOLECULAR LEVEL, could be used as medium for molecular imprinting. Formation of ANTIBODIES is a natural process of molecular imprinting in nature, where as POTENTIZATION is an artificial way of molecular imprinting in water developed by hahnemann. Molecular imprinting plays a role even in natural phenomena of CRYSTAL growth, molecular mechanism of prion diseases etc as well. A lot of study has to be done in this field.

———————————————————————————–

ANTIBODIES or IMMUNE BODIES are MOLECULAR IMPRINTED PROTEINS- native globulin proteins getting ‘imprinted’ by interacting with ANTIGENS. Antigens are endogenous or exogenous proteins ‘alien’ to the genetic substance of the body. Exogenous antigens are proteins entering the body fluids from the environment, where as endogenous antigens are either misfolded native proteins or proteins synthesized by mutated genes. Proteins released by parasites and bacteria residing in our body also act as antigens.

Even though the primary role of IMMUNE BODIES is defending the body from the attacks of ALIEN proteins, the immune bodies remain in the body as antibodies or MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of alien proteins. These antibodies or molecular imprinted proteins, due to the presence of ‘imprints’ or three dimensional depressions on them with configurations complementary to the specific antigens or ‘alien’ proteins, can bind to various biological target molecules that may occasionally acquire similar configurations by interacting with co-factors or other effector molecules. This results in pathological molecular inhibitions in related biochemical pathways. This is the biological mechanism involved in so-called ‘auto-immune diseases’ and the whole range of diseases hahnemann called as chronic ‘miasmatic’ diseases.

Over and above acting as CAUSATIVE FACTORS of diverse types of chronic diseases, these ANTIBODIES or MOLECULAR IMPRINTS may also play the role of FACILITATORS for infectious agents or other pathogenic molecules, by helping them to bind to the biological molecules by making configurational changes in their binding sites. This explains the commonly explained phenomenon of miasms increasing the chances of infections and other diseases.

Once homeopaths understand and accept this scientific explanation of MIASMS, all confusions related with subject will be resolved for ever. More over, ‘miasms’ will thereby become a scientific concept, that could be incorporated into the paradigms of modern medical science.

———————————————————————————————

Excuse me, a bit of philosophy today!

I think ADWAITHA of ancient INDIAN philosophy, and the DIALECTICAL of ancient western philosophy are words used by the masters to explain SAME universal reality. Both refers to a a peculiar relationship working inside and in between EVERYTHING in this universe. Things may appear as ONE or TWO, but actually are neither ONE nor TWO. Something that appears as DUAL, but SINGULAR is essence- Something that appears SINGULAR, but DUAL in essence. It is actually what is meant by both ADWAITHA and DIALECTICAL.

——————————————————————————-

According to CONVENTIONAL homeopaths, anything you say about homeopathy should be FITTING to the ‘aphorisms’ of ORGANON. Otherwise, you will not be a ‘true’ homeopath!

There are many things in ORGANON that does not agree with modern scientific knowledge. There are many things that are totally UNSCIENTIFIC. As such, you cannot talk SCIENTIFIC HOMEOPATHY in a way ‘fitting’ to the ‘aphorisms’ of ORGANON. You cannot make homeopathy a MEDICAL SCIENCE if you are not ready to abandon those unscientific things we were so far taught as part of ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy.

——————————————————————————–

CONVENTIONAL HOMEOPATHS learn SCIENCE from the standpoint of ORGANON, where as SCIENTIFIC HOMEOPATHS learn ORGANON from the standpoint of modern SCIENCE. It makes all the difference in their approaches, perspectives, paradigms and methods of practice.

———————————————————————————–

I am not talking about ‘aphorisms’ or ‘beliefs’. I am talking about my rational interpretations of similia similibus curentur, based on modern scientific knowledge of life, disease, drugs and cure.

Please note, nothing is said in organon about MOLECULAR IMPRINTING also.

If you think we should talk about homeopathy only in terms of ‘aphorisms’ written 200 years ago when scientific knowledge was in its primitive state, you cannot even think about ‘molecular imprints’ active factors of potentized drugs. You cannot talk about genetics, enzymes, ligand-receptor kinetics, antibodies , molecular pathology or anything like that. According to you ‘true’ homeopathy will be mere repeating of aphorisms in organon! You will feel ‘very very very sorry’ when somebody says something that do not fit to ‘aphorisms’.

———————————————————————————

Many homeopaths believe POTENTIZATION is a process of ‘dividing’ drug substance into smaller fractions, ultimately ‘converting’ them into ‘energy’, and transferring the ‘dynamic energy’ so released into sugar of milk or rectified spirit. Nobody so far taught them to think about potentization in terms of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING.

———————————————————————————-

When I talk about BIOCHEMISTRY, many homeopaths tend to compare it with SCHUSSLER’S ‘BIIOCHEMISTRY’. Actually, Schussler’s concept of ‘biochemical salts’ represent the most primitive, pre-scientific, infantile stage of BIOCHEMISTRY. Schissler actually was studying the ‘mineral content’ of ASH obtained by burning the tissues of living organisms. Schussler’s ‘biochemic salts’ has nothing to do with the very complex, ‘live’, BIOLOGICAL MOLECULES studied by MODERN BIOCHEMISTRY.

Comparing MODERN BIOCHEMISTRY with SCHUSSLER’S ‘biochemic salts’ is inappropriate, irrelevant and it indicates ignorance of modern biochemistry and its scientific paradigms.

—————————————————————————–

We all know, our homeopathic drug SEPIA is prepared from INK of CUTTLE FISH. It contains a number of chemicals in a variety of different concentrations, depending on the species. However, its main constituents are MELANIN and mucus. It can also contain, among other things, tyrosinase, dopamine and L-DOPA, and small amounts of amino acids, including taurine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, alanine and lysine. SEPIA INK also contains large amounts of aquatic minerals such as iodine, sodium, fluorine, iodine etc absorbed from sea water in which they live.

That means, SEPIA is not a SINGLE DRUG as we are made to believe. It is a COMPOUND DRUG. During DRUG PROVING, all these different chemical constituents of SEPIA act in their INDIVIDUAL capacities up on different biological targets during drug proving, produce molecular errors that are expressed through vaious groups of subjective and objective symptoms.

When POTENTIZED, these different chemical molecules undergo molecular imprinting as INDIVIDUAL MOLECULES. As such, potentized SEPIA will be a combination of diverse types of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS that represent different types of constituent chemical molecules. When used as therapeutic agent, these individual molecular imprints bind to specific PATHOGENIC MOLECULES having complementary conformation.

Dear friend, do you still BELIEVE, SEPIA is a SINGLE drug?

This explanation and question is applicable to all homeopathic drugs. PLEASE THINK OVER!

————————————————————————————-

While learning MATERIA MEDICA, we should always remember that the SYMPTOMS are the subjective and objective INDICATORS to the molecular errors the drug substance could produce in the organism. These MOLECULAR ERRORS are produced by the INDIVIDUAL constituent molecules of drug substance interacting with INDIVIDUAL biological molecules. We should also remember, we are actually studying the drug symptoms to study the molecular errors the drug could produce in the body, and then compare the ‘similarity’ of these symptoms with disease symptoms so that we can indirectly identify the exactly SIMILAR molecular errors underlying the disease, so that we can select a drug that in ‘molecular imprints’ form can remove the pathological molecular errors according thi SIMILIA principle.

———————————————————————————————-

Homeopathic drug SEPIA is the INK of CUTTLEFISH. Cuttlefish are marine animals of the order Sepiida. They belong to the class Cephalopoda, which also includes squid, octopuses and nautiluses. Despite their name, cuttlefish are not fish but molluscs.

Cuttlefish are sometimes referred to as the “chameleons of the sea” because of their remarkable ability to rapidly alter their skin color at will. Cuttlefish change color and pattern, including of light polarisation and even texture to communicate to other cuttlefish, to camouflage themselves, and in deimatic display to warn off potential predators.

SEPIA INK is a dark pigment released into water by most species of cephalopod, usually as an escape mechanism.

The ink is released from the ink sacs located between the gills, and is dispersed more widely by accompanying its release with a jet of water from the siphon. Its dark color is caused by its main constituent, melanin.

Each species of cephalopod produces slightly differently coloured inks; generally, octopuses produce black ink, squid ink is blue-black and cuttlefish ink is brown.

SEPIA ink contains a number of chemicals in a variety of different concentrations, depending on the species. However, its main constituents are MELANIN and mucus. It can also contain, among other things, tyrosinase, dopamine and L-DOPA, and small amounts of amino acids, including taurine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, alanine and lysine. SEPIA INK also contains large amounts of aquatic minerals suchas iodine, sodium, fluorine, iodine etc absorbed from sea water in which they live.

When potentized, SEPIA contains MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of all these constituent chemical molecules, which are the active principles of potentized SEPIA.

In molecular biology, Tyrosinase refers to an oxidase, which is the rate limiting enzyme for controlling the production of melanin. It is mainly involved in two distinct reactions of melanin synthesis; firstly, the hydroxylation of a monophenol and secondly, the conversion of an o-diphenol to the corresponding o-quinone. o-Quinone undergoes several reactions to eventually form melanin. Tyrosinase is a copper-containing enzyme present in plant and animal tissues that catalyzes the production of melanin and other pigments from tyrosine by oxidation, as in the blackening of a peeled or sliced potato exposed to air. It is found inside melanosomes.

A mutation in the tyrosinase gene resulting in impaired tyrosinase production leads to type I oculocutaneous albinism, a hereditary disorder.
Tyrosinase activity is very important. If uncontrolled during melanoma, it results in increased melanin synthesis. Several polyphenols including flavonoids or stilbenoid, substrate analogues, free radical scavengers and copper chelators have been known to inhibit tyrosinase.

MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of tyrosinase molecules contained in potentized SEPIA can remove the molecular errors caused by various types of INHIBITORS that cause certain types of albinism, leucoderma and hypopigmentations.

MMOLECULAR IMPRINTS of certain chemical constituents of SEPIA act homeopathically by binding to the pathogenic molecules that inhibit MELANOCORTIN RECEPTORS in melanocytes, which are the natural binding sites of MELANOCYTE STIMULATING HORMONES that induce production of MELANIN, the skin pigment of our body

MELANOCORTIN RECEPTORS lie within the cell membrane, and is signalled by melanocyte-stimulating hormone (MSH) released by the pituitary gland. When activated by MSH, it initiates a complex signaling cascade that leads to the production of the brown or black pigment eumelanin. In contrast, the receptor can also be antagonized by agouti signalling peptide (ASIP), which reverts the cell back to producing the yellow or red phaeomelanin.

MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of melainin, dopamine and L-DOPA, taurine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, alanine and lysine, iodine fluorine, bromine sodium etc contained in potentized SEPIA decide the diverse types its homeopathic therapeutic actions when used according to SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR.

—————————————————————————————————-

A ‘BIG’ repertory on our table does not guarantee success, if we do not know how to take case properly, prepare the rubrics and repertorize systematically. Number of drugs or rubrics in a repertory we use is not that much important, if we know how to use our tools productively. After working with KENT more than 40 years, now I am confident I can solve any case using even BOERICKE repertory alone. I can even manage almost all cases with a REPERTORY of maximum 500 mentals and physical generals, and a medicine chest containing only 100 remedies in 30C potency.

———————————————————————————

I want to repeat again and again: Mastering the art of CASE TAKING is the only guarantee to successful PRESCRIPTION. Extracting right information from the patient, and CONSTRUCTING as many number of COMPLETE symptoms as possible using that info is what we mean by successful case taking. A symptom is said to be a COMPLETE symptom, when it consists of maximum available number of strong characteristic ACCESSORIES belonging to categories such as CAUSATION, PRESENTATION, LOCATION, SENSATION, MODALITIES and CONCOMITANTS. Even a single ‘complete’ symptom, if it indicates only a single drug, may in certain cases lead us to a reasonable prescription. Case taking is a skill to be consciously developed by individual homeopaths, if they really want to be a successful prescribers.

——————————————————————————

I feel very sorry for majority homeopathic community and their ‘leaders’ not trying to realize the revolutionary implications of MIT concepts upon the future advancement of homeopathy as a true MEDICAL SCIENCE. Earlier they realize and accept it, the better will be the prospects of homeopathy. Come out of the shells! You are missing a great opportunity, friends!

———————————————————————————

KNOWLEDGE IS LIKE FIRE. A SINGLE SPARK WILL GROW INTO CANDLE LIGHTS AND THEN SPREAD INTO MIGHTY FLAMES BY SHARING. THAT IS WHY I LOVE TO SHARE WITH OTHERS WHAT EVER LITTLE KNOWLEDGE I HAVE. IT HELPS MY KNOWLEDGE GROW LIKE A FIRE!

———————————————————————————–

I always wonder what will happen to MIT concepts if I die at this moment. Will anybody take this mission forward, or, will it be the end of MIT? What precautions I should take to ensure it will stay here even if I have to leave? Any suggestions, dear friends?

—————————————————————————————–

Can you imagine how much humiliating experience it would be for me to be ‘validated’ by somebody who I am sure is totally ignorant and far inferior to me regarding the knowledge in the subjects being validated?

—————————————————————————

It will be a very difficult job for an average person to be IMPARTIAL and UNPREJUDICED in validating something that undermines all his existing beliefs, positions, fame and fortunes!

—————————————————————————

How can an ‘expert committee’ consisting of experts in ‘conventional’ UNSCIENTIFIC beliefs and theories of homeopathy ‘review’, ‘validate’, ‘accept’, or ‘reject’ MIT concepts of SCIENTIFIC homeopathy about which they are totally ignorant and prejudiced, especially when the MIT concepts go against the belief system they consider as real homeopathy? It will be like entrusting a language teacher to do the valuation work of examination papers of a physics student!!

—————————————————————————–

All the great intellectual revelations in human history regarding TRUTH happened not through ‘official’ ways and ‘formal’ procedures. It just happens- that is all.

———————————————————————————-

Responding to my earlier letter requesting to appoint sub-committee of experts to look into the viability and implications of MIT concepts, and to recommend future course of actions and research projects on MIT, Dr Raj Manchanda, Director General of CCRH had informed me that Dr Anil Khurana and Dr. Debadatta Nayak have been asked to “look into this aspect as requested”.

After elapsing one month, Dr Anil Khurana is asking me to wait for a ‘notification’ to be published shortly, inviting ‘applications’ for ‘expression of interest’ “to undertake fundamental/basic research studies in collaboration with scientists associated with reputed organizations, preferably of Government/non-profit making.”

He also informs me that I “may submit the concept paper after EoI notification”, only if I “can take up study at your institute (if non-profit) or in association with other reputed Government/non-profit organizations”, which will be then “reviewed by the Expert Committee and subject experts, and as per the recommendations of the committee, future action will be taken up”

It is obvious that Dr Anil Khurana or Dr Debadatta Nayak did not comply with the direction of their Director General to “”look into this aspect as requested”. They did not look the papers I had attached with the request, or try to understand what was actually “requested”. Instead, they very simply dispatched me a letter explaining the official procedures of ‘notifications’, ‘expression of interests’, ‘terms and conditions’, ‘concept paper’, ‘reviews’, ‘recommendations’, ‘expert committee’ and such things.

I still hope Dr Raj Manchanda would look into the matter once again, and examine whether his subordinates did comply with his directive to “look into this aspect as requested” in my submission.

————————————————————————————————

I HAVE FORWARDED THE MAIL I RECEIVED FROM DR. ANIL KHURANA tO DR. RAJ MANCHANDA, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CCRH ALONG WITH FOLLOWING LETTER:

from: Similimum <similimum@gmail.com>

to: “Dr R. K. Manchanda” <rkmanchanda18@yahoo.com>
date: Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 6:29 PM

subject: Fwd: MIT concepts of scientific homeopathy
mailed-by: gmail.com

Sir,

I am herewith forwarding a reply I got from Dr Anil Khurana for my earlier submission to CCRH

I feel sorry, sir.

In order to comply with the ‘terms and conditions’ of CCRH to submit EOI, I have to be a “scientist associated with reputed organizations, preferably of Government/non-profit making”.

I can submit “concept paper” for EOI only if I “can take up study at my own institute (if non-profit) or in association with other reputed Government/non-profit organizations”.

Even if I submit a “concept paper” that comply with “terms and conditions” of CCRH, that “concept paper will be reviewed by the Expert Committee and subject experts, and as per the recommendations of the committee, future action will be taken up.”

It is now obvious that we need not expect an INITIATIVE or proactive role from CCRH on MIT. We have to submit ‘application’ when ‘notification’ is published. If our ‘application’ complies with terms and conditions, our ‘concept paper’ will be ‘reviewed by expert committee’ and ‘as per their recommendations, future actions will be taken up’. It is the ROUTINE procedure for getting CCRH FUNDING. I would prefer to stay away from this process, as I do not qualify as a “scientist associated with reputed organizations, preferably of Government/non-profit making”. That would save me from the humiliation of getting my ‘application rejected by experts’ for not complying with official ‘terms and conditions.

I am not a candidate for PhD, or I am not requesting for any FUNDING. I am not an APPLICANT for any favor from any AUTHORITY. I do not think there is any EXPERT associated with CCRH who can REVIEW and evaluate MIT concepts to accept or reject it. I HAVE MY OWN WAYS AND MEANS FOR GOING FORWARD WITH MIT.

MIT concepts will stay here if it is right, even without any ‘recommendations’ and certifications from any ‘expert committee’ or ‘authority’.

By handling my suggestion for co-operation in a purely OFFICIAL way, CCRH has spoiled a big opportunity for scientific advancement of homeopathy. Their ‘official’ response has demonstrated their inertia, disinterest and lack of enthusiasm in seeking an answer to the fundamental riddles haunting homeopathy. I feel very sorry. They loose- not me.

A few years back, during the initial phase of my MIT work, I happened to be introduced by some friends to a senior CCRH member while participating a public function Kerala. Out of courtesy, when I told him that I am into some research works on homeopathy, he raised his voice as if to attract attention of people around, and asked me: “How can you do any research in homeopathy without permission from CCRH? What is your qualification to do research? There is a lot of official formalities before anybody undertake any research in homeopathy. You cannot do research”. I kept silent, feeling pity for his ignorance and misunderstanding about ‘research’. For these people, ‘research’ means preparing a ‘project’, getting ‘sanction’ and some ‘funding’ from public exchequer and sharing it in between them, cooking up a ‘report’, and getting a PhD. Present response from CCRH also shows nothing has changed there, except people on chairs.

I will not disturb you any more, sir.

REGARDS,

CHANDRAN K C

—————————————————————————————

A few years back, during the initial phase of my MIT work, I happened to be introduced by some friends to a senior CCRH member while participating a public function Kerala. Out of courtesy, when I told him that I am into some research works on homeopathy, he raised his voice as if to attract attention of people around, and asked me: “How can you do any research in homeopathy without permission from CCRH? What is your qualification to do research? There is a lot of official formalities before anybody undertake any research in homeopathy. You cannot do research”. I kept silent, feeling pity for his ignorance and misunderstanding about ‘research’. For these people, ‘research’ means preparing a ‘project’, getting ‘sanction’ and some ‘funding’ from public exchequer and sharing it in between them, cooking up a ‘report’, and getting a PhD. Present response from CCRH also shows nothing has changed there, except people on chairs.

———————————————————————————-

By handling my suggestion for co-operation in a purely OFFICIAL way, CCRH has spoiled a big opportunity for scientific advancement of homeopathy. Their ‘official’ response has demonstrated their inertia, disinterest and lack of enthusiasm in seeking an answer to the fundamental riddles haunting homeopathy. I feel very sorry. They loose- not me.

————————————————————————————–

I am not a candidate for PhD, or I am not requesting for any FUNDING. I am not an APPLICANT for any favor from any AUTHORITY. I do not think there is any EXPERT associated with CCRH who can REVIEW and evaluate MIT concepts to accept or reject it. I HAVE MY OWN WAYS AND MEANS FOR GOING FORWARD WITH MIT.

MIT concepts will stay here if it is right, even without any ‘recommendations’ and certifications from any ‘expert committee’ or ‘authority’.

————————————————————————————

It is now obvious that we need not expect an INITIATIVE or proactive role from CCRH on MIT. We have to submit ‘application’ when ‘notification’ is published. If our ‘application’ complies with terms and conditions, our ‘concept paper’ will be ‘reviewed by expert committee’ and ‘as per their recommendations, future actions will be taken up’. It is the ROUTINE procedure for getting CCRH FUNDING. I would prefer to stay away from this process, as I do not qualify as a “scientist associated with reputed organizations, preferably of Government/non-profit making”. That would save me from the humiliation of getting my ‘application rejected by experts’ for not complying with official ‘terms and conditions.

——————————————————————————————-

MAIL RECEIVED FROM CCRH TODAY:

ccrh.delhi <ccrh.delhi@gmail.com>
4:02

Dear Chandran K C,

Thank you for drawing attention to a concept, which may explain the mechanism of action of homoeopathic medicines.

The Council will shortly advertise for calling Expression of Interest (EoI) to undertake fundamental/basic research studies in collaboration with scientists associated with reputed organizations, preferably of Government/non-profit making.

The advertisement will appear in national daily newspaper(s) and uploaded on Council’s website www.ccrhindia.org. The documents will contain detailed terms and conditions, process of collaborations etc.

If you can take up study at your institute (if non-profit) or in association with other reputed Government/non-profit organizations, you may submit the concept paper after EoI notification. The concept paper submitted by you will be reviewed by the Expert Committee and subject experts, and as per the recommendations of the committee, future action will be taken up.

Dr. Anil Khurana
Assistant Director (H)
Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy
New Delhi

—————————————————————————-

In order to comply with the ‘terms and conditions’ of CCRH to submit EOI, I have to be a “scientist associated with reputed organizations, preferably of Government/non-profit making”.

I can submit “concept paper” for EOI only if I “can take up study at my own institute (if non-profit) or in association with other reputed Government/non-profit organizations”.

Even if I submit a “concept paper” that comply with “terms and conditions” of CCRH, that “concept paper will be reviewed by the Expert Committee and subject experts, and as per the recommendations of the committee, future action will be taken up.”

EVERYTHING ABOUT CCRH IS PURELY OFFICIAL! NO HOPE THERE!

———————————————————————————————

Drug relationship is a subject about which most homeo practitioners are very much worried and confused. Some practitioners very much rely upon ‘drug relationships’ even in deciding their treatment protocols. Concepts such as ‘complementary’, ‘inimical’, ‘antidotal’ etc. are frequently utilized in everyday practice. Some doctors even deviate from the theory of similimum, due to their over indulgence with ‘drug relationship’ protocols. When prescribing a drug based on its so-called complementary relationship to the earlier prescriptions, we forget to consider whether it is a similimum by totality of symptoms. Yet, we call it ‘classical’ homeopathy.

When searching through the literature and authorities regarding drug relationships, it will be seen that no serious scientific studies have been done on this subject. Most of the drug relationships are proposed by empirical clinical observations of practitioners, and not corroborated by scientific studies or evidences. More over, practitioners who are not much bothered over this relationships between drugs swear that their experiences prove otherwise. Some homeopaths prescribe so-called inimical drugs even simultaneously or alternatingly, and get expected clinical results.

We have already seen during our previous deliberations that in homoeopathic potencies above 12C, there is no chance of drug molecules to exist. These preparations contain only hydrosomes or molecular imprints of constituent molecules of the drug substance subjected to potentization. Molecular imprints are only nanocavities formed by supra-molecular clustering of water and ethyl alcohol. Chemically, they contain only water and ethyl alcohol molecules. Even a given sample of homeopathic potency contains hundreds of types of individual imprints, representing the diverse types of molecules contained in the original drug substance. It is clear that they co-exist without disturbing or influencing each other in anyway, same time preserving their individual properties as molecular imprints of specific drug molecules.

1. This clearly indicates that highly potentized homoeopathic preparations cannot chemically interact with each other, since they contain no drug molecules. Obviously, they are not likely to engage in any mutual interaction within or outside the organism. They can never antidote or destroy each other.

2. Same time, the case of mother tinctures and preparations below 12c potencies may be totally different. They contain crude drug molecules, which can interact with each other due to their chemical properties. The concept of ‘drug relationships’ may be valid in the case of these low potencies. Low potencies may be more active than crude drugs, since they contain free molecules and ions.

3. Low potencies and mother tincture of a drug may antidote higher potencies of same drug, due to the interaction with the hydrosomes which act as counteractive complementary factors to each other.

4. Same way, low potencies and mother tinctures of a drug may antidote higher potencies of another drug that may contain similar constituent molecules, due to the interaction with the hydrosomes having counteractive complementary factors relationship. Obviously, drugs containing similar molecules may have more or less similar symptomatology during drug proving.

5. Higher potencies of a drug may antidote the physiological effects of low potencies and mother tinctures of same drug, due to the interaction with the hydrosomes acting as counteractive complementary factors.

6. Same way, higher potencies of a drug may antidote low potencies and mother tincture of another drug, that may contain similar constituent molecules, due to the interaction with the counteractive complementary factors contained in the higher potencies.

If there is similarity only between certain types of constituent molecules of two drugs, partial antodoting is possible. That means, molecules having configurational similarity only are subjected to antidoting by this way. Such drugs will have partially similar symptomatologies.

We should be aware of the possibility of dangerous chemical interactions that might result between the constituent drug molecules of different drugs, when we mix or administer two or more mother tinctures and low potency preparations together.

—————————————————————————————

Yesterday, a young homeopath jumped in to my wall and posted:

“You are not a homeopath- only a commercial person. What you write about homeopathy is mere crap”.

Whole night, I was thinking about this reward I got from a person belonging to the young, ‘elite’ generation of homeopathy. It really pained me a lot, as I am an ordinary human being with ordinary emotions and reactions.

———————————————————————————–

WHAT IS THE KEY TO SUCCESS IN HOMEOPATHIC PRACTICE?

Practice homeopathy with MINIMUM theory, with minimum ‘DON’TS’. Practice it with confidence- without any fear and forebodings. COLLECTING ‘COMPLETE SYMPTOMS’ AND SELECTING SIMILIMUM IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SKILL YOU SHOULD MASTER. Use only 30C. Do not hesitate to repeat frequently. Do not hesitate to change remedies as indicated by symptoms . Do not worry about ‘single-multiple’ drugs. Do not worry about ‘drug relationships’. Do not worry about ‘miasms’. Do not worry about ‘aggravations’ and ‘bad effects’ of potentized drugs. you will definitely succeed!

——————————————————————————–

MANY FRIENDS ARE ASKING ME WHAT HAPPENED TO MY SUBMISSION TO CCRH REGARDING MIT. I AM POSTING THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DR. RAJ MANCHANDA AND ME ON THIS SUBJECT:

MY SUBMISSION TO CCRH, DATED 28-08-2013:

from: Similimum <similimum@gmail.com>
to: ccrh@del3.vsnl.net.in
date: Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:11 AM
subject: Appointing a sub-committee for considering the viability of MIT concepts- requested- regarding
mailed-by: gmail.comFrom

FROM

Chandran K C
K C House, Kovunthala.
Malapattam
Sreekandapuram -670631
Kannur, Kerala

Sir,

Sub: Appointing a sub-committee for considering the viability of MIT concepts- requested- regarding

I have been proposing a scientific hypothesis regarding a scientific model for biological mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics, which is known as MIT concepts.

Homeopathy cannot advance further as a medical science without accepting MIT concepts as an integral part of its theoretical and practical framework, because it is the most perfect, rational and scientific explanation for homeopathy.

MIT is not ‘just another’ brand or school competing for appropriating a share in the homeopathic market, already saturated with and spoiled by various commercial brands and schools. MIT is only a scientific explanation of homeopathy. An advanced phase in the historical evolution of homeopathy.

According to MIT concepts, active principles of potentized drugs are MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or HYDROSOMES, which are nanocavities engraved into water-ethyl alcohol supramolecular matrix through a peculiar process called POTENTIZATION. Potentization actually involves ‘host-guest’ molecular interactions exactly similar to that is commonly utilized by polymer chemists in preparing molecular imprinted polymers. Only difference is, homeopathy uses water-ethyl alcohol mixture as imprinting medium, where as polymer chemists use polymers.

Any potentized drug contain diverse types of molecular imprints representing diverse types of individual constituent molecules being part of drug substance used for potentization. By acting as ‘artificial key holes’, these individual molecular imprints can bind to specific pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity, there by relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions they are subjected to in disease conditions. This is the exact biological mechanism of homeopathic cure.

I have written hundreds of articles explaining diverse aspects of this concept, which are attached herewith

You can also see my facebook pages where these concepts are actively being discussed as well as my blogs

I would request CCRH to urgently consider MIT concepts seriously. A sub-committee of experts should be appointed to look into its viability and implications, and recommend future course of actions and research projects on MIT. I shall be always available to co-operate without any personal reservations or interests, if you ask me to do so.

https://www.facebook.com/chandrannambiar

https://www.facebook.com/groups/similimum/

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/all-articles-on-scientific-homeopathy/

Sincerely,

Chandran K C
———————————————————————————————–

REPLY FROM DR RAJ MANCHANDA ON 31-08- 2013:

from: Rajkumar Manchanda <rkmanchanda@gmail.com>
to: “Dr.Debadatta Nayak” <drdnayak@gmail.com>,
Anil Khurana <anil23101961@gmail.com>
cc: Chandran K C <similimum@gmail.com>
date: Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 8:06 PM
subject: Fwd: Appointing a sub-committee for considering the viability of MIT concepts- requested- regarding
mailed-by: gmail.com
signed-by: gmail.com

Dear Anil,

Pl look into this aspect as requested.

Dr Raj Manchanda

NO FURTHER COMMUNICATIONS SO FAR.

—————————————————————————————-

I have submitted MIT concepts before CCRH not for VALIDATION. I do not think CCRH is an ‘authority’ equipped to VALIDATE or JUDGE my scientific explanation of homeopathy. VALIDATION of MIT hypothesis has to be done by scientific community. CCRH can of course play a big role in designing, organizing and conducting scientific experiments based on MIT concepts, and presenting it before the scientific community for VALIDATION. If CCRH authorities realize its importance and act accordingly, it will be a great boost to MIT as well as homeopathy at large.

Whether CCRH responds positively to my request or not will no way affect my works. Even if they throw away MIT concepts into waste basket judging it worthless and unacceptable, it will not change my course. Court of final judgement is TIME. Let future advancements in scientific knowledge judge whether MIT is right or wrong!

————————————————————————————

Understanding LIGANDS and RECEPTORS is very important in understanding my scientific explanation of the biological mechanism involved in SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR.

In biochemistry and pharmacology, the term ligand is used to indicate a small molecule that binds to a biomolecule to form a molecular complex complex with to serve a biological purpose.

In most cases, a ligand is a signal triggering molecule, that binds to a site on a target protein .

The binding between ligands and target molecules occurs by intermolecular forces, such as ionic bonds, hydrogen bonds and van der Waals forces. The binding is usually reversible, and molecular complex undergoes dissociation in due course.

When a ligand binds to a receptor protein, it alters the chemical conformation or three dimensional shape of the receptor. The functionality of protein moleculevis always determined by its three dimensional conformation.

Ligands include substrates , inhibitors ,activators, and neurotransmitters.  A ligand that can bind to a receptor, alter the function of the receptor and trigger a physiological response is called an agonist for that receptor.

A ligand that can bind to a receptor, but cannot trigger a physiological response, is called as antagonist of that receptor. Antagonist can block the receptor from binding to its agonists, there by leading to inhibition of the receptor. This phenomenon plays a big role in pathology and drug actions.

Molecular imprints of ligands as well as drug molecules having identical conformations can act as artificial binding sites for antagonists that have caused receptor inhibitions. Since potentized drugs selected as similimum contain molecular imprints of drug molecules having similar conformation, they effectively bind to the antagonists of receptors and thereby remove the inhibitions.

This is the biological mechanism involved in similia similibus curentur.

————————————————————————————-

In biochemistry, a RECEPTOR is a molecule usually found on the surface of a cell, that receives chemical signals from outside the cell. When such external substances bind to a receptor, they direct the cell to do something, such as divide, die, or allow specific substances to enter or exit the cell.

Receptors are protein molecules embedded in either the cell’s surface membranes, in the cytoplasm, or in the cell’s nucleus, to which specific signaling molecules may attach. A molecule that binds to a receptor is called a LIGAND. A ligand can be a peptide or another small molecule such as a neurotransmitter, hormone, pharmaceutical drug, or toxin.

Various types of receptors are found in a typical cell. Each type of receptor is linked to a specific biochemical pathway, and binds only certain ligand shapes, similarly to how locks require specifically shaped keys to open. When a ligand binds to its corresponding receptor, it activates or inhibits the receptor’s associated biochemical pathway.

When a ligand binds to its specific receptor, the three-dimensional shape or conformation of the receptor molecule undergoes changes. This alters the shape at a different part of the protein, changing the interaction of the receptor molecule with associated biochemicals, leading in turn to a cellular response mediated by the associated biochemical pathway. However, some ligands called antagonists merely block receptors from binding to other ligands without inducing any response themselves. Such blocks will INHIBIT the receptors, leading to derangement of related biochemical pathways amounting to a state of PATHOLOGY.

——————————————————————————————-

Molecular Imprints of biological LIGANDS prepared by homeopathic potentization can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for any molecular ANTAGONIST that bind to and inhibit its RECEPTORS and produce diverse types of diseases. As such, these molecular imprints could be used as therapeutic agents for removing molecular inhibitions of various biological receptors that underlie various disease conditions. Molecular Imprints of biological LIGANDS could also be used to remove the pathological ‘off-target’ inhibitions they produce. This knowledge will pave the way for developing of a whole new range of target specific MOLECULAR IMPRINTED remedial agents against various types of diseases, by potentizing hormones, neurotransmitters, neuromediators, cytokines, immunoglobulins, interleukins, interferons, signalling molecules, transcriptor factors etc etc.

I can foresee a great revolution this knowledge is going to produce in coming days in PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY as well as modern MOLECULAR MEDICINE.

————————————————————————————–

According to scientific view, the material world and its laws are fully knowable, that our knowledge of the laws of nature, tested by experiment and practice, is authentic knowledge having the validity of objective truth, and that there are no things in the world which are unknowable, but only things which are as yet not known, but which will be gradually disclosed and made known by the efforts of science and practice.

————————————————————————————–

“Matter is that which, acting upon our sense-organs, produces sensation; matter is the objective reality given to us in sensation. Matter, nature, being, the physical-is primary, and spirit consciousness, sensation, the psychical-is secondary.”

—————————————————————————————

According to scientific world outlook, matter, nature, being, is an objective reality existing outside and independent of our consciousness. Matter is primary, since it is the source of sensations, ideas, consciousness, and consciousness is secondary, derivative, since it is a reflection of matter, a reflection of being. Thought or consciousness is a product of matter which in its development has reached a high degree of
perfection, namely, of the brain, and the brain is the organ of thought; and therefore one cannot separate thought from matter without committing a grave error in his perceptions.

—————————————————————————————

According to scientific world outlook, this world is by its very nature material, and the multifold phenomena of the world constitute different forms of matter in
motion. The interconnections and interdependence of phenomena are a law of the development of moving matter, and the world develops in accordance
with the laws of movement of matter and stands in no need of a “universal spirit.”

——————————————————————————–

I feel like crying to hear somebody saying that he understood the “sole basis” of my scientific explanation of homeopathy is “schusslers homoeopathy”!

Mr. Vikram kalra commented my post: “Whatever you are saying , it’s the sole basis is schusslers homoeopathy in which basic component of body act as medicine, it is micro supplement in circulation which cures and whose derangement leads to indisposition and later on disease.”

Excuse me, Mr Vikram Kalra. I fear you grossly misunderstood my concepts, or consciously misinterpreted me. The modern scientific BIOCHEMISTRY I am talking about has nothing to do with the so called pseudo-scientific ‘biochemistry’ of Schussler.

———————————————————————————

Many homeopaths believe and argue that homeopathic drugs act ‘dynamically’ on ‘vital force’, through ‘nerves’ and ‘mind’.

They should know, many in vitro studies conducted in reputed science laboratories using samples of biological molecules and tissues extracted out of living bodies have proved beyond any doubt that potentized drugs act even in the absence of nerves, nerve cells or ‘mind’, as any other ordinary chemical interactions. Those studies show that action of homeopathic drugs happens through a ‘biochemical’ mechanism, without any involvement of nerves, mind, vital force or dynamic force.

But homeopaths feign ignorance, and continue to ‘blindly believe’ that our drugs act upon nerves, ‘mind’, and vital force as a ‘dynamic energy’. They seem to fear that homeopathy will collapse if these ‘blind beliefs’ are abandoned, since they consider them as ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy!

————————————————————————————–

If you do not keep at least some values and principles that you cherish more than your life, and for which you will be ready even to die if need arises, your living becomes worthless and of no purpose.

————————————————————————————–

Many homeopaths believe that since ‘psychosomatic
diseases’ originate from MIND, they are outside the realm
of biochemistry. According to them, mind is something
‘immaterial’, ‘dynamic’ and ‘spirit-like’, and hence
mental phenomena cannot be explained in terms of
SCIENTIFIC knowledge. ‘Mind is beyond science’- they
say. And they talk about MIND as part of immaterial
VITAL FORCE.

The phenomena we call MIND never exist in the absence
of a MATERIAL BODY, and a highly complex central
nervous system being part of that body. MIND does not
exist free from the complex biochemical molecular level
interactions in the central nervous system, which actually
represents the highest stage of MATERIAL EVOLUTION on
earth. MIND can be influenced by material substances
such as drugs, which can modify the biochemical
processes in brain. Any mental activity is related with
production, transportation and interactions of some
CHEMICAL molecules in the body, that can influence the
whole physiological processes in the organism.

SENSATIONS, EMOTIONS, COGNITION, MEDITATION,
LEARNING, MEMORY, THOUGHTS, CONSCIOUSNESS,
MOODS, FEELINGS, DREAMS- every phenomena we
associate with MIND happen through BIOCHEMICAL
PROCESSES in our nervous system. Some specific
chemical molecules are produced as part of those
processes.

CHEMICAL MOLECULES produced during mental
activities have specific TARGETS and specific
FUNCTIONS of their own. It is the actions of those
molecules on their specific targets that produce the
particular state of mind and its physiological processes.

When these chemical molecules being part of MENTAL
ACTIVITIES are produced in excess, or they are not
removed from the system in due course, they will
circulate in the body, BIND to unexpected OFF-TARGET
biological molecules, and lead to their INHIBITION. Such
‘off-target’ inhibitions caused by the neuro-chemicals
circulating in the body are the CAUSATIVE FACTORS pf
certain pathological conditions we call PSYCHOSOMATIC
DISEASES.

Obviously, there is nothing ‘immaterial’ or ‘dynamic’ in
PSYCHOSOMATIC diseases. They are purely MATERIAL,
that could be treated by MATERIAL drugs.

PSYCHOSOMATIC DISEASES belongs to a class of
pathological conditions caused by INHIBITIONS of
biological molecules by the ‘off-target’ actions of
ENDOGENOUS molecules acting as pathogenic agents.

—————————————————————————————

If my next generation does not remember me with love and gratitude even after my death, it means my life was a failure.

—————————————————————————————–

If you cannot think about life processes and diseases in terms of their underlying biochemical interations at molecular level, and know something about their complex molecular kinetics, you cannot understand anything I explain about the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure.

If you cannot think about drug substances in terms of diverse types of chemical molecules they contain, and know something about their interactions with biological molecules in our body, you cannot understand what I am saying about drug proving and drug symptoms.

If you cannot think about potentization as a process of molecular imprinting, and perceive potentized drugs in terms of diverse types of molecular imprints they contain, you cannot understand what I say about the scientific meaning of similia similibus curentur, selection of potencies, drug relationships, single-multiple drug issue, dosage, repetitions, suppressions, homeopathic aggravations and all such topics involved in homeopathic practice.

———————————————————————————————-

INHIBITIONS of biological molecules, especially PROTEIN molecules, such as enzymes, receptors, transport molecules, immune bodies, structural molecules etc, constitute a major class of DISEASES amenable to medical intervention.

Inhibitions of PROTEINS happen when their native three-dimensional conformations are changed by BINDING of exogenous or endogenous molecules on them, there by making them incapable of interacting with their natural ligands.

Homeopathy is especially suitable to deal with DISEASES arising from this class of molecular errors, since potentized drugs contain ‘molecular imprints’ that can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules having functional groups with conformations complementary to the molecular imprints.

———————————————————————–

PSORIASIS- A ‘MIASMATIC’ DISEASE CAUSED BY ‘OFF-TARGET’ ACTIONS OF ANTIBODIES FORMED AGAINST ‘ALIEN PROTEINS’ SUCH AS INFECTIOUS AGENTS OF ITCH:

According to MIT view, PSORIASIS is caused by ‘off-target’ actions of antibodies generated in the body against various ‘alien proteins’ such as infectious agents of ITCH. As such, it is a MIASMATIC disease belonging to the PSORA. When these antibodies attack the cells of skin, misinterpreting them as pathogenic antigens, a series of biochemical process set in, resulting in inflammatory changes and hyperkaratinization of epidermal layers amounting to a state of PSORIASIS.

According to ‘immunological’ view proposed by modern researchers, psoriasis develops when the immune system mistakes a normal skin cell for a pathogenic agent, and sends out faulty signals that cause overproduction of new skin cells that appear as psoriatic lesions. This model also broadly fits to the MIT ‘miasmatic’ model, only difference being that ‘immunological model’ does not mention about the role of ‘antibodies’ formed against previous infections.

Other than skin, psoriasis can also cause inflammation of the joints, which is known as psoriatic arthritis. This similar to the arthritis produced by antibodies of streptococcus throat infections. Between 10% and 30% of all people with psoriasis also has psoriatic arthritis.

The cause of psoriasis and its molecular level pathology is not fully understood yet. Over and above immunological or miasmatic aspects, it is believed to have a genetic component also, and ‘genetic expressions’ leading to local psoriatic changes can be triggered by an injury to the skin, thereby attracting ‘mismatic’ antibodies into dermal cells.

Various environmental factors have been suggested as aggravating to psoriasis, including oxidative stress, mental stress, withdrawal of systemic corticosteroids, as well as exposure to various other environmental factors such as chemicals. All these factors create a favorable environment for the attack of dermal cells- keratinocytes’ by ‘miasmatic’ antibodies.

Existing hypothesis is that the disease as being an immune-mediated disorder in which the excessive reproduction of skin cells is secondary to factors produced by the immune system. T cells -which normally help protect the body against infection- become active, migrate to the dermis and trigger the release of cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha TNFα, which cause inflammation and the rapid production of skin cells. It is not yet clearly known what initiates the activation of the T cells. Antibodies generated against various alien proteins such as infectious agents entering the body may play such a role, through their off-target actions.

This immune-mediated or miasmatic model of psoriasis has been supported by the observation that various immunosuppressant medications can clear psoriasis plaques. However, the role of the immune system is not fully understood, and it has recently been reported that an animal model of psoriasis can be triggered in mice lacking T cells. Animal models, however, reveal only a few aspects resembling human psoriasis. Compromised skin barrier function has a role in psoriasis susceptibility.

Psoriasis is considered as a fairly idiosyncratic disease, since majority of cases of psoriasis may worsen or improve without any apparent reason. Studies of the factors associated with psoriasis tend to be based on small, samples of individuals belonging to hospital samples. These studies tend to suffer from representative issues, and an inability to tease out causal associations in the face of other unknown intervening factors. Conflicting findings are often reported in such studies. Nevertheless, the first outbreak is sometimes reported following a mental or physical stress, skin injury, and streptococcal infections, which attract ‘immune bodies’ to attack the certain skin cells, by mistaking them as pathogenic agents. Conditions that have been reported as accompanying a worsening of the disease also include infections, stress, and changes in season and climate. Certain medicines, including lithium salt, beta blockers and the antimalarial drug chloroquine have been reported to trigger or aggravate the disease.

Excessive alcohol consumption, smoking and obesity may exacerbate psoriasis or make the management of the condition difficult or perhaps these co-morbidities are effects rather than causes. Hairsprays, some face creams and hand lotions, are also considered to cause an outbreak of psoriasis. In 1975, Stefania Jablonska and collaborators advanced a new theory that special antibodies tend to break through into the lower layers of the skin and set up a complex series of chemical reactions, which comes very close to MIT interpretation of miasms as ‘off target actions’ of antibodies.

Psoriasis occurs more likely in dry skin than oily or well-moisturized skin, and specifically after an external skin injury such as a scratch or cut , which is known as Koebner phenomenon. This is believed to be caused by an infection, in which the infecting organism thrives under dry skin conditions with minimal skin oil, which otherwise protects skin from infections. The case for psoriasis is opposite to the case of athlete’s foot, which occurs because of a fungus infection under wet conditions as opposed to dry in psoriasis. This infection induces inflammation, which causes the symptoms commonly associated with psoriasis, such as itching and rapid skin turnover, and leads to drier skin, as the infecting organism absorbs the moisture that would otherwise go to the skin. All these observations authenticate the role ‘miasmatic’ antibodies producing ‘off-target’ inhibitions in certain biochemical process in skin cells, resulting in PSORIASIS.

Psoriasis has a large hereditary component, and many genes are associated with it, but it is not clear how those genes work together. Most of them involve the immune system, particularly the major histo-compatibility complex (MHC) and T cells. The main value of genetic studies is they identify molecular mechanisms and pathways for further study and potential drug targets.

Classic genome-wide linkage analysis has identified nine locations on different chromosomes associated with psoriasis. They are called psoriasis susceptibility 1 through 9 (PSORS1 through PSORS9). Within those loci are genes. Many of those genes are on pathways that lead to inflammation. Certain variations or mutations of those genes are commonly found in psoriasis.

The major determinant is PSORS1, which probably accounts for 35–50% of its heritability. It controls genes that affect the immune system or encode proteins that are found in the skin in greater amounts in psoriasis. PSORS1 is located on chromosome 6 in the MHC, which controls important immune functions. Three genes in the PSORS1 locus have a strong association with psoriasis vulgaris: HLA-C variant HLA-Cw6, which encodes a MHC class I protein; CCHCR1, variant WWC, which encodes a coiled protein that is overexpressed in psoriatic epidermis; and CDSM, variant allele 5, which encodes corneodesmosin, which is expressed in the granular and cornified layers of the epidermis and upregulated in psoriasis.

Genome-wide association scans have identified other genes that are altered to characteristic variants in psoriasis. Some of these genes express inflammatory signal proteins, which affect cells in the immune system that are also involved in psoriasis. Some of these genes are also involved in other autoimmune diseases.

Two major genes under investigation are IL12B on chromosome 5q, which expresses interleukin-12B; and IL23R on chromosome 1p, which expresses the interleukin-23 receptor, and is involved in T cell differentiation. T cells are involved in the inflammatory process that leads to psoriasis.
These genes are on the pathway that ends up upregulating tumor necrosis factor-α and nuclear factor κB, two genes that are involved in inflammation.
Recently the first gene directly linked to psoriasis has been identified. Studies have suggested that a rare mutation in the gene encoding for the CARD14 protein plus an environmental trigger was enough to cause plaque psoriasis, which is the most common form of psoriasis.

In psoriasis, immune cells move from the dermis to the epidermis, where they stimulate skin cells or keratinocytes to proliferate. Psoriasis does not seem to be a true autoimmune disease. In an autoimmune disease, the immune system confuses an outside antigen with a normal body component, and attacks them both. But in psoriasis, the inflammation does not seem to be caused by outside antigens, although DNA does have an immunostimulatory effect. Researchers have identified many of the immune cells involved in psoriasis, and the chemical signals they send to each other to coordinate inflammation. At the end of this process, immune cells, such as dendritic cells and T cells, move from the dermis to the epidermis, secreting chemical signals, such as tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-1β, and interleukin-6, which cause inflammation, and interleukin-22, which causes keratinocytes to proliferate.

The immune system consists of an innate immune system, and an adaptive immune system. In the innate system, immune cells have receptors that have evolved to target specific proteins and other antigens that are commonly found on pathogens. In the adaptive immune system, immune cells respond to proteins and other antigens that they may never have seen before, which are presented to them by other cells. The innate system often passes antigens on to the adaptive system. When the immune system makes a mistake, and identifies a healthy part of the body as a foreign antigen, the immune system attacks that protein, as it does in autoimmunity.

In psoriasis, DNA is an inflammatory stimulus. DNA stimulates the receptors on plasmacytoid dendritic cells, which produce interferon-α, an immune stimulatory signal (cytokine). In psoriasis, keratinocytes produce antimicrobial peptides. In response to dendritic cells and T cells, they also produce cytokines, such as interleukin-1, interleukin-6, and tumor necrosis factor-α, which signals more inflammatory cells to arrive and produces further inflammation.

Dendritic cells bridge the innate and adaptive immune system. They are increased in psoriatic lesions and induce the proliferation of T cells and type 1 helper T cells. Certain dendritic cells can produce tumor necrosis factor-α, which calls more immune cells and stimulates more inflammation. Targeted immunotherapy, and psoralen and ultraviolet A (PUVA) therapy, reduces the number of dendritic cells.

T cells move from the dermis into the epidermis. They are attracted to the epidermis by alpha-1 beta-1 integrin, a signalling molecule on the collagen in the epidermis. Psoriatic T cells secrete interferon-γ and interleukin-17. Interleukin-17 is also associated with interleukin-22. Interleukin-22 induces keratocytes to proliferate. One hypothesis is that psoriasis involves a defect in regulatory T cells, and in the regulatory cytokine interleukin-10.

All the factors detailed above strongly support the MIT model of PSORIASIS, according to which it is a disease caused by miasm of PSORA, or ‘off-target’ actions of antibodies generated in the body against various ‘alien proteins’ such as infectious agents of ITCH. Homeopathic treatment of psoriasis should be based on this perspective.

——————————————————————————————

VARIOLINUM 30 IN THE TREATMENT OF SJOGREE SYNDROME

I would suggest homeopathic remedies selected on TOTALITY OF SYMPTOMS for ‘Sjogree Syndrome’. But, along with it, VARIOLINUM 30 should be given for long term, as this disease is caused by off-target actions of antibodies formed against EBV virus infections or MONONEUCLEOSIS (Kissing Disease), which belong the class of Herpesviridae a large family of DNA viruses, to which chicken pox virus and zoster virus also belong. I have even seen many cures produced by VARIOLINUM alone.

———————————————————————————————-

After the first intimation from Dr Raj Manchanda that Dr.Debadatta Nayak (drdnayak@gmail.com) and Anil Khurana (anil23101961@gmail.com) have been asked to “look into the aspects as requested” regarding my request for “appointing a sub-committee of experts to look into the viability and implications of MIT concepts, and recommend future course of actions and research projects”, there is no any further information from CCRH.

Still I am waiting for a response from CCRH authorities- be it POSITIVE or NEGATIVE.

————————————————————————————-

If you cannot say an emphatic ‘NO’ to ‘ENERGY MEDICINE’ theories of all shades and colors, you cannot LEARN, PRACTICE and PROPAGATE homeopathy as a MEDICAL SCIENCE. You cannot effectively communicate with scientific community as equals, and say HOMEOPATHY IS SCIENCE- not faith healing or occult.

You should not forget, ENERGY MEDICINE is nothing about the ENERGY forms that we study in physics. They are talking about a mysterious HEALING ENERGY, which is IMMATERIAL, DYNAMIC, and acting without any MATERIAL medium. It is part of philosophy of DYNAMISM and VITALISM. ENERGY MEDICINE contradicts ALL fundamentals of physics, chemistry and life sciences

They talk about a mysterious MEDICINAL ENERGY, transferred into the potenizing medium as ELECTROMAGNETIC SIGNATURES, acting upon the VITAL FORCE through BIO-MAGNETIC RESONANCE even from a distance.

Energy medicine theories discredit the scientific credentials of homeopathy.

————————————————————————————–

You cannot dream about making homeopathy SCIENTIFIC, and getting recognized as a MEDICAL SCIENCE, unless you are ready to abandon the UNSCIENTIFIC concepts of VITAL FORCE and DYNAMIC DRUG ENERGY. These concepts originated from the PRE-SCIENTIFIC world outlook of primitive man, and remain today as part of RELIGION and OCCULT.

What ever intellectual circus you play, SCIENCE never accepts VITAL FORCE and DYNAMIC ENERGY. ULTRA_SCIENTIFIC and FRINGE SCIENCE theoretical pretensions no way help in making them SCIENTIFIC.

Homeopaths should realize that VITAL FORCE and DYNAMIC ENERGY concepts are the greatest stumbling blocks that prevent homeopathy from getting recognized as a MEDICAL SCIENCE.

We have to explain homeopathy in scientific terms, using scientific paradigms, in a way fitting to the modern BIOCHEMISTRY, PHARMACOLOGY and LIFE SCIENCES, and prove it using SCIENTIFIC METHODS.

———————————————————————————————–

Only MIT can RATIONALLY answer the fundamental question “what is the active MATERIAL FACTOR of potentized drugs”, and propose a viable BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM for its therapeutic actions, in a way that could be subjected to validation by SCIENTIFIC METHODS.

Earlier the homeopathy community realize the importance and implications of MIT for the survival and advancement of homeopathy, the better. If you fail or hesitate by prejudices to understand and accept this wonderful concept, homeopathy will be the ultimate loser, NOT ME.

——————————————————————————————

Please understand, by talking theories of ‘vital force’, ‘dynamic drug energy’, ‘electromagnetic drug signatures’, ‘biomagnetic field resonance’, ‘quantum entanglement’ , ‘spiritual healing’, ‘non-material drug power’ and all those NONSENSE, you are contributing nothing positive for homeopathy, but making it more and more INCOMPATIBLE with modern scientific knowledge system, and proving ourselves not worthy of any serious consideration as a SCIENTIFIC medical system.

—————————————————————————————

Simply quoting those dogmatic APHORISMS of master, declaring ‘our master is the greatest scientist’, and poo-pooing about the ‘limitations of modern science’, is of no good any more, other than further alienating and marginalizing ourselves from mainstream scientific community.

—————————————————————————————

Homeopaths should be aware of a hard truth: Without providing a DIRECT and convincing answer to the fundamental question “what is the active MATERIAL FACTOR of potentized drugs”, and without proposing a viable BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM for its therapeutic actions, in a way that could be subjected to validation by SCIENTIFIC METHODS, there is no hope for homeopathy to SURVIVE in an enlightened modern knowledge society.

———————————————————————————–

Dr Rakesh Kumar asked me: “Why are you always making controversial statements”?

My views appear “controversial”, as I never blindly subscribe to any currently accepted norms, rules, laws and beliefs in homeopathy, or ‘follow’ any masters or their ‘scriptures’. I follow only scientific knowledge and my own rational thinking. I always ask WHAT, WHY and HOW of everything. That is why I admitted I am a SCIENTIFIC SKEPTIC- A SKEPTIC HOMEOPATH. I am engaged in a mission of REBUILDING homeopathy. We cannot rebuild something without DECONSTRUCTING first. Obviously, it will be a “controversial” mission.

——————————————————————————————–

Homeopath’s obsessiom regarding ‘single drug’ arises from his lack of knowledge about the molecular mechanism of how drug substances act upon living organism and produce symptoms.

Being trained in the pre-scientific environment of ‘vital force ‘ and ‘dynamic energy’ theories, he is totally ignorant about the modern advances in biochemistry and pharmacological chemistry, resulting in an inability to distinguosh between the concepts of ‘drug substances’ and ‘drug molecules’.

Even if he knows some biochemistry, he is never taught to think about life, disease, drugs and cure in terms of that scientific knowledge.

He fails to understand that it is the individual constituent ‘drug molecules’ that act up on the individual biological molecules, and not the ‘drug substance’ as a whole ‘single’ unit.

He fails to understand that if a ‘drug substance’ contains more than one type of ‘biologically active molecules’, scientifically that ‘drug substance’ has to be considered a ‘combination’ drug, not a ‘single’ drug.

By sticking to the lessons he learned from aphorisms of organon written 250 years ago before the dawn of modern biochemistry and pharmacological chemisty, he continues to believe that drug substances such as nux vomica and pulsatilla, which contains hundreds of types of biologically active chemical molecules, are ‘single’ drugs!

Unless homeopaths update their biochemistry, and learn to distinguish between ‘drug substance’ and ‘drug molecules’, they will continue to grope in the darkness of pre-scientigic hahnemannian era, reciting the aphorisms of organon and obsessed about the ‘laws and rules’ of homeopathy without understanding their real meaning and limitations.

———————————————————————————

As per my view, number of drugs included in a prescription is not a matter to worry about. What really matter is, whether you have included in your prescription ALL the diverse types of ‘molecular imprints’ required to remove ALL the diverse types of molecular inhibitions in your patient, that underlie the diverse groups of subjective and and objective symptoms expressed by him. If ‘single’ drug will provide the required molecular imprints, it is OK. If more drugs are needed to provide all necessary molecular imprints, I find nothing wrong in using more than one drug in same prescription. As molecular imprints never interact each other, there is no harm in combining all the required drugs together.

Whether you agree with me or not, I don’t mind!

——————————————————————————————–

Many homeopaths use multiple drugs privately either in the form of patented combinations or combination prescriptions. Certain others do it in the guise of ‘complementary’, ‘inter-current’, ‘layers’, ‘anti-miasmatic’, ‘antidoting’ or such convenient labels. Only difference is, some of them ‘mix’ drugs outside the body, where as others ‘mix’ inside the body. In either case, drugs act in the body as ‘combinations’. Same time, all of them pose publicly as ‘single drug’ prescribers, in order to prove they are ‘pure’, ‘classical’, ‘hahnemannian’ homeopaths!

They remind me of ‘prostitutes’ lecturing on virtues of ‘chastity’!

—————————————————————————————————

You have the right to say my ideas are ‘foolish and distressing’ if you think so. I will permit you to post it on my wall if you want. But I will ask you to explain WHAT are specific things in my ideas that you consider ‘foolish and distressing’, and WHY you think so. I will ask you to explain YOUR views about certain SPECIFIC fundamental questions of homeopathy I am trying to address. If you respond creatively, you are free to criticize, and we can continue discussions on anything and everything. But, if you ignore my repeated requests for explaining why you said my ideas are ‘foolish and distressing’, ignore what I am saying and try to move on to new topics unrelated with the original ones, I will first warn you, and then remove and block you from my lists. If you think you have nothing to learn new from others, and your only aim of coming to my page is to ‘teach me a lesson’, stay away from my pages.

Discussions should be healthy interactions of ideas, and creative criticism is part of that process. I want criticisms and discussions on my pages- not arguments and fights.

————————————————————————————————

My post:

“WHETHER A DRUG IS ‘SINGLE’ OR ‘COMBINATION’ IS DECIDED BY THE NUMBER OF TYPES BIOLOGICALLY ACTIVE MOLECULES CONTAINED IN IT- NOT WHETHER IT IS PROCURED FROM ‘SINGLE’ SOURCE OR NOT.

IF A DRUG CONTAINS MORE THAN ONE TYPES OF CHEMICAL MOLECULES THAT CAN ACT ON DIFFERENT BIOLOGICAL TARGETS WHEN INTRODUCED INTO AN ORGANISM, IT IS NOT A SINGLE DRUG- IT IS A COMBINATION DRUG.

HOMEOPATHS TEND TO FORGET THIS SIMPLE SCIENCE, AS THEY WERE ‘TAUGHT’ OTHERWISE BY MASTERS WHO LIVED AND MADE THEORIES DURING A PERIOD WHEN MOLECULAR LEVEL UNDERSTANDING OF DRUGS, DISEASES AND CURE WERE NOT AVAILABLE.”

COMMENT BY RAVI PANDEY: “hahahah……….foolish explanation………..in order to make the “simplest” “most difficult” one……………we also know about molecules & biological targets…………………it is just an effort to prove yourself right even after prescribing two medicines……really disgusting & regretful…………sorry ….”

ME: Sir, as you have declared you “know about molecules & biological targets…..”, I would like to know your intelligent answers for following two basic questions:

1. What are the active principles of potentized drugs? Kindly note, question is about ACTIVE PRINCIPLES.

2. What is the biological mechanism by which potentized drugs produce cure? Kindly note, question is about BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM.

I am expecting a “simple’ and ‘not foolish’ explanation in the light of your “knowledge about molecules & biological targets…..”. Hope you would not make “simple things complex”.

DR RAVI PANDAY SIMPLY VANISHED INTO AIR!

———————————————————————————————-

If you ‘believe’ every words of ‘our great master’ who lived 250 years ago are scientifically right, and if you ‘follow’ only organon in your homeopathy practice, it is obvious that you will make yourself the best museum piece to decorate the historical archives of homeopathy. It is also very much obvious that you are pathetically illiterate in modern science, and you are not eligible to be called a ‘physician’,

——————————————————————————————-

Thinking facebook, talking facebook, learning facebook, eating facebook, drinking facebook, sleeping facebook, breathing facebook, living facebook. Literally, I live on internet. My only source of revenue now is by selling my Similimum Ultra Software on internet. And of course, it is not a bad job for me in terms of money and satisfaction!

——————————————————————————————–

WHETHER A DRUG IS ‘SINGLE’ OR ‘COMBINATION’ IS DECIDED BY THE NUMBER OF TYPES BIOLOGICALLY ACTIVE MOLECULES CONTAINED IN IT- NOT WHETHER IT IS PROCURED FROM ‘SINGLE’ SOURCE OR NOT.

IF A DRUG CONTAINS MORE THAN ONE TYPES OF CHEMICAL MOLECULES THAT CAN ACT ON DIFFERENT BIOLOGICAL TARGETS WHEN INTRODUCED INTO AN ORGANISM, IT IS NOT A SINGLE DRUG- IT IS A COMBINATION DRUG.

HOMEOPATHS TEND TO FORGET THIS SIMPLE SCIENCE, AS THEY WERE ‘TAUGHT’ OTHERWISE BY MASTERS WHO LIVED AND MADE THEORIES DURING A PERIOD WHEN MOLECULAR LEVEL UNDERSTANDING OF DRUGS, DISEASES AND CURE WERE NOT AVAILABLE.

Everybody strive to convince others that he is an ardent follower of SINGLE DRUG rule, even though privately he may be employing multiple drugs, seeking self-consolation in the “law of complementary relationships”. People who claim to follow the ‘single drug, single dose’ rule are held in high esteem by the profession, as true “classical homeopaths”. If any body boldly declares that he uses multiple drugs, he is accused of practicing “polypathic quackery” which is considered to be “unhomeopathic”. Of course, they may quote extensively from our great masters as supporting evidences for their opposition to multiple drugs.

We have to examine this “single drug versus multiple drug” issue with honesty and a rational scientific mindset. We should understand that there a lot of relatively darker areas in homeopathy, and obviously a lot of unanswered, incompletely answered and wrongly answered questions there. Once the fundamental questions of molecular mechanism of “similia similibus curentur” and “potentization” is scientifically explained, it will be easier to sort out such lesser issues logically.

Whatever our great masters have said earlier within the limitations of their space-time context, we will have to make a rational assessment of certain factors while trying to answer this important question on the basis of updated scientific knowledge.

Discarding the “dynamic” and “vitalistic” approaches of “classical homeopathy, MIT tries to analyze this issue from an entirely different perspective.

The so-called ‘classical homeopaths’ defines ‘single dug’ as any form of drug substance used as a sample for “proving”. Such a sample is called a ‘single drug’, even though it may be a complex mixture of several separate substances.

According to them, the criteria for “singularity” of a substance is not its molecular level constitution, but its “proving”. They think that when they consume any number of a substance as a ‘single’ unit, it will act in the body as ‘single’ substance! This subjective way of reasoning obviously lacks logic.

Any body with minimum understanding of material sciences know that drug substances interfere in the biochemical processes of the organism by their chemical properties, and that these chemical properties are determined by the individual constituent molecules contained in them. Only because we consume different types of molecules as a “single” unit, it cannot act as “single” drug in the bio-molecular processes.

For example, an alcoholic tincture extracted from the Nux Vomica plant is evidently a mixture of many types of enzymes, alkaloids, glycosides, phytochemicals, and other organic and inorganic molecules. It is obvious that tincture of nux vomica may differ in molecular constitution from sample to sample, depending up on whether they are prepared from whole plant, flowers, tender leaves, bark, fruit, or any other sources. No doubt, all these sample will be containing some molecules common to all parts of plant, even though their concentrations may vary. Over and above the natural organic contents, various elements and chemical molecules absorbed from the environment will also be part of that tincture. It may also contain various accidental contaminants and pollutants also. In spite of all these possibilities, we consider Nux Vomica tincture is a “single” medicinal substance, and we often talk about a “Nux Vomica personality” as such!

When we introduce a sample of Nux Vomica tincture 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. 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. It is very important to note that Nux Vomica interact with different biological molecules, not as a singular entity, but as individual constituent molecules and ions. These individual drug molecules and ions are capable of 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 as a train of subjective and objective symptoms, due to the involvement of various neuro-mediator and neuro-transmitter systems.

The symptoms we get from the proving of Nux Vomica are in reality the results of diverse deviations in different bio-chemical processes and pathways, created by the constituent drug molecules in their individual capacity and specific configurational affinity. Each type of molecules contained in Nux Vomica binds only to a specific group of biological molecules, and creates their own individual groups of symptoms. Suppose we could completely remove all molecules of a particular alkaloid from a sample of Nux Vomica before it is used for proving. Naturally, during the process of proving, we shall be missing the groups of symptoms that should have been created in the organism by the molecules of that particular alkaloid. This type of proving may be called ‘differential proving’. By conducting such differential provings, we can learn about the particular state of pathology that may be attributed to individual constituent molecules contained in each medicinal substance. More over, this type of scientific differential provings may be utilized to study the biological effects of various constituent molecules of drug materials that we erroneously consider as single drugs. Such differential provings may disprove our mis-conceptions regarding ‘single drug’, at large. This is a subject that warrants serious attention from the part of homeopathic researchers and research institutions.

There are a few more points to be considered in association with the issue of ‘single drug’. Chances of drug samples used in proving being contaminated with various environmental particles and foreign molecules should be seriously considered here. Especially in the olden days of most of the drug provings, our knowledge regarding environmental pollutions and contaminations was very limited. During drug proving, molecules of such contaminants also would have obviously undergone proving, along with original drug molecules. Especially for homeopaths, who are convinced about the power of micro doses, this factor cannot be overlooked. The water, alcohol, sugar of milk etc., used in the process of preparing drugs for proving may also have various contaminants. The vessels, utensils, equipment, tools, air, and provers themselvs also may add their own contaminations. These contaminants and impurities also would have been subjected to proving along with original drugs, and their symptoms also included in our materia medica unknowingly, although we don’t take these factors seriously into account. We should be aware of the fact that the biological deviations created in the prover by these un-recognized foreign molecules are also included by us in the accounts of medicinal substances used for proving. It means that at least some of the symptoms we learn in the Materia Medica of a drug may not be actually related to that drug at all, but to the contaminants. This issue will have to be considered in more details later, when discussing about ‘materia medica’.

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

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

The following facts are evident from this deliberation. At least some or other groups of symptoms attributed in the Materia Medica as that of a particular drug substance used for proving might not be related to it at all, but to the contaminants happened to be subjected to proving. Same way, in the potentized form, we are administering to the patient potencies of some additional molecules also in the, entirely different from those subjected to earlier provings. In short, Nux vomica we read in materia medica is different from Nux Vomica we use for treatment, even though both bear the same label. It means that while there will be most of the expected qualities in the potencies we use, there will definitely be the absence of at least some or other qualities we expect. Because, certain contaminant molecules subjected to proving and represented in the materia medica, might not be present in the samples used for potentization. It shows how much uncertain and unpredictable is the outcome of homeopathic medication in present situation.

Now, we have to consider the factor of foreign molecules which are likely to contaminate unexpectedly into the samples used for the commercial preparation of potencies. These foreign molecules have never been proved. We are totally ignorant about the different ways in which they might have interacted with the molecules of the original drug. We have no idea regarding the molecular inhibitions or the groups of symptoms they are likely to produce in the living organism. In spite of all these deficiencies, we apply the potencies of such unknown foreign molecules also, along with the original medicinal substance in to the body of a patient. Same time, we claim we are using ‘single drug’ only!

During our clinical practice, we would have experienced instances of removal of totally unexpected symptoms and diseases from the patient. Those symptoms might not be included in any text book of Materia Medica of the given drug. I suspect it may be the potencies of those unknown molecules entering the sample during potentization that is playing this trick.
The above facts more than expose the hollowness of our belief and often-repeated claim that we give a ‘single drug’ to our patient. It is undeniable that we are using medicines selected on the basis of similarity of symptoms, mixing it with potencies of some or other different types of molecules as well. This is an unpleasant situation which we cannot neglect. We should understand that we are giving the patient a mixture of “imprints” of different types of molecules, about some of which we have no idea at all. Same time, our medicines provide expected results when applied on the basis of ‘similia similibus curentur’. It shows that the presence of “imprints” of any unproved and unknown foreign molecules in the potentized drug in no way negatively affect the its effectiveness as a therapeutic agent.

During proving of drugs, the molecules and ions contained in them act individually up on different bio-molecular targets, on the basis of their configurational and charge affinity, and produce their own individual “groups of symptoms”. Like wise, when drugs are potentised, the constituent molecules and ions are individually subjected to a process of molecular imprinting in water-alcohol mixture, forming hydrosomes, that are exact counteractive configurational factors (CCF) of original molecules used as “guest” molecules in imprinting. That is why the presence of impurities which enter at the time of potentization never adversely affect the quality of the potencies of original drug. All the potencies, that we consider as single medicine are in realty a mixture or combination of “molecular imprints” of different types of independent molecules and ions, which never interact with each other in potentized form. This revealation prove that there is no harm to the “molecular imprints” of original drug molecules contained in the potencies, even if “imprints” of any foreign molecules happen to be mixed with them, deliberately or otherwise. More over, when introduced into the organism, these “molecular imprints” interact with biological molecules in their individual capacities, on the basis of configurational affinity. Since molecules and ions are subjected to molecular imprinting in their individual capacities, and they cannot interact with each other in that form, there is no chance of happening any harm, by mixing two or more samples of potencies of different drugs.

There is least possibility of any constituent molecules of drug substance remaining in their potentized forms above 12c. Only molecular imprints will remain. Hence, when higher potencies of two drugs are mixed together, there will be no chemical interaction taking place between them. In such a mixture, the molecular imprints of constituents of both samples will remain independent, without influencing each other, and with out losing their own individual qualities whatsoever.

What happens when such a mixture of two or more potentized drugs is introduced into the organism of a patient? Naturally, the molecular imprints of each constituent drug molecule interacts with biological molecules and pathological molecules individually, based on their specific configurational affinity. As counteractive configurational factors, they can bind only to the pathological molecules, which are similar to the original drug molecules that were used for imprinting. The biological molecules are thereby relieved from inhibitions caused by pathological molecules. This process ultimately removes the state of pathology, and relieves the subjective and objective symptoms of disease. A homeopathic cure is said to be effected. Due to their specific configuratioanal affinity, each type of molecular imprints can locate, identify and bind to exact molecular targets, whereas in the absence of exact molecular targets, these imprints stay neutral, since they are composed of mere water and alcohol molecules. The saying that ‘if a homeopathic potency is not similimum to a patient, it will not act’ is well explained here.

The question of acceptability of administering two or more homeopathic medicines in potentized form, by mixing, alternating, or simultaneously, should be discussed in the light of the above findings.

It is a very important fact that the drugs in the potentized form, which have no similarity with any group of symptoms shown by the patient, will not be able to create any sort of reaction in the living organism. Chemically, potentized drugs being only a mixture of alcohol and water, their chemical properties will remain confined to that molecular structure. Therefore, when we mix homoeopathic potencies of different drugs together, there is no chance for any chemical interactions to take place. More over the configurational properties of the diverse types molecular imprints contained in them are not in any way destroyed by this mixing.

———————————————————————————————–

I would criticize anything or anybody ONLY ÀFTER studying it deeply and understanding it well. And my criticism will be on specific points, analyzing it and explaining clearly why I disagree. According to my view, nobody is above criticism, since nobody is 100% right on everything he say or do. I will welcome anybody criticising me, if you do it after understanding what I say, make the specific points of disagreement clear, and explain why you disagree. If you criticize or argue with me without understanding or even trying to understand what I say, you will be dismissed.

—————————————————————————————————

It is OK if “the cat catch rat though the colour is white or black” is the philosophy of those who are interested ONLY in the money they could ‘catch’ by ‘practicing’ anything under the label of homeopathy, without any interest in knowing HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS. They should remember, not only cats, snakes also catch rats!

They belong to the class of people who never ask anything about WHAT-HOW-WHYof anything, and are satisfied if they get some money from it- only in catching rats.

According to them, man need not have worried about laws of gravitation until he is getting enough apples to eat, we need not worry whether sun revolves around earth or earth revolves around sun until we get regular day and nights, ! We need not worry what we are eating or how our foods nourish our body so far as our belly is full! All scientific researches are unnecessary! FANTASTIC!

————————————————————————————————

AMONG ‘CLASSICAL HOMEOPATHS’ WHO ATTACK MIT CONCEPTS, YESTERDAY IT WAS THE TURN OF A MAN WITH PROFILE NAME ‘MATERIA MEDICA RELOADED’, WHO JUMPED INTO MY PAGE WITH HIS ‘SCIENTIFIC THEORY’ OF HOMEOPATHY. I AM QUOTING HIS POST HERE, AS HE REPRESENTS A PROMINENT SECTION OF ‘ENERGY MEDICINE’ HOMEOPATHS, WHO MAKE HOMEOPATHY A LAUGHING PIECE FOR SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY THROUGH THEIR RIDICULOUS THEORIES:

“From the actual stand of physics today the explanation is this: by diluting and by dynamisation the remedies, we get rid of the outer shell of the matter, so the inner parts of the substance, which are called “quarks” in physics, and “spirits” in the divine language can get free.

Then we have to use alcohol because alcohol it is also a spirit (spirits) which attracts and hold those spirits (quarks) freed. Otherwise they would leave the bottle ! Sugar has the same properties. Without sugar or alcohol no one could make remedies to keep for a longer time. These quarks are of an etherical nature, that is why they could have not been found or measured so far by the physicians. They are beyond visible matter as well as your own soul or my soul, which is the place where homeopathy work. The soul is a human like body made of etherical substances, some call it also astral body. ”

The etheric body (soul) gets sick when he is missing etheric
substances, similar with the material body when you don’t get certain vitamins or minerals. This process of missing these substances can be done also by negative emotions, which are also part of the soul and not of the body, so any negative emotion can make a disturbance in the soul which lead to the missing of some etherical substance. Also our sins (mistakes) regarding the 10+2 commandaments make the soul sick.

By giving this missing etheric substance (remedy) to the etheric body (soul), this can be healed. So simple is this.

Homeopathic remedies are so efficient because they fix the problem directly in the etheric body, there is the main cause of the sickness ! Allopathy is trying the other way. Our flesh is dead without the soul, when the soul leaves the body during sleep, fainting, death, the body is dead. Anybody knows that.

It is the soul who controls everything in the body: all functions, hormons, immune system. He is the one who fix the body. Trying the heal the body only is wrong, it is the other way around, because not the body controls the soul but the soul controls the body.

The soul is actually the doctor of the material body, so if you heal the doctor he will heal the body himself. If you try to heal the body is wrong, because the body is dead and cannot heal the soul.

So in homeopathy you simple give a certain etheric substance to the etheric body as you give vitamins or minerals to the flesh body. That’s all.

Now, to understand the whole process better we have to know that the soul is being fed also by the etheric parts of the food. In the stomach we have the duodenum with 12 different compartiments. There the food is split in material, etheric and spiritual parts which they feed the body, soul and even the spirit. There are 4 compartiments for each level. The reason why microwaved food it’s so bad: because those high frequency destroy the shells of the matter so you loose the etherical and spiritual parts of the food. The same with very high and abrupt temperatures like the ones in food factories, but microwaves are worse. This processed food it will feed only the body, but the soul and the spirit will get hungry and weak, so you get sick after a while, because the body NEEDS this etheric food.

There is no substance or thing which has not these 3 parts: material, etherical and spiritual parts.

It might make a difference though if you want to understand this with a human brain or with a physician brain. I gave you the right explanation from the divine point of view put in simple words and also connected to physics. As soon as physics will be able to see and measure the soul and the quarks, you will see that I gave you the right explanation. But this will never happen !

So I hope, the explanation itself it is enough for you and you don’t require proofs, which nobody can give you at this very poor state of physics from today.

From the medical point of view the existence of the soul is proven daily by those thousands of cases which happen every day somewhere when somebody in coma or during anesthesia can see from above everything and remembers things which happen in the operation rooms. This is beyond any scientific explanation, and they do not even dare to touch this subject because they have no explanation.

From the scientific point of you the presence and energy of the soul can be measured by the Kirlian method.

Read this many times before putting any question, because I will not change a word to what I said, but if you will still would not understand what I mean I will give you some more explanations to the explanation.

As long as the science did not have any microscopes, they had very primitive and wrong explanations about the complexity of the matter. These have changed a lot after seeing some microbes and small animals in the microscope. After that there were many other stupid theories until they saw even more complicated things like the cell, dna. Then there was the atom, and they thought here it is over. After that the protons and neutrons and electrons. Now we are at the quarks, which are the parts which make out a neutron or a proton. So the theory of today it is basically the stupidity of tomorrow. And till now we have been on the material level, but from now on we move to the etheric level, which is impossible to see anymore with machines.”

MY COMMENT: I feel ashamed to know this man also is part of ‘homeopathic’ community! I have seen a lot of people among ‘homeopaths’ like this who think that ‘being scientific’ means simply spicing up their foolish ‘vital force-dynamic energy’ theoretical recipes by adding some words from physics or chemistry or even ‘quantum theory’! I dismiss them immediately once they appear on my pages, as they are a bit perverted and insane , living in their own worlds of philosophical delusions and fancies, and it is futile to argue with them.

—————————————————————————————————–

I have seen a lot of people among ‘homeopaths’ who think that ‘being scientific’ means simply spicing up their foolish ‘vital force-dynamic energy’ theoretical recipes by adding some words from physics or chemistry or even ‘quantum theory’! I dismiss them immediately once they appear on my pages, as they are a bit perverted and insane , living in their own worlds of philosophical delusions and fancies, and it is futile to argue with them.

———————————————————————————————

MIT APPROACH TO HYPERTENSION:

Renin or angiotensinogenase, is the key enzyme produced in kidneys that modulates body’s renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) that mediates volume volume of extracellular fluids such as blood plasma, lymph and interstitial fluid, as well as arterial vasoconstriction. Thus, RENIN regulates the body’s mean arterial blood pressure.

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

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

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

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

In normal physiological conditions, once the reduced blood pressure is raised to the adequate level, production of RENIN in kidneys is stopped by a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK mechanism, where angiotensin II act upon the special ‘angiotensin II receptors’ on the cell membranes of juxtaglomerular apparatus of kidneys. By this process, level of RENIN in blood stream is maintained with in limits, thereby preventing hypertension. Same way, production of catecholamines such as adrenalin which also plays a role in inducing production of RENIN and maintaining blood pressure high, is stopped by negative feedback action of adrenalin upon adrenogenic receptors on cells of adrenal cortex.

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

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

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

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

————————————————————————————

HOMEOPATHY has an ‘applied’ as well as a ‘theoretical’ part.

We should approach homeopathy not as ‘applying’ some theories, but making theories for ‘explaining’ what is experienced and applied. Hahnemann developed homeopathy not by making theories first, but by observing and experimenting real objective phenomena of nature, and then making theories to explain what he observed.

Applied part of homeopathy is primary, and it represents the objective reality, where as theoretical part is only a subjective explanation of this objective reality. Even if subjective part is proved scientifically wrong, objective part will remain, because it represents truth. We can explain this objective truth in a different way, more correctly, more rationally and more scientifically. Theory of homeopathy may change, but truth of homeopathy will not change.

What we call ‘theory of homeopathy’ is essentially a SUBJECTIVE explanation hahnemann provided for his OBJECTIVE observations regarding a peculiar kind of relationship between ‘drug and disease’ and the phenomenon of cure on the basis of that relationship. We have to differentiate between these ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ parts of homeopathy

Subjective or theoretical part of homeopathy is bound to have limitations, since it is based on the primitive forms of scientific knowledge available to hahnemann 250 years ago, when modern science was in its infantile stage of evolution.

When scientific community say ‘homeopathy is unscientific’, I will have to agree with that statement, in the meaning that ‘theory of homeopathy’ as it stands today is ‘unscientific’ and ‘scientifically implausible’. Many things in present theory of homeopathy are evidently incompatible with our most advanced and well proven scientific knowledge system.

—————————————————————————————————

STEVE BRIGGS messaged me just now: “You’re the most progressive minded homeopath dude I know. Take a bow. Now, get to work and get those double-blind peer reviewed tests happening!”

————————————————————————————————

A BAD NEWS FOR YOU, FRIENDS-

STEVE BRIGGS from Australia, who had earlier offered to bet ONE MILLION DOLLARS to me If I prove HOMEOPATHY OR MIT WORKS, and promised to sign an agreement for conducting experiments and to provide a bank guarantee within one week time, has just now messaged me as follows:

“Dude, I’ve just been informed by my accountant, calling from a beach resort in Hawaii (I could hear seagulls and lazy slide guitar in the background), and the bad news is that he’s emptied all my accounts into a Cayman Island account. In other words, I’m currently experiencing a rather disastrous personal financial shortfall. Sadly I will not be able to guarantee the ONE MILLION (Zimbabwe) DOLLARS. But the good news, sir, is that you can still go ahead and prove your theories! Isn’t that great? You win anyway!”

THAT MEANS, STEVE BRIGGS HAS GRACIOUSLY WITHDRAWN HIS BET OF ONE MILLION DOLLARS FOR PROVING HOMEOPATHY WORKS.

Steve Briggs, It is indeed a sad news. We loose a great opportunity, which according to your words, would have been a ‘great moment for science’, and of course for homeopathy. Let us hope your financial crisis will end soon. Any how, I am thankful to you for your generous offer. This is not an issue of personal winning or defeating. I want to prove homeopathy by scientific method. Science should win. Not me or you, sir

————————————————————————————————

According to SCIENTIFIC METHOD, anything not explained and proved scientifically are labelled UNSCIENTIFIC.

I do not think everything ‘not scientifically proved’are ‘scientifically implausible’. If something ‘really exists’, it could be and should be scientifically explained and proved in accordance with scientific method. Until that happens, it should not be considered ‘scientifically implausible’.

There are many phenomena which really exists or WORKS, but not ‘still’ scientifically explained or proved. But they are not ‘scientifically implausible’. Many things we NOW call ‘scientific’ were not ‘scientific’ in yesterdays, since they were not explained or proved scientifically. Gravitation, electricity, magnetism and many phenomena existed and worked here for centuries without any scientific explamation or proving- but everybody really experienced it.

My request to scientific community is, do not label or cast aside homeopathy as ‘unscientific’ or ‘scientifically implausible’, only because it is presently explained using most unscientific and scientifically implausible theories. Do not ignore the ‘objective truth’ involved in homeopathy that is being proved through thousands of cures experienced by homeopaths everyday.

At least, wait for a scientific theory of homeopathy to evolve in near future.

———————————————————————————————————-

It is the ‘matching’ between symptoms present in a patient and in the drug that matter- not the ‘mismatching’ between symptoms absent in the patient but present in the drug.

For example, you need not avoid pulsatilla only because ‘consolation amel’ is ABSENT in the patient, if all the symptoms present in the patient match with pulsatilla.

Same time, you should rule out pulsatilla if ‘consolation agg’ is PRESENT in the patient, even if all other symptoms indicate pulsatilla.

A prominent mental symptom that is PRESENT in the patient, but contraindicates the drug will by itself rule out that drug, even if all other symptoms agree.

——————————————————————————————–

It will be more realistic to say HOMEOPATHY IS A GREAT THERAPEUTIC ART that really WORKS, but not yet scientifically explained or proved, which could be and should be explained and proved by scientific methods in near future

———————————————————————————————

It is really pathetic to see even PROMINENT homeopaths declaring “homeopathy is great science”, exposing their ignorance regarding WHAT IS SCIENCE.

Kindly tell me, sir, what are the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of potentized drugs we use? What is the BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM by which potentized drugs act up on the organism? If you can answer these two basic questions in SCIENTIFIC TERMS, in a way fitting to the scientific knowledge system, I will be very happy to agree with your opinion “HOMEOPATHY IS GREAT SCIENCE”. If you cannot, your opinion will remain wishful thinking of a dogmatic homeopath.

———————————————————————————–

As per the existing state of affairs, it is wrong to say homeopathy is MEDICAL SCIENCE, if we use the term ‘science’ in its exact scientific meaning.

I would prefer to say, homeopathy is a ‘therapeutic art’ based on objective observations, and practically proved by experiences to be WORKING, but so far there is no SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS regarding what are the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of potentized drugs, or what is the BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM by which it works.

Homeopathy will become a MEDICAL SCIENCE only when these fundamental questions are explained and PROVED by scientific methods.

Through MIT concepts, I am proposing for the first time in history a SCIENTIFIC WORKING HYPOTHESIS for homeopathy, which has to be proved by scientific methods to make homeopathy a MEDICAL SCIENCE.

—————————————————————————————

SIMILIMUM is a drug that contains some constituent chemical molecules having functional moieties similar to pathogenic molecules involved in the DISEASE we are trying to prescribe for, so that we can use the MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of those drug molecules to CURE the disease by selectively binding to the pathogenic molecules by complementary conformational affinity. MATCHING of drug symptoms and disease symptoms is only ONE of the ways to identify SIMILIMUM.

———————————————————————————————–

I do not think MENTALS are essential for selecting similimum. Even PARTICULARS, if they are ABNORMAL and well qualified with peculiar ACCESSORIES, will lead us to right similimum. It is the PECULIAR COMBINATIONS of symptoms we consider that matter, not whether they are MENTAL or PHYSICAL.

————————————————————————————————

A case of CYCLICAL VOMITING cured by ARGENT NIT:

A case of 8 yr old girl, diagnosed as ‘cyclical vomiting
syndrome’ at Pariyaram Medical College, Kerala.

Recurring attacks of vomiting and nausea since one year,
under allopathic treatment without remarkable
improvement. No abodominal pain or headache. Mother
is a chronic migraine patient. Vomiting episodes starts in
morning after breakfast, continues 1-2 hours till the girl
gets exhausted. Had to be hospitalized and iv fluids given
on many occasions.

Episodes recurs every week, normally on mondays. Aversion to light and sounds during episodes. Drinks cold water frequently, and want to wash face with cold water. Sensitiveness to light and abnormal smells appears as a warning signal 2-3 hrs before the episode starts. During vomiting episodes, she complains
about a sensation of splinter sticking in the throat.
Always very much hurry (hurried movements, hurried
talking, hurried eating), anxious about going school and
studies, fear that she has serious diseases(asked me
many times, ‘uncle, do I have cancer?’), Craving for
sweet things(ice creams, chocolates).

Once I completed case taking, I was sure the girl needs
ARG NIT. On repertorizing with QUICK PICK tool of
Similimum Ultra software also, ARG NIT came top as
similimum. ARG NIT 30 was given thrice daily for one
week, then twice daily for one month, followed by once
daily for two months. No episodes after the first week
itself. Now it is one year without any recurrence of that
complaint.

Attacks comes on mondays and after breakfast indicates
some anticipatory factors related with going to school.
Anxiety about school lessons, hurry, photophobia during
attacks, desire cold water, desire cold bathing of face,
craving for sweets, apprehensions of serious diseases.

Above all, the peculiar sensation of ‘splinters in throat’
appearing only during attacks.

1. [Kent]Mind : ANXIETY
2. [Kent]Mind : HURRY
3. [Kent]Mind : ANTICIPATION, complaints from
4. [Kent]Stomach : DESIRES : Cold drinks
5. [Kent]Stomach : VOMITING
6. [Kent]Eyes : PHOTOPHOBIA
7. [Kent]Mind : SENSITIVE, oversensitive : Noise, to
8. [Kent]Throat : PAIN : Splinter : As from a
9. [Kent]Stomach : DESIRES : Sweets
10. [Kent]Mind : FEAR : Disease, of impending
11. [Kent]Face : WASH in cold water, desire to
12. [Kent]Generalities : BATHING : Cold : Amel

This is a very simple case from homeopathic point of view, for which any homeopath can prescribe without much effort. But for the ‘specialists’ of modern medicine at that famous medical college, it proved to be a very ‘difficult’ case, which they failed to cure even after treating for one year. It is in this type of cases homeopathy shows its superiority over allopathy, but allopaths will not accept it was cured by homeopathic drugs. They will say, it was not cured by homeopathic drugs, but by ‘placebo effects’. Why allopathic drugs given for one year did not show at least this ‘placebo effect’, if not medicinal effect?

When the parents of this child later met the doctor who treated the girl at the medical college for one year, they told him the child was cured by homeopathy. He laughed sarcastically, and told them ‘spontaneous remissions’ are possible in this type of cases, and the cure has nothing to do with homeopathy medicines. Nobody asked him why this ‘spontaneous remission’ did not happen during the whole year he has been treating the child. He further ‘educated’ them about the ‘unscientificness’ of homeopathy, and warned them against using it in future!

—————————————————————————————–

One thing most homeopaths would have noted during their practice is that ‘different approaches lead us to different prescriptions’. Different homeopathic prescriptions are possible in any case. I am talking about successful prescriptions. You can understand this phenomenon only it you understand MIT concepts of molecular imprints of ‘functional moieties’ of drug molecules, and how they deactivate the pathogenic molecules by acting as ‘artificial key holes’.

——————————————————————————————————

I think many a excellent homeopathic prescriptions are spoiled only due to our ‘theoretical’ hesitation to repeat the doses in adequate intervals, and these failures are wrongly attributed to ‘wrong similimum’ or ‘wrong potency’ selection. We could have avoided such failures by repeating the doses frequently so as to maintain the drug action at optimum levels to effect a complete cure.

My concepts regarding ‘repetitions’ come from the scientific understanding of potentization as ‘molecular imprinting’ and the active principles of potentized medicines as ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent drug molecules used for potentization. You cannot follow me without understanding the concept of ‘molecular imprints’.

According to me, Molecular Imprints are the active principles of potentized drugs. These ‘molecular imprints’ bind to the pathological molecules having ‘complementary’ configuration, there by relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions and effect Cure. Same time,these ‘molecular imprints’ could be antidoted or deactivated by by molecules or ions having complementary configurations. That means, ‘molecular imprints’ we introduced into the body get deactivated by pathological molecules or other molecules having conformational affinity. Molecules and ions of vegetable alkaloids, enzymes, food additives, environmental toxins, infectious agents, bacterial-viral toxins and a host of other agents may antidote these ‘molecular imprints’. Hence, it is necessary to replenish the supply of ‘molecular imprints’ at frequent intervals to ensure a complete cure. That is my point.

The most quoted and most violated ‘cardinal principle’ of homeopathy is ‘single drug-single dose’. We use multiple drugs in private, and publicly pose as ‘single drug’ prescribers, masking with phrases such as ‘intercurrent’, complementary’, ‘antidote’, ‘anti-miasmatic’, or ‘layer prescriptions’. My point is, even so called ‘single’ drugs are not really ‘single’, but contains diverse types of ‘molecular imprints’.

Some ‘single drug’ prescribers would give a ‘single’ dose of say sulphur cm, and give plenty of biochemic salts or even biochemic combinations, and claim in public that they ‘cured’ the patient with ‘single’ dose of sulphur. Some people would give large doses of mother tinctures along with ‘a single dose of single drug’. Certain others would give a ‘single’ dose of selected similimum, and then frequent doses of ‘complementary’ drugs, for ‘relieving acute complaints’. Prescribing ‘anti-miasmatics’ are also not considered as a violation of ‘single’ drug principles. I am avoiding those who prescribe patented compound drugs from the purview of this discussion, since they are admittedly ‘multiple’ drug prescribers.

A complementary medicine may contain some extra molecular imprints that were not present in original similimum, and that may be helpful in the curative process.

———————————————————————————————–

You cannot master the art of CASE TAKING, if you did not master your REPERTORIES. A sound knowledge of repertorial rubrics related with important symptoms and their arrangements in your regularly used repertory will help you a lot in effective case taking.

Most homeopaths consider REPERTORY only as a tool for
finding similimum after case taking is over. For them, role
of repertory is limited to what is called ‘repertorization’. In
fact, repertories are great learning tools playing an essential role in mastering materia medica as well as the art of ‘Case Taking’, and should be utilized as such.

Key to the art of successful homeopathic case taking lies
in the skill of homeopath in converting ‘basic symptoms’
into ‘complete symptoms’ by adding with their ‘accessory
symptoms’, through intelligent interrogation, keen
observation and logical correlations. Without genuine
‘complete symptoms’, you cannot hope to work out a
case homeopathically to a reasonable similimum. This
skill has to be cultivated in students and budding
homeopaths by their teachers and senior colleagues.
Patients normally give only ’basic symptoms’ while
narrating their complaints. They would say, ‘I have a
headache’, ‘I have a pain in stomach’, ‘I have pain in
joints’ and like that. Such ‘basic symptoms’, even though
provide us valuable diagnostic hints, are of no use in
making a homeopathic prescription. We need
‘homeopathic symptoms’ or ‘complete symptoms’. A
‘basic symptom’ becomes a ‘complete symptom’ when it
is associated with its diverse ‘accessories’ such as
location, expression, sensation, modalities, concomitants,
extensions, alternations etc. Hunting these qualifications
or accessories for each and every ‘basic symptom’ is the
real art involved in ‘homeopathic case taking’.

For successfully hunting these ‘accessories’ of all ‘basic
symptoms’, and converting them into ‘complete
symptoms’, a homeopath should have a clear idea about
what are the possible ‘qualification’ for any given ‘basic
symptom’ presented by the patient. Without a reasonable
knowledge of matera medica and especially repertorial
rubrics, we cannot hope to attain that essential skill. That
is why I stress the vital importance of constant study of
repertories.

Learning rubrics in your repertory is a most important part
of learning ‘Case Taking’. Those who are poor in
knowledge of rubrics in repertories will be poor in case
taking also. Case Taking is the most decisive step in
finding similimum. With out a well taken case we cannot
hope to find a similimum or get a cure for our patient. I
get hundreds of cases from homeopaths, requesting to
suggest similimum. It is not an exaggeration to say that
99% of those cases are very poorly taken from
homeopathic angle. Of course, they provide excellent
diagnostic information. But, we cannot find a
homeopathic similimum from diagnostic symptoms and
information alone. We need ‘complete symptoms’ for
that.

Collecting ‘complete symptoms’ is the most essential part
of homeopathic case taking every homeopath should
master, if he really want to be a successful homeopath.
For that, we should have a clear idea about what are the
’complete symptoms’ we should look for in a given case
during case taking. In fact, repertories provide us an
exhaustive list of ‘basic symptoms’ and ‘accessory
symptoms’ we should explore in each and every disease
conditions and individuals. That is why I say, “master
your repertory if you want to master the art of case
taking”.

I would request freshers and young homeopaths to
dedicate maximum available time in studying repertories,
so that we get an idea about the ‘complete symptoms’
we should look for in a patient coming to us with specific
complaints. Normally, patients will not voluntarily disclose
the ‘complete symptoms’- we have to interrogate and dig
them out. Actually, we cannot do any search or
exploration for anything, if we do not have a clear idea
about what we we are really exploring or searching for.

Most important aspect of ‘complete symptoms’ are
‘accessory symptoms’ associated with each ‘basic
symptom’. Unqualified ‘basic symptom’ such as
headache, dysmenooroea, abdominal pain or convulsions
are of no use for finding a similimum. These ‘basic
symptoms’ become valuable ‘complete symptoms’ when
they are associated with their peculiar ‘accessories ‘ such
as expressions, locations, sensations, modalities,
alternations, extensions and concomitants. Even a ‘single’
particular homeopathic symptom with all its ‘accessories’
can play a decisive or ‘pivotal’ role in determining a
similimum for the whole case. Searching for ‘accessories’
of each and every ‘basic symptoms’ described by the
patient- that is what we mean by ‘collecting complete
symptoms’. Without a reasonable knowledge of language
and arrangement of repertorial rubrics, we cannot
accomplish that task in a satisfactory way.

If you have a good Repertory Software, learning repertory as well as case takimgn becomes very simple, and more rewarding.

Materia Medica is the final court of verdict in deciding
similimum. Repertory is only an index to materia medica.
Repertory is materia medica arranged in a more
systematic and comparative format. By mastering
repertory, we are actually mastering materia medica.
Essentially, REPERTORIZATION is a comparative study of
materia medica of different drugs using indexed
symptoms

———————————————————————————–

By performing CASE TAKING and REPERTORIZATION simultaneously, we can save much time, same time making very accurate prescriptions. Innovative tools and platforms provided in my SIMILIMUM ULTRA SOFTWARE is very helpful in this regard.

I am reporting a case of pre-menstrual headache in a 35 yr old lady, cured by a drug selected using only ‘particular modalities’. I worked out the case and reachedsimilimum with in 5 minutes using Similimum Ultra Software.

The lady first told me she is having violent headache before ever menses. Using key-words ‘headache’, ‘menses’ and ‘before’, I instantly located following rubric and added to the RUBRIC BASKET of my software:

[Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Menses :Before: – Acon., Agn., Alum., Am-c., Arg-n., Ars., Asar., Bell., Bor., Bov., Brom., Bry., Bufo., Calc., Calc-p., Calc-s., Carb-an., Carb-v., Caust., Cimic., Cinnb., Cupr., Ferr., Ferr-ar., Ferr-i., Gels., Glon., Graph., Hep., Hyper., Iod., Kali-p., Kreos., Lac-c., Lac-d., Lach., Laur., Lil-t., Lyc., Manc., Meli., Merc., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nit-ac., Nux-m., Nux-v., Ol-an., Petr., Phos., Plat., Puls., Sep.,
Sil., Stann., Sulph., Thuj., Verat., Vib., Xan., Zinc.

Next, she said she had vomiting along with this menstrual headache. Using key words ‘headache’, and ‘vomit’, I located and added this rubric:

[Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Vomiting: – Ars., Asar., Bar-m., Con., Eug., Ferr-p., Glon., Iris., Lach., Lyc., Mez., Nux-v., Phyt., Sec., Sep., Verat.

Then I asked her, are there any factors that gave any relief to this headache. She told, she would get some relief if she lie in a dark room and get some sleep. I used key words ‘headache’ ‘sleep’ and ‘amel’, and got this rubric, and added it:

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

Then I used ‘head ache’ and ‘dark’ as key words, and located this rubric, added it to the RUBRIC BASKET:

[Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Lying : In a dark room : Amel.:- Acon., Bell., Brom., Bry., Lac-d., Podo., Sang., Sep., Sil.

At this stage, I used QUICK PICK tool in my software to see which are the drugs that cover these FOUR particular symptoms. Only SEPIA was there!

Case taking, repertorization and prescribing were over by FIVE MINUTES!

Her facial expressions, body structure, way of talking, everything reminded me she is SEPIA. I decided to try SEPIA without further workout. SEPIA 30 was given TDS during headache, followed by BDS until next menstrual
period. Headache never recurred. This case taught me how simple it is to make a homeopathic prescription and get a nice cure.

———————————————————————————————-
I always search for PECULIAR COMBINATIONS of symptoms in my patients, which in most occasions lead to wonderful cures.

Kindly note, I am saying “peculiar combinations” of symptoms- not ‘peculiar symptoms’.

Here I am reporting a chronic case of backache in a 45
year old woman. A characteristic modality of her
backache was that she got relief by bending backwards.

She also revealed a very peculiar mental symptom: when
she was on her bed for sleep, suddenly a fear creeps into
her mind that if she sleeps, she will never wake up from
that sleep. She spent many whole nights without closing
her eyes due to this fear of falling into sleep. This
delusion has made her life miserable, even though she
did not reveal this fear even to her husband. All of them
considers it as ‘sleeplessness’.

I felt this is a very peculiar uncommon symptom that may
lead me to her prescription. I started to scroll through
repertories for this rubric, and finally located the following
one matching to her symptom:

[Kent]Mind : FEAR : Sleep : To close the eyes lest he
should never wake:- Aeth.

To my great surprise, I noticed that her peculiar modality
‘backache amel by bending backwards’ is also covered
by AETHUSA. See this rubric:

[Kent]Back : PAIN : Bending : Backward : Amel.:- Acon.,
Aeth., Am-m., Bell., Cycl., Eupi., Fl-ac., Hura., Lach.,
Petr., Puls., Rhus-t., Sabad., Sabin., Sil.

Satisfied with this wonderful combination of two rubrics, I
decided to ignore all other symptoms, and selected
AETHUSA as her similimum. Her backache and mental
agony was totally cured with AETHUSA. I used a few
doses of PULS also later, considering her constitutional
symptoms.

Making a perfect prescription using only two symptoms,
one mental symptom and a particular modality may seem
to be unbelievable- but here is the beauty of homeopathy.

This prescription demonstrates how PECULIAR COMBINATIONS of symptoms lead us to a right remedy without much effort. I would suggest young homeopaths to try this method for a successful clinical practice.

————————————————————————————————-

“Prescribe for the PATIENT- not the DISEASE”. It is a statement well known to all homeopaths.

This statement actually means, homeopathic prescriptions should be PATIENT-SPECIFIC. Not DISEASE-SPECIFIC.

You cannot make a HOMEOPATHIC prescription for a DISEASE by its name, without taking into consideration the INDIVIDUAL patient as a WHOLE.

You cannot prescribe for HYPERTENSION, DIABETES, RHEUMATISM or ANY disease, without studying the peculiarities of INDIVIDUAL patient suffering from hypertension, diabetes or rheumatism.

Making PATIENT-SPECIFIC prescriptions does not mean ignoring DISEASE and prescribing only on the basis of individual CONSTITUTION, as some homeopaths argue. I don’t agree with the view that constitutional prescriptions will cure all diseases of an individual, whatever the disease be.

According to my view, we have to consider the totality of DISEASE-SPECIFIC and PATIENT SPECIFIC symptoms in a particular case, and make a prescription FOR THE PATIENT.

—————————————————————————————————

MOLECULAR ERRORS in a living organism that constitute a state of DISEASE can be rectified using MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug substances that in MOLECULAR FORMS can produce SIMILAR molecular errors in healthy organism.

This is the SIMPLE, SCIENTIFIC explanation of HOMEOPATHY.

————————————————————————————–

Basically, Homeopathy is SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR and POTENTIZATION.

According to me, it means, if you are using drugs that match to your patients by similarity of ‘molecular errors’ as indicated by ‘similarity of symptoms’, and if you are using drugs in ‘molecular imprints forms’ or ‘potentized forms’, IT IS HOMEOPATHY.

—————————————————————————————————

Homeopaths should learn to perceive:

LIFE in terms of interactions of complex biological molecules,

DISEASE in terms of molecular errors in biochemical processes,

SYMPTOMS as expressions of underlying pathological
molecular errors,

DRUGS in terms of constituent molecules,

CURE in terms of removal of bio-molecular
errors,

And,

POTENTIZED DRUGS in terms of constituent
molecular imprints.

Then only they can understand the scientific explanation of homeopathy as MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS.

—————————————————————————————————-

Since individual molecular imprints contained in potentized drugs cannot interact each other, and they act upon the pathogenic molecules in their individual capacities, there is nothing wrong in combining two or more drugs in potencies 12C or above, if warranted according to indications.

I have been experimenting this by preparing DISEASE-SPECIFIC combinations of general STOCK MEDICINES. While dispensing, I use to make them PATIENT-SPECIFIC by adding more drugs into the stock medicines as per requirements, which are selected on the basis of PHYSICAL GENERALS and MENTALS of the particular patient.

For example, I have compounded separate STOCK MEDCINES for ASTHMA, HAEMORRHOIDS, GASTRIC ULCER, DYSMENORRHOEA and other clinical conditions. When a patient with asthma comes, I use to work out his case minutely and find the CONSTITUTIONAL remedies indicated for him. These constitutionally indicated drugs are added to the ASTHMA stock medicine, and administered to the patient. This method helps me to prescribe very effortlessly, and gives marvelous results.

I KNOW, MOST OF MY FRIENDS WILL NOT AGREE WITH ME ON THIS POINT, AS IT IS AGAINST THE ‘RULES’. PLEASE EXPERIMENT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS, IF YOU DARE TO DO SO.

——————————————————————————————————-

We can effectively prevent the birth of autistic children by regular administration of homeopathic drugs selected on the basis of physical generals and mentals to mothers right from the early months of pregnancy. Molecular imprints contained in appropriately selected homeopathic drugs can deactivate the exogenous and endogenous pathogenic molecules that act as epigenetic factors affecting the genetic expression processes associated with the develoment of neurons and synapses in infants, thereby preventing autism. This knowledge should be widely propagated and practiced as part of routine homeopathic pregnancy management protocol by homeopathic physicians.

——————————————————————————————–

Symptoms of AUTISM vary widely in individuals. Impairment in social interaction and verbal and non-verbal communication, and by restricted, repetitive or stereotyped behavior are the CHARECTERISTICS of autism, which reflect a disorder of neural development.

Autism is considered to affect information processing in the brain by altering how nerve cells and their synapses connect and organize, but the exact causes and biological mechanism of this process is not so far well understood.

Even though autism has a strong genetic basis, it is not an INHERITED GENETIC DISEASE. It is not associated with any inherited chromosome abnormality. Rather, it is the ‘mutational’ outcome of EPIGENETIC factors influencing the neuron development during the early stages of fetal development and post natal period. Many factors known to be taratogens that cause BIRTH DEFECTS are also associated with development of autism.

Environmental causes, drugs, heavy metals, pesticides maternal and childhood vaccines, maternal and pre-natal infections, emotional shocks in mothers, alcoholism, illicit drugs, smoking – there are a lot of factors belonging to EPIGENETIC SPECTRUM of causes that lead to autism in a child. Certain foods, solvents, diesel exhaust, phthalates and phenols used in plastic products, pesticides, insect repellents, brominated flame retardants are also supposed to be implicated. ANTIBODIES formed in maternal body against diverse types of infections and alien proteins also have to be included in this list, which from a homeopathic angle indicates strong MIASMATIC basis for autism.

Symptoms belong to Following characteristics:

Stereotypy is repetitive movement, such as hand flapping, head rolling, or body rocking.

Compulsive behavior is intended and appears to follow rules, such as arranging objects in stacks or lines.

Sameness is resistance to change; for example, insisting that the furniture not be moved or refusing to be interrupted.

Ritualistic behavior involves an unvarying pattern of daily activities, such as an unchanging menu or a dressing ritual. This is closely associated with sameness and an independent validation has suggested combining the two factors.

Restricted behavior is limited in focus, interest, or activity, such as preoccupation with a single television program, toy, or game.

Self-injury includes movements that injure or can injure the person, such as eye poking, skin picking hand biting, and head banging.

Homeopathic prescriptions should be based on TOTALITY OF SYMPTOMS, combined with a CAUSATIVE and MIASMATIC approach.

Symptoms in autistic child varies widely, and should be carefully recorded by directed OBSERVATIONS by the physician, and talking to CARE GIVERS.

Symptoms noted during earlier stages of disease development should be carefully collected.

Peculiar GESTURES are most important in deciding the prescription. Emotional symptoms, symptoms associated with sleep patterns, eating habits, thermal responses etc also are important.

You can never deal with autism by SINGLE DRUG approach. Multiple drugs will be required, depending up on symptoms, miasms and causative factors. Do not hesitate to use any number of drugs, and repeat doses frequently for long periods.

Since AUTISM is not associated with chromosome abnormalities, it is CURABLE with homeopathy. It is an EPIGENETIC disease. Only problem is, the disease should be diagnosed and treatment started at very early stage of development. Earlier we start, better the chances of complete cure.

————————————————————————————

Diseases, Drugs, Symptoms, Potentization,
Similimum, Cure- A Scientific Perspective Of
Homeopathy

Diseases, other than those originating from genuine
nutritional deficiencies and genetic abnormalities, are
caused by diverse types of exogenous or endogenous
pathological molecules, which inhibit the normal actions
of essential biological molecules by binding to them.
Exactly, it is the ‘functional groups’ of pathological
molecules that bind to biological molecules and produce
pathological inhibitions, which are expressed through
subjective and objective symptoms we call as ‘diseases’.

Constituent chemical molecules of a drug substance
interact with our body by binding their diverse types of
‘functional groups’ or ‘moieties’ with specific biological
target molecules in our organism and modifying their
actions. This interaction is determined by configurational
as well as charge affinities between those functional
groups and biological target molecules. It is the number
of types of biologically active ‘functional groups’ or
‘moieties’ available in a drug substance that decides
whether it is a ‘single’ drug or ‘multiple’ drug.

Different types of ‘functional groups’ of individual
molecules contained in a drug substance bind to different
biological target molecules, and produce different types
of modifications. It is this ‘modifying’ or ‘inhibitory’
actions that produce molecular states of pathologies
during drug proving, which are expressed through diverse
types of subjective and objective symptoms.

Similar functional groups being part of different drug
molecules of even different drug substances can bind to
same target molecules and produce similar bio-molecular
modifications and similar symptoms.

When a drug molecule has functional groups or
moieties similar to those of a pathological molecule, they
can attack same biological targets, and symptoms they
produce would be similar. In such a situation, the drug
molecule is said to be ‘similimum’ to that pathological
molecule. Obviously, according to scientific perspective,
we should understand the concept of ‘similimum’ in terms
of similarity of ‘functional groups’ or ‘moieties’ of
pathological molecules and drug molecules.

Potentization is exactly a process of controlled ‘host-
guest’ interactions, by which the three-dimensional
configuration of ‘functional groups’ of individual
constituent molecules of drug substances (host) are
imprinted into a hydrogen-bonded supra-molecular matrix
of water-ethyl alcohol molecules (guest) as ‘nanocavities’.

These nanocavities or ‘molecular imprints’ can bind to
and deactivate any functional group having configuration
similar to that of original ‘host’ molecule imprinted into it.
As such, a molecular imprints can act as artificial binding sites
pathological molecules, if the drug and
disease were capable of producing ‘similar’ symptoms,
which actually mean, they contain similar ‘functional
groups’.

I hope, scientific meaning of ‘similia similibus curentur’
is well explained here, and scientifically viable answers
provided for the THREE fundamental questions of
homeopathy- what happens during potentization, what are
the active principles of potentized drugs, and what is the
exact molecular mechanism by which potentized drugs
produce a therapeutic effect. Answers to all other
secondary questions could be easily evolved once you
comprehend these fundamental answers.

————————————————————————————-

I believe it is cruel to give ‘placebo’ to a patient , making him believe that he is taking medicines as part of treatment for his disease. There is an element of cheating also in it!

—————————————————————————————————–

One of the difficult problem facing me when designing a protocol for an EXPERIMENT to ‘verify’ whether homeopathy works or not is regarding CONTROLS. Scientific method demands there should be a reasonable percentage of CONTROLS kept on PLACEBO only, for the experiment to be authentic and acceptable to the scientific community.

When I am conducting an EXPERIMENT to prove homeopathy can cure cancer, I have to give INDICATED drugs to a group of patients diagnosed to be having cancer, stopping all other medications and treatments. Along with that I should keep a group of diagnosed cancer patients as controls giving them only placebo, and stopping all other medications and treatments.

It is obvious that such an experiment will take a reasonably long course to lead to an evaluation process. Is it ethical and lawful to keep diagnosed cancer patients without any treatment for such a long period of time, leaving them defenseless preys to the ravages of malignancy even if it be with their consent? This question bothers me a lot. Comments, please….

——————————————————————————————————-

Classical concepts of ‘miasms’ and method of
‘miasmatic analysis’ for selecting ‘anti-miasmatic’ drugs
will undergo drastic change 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 the residual ‘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 even without symptomatic indications to a specific remedy

Locating the ‘molecular errors’ and identifying the appropriate molecular imprints to remove that errors is the primary concern,
whatever be the tools we utilize for that purpose.

Materia medica of nosodes are much imperfect, and
repertories do not represent them with 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 dispositions for ‘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.

———————————————————————————————–

Give me TWENTY children suffering from ASD for EXPERIMENTING whether homeopathy works or not. TEN of them will be treated using potentized homeopathic drugs only, selected by MY team of HOMEOPATHS on the basis of INDICATIONS. Remaining TEN will be administered PLACEBO only and kept as controls. You can evaluate the outcome after the course of treatment is over, and decide whether homeopathy works or not.

—————————————————————————————————-

Any EXPERIMENT for verifying whether homeopathy works or not should be done only by applying INDICATED DRUGS in real PATIENTS, and observing the results. If you have TEN patients for experiment, indicated drug will be different from patient to patient. You cannot use same drug in all patients even if they have same disease, since their constitutions will be different, symptoms will be different, and indicated homeopathic drugs will be different. Experimental protocols should be decided by taking this peculiarity of homeopathy into consideration. This is entirely different from methods adopted in experiments conducted for modern medicine, where same drug is applied in all patients with same disease.

————————————————————————————————

Dr Shashi Mohan Sharma, Principal, Hahnemann College of Homeopathy, United Kingdom says regarding the forthcoming scientific experiments for proving homeopathy according to the ONE MILLION DOLLAR challenge of STEVE BRIGGS, AUSTRALIA :

“I offer you all my support and wish to be an impartial judge in this experiment…With best wishes”

Thank you, and welcome sir. I hope you can play a major role in this historical event, which is going to be very crucial for the future of homeopathy as well as the whole medical sciences.

———————————————————————————————————

Anybody who at least once got treated with homeopathic remedies knows homeopathy is not nonsense. No doubt, IT WORKS if rightly prescribed and rightly applied.

Any ‘experiment’ conducted for ‘proving’ homeopathy, without taking into consideration the fundamental differences between ‘modern medicine’ and ‘homeopathy’ is meaningless and scientifically irrelevant.

Homeopathy differs from ALL other medical practices regarding ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of medicinal agents, as well as MOLECULAR MECHANISM of their biological actions.

Homeopathic drugs act by specific conformational affinity between molecular imprints contained in them and the pathogenic molecules present in the organism, whereas DRUGS used by other medical systems act by chemical properties of their constituent molecules. This is the fundamental difference.

Homeopathic drugs POTENTIZED above 12C (diluted Avogadro limit) do not contain any DRUG MOLECULES. Active principles of those drugs are MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of constituent molecules of drug substances. These ‘molecular imprints’ act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity. Molecular imprints cannot interfere in the normal biochemical interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands. That means, homeopathic drugs act ONLY IF there are pathogenic molecules with specific conformational affinity present in the organism. That is why homeopaths say ‘potentized drugs act only if they are indicated by similarity of symptoms’.

POTENTIZED DRUGS ACT ONLY IF THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY INDICATED – THEY WILL NOT HAVE ANY ACTION WHEN APPLIED WITHOUT INDICATIONS. THIS BASIC TRUTH SHOULD BE REMEMBERED WHEN DESIGNING EXPERIMENTS FOR VERIFYING WHETHER HOMEOPATHY WORKS OR NOT.

——————————————————————————————————-

MIT is relevant only if HOMEOPATHY WORKS. MIT is all about answering the secondary question, “HOW it works”. Crucial thing is PROVING homeopathy works. If we cannot SCIENTIFICALLY prove homeopathy works, there is no question of MIT working! We know through thousands of ‘experiences’ that homeopathy works. Then why should we fear about failing to prove it through scientific experiments, if they are conducted fairly and properly, under the observations of an unbiased and unprejudiced jury?

—————————————————————————————————————

I am interested only in TRUTH. I have been involved in homeopathy for the last 40+ years with a conviction and belief that HOMEOPATHY WORKS. I am very much confident that I can prove it works, since I have been seeing it working even in thousands of very difficult cases. That is why I dare to accept the challenge to PROVE homeopathy through experiments to be conducted in strictly controlled environment under the observation of impartial and unbiased observers and medical experts.

If TRUTH is proved to be otherwise, and if I fail to prove homeopathy really works, there is no meaning for me in continuing my talk about homeopathy any more. In that case, I will leave homeopathy for ever, and declare the world, my convictions have failed, and ‘homeopathy is fake’! Why should I stand by something that is not TRUE?

I am in a win or perish situation now. If I win, it will be a great win for homeopathy and the whole medical science at large. If I fail, it will ultimately damage even the future existence of homeopathy. I know the risks involved.

My friends say, I am playing with fire. May be a ‘fire escape play’. I love to play with fire. And I am sure, I will come out of this fire as a winner! You cannot win something without risking something!

—————————————————————————————————-

I am confident, I can PROVE homeopathy through scientific experiments to any one who is unprejudiced and genuinely interested in knowing the TRUTH regarding whether homeopathy works or not.

If you are prejudiced against homeopathy, and your only interest while asking for PROOF is in ‘disproving’ homeopathy, it is sure that nothing will satisfy you except ‘disproving’. That is what happened in the case of ‘james randi- george vithoulkas’ controversy related with the famous ‘one million dollars challenge’.

While asking for experiments for ‘proving’ homeopathy, you should not forget the fundamental difference between modern medicine and homeopathy regarding the active principles of their drugs as well as the biological mechanism of their curative action. Active principles of drugs usef in modern medicine are ‘drug molecules’ which act by their chemical properties, where as active principles of potentized drugs are ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules, and they act by their conformational affinities towards specific pathological molecules.

It is obvious that validating the action of potentized drugs needs certain parameters, methods and protocols that are entirely different from drug validation of modern medicine.

———————————————————————————————————

Unless homeopathic professionals and academicians discard the ‘beyond matter’ and ‘beyond science’ theories about homeopathy they so far preached and practiced, and start thinking, talking and practicing as ‘men of science’, homeopathy will continue to remain aliented from mainstream scientific community.

—————————————————————————————————————–

But it is a fact that even those who make wonderfully successful prescriptions do not know HOW IT WORKS.

Our theoreticians- including hahnemann- were never successful even in proposing a scientifically viable working hypotheseis regarding how homeopathy works. Homeopathy was explained using unscientific concepts of ‘vital force’ and ‘dynamic drug energy’.

Even our modern theoreticians go on spinning most ridiculous nonsense theories that are totally against all existing scientific knowledge and proven objective laws of nature. They make theories about ‘limitations’ of science and raise questions about ‘scientificness’ of scientific knowledge and methods. They design new ‘principles and methods of practice’ that imitate vulgar occult practices. They market homeopathy with far exaggerated claims and unfounded testimonials, just like any street marketer promoting his fraud products.

Our theoreticians and ‘brand builders’ are actually alienating homeopathy further from scientific community. They are making homeopathy a subject of unending ridicule and mockery. They are responsible for providing sufficient materials to skeptics to attack homeopathy.

HOMEOPATHY IS NOT NONSENSE- BUT NONSENSE THEORETICIANS MAKING IT APPEAR NONSENSE!

——————————————————————————————————-

THIS IS A CONVERSATION HAPPENED ON OUR DISCUSSION GROUP, BETWEEN ME AND MR. STEVE BRIGGS FROM AUSTRALIA:

Steve Briggs: I bet you… a million dollars (!) MIT works no better than placebo.

Me: @Steve Briggs: Are you serious about this BET for ‘million dollars’? Tell me the modalities for this ‘bet’, sir

Me: My understanding of your offer is that, you will give me ‘million dollars’ if I PROVE homeopathy( MIT) ‘works’. RIGHT?

Steve Briggs: Correct!

Me: That means, we can move forward with the ‘bet’. First of all, we have to negotiate and reach a consensus regarding methods and modalities of settling the issue, decide the experiments to be done, draft a legally valid agreement, decide juries and venue. Then you have to provide a bank guarantee for million dollars. I am from kerala, India. If you are serious with your bet, please send me a draft of agreement to my email id similimum@gmail.com. After receiving your draft, I shall propose my changes, and contact you through my attorney.

AWAITING NEXT MOVE FROM MR. STEVE BRIGGS.

———————————————————————————————————–

A homeopath friend messaged me: “Nothing is said in organon about molecular imprinting, and as such, your theory is not acceptable to homeopathy”.

He is right. My explanation of homeopathy in terms of ‘molecular imprints’ cannot be seen in any of the aphorisms of organon.

According to my view, ORGANON is only a MEDICAL BOOK written by a great visionary 250 years ago to explain the phenomena in curative process he observed, in terms of knowledge available to him at that point of time. There are lot of things to be scientifically updated in organon, in order to make homeopathy a real medical science.

Organon perceives active principles of homeopathic drugs as ‘non-material and dynamic drug energy released through potentization’, which act upon the ‘vital force’ in a ‘dynamic way’. If you consider ORGANON as the ultimate authority in scientific knowledge of therapeutic art, you cannot agree with my scientific explanations of homeopathy which says active principles of potentized drugs are ‘molecular imprints’. You cannot even understand what I am saying.

—————————————————————————————————

Scientific outlook is essential to validate or judge MIT. Homeopaths who are ‘believers’ of a model based on ‘dynamic drug energy’ and ‘vital force’ , and who believe organon is the ULTIMATE word in homeopathy, cannot UNDERSTAND or ACCEPT the scientific model proposed by MIT. Most people sitting influenzial in positions of official authority belong to this class. Even if some persons among them have scientific outlook and unprejudiced approach, majority who have the final say in matters of homeopathy are miserably hopelessly prejudiced and nurturing vested interests, such as ‘hair transmission’ experts. That is why I have very limited expectations regarding the outcome of an official validation. What ever be the JUDGEMENT, I am sure MIT will be recognized and accepted by the scientific minded sections of homeopathic community. My work will go on until MIT sees the victory stand, whether any AUTHORITY recognizes it or not.

————————————————————————————————

Since Dr Manchanda, Director of CCRH has set the wheels to motion to “look into this aspect as requested” regarding validation of MIT concepts, I request ALL FRIENDS on this group interested in MIT to put a word here commenting on this revolutionary concept. Such comments from members of homeopathic community will contribute much in our further advance, by way of convincing CCRH. Even a single word from every homeopath matters a lot now. This is a humble request, …………..PLEASE, FRIENDS..

—————————————————————————————-

DEAR FRIENDS, A HAPPY NEWS FOR YOU:

Responding to my request submitted to CCRH for considering MIT concepts seriously, and to appoint a sub-committee of experts to look into its viability and implications, and recommend future course of actions and research projects on MIT, Dr. R K Manchanda, Director General, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy has informed me that he has forwarded my request to Dr.Debadatta Nayak and Anil Khurana of CCRH, asking them to “look into this aspect as requested”.

Thank you, Dr Raj Manchanda. Whole homeopathy community will be much obliged to you for this epoch-making bold step, that is going to be part of history. Your move is going to herald a much awaited SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION in homeopathy in coming days.

———————————————————————————————————–

Scientific explanation of homeopathy proposed by MIT effectively resolves the paradigm divide between modern medicine and homeopathy for the first time in its 250 years of history. For the first time, homeopathy is talking about life, disease, drugs and biological mechanism of cure using the terms and concepts of modern science, exactly similar to modern medicine.

I would request homeopaths to try to explain homeopathy in terms of MIT concepts to your counter parts in modern medical practice, and see how they respond in a way totally different from earlier occasions. You can see, it is easy for you communicate with them, whether they agree with your explanations or not. Now you can see, it is not so easy for them to sweep aside homeopathy as ‘fake’, ‘unscientific’, placebo’ or ‘belief’. At least there is scope for a reasonable interaction.

MIT concepts make homeopaths confident enough to interact with members of medical fraternity and scientific community as professional equals, enabling to discuss the basic principles and modus operandi of homeopathic therapeutic art with them in a language understandable and convincing to them.

————————————————————————————————————-

Learning new things, generating new ideas, setting new targets, making new plans and working upon them, hoping, expecting……..and waiting! For me, life goes on as usual. Once my wheels stop running, I cease to exist.

————————————————————————————————————-

One of my respected homeopathic friends told me yesterday: “All your articles, writings and posts reflects a pathological state of mind. I have worked up on your mental symptoms as indicated by your writings, and found colocynthis as your similimum. Take a single dose of it and see the change it brings’.

This is a very nice, clever ‘homeopathic’ way of telling me that my ideas about homeopathy are ‘pathological’! Thanks! Should i reciprocate by working up on his mental symptoms and proposing a drug?

VOLUME- I: http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/selected-facebook-updates/

VOLUME- II: http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/volume-ii-compilation-of-my-selected-facebook-updates/

VOLUME- III: http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/05/12/volume-three/

VOLUME- IV: http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/06/04/selected-facebook-updates-volume-four/

VOLUME V: http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/10/09/volume-v-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

VOLUME VI: http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/10/11/volume-vi-selected-facebook-updates/

VOLUME VII: http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/10/24/volume-vii-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

VOLUME VIII: http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/12/16/volume-viii-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

All the published scientific studies regarding PHYSICAL properties of potentized homeopathic drugs have shown that the SPECTRA of light REFLECTED by them have FREQUENCIES different from that we obtain from unpotentized water-ethyl alcohol mixture.

Based on these reported observations of changed ‘frequencies’ homeopathic ‘theoreticians’and ‘intellectuals’ make a lot of fancifull theories about homeopathy. They believe and try to make others believe that these observations have proved their ‘energy medicine’ theories. According to them, potentized drugs produce cures by acting on ‘vital force’ by ‘resonance of frequencies’. Vital force of each individual vibrates in specific frequencies. Disease is caused by derangement of these vibrations. Potentized ‘similimum’ having most similar vibrations can rectify the derangement of vibrations of vital force through ‘resonance’, thereby restoring the health.

Where as some ‘theoreticians’ say the ‘vibrations’ of potentized drugs are due to ‘electromagnetic radiations’, some others say it is ‘radioactivity’. Most of them use the terms ‘radioactivity’ and ‘electromagnetic radiations’ as interchangeable equivalents, displaying their utter ignorance regarding the topics they are talking about.

Actually, observations of difference in spectra of light reflected by potentized drugs and unpotentized water-alcohol mixture has to be understood and interpreted with a rational and scientific perspective. All these studies were done using different techniques of SPECTROSCOPY, which is the most accurate and reliable method of studying the molecular level and atomic level structure and conformation of matter. Even though there are different techniques, instruments and methods currently employed in spectrometry, basically it is all about sending LIGHT RAYS of known frequency into the sample to be probed, and then studying the REFLECTED or TRANSMITTED rays by measuring the change in their frequencies. Analyzing the CHANGES happened in the frequencies of light SPECTRA, scientists reach conclusions about the particle level structure and organization.

Not only potentized drugs, any MATERIAL particle in this universe will show changes in reflected or transmitted SPECTRA OF LIGHT, when they are subjected to spectroscopic studies.

Difference in spectra of light reflected from potentized drugs and unpotentized water-alcohol medium proves that certain changes occur in the supra-molecular arrangement of water-ethyl molecules during potentization. Such an observation no way proves potentized drug act as medicinal agents using RESONANCE OF FREQUENCIES. Supra- molecular changes in potentizing medium happening during potentization should be understood in terms of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING, which will help us in explaining biological mechanism of high dilution therapeutics and ‘similia similibus curentur’ in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge system.

Theorization of ‘energy medicine’ proponents based on wierd and ‘hijacked’ interpretations of published scientific studies only demonstrates their ignorance regarding principles and methods of modern science.

——————————————————————————————-

Nanoparticle Model Of Iris Bell And Mary Koithan For Homeopathy- Skyscraper On A Flimsy Foundation:

Iris Bell and Mary Koithan, belonging to Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine, has proposed a new model for homeopathic remedy effects, based on concepts such as ‘low dose nanoparticles’, ‘allostatic cross-adaptation’, and ‘time-dependent sensitization in a complex adaptive system’ in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 22 October 2012 issue. You can read this full article at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/12/191.

Even though most homeopaths actually got nothing about it, being desperately looking for some or other SCIENTIFIC footing for homeopathy, have embraced this theory with enthusiasm, as they hope it will give homeopathy a respectable status of NANOTECHNOLOGY!

The foundation of the proposed MODEL is the assumption that potentized drugs “contain measurable source and silica nanoparticles heterogeneously dispersed in colloidal solution”. This assumption is based on the RESEARCH conducted earlier by a team of scientists from IIT – B, which claimed they could ‘detect’ traces of nanoparticles of ‘elements’ in potentized drugs. As such, the feasibility of this model primarily depends up on the authority of IIT-B work.

ABSTRACT OF ARTICLE is given below:
—————————–
Background

This paper proposes a novel model for homeopathic remedy action on living systems. Research indicates that homeopathic remedies (a) contain measurable source and silica nanoparticles heterogeneously dispersed in colloidal solution; (b) act by modulating biological function of the allostatic stress response network (c) evoke biphasic actions on living systems via organism-dependent adaptive and endogenously amplified effects; (d) improve systemic resilience.

Discussion

The proposed active components of homeopathic remedies are nanoparticles of source substance in water-based colloidal solution, not bulk-form drugs. Nanoparticles have unique biological and physico-chemical properties, including increased catalytic reactivity, protein and DNA adsorption, bioavailability, dose-sparing, electromagnetic, and quantum effects different from bulk-form materials. Trituration and/or liquid succussions during classical remedy preparation create “top-down” nanostructures. Plants can biosynthesize remedy-templated silica nanostructures. Nanoparticles stimulate hormesis, a beneficial low-dose adaptive response. Homeopathic remedies prescribed in low doses spaced intermittently over time act as biological signals that stimulate the organism’s allostatic biological stress response network, evoking nonlinear modulatory, self-organizing change. Potential mechanisms include time-dependent sensitization (TDS), a type of adaptive plasticity/metaplasticity involving progressive amplification of host responses, which reverse direction and oscillate at physiological limits. To mobilize hormesis and TDS, the remedy must be appraised as a salient, but low level, novel threat, stressor, or homeostatic disruption for the whole organism. Silica nanoparticles adsorb remedy source and amplify effects. Properly-timed remedy dosing elicits disease-primed compensatory reversal in direction of maladaptive dynamics of the allostatic network, thus promoting resilience and recovery from disease.

Summary

Homeopathic remedies are proposed as source nanoparticles that mobilize hormesis and time-dependent sensitization via non-pharmacological effects on specific biological adaptive and amplification mechanisms. The nanoparticle nature of remedies would distinguish them from conventional bulk drugs in structure, morphology, and functional properties. Outcomes would depend upon the ability of the organism to respond to the remedy as a novel stressor or heterotypic biological threat, initiating reversals of cumulative, cross-adapted biological maladaptations underlying disease in the allostatic stress response network. Systemic resilience would improve. This model provides a foundation for theory-driven research on the role of nanomaterials in living systems, mechanisms of homeopathic remedy actions and translational uses in nanomedicine.———————————————————————————————-
The MODEL proposed by the authors has TWO parts. First part explains what are the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of potentized drugs: “Research indicates that homeopathic remedies contain measurable source and silica nanoparticles heterogeneously dispersed in colloidal solution”. Second part suggest a BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM by which these active principles act up on the organism: “Homeopathic remediesact by modulating biological function of the allostatic stress response network, evoke biphasic actions on living systems via organism-dependent adaptive and endogenously amplified effects, improve systemic resilience.”

Second part of this MODEL becomes relevant for a discussion only after first part is proved right.

It is made clear that the authors proposes a model for biological mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics, on the basis of the assumption that “homeopathic remedies contain measurable source and silica nanoparticles heterogeneously dispersed in colloidal solution”, as ‘indicated’ by ‘researches’. It is the foundation of this MODEL.
References given as authority for this assumption are:

1. Bhattacharyya SS, Mandal SK, Biswas R, Paul S, Pathak S, Boujedaini N, Belon P, Khuda-Bukhsh AR: In vitro studies demonstrate anticancer activity of an alkaloid of the plant Gelsemium sempervirens. Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 2008, 233(12):1591-1601. OpenURL

2. Chikramane PS, Suresh AK, Bellare JR, Kane SG: Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective. Homeopathy 2010, 99(4):231-242. OpenURL

3. Upadhyay RP, Nayak C: Homeopathy emerging as nanomedicine. International Journal of High Dilution Research 2011, 10(37):299-310. OpenURL

4. Ives JA, Moffett JR, Arun P, Lam D, Todorov TI, Brothers AB, Anick DJ, Centeno J, Namboodiri MA, Jonas WB: Enzyme stabilization by glass-derived silicates in glass-exposed aqueous solutions. Homeopathy 2010, 99(1):15-24. OpenURL

REF-1 has nothing to do with ‘nanoparticle’ theory. Study was regarding “anticancer activity of an alkaloid of the plant Gelsemium sempervirens”.

REF- 3 is an article based on the ‘research’ of IIT-B team, and only a repetition. It provides nothing new to support the propositions of authors.

REF- 4 is a ‘study’ on ‘enzyme stabilization by glass-derived silicates in glass-exposed aqueous solutions’ . It is not clear how it becomes relevant as a reference in present context. If they expected it to ‘prove’ ‘silicea’ theory, they will have to explain why IIT-B research did not detect presence of “silicea nanoparticles” in the samples they examined.

It is the REF-2 that matter here. It is a paper published by IIT-B scientists, the real ‘research’ that for the first time claims to have detected the presence of ‘nanoparticles’ in potentezed homeopathic drugs. But, if you read that paper carefully, they no where said about “measurable source and silica nanoparticles heterogeneously dispersed in colloidal solution”, but only says they detected “traces of nanaoparticles of ‘metallic elements’ only, ‘floating in the upper layers’ of the solution”. “TRACES FLOATING IN UPPER LAYERS” is different from “measurable source and silica nanoparticles heterogeneously dispersed in colloidal solution”. IIT scientists do not make any reference detection of “SILICEA NANOPARTICLES”. They detected only ‘nanoparticles of metallic elements’, that too not as “heterogenously dispersed”, but as “traces floating in upper layers only”. Obviously, the reference provided does not corroborate the claims of present authors.

If SILICA nanoparticles, ‘heterogenously dispersed’ along with ‘source materials’ were the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of homeopathic drugs, why IIT scientists could not detect any SILICEA nanoparticles in the samples they experimented? They only talks about ‘traces of nanoparticles of source elements’ only, ‘floating in top 1%layer”. Some body have to explain this point before building MODELS based on this nanoparticle theory.

Reports regarding IIT-B research says, “in a study done as part of project work of a ‘chemical engineering’ ‘student’ for his doctorate theses, they ‘bought some samples of medicated globules of homeopathic potencies of some ‘metal elements’ from neighboring shops’, and prepared ‘high dilutions from these globules’. When examined under high resolution electron microscope, they could detect ‘traces’ of ‘nanoparticles of metallic elements floating on the top 1% of the solution’. They also found that all potencies from 6c to 200cthey examined contain nanoparticles of same quantity and shape. They claim to have proved “all dilutions are only apparent and not real in terms of the concentrations of the starting raw materials.”

Can anybody with rational mind set make MODELS of homeopathic drug actions based on the findings of such a ‘research’?

JAYESH BELLARE, one of the authors of IIT study, said: “Our paper showed that certain highly diluted homeopathic remedies made from metals still contain measurable amounts of the starting material, even at extreme dilutions of 1 part in 10 raised to 400 (200C),’’ “The hypothesis is that nanobubbles form on the surface of the highly diluted mixtures and float to the surface, retaining the original potency.” “The hypothesis is that a nanoparticle-nanobubble rises to the surface of the diluted solution; it is this 1% of the top layer that is collected and further diluted. So, the concentration remains”. ” All dilutions are only apparent and not real in terms of the concentrations of the starting raw materials.”

Can you imagine why the IIT team conducted their experiments using only potencies of ‘elemental metals’? Could they detect any nanoparticles of ‘alkaloids’ or ‘hormones’ contained in ‘parent drugs’ in any of the complex drug substances of vegetable or animal origin, other than potencies of ‘elemental metals’ such as gold, copper and iron? What does it mean?

Only ‘elemental’ drugs and simple minerals can be expected to be converted into nanoparticles by process of trituration. Hence, nanoparticles of complex molecules of complex drugs can never be detected. No body can prepare nanoparticles of complex molecules such as atropine or strychnine by homeopathic potentization process. I think the IIT team was very clever to conduct their experiments with ‘metallic elements’ only.

Remember, ‘metallic elements’ are triturated before subjecting to the subsequent process of serial dilutionss and succussions. During this violent ‘rubbing’ of triturating, some metal ions may be converted into ‘nanoparticles’. If the higher potencies were not prepared exactly as prescribed, some of these nanoparticles may remain in traces in ‘higher’ potencies. The IIT team actually may have detected these remnants of nanoparticles ‘floating’ in upper layers of solutions. This finding by no way proves that these nanopartcles are the real active principles of homeopathic high potency drugs. The presence of traces of nanoparticles in high potency solutions only shows that the samples they ‘bought from neighboring shops ‘were not perfectly potentized, or they may be contaminated.

Do you subscribe to their reported observation that only “top layer” is therapeutically effective, since it is only there the nano particles are ‘floating”? What will happen if we remove not only ‘top layers’, but whole upper half from a bottle of potentized medicines? Do you think the remaining part will not be effective therapeutically? If the ‘nano particles’ are only in ‘traces’, and they ‘float’ on top layers of liquid, it is obvious that these nano particles are not the real active principles of potentized drugs. In order to explain our every day experience that every single drop of drug is powerful, the whole drug should be uniformly saturated with this nanoparticles, and if that were the case, we cannot say it is in trace amounts. Kindly think over.

Note their observation: “all of the nanoparticles levitate to the surface and are accommodated as a monolayer at the top”. If their reported hypothesis that “nanoparticle-nanobubble rises to the surface of the diluted solution, and it is this 1% of the top layer” that contains “nano particles” of element which is the active factors is accepted, how would you explain the everyday experiences of homeopaths that even the last drop of our medicines are equally powerful? Do homeopaths utilize only “only 1% of top layer” for therapeutic application in their daily practice? Do they throw away remaining parts of their stock? Is not this hypothesis at least in this aspect utterly meaning less?

Why can’t we examine IIT ‘research’ from another angle? The report says that the samples for study were products of some Indian manufacturers, purchased from ‘neighboring shops’. What if the samples were not actually potentized to the level labeled on them, so as to get rid of traces of drug particles? Do you think it is correct on the part of such a reputed research house to purchase samples from open market for conducting such a sensitive experiment? They should have first devised some way to ensure the quality and potency of samples.

IIT-B paper says: “Despite large differences in the degree of dilution from 6c to 200c, there were no major differences in the nature of the particles(shape and size) of the starting material and their absolute concentrations (in pg/ml).”

What does this observation show? If “from 6cto 200c, there were no major differences in the nature of the particles (shapeand size) of the starting material and their absolute concentrations”, it leadsto some serious doubts whether the samples used were really genuine. Ifdilutions were prepared in prescribed manner, 6c and 200c will never contain’same’ quantity and concentrations of starting material. This observation lacks logic. Over all, there are many gray areas in this study,which should be seriously considered by homeopaths.

We all know, ‘trace’ particles of ‘metal elements’ will be present in any sample of water we obtain from nature. They should have ensured that there is no ‘traces’ of ‘metal elements’ in control dilutions, before publishing this report. Instead of ‘naturally occuring’ minerals, that may be present in any natural diluents, somebody should have conducted the study using potencies of complex drug substances, and verified whether ‘nanparticle theory’ hold good for them also, before making ‘models’ on the basis of such an assumption.

Only because somebody could detect the presence of some ’traces’ of ‘nanoparticles’ of original ‘metal elements’ floating on the surface of a ‘particular sample’ of homeopathic drug purchased from market, is it prudent to declare that these ‘traces’ are the active principles of homeopathic drugs, and that they have ‘shown the way homeopathy works’? This is a very hasty and unwise conclusion. One has to take into consideration a lot of other variables and factors before makingsuch a tall claims. What if that particular ‘sample’ was not properly potentized as per strict homeopathic guidelines? What if those drugs were not really ‘high’ potencies, as the labels indicated? What if those ‘traces’ of ‘elemental particles’ came from the water they used for making ‘dilutions’ from ‘medicated pills’ they purchased from ‘shop’? There are a lot of such possibilities.
Here is is an excellent RESEARCH work, even though I do not agree with their interpretations and conclusions. Had it been interpreted correctly, this work would have contributed a lot in the MIT concepts. I feel really sorry for wrong interpretations of this great research work on homeopathy.

I could locate this very important research work ”Homeopathy emerging as nanomedicine” by Rajendra Prakash Upadhyay (Department of Bio-chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi, New Delhi, Indi a), Chaturbhuja Nayak (Central Council for Research in Homeopathy, New Delhi, India ) Published in Int J High Dilution Res 2011; 10(37): 299-310. I am quoting the ABSTRACT of their work here:
————————————————————————————–
ABSTRACT

Background: Homeopathy is a time-tested two-century old empirical system of healing. Homeopathic medicines are prepared through a characteristic process known as potentization, where serial dilutions are performed with strong strokes at each step of dilution. Homeopathy is controversial because most medicines do not contain one single molecule of the corresponding starting-substance.

Aim: To investigate a possible nanoscience mechanism of action of homeopathic medicines.

Methodology: Ultra-pure samples were prepared and were examined under scanning (SEM) and transmission electron microscope (TEM) along with selected area nanodiffraction (SAD) and energy-dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX). Also trace element analysis (TEA) for silicon was performed.
Results: Homeopathic medicines showed not to be „nothing‟, but exhibited nanoparticles and conglomerates of them, which had crystalline nature and were rich in silicon.

Conclusions: During the violent strokes involved in potentization, information arising from the serially diluted starting-substance might be encrypted by epitaxy on silicon-rich crystalline nanoparticles present in the resulting homeopathic medicine. The „size‟ of the information encrypted on nanoparticles might vary together with the degree of dilution. As homeopathic medicines exhibit healing effects, these nanoparticles along with the interfacial water on their surface might carry this information – which biological systems are able to identify – to the target. As various forms of silica are known to interact with proteins and cells of the immune system, homeopathy might represent a nanomedicine system. Possible confirmation, however, requires further research in materials and interfacial water.
—————————————————————————————–
It is an excellent work, even though I do not agree with their interpretations and conclusions. Had it been interpreted correctly, this work would have contributed a lot in the MIT concepts.

SEE THE FINAL DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS OF research paper by Rajendra Prakash Upadhyay and Chaturbhuja Nayak:

“Discussions: The dose of homeopathic medicine a patient takes may contain few (or zero) molecules/atoms of the starting-substance, but this fact alone does not make homeopathic medicines a variety of nanomedicines [12]. Toumey [12] compared homeopathic to nanomedicines, and quoting the example of nanomedicine Aurimune®, argued that nanomedicines differ from homeopathic medicines. The major difference is the use of a known amount of medicine in case of nanomedicines compared to homeopathic medicines. In addition, gold nanoparticles in nanomedicine Aurimune® act as the carriers of the active agent to the target.

In the case of homeopathic medicines, crystalline silica (or silicon) nanoparticles (along with other trace elements leaching from the glass wall of the vial) with interfacial water on their surface may acquire the structural information of the starting-substance during the process of potentization. In medium and high potencies, which are commonly used in clinical practice, the presence of starting-source is likely to be zero but it is “immaterial”. It may be argued that what matters here is the “size” of the possible encrypted information, perhaps with the electromagnetic signature of the starting-substance. Such “size” might derive from the dilution level of the homeopathic medicine, since homeopathic medicines in different potencies exhibit different effects and properties. Furthermore, silica (or silicon) nanoparticles might also act as carriers of information. Such nanocarriers might convey the information of the starting-substance – which biological systems are able to identify – to the target, which the starting-substance molecules in themselves are not able to reach. The target, however, is unlikely to be local because homeopathy is rated a holistic therapy assumed to work by means of the immune system. It is worth to remark that various forms of silica are known to interact with proteins and cells of the immune system [13].

As homeopathic medicines might have both the “size” of the information of the diluted away starting-substance and the carriers needed to convey this information – which biological systems are able to identify – to the target, they may qualify as nanomedicines. Consequently, the nature, composition and surface features of the crystalline material (along with interfacial water) present in homeopathic medicines compared to controls have paramount importance. These must be further investigated, while keeping an eye also on possible electromagnetic emission. This investigation requires suitable developments in the fields of materials and interfacial water.

Conclusions: Three homeopathic medicines very frequently used in clinical practice were found not to be “nothing”, but exhibited high nanoparticle contents. Such nanoparticles were rich in silicon and had crystalline nature. During the strong strokes of potentization, the nanoparticles might acquire the information of the diluted away starting-source encrypted on them by means of epitaxy. As various forms of silica are known to interact with proteins and cells of the immune system, these nanoparticles (along with the interfacial water on their surface) might also act as carriers of this information to the target. The “size” of information might be related with the dilution degree of medicines. Under such possible conditions, homeopathy qualifies as a nanomedicine system not requiring high technology. For confirmation and further elaboration purposes, new research in materials and interfacial water are required”

The authors say : “In the case of homeopathic medicines, crystalline silica (or silicon) nanoparticles (along with other trace elements leaching from the glass wall of the vial) with interfacial water on their surface may acquire the structural information of the starting-substance during the process of potentization”. This is a very important observation. But they failed to explain this ‘acquiring’ of information in terms of molecular imprinting. Could they interpret this phenmenon using the concept of molecular imprinting, and explain how these molecular imprints act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules, the picture would have been entirely different. Only ‘molecular imprinting’ can explain the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure in a way fitting to the paradigms of mdern biochemistry and ‘ligand-target’ interactions.

In the absence of idea of molecular imprinting, they try to utilize the concept of “possible encrypted information, perhaps with the electromagnetic signature of the starting-substance”, which could lead to hijacking of this valuable research work by energy medicine theorists who propagate pseudoscience. The statement “the target, however, is unlikely to be local because homeopathy is rated a holistic therapy assumed to work by means of the immune system” is pregnant with such possibilities. ‘Targets are unlikely to be local’, but ‘holistic’ is a statement that destroys the scientific credibility of this great work. Concept of ‘holistic target’ instead of ‘local’ or molecular targets is nothing but an attempt to satisfy ‘vital force’ theory. The statement “must be further investigated, while keeping an eye also on possible electromagnetic emission” is also a departure from genuine scientific interpretations of this research. Explaining mechanism of drug actions in terms of ‘electromagnetic emissions’ and ‘resonance’ is a subject very dear to ‘energy medicine’ homeopaths, but it contradicts existing scientific concepts regarding biological mechanism of cure.

The conclusion that “During the strong strokes of potentization, the nanoparticles might acquire the information of the diluted away starting-source encrypted on them by means of epitaxy” shows they have no slightest inclination of molecular imprinting.

Epitaxy actually refers to the deposition of a crystalline overlayer on a crystalline substrate, where the overlayer is in registry with the substrate. In other words, there must be one or more preferred orientations of the overlayer with respect to the substrate for this to be termed epitaxial growth. The overlayer is called an epitaxial film or epitaxial layer. The term epitaxy comes from the Greek roots epi, meaning “above”, and taxis, meaning “in ordered manner”. It can be translated “to arrange upon”. For most technological applications, it is desired that the deposited material form a crystalline overlayer that has one well-defined orientation with respect to the substrate crystal structure.

By explaining potentization in terms of ‘epitaxy’ instead of ‘molecular imprinting’, the authors obviously misinterprets their scientific observations. In epitaxy, it is drug molecules that are carried- not ‘information” of drug molecules. Information can be carried in the absence of drug molecules only by molecular imprinting. Epitaxy is about carrying a layer of drug molecules -not information- on a carrier matrix, which cannot happen in high dilutions.

I request the authors to re-interpret their observations in the light of ‘molecular imprinting’, which would make their work a great historical milestone in the scientific understanding of homeopathy

———————————————————————————-

Regarding the SILICA theory. Do the SILICA particles come from the ‘glass vials’, or from contamination of water or alcohol? What if the potentization was done using some polymer-based vials other than glass? Did anybody conduct such an experiment before proposing the SILICA theory? According to the MODEL proposed by the present authors, homeopathic drugs will be impotent in the absence of SILICA particles in them!

If all homeopathic drugs contain SILICA particles, and if they are part of ACTIVE principles of those drugs, what about our homeopathic SILICA? If all drugs contain SILICA nanoparticles, why should we make separate SILICA for homeopathic drug? Any homeopathic drug will act as SILICA, since they contain SILICA nanoparticles? If all homeopathic drugs contain SILICA nanoparticles, how can we claim our drugs are safe? We all know, SILICA can interact with biological molecules and produce molecular errors, which is evident from the symptomatology of SILICA recorded in our materia medica works!

Since the basic theory of NANOPARTICLES as the ACTIVE factors of potentized drugs is by itself untenable and implausible, a MODEL based on that ‘theory’ has no any value at all. Foundation itself is very flimsy, on which the authors are trying to erect a ‘skyscraper’. Propositions made by the authors that homeopathic drugs ACT by “modulating biological function of the allostatic stress response network”, “evoke biphasic actions on living systems via organism-dependent adaptive and endogenously amplified effects” and “improve systemic resilience”, are not based on any RESEARCH or observations, but only imaginations and speculations of wildest creativity.

—————————————————————————————

LATE COMERS TO MY FRIENDS LIST AND DISCUSSION FORUMS ARE REQUESTED TO READ MY FOLLOWING COMPILATIONS OF FACEBOOK UPDATES TO GET A PRELIMINARY IDEA OF WHAT IS GOING ON HERE:

VOLUME- I: http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/selected-facebook-updates/

VOLUME- II:
http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/volume-ii-compilation-of-my-selected-facebook-updates/

VOLUME- III:
http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/05/12/volume-three/

VOLUME- IV:
http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/06/04/selected-facebook-updates-volume-four/

VOLUME V: http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/10/09/volume-v-selected-facebook-updates/

I see facebook not as a place of fun or leisure. I consider it as a serious and effective WORK PLACE. I make hundreds of posts and comments daily on my facebook timeline, discussion groups, pages as well as on twitter, as part of my endeavor to evolve and promote MIT concepts of scientific homeopathy. My friends, who come on face book only occasionally, and those who are able to spend very limited time here, may miss most of my updates. There are also many late comers in my growing friends list. There may be also some people willing to read some of my posts again and again. In order to ensure my works are secured for future use, and to make them easily available for everybody any time, I regularly compile my face book posts and updates into large volumes. So far, FIVE volumes have been compiled.

———————————————————————————

‘Thermo-Luminance Studies Of Ultra-high Dilutions’ Provides Proof For ‘Molecular Imprinting’:

“Potentized medicines contain supra-molecular clusters of water/ethyl alcohol, different from control medium, which will be evident from spectroscopic studies.”

This was one of my predictions proposed to be verified, as part of proving the concept of ‘molecular imprinting’ according to scientific methods.

I think the remarkable work discussed below, done by Louis Rey on thermo-luminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride, and published in December 2002, provides crucial support as a very strong proof for this very important prediction.

As per the reported work, ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride (10−30g cm−3) have been irradiated by X- and gamma rays at 77 K, then progressively re-warmed to room temperature. During that phase, their thermo-luminescence has been studied and it was found that, despite their dilution beyond the Avogadro number, the emitted light was specific of the original salts dissolved initially.

This wonderful observation that high dilutions of salts very much above avogadro number retains the specific thermo-luminance patterns reminding of of original salts seems to be very crucial. This phenomenon could be well explained only in terms of supramolecular nanostructures of water carrying the imprints of exact ‘conformations’ of ‘individual’ molecules of salts, as explained by MIT concepts.

Thermo-luminance studies have been developed and utilized so far as a “tool to study the structure of solids, mainly ordered crystals”. In the present study, the researchers successfully utilized it in ultra-high aqueous dilutions, which demonstrates the short range ‘crystalline’ character of water as well as high dilution preparations.

Actually, the researchers took up this work to ‘challenge’ the ‘water memory’ theory, but proved it otherwise. They confess in their report: “we thought that it would be of interest to challenge the theory according which preexistent ‘structures’ in the original liquid, developed around some added chemicals, could survive a great number of successive dilutions when done under vigorous mechanical stirring”.

Another important point to be noted is that the researchers did not use ‘commercial samples’ as most ‘researches’ do, but prepared themselves 15c dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride under the guidance of boiron labs. This fact provides more scientific credence to this study.

The study “showed quite clearly that the initial addition of a solute (NaCl and LiCl) in the original D2O leaves a permanent effect even when, by successive dilutions made under strong vibration, all traces of solute have disappeared.” The results were reproduced in several repeated experiments, “beyond any ambiguity”.

It should be specifically pointed out, researchers had no any idea of Molecular Imprinting. They propose the following hypothesis for explaining their observation:

“As a working hypothesis, we propose that this phenomenon results from a marked structural change in the hydrogen bond network initiated at the onset by the presence of the dissolved ions and maintained in the course of the dilution process, probably thanks to the successive vigorous mechanical stirrings.”

See, this hypothesis comes very close to the concept of Molecular Imprinting!

Thermally stimulated luminescence—often called thermo-luminescence—is a well known phenomenon amongst the thermally stimulated processes (thermally stimulated conductivity—thermally stimulated electron emission—thermogravimetry—differential thermal analysis and differential scanning calorimetry, etc.). Its theory and applications have been fully developed inter alia by McKeever, Chen and Visocekas and it proved to be a most interesting tool to study the structure of solids, mainly ordered crystals. To that end, the studied material is “activated” at low-temperature, usually by radiant energy (UV, X-rays, gamma rays, electron beams, or neutrons) which most generally creates electrons–holes pairs which become separately “trapped” at different energy levels. Then, when the irradiated material is warmed up, the heating serves as a trigger to release the initially accumulated energy and the trapped electrons and holes move and recombine. A characteristic glow is emitted most often under the shape of different successive peaks according to the depths of the initial traps. As a general rule this phenomenon is observed in ordered crystals though it can be equally seen in disordered materials such as glasses. In that mechanism, imperfections in the lattice play a major role and are considered to be the place where luminescent centres appear. Thus, thermoluminescence is a good tool to study these imperfections and understand how they appear in the crystal.

This is exactly along those lines that the researchers carried our first investigations, starting, this time, from liquids which were turned into stable solids by low-temperature cooling.

Working essentially with water—mainly deuterium oxide—they have shown that the thermoluminescent glow of irradiated hexagonal ice consisted in two major peak areas—Peak 1 near 120 K and Peak 2 near 166 K having well-defined emission spectra the D2O samples giving a much higher signal than the H2O ones.

In both cases, un-irradiated samples gave no signals whatsoever. For both D2O and H2O it was shown that the relative intensity of the thermoluminescence glow was a function of the irradiation dose and, that at least for Peak 2, it did show a maximum between 1 and 10 kGy .

As a first hypothesis on the nature of the emission itself it has been suggested by Teixeira that Peak 2 could be connected to the hydrogen-bond network within the ice which, in turn, could result from the structure of the original liquid sample, whilst Peak 1 looked to be closely related to the molecule. This strengthens the views on the involvement of hydrogen bonds in this mechanism.

To develop this concept further, the researchers did select to study the effect of lithium chloride on the thermoluminescence of irradiated D2O ice since this particular substance is known to suppress hydrogen bonds. The result, indeed, is spectacular and, at the relatively low concentration of 0:1M, Peak 2 is totally erased whereas the basic emission of Peak 1 remains almost unchanged.

At that point the researchers thought that it would be of interest to challenge the theory according which pre-existent “structures” in the original liquid, developed around some added chemicals, could survive a great number of successive dilutions when done under vigorous mechanical stirring.

To that end they prepared, courtesy of the BOIRON LABORATORIES, ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride by successive dilutions to the hundredths, all done under vigorous mechanical stirring (initially 1 g in 100 cm3, then 1 cm3 of this solution in 99 cm3 of pure D2O … and so on) until they reached— theoretically—at the 15th dilution, a “concentration” of10−30 g cm−3. A reference sample of D2O alone was also prepared according to this technique, still keeping vigorous agitation (150 strokes=7:5 s at each successive “dilution” step).

They did proceed, then, to the “activation” of these materials by irradiation according the following experimental protocol.

One cubic centimeter of each solution is placed in aluminium test cavities of 20 mm diameter and 2 mm depth and frozen to −20◦C on a cold metallic block. The frozen systems are kept 24 h at −20◦C to achieve stability into their crystallization patternand they are immersed into liquid nitrogen and kept at −196◦C for 24 h.

In a first set of experiments the frozen ice disks are irradiated at 77 K with 100 kV X-rays to achieve a dose of 0:4 kGy (30 min). Previous determinations were done to check that the disks having identical positions in the field did receive the same dose (dosimetry has been done using Harwell, FWT, and alanine dosimeters).

After irradiation, all the “activated” samples are transferred into a liquid nitrogen container and kept, there, for a week-time, to even out whatever small differences could exist between them.

Finally, all samples are placed in the thermoluminescence equipment and their respective glow recorded—with both a photo-multiplier and a CCD camera connected to a spectrograph—in the course of rewarming (3=min) between 77 and 13 K, as has been done in our previous published experiments.

Much to their surprise, the experimental results do show—without any ambiguity— that for an X-ray dose of 0:4 kGy the thermoluminescence glows of the three systems were substantially different . These findings did prove to be reproducible in the course of many different identical experiments.

To compare the curves between them the researchers normalized the emitted light readings taking Peak 1 as the reference. In doing so, we obtain for Peak 2 the different curves presented which show quite clearly that the initial addition of a solute (NaCl and LiCl) in the original D2O leaves a permanent effect even when, by successive dilutions made under strong vibration, all traces of solute have disappeared. More remarkable were the fact that, by far, lithium chloride demonstrates a stronger hydrogen bond suppressing “ghost” effect which could be related to the larger size of the lithium ion.

A second set of experiments done with gamma rays (courtesy of CELESTIN Reactor, COGEMA, Marcoule), at a higher dose (19 kGy) did confirm these findings

It appears, therefore, that the structural state of a solution made in D2O can be modified by the addition of selected solutes like LiCl and NaCl. This modification remains even when the initial molecules have disappeared and the effect is the same at different irradiation doses (0.4 –19 kGy) and for different radiant sources (X-rays, gamma rays). As a working hypothesis, the researchers propose that this phenomenon results from a marked structural change in the hydrogen bond network initiated at the onset by the presence of the dissolved ions and maintained in the course of the dilution process, probably thanks to the successive vigorous mechanical stirrings.

Researchers had no any idea of Molecular Imprinting. They proposes the following hypothesis for explaining their observation:

“As a working hypothesis, we propose that this phenomenon results from a marked structural change in the hydrogen bond network initiated at the onset by the presence of the dissolved ions and maintained in the course of the dilution process, probably thanks to the successive vigorous mechanical stirrings.”

See, this hypothesis comes very close to the concept of Molecular Imprinting!

If we fail to explain the observations of this monumental research in terms of Molecular Imprinting, there remains the danger that it will be hijacked by ‘energy medicine’ theoreticians, by interpreting in terms of ‘essence of drugs’, ‘information’, ‘vibrations’ and the like. Actually, Jan Scholten has already done that exercise, by saying ‘information’ of drugs imprinted in water are the cause of thermoluminence observed by the researchers. Then he very cleverly fits this thermoluminence into his energy medicine frame work of ‘bioluminence’, vibrations, vital force, resonance and other pseudoscientific theories.

To be specific, precise and fitting to modern scientific knowledge system and its accepted paradigms, it is better to say ‘molecular imprints’ of original drug molecules are the cause of similarity of thermoluminence the researchers could observe. Such an explanation will clearly demonstrate that we are talking about the ‘complementary’ shape of drug molecules imprinted into nanostructures of water, which produce therapeutic effects by acting as ‘artificial binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules.

————————————————————————————

All the published scientific studies regarding PHYSICAL properties of potentized homeopathic drugs have shown that the SPECTRA of light REFLECTED by them have FREQUENCIES different from that we obtain from unpotentized water-ethyl alcohol mixture.

Based on these reported observations of changed ‘frequencies’ homeopathic ‘theoreticians’and ‘intellectuals’ make a lot of fancifull theories about homeopathy. They believe and try to make others believe that these observations have proved their ‘energy medicine’ theories. According to them, potentized drugs produce cures by acting on ‘vital force’ by ‘resonance of frequencies’. Vital force of each individual vibrates in specific frequencies. Disease is caused by derangement of these vibrations. Potentized ‘similimum’ having most similar vibrations can rectify the derangement of vibrations of vital force through ‘fesonance’, thereby restoring the health.

Where as some ‘theoreticians’ say the ‘vibrations’ of potentized drugs are due to ‘electromagnetic radiations’, some others say it is ‘radioactivity’. Most of them use the terms ‘radioactivity’ and ‘electromagnetic radiations’ as interchangeable equivalents, displaying their utter ignorance regarding the topics they are talking about.

Actually, observations of difference in spectra of light reflected by potentized drugs and unpotentized water-alcohol mixture has to be understood and interpreted with a rational and scientific perspective. All these studies were done using different techniques of SPECTROSCOPY, which is the most accurate and reliable method of studying the molecular level and atomic level structure and conformation of matter. Even though there are different techniques, instruments and methods currently employed in spectrometry, basically it is all about sending LIGHT RAYS of known frequency into the sample to be probed, and then studying the REFLECTED or TANSMITTED rays by measuring the change in their frequencies. Analyzing the CHANGES happened in the frequencies of light SPECTRA, scientists reach conclusions about the particle level structure and organization.

Not only potentized drugs, any MATERIAL particle in this universe will show changes in reflected or transmitted STECTRA OF LIGHT, when they are subjected to spectroscopic studies.

Difference in spectra of light reflected from potentized drugs and unpotentized water-alcohol medium proves that certain changes occur in the supra-molecular arrangement of water-ethyl molecules during potentization. Such an observation no way proves potentized drug act as medicinal agents using RESONANCE OF FREQUENCIES. Supra- molecular changes in potentizing medium happening during potentization should be understood in terms of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING, which will help us in explaining biological mechanism of high dilution therapeutics and ‘similia similibus curentur’ in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge system.

Theorizations of ‘energy medicine’ proponents based on weired and ‘hijacked’ interpretations of published scientific studies only demonstrates their ignorance regarding principles and methods of modern science.

I see facebook not as a place of fun or leisure. I consider it as a serious and effective WORK PLACE. I make hundreds of posts and comments daily on my facebook timeline, discussion groups, pages as well as on twitter, as part of my endeavor to evolve and promote MIT concepts of scientific homeopathy. My friends, who come on face book only occasionally, and those who are able to spend very limited time here, may miss most of my updates. There are also many late comers in my growing friends list. There may be also some people willing to read some of my posts again and again. In order to ensure my works are secured for future use, and to make them easily available for everybody any time, I regularly compile my face book posts and updates into large volumes. So far, EIGHT  volumes have been compiled.

VOLUME- I: http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/selected-facebook-updates/

VOLUME- II: http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/volume-ii-compilation-of-my-selected-facebook-updates/

VOLUME- III: http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/05/12/volume-three/

VOLUME- IV: http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/06/04/selected-facebook-updates-volume-four/

VOLUME V: http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/10/09/volume-v-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

VOLUME VI: http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/10/11/volume-vi-selected-facebook-updates/

VOLUME VII: http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/10/24/volume-vii-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

VOLUME VIII: http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/12/16/volume-viii-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM INVOLVED IN ‘SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR’, AS ENVISAGED BY THE CONCEPTS OF MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS COULD BE SCHEMATICALLY EXPLAINED AS FOLLOWS:

Let BIOLOGICAL MOLECULES be represented by ‘M’, and PATHOGENIC MOLECULES by D.

Pathogenic molecule D bind to biological molecule M to form a pathological molecular complex MD. MD represents a pathological molecular error or DISEASE.

Therapeutic process involves with relieving of M from the inhibitions caused by D.

Let crude drug molecules be represented by D1. If D1 can produce symptoms in healthy organism similar to pathological symptoms produced by D, that means D and D1 has similar molecular conformation, so that they could bind to same biological molecules and create similar molecular errors in the organism.

We say D1 is similimum to D, which caused the disease MD.

Molecular imprints of D1 may be represented by ‘d’, with a 3D configuration complementary to D1.

If D1 is siimilimum to D, molecular imprints ‘d’ will be having strong complementary towards D also. That means, ‘d’ can act as ‘artificial binding site’ for D, and selectively bind to it.

When applied as a therapeutic agent, ‘d’ can specifically bind to D of the MD (pathological complex) due to comparatively stronger affinity to form Dd (pathogenic molecule-molecular imprint complex) , thereby relieving M from pathological molecular blocks.

TO SUM UP:

M (biological molecule) +D (pathogenic molecule) > MD (Pathology).

If D1 (drug molecule) is similimum to D (pathogenic molecule), and ‘d’ is ‘molecular imprint’ of D1 (drug molecule),

‘d’ (molecular imprint) will be complementary to D1 (drug molecule) as well as to D (pathogenic molecule).

When ‘d'(molecular imprint) is applied as therapeutic agent,

MD (pathological molecular complex) +d (molecular imprint)> M (free biological molecule) +Dd(pathogenic molecule-molecular imprint complex).

M (biological molecule) is free now (CURE)

Dd ((pathogenic molecule-molecular imprint complex) is now bio-degraded or eliminated from the system

Nobody can make a scientific theory without first proposing a SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS.

Homeopathic theoreticians from hahnemann till date try to explain the ‘modus operandi’ of potentized homeopathic medicines using one or other ‘concepts’ available or evolved by them, and as such, homeopathy still belongs to a class of ‘unverified science’. But all those concepts were not even qualified to be called SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS.

‘Hypothesis’ has a well-defined meaning in scientific methodology. 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 hypothesis is 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’.

Such a working hypothesis, over and above the aforesaid qualifications, should also be immediately useful to the practitioner, because homeopathy is a therapeutic art of practical implications. Besides lending the essential scientific credibility to the homeopathic paradigm, any hypothesis we propose should try to meet some practical utility criteria as a minimum requirement.

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.

Please remember, homeopathy so far lacks something that could at least be legitimately called ‘a scientific working hypothesis’. We are learning, teaching, practicing and boasting about some ‘theories’ that are not even ‘hypotheses’ in its scientific sense. Yet, we dare to declare that homeopathy is ‘ultimate science’! We dare to declare that ‘hypotheses are unnecessary’!

For the first time in the history of homeopathy, MIT proposes some concepts that could be presented as a legitimate candidate to be called a ‘scientific working hypothesis’ that could be proved according to scientific methods.

There lies the historical relevance of concepts put forward by MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS, which proposes for the first time a scientifically TESTABLE model for BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM of homeopathic therapeutics, in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge system.

MIT is not to be “followed” or “practiced” in its present state of evolution- It has to be understood, verified and proved.

————————————————————————————————————-

I know very well how to explain MIT and my views. I know very well what are to be criticized in homeopathy and how to criticize them. I criticize unscientific IDEAS propagated in the name of homeopathy and malign this wonderful therapeutic system- not due to any personal rivalry towards any INDIVIDUAL. I criticize unscientific theories as part of propagating SCIENTIFIC HOMEOPATHY. Personally I do not even know these persons whose ideas I criticize- I am not bothered who they are.

If you disagree with me on any point I raised, you can criticize me by explaining the specific points you disagree with. But don’t make it a personal war, and don’t try to advice me how to explain MIT, especially when you are prejudiced against it.

I know what is fair and what is unfair for me. It is my right whether i should “practice facebook or clinic”. I don’t mind if you think I am “practicing facebook”. Some people “practice clinic”. Some people “practice occult”. Some people “practice seminars”. I “practice facebook”!

————————————————————————————–

Fear of ‘suppression of disease’ that may happen from ‘improper’ use of homeopathic drugs is the most prominent symptom of any ‘classical homeopath’, which indicates severe deficiency of scientific knowledge regarding the biochemistry of life, disease and cure. This ‘phobia’ is ‘inherited’ through generations of homeopaths, from ‘teachers’ to ‘students’, and ‘gurus’ to ‘disciples’. Modern ‘Gurus’ spin fanciful ‘theories of suppressions’, write and sell heavy books on their ‘theories’, and fly around the globe to conduct ‘expensive’ seminars to ‘educate’ the homeopathic community for the sole purpose of saving humanity from grave dangers imposed by homeopathic ‘suppression’.

Those who are severely afflicted with this ‘deficiency syndrome’ will hesitate to prescribe even a single dose of potentized drug to their patient, fearing it may ‘drive in’ the disease from ‘external parts’ to ‘vital’ internal organs if the prescription somehow happens not to be the ‘most appropriate similimum’. They would shudder with fear of dangers of ‘suppression’ if somebody says they have applied some external ointments on eczematous lesion on the skin. According to them, homeopathic drugs are so ‘powerful’ and ‘dangerous’ that an inappropriate or untimely dose of a potentized drug may even kill the patient, or create irreversible disabilities. ‘Better not to prescribe, than prescribing wrongly and causing suppression’.

One of the most fanciful modern theories regarding ‘suppression’ is that constructed by combining ‘Hering laws’ and ‘embryonic layers’.

According to proponents of this theory, genuine cure happens only if the curative process follows the ‘Hering laws of directions of cure’: symptoms should disappear in the reverse chronological order of their appearance in disease, symptoms should travel from internal parts of body to external parts, symptoms should travel from more vital organs to less vital organs, symptoms should travel from ‘upper’ parts of the body to ‘lower’ parts.

As per this theory, any drug effect that does not ‘follow’ these directions cannot be considered ‘curative’, but ‘suppressions’! ‘Guru’ colored this ‘hering laws a little more ‘scientific’, by relating it with his theory of ‘embryonic layers’ of organ development. To give a scientific touch to his theories, he utilized the concept of ‘germ layers’ in embryology. Since ‘embryo’ develops from a three-layered structure having endoderm, mesoderm and ectoderm in its initial stage, disease and cure have to be perceived and treated in in relation with these ‘layers’. According to his reasoning, during embryonic development, organs develop from endoderm to ectoderm, ‘outer’ organs belonging to ‘ectoderm’ are least important, organs belonging to mesoderm are comparatively more important, and ‘inner’ organs belonging to ‘endoderm’ are most ‘vital’ organs of an organism. Disease always ‘travels’ in a reverse order, from ‘external’ layer to ‘inner’ layer, and hence, cure should take place from ‘inner’ organs to ‘outer’ organs. By this way, he relates his theory of embryonic layers with hering laws, thereby creating a ‘scientific’ foundation for his ‘theory of suppressions’. He theorizes that genuine cure should be in a direction from inner layer to outer layer, and if it happens in reverse order, the disease will be ‘suppressed’, which is not at all desirable.

‘Hering laws’ and ‘embryonic layers’ are the foundation of this ‘theory of suppression’.

When we go deeper into the history of homeopathy, it would be clear that there was not any mention of such ‘hering laws’ in the works of even Hering or his contemporaries. Actually, it was the ‘observation’ made by hahnemann that curative process has some ‘order’, but he never called it a law. Hering has mentioned in his earlier works about hahnemann’s ‘four observations regarding order of cure’, but finally in 1875 he wrote only about a single direction of cure: ‘in the reverse direction of disease process’. He never called it or expected to be known as ‘herings laws’. None of his famous contemporaries and close colleagues ever discussed or made 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.

It was ‘KENT’ who later actually called it ‘Herings laws’ and converted these four observations into ‘fundamental laws’ of homeopathic cure. He taught to understand and apply these ‘laws’ in a mechanical way. He taught homeopaths to consider ‘hering laws’ regarding ‘directions of cure’ as one of the ‘fundamental laws’ of homeopathy, similar to ‘similia similibus curentur’.Kentmade homeopaths believe that drug effects that do not agree with these ‘laws’ cannot be considered ‘curative’, and are ‘suppressive’.

Dr. André Saine, D.C., N.D., F.C.A.H, Dean of the Canadian Academy of Homeopathy, who made extensive studies on this topic says:

“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. 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. 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. Again no mention is made of the famous law”

“In 1865, Hering described these observations not as a law but as Hahnemann’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 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 as far as available literature shows. In 1911,Kent, almost arbitrarily, calls the original observations of Hahnemann “Hering’s law”.

Logically, according to the latest observations made by Hering in 1875, he only meant that “all genuine ‘curative processes’ should happen in a direction just reverse to disease processes”.

Over-extending and mechanical application of ‘herings laws’ without understanding their exact premises and scientific meaning may lead to grave errors regarding interpretation of curative processes and drug effects.

This phenomenon could be explained in the light of modern scientific understanding of ‘cascading of pathological molecular inhibitions’ and complex dynamics of ‘bio-molecular feed back mechanisms’.

To understand this explanation, one has to equip himself with at least a working knowledge regarding the concepts of modern biochemistry regarding the bio-molecular inhibitions involved in pathology and therapeutics.

Expect those diseases which are purely due to errors in genetic substances, and those diseases which are due to genuine deficiency of building materials of biological molecules, all other diseases are considered to be caused by ‘molecular inhibitions’. Pathogenic molecules of endogenous or exogenous origin bind to some biological molecules in the organism, causing ‘molecular inhibitions’ which lead to pathological derangement in associated biochemical pathways. These pathogenic molecules may be of infectious, environmental, nutritional, metabolic, drug-induced, miasmatic or any other origin. Derangements in biochemical pathways are expressed through diverse groups of subjective and objective symptoms. This is the fundamental biochemistry of pathology.

Molecular inhibitions happening in a biological molecule due to the binding of a pathogenic molecule initiates a complex process of ‘cascading of molecular errors’ and ‘bio-feedback mechanisms’ in the organism. Errors happening in a particular biochemical pathway leads to errors in another pathway which is dependant on the first pathway for regular supply of metabolites, which further lead to errors in another pathway. This ‘cascading of molecular errors’ happens through successive stages, which is expressed through new subjective and objective symptoms. This ‘cascading’ is behind what we call ‘advancing of disease’ into new systems and organs, exhibiting ever new groups of associated symptoms. For an observer, this cascading appears in the form of ‘traveling of disease’ from one system into another. Along with these ‘cascading’ of molecular errors, there happens a series of activation and shutting down of complex ‘bio-molecular feedback’ mechanisms also. The phenomenon of ‘advancing of diseases’ should be studied in this scientific perspective of modern biochemistry.

When a molecular inhibition happens in some biological molecule ‘A’ due to binding of a pathogenic molecule ‘a’, it actually stops or decreases some essential molecular conversions that are essential part of a complex biochemical pathway P. If ‘G’ is the normal ligand of ‘A’, and ‘g’ is the product of biochemical interaction involving ‘A’, the result of this molecular inhibition is that ‘G’ accumulates on one side, and ‘g’ is not available for the next stage of molecular processes. Accumulating ‘P’ may induce a feedback mechanism leading to reduction or stoppage its production itself, or may move to other parts of organism and bind to unwanted molecular targets, initiation a new stream of pathological derangement.

Obviously, ‘traveling’ of disease or ‘advancing’ of disease happens through cascading of molecular errors in various biochemical pathways. Some disease processes may ‘travel’ from ‘external’ to internal organs, some from ‘lower parts’ to upper parts, some from ‘less vital’ parts to ‘more vital’ parts. All these ‘traveling’ is basically decided by the involved biochemical pathways. It would be wrong to generalize these observations in such a way that ‘all diseases travel from exterior to interior, lower parts to higher parts, and less vital to more vital parts’. It is also wrong to generalize in such a way that ‘curative process always travel from interior to exterior, above downwards, and from vital to less vital parts’. This is mechanical understanding and application of hering’s observations.

Actually, curative processes happens in a direction opposite to the direction of disease process. That depends upon the biochemical pathways involved and the exact dynamics of cascading of molecular inhibitions. Its dynamics is very complex, and should not be interpreted and applied in a mechanistic way. When ‘molecular inhibitions’ underlying the disease processes are systematically removed using molecular imprints, the curative process also would take place in the reverse direction of disease processes.

To sum up, Hering’s observations regarding a ‘directions of disease and cure’ is a valuable one, but it should be studied in the light of modern biochemistry.

‘Curative processes happen in a direction just reverse to disease processes”- that is the sum total of Hering’s observations regarding ‘directions of cure’.

It is well obvious that the modern “theories of suppressions’ claimed to be based on hering’s laws stands on a historically and scientifically weak foundation.

Let us now examine the theory of ‘embryonic layers’, which forms the second pillar of ‘theory of suppression’.

Essentially, Dr Vijayakar, in his ‘theory of suppressions’, charts the development of the human embryo in seven stages, from the cells and mind to the neural plate, neuro-endocrine system, mesoderm, connective tissues, endoderm, and its eventual cornpletion at the ectoderm. According to him, all of the organs of the body derive from these seven layers of development. To illustrate, the GI tract is formed as part of the endoderm, whilst the kidneys were formed earlier in the mesoderm.

Vijayakar reasons that as natural embryonic growth progresses from the inside to the outside (even our bones develop this way), disease and ill-health will inevitably move in the reverse direction, i.e. from the outside to the inside- from the ectoderm to the endoderm, from the endoderm to the mesoderm- deeper and deeper. So if you know which parts of the body are associated with each level you can clearly see the progression of disease”.

Which text book of embryology says about the development of human embryo starting from “cells and mind”? Is it vijaykar’s invention? Embryology never deals with ‘mind’, but only ‘cells’. Obviously, vijaykar wanted to make a theory seemingly scientific utilizing some concepts borrowed from genetics, but same time he wanted to establish that ‘mind’ is primary in the development of embryo. Hence, he added the word ‘mind’ along with ‘cells’ while describing the initial stages of embryonic development. According to his interpretation of ‘embryology’, development of human embryo ‘starts’ from ‘cells and mind’, then advances “to the neural plate, neuro-endocrine system, mesoderm, connective tissues, endoderm, and its eventual completion at the ectoderm”.

Embryology says: “The gastrula with its blastopore soon develops three distinct layers of cells (the germ layers) from which all the bodily organs and tissues then develop: the innermost layer, or endoderm, gives rise to the digestive organs, lungs and bladder; the middle layer, or mesoderm, gives rise to the muscles, skeleton and blood system; the outer layer of cells, or ectoderm, gives rise to the nervous system and skin”

”A germ layer, occasionally referred to as a germinal epithelium, is a group of cells, formed during animal embryogenesis. Germ layers are particularly pronounced in the vertebrates; however, all animals more complex than sponges (eumetazoans and agnotozoans) produce two or three primary tissue layers (sometimes called primary germ layers). Animals with radial symmetry, like cnidarians, produce two germ layers (the ectoderm and endoderm) making them diploblastic. Animals with bilateral symmetry produce a third layer between these two layers (appropriately called the mesoderm) making them triploblastic. Germ layers eventually give rise to all of an animal’s tissues and organs through the process of organogenesis”

“The endoderm is one of the germ layers formed during animal embryogenesis. Cells migrating inward along the archenteron form the inner layer of the gastrula, which develops into the endoderm.

‘The endoderm consists at first of flattened cells, which subsequently become columnar. It forms the epithelial lining of the whole of the digestive tube except part of the mouth and pharynx and the terminal part of the rectum (which are lined by involutions of the ectoderm). It also forms the lining cells of all the glands which open into the digestive tube, including those of the liver and pancreas; the epithelium of the auditory tube and tympanic cavity; the trachea, bronchi, and air cells of the lungs; the urinary bladder and part of the urethra; and the follicle lining of the thyroid gland and thymus”

“The endoderm forms: the stomach, the colon, the liver, the pancreas, the urinary bladder, the lining of the urethra, the epithelial parts of trachea, the lungs, the pharynx, the thyroid, the parathyroid, and the intestines.”

”The mesoderm germ layer forms in the embryos of triploblastic animals. During gastrulation, some of the cells migrating inward contribute to the mesoderm, an additional layer between the endoderm and the ectoderm. The formation of a mesoderm led to the development of a coelom. Organs formed inside a coelom can freely move, grow, and develop independently of the body wall while fluid cushions and protects them from shocks. The mesoderm forms: skeletal muscle, the skeleton, the dermis of skin, connective tissue, the urogenital system, the heart, blood (lymph cells), the kidney, and the spleen.”

”The ectoderm is the start of a tissue that covers the body surfaces. It emerges first and forms from the outermost of the germ layers. The ectoderm forms: the central nervous system, the lens of the eye, cranial and sensory, the ganglia and nerves, pigment cells, head connective tissues, the epidermis, hair, and mammary glands. Because of its great importance, the neural crest is sometimes considered a fourth germ layer. It is, however, derived from the ectoderm”.

“The “ectoderm” is one of the three primary germ cell layers in the very early embryo. The other two layers are the mesoderm (middle layer) and endoderm (inside layer), with the ectoderm as the most exterior layer. It emerges first and forms from the outer layer of germ cells. Generally speaking, the ectoderm differentiates to form the nervous system (spine, peripheral nerves and brain), tooth enamel and the epidermis (the outer part of integument). It also forms the lining of mouth, anus, nostrils, sweat glands, hair and nails”.

“In vertebrates, the ectoderm has three parts: external ectoderm (also known as surface ectoderm), the neural crest, and neural tube. The latter two are known as neuroectoderm”.

Please note this point: The fertilized ovum “develops three distinct layers of cells (the germ layers) from which all the bodily organs and tissues then develop: the innermost layer, or endoderm, gives rise to the digestive organs, lungs and bladder; the middle layer, or mesoderm, gives rise to the muscles, skeleton and blood system; the outer layer of cells, or ectoderm, gives rise to the nervous system and skin”

It is obvious that brain and nervous system develops from ‘ectoderm’ layer. It is the ‘outermost’ layer of embryo, not ‘innermost’. The theory of vijaykar that ‘brain and mind’ belongs to innermost embryonic layer is pure nonsense. They develop from ‘outermost’ embryonic layer called ‘ectoderm’, from which organs such as skin and hair also develops. His theory that embryonic development ‘starts’ with ‘mind’ and ‘ends’ with ‘ectoderm’ has nothing to do with embryology, except that he plays with some terms used in embryology.

Vijayakar reasons that as natural embryonic growth progresses from the inside to the outside, disease and ill-health will inevitably move in the reverse direction, i.e. from the outside to the inside. This is the most fundamental ‘reasoning’ of vijaykar, which he utilizes to build a common ground with ‘hering laws regarding directions of cure’ on which his whole ‘theoretical system is built upon. We already saw that the concept ‘direction of embryonic development’ on which his ‘reasoning’ is itself totally baseless. Embryonic development does not start from ‘inner’ organs of endoderm and ‘complete’ with ‘outer’ organs of ectoderm’ as vijaykar tries to establish.

Even if the direction of ‘embryonic development’ was from ‘inner layer to outer layer’, what is the logic behind his ‘reasoning’ that ‘disease and ill-health will inevitably move in the reverse direction, i.e. from the outside to the inside”?

Most funny thing regarding this ‘reasoning’ is that it goes against the fundamental concept of disease accepted by ‘classical homeopathy’ that ‘diseases originate in the level of vital force’. Vijaykar says ‘direction od disease is from ‘outermost layer’ to ‘innermost layer’. Should we understand that ‘vital force’ belongs to ‘outermost’ layer of organism according to the interpretation of Vijayakar? Both cannot be right by any way. Either vijaykar should say that diseases originate in ‘vital force’ which is the ‘innermost layer’, or he should say disease start in the ‘outermost’ layer, that is skin and hair.

Since vijaykar has gone totally wrong and self contradicting in his understanding of embryonic layers and ‘direction of embryonic development’, his explanation of ‘hering law’ based on his ‘reasoning’ is pure nonsense.

It is clear that Vijayakar’s understanding of ‘herings laws as well as ‘embryonic layers’ is fundamentally wrong. His ‘Theory of Suppressions’ and the ‘Methods’ based on these wrong foundations are obviously untenable.

In ‘chronic diseases’, hahnemann was talking about the chronic constitutional effects of infectious diseases such as itch, syphilis and gonorrhoea. He thought that these chronic disease dispositions caused by infectious diseases were due to their ‘suppression’ through faulty allopathic medications and external applications. He called these ‘chronic dispositions’ as ‘miasms’. Actually, these chronic dispositions after infectious diseases were not due to any suppression, but the ‘off-target’ effects of antibodies formed against infections. Hahnemann could not understand this ‘antibody factor’ of chronic miasms. That is due to the historical limitations of scientific knowledge available during his period. ‘Historical limitations’ is different from being ‘wrong’.

Modern theories of suppressions are different. They are theorizing about suppressions caused by ‘improper’ application of homeopathic drugs. Those theories are different from what hahnemann considered suppressions.

Theories of suppression as ‘driving in’ of diseases to ‘inner vital organs’ by application of ‘wrong’ drugs is based on an exaggerated application of hering laws and a total misinterpretation of embryology. I was examining thse theoreticalfoundations of modern ‘theory of suppression’. Hering law is over extended, and ’embryological layers’ is mis-interpreted. Logical scrutiny shows that both these theoretical foundations of ‘theory of suppression’ are wrong. That is my point here.

Concept of ‘suppressions’ is based on unscientific understanding of disease, cure, potentization and ‘similia similibus curentur. Scientific awareness is the only way to free homeopaths from the persistent fear of ‘suppressions’, and enable them to make logical prescriptions without any hesitations and forebodings. Understanding the biochemistry of life, disease and cure is essential for this. Homeopaths should realize the exact process of molecular imprinting involved in potentization, and perceive potentized drugs in terms of constituent molecular imprints. They should also learn the molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics as removal of pathological molecular inhibitions by the action of molecular imprints. Homeopaths would then realize that no potentized homeopathic drugs can make any ‘suppression’ or ‘dangerous consequences’. If the selection of similimum was wrong, it will not act. If the selected drug is ‘partial similimum’, it would give partial cure. In that case, cure can be completed by using additional drugs, which are indicated by totality of remaining symptoms.

——————————————————————————————————

A Follower of PREDICTIVE HOMEOPATHY said “Dr Vijayakar has explained “how homoeopathy works in light of modern science”. Can any follower of PREDICTIVE school explain following TWO points?

1. According to Dr Vijayakar, what are the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of potentized drugs?

2. According to Dr Vijayakar, WHAT is exact BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM of homeopathic cure?

————————————————————————————————

I have already explained why I think potentized drugs should be repeated frequently until cure. In some case, single dose may do the work. But there is always the danger of failure in single dose methods, because, molecular imprints may get anti-doted and inactivated by many environmental molecules that enter our body. Many failures of excellent prescriptions are due to this inactivation.

Moreover, according to me, molecular imprints cannot do any harm even if administered in excess or without indication, since they cannot affect normal bio-molecular processes.

As such, to ensure cure, it is desirable to repeat frequently until cure.

——————————————————————————————

A post on our group:

“my face skin is going to very dull and dark also…… Pls suggest some remedy!!! I take minimum 3litre water – fruits & healthy diet….. But it doesn’t work…. pls help!!!”

A SEHGAL homeopath prescribed instantly:

“PRAYING , DELUSION HELP CALLING FOR , EMBARRASSMENT AILMENT AFTER -PLATINA 30. Every pt that comes us wants to be cured &SEEKING OUR HELP , but ,but every pt does not say” please help me” as this rubric is given in DR KENTS REP. by DR KENT & ONLY platina is there ,so this rubric will qualify only if the pt asks for help [help -to call for assistance ] thIS pt tried himself a few things but he realized that he want some one to help him to come out of this situation ,so then this rubric qualified , every pt wont say this in your clinic ,’please help me ‘,only PLATINA pt will say”.

Only because the patient used the term “please help me” in his facebook post, how can we use the rubric “PRAYING , DELUSION HELP CALLING FOR , EMBARRASSMENT AILMENT AFTER”? How can any homeopath “interpret” symptoms and rubrics in such a funny way?

This rubric is actually about “AILMENT AFTER EMBARRASSMENT”, with “DELUSIONS” of “PRAYING”, and “CALLING FOR HELP”. Only a SEHGAL follower can use this rubric when somebody says “please help me”!

When I raised my doubts, the SEHGAL HOMEOPATH said to me:

“You seems to have lots of doubts & reservations about using mind rubrics ,because using & interpreting mind section of repertory is a serious business ,as we here in punjab are using exclusively mind rubrics to treat serious & pathologically advanced cases , kindly spare some time from your busy schedule to study the books written by DR M.L.SEHGAL , i am sure all your queries & doubts will be answered through these books , [in this case it would have been very very difficult to prescribe on physical symptoms as the info. is short , i prescribed on mind symptoms and justified it with rubrics ] books can be had from indian books &periodocals publishers N. delhi”

I have “doubts & reservations ” regarding the use of inappropriate and irrelevant mind rubrics, as you did in the present case. Do you think I am not equipped for “using & interpreting mind section of repertory” as it ” is a serious business” only SEHGAL followers are capable of? You are advising me to “tstudy the books written by DR M.L.SEHGAL”, because you think my “doubts and reservations” could be resolved ONLY by reading those books. There are lot of homeopaths around the world who use mind rubrics without ever reading SEHGAL.

—————————————————————————————

Dr Vijaykar totally failed to comprehend the biochemistry involved in homeopathic therapeutics, and hence could not interpret the ‘directions of disease and cure’ in relation with the interactions of biochemical pathways. In the absence of essential scientific knowledge, he only tried to make his theories appear ‘scientific’ by utilizing some terms from embryology and genetics. Playing with scientific vocabulary, he was successful in marketing his theories well among the ‘science-starved’ sections of homeopathic community.

David Witko, in his book review published in ‘The Homoeopath’,The Society of Homoeopaths.2 Artizan Road,NorthamptonNN1 4HU,United Kingdom, on ‘Predictive Homeopathy Part One – Theory of Suppression’ by Dr Prafull Vijayakar, said as follows :

“Essentially, and in outline, he charts the development of the human embryo in seven stages, from the cells and mind to the neural plate, neuro-endocrine system, mesoderm, connective tissues, endoderm, and its eventual cornpletion at the ectoderm”

“All of the organs of the body derive from these seven layers of development. To illustrate, the GI tract is formed as part of the endoderm, whilst the kidneys were formed earlier in the mesoderm”

“Vijayakar reasons that as natural embryonic growth progresses from the inside to the outside (even our bones develop this way), disease and ill-health will inevitably move in the reverse direction, i.e. from the outside (in Hering-speak) to the inside. From the ectoderm to the endoderm. From the endoderm to the mesoderm. Deeper and deeper. So if you know which parts of the body are associated with each level you can clearly see the progression of disease”.

This review of David Witko amply illustrates the essence of Vijaykar’s theory of ‘embryonic layers’ relating with hering’s law, on which his whole ‘methods’ and systems’ are built up on.

Which text book of embryology says about the development of human embryo starting from “cells and mind”? Is it vijaykar’s invention? Embryology never deals with ‘mind’, but only ‘cells’.

Obviously, vijaykar wanted to make a theory seemingly scientific utilizing some concepts borrowed from genetics, but same time he wanted to establish that ‘mind’ is primary in the development of embryo. Hence, he added the word ‘mind’ along with ‘cells’ while describing the initial stages of embryonic development.

According to his interpretation of ‘embryology’, development of human embryo ‘starts’ from ‘cells and mind’, then advances “to the neural plate, neuro-endocrine system, mesoderm, connective tissues, endoderm, and its eventual completion at the ectoderm”.

Read from Wikipedia on EMBRYONIC LAYERS:

“The gastrula with its blastopore soon develops three distinct layers of cells (the germ layers) from which all the bodily organs and tissues then develop
the innermost layer, or endoderm, gives rise to the digestive organs, lungs and bladder; the middle layer, or mesoderm, gives rise to the muscles, skeleton and blood system; the outer layer of cells, or ectoderm, gives rise to the nervous system and skin”

“A germ layer, occasionally referred to as a germinal epithelium, is a group of cells, formed during animal embryogenesis. Germ layers are particularly pronounced in the vertebrates; however, all animals more complex than sponges (eumetazoans and agnotozoans) produce two or three primary tissue layers (sometimes called primary germ layers). Animals with radial symmetry, like cnidarians, produce two germ layers (the ectoderm and endoderm) making them diploblastic. Animals with bilateral symmetry produce a third layer between these two layers (appropriately called the mesoderm) making them triploblastic. Germ layers eventually give rise to all of an animal’s tissues and organs through the process of organogenesis”

“The endoderm is one of the germ layers formed during animal embryogenesis. Cells migrating inward along the archenteron form the inner layer of the gastrula, which develops into the endoderm.

The endoderm consists at first of flattened cells, which subsequently become columnar. It forms the epithelial lining of the whole of the digestive tube except part of the mouth and pharynx and the terminal part of the rectum (which are lined by involutions of the ectoderm). It also forms the lining cells of all the glands which open into the digestive tube, including those of the liver and pancreas; the epithelium of the auditory tube and tympanic cavity; the trachea, bronchi, and air cells of the lungs; the urinary bladder and part of the urethra; and the follicle lining of the thyroid gland and thymus.

The endoderm forms: the stomach, the colon, the liver, the pancreas, the urinary bladder, the lining of the urethra, the epithelial parts of trachea, the lungs, the pharynx, the thyroid, the parathyroid, and the intestines.”

“The mesoderm germ layer forms in the embryos of triploblastic animals. During gastrulation, some of the cells migrating inward contribute to the mesoderm, an additional layer between the endoderm and the ectoderm.

The formation of a mesoderm led to the development of a coelom. Organs formed inside a coelom can freely move, grow, and develop independently of the body wall while fluid cushions and protects them from shocks.
The mesoderm forms: skeletal muscle, the skeleton, the dermis of skin, connective tissue, the urogenital system, the heart, blood (lymph cells), the kidney, and the spleen.”

“The ectoderm is the start of a tissue that covers the body surfaces. It emerges first and forms from the outermost of the germ layers.

The ectoderm forms: the central nervous system, the lens of the eye, cranial and sensory, the ganglia and nerves, pigment cells, head connective tissues, the epidermis, hair, and mammary glands.

Because of its great importance, the neural crest is sometimes considered a fourth germ layer. It is, however, derived from the ectoderm”

“The “ectoderm” is one of the three primary germ cell layers in the very early embryo. The other two layers are the mesoderm (middle layer) and endoderm (inside layer), with the ectoderm as the most exterior layer. It emerges first and forms from the outer layer of germ cells. Generally speaking, the ectoderm differentiates to form the nervous system (spine, peripheral nerves and brain), tooth enamel and the epidermis (the outer part of integument). It also forms the lining of mouth, anus, nostrils, sweat glands, hair and nails”.

”In vertebrates, the ectoderm has three parts: external ectoderm (also known as surface ectoderm), the neural crest, and neural tube. The latter two are known as neuroectoderm.””

Please note this point: The fertilized ovum “develops three distinct layers of cells (the germ layers) from which all the bodily organs and tissues then develop: the innermost layer, or endoderm, gives rise to the digestive organs, lungs and bladder; the middle layer, or mesoderm, gives rise to the muscles, skeleton and blood system; the outer layer of cells, or ectoderm, gives rise to the nervous system and skin”

It is obvious that brain and nervous system develops from ‘ectoderm’ layer. It is the ‘outermost’ layer of embryo, not ‘innermost’. The theory of vijaykar that ‘brain and mind’ belongs to innermost embryonic layer is pure nonsense. They develop from ‘outermost’ embryonic layer called ‘ectoderm’, from which organs such as skin and hair also develops. His theory that embryonic development ‘starts’ with ‘mind’ and ‘ends’ with ‘ectoderm’ has nothing to do with embryology, except that he plays with some terms used in embryology.

David Witko says: “Vijayakar reasons that as natural embryonic growth progresses from the inside to the outside, disease and ill-health will inevitably move in the reverse direction, i.e. from the outside to the inside”.

This is the most fundamental ‘reasoning’ of vijaykar, which he utilizes to build a common ground with ‘hering laws regarding directions of cure’ on which his whole ‘theoretical system is built upon.

We already saw that the concept ‘direction of embryonic development’ on which his ‘reasoning’ is itself totally baseless. Embryonic development does not start from ‘inner’ organs of endoderm and ‘complete’ with ‘outer’ organs of ectoderm’ as vijaykar tries to establish.

Even if the direction of ‘embryonic development’ was from ‘inner layer to outer layer’, what is the logic behind his ‘reasoning’ that ‘disease and ill-health will inevitably move in the reverse direction, i.e. from the outside to the inside”?

Most funny thing regarding this ‘reasoning’ is that it goes against the fundamental concept of disease accepted by ‘classical homeopathy’ that ‘diseases originate in the level of vital force’. Vijaykar says ‘direction od disease is from ‘outermost layer’ to ‘innermost layer’. Should we understand that ‘vital force’ belongs to ‘outermost’ layer of organism according to the interpretation of Vijayakar? Both cannot be right by any way. Either vijaykar should say that diseases originate in ‘vital force’ which is the ‘innermost layer’, or he should say disease start in the ‘outermost’ layer, that is skin and hair.

Since vijaykar has gone totally wrong and self contradicting in his understanding of embryonic layers and ‘direction of embryonic development’, his explanation of ‘hering law’ based on his ‘reasoning’ is pure nonsense.

‘Curative processes happen in a direction just reverse to disease processes’- that is the sum total of Hering’s observations regarding ‘directions of cure’.

The four ‘laws’ now known as ‘herings laws’ are actually the working examples he used to demonstrate this fundamental observation.

It was the later ‘interpreters’ who actually converted these four ‘working’ examples into ‘fundamental laws’ of homeopathic cure. They understood and applied these ‘laws’ in a mechanical way. They taught homeopaths to consider ‘hering laws’ regarding ‘directions of cure’ as one of the ‘fundamental laws’ of homeopathy, similar to ‘similia similibus curentur’. They made homeopaths believe that drug effects that do not agree with these ‘laws’ cannot be considered ‘curative’, and are ‘suppressive’. There are some modern streams of homeopathic practice which rely more upon ‘hering laws’ than ‘similia similibu curentur’ in their methods of therapeutic applications.

Actually, Hahnemann did not seriously work upon those aspects of curative processes which we call ‘directions of cure’, or considered it a decisive factor in homeopathic therapeutics. He was more concerned about ‘misms’ in the management of ‘chronic diseases’, where as Hering did not consider ‘miasms’ at all.

Some modern ‘theoreticians’ have come with new theories by combining ‘hering laws’ and theory of miasms, also mixing up with terms of ‘genetics’ and ‘embryology’ which they propagate as the ‘only’ correct understanding of homeopathy

Following are the four working ‘examples’ hering used to demonstrate his observation that ‘Curative processes happen in a direction just reverse to disease processes’, and later considered as ‘Hering laws of direction of cure’:

In a genuine curative process,

Symptoms should disappear in the reverse chronological order of their appearance in disease.
Symptoms should travel from internal parts of body to external parts
Symptoms should travel from more vital organs to less vital organs.
Symptoms should travel from ‘upper’ parts of the body to ‘lower’ parts.
According to those who consider these as the ‘fundamental law of cure’, any drug effect that happen not in accordance with above laws are ‘suppressive’, and hence not ‘curative’.

‘Disease processes and curative processes always happen in reverse directions’ is the fundamental observation hering actually tried to establish regarding ‘directions of disease and cure’.

According to hering’s observation, natural disease processes always advances from lower parts of the body to upper parts, from less vital to more vital organs and from external to internal organs. More over, all these disease processes advance in a chronological order.

Logically, Hering’s observations only mean that “all genuine ‘curative processes’ should happen in a direction just reverse to disease processes”.

Over-extending and mechanical application of ‘herings laws’ without understanding their exact premises and scientific meaning may lead to grave errors regarding interpretation of curative processes and drug effects.

This phenomenon could be explained in the light of modern scientific understanding of ‘cascading of pathological molecular inhibitions’ and complex dynamics of ‘bio-molecular feed back mechanisms’.

To understand this explanation, one has to equip himself with at least a working knowledge regarding the concepts of modern biochemistry regarding the bio-molecular inhibitions involved in pathology and therapeutics.

Except those diseases which are purely due to errors in genetic substances, and those diseases which are due to genuine deficiency of building materials of biological molecules, all other diseases are considered to be caused by ‘molecular inhibitions’. Pathogenic molecules of endogenous or exogenous origin bind to some biological molecules in the organism, causing ‘molecular inhibitions’ which lead to pathological derangement in associated biochemical pathways. These pathogenic molecules may be of infectious, environmental, nutritional, metabolic, drug-induced, miasmatic or any other origin. Derangements in biochemical pathways are expressed through diverse groups of subjective and objective symptoms. This is the fundamental biochemistry of pathology.

Molecular inhibitions happening in a biological molecule due to the binding of a pathogenic molecule initiates a complex process of ‘cascading of molecular errors’ and ‘bio-feedback mechanisms’ in the organism. Errors happening in a particular biochemical pathway leads to errors in another pathway which is dependant on the first pathway for regular supply of metabolites, which further lead to errors in another pathway. This ‘cascading of molecular errors’ happens through successive stages, which is expressed through new subjective and objective symptoms. This ‘cascading’ is behind what we call ‘advancing of disease’ into new systems and organs, exhibiting ever new groups of associated symptoms. For an observer, this cascading appears in the form of ‘traveling of disease’ from one system into another. Along with these ‘cascading’ of molecular errors, there happens a series of activation and shutting down of complex ‘bio-molecular feedback’ mechanisms also. The phenomenon of ‘advancing of diseases’ should be studied in this scientific perspective of modern biochemistry.

When a molecular inhibition happens in some biological molecule ‘A’ due to binding of a pathogenic molecule ‘a’, it actually stops or decreases some essential molecular conversions that are essential part of a complex biochemical pathway P. If ‘G’ is the normal ligand of ‘A’, and ‘g’ is the product of biochemical interaction involving ‘A’, the result of this molecular inhibition is that ‘G’ accumulates on one side, and ‘g’ is not available for the next stage of molecular processes. Accumulating ‘P’ may induce a feedback mechanism leading to reduction or stoppage its production itself, or may move to other parts of organism and bind to unwanted molecular targets, initiation a new stream of pathological derangement.

Obviously, ‘traveling’ of disease or ‘advancing’ of disease happens through cascading of molecular errors in various biochemical pathways. Some disease processes may ‘travel’ from ‘external’ to internal organs, some from ‘lower parts’ to upper parts, some from ‘less vital’ parts to ‘more vital’ parts. All these ‘traveling’ is basically decided by the involved biochemical pathways. It would be wrong to generalize these observations in such a way that ‘all diseases travel from exterior to interior, lower parts to higher parts, and less vital to more vital parts’. It is also wrong to generalize in such a way that ‘curative process always travel from interior to exterior, above downwards, and from vital to less vital parts’. This is mechanical understanding and application of hering’s observations.

Actually, curative processes happens in a direction opposite to the direction of disease process. That depends upon the biochemical pathways involved and the exact dynamics of cascading of molecular inhibitions. Its dynamics is very complex, and should not be interpreted and applied in a mechanistic way. When ‘molecular inhibitions’ underlying the disease processes are systematically removed using molecular imprints, the curative process also would take place in the reverse direction of disease processes.

To sum up, Hering’s observations regarding a ‘directions of disease and cure’ is a valuable one, but it should be studied in the light of modern biochemistry.

‘Curative processes happen in a direction just reverse to disease processes”- that is the sum total of Hering’s observations regarding ‘directions of cure’.

Vijaykar totally failed to comprehend the biochemistry involved in homeopathic therapeutics, and hence could not interpret the ‘directions of disease and cure’ in relation with the interactions of biochemical pathways. In the absence of essential scientific knowledge, he only tried to make his theories appear ‘scientific’ by utilizing some terms from embryology and genetics. Playing with scientific vocabulary, he was successful in marketing his theories well among the ‘science-starved’ sections of homeopathic community.

———————————————————————————-

A Young homeopath says:

“I want to suggest to every Homoeopathic physician and students that you should never follow or read any local or new writers book, you could misguided from real things, always prefer original stalwart Homoeopath’s book. Like- Hahnemann,Kent,Nash, Vermulian, Tyler, Boerick, Allen, Farrington, N.M.Chaudhory,etc.”

Never “READ” any “NEW WRITERS”? For fear of “getting misguided”? No need of any updating? Nice advice!

————————————————————————————–

Let me quote from PREDICTIVE HOMOEOPATHY – PART II – THEORY OF ACUTES by Dr. Prafull Vijayakar:

“The mixture prescribers and single remedy similimum prescribers both may disagree with the pattern forwarded by me of Activity-Thermal-Thirst-Mental Axis. But then I have found this axis covering the holistic concept. The remedy thus evolved is a representative of one of each of the constituents that man is made up of. Man as we all know is a part of the Universe and is made up of five essential elements or the ‘Panchatatva’ which is accepted by Hindus, Chinese, Buddhists, Judaists and Mohammedans alike.

These five elements are: Fire, Water, Air, Earth and Ether.
Ether represents the cosmic energy which is all-pervading and which controls the activities of this universe as well as the activities of man. The Activity-Thermal-Thirst Axis based similimum is a true representative of the holistic man since the Activity represents Ether, the Thermals i.e. the heat regulatory mechanism of the body represents Fire, and Thirst which controls the osmolality i.e. water content of the body represents Water.
This covers three of the five essential elements which each human being is made up of. To this we add either a symptom from air (mind) or earth (body). This covers the man as a whole. So, the drug prescribed has a representative from each of the elements and hence works holistically to give miraculous cures in incurable or advanced or serious cases with minimum effort. Above all, Hering’s Law of Cure can also be observed in such cures. We will discuss more about it in my forthcoming book-The Theory of Chronic Diseases”

I have quoted this passage from the concludind part of a book by a person known to be a “scientific trend-setter” in modern homeopathy. (PREDICTIVE HOMOEOPATHY – PART II – THEORY OF ACUTES by Dr. Prafull Vijayakar)

This is a monumental example of presenting homeopathy in the most confusing and unscientific way, in the guise of SCIENTIFIC HOMEOPATHY. We should realize that this type of pseudo-scientific metaphysical theorizations contribute a lot in making homeopathy a subject of un-ending mockery before the scientific community.

Dr. Vijaykar claims: “The remedy thus evolved is a representative of one of each of the constituents that man is made up of. Man as we all know is a part of the Universe and is made up of five essential elements or the ‘Panchatatva’ which is accepted by Hindus, Chinese, Buddhists, Judaists and Mohammedans alike.”

I wonder whether Dr. Vijaykar is talking about medical science or religion! These theorizations may be “accepted by Hindus, Chinese, Buddhists, Judaists and Mohammedans alike”.

But is it accepted by scientific community?

Where did Dr. Samuel Hahnemann indicate that “similimum” should “cover all the five essential elements which each human being is made up of”, such as “Fire, Water, Air, Earth and Ether” in order it to be a “holistic” prescription?

How can my learned friend claim all these to be “CARDINAL PRINCIPLES” of homeopathy”?

ACTIVITY represents the ETHER? BODY represents EARTH? MIND represents Air? HEAT regulation represents FIRE? THIRST represents WATER?

This is the understanding of Dr Vijaykar regarding PANCHTATVA concept. SIMILIMUM is the drug that covers the SYMPTOMS representing these FIVE TATVAS. SIMPLE! This is the SCIENCE of homeopathy, according to a man calling himself EINSTEIN OF HOMEOPATHY!

DR. VIJAYKAR, ARE WE DISCUSSING “MEDICAL SCIENCE” OR “MYSTIC PHILOSOPHY”?

——————————————————————————————-

I want to know from those who have “read Vijayakar books” and “understood this great homeopath”, what Dr vijayakar explained regarding the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of potentized drugs, and the exact BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM by which they act upon the body. Anybody, please?

——————————————————————————————-

A follower of PREDICTIVE HOMEOPATHY posted on our group:

“Dr. Vijayakar has correlated the law of cure with embryological development of human being and this has made the law of cure crystal clear. He has elicited exactly which organ is more important and which is less, a question that has baffled homoeopaths since ages.”

Sir, you said “Dr. Vijayakar has correlated the law of cure with embryological development of human being and this has made the law of cure crystal clear”

After reading his works, what I got is, he correlated “laws of directions of cure” with “embryological development”. LAW OF CURE in homeopathy is not ” “laws of directions of cure” – it is ‘similia similibus curentur’. Did Vijayakar anywhere explain SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR “correlating” it with “embryological development”? I fear you misunderstood Vijayakar. You also confused between “law of cure” and “law of direction of cure”. Hahnemann only talked about “law of cure”. “Law of direction of cure” was invented later by somebody else and ascribed its parentage to hering. Hope you would explain.

You have also raised “miasms” also to the status of “law of cure”, which does not agree with hahnemann’s postulates. No where hahnemann said MIASM is part of “law of cure”.

——————————————————————————————-

A CASE OF FRIGIDITY AND FUNCTIONAL INFERTILITY CURED USING MAG CARB 30:

A 29 year old lady and her husband, married since 4 years came to me saying that their marriage is at the verge of a break down, as the lady has no sexual desire. She said she is helpless, as her aversion is not intentional. “I feel nothing”, she confessed. She did not conceive yet.

She had a troublesome dysmenorrhoea since puberty. It was dragging or bearing down type of pain like labor pain, it was violent during menses. All her complaints aggravate during menses. She had a persistent watery leucorrhoea. Menstrual blood was black in color. Violent itching in genital region after menses is over.

She appeared very talkative. Becomes irritated without any reason. Becomes angry even when any question is asked while she is talking. Extremely anxious during night. Chilly patient. Desire everything warm.

Following rubrics were selected:

[Kent]Genitalia – Female : MENSES : Painful, dysmenorrhoea
[Kent]Abdomen : PAIN : Dragging, Bearing Down : Inguinal region : Menses : During
[Kent]Genitalia – Female : DESIRE : Diminished
[Kent]Genitalia – Female : ITCHING : Menses : After
[Kent]Genitalia – Female : LEUCORRHOEA : Thin, watery
[Kent]Genitalia – Female : MENSES : Black
[Kent]Mind : ANXIETY : Night
[Kent]Mind : IRRITABILITY
[Kent]Mind : LOQUACITY
[Kent]Generalities : COLD REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s)
[Kent]Generalities : MENSES : During

Case was repertorised using different repertorization methods available in Similimum Ultra Software. MAG CARB was selected as ONLY similimum. Mag Carb 30 was given BDS continuously for a period, until her troublesome dysmenorrhoea disappered by about one month. Her menses became regular and normal, and to the great relief of the couple, she gradually became sexually responsive and active. By six months, she became pregnant, and now their son is two years old. The couple is very happy and full of gratitude for homeopathy.

This case demonstrates the success of CLASSICAL methods case analysis and repertorization by TOTALITY approach, using MENTALS, PHYSICAL GENERALS and PARTICULARS.

——————————————————————————————-

Homeopaths cannot become scientific physicians, unless they understand and accept LIFE as a MATERIAL phenomenon. Then only they can understand and accept a scientific explanation of homeopathy. Without understanding LIFE as a MATERIAL phenomenon, we cannot perceive Health, Disease, Medicines, Cure and ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ from a scientific angle.

LIFE should be understood as a complex SYSTEM of BIOCHEMICAL PROCESSES, involving pathways of absorption, transportation, interactions, conversions, synthesis and lysis of different chemical molecules, as well as generation and utilization of chemical energy required for these processes

Human beings represent the highest form of living organism evolved on earth. LIFE is a phenomenon that came into existence through millions of years-long evolution of matter in this universe, attaining different levels of organizational and functional forms. By the term ‘living organism’, we indicate a material system with a specific quantity, quality, structure and functions of its own, which is capable of self-controlled growth and reproduction of its progeny, by accepting matter and energy from its environment. The phenomenon of life exists through a continuous chain of highly complex biochemical interactions which control each other, depend up on each other and are determined by each other. A living organism is composed of same elemental materials we see also in non-living forms of matter around us. Same time, these elemental materials are organized in living organisms in a far complex, systematic and superior way than they exist in non-living world, which contributes its structural organization and functional complexity. Complex chemical molecules known as ‘biological molecules’ found only in living organisms are now successfully synthesized in laboratories using simpler chemical molecules obtained from non-living objects, which proves that biological molecules are actually the same matter that exists also as non-living objects, only difference being that they are organized in a different complex way.

Primary forces, sub-atomic particles, elementary atoms, simple chemical molecules, complex inorganic molecules, carbon containing organic molecules, bio-molecules, complex bio-polymers, RNA-DNA-Protein structures, organelles, unicellular organisms, multi-cellular organisms, diverse species of plants and animals, and ultimately Homo Sapiens- these are the prominent milestones in the known evolutionary ladder of MATTER on earth, panning through millions and millions of years. Parallel to this biological evolution, we can perceive a systematic evolution and perfection of the nervous system also. Simple forms of conditioned reflexes that existed in primitive forms of life, gradually evolved into nerve cells, neural networks and ultimately into a well organized nervous system in higher animals. In higher forms of life such as humans, this nervous system has attained such a structural and functional perfection that human brain and its diverse faculties have begun playing a decisive role even in the existence and development of that species and even life on earth itself. A living organism can exist only through a continuous interaction with its environment. There is an unceasing flow of matter and energy in both directions, between internal and external environments of the organism. Metabolism, or ‘life process’ is the term used to describe the sum total of this flow. The moment this bi-directional flow of matter and energy ceases, the organism can no longer exist.

A living organism is distinguished from other non-living forms of matter by certain fundamental features such as: high level of structural organization, the ability to convert and utilize energy, continuous material exchange with environment, self regulation of chemical transformations, and, reproduction or transfer of hereditary information. A state of disease may ensue when any of the bio-chemic channels governing these fundamental factors of life are disturbed. Obviously, it is impossible to make a scientific study of pathology and therapeutics without an understanding of these subjects.

BIOCHEMISTRY or Biological Chemistry, is the study of CHEMICAL molecules and their interactions within and relating to, living organisms. Biochemical processes cause the complexity of life by controlling flow of information through biochemical signaling, and the flow of chemical energy through metabolism. Modern biochemistry has become so successful at explaining living processes that now almost all areas of the life sciences are engaged in biochemical research. Main focus of modern biochemistry is in understanding how biological molecules give rise to the processes that occur within living cells, which in turn relates greatly to the study and understanding of the phenomenon we call LIFE.

GENETICS and Molecular Biology, the study of the molecular mechanisms by which genetic information encoded in DNA is able to result in the processes of life, are actually part of BIOCHEMISTRY. Molecular biology can be interpreted as a branch of biochemistry, or biochemistry as a tool with which to investigate and study molecular biology.

Biochemistry deals with the study of structures, functions and interactions of biological macromolecules, such as PROTEINS, NUCLEIC ACID, CARBOHYDRATES and LIPIDS, which provide the structure of cells and perform many of the functions associated with life.

The chemistry of the cell also depends on the reactions of SMALL MOLECULES and IONS. These can be inorganic, for example WATER and METAL IONS, or organic, for example the AMINO ACIDS, which are used to synthesize proteins. The mechanisms by which cells harness energy from their environment via chemical reactions are known as metabolism.
Around two dozen of the 92 naturally occurring chemical elements are essential to various kinds of biological life. Most rare elements on Earth except selenium and iodine are not needed by, while a few common ones such as aluminum and titanium are not used at all. Ocean algae use bromine, but land plants and animals seem to need none. All animals require sodium, but some plants do not. Plants need boron and silicon, but animals may not, or may need only ultra-small amounts.

Just six elements—carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, calcium, and phosphorus—make up almost 99% of the mass of a human body. In addition to the six major elements that compose most of the human body, humans require smaller amounts of possibly 18 more. Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements: potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium. All are necessary to life. The remaining elements are TRACE ELEMENTS, of which more than a dozen are thought to be necessary for life, or play a role in good health..

The four main classes of molecules in biochemistry are PROTEINS, NUCLEIC ACID, CARBOHYDRATES and LIPIDS. Carbohydrates are made from monomers called MONOSACCHARIDES. LIPIDS are usually made from one molecule of GLYCEROL combined with other molecules. PROTEINS are very large molecules – macro-biopolymers – made from monomers called amino acids. NUCLEIC ACIDS are the molecules that make up DNA, an extremely important substance that all cellular organisms use to store their genetic information. Their monomers are called NUCLEOTIDES.

—————————————————————————————–

How much our prejudiced, egotic and narrow-minded ‘seniors’ and ‘authorities’ ignore, despise, attack or belittle MIT CONCEPTS of homeopathy, nobody can halt its advance to final victory- because it is TRUTH, and it is SCIENCE. Future of homeopathy will be determined by MIT.

——————————————————————————–

Please do not quote ORGANON or MASTER’S WORDS to counter or disprove scientific arguments. What hahnemann said or not said has no any relevance in proving or disproving anything in SCIENCE.

———————————————————————————–

PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY AND THINK OVER:

Whether you are potentizing a single drug substance containing different types of chemical molecules, potentizing a MIXTURE of different drug substances, or MIXING different potentized drugs, the result will be almost the same. What you get will be a MIXTURE of different types of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS which act upon target molecules only as INDIVIDUAL units. Molecular imprinting can happen only as INDIVIDUAL molecules, and potentized drug can act only as INDIVIDUAL molecular imprints.

——————————————————————————————–

‘MIT’ IS ONLY AN ATTEMPT TO UPDATE HOMEOPATHY BY PROVIDING RATIONAL AND LOGICAL ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, IN A WAY EXACTLY FITTING TO MODERN SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE:

1. WHAT IS LIFE?

2. WHAT IS DISEASE?

3. WHAT IS A DRUG AND HOW IT ACTS ON LIVING ORGANISM?

4. WHAT ARE SYMPTOMS?

5. WHAT IS CURE?

6. WHAT IS POTENTIZATION?

7. WHAT IS HOMEOPATHIC CURE?

8. WHAT IS MIASM?

“IN A WAY EXACTLY FITTING TO MODERN SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE”- THAT MAKES MIT FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FROM ALL EXISTING EXPLANATIONS OF HOMEOPATHY

———————————————————————————–

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

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

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

3. I think it permissible for ‘total cure’, to use combinations of ‘molecular imprinted’ forms (potencies above Avogadro limit- 12c and onwards) of two or more homeopathic drugs selected on the basis of analysis of totality of symptoms, miasmatic study and biochemical evaluation of the individual patient.

4. I think it is effective as palliatives to use ‘disease-specific’ combinations of ‘molecular imprinted’ forms (potencies above Avogadro limit- 12c and onwards) of two or more homeopathic drugs selected on the basis of common symptoms and biochemical evaluations of specific diseases. But such ‘disease-specific’ combinations will not offer ‘total cure’ for patients.

I am talking on the basis of my concepts of ‘molecular imprinting’ involved in potentization. I perceive all crude drugs as combinations of diverse types of constituent drug molecules. I perceive even the so called potentized ‘single’ drug as combinations of diverse types of individual drug molecules contained in the drug substance used for potentization.

My stand on this issue is based on my understanding of diseases as multitudes of pathological derangement in the organism, caused by diverse of types of molecular inhibitions caused by different types of pathogenic agents, and therapeutics involves the removal of those inhibitions using appropriate molecular imprints.

I am talking on the basis of my understanding of ‘similia similibus curentur’ as: “Pathological molecular inhibitions caused by specific pathogenic molecules and expressed through a certain group of subjective and objective symptoms, could be removed by applying ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules that could create similar molecular inhibitions and symptoms in a healthy organism when applied in crude form.

That makes the difference between my views and classical homeopathy. I know, homeopaths trained and experienced in classical homeopathy cannot agree with my views on this topic.

————————————————————————————————–

SCIENCE cannot be ‘limited’ to any particular book, individual or time. It grows infinitely. If some thing is ‘LIMITED’, it is not any way SCIENCE.

——————————————————————————————————–

It is possible to CURE even without “knowing ‘mechanism of action of remedy”. There are many phenomena around us, “mechanism of action” of which we could not so far explain. They will be explained gradually, as our knowledge advances. I find nothing wrong in it. That is the way human experience and knowledge grow.

The problem arises when homeopaths ‘make theories’ about ”mechanism of action’ ofsuch cures which they actually do not know. Especially when such ‘theories’ contradict even the basic premises of the scientific knowledge system. At that point, scientific-minded people will have to step in with a red card.

It is not a sin if you do not know some thing. But it is ridiculous if you know nothing and pretend to know everything!

———————————————————————————————

When anybody put forward some piece of unscientific ideas about homeopathy during discussions or private chats, and if I feel they should be settled through an open debate, I use to make a separate post about it on my wall or discussion groups. That is my way of combating unscientific ideas and promoting scientific ideas about homeopathy. I never tell the name of person who said it, or give any hints to his identity. I am not criticizing INDIVIDUALS. I am criticizing the WRONG IDEAS they propagate. Kindly do not take it as personal attacks. If I meant a personal attack, I would have mentioned their names. I only want to discuss about IDEAS- not about the PERSONS who proposed those ideas to me.

——————————————————————————————-

When anybody put forward some piece of unscientific ideas about homeopathy during discussions or private chats, and if I feel they should be settled through an open debate, I use to make a separate post about it on my wall or discussion groups. That is my way of combating unscientific ideas and promoting scientific ideas about homeopathy. I never tell the name of person who said it, or give any hints to his identity. I am not criticizing INDIVIDUALS. I am criticizing the WRONG IDEAS they propagate. Kindly do not take it as personal attacks. If I meant a personal attack, I would have mentioned their names. I only want to discuss about IDEAS- not about the PERSONS who proposed those ideas to me.

—————————————————————————————————-

I really wonder how a ‘learned’ homeopath, who got his degree after undergoing a 5+ years long course of study in a medical college after 12 years of schooling in science stream, could even imagine things such as “nux vomica molecule’, ‘nux vomica atom’ and ‘nux vomica energy’?

Can anybody, having the least minimum knowledge of basics of chemistry and physics that defines ‘molecules, atoms and energy’, talk about “nux molecule”, “nux atom” and “nux energy”? In which blunder worlds ‘these’ homeopaths are living?

———————————————————————————————–

A reputed senior homeopath, who even teaches other young homeopaths, argues with me:

“Crude nux vomica contains ‘nux molecules’. During potentization, they are divided into ‘nux atoms’. By potentizing higher, these ‘nux atoms’are converted into ‘nux energy’. High potencies of nux contains ‘dynamic energy’ of nux, which carry the ‘inherent’ medicinal properties and ‘personality’ of nux vomica tree”.

I just confessed ‘defeat’ and politely steped out. Ignorant people can defeat anybody with their superiority in ignorance!

——————————————————————————–

A young homeopath raised some criticisms about a prescription made by a senior homeopathic ‘physician’- with double post graduation- during a facebook discussion. The senior retorted by a message: “Tula me nantar Bagtos bosdike”. Eager to know what these words meant, I searched net for a translation. I got frozen with wonder and shame by knowing the meaning.

Education does not make people cultured and refined?

—————————————————————————————-

Medicinal property of any drug substance is related with its molecular level structure and chemical properties. Regarding potentized drugs which do not contain any drug molecules, their medicinal properties are ‘related’ with the the three-dimensional structure of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS they contain, which are supra-molecular nanocavities having conformations exactly complementary to the imprinted drug molecules.

————————————————————————————-

What is my ULTIMATE aim regarding HOMEOPATHY?

My ULTIMATE aim is to establish a scientific model for biological mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics, so that homeopathy will be proved and recognized as SCIENTIFIC MEDICAL SYSTEM not only by the homeopathic community, but the scientific community as a whole.

————————————————————————————–

I am 100% convinced about the correctness of MIT explanations of homeopathy on two reasons:

1. I can rationally explain anything and everything in homeopathy using MIT.

2. MIT fits well to modern scientific knowledge.

No loop holes left. I am confident.

————————————————————————————-

Some ‘classical’ ‘single drug’ prescribers seem to think that they can fool everybody. One among them says, he prescribes only ‘single’ drug ‘homeopathically’. Then he mixes 4 or 5 drugs in potentized form, and administer it ‘tds’ for long periods as ‘supplementary therapy’. According to him there is nothing wrong in using any number of potentized drugs mixed together as ‘supplementary therapy’. But he is very particular that such ‘mixed drugs’ should never be used ‘homeopathically’, as it is against ‘fundamentals’ of homeopathy! He imagines, drugs act upon our body according to the ‘intentions’ of prescriber. If you use’ potentized drugs as ‘homeopathic’, it will act ‘homeopathically’. If you ‘use’ it as ‘supplementary’, it will act as ‘supplementary’!

Any fool thinks everybody except himself are fools!

————————————————————————————–

I know majority of homeopaths do not agreee with my ideas. It is your right to disagree, and I would honor it. But when you post your disagreements on my wall or pages, I would expect you to explain on WHAT specific points you disagree, and WHY you disagree. That is my right, and as a gentleman, you have to honor it also.

————————————————————————————

People tend to quote more from ‘masters’, when they actually did not understand what ‘masters’ really said!

—————————————————————————————-

I want to know what YOU actually UNDERSTAND about homeopathy- not ‘aphorisms’ or what ‘masters’ said about it. Everybody can read such things in text books. No quotes, please….

————————————————————————————–

No need of any confusions, friends- SIMILIMUM ULTRA SOFTWARE has nothing to do with the ideas proposed by MIT. It is only an innovative, user-friendly and low-cost clinical utility package for homeopaths, for doing successful homeopathic practice on a digital platform.

Similimum Ultra is purely a business venture of mine, even though a major portion of revenue generated by this business is currently utilized to support my research works on MIT.

I would prefer to say, SIMILIMUM ULTRA is my business, and MIT is my mission.

———————————————————————————

Answer me TWO fundamental questions:

1. According to your view, what are the ‘active principles’ of potentized drugs?

2. What is the ‘biological mechanism’ by which potentized drugs act and produce cure?

If you cannot give STRAIGHT FORWARD answers – be it right or wrong- for these questions, I do not think you are QUALIFIED to talk ‘theories’ about homeopathy. Excuse me.

——————————————————————————————–

MIT explanation of homeopathy fits well to the real-life experiences and basic principles of homeopathy on one end, and to the existing scientific knowledge system on the other end. That is why it appears so perfect and rational, capable of providing logical and scientific answers to any questions and explaining any phenomenon associated with homeopathy.

———————————————————————————————-

Pathogenic molecules are FAKE KEYS that block the BIOLOGICAL LOCKS or biological molecules, thereby preventing ORIGINAL KEYS or natural ligands to interact with their locks.

MOLECULAR IMPRINTS contained in potentized drugs are FAKE LOCKS that can mimic as original locks for the FAKE KEYS or pathogenic molecules. They bind to fake keys and prevent them from interacting with the BIOLOGICAL LOCKS. Normal interaction between BIOLOGICAL MOLECULES (LOCKS) and their original KEYS ( natural ligands) are re established. We call it HOMEOPATHIC CURE.

———————————————————————————————–

MOLECULAR IMPRINTS have a molecular conformation just opposite and complementary to the MOLECULES used for imprinting- exactly similar to a lock and its key.

Obviously, biological properties of molecular imprints will be just opposite to those of their original molecules. If drug molecules can produce certain molecular errors and symptoms in a living organism, molecular imprints of those drug molecules can remove those molecular errors and symptoms.

More over, all MOLECULES having similar functional groups can produce SIMILAR molecular errors and similar symptoms in the organism. If symptoms of DISEASE appear SIMILAR to symptoms of a drug, that means, pathogenic molecules and drug molecules have similar functional groups, so that they could produce similar errors in the biological molecules.

MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of all molecules having similar functional groups can remove molecular errors and symptoms produced by all molecules having similar functional groups.

I have been keeping on explaining this biological mechanism of homeopathic cure for long now. I wonder why homeopaths hesitate or fail to understand this simple science involved in SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR!

—————————————————————————————-

I am trying to REBUILD homeopathy on a new, SCIENTIFIC foundation. You cannot rebuild something without DECONSTRUCTING it first.

Please do not confuse the word DECONSTRUCTION with DESTRUCTION or DEMOLITION.

DECONSTRUCTION and REBUILDING involves a ‘dialectic’ and creative process- not destructive. REBUILDING is done by using the ESSENTIAL parts of EXISTING structure itself, by re-arranging them, modifying them, fortifying them, remodeling them and renovating them. Discards only things that are outdated, weak and worn out in the existing structure. Once rebuilding is complete, the new structure will be a new avatar of old structure- more durable, more beautiful, more well-founded, more strong, and capable of withstanding any earthquakes and water floods.

There is no DESTRUCTION of any sort in this process of dialectic DECONSTRUCTION and REBUILDING of homeopathy!

——————————————————————————————–

If you think there remains nothing for you to learn from others, why should you participate discussions on my pages? Only to prove me wrong? Only to ‘teach’ me a lesson? I am ready and willing to learn from others, but only if they are ready and willing to learn from me also.

———————————————————————————————-

Homeopaths try to justify use of mother tinctures by saying that they do it “according to need of patient”.

What you mean by NEED OF THE PATIENT? Will you prescribe allopathic drugs if your patient “needs” it? What decides the “need”? Only the failure of physician to find an appropriate similimum that could be administered in ‘molecular imprints’ form! “Need” is decided by physicians eagerness to ‘show’ some results, in spite of his failure as a HOMEOPATH. It is obvious to everybody here, sir.

————————————————————————————

MOLECULAR IMPRINTS contained in potentized drugs act only upon PATHOGENIC molecules having conformational affinity. They cannot interfere in the normal biochemical interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands. As such, “proving” with HIGH potencies is only a myth that have been made a cliche. No chance!

————————————————————————————-

Potentized drugs will not give any relief if the drug you selected was not indicated for the particular patient- means, if it does not contain at least some of the ‘molecular imprints’ the patient requires. But mother tinctures and and low potencies may give some ‘allopathic’ relief due to the presence of drug molecules in them, even if the drug was not ‘homeopathically’ indicated. That is why homeopaths use mother tinctures and low potencies and try to ‘show some results’, in order to mask their inefficiency in selecting appropriate homeopathic prescriptions.

—————————————————————————————-

There are many ‘classical homeopaths’ who prescribe a SINGLE dose of a WELL-SELECTED similimum in HIGH potency, without repeating it for months for fear of ‘aggravations’. They will give ‘biochemic tablets’ bds or tds instead of ‘placebo’, and give some mother tinctures or low potencies for giving relief of ACUTE complaints! If the patient is relieved by this MULTIPLE DRUG therapy, they will declare they have produced ‘miraculous cure’ using a SINGLE dose of a SINGLE drug in ULTRA HIGH dilution! They never reveal the details of mother tinctures and biochemics they used!

——————————————————————————————-

Using Mother Tinctures and Low Potencies(below 12c) Cannot be Considered As Genuine Homeopathic Practice

We know that many homeopathic practitioners prescribe plenty of mother tinctures and low potency preparations. They do very successful ‘practice’ also. But, I am a bit suspicious regarding the desirability of using mother tinctures and low potencies, especially in a routine way for long terms.

It may relieve some of the symptoms, of course. But such relief is allopathic- not homeopathic. Chances of emerging new pathological conditions really exist in such a treatment protocol.

We must not forget that the symptomatology provided in our materia medica give the list of symptoms that can be generated in healthy persons by the use of these drugs in crude form. Indiscriminate long-term use of mother tinctures containing plant enzymes, poisonous alkaloids, glycosides and various other phyto-chemical ingredients is an unpardonable crime even if it is done in the name of homeopathy. The drug molecules and ions contained in these tinctures might give temporary relief by nutritional supplementation, or competitive relationship to pathological molecules due to conformational affinity. But it is evident from their symptomatologies that those molecules and ions are capable of creating dangerous pathological molecular inhibitions in various bio-chemic channels in the organism. We should never forget that the subjective and objective symptoms provided in our material medica were created by the molecular deviations happened in healthy individuals during drug proving. Hence in my opinion, it is ideal to treat patients using potencies above 12c, which do not contain any trace of the drug molecules of the original drug. If our selection of drug is correct, there is no any chance of failure in such a protocol. Other wise, it will have to be considered as identical to Ayurveda, Allopathy or Herbal treatment. Those who indulge in excessive use of mother tinctures, without bothering about the constituent drug molecules and their adverse long term impacts on the organism, are more hazardous to human health than our allopathic counterparts. I humbly request them to think over.

From our materia medica works, it may be understoodthat most of those people who had participated in proving of Hydrastis Canadensis developed symptoms of gastric ulcer and hyperacidity along with many other deep seated pathological conditions. Doctors who administer large doses of Hydrastis Tincture to relive gastric symptoms as part of homoeopathic treatment should note this point . Of course, we may get temporary relief, bythe way of competitive relationships with pathological molecules, due to configurational similarity of drug molecules and pathological molecules. The prolonged use of Hydrasts Tincture not only produce the symptoms mentioned in the materia medica, but may even induce very serious genetic errors to happen. If hydrastis is the similimum forthe patient, it will be effective in high potencies. This is real homeopathy.

Please do not be provoked when I say that who give Passiflora for inducing sleep, Rauwolfia for lowering blood pressure and Syzijium for high blood sugar in their tincture form, are not practicing ideal Homeopathy even if they may be well-nown Homeopaths, producing results. No homeopath with some common sense, who had carefully read the material medica of Alfalfa will dare to prescribe it as tonics to improve the appetite and general health of innocent children. It is evident from its symptomatology that Alfalfais capable of producing diabetes, bulimia, and upsetting the normal functioning of kidneys.

We should remember that there was no exact knowledge regarding the long term evil effects of many drugs, when many of them were proved and their materia medica prepared. There was least knowledge about the genetic disorders they were likely to produce. It is found in Boecricke Materiamedica that Arsenic Bromide Mother Tincture is indicated for Diebetes. No physician with scientific awareness will even think of prescribing it today.Who will now dare to prescribe Ars iod 3x, Iodum 3x, Sulphur Q, or various compounds of Mercury and Lead only because they are found in our text books of Materia Medica?

We know of homeopaths who make their patients consume for prolonged periods, the mother tinctures of several drugs, including various patented combinations flooding the market in the name of Homeopathy. How can Homeopaths prescribe them without any prick of conscience? Those who love homoeopathy should take urgent initiative to prevent such tendencies either through awareness programs and campaigns, or through stringent laws.

How the mother tinctures differ from potentized drugs in their mechanism of therapeutic action, and why potentized drugs are more safe and effective than mother tinctures?

Not only potentized drugs, but mother tinctures and crude drugs also can act as ‘similimum’. But the molecular mechanisms of their therapeutic actions and ultimate outcome are fundamentally different from each other.

Drug molecules contained in mother tinctures and crude drugs ‘compete’ with pathogenic molecules having similar molecular configuration in binding to biological molecules and displace them, thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions. By this ‘competitive’ relationship to pathogenic molecules, mother tinctures and crude drugs can act as similimum and produce therapeutic results.

‘Molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs act by an entirely different molecular mechanism. Molecular imprints binds directly to the pathogenic molecules having configurational affinity and deactivate them, thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions. This is the molecular mechanism involved in the therapeutic action of potentized drugs.

Most notable difference is, drug molecules act as similimum by ‘competitive’ relationship toward pathogenic molecules, whereas ‘molecular imprints’ act by ‘complementary’ relationship.

Since crude drugs and mother tinctures contain drug molecules that can act upon biological molecules, they can also bind to various biological targets in the organism. Obviously, there is always chance for creation of new molecular inhibitions and drug-induced pathologies when we use crude drugs and mother tinctures. That is the draw back of using mother tinctures even if they are similimum.

Advantage of potentized drugs is that they do not contain any drug molecules, but only molecular imprints, which are only supra-molecular clusters of water and alcohol molecules. They can act upon pathogenic molecules only, not upon biological molecules. As such, potentized drugs cannot do any further harm to organism.

What will happen when SIMILIMUM is used in CRUDE forms or MOLECULAR forms? How their action will be different from that of potentized forms?

A drug is said to be similimum to a case when the SYMPTOMS produced by the disease in the patient is similar to the symptoms that drug could produce in a person without any disease. That means, the drug and the ‘disease-causing agents’ contain some ‘chemical molecules’ or ‘functional groups’ that are SIMILAR in conformations so that they could bind to SIMILAR molecular targets in the organism and produce SIMILAR molecular inhibitions that are expressed through SIMILAR subjective and objective symptoms.

When we apply MOLECULAR FORMS of similimum in the patient, drug molecules COMPETE with pathogenic molecules for binding to the SAME biological target molecules. According to the dynamics of biochemistry, such a competitive relationship of drug molecules and pathogenic molecules may result in the removal of inhibitions, if the affinity of drug molecules toward biological targets is higher than the affinity of pathogenic molecules. That means, CRUDE forms of SIMILIMUM may in certain instances CURE the disease by COMPETITIVE molecular mechanism.

It should be noted that the DRUG molecules cannot remove the molecular inhibitions if the they are overpowered by pathogenic molecules regarding their AFFINITY towards biological targets so that the COMPETITION is not effective. This fact explains why CRUDE forms of SIMILIMUM fail in curing the disease in most occasions.

Another point to be noted that the CRUDE drug substance contain diverse types of chemical molecules that can bind to various unexpected molecular targets in the organism and produce new molecular inhibitions in them. This fact explains the phenomena known as SIDE EFFECTS and BAD EFFECTS of drugs commonly experienced when using MOLECULAR FORMS of drug substances. That is why I keep on saying that using of mother tinctures and low potencies are undesirable and dangerous.

SIMILIMUM potentized above 12c contain no drug molecules, but only MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug molecules. When used as similimum, these molecular imprints act as ARTIFICIAL BINDING SITES or ARTIFICIAL LOCKS for the pathogenic molecules having similar functional groups. Due to this CONFORMATIONAL AFFINITY, they can selectively bind to the specific pathogenic molecules, and relieve the biological molecules from pathological inhibitions. This is the molecular mechanism involved in the therapeutic action of SIMILIMUM in potentized forms. Since they do not contain any chemical molecules other than water and ethyl alcohol, they cannot produce any unwanted molecular inhibitions or SIDE EFFECTS. That is why potentized drugs are said to be SAFE.

That is why we say only potentized drugs are GENUINE HOMEOPATHY, and safer than mother tinctures and molecular forms of drugs.

——————————————————————————————-

Whether a drug is allopathic or homeopathic is not actually determined by its label, manufacturer or the title of the physician who prescribed it. It is determined the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES they contain, and the BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM by which they act.

A drug is ALLOPATHIC, if it contains DRUG MOLECULES as active principles which act upon the organism by their chemical properties.

A drug is HOMEOPATHIC, if it contains only MOLECULAR IMPRINTS as active principles, and they act by functioning as ‘artificial binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules.

——————————————————————————————–

Remedy under a 12c or a 24x potency still contains the original molecules of the substance, and hence they act by a biological mechanism exactly similar to that of allopathic drugs, even if it is prescribed by a ‘homeopath’, or manufactured by a ‘homeopathic’ pharmacy.

If you are prescribing SIMILIMUM, there is no need of using it in ALLOPATHIC or MOLECULAR forms. If you are NOT using similimum, it is not HOMEOPATHY. To be genuine homeopathy, use SIMILIMUM, in potencies above 12c, which contain only MOLECULAR IMPRINTS.

—————————————————————————————-

Physical, chemical and medicinal properties of substances are based on their molecular constitution. We know, substances having same atomic constitution vary in physical, chemical and medicinal properties, if their ‘molecular’ level organizations are different. Both water and hydrogen peroxide contain hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms. But their ‘molecular’ level organization differ, which explain the difference in their physical, chemical and biological properties. Sugar and ethyl alcohol contain carbon, hydrogen and oxygen at atomic level. But their properties are different, due to their difference in molecular level organization.

If we have scientific outlook and a basic knowledge in modern science, we need not go to ‘dynamic’ interpretations to study the physical, chemical and biological properties of substances.

It is a very disappointing spectacle to see people we consider as ‘great’ homeopaths and ‘leading physicians’ groping in darkness when talking about matters that require some scientific knowledge. Hope they would spare some time in between their busy consultation hours also for updating themselves ! Otherwise, at least they should abstain from talking ‘theories’ that expose their ignorance, and in turn harm the scientific credentials of homeopathy as a whole.

—————————————————————————————

There is no PHYSICAL illness without a MENTAL aspect. There is no MENTAL illness without a PHYSICAL aspect. All ailments -including mental- involve some sort of MOLECULAR level errors happening some biochemical pathways in the organism, and hence are PHYSICAL. What we call MENTAL are functions of biomolecular interactions in BRAIN, which is part of the BODY. There is no a MIND without a BRAIN.

—————————————————————————————

HOMEOPATHS should not expect SCIENCE to travel backward to fit to HOMEOPATHY. HOMEOPATHY should travel 200+ years forward to make it fit to modern SCIENCE. I know, ‘classical homeopaths’ think otherwise.

——————————————————————————–

It is not at all a hidden fact that I am the developer and marketer of a homeopathic software- SIMILIMUM ULTRA. It is explicitly stated in my profile info. I do its marketing online myself, and I am running a small company for that purpose- BOOMSOFT TECHNOLOGIES. Being a person retired from government job, my only source of revenue for supporting my research works at present is my software. Without SIMILIMUM ULTRA at my disposal as a reliable fund generator, it would have been impossible for me to take up my MIT research works without any outside help. If anybody thinks that being a ‘businessman’ disqualifies me from discussing the SCIENCE OF HOMEOPATHY, they are free to unfriend me at the earliest.

I have been involved in homeopathy from 1970 onward. Using homeopathic soft wares since 1990 when I first got introduced to the digital and cyber worlds.

I tried all the different soft wares available in market time to time, such as different versions of hompath, radar, cara etc. Gradually I was disillusioned by their unpredictable performance and poor clinical output, as well the hefty prices they charged for each upgrading. I started to think about approaching the issue from my own practical perspective, and making a homeopathic soft ware myself, incorporating the benefits of my long experience with homeopathy. My dedicated and painstaking works finally culminated in SIMILIMUM, and then a more elaborate SIMILIMUM ULTRA. I wanted to offer the profession a perfect clinical utility software that is more user friendly, accurate and cost-effective than all the currently available ones in the market.

SIMILIMUM ULTRA is presently used by thousands of homeopaths around world with great satisfaction. I am also satisfied with it, by all means.

———————————————————————————–

We need AUTHENTIC well-documented cures produced under strict monitoring by impartial experts. Cases should be diagnosed and physical parameters of cure in each patient should be determined and mutually agreed upon by physician and a monitoring team, and well-documented by the monitoring experts before the case is entrusted to the homeopath for treatment. After the treatment is over, the physical parameters should be again recorded and compared with the original with mutual consent of physician and the monitors, and the cure should be finally authenticated by the monitoring team. Only such AUTHENTIC cures should be published as proof for homeopathic cure. I mean published homeopathic cures should be validated not by ‘peer-reviewing’, but by ‘peer-monitoring’, to be reliable and acceptable to the scientific community .

—————————————————————————————-

The term ENERGY has very specific meaning in modern science. First and foremost, it is MATERIAL. There cannot be any ENERGY not associated with MATTER particles in any form of their existence. ENERGY can exist and act only through MATTER. ENERGY is a form of existence of MATTER.

Unscientific ENERGY MEDICINE theoreticians of homeopathy are talking about ENERGY in an entirely different meaning. For them, energy is MATTER-LESS. Their ENERGY is ‘dynamic’, non-material’, ‘spirit-like and ‘conceptual’, existing without any form of matter! DYNAMIC HEALERS, SPIRITUAL HEALERS and OCCULT PRACTITIONERS also use the term in this meaning. 
Conventional homeopaths use the term ENERGY in this unscientific sense, when explaining homeopathy in terms of VITAL FORCE and DYNAMIC DRUG ENERGY.

It makes a big difference between SCIENTIFIC and UNSCIENTIFIC approaches in homeopathy

—————————————————————————————

I have noticed one thing: A homeopath talks more about ‘vital force’ and ‘drug energy’ when he knows very little about biochemistry and bio-molecular processes involved in disease and cure. He will try to make himself appear more as a ‘classical homeopath’, and will desperately pretend to be a ‘true follower’ of master! He will talk more about ‘aphorisms’. He will fight tooth and nail to prove ‘science is unscientific’!

—————————————————————————————-

Only MIT explains homeopathy in SCIENTIFIC terms- POTENTIZATION is explained in terms of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING, and SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR is explained in terms of kinetics of BIOMOLECULAR interactions.

If you have no any idea about fundamentals of molecular imprinting and biomolecular interactions, MIT will appear for you only as a “complicated nonsense”! Update yourselves, please…

———————————————————————————-

Our bones and cartilages are piezo-electric materials, which can generate electricity from pressure or vibrations. Most of us are not aware of such a piezo-electric power generation system constantly working in our body. This low voltage electric current is utilized by the body in the functioning of nerves, brain, endocrine glands and various vital organs, especially by secreting diverse types of chemical molecules known as endorphins. Vibrations created by sound waves coming from external sources as well as those produced by internal sound generating systems of our body are constantly generating very low voltage electric power. Piezo-electricity generated in our bones and cartilages play a major role in the feeling of stimulation, relaxation and pleasure sensations resulting from dancing, prayers, enchanting mantras, singing, rocking, massaging etc. What we call bio-magnetism, aura and bio-field are actually the effects of this biological electricity. There is nothing ‘immaterial’ or ‘mystic’ in these phenomena.

———————————————————————————–

According to unscientific CONVENTIONAL HOMEOPATHS, mind and emotions belong to the realm of VITAL FORCE, which is dynamic, immaterial, conceptual and spirit-like! MIND and VITAL FORCE can exist even without a material BODY!

According to MODERN SCIENCE, mind and emotions belong to the functions of complex biochemical interactions happening in central nervous system, which is MATERIAL. There is no MIND without BRAIN.

There lies the difference in approaches and outlooks of UNSCIENTIFIC homeopaths and SCIENTIFIC homeopaths.

———————————————————————————

“Homeopathy operates through subtlest hints which are sub-atomic”

I was shocked to see the above sentence on the banner page of a prominent ‘international’ homeopath’s website, who offers learning programs, online treatment, and claims to have published some ‘physiology’ books also.

Did anybody PROVE by any scientific methods that homeopathy “operates through subtlest hints which are sub-atomic”? Is it a scientific theory, hypothesis, or pure imagination?

Did hahnemannn ever say homeopathy operates through “sub atomic hints”? As far as ORGANON explains, hahnemann is of the opinion that homeopathy operates through “non-material, ‘spirit-like’, and ‘conceptual’ ‘dynamic energy’? Does ‘dynamic energy’ mean ‘sub-atomic hints’?

———————————————————————————

Published CURED CASES prove nothing in homeopathy. Thousands of ‘miraculous’ CURED CASES are reported by even those who promote HAIR TRANSMISSION, PHOTO TRANSMISSION, MP3 REMEDIES, WATER MEMORY REMEDIES, PAPER REMEDIES, DOWSING, REFLEXOLOGY etc etc.

Should we believe all those CURES are genuine, and accept them as PROOFS of efficacy of their methods and theories?

—————————————————————————–

AFTER READING THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES QUOTED FROM ORGANON, CAN YOU STILL ARGUE THAT EVERYTHING EXPLAINED IN ORGANON IS SCIENTIFIC?

Read Organon : Aphorism 11 : Sixth Edition: Foot Note:

“What is dynamic influence, – dynamic power? Our earth, by virtue of a hidden invisible energy, carries the moon around her in twenty-eight days and several hours, and the moon alternately, in definite fixed hours (deducting certain differences which occur with the full and new moon) raises our northern seas to flood tide and again correspondingly lowers them to ebb. Apparently this takes place not through material agencies, not through mechanical contrivances, as are used for products of human labor; and so we see numerous other events about us as results of the action of one substance on another substance without being able to recognize a sensible connection between cause and effect. Only the cultured, practised in comparison and deduction, can form for himself a kind of supra-sensual idea sufficient to keep all that is material or mechanical in his thoughts from such concepts. He calls such effects dynamic, virtual, that is, such as result from absolute, specific, pure energy and action of the one substance upon the other substance.

For instance, the dynamic effect of the sick-making influences upon healthy man, as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the principle of life in the restoration of health is nothing else than infection and so not in any way material, not in any way mechanical. Just as the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material, not mechanical. One sees that the piece of iron is attracted by one pole of the magnet, but how it is done is not seen. This invisible energy of the magnet does not require mechanical (material) auxiliary means, hook or lever, to attract the iron. The magnet draws to itself and this acts upon the piece of iron or upon a steel needle by means of a purely immaterial invisible, conceptual, inherent energy, that is, dynamically, and communicates to the steel needle the magnetic energy equally invisibly (dynamically). The steel needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property.

In a similar way, the effect of medicines upon living man is to be judged. Substances, which are used as medicines, are medicines only in so far as they possess each its own specific energy to alter the well-being of man through dynamic, conceptual influence, by means of the living sensory fibre, upon the conceptual controlling principle of life. The medicinal property of those material substances which we call medicines proper, relates only to their energy to call out alterations in the well-being of animal life. Only upon this conceptual principle of life, depends their medicinal health-altering, conceptual (dynamic) influence. Just as the nearness of a magnetic pole can communicate only magnetic energy to the steel (namely, by a kind of infection) but cannot commu nicate other properties (for instance, more hardness or ductility, etc.). And thus every special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of man in a peculiar manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only small-pox and not measles. These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of the medicinal substances, thus dynamically, as if through infection. Far more healing energy is expressed in a case in point by the smallest dose of the best dynamized medicines, in which there can be, according to calculation, only so little of material substance that its minuteness cannot be thought and conceived by the best arithmetical mind, than by large doses of the same medicine in substance. That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed, conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses.

It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or mathematical surfaces (with which the higher energies of the dynamized medicines are being interpreted but vainly as still sufficiently material) that the medicinal energy is found. More likely, there lies invisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated, specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has become through the dynamization.

Is it then so utterly impossible for our age celebrated for its wealth in clear thinkers to think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner? If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination? And if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?”

Explanations hahnemann provide for his concept of DYNAMIC DRUG ENERGY quoted above clearly demonstrate the infantile state of scientific knowledge available to him, obviously due to the limitations of historical context he lived in:

Note the following points carefully:

” If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination?”

” if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?”

” Our earth, by virtue of a hidden invisible energy, carries the moon around her in twenty-eight days and several hours, and the moon alternately, in definite fixed hours (deducting certain differences which occur with the full and new moon) raises our northern seas to flood tide and again correspondingly lowers them to ebb. Apparently this takes place not through material agencies, not through mechanical contrivances”

“we see numerous other events about us as results of the action of one substance on another substance without being able to recognize a sensible connection between cause and effect”

“dynamic effect of the sick-making influences upon healthy man, as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the principle of life in the restoration of health is nothing else than infection and so not in any way material, not in any way mechanical”

“Just as the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material, not mechanical”

“One sees that the piece of iron is attracted by one pole of the magnet, but how it is done is not seen.”

” This invisible energy of the magnet does not require mechanical (material) auxiliary means, hook or lever, to attract the iron. The magnet draws to itself and this acts upon the piece of iron or upon a steel needle by means of a purely immaterial invisible, conceptual, inherent energy, that is, dynamically, and communicates to the steel needle the magnetic energy equally invisibly (dynamically).”

” The steel needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered previously by the magnetic rod”

” a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected”

” A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property.”

” Substances, which are used as medicines, are medicines only in so far as they possess each its own specific energy to alter the well-being of man through dynamic, conceptual influence, by means of the living sensory fibre, upon the conceptual controlling principle of life.”

” The medicinal property of those material substances which we call medicines proper, relates only to their energy to call out alterations in the well-being of animal life. Only upon this conceptual principle of life, depends their medicinal health-altering, conceptual (dynamic) influence.”

” every special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of man in a peculiar manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only small-pox and not measles”.

“These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of the medicinal substances, thus dynamically, as if through infection.”

” Far more healing energy is expressed in a case in point by the smallest dose of the best dynamized medicines, in which there can be, according to calculation, only so little of material substance that its minuteness cannot be thought and conceived by the best arithmetical mind, than by large doses of the same medicine in substance”.

“That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed, conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses.”

“It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or mathematical surfaces (with which the higher energies of the dynamized medicines are being interpreted but vainly as still sufficiently material) that the medicinal energy is found”.

“there lies invisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated, specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has become through the dynamization.”

“Is it then so utterly impossible for our age celebrated for its wealth in clear thinkers to think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner?”

——————————————————————————————

Please note hahnemann’s statement (from Organon : Aphorism 11 : Sixth Edition: Foot Note) carefully:

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

IT AMOUNTS TO A HUMBLE CONFESSION BY THE MASTER:

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain how limbs are raised at will- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain why people get nauseated by seeing others vomit- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain how measles and chicken pox are transmitted- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain why earth revolves around sun- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain the phenomena of high and low ebbsl- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain how a magnet attracts an iron needle- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain how a steel needle gets magnetized in the vicinity of a magnet – and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain the phenomenon of LIFE – and hence, he explained it using VITAL FORCE and DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain DISEASE and CURE- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain SYMPTOMS and DRUG PROVING- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain how substances get medicinal property- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain how potentization really worksl- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain how potentized drugs act- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

THE TRUTH IS OBVIOUS: HAHNEMANN WAS COMPELLED TO ‘THINK’ ABOUT A ‘NON-CORPOREAL’ ‘DYNAMIC ENERGY’, ONLY BECAUSE HE SAW MANY DAILY PHENOMENA WHICH HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN IN “ANY OTHER MANNER”‘

————————————————————————————-

What is exactly meant by ‘VITAL FORCE’? This word comes from the metaphysical philosophy of ‘dynamism’. Dynamism is a metaphysical concept conceived by Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716) and developed into a full system of cosmology, totally unacceptable to modern science and scientific method. Dynamism in metaphysical cosmology explains the material world in terms of active, point like forces, with noextension but with action at a distance. Dynamism describes that which exists as simple elements, or for Leibniz, monads, and groups of elements which have only the essence of forces.

According to ‘dynamic’ view, interaction between elements takes place without contact, through modes or even harmonics of motion, yielding all phenomena in the Universe.

Various treatments of Dynamism can be found in the works of Baruch Spinoza and Henri Bergson, and also, long before them, Parmenides, the Atomists, and Plotinus. In more contemporary works, elements of Dynamism also developed into process philosophy, via Alfred North Whitehead and others, as well as systems theory via Ludwig von Bertalanffy and William Ross Ashby. Immanuel Kant was another philosopher who helped the development of the theory of dynamism.

Hahnemann’s explanations of homeopathy in terms of VITAL FORCE were obviously influenced by the philosophy of ‘dynamism’. Modern proponents of ‘energy medicine’ theories also explain homeopathy on the basis of concepts of ‘dynamism’.

‘Forces’ existing free from matter, and ‘matter acting at distances without any material contact or interaction’ is an idea very dear to all practitioners of occult healing arts. The idea of a ‘medicinal force’ that can be ‘freed’ from drug substance, and ‘transferred’ to water of sugar of milk, that can act on organism in ‘dynamic way’- all these come from ‘dynamism’.

Without freeing homeopathy from the influence of ‘dynamism’ and VITAL FORCE, we cannot hope it to be accepted as a scientific medical system.

———————————————————————————————-

The concept of ‘VITAL FORCE’ has nothing to do the concept of ‘force’ in modern science.

In modern science, ‘force’ exist and act as a function of ‘matter’. There is no ‘force’ without matter. ‘Force’ acts through carrier particle. Actually, force particles are minute forms of matter itself. There are ‘four’ fundamental forces in nature- strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force and gravitational force. All these four fundamental forces exist and interact though carrier particles of specific qyantum states. Exactly, all these four fundamentel forces are different quantum states of same force, which is the ‘motion’ associated with ‘matter’. There is no ‘matter’ without ‘motion’, or motion without matter. Matter exists in motion, and motion is form of existence of matter. Motion is expressed as ‘space’, and ‘matter’ is expressed as ‘mass’. There is no ‘mass’ without ‘space’, or ‘space’ without ‘mass’.

According to dynamism, ‘force’ exists and interacts free from matter or space. Dynamic drug energy can exist free from drug substance. Drug force can act from a distance, without any ‘material’ involvement.
As per scientific world outlook, any object in this universe represents a dynamic equilibrium of matter particles and force particles in a particular ratio. The term ‘energy’ is used to refer to the quantity of ‘force particles’ contained in an object higher than required to maintain its ‘matter-force’ equilibrium, and hence, could be transferred to other objects, making them to ‘move’ or ‘do work’. Matter particles that carry very high ‘extra’ quantity of ‘force particles’ are known as ‘energy particles’.

According to these people, drug substances are ‘converted’ to ‘energy’ and ‘transferred’ to rectified spirit or sugar of milk during potentization. And this ‘dynamic drug energy’ acts upon the vital force to effect a cure.
Mechanical energy applied during trituations may break the intermolecular bonds in the drug substances, and they would be divided maximum up to the level of constituent molecules and ions. Further division to atomic level will not happen, since nobody can generate such a high amount of energy by ‘trituration’ to break the very strong chemical bonds between atoms inside molecules. Imagining about ‘conversion’ of matter into energy by potentization reflects utter ignorance of fundamentals of physics.

More over, medicinal properties of a substance is decided by the structure and chemical properties of constituent molecules of that drug substance. If those molecules were divided further into atoms or subatomic particles as some people imagine, the medicinal properties would have been lost.
For example, the medicinal properties of nux vomica is based on the structure and properties of various chemical molecules contained in it, such as strychnine, brucine etc. Strychnine is C21H22N2O2. Brucine is C23H26N2O4. If these molecules were divided into atomic level during trituration or potentization, there will be only carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen remaining. Both strychnine and brucine contain same atoms. It is the difference in their stuctural level oranaization that give them different chemical and medicinal properties. If substances are divided into atoms during potentization, potentized brucine and strychnine will not differ in medicinal properties, since both of them contain same atoms.

Logically, there is only a single way by which the medicinal properties of complex drug molecules could be transeferred to medium during potentization. It is ‘molecular imprinting. Individual molecules and ions being part of the drug substance are subjected to molecular imprinting during potentization. These ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules are the exact active principles of potentized drugs, which act as therapeutic agents by binding to pathogenic molecules and thereby removing molecular inhibitions.

There is no such a thing called ‘drug energy’ that can be liberated from drug substances and ‘transferred’ to another medium abandoning the drug substances. Medicinal properties of substances come from the ‘structure’ of individual constituent molecules contained in drug substances. In the absence of ‘drug molecules’, there cannot be any ‘drug energy’. During potentization, through the process of molecular imprinting, the supramolecular structure of water is changed, and it is this ‘changed water’ or molecular imprints that act as therapeutic agents. It has nothing to do with ‘liberation’ or ‘transfer’ of drug energy. Only molecular imprinting.

————————————————————————————————-

In his eagerness to prove “science is unscientific” and “vital force is scientific”, our ‘SENIOR’ and ‘EXPERIENCED’ homeopath says my explanations of LIFE PROCESSES in terms of existing knowledge of BIOCHEMISTRY “does not have any proof, and it is just a HYPOTHESIS- IT does no t have any proof, so it is UNSCIENTIFIC”!

It is great to know his learned verdict that my explanation of LIFE in terms of biochemistry is UNSCIENTIFIC. Would he me know, what is his learned verdict on HOMEOPATHY- is it SCIENTIFIC or UNSCIENTIFIC? What about VITAL FORCE? Is it SCIENTIFIC or UNSCIENTIFIC? Is APHORISMS of ORGANON scientific or unscientific? All these things are scientifically PROVED?

————————————————————————————-

Even if you ‘think” there is a ‘vital force” existing ‘beyond vital processes’, which “control and perform the interaction among such molecules” from behind, anybody has the right to “think” anything as you like. But such “thinking” has no place on a dialogue on MEDICAL SCIENCE. MEDICAL SCIENCE examines and handles VITAL PROCESSES in terms of BIOCHEMISTRY- not VITAL FORCE.

—————————————————————————————

I am discussing MEDICAL SCIENCE here, MEDICAL SCIENCE studies VITAL PROCESSES in terms of BIOCHEMISTRY and BIO-MOLECULAR INTERACTIONS.

The question “what is the difference between matter and life or organism” was answered many times earlier on this pages. I am quoting it again. It ma not agree with your VITAL FORCE perspective. You are free to agree or disagree.

By the term ‘living organism’, we indicate a material system with a specific quantity, quality, structure and functions of its own, which is capable of self-controlled growth and reproduction of its progeny, by accepting matter and energy from its environment. The phenomenon of life exists through a continuous chain of highly complex biochemical interactions which control each other, depend up on each other and are determined by each other. A ‘living organism’ represents a much higher and advanced level of existence of the same elements of matter we meet in the inorganic world, different only in its structural organization and functional complexity. The universal phenomenon of material motion we find as part of primary existence of matter itself, attains the wonderful qualities of life, due to this complex structural organization. In fact, ‘life’ is the result of a continuous evolutionary process of primary matter in this universe through millions of years, attaining different levels of organizational and functional forms. Primary forces, sub-atomic particles, elementary atoms, simple chemical molecules, complex inorganic molecules, carbon containing organic molecules, bio-molecules, complex bio-polymers, RNA-DNA-Protein structures, organelles, unicellular organisms, multi-cellular organisms, diverse species of plants and animals, and ultimately Homo Sapiens- these are the prominent milestones in the known evolutionary ladder on earth, panning through millions and millions of years. Human beings represents the highest form of this material evolutionary history on earth, as far as it is known to us. Parallel to this biological evolution, we can perceive a systematic evolution and perfection of the nervous system also. Simple forms of conditioned reflexes that existed in primitive organisms, gradually evolved into nerve cells, neural networks and ultimately into a well organized nervous system in higher animals. In higher forms of life such as humans, this nervous system has attained such a structural and functional perfection that human brain and its diverse faculties have begun playing a decisive role even in the existence and development of that species and even life on earth itself. Of course, collective labor, language and social relations also played a major role in this evolutionary process.

A living organism can exist only through a continuous interaction with its environment. There is an unceasing flow of matter and energy in both directions, between internal and external environments of the organism. Metabolism, or ‘life process’ is the term used to describe the sum total of this flow. The moment this bi-directional flow of matter and energy ceases, the organism can no longer exist.

A living organism is distinguished from other non-living forms of matter by certain fundamental features such as: high level of structural organization, the ability to convert and utilize energy, continuous material exchange with environment, self regulation of chemical transformations, and, reproduction or transfer of hereditary information. A state of disease may ensue when any of the bio-chemic channels governing these fundamental factors of life are disturbed. Obviously, it is impossible to make a scientific study of pathology and therapeutics without an understanding of these subjects.

Complex bio-molecules which participate in the diverse chemical processes of life are broadly classified into four major groups: Proteins, Carbohydrates, Lipids and Nucleic Acids. These are polymers of simple chemical components or sub units, called monomers. The monomers of proteins are amino acids, and those of carbohydrates are monosaccharides. Lipids are polymers of fatty acids. The monomers of Nucleic acids are known as nulcleotides. These bio-molecules are considered to be the building blocks of life on earth, and are never seen in the non-living world. These bio-molecules, with their highly complex structure and organization, interact each other in the organism through hundreds of bio-chemic pathways, collectively called ‘vital processes’”.

Please note: A ‘living organism’ represents a much higher and advanced level of existence of the same elements of matter we meet in the inorganic world, different only in its structural organization and functional complexity. The universal phenomenon of material motion we find as part of primary existence of matter itself, attains the wonderful qualities of life, due to this complex structural organization. In fact, ‘life’ is the result of a continuous evolutionary process of primary matter in this universe through millions of years, attaining different levels of organizational and functional forms.”

Difference between “matter and life” is explained as I could understand it in the light of my world outlook. I am not an authority in anything.

——————————————————————————-

A SENIOR HOMEOPATH ASKS:

“What MIT calls VITAL PROCESSES? Please make me understand this also”.

Sir, normally, there is no scope for any confusion regarding the meaning of VITAL PROCESSES. VITAL means ‘pertaining to life’. According to scientific view, VITAL PROCESSES means BIOCHEMICAL PROCESSES pertaining to life. It is not a word invented by MIT!

Biochemistry is defined as the “study of the chemical substances and vital processes occurring in living organisms”. Hope, it is clear. Biochemists focus on the role, function, and structure of bio-molecules. The study of the chemistry behind biological processes and the synthesis of biologically active molecules are examples of biochemistry. Why confusion sir?

VITAL PROCESSES can be studied only in terms of INTERACTIONS OF COMPLEX BIOCHEMICAL MOLECULES.

—————————————————————————————–

For NO-SENSE homeopaths, MIT appears to be a “COMPLICATED NONSENSE”! I am helpless!

When a homeopath, claiming himself on his website to be “a world renowned expert in homeopathic healing with over 15 years of experience in handling chronic and seemingly incurable diseases with excellent results, and whose “in-depth knowledge of the Homeopathic Materia Medica and case taking has been appreciated globally”, waves off my writings as COMPLICATED NONSENSE on my page itself, I cannot ignore it.

LET ME QUOTE MY ORIGINAL POST WHICH ANNOYED HIM:

“How much ‘learned’, ‘experienced’ or ‘successful’ you may be as a ‘practitioner’ of homeopathy, you cannot understand, accept or criticize MIT concepts of homeopathy, if you lack a certain level of knowledge in modern biochemistry, biological processes, supra-molecular chemistry, molecular imprinting and other related subjects. It becomes all the more tough, if you think ‘our master’ is the ultimate ‘authority’ in science, you know ‘everything’ he said about homeopathy, and there remains nothing for you to learn from others!”

No wonder why people got annoyed over this post. Most of the ‘learned’, ‘experienced’ or ‘successful’ people felt as if they were targeted. His comments once again proved I was right in making such a post.

—————————————————————————————-

Not only humans, any individual animal will have a most favorite individual and collective comfort zone in his ecosystem, which he considers as ‘my place’, and which according to him is the centre of ‘my universe’. He will always try to protect that comfort zone, individually and collectively. His happiness always revolves around that ‘centre’. Individual, as well as the collective will be more or less annoyed and agitated when their ‘comfort zone’ is disturbed.

Watch the behavior of birds around their nesting places. Animals moving as herds. Watch the bees, wasps, or ants. Watch the behavior of political groups, religions, communities, schools of thoughts. Everybody fights and dies to protect their comfort zones! It is a biological instinct.

———————————————————————————

According to those self-proclaimed SAVIORS of hahnemann, “there is no science” in my articles. But there is science in organon! There is science in vital force! There is science in dynamic drug energy! There is science in miasms! Wonderful “science”!

According to them, MIT concepts are only “hypothesis”. But everything hahnemann said are “scientific theories”!

And remember, they are not ‘prejudiced’ at all!

——————————————————————————————–

A prominent homeopath commented on my page today:

“I will tell you a fact. Nobody reads what you write. Because people who do not read organon properly, how can they read your complicated nonsense?”

Even without reading what I write, he is sure my writings are “complicated nonsense”!

The funny thing in his statement is, no body reads what I write. But why? He says it is because no body reads organon properly! ONLY he tried to read. But it appeared a “complicated nonsense” for him. Only solace is, he did not find organon a “complicated nonsense”.

————————————————————————————–

I feel pity for those SAVIORS of hahnemann, who pretend as if they were born to ‘safe guard’ homeopathy from the ‘attacks’ of ‘non-believers’. They seem to believe that the whole system homeopathy will perish, if ‘vital force’, ‘dynamic energy’, ‘minimum dose’, ‘single drug’ and such FUNDAMENTAL LAWS are not preserved. They seem to think that it is their duty to ‘defeat’ SCIENCE, and prove that “science is unscientific”, in order to safe guard homeopathy!

I can only sympathize with those ‘learned’ homeopathic “physicians” and “academicians” holding MD and such ‘big’ degrees, same time trying to defend unscientific theories such as VITAL FORCE, demonstrating their utter ignorance and disregard for modern scientific knowledge. I feel ashamed to hear them declaring “I dont understand such highly complicated science” when I try to explain ‘biological mechanism’ involved in homeopathic cure, and go on saying foolish things about SCIENCE that even a high school level science student will laugh at.

————————————————————————————————-

PERMIT ME TO QUOTE FROM MY ARTICLE ‘HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS”:

Modern Science has already unraveled many fundamental facts regarding the ‘chemistry of life’, crucial in exploring the secrets of the biological phenomena of life, health, illness, cure and death. To take up the task of providing scientific explanations to the theory of ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’, it is imperative that we should be well equipped with a clear understanding about these fundamental facts.

By the term ‘living organism’, we indicate a material system with a specific quantity, quality, structure and functions of its own, which is capable of self-controlled growth and reproduction of its progeny, by accepting matter and energy from its environment. The phenomenon of life exists through a continuous chain of highly complex biochemical interactions which control each other, depend up on each other and are determined by each other. A ‘living organism’ represents a much higher and advanced level of existence of the same elements of matter we meet in the inorganic world, different only in its structural organization and functional complexity. The universal phenomenon of material motion we find as part of primary existence of matter itself, attains the wonderful qualities of life, due to this complex structural organization. In fact, ‘life’ is the result of a continuous evolutionary process of primary matter in this universe through millions of years, attaining different levels of organizational and functional forms. Primary forces, sub-atomic particles, elementary atoms, simple chemical molecules, complex inorganic molecules, carbon containing organic molecules, bio-molecules, complex bio-polymers, RNA-DNA-Protein structures, organelles, unicellular organisms, multi-cellular organisms, diverse species of plants and animals, and ultimately Homo Sapiens- these are the prominent milestones in the known evolutionary ladder on earth, panning through millions and millions of years. Human beings represents the highest form of this material evolutionary history on earth, as far as it is known to us. Parallel to this biological evolution, we can perceive a systematic evolution and perfection of the nervous system also. Simple forms of conditioned reflexes that existed in primitive organisms, gradually evolved into nerve cells, neural networks and ultimately into a well organized nervous system in higher animals. In higher forms of life such as humans, this nervous system has attained such a structural and functional perfection that human brain and its diverse faculties have begun playing a decisive role even in the existence and development of that species and even life on earth itself. Of course, collective labor, language and social relations also played a major role in this evolutionary process.

A living organism can exist only through a continuous interaction with its environment. There is an unceasing flow of matter and energy in both directions, between internal and external environments of the organism. Metabolism, or ‘life process’ is the term used to describe the sum total of this flow. The moment this bi-directional flow of matter and energy ceases, the organism can no longer exist.

A living organism is distinguished from other non-living forms of matter by certain fundamental features such as: high level of structural organization, the ability to convert and utilize energy, continuous material exchange with environment, self regulation of chemical transformations, and, reproduction or transfer of hereditary information. A state of disease may ensue when any of the bio-chemic channels governing these fundamental factors of life are disturbed. Obviously, it is impossible to make a scientific study of pathology and therapeutics without an understanding of these subjects.

Complex bio-molecules which participate in the diverse chemical processes of life are broadly classified into four major groups: Proteins, Carbohydrates, Lipids and Nucleic Acids. These are polymers of simple chemical components or sub units, called monomers. The monomers of proteins are amino acids, and those of carbohydrates are monosaccharides. Lipids are polymers of fatty acids. The monomers of Nucleic acids are known as nulcleotides. These bio-molecules are considered to be the building blocks of life on earth, and are never seen in the non-living world. These bio-molecules, with their highly complex structure and organization, interact each other in the organism through hundreds of bio-chemic pathways, collectively called ‘vital processes’.

———————————————————————————————————-

Discussing HOMEOPATHY is not an issue of “believing” or “not believing” in some ‘masters’ or ‘principles’. Science does not discuss topics in terms of ‘believing’ or ‘not believing’. Issue is scientific knowledge – not belief. Modern science explains LIFE, DISEASE and CURE in terms of MOLECULAR PROCESSES- not VITAL FORCE.

——————————————————————————————————–

BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM INVOLVED IN ‘SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR’, AS ENVISAGED BY THE CONCEPTS OF MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS COULD BE SCHEMATICALLY EXPLAINED AS FOLLOWS:

Let BIOLOGICAL MOLECULES be represented by ‘M’, and PATHOGENIC MOLECULES by D.

Pathogenic molecule D bind to biological molecule M to form a pathological molecular complex MD. MD represents a pathological molecular error or DISEASE.

Therapeutic process involves with relieving of M from the inhibitions caused by D.

Let crude drug molecules be represented by D1. If D1 can produce symptoms in healthy organism similar to pathological symptoms produced by D, that means D and D1 has similar molecular conformation, so that they could bind to same biological molecules and create similar molecular errors in the organism.

We say D1 is similimum to D, which caused the disease MD.

Molecular imprints of D1 may be represented by ‘d’, with a 3D configuration complementary to D1.

If D1 is siimilimum to D, molecular imprints ‘d’ will be having strong complementary towards D also. That means, ‘d’ can act as ‘artificial binding site’ for D, and selectively bind to it.

When applied as a therapeutic agent, ‘d’ can specifically bind to D of the MD (pathological complex) due to comparatively stronger affinity to form Dd (pathogenic molecule-molecular imprint complex) , thereby relieving M from pathological molecular blocks.

TO SUM UP:

M (biological molecule) +D (pathogenic molecule) > MD (Pathology).

If D1 (drug molecule) is similimum to D (pathogenic molecule), and ‘d’ is ‘molecular imprint’ of D1 (drug molecule),

‘d’ (molecular imprint) will be complementary to D1 (drug molecule) as well as to D (pathogenic molecule).

When ‘d'(molecular imprint) is applied as therapeutic agent,

MD (pathological molecular complex) +d (molecular imprint)> M (free biological molecule) +Dd(pathogenic molecule-molecular imprint complex).

M (biological molecule) is free now (CURE)

Dd ((pathogenic molecule-molecular imprint complex) is now bio-degraded or eliminated from the system

How much ‘learned’, ‘experienced’ or ‘successfull’ you may be as a ‘practitioner’ of homeopathy, you cannot understand, accept or criticize MIT concepts of homeopathy, if you lack a certain level of knowledge in modern biochemistry, biological processes, supra-molecular chemistry, molecular imprinting and other related subjects. It becomes all the more tough, if you think ‘our master’ is the ultimate ‘authority’ in science, you know ‘everything’ he said about homeopathy, and there remains nothing for you to learn from others!

——————————————————————————————-

First you ‘google’ for ‘molecular imprinting’, and read those articles about ‘molecular imprinted polymers’. You will get some ideas about ‘molecular imprints’as nanocavities imprinted into a supramolecular matrix, and how they act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for molecules having complementary affinity

Then you search for some articles on ‘physical chemistry’of water, hydogen bonding, hydrations shells, supramolecular aggregations, clathrates, ethyl alcohol, rectified spirit etc. You will get an idea about how water and ethyl alcohol mixture behaves as a ‘polymer’ at supramolecular level. You can understand how water-ethyl alcohol mixture could be used as a medium for molecular imprinting more or less similar to molecular imprinting in polymers.

Armed with that much of knowledge, refresh your biochemistry lessons from wikipedia. Not schussler’s ‘biochemistry’-modern biochemistry. Learn biological molecules, molecular processes involved in vital processes, protein chemistry, enzyme kinetics, ‘ligand-target’ interactions, ‘key-lock’ models, molecular inhibitions/activations and, genetics, genetic expressions and such topics.

By this time, you will have developed a basic knowledge required to understand what I explain about molecular imprinting involved in homeopathic potentization, and the biological mechanism by which the molecular imprints act as therapeutic agents.

Now, go to http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/., and read the article ‘how homeopathy works’ very carefully. Then try to read all the 180+ articles there, explaining diverse aspects of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS or MIT.

Do not miss to read the article ‘analysis of research studies’, in which I have been trying to reassess, evaluate, and reinterpret all the major fundamental research works so far published, trying to explore how they support MIT concepts.

With an open and unprejudiced mind, once again study organon in the light of fresh knowledge you aquired. Learn similia similibus curentur, drug proving and materia medica once again seriously. You will see, how your perspective and level of understanding the principles of homeopathy have undergone a fundamental change.

Now you can creatively participate discussions on scientific homeopathy and MIT concepts. If you are not willing to do at least this much of learning, kindly abstain from criticizing MIT.

————————————————————————————————————

“Contradictions & arguments” also are part of the historical process of “discovering some new and almost complete answers” for the fundamental questions that haunt homeopathy for last 200+ years.

All of us who are interested in the advancement of homeopathy will have to take a stand in these “contradictions and arguments” for evolving the final answer.

That is why I am digging out all relevant research works conducted so far by different researchers around the world which lay misused or unused, analyzing them from my point of view, re-assessing their findings and raising my “contradictions and arguments” regarding the conclusions and interpretations of the researchers.

I see facebook not as a place of fun or leisure. I consider it as a serious and effective WORK PLACE. I make hundreds of posts and comments daily on my facebook timeline, discussion groups, pages as well as on twitter, as part of my endeavor to evolve and promote MIT concepts of scientific homeopathy. My friends, who come on face book only occasionally, and those who are able to spend very limited time here, may miss most of my updates. There are also many late comers in my growing friends list. There may be also some people willing to read some of my posts again and again. In order to ensure my works are secured for future use, and to make them easily available for everybody any time, I regularly compile my face book posts and updates into large volumes. So far, EIGHT  volumes have been compiled.

VOLUME- I: http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/selected-facebook-updates/

VOLUME- II: http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/volume-ii-compilation-of-my-selected-facebook-updates/

VOLUME- III: http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/05/12/volume-three/

VOLUME- IV: http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/06/04/selected-facebook-updates-volume-four/

VOLUME V: http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/10/09/volume-v-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

VOLUME VI: http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/10/11/volume-vi-selected-facebook-updates/

VOLUME VII: http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/10/24/volume-vii-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

VOLUME VIII: http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/12/16/volume-viii-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

In Aphorism 8, Hahnemann defines what is meant by CURE:

Read Organon Aphorism 8:

“It is not conceivable, nor can it be proved by any experience in the world, that, after removal of all the symptoms of the disease and of the entire collection of the perceptible phenomena, there should or could remain anything else besides health, or that the morbid alteration in the interior could remain uneradicated.

Foot note:- When a patient has been cured of his disease by a true physician, in such a manner that no trace of the disease, no morbid symptom, remains, and all the signs of health have permanently returned, how can anyone, without offering an insult to common sense, affirm in such an individual the whole bodily disease still remains interior? And yet the chief of the old school, Hufeland, asserts this in the following words: Homoeopathy can remove symptoms, but the disease remains. (Vide Homoopathie, p.27, 1, 19.) This he maintains partly from mortification at the progress made by homoeopathy to the benefits of mankind, partly because he still holds thoroughly material notions respecting disease, which he is still unable to regard as a state of being of the organism wherein it is
dynamically altered by the morbidly deranged vital force, as an altered state of health, but he views the disease as a something material, which after the cure is completed, may still remain lurking in some corner in the interior of the body, in order, some day during the most vigorous health, to burst forth at its pleasure with its material presence! So dreadful is still the blindness of the old pathology! No wonder that it could only produce a system of therapeutics which is solely occupied with scouring out the poor patient.”

POINTS TO BE NOTED:

1. DISEASE is “morbid alteration in the interior”

2. DISEASE is a “a state of being of the organism wherein it is
dynamically altered by the morbidly deranged vital force”

3. DISEASE is “an altered state of health”

4. HAHNEMANN does not agree with the view that “disease as a something material”.

5. Cure is “removal of all the symptoms of the disease and of the entire collection of the perceptible phenomena”

6. CURE is a state where “no trace of the disease, no morbid symptom, remains, and all the signs of health have permanently returned”

Hahnemann was actually criticizing the “blindness” of “OLD PATHOLOGY” that existed during his time, which considered disease as a “material object” that “remain lurking in some corner in the interior of the body”, which should be “scoured out the poor patient” using blood-letting, emetics, cathartics and mercurials.

While criticizing the view of “old pathology” which perceived “disease as a something material”, hahnemann actually meant that “disease is not a material object”. But he failed to understand the difference between “material object” and “material process”. Scientifically, “life as well as disease are material processes”- not “material objects”. There is a big difference between these two perspectives.

Even though hahnemann rightly observed the “blindness of pathology”, he failed to understand diseases as “molecular level material processes”, due to the limitations of scientific knowledge available to him during his period. Modern BIOCHEMISTRY had not even evolved. With in his historical context, only way he could explain DISEASE was in terms of “dynamically deranged vital force”. Influence of unscientific philosophy of ‘dynamism’ upon hahnemann is evident here. In modern scientific knowledge environment, such a philosophy is not at all worthy for a scientific debate.

In the light of modern scientific knowledge, we should change hahnemann’s definition of DISEASE from “deranged vital force” into “deranged vital processes”, to make it clear that disease is basically nothing but a molecular level ‘material’ derangement of ‘processes”. Such a change is essential step in scientific updating of homeopathy in a way to agree with modern scientific understanding of life, disease and cure. Actually, we have to agree with his statement “disease is morbid alteration in the interior”, understanding it in present context as “morbid alteration of molecular processes in the interior”

Same time, in its broadest meaning, Hahnemann’s definition of CURE as “removal of all the symptoms of the disease and of the entire collection of the perceptible phenomena” and “all the signs of health have permanently returned” still remains valid, as the “entire collection of the perceptible phenomena” includes the removal of ALL the molecular level errors in vital processes that could be verified by modern scientific equipments and procedures. It should be particularly noted that hahnemann does not stop by saying merely “removal of all symptoms”, probably to ensure that it should not be interpreted as superflous symptoms only. “All the signs of health have permanently returned” is an all’inclusive definition of CURE as a “permanent” return into an IDEAL state of health, which practically impossible to happen . In modern context, these “signs” include all verifiable physiological parameters of health.

Hahnemann says, “totality of MORBID symptoms, is the “outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease”. According to him, INTERNAL ESSENCE OF DISEASE means, “affection of the vital force”.

Medical practice of hahnemann’s time was actually TREATING THE SYMPTOMS, based on mere ‘experiences’ and ‘speculations’ of physicians, without any scientific understanding regarding the actions, effects and dangers of crude drugs and methods they utilized. They considered SYMPTOMS as DISEASES.

Hahnemann actually initiated a revolution by declaring that MORBID SYMPTOMS are not DISEASES, but only the “outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease”. He made physicians to understand the importance of INTERNAL ESSENCE rather than its REFLECTED PICTURE. Same time, he demonstrated how this REFLECTED PICTURE could be utilized to identify the peculiarities of underlying INTERNAL ESSENCE, and to select appropriate remedial agents to correct its DEVIATIONS.

It was hahnemann who for the first time taught physicians to look into the ‘internal essence’ of diseases rather than the ‘outward reflections’ or ‘morbid symptoms’, same time utilizing the ‘outward reflections’ as a tool for studying and manipulating the ‘internal essence’.

Remember, hahnemann was making this statement 250 years ago, when modern BIOCHEMISTRY has not even emerged to inquire into the “internal essence of disease” in a scientific way. Nothing was known regarding the BIO-MOLECULAR processes involved in the phenomena of life and disease. In such a knowledge environment, it was impossible for hahnemann to understand or explain what is exactly the “internal essence of disease”. Only thing he could do was to explain it as “affection of the vital force”.

Empowered with the great advancements in scientific knowledge during last 250 years after hahnemann, we are now in a position to explain “internal essence of disease” in scientific terms. Modern biochemistry and life sciences have proved beyond any doubt that “internal essence” of disease lies in the MOLECULAR LEVEL ERRORS.

We have to re-write hahnemann’s statement as follows:

“the totality of symptoms is the outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease, that is, of the MOLECULAR LEVEL ERRORS in ‘vital processes’.

READ Organon : Aphorism 7:

“Now, as in a disease, from which no manifest exciting or maintaining cause (causa occasionalis) has to be removed, we can perceive nothing but the morbid symptoms, it must (regard being had to the possibility of a miasm, and attention paid to the accessory circumstances, § 5) be the symptoms alone by which the disease demands and points to the remedy suited to relieve it – and, moreover, the totality of these its symptoms, of this outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease, that is, of the affection of the vital force, must be the principal, or the sole means, whereby the disease can make known what remedy it requires – the only thing that can determine the choice of the most appropriate remedy – and thus, in a word, the totality of the symptoms must be the principal, indeed the only thing the physician has to take note of in every case of disease and to remove by means of his art, in order that it shall be cured and transformed into health.

READ Organon : Aphorism 5:

“Useful to the physician in assisting him to cure are the particulars of the most probable exciting cause of the acute disease, as also the most significant points in the whole history of the chronic disease, to enable him to discover its fundamental cause, which is generally due to a chronic miasm. In these investigations, the ascertainable physical constitution of the patient (especially when the disease is chronic), his moral and intellectual character, his occupation, mode of living and habits, his social and domestic relations, his age, sexual function, etc., are to be taken into consideration.”

MAIN LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM THESE TWO APHORISMS:

1.”in a disease, we can perceive nothing but the MORBID symptoms”

2. “totality of symptoms are the outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease”

3. “totality of the symptoms must be the principal, indeed the ONLY thing the physician has to take note of in every case of disease and to remove by means of his art”

4. “symptoms are the only thing that can determine the choice of the most appropriate remedy”

5. In “acute diseases”, “particulars of the most probable exciting cause of the acute disease” has to be considered.

6. In chronic diseases, “the most significant points in the whole history of the chronic disease, has to be studied to discover its fundamental cause”

7. Chronic diseases are “generally due to a chronic miasm”.

8. “physical constitution of the patient should “ascertained” especially when the disease is chronic”

9. “regard has to be given to the possibility of a miasm”

10. MIASMS could be “discovered” only by “the most significant points in the whole HISTORY”

11. “Patient’s moral and intellectual character, his occupation, mode of living and habits, his social and domestic relations, his age, sexual function, etc., are to be taken into consideration in chronic diseases”

12. “manifest exciting or maintaining cause (causa occasionalis) has to be removed” as they are “useful” to the physician “in assisting” him to cure

From homeopathic point of view, what are the SYMPTOMS to be considered in the selection of SIMILIMUM?

NORMAL SYMPTOMS that represent normal physiological processes are of no value in selecting a homeopathic similimum. We need only ABNORMAL SYMPTOMS, which represent the ABNORMAL or DEVIATED bio-molecular processes happening in the organism.

Let us examine what Dr Hahnemann says about this issue. Read Organon(6th edition) Aphorism 6 :

“The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived
externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.”

Hahnemann rules out all “transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience” as “futile”.

According to him, physician should take note of ONLY “the changes in the health of the body and of the mind”. Kindly notice- The CHANGES only!

He elaborates further: “only the deviations from the former healthy state” should be “noticed” by the physician. It is obvious that he was asking to avoid SYMPTOMS OF PREVIOUS HEALTHY SATE, and consider only symptoms that represents DEVIATIONS from healthy state. According to this view, symptoms representing FORMER HEALTHY STATE or CONSTITUTION are of no value in determining the similimum

Hahnemann considers “these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent” as “only conceivable portrait of the disease”

APHORISM 6 clearly shows, hahnemann was also of the opinion that only ABNORMAL SYMPTOMS that represent DISEASE should be considered for deciding a similimum.

In Aphorisms 9 to 16 hahnemann explains his VITAL FORCE THEORY, which is actually a reassertion of unscientific philosophy of DYNAMISM that was a strong intellectual presence during his period. This part of ORGANON contributes much in making homeopathy incompatible with modern scientific knowledge, and it seems to be the greatest stumbling block in our efforts of making homeopathy a MEDICAL SCIENCE. This part of organon reflects the most primitive state of scientific knowledge that existed during hahnemann’s period. There is no doubt, if master had lived a few years later, he would have completely avoided this part from organon. In my opinion, these most unscientific aphorisms should be bracketed from new editions of organon being taught in our colleges, classifying it as only of historical interest. They should be replaced and updated with NEW scientific understanding of life, disease and cure, based on modern biochemistry and advanced life sciences.

For a scientific-minded person, there nothing to be seriously debated or argued in the following aphorisms, other than noting its historical premises and moved away into the archives.

Homeopathy can exist even without vital force theory. Actually, it becomes more rational and scientific by replacing the concept of ‘vital force’ with modern scientific understanding of ‘molecular level biochemical vital processes’.

READ Organon : Aphorism 9:

“In the healthy condition of man, the spiritual vital force (autocracy), the dynamis that animates the material body (organism), rules with unbounded sway, and retains all the parts of the organism in admirable, harmonious, vital operation, as regards both sensations and functions, so that our indwelling, reason-gifted mind can freely employ this living, healthy instrument for the higher purpose of our existence.”

My comments:

According to hahnemann, vital force is a ‘dynamis’ that ‘animates’ and ‘rules’ the ‘material body’. It is this vital force that “retains all the parts of the organism in admirable, harmonious, vital operation, as regards both sensations and functions”. As per this view, “material body” is only an “instrument” of “indwelling, reason-gifted mind”.

Hahnemann seems to think that the role of “material body” is limited to obeying the “rule” of vital force and act as an “instrument” of mind. He do not consider the molecular level structure, organization and chemical properties of the complex biological molecules constituting the ‘material body’ to play a role in the evolution of the phenomena he call ‘vital force’. He failed to understand that a ‘vital force’ cannot ‘animate’ a NON-LIVING ‘material body’ irrespective of its molecular level structure, organization and chemical properties? Actually, it is the STRUCTURE, ORGANIZATION and CHEMICAL PROPERTIES of complex biological molecules in the organism that initiate the MOLECULAR INTERACTIONS of ‘vital processes’ hahnemann call “vital force”. It is obvious that VITAL FORCE theory perceives biological processes upside down! At least, hahnemann should have noticed that this “all powerful” VITAL FORCE cannot “animate” MATERIAL BODIES if they have no a molecular level structure appropriate for the complex biological interactions constituting the vital processes.

Organon : Aphorism 10 : Sixth Edition:

“The material organism, without the vital force, is capable of no sensation, no function, no self-preservation1, it derives all sensation and performs all the functions of life solely by means of the immaterial being (the vital principle) which animates the material organism in health and in disease.

Foot notes:- It is dead, and only subject to the power of the external physical world; it decays, and is again resolved into its chemical constituents.”

My comments:

The most relevant question is, can this “immaterial” vital force ‘animate’ a metal body, a stone or a piece of wood and convert them into LIVING organisms, and give them ‘sensations’? Why vital force is capable of “animating” ONLY “material bodies” having a peculiar molecular structure and organization?

No ‘vital force’ can ‘animate’ a dead organism and bring it back to life, once the biochemical processes essential for normal vital functions are stopped and biological molecules are disorganized. All the functions you consider as vital force are seen only in highly organized organism constituted by complex biological molecules. It is the molecular level structure and organization of biological molecules and their interactions that impart properties of life to a ‘material body’. Vital force cannot animate a ‘material object’ in the absence of biological chemical molecules.

Organon : Aphorism 11 : Sixth Edition:

“When a person falls ill, it is only this spiritual, self acting (automatic) vital force, everywhere present in his organism, that is primarily deranged by the dynamic1 influence upon it of a morbific agent inimical to life; it is only the vital force, deranged to such an abnormal state, that can furnish the organism with its disagreeable sensations, and incline it to the irregular processes which we call disease; for, as a power invisible in itself, and only cognizable by its effects on the organism, its morbid derangement only makes itself known by the manifestation of disease in the sensations and functions of those parts of the organism exposed to the senses of the observer and physician, that is, by morbid symptoms, and in no other way can it make itself known.

Foot notes:- What is dynamic influence, – dynamic power? Our earth, by virtue of a hidden invisible energy, carries the moon around her in twenty-eight days and several hours, and the moon alternately, in definite fixed hours (deducting certain differences which occur with the full and new moon) raises our northern seas to flood tide and again correspondingly lowers them to ebb. Apparently this takes place not through material agencies, not through mechanical contrivances, as are used for products of human labor; and so we see numerous other events about us as results of the action of one substance on another substance without being able to recognize a sensible connection between cause and effect. Only the cultured, practised in comparison and deduction, can form for himself a kind of supra-sensual idea sufficient to keep all that is material or mechanical in his thoughts from such concepts. He calls such effects dynamic, virtual, that is, such as result from absolute, specific, pure energy and action of the one substance upon the other substance.

For instance, the dynamic effect of the sick-making influences upon healthy man, as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the principle of life in the restoration of health is nothing else than infection and so not in any way material, not in any way mechanical. Just as the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material, not mechanical. One sees that the piece of iron is attracted by one pole of the magnet, but how it is done is not seen. This invisible energy of the magnet does not require mechanical (material) auxiliary means,
hook or lever, to attract the iron. The magnet draws to itself and this acts upon the piece of iron or upon a steel needle by means of a purely immaterial invisible, conceptual, inherent energy, that is, dynamically, and communicates to the steel needle the magnetic energy equally invisibly (dynamically). The steel needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property.

In a similar way, the effect of medicines upon living man is to be judged. Substances, which are used as medicines, are medicines only in so far as they possess each its own specific energy to alter the well-being of man through dynamic, conceptual influence, by means of the living sensory fibre, upon the conceptual controlling principle of life. The medicinal property of those material substances which we call medicines proper, relates only to their energy to call out alterations in the well-being of animal life. Only upon this conceptual principle of life, depends their medicinal health-altering, conceptual (dynamic) influence. Just as the nearness of a magnetic pole can communicate only magnetic energy to the steel (namely, by a kind of infection) but cannot commu nicate other properties (for instance, more hardness or ductility, etc.). And thus every special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of man in a peculiar manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only small-pox and not measles.

These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of the medicinal substances, thus dynamically, as if through infection. Far more healing energy is expressed in a case in point by the smallest dose of the best dynamized medicines, in which there can be, according to calculation, only so little of material substance that its minuteness cannot be thought and conceived by the best arithmetical mind, than by large doses of the same medicine in substance.

That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed, conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses.

It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or mathematical surfaces (with which the higher energies of the dynamized medicines are being interpreted but vainly as still sufficiently material) that the medicinal energy is found. More likely, there lies invisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated, specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has become through the dynamization.

Is it then so utterly impossible for our age celebrated for its wealth in clear thinkers to think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner?

If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination? And if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?”

My Comments:

Listen to this statement, which amounts to a confession by Hahnemann: “think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner”. That clearly explains how Hahnemann happened to “think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal” It was only “since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner”! He was compelled to explain homeopathy using concepts of “dynamic energy” and “vital force”, only because he could not explain the phenomena of cure he observed, using “any other manner”! This statement constitutes a great historical truth.

In my opinion, foot note of aphorism 11 is a severe self-insult Hahnemann inflicted upon his own credibility, as it contains a lot of most irrational and unscientific statements that reflects the limitations of scientific knowledge available to him.

Please read carefully the following statements I quoted from this most unscientific and most unwanted foot-note:

“Our earth, by virtue of a hidden invisible energy, carries the moon around her”
“moon raises our northern seas to flood tide and again correspondingly lowers them to ebb by a hidden invisible energy”

“we see numerous other events about us as results of the action of one substance on another substance without being able to recognize a sensible connection between cause and effect.”

“calls such effects dynamic, virtual, that is, such as result from absolute, specific, pure energy and action of the one substance upon the other substance.”

“For instance, the dynamic effect of the sick-making influences upon healthy man, as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the principle of life in the restoration of health is nothing else than infection and so not in any way material, not in any way mechanical. “

“the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material, not mechanical.”

“the piece of iron is attracted by one pole of the magnet, but how it is done is not seen.”

“The magnet draws to itself and this acts upon the piece of iron or upon a steel needle by means of a purely immaterial invisible, conceptual, inherent energy, that is, dynamically, and communicates to the steel needle the magnetic energy equally invisibly (dynamically).”

“a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property.”

“Substances, which are used as medicines, are medicines only in so far as they possess each its own specific energy to alter the well-being of man through dynamic, conceptual influence, by means of the living sensory fibre, upon the conceptual controlling principle of life “

“The medicinal property of those material substances which we call medicines proper, relates only to their energy to call out alterations in the well-being of animal life.”

“Only upon this conceptual principle of life, depends their medicinal health-altering, conceptual (dynamic) influence, just as the nearness of a magnetic pole can communicate only magnetic energy to the steel, namely, by a kind of infection.”

“every special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of man in a peculiar manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only small-pox and not measles. “

“These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of the medicinal substances, thus dynamically, as if through infection”

“That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed, conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses”

“It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or mathematical surfaces that the medicinal energy is found. “

“there lies invisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated, specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has become through the dynamization.”

“If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination?”

“And if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?”

IF YOU READ ALL THESE SENTENCES I QUOTED FROM ABOVE FOOT NOTE, YOU WILL REALIZE WHY I CONSIDER THIS FOOT NOTE AS A SELF-INFLICTED INSULT UP ON CREDENTIALS OF OUR MASTER.

Organon : Aphorism 12 : Sixth Edition:

“It is the morbidly affected vital energy alone that produces disease, so that the morbid phenomena perceptible to our senses express at the same time all the internal change, that is to say, the whole morbid derangement of the internal dynamis; in a word, they reveal the whole disease; consequently, also, the disappearance under treatment of all the morbid phenomena and of all the morbid alterations that differ from the healthy vital operations, certainly affects and necessarily implies the restoration of the integrity of the vital force and, therefore, the recovered health of the whole organism.

Foot notes:- How the vital force causes the organism to display morbid phenomena, that is, how it produces disease, it would be of no practical utility to the physician to know, and will forever remain concealed from him; only what it is necessary for him to know of the disease and what is fully sufficient for enabling him to cure it, has the Lord of life revealed to his senses”

My Comments:

Regarding the question “how vital force causes disease”, Hahnemann declares “it would be of no practical utility to the physician to know, and will forever remain concealed”. Up on god, he says the physician should try to know only “what it is necessary for him to know of the disease and what is fully sufficient for enabling him to cure it”! Lazy and dogmatic homeopaths love to quote this statement frequently to cover up their inability to answer “how homeopathy works”. According to them, our master has eternally forbidden us from asking such questions!

Organon : Aphorism 13:

“Therefore disease (that does not come within the province of manual surgery) considered, as it is by the allopathists, as a thing separate from the living whole, from the organism and its animating vital force, and hidden in the interior, be it ever so subtle a character, is an absurdity, that could only be imagined by minds of a materialistic stamp, and has for thousands of years given to the prevailing system of medicine all those pernicious impulses that have made it a truly mischievous (non-healing) art.”

My comments:

Hahnemann considers asking questions about the inner processes of disease is an “absurdity” “imagined by minds of a materialistic stamp”, and it is this “materialistic mind” that made “the prevailing system of medicine” “a truly mischievous (non-healing) art.”

Organon : Aphorism 14 : Sixth Edition:

“There is, in the interior of man, nothing morbid that is curable and no invisible morbid alteration that is curable which does not make itself known to the accurately observing physicians by means of morbid signs and symptoms – an arrangement in perfect conformity with the infinite goodness of the all-wise Preserver of human life.”

My comments:
“”There is, in the interior of man, nothing morbid that is curable and no invisible morbid alteration that is curable which does not make itself known to the accurately observing physicians by means of morbid signs and symptoms”- It is a correct statement even valid from modern scientific point of view, even if we discard the vitalistic interpretations of Hahnemann.

Organon : Aphorism 15 : Sixth Edition:

“The affection of the morbidly deranged, spirit-like dynamis (vital force) that animates our body in the invisible interior, and the totality of the outwardly cognizable symptoms produced by it in the organism and representing the existing malady, constitute a whole; they are one and the same. The organism is indeed the material instrument of the life, but it is not conceivable without the animation imparted to it by the instinctively perceiving and regulating dynamis, just as the vital force is not conceivable without the organism, consequently the two together constitute a unity, although in thought our mind separates this unity into two distinct conceptions for the sake of easy comprehension.”

My comments:

I would suggest to modify this aphorism as follows: “”The affection of the morbidly deranged molecular level vital processes, and the totality of the outwardly cognizable symptoms produced by it in the organism and representing the existing malady, constitute a whole; they are one and the same. The molecular processes in the organism are indeed the material basis of the phenomenon life.
Organon : Aphorism 16 : Sixth Edition:

“Our vital force, as a spirit-like dynamis, cannot be attacked and affected by injurious influences on the healthy organism caused by the external inimical forces that disturb the harmonious play of life, otherwise than in a spirit-like (dynamic) way, and in like manner, all such morbid derangements (diseases) cannot be removed from it by the physician in any other way than by the spirit-like (dynamic1, virtual) alterative powers of the serviceable medicines acting upon our spirit-like vital force, which perceives them through the medium of the sentient faculty of the nerves everywhere present in the organism, so that it is only by their dynamic action on the vital force that remedies are able to re-establish and do actually re-establish health and vital harmony, after the changes in the health of the patient cognizable by our senses (the totality of the symptoms) have revealed the disease to the carefully observing and investigating physician as fully as was requisite in order to enable him to cure it.

Foot notes:- Most severe disease may be produced by sufficient disturbance of the vital force through the imagination and also cured by the same means.”

My Comments:

Hahnemann says: “alterative powers of the serviceable medicines acting upon our spirit-like vital force, which perceives them through the medium of the sentient faculty of the nerves everywhere present in the organism”. According to this view, homeopathic potentized drugs act through “sentient nerves”. But research works proved otherwise. Researchers have proved that potentized drugs act even up on in vitro biological samples which do not contain any ‘sentient nerves’ or nerve cells. There are enough scientific evidences now to prove that potentized drugs act up on biological molecules- not merely ‘sentient nerves’.

Hahnemann’s statement “disease may be produced by sufficient disturbance of the vital force through the imagination and also cured by the same means” actually explains the phenomena of so-called psychosomatic diseases, which are well explained by biochemistry, without any involvement of vital force theory. According to scientific view, “imaginations’ and “emotoions” are not “non-material” What we call ’emotions’ and ‘sensations’ are actually very complex biochemical processes happening in our brain. There is nothing ‘immaterial’ in ’emotions’ and other mental processes. During those biochemical processes, different types of chemical molecules are synthesized and utilized by the central nervous system, such as hormones, cytokines, neuro-mediators and neurotransmitters etc. What we call ‘bad effects’ of emotions are actually the delayed, off-target or rebound chemical actions of these biochemical molecules. Biochemistry can explain such phenomena without any involvement of any ‘immaterial’ or ‘dynamic’ vital force.

We all know, ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ is the essential, fundamental ‘principle’ of HOMEOPATHY. Even though this ‘therapeutic law’ was evolved by the founder of homeopathy 250 years ago under severe limitations of scientific knowledge, it is wonderful to note that it still holds good even under modern scientific scrutiny. Credit goes to the extra ordinary genius of Dr Hahnemann.

Hahnemann explained “similia similibus curentur’ in terms of ‘similarity of disease-symptoms’ and ‘drug-symptoms’. I think it is inappropriate in modern knowledge context to reduce ‘similia similibus curentur’ to mean only ‘similarity of symptoms’, once we understand molecular level biological mechanism of disease and cure. It is genuine ‘homeopathy’ if we are curing diseases by using ‘potentized’ or ‘molecular imprints’ forms of drugs, even if prescribed without considering ‘similarity of symptoms’ in its ‘classical’ meaning.

Exactly, the concept of ‘similimum’ should be re-interpreted in terms of ‘conformational similarity of functional groups of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules’-not ‘similarity of symptoms’.

‘Similia similibus curentur’ actually means, ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules having ‘similar’ conformation, and bind to them so as to remove the molecular inhibitions they produced up on the biological molecules.

‘Similarity of symptoms’ is only ONE of the many ‘practical’ ways of determining this similarity of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules. Selecting similimum by comparing disease symptoms and drug symptoms is based on the idea that similar molecules can bind to similar bio-molecular targets and produce similar molecular errors in the organism, which will be expressed through similar symptoms. There is nothing ‘un-homeopathic’ if you could find similimum by some methods other than comparing symptoms, such as knowledge of biochemistry or molecular pathology, if it is possible.

Actually, we make many excellent ‘homeopathic’ cures bypassing the concept of ‘similarityof symptoms’. So called ‘tautopathic’ prescriptions, where molecular imprints of modern chemical drugs are used to remove their bad effects, belong to this class. Many ‘specifics’ and ‘experience-based’ prescriptions are successfully used in day-to-day homoeopathic practice ignoring the ‘similarity of symptoms’. Many of the potentized hormone remedies, biological products and nosodes are commonly used without any ‘matching’ of symptoms, but on the basis of peripheral knowledge only. Most of the ‘causational’ prescriptions never consider ‘similarity of symptoms’. All of these various approaches work well in most occasions. Only those ‘well-proved’ drugs with complete materia medica of mental and constitutional symptoms could be used if we strictly follow the principle of ‘totality of symptoms’.

Read Organon : Aphorism 17 : Sixth Edition

“Now, as in the cure effected by the removal of the whole of the perceptible signs and symptoms of the disease the internal alteration of the vital principle to which the disease is due – consequently the whole of the disease – is at the same time removed,1 it follows that the physician has only to remove the whole of the symptoms in order, at the same time, to abrogate and annihilate the internal change, that is to say, the morbid derangement of the vital force – consequently the totality of the disease, the disease itself.2 But when the disease is annihilated the health is restored, and this is the highest, the sole aim of the physician who knows the true object of his mission, which consists not in learned – sounding prating, but in giving aid to the sick.

Foot note1: A warning dream, a superstitious fancy, or a solemn prediction that death would occur at a certain day or at a certain hour, has not unfrequently produced all the signs of commencing and increasing disease, of approaching death and death itself at the hour announced, which could not happen without the simultaneous production of the inward change (corresponding to the state observed internally); and hence in such cases all the morbid signs indicative of approaching death have frequently been dissipated by an identical cause, by some cunning deception or persuasion to a belief in the contrary, and health suddenly restored, which could not have happened without the removal, by means of this mortal remedy, of the internal and external morbid change that threatened death.

Foot note 2: It is only thus that God the preserver of mankind, could reveal His wisdom and goodness in reference to the cure of the disease to which man is liable here below, by showing to the physician what he had to remove in disease in order to annihilate them and thus re-establish health. But what would we think of His wisdom and goodness if He has shrouded in mysterious obscurity that which was to be cured in diseases (as is asserted by the dominant school of medicine, which affects to possess a supernatural insight into the nature of things), and shut it up in the hidden interior, and thus rendered it impossible for man to know the malady accurately, consequently impossible for him to cure it?”

POINTS TO BE NOTED:

Cure is effected by the removal of the “whole of the perceptible signs and symptoms” of the disease.

“internal alteration of the vital principle (understand as vital processes) to which the disease is due”, and “consequently the whole of the disease” will be removed once “the whole of the perceptible signs and symptoms” are removed.

“to abrogate and annihilate” the “internal change”, we have only to remove the “whole of the perceptible signs and symptoms”.

“when the disease is annihilated the health is restored, and this is the highest, the sole aim of the physician”.

“whole of the perceptible signs and symptoms” shows the physician what he had to remove in disease in order to annihilate them and thus re-establish health.

Listen, hahnemann does not merely say “symptoms”- he says “whole of the perceptible signs and symptoms of disease”. It is obvious that he wanted to say something more comprehensive than that could be conveyed by the word “symptoms”.

SYMPTOMS+ PERCEPTIBLE SIGNS. NOT SYMPTOMS ALONE. That is what he said. PERCEPTIBLE SIGNS OF DISEASE covers everything that could be PERCEIVED about the INTERNAL DERANGEMENT underlying the disease. In modern context, it includes EVERYTHING that could be perceived about disease, with the help of modern instruments and TECHNOLOGIES that work as extensions of our SENSE ORGANS. Our PERCEPTION of SIGNS of diseases changes and becomes more and more deeper, accurate and comprehensive as modern science and technology advances.

I want to make a point here regarding the importance of studying aphorisms of organon in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge context.

According to Hahnemann, “knowledge of diseases” and “knowledge of medicinal powers” are the essential qualities of a ‘good physician’. In modern knowledge context, definition of “knowledge of diseases” hahnemann proposed as a basic qualification of “good physician” inevitably should mean the understanding of biochemical processes involved in the ‘molecular level pathology’ of diseases. “Knowledge of medicinal powers” should include the knowledge regarding the exact ‘active principles’ of potentized drugs, and the biological mechanism by which they produce cure. “Proper dose and repetition” could be scientifically decided only if you know ‘what is the exact active principles’ of potenteized drugs we are using, and ‘how they actually work’.

Our practice will become “judicious and rational” as hahnemann defined, only if modern homeopaths attain at least that much of scientific awareness Each homeopaths has to equip himself with these essential scientific knowledge to be qualified as ‘good physicians’.

We cannot evade from answering TWO fundamental questions in order to equip with ‘knowledge of disease’ and ‘knowledge of medicinal powers’:

Question 1: What are the ‘active principles of potentized drugs?

Answer: ‘Active principles’ of potentized drugs are ‘hydrosomes’ or ‘molecular imprinted supra-molecular nano cavities of water-ethyl alcohol molecules’ prepared by a process of molecular imprinting known as potentization.

Question 2: What is the molecular mechanism by which potentized act as therapeutic agents?

Answer: Due to the complementary conformational affinity, ‘hydrosomes’ or ‘molecular imprinted supra-molecular nano cavities’ contained in potentized drugs can remove the pathogenic molecular inhibitions in the organism by acting as ‘ligand traps’ or ‘artificial binding sites’, for pathogenic molecules having conformations similar to the drug molecules used for potentization.

It is totally wrong to say potentized homeopathic drugs contain NANO PARTICLES. They contain NANO CAVITIES. It makes a big difference in its implications, which the most-celebrated ‘nanoparticle theory’ of IIT scientists failed to recognize.

Active principles of POTENTIZED DRUGS are ‘molecular imprints’ consisting of supra-molecular ‘NANO CAVITIES’ or EMPTY SPACES previously occupied by drug molecules used for potentization. These supra-molecular NANO CAVITIES can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules similar to the drug molecules, due to their complimentary conformations, thereby relieving the biological molecules from INHIBITIONS caused by pathogenic molecules. This is the molecular mechanism involved in MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS known as HOMEOPATHY.

Molecular imprinted nano cavities contained in potentized drugs act as conformation-specific LIGAND TRAPS that can ‘entrap’ pathogenic ligands having shapes exactly similar to the drug molecules used for imprinting. Hope I sad it clearly.

I hope scientists will shortly realize the implications of homeopathic potentization as a process of preparing ‘molecular imprinted nano cavities’ in water-alcohol supra-molecular matrix, which could be used as ‘ligand traps’ that can act as conformation-specific artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules. Such a realization would enable them to develop a whole new range of safe and target-specific medicinal agents that could be incorporated into the therapeutic arsenal of modern molecular medicine. Once it happens, modern medical science and pharmaceutical industry will undergo revolutionary changes.

Study, preparation and application of NANO CAVITIES is special area of NANO TECHNOLOGY. Polymer-based nano cavities are prepared by MOLECULAR IMPRINTING IN POLYMERS. Molecular imprinted polymers could not be applied as therapeutic agents in living organisms. Homeopathic potentization is a process of preparing MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or supra-molecular NANO CAVITIES in water-ethyl alcohol matrix, that could be safely used as therapeutic agents.

I would suggest to use the term HYDROSOMES for ‘molecular imprinted supra-molecular nano cavities of water’. It would be a most appropriate, original, meaningful and convenient term for regular use. ‘HYDRO’ indicates ‘water’, and ‘SOMES’ indicates ‘cavities’. Now we can say, active principles of potentized homeopathic drugs are HYDROSOMES.

Bio-molecular mechanism of a curative process could be considered ‘homeopathic’, only if the ‘active principles’ of therapeutic agent interact with pathogenic molecules by a ‘homeopathic’ relationship. In such a relationship, the molecular conformation of ‘active principles’ of ‘remedies’ will be exactly complementary to the conformation of pathogenic molecules, so that they can bind each other by a ‘key-lock’ mechanism wherein the pathogenic molecules act as ‘keys’ and the active factors of therapeutic agents as ‘key-holes’ of the ‘locks’. Such a ‘homeopathic’ relationship happens only when the ‘active principles’ of therapeutic agents are ‘hydrosomes’ or ‘molecular imprinted nanocavities’ that can act as ‘ligand traps’ or ‘artificial binding sites’ for the pathogenic molecules. That means, the therapeutic agents should be made by ‘molecular imprinting’ or ‘potentization’ of pathogenic molecules themselves, or any drug molecules having conformations ‘similar’ to the pathogenic molecules. This is the molecular basis of ‘similia similibus curentur’ explained in scientific terms.

DISEASE SYMPTOMS and DRUG SYMPTOMS appear to be SIMILAR when the PATHOGENIC MOLECULES and DRUG MOLECULES have similar conformations, so that they can bind to SIMILAR biological molecules and produce SIMILAR molecular inhibitions which are expressed through SIMILAR symptoms.

MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug molecules will be ‘nano cavities’ having molecular conformations exactly COMPLEMENTARY to the drug molecules used for imprinting, as well as to the pathogenic molecules having conformations similar to the drug molecules. These NANO CAVITIES can bind to the pathogenic molecules by COMPLEMENTARY relationship by acting as LIGAND TRAPS or ARTIFICIAL BINDING SITES, and deactivate them. This process leads to the removal of MOLECULAR INHIBITIONS in the biological molecules caused by the pathogenic molecules. This is the molecular mechanism of homeopathic cure.

If you are not using drugs in ‘molecular imprints’ forms (means potentized above avogadro limit or 12c), it is not homeopathy whatever ‘theories’ and ‘laws’ you talk about. Only molecular imprints can act by a bio-molecular mechanism that is truly ‘homeopathic’. When you use ‘molecular forms’ of drugs (mother tinctures and potencies below avogadro limit or 12c), they act by a bio-molecular mechanism exactly same as allopathy or ayurveda. It is the ‘active principles’ of therapeutic agents you use and the way they act in the body that determines whether you are doing homeopathy or allopathy- not your theories, laws, labels or degrees.

Only those symptoms which are produced by ‘proving’ drugs in MOLECULAR FORMS, or obtained from accidental poisonings or toxicological studies are homeopathically reliable.

Since MOLECULAR IMPRINTS contained in potentized drugs cannot produce any effects up on normal interactions of biological molecules, symptoms claimed to be collected from so-called ‘high potency’ provings are unreliable as homeopathic indicators of remedies.

Most of such ‘high potency’ symptoms are pure imaginations or placebo effects exacly similar to ‘meditation provings’, ‘dream provings’, ‘trituration provings’ and other absurd ‘proving’ techniques propagated by ‘energy medicine’ homeopaths.

In certain cases, ‘high potency’ symptoms may represent molecular level changes happening in the organism as a result of he removal of some already existing molecular errors by the molecular imprints contained the potentized drugs. Obviously, they are not symptoms caused by drugs, but symptoms representing the curative actions of potentized drugs. They cannot be considered ‘drug symptoms’ in its real sense, and cannot be used as indicators for selecting similimum.

Once you start talking about potentized drugs and homeopathy in terms of ‘molecular imprinted nano cavities’ they contain, you can rationally and convincingly explain the ‘biological mechanism’ of therapeutics involved in ‘Similia Similibus Curentur using modern scientific paradigms even to a member of modern medical profession who so far considered homeopathy a ‘fake’ or ‘placebo’. Only thing is, you should have some working knowledge about the bio-molecular interactions underlying the vital processes underlying life, disease and cure as revealed by modern biochemistry and molecular biology.

Once you could perceive potentized drugs in terms of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or supra-molecular NANO CAVITIES that can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules having complimentary conformation, you will see that you can answer any hard questions about homeopathy rationally and scientifically. You will see how much rationally you can explain the biological mechanism of ‘similia similibus curentur’ in a way exactly fitting to the paradigms of modern science. You will see no questions remain unanswered, or no riddles unresolved in homeopathy. You will see, homeopathy becomes a full-fledged MEDICAL SCIENCE.

THEORY as well as PRACTICE of homeopathy is actually very simple, if taught scientifically and perceived rationally. People with vested interests make it appear complex and difficult, so that beginners and students get confused and throng into their ‘seminar’ halls to ‘learn’ and pay for the wonderful ‘methods’ they market!

PATHOGENIC MOLECULES produce diseases by binding their active FUNCTIONAL GROUPS to the specific biological molecules in the organism due to their molecular affinity, and producing molecular errors.

During drug proving, poisoning and crude molecular actions, DRUG MOLECULES produce bio-molecular errors and symptoms in the healthy organism by binding their FUNCTIONAL GROUPS to the biological molecules.

When disease symptoms and drug symptoms appear SIMILAR, that means functional groups of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules were similar, so that they could bind to similar bio-molecular targets and produce similar molecular errors in the organism.

HYDROSOMES or ‘molecular imprints’ of ‘functional groups’ of drug molecules contained in the potentized drugs can act as ‘artificial binding sites or LIGAND TRAPS towards the SIMILAR pathogenic molecules, due to their COMPLEMENTARY conformation.

It is now obvious that when using SIMILIMUM as therapeutic agents, we are actually using MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of ‘functional groups’ of drug molecules to bind to the ‘functional groups’ of pathogenic molecules and deactivate the.

This observation leads us to some very important conclusions: What we actually need is the MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of biologically active FUNCTIONAL GROUPS. If we can prepare molecular imprints of all biologically active functional groups, and make them available as homeopathic remedies, we will not need all these thousands of different drug substances. We will require only a very limited number of drugs, which could be universally applied as per homeopathic indications.

We will have to prepare MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of only following classes of FUNCTIONAL GROUPS to make our wonderful therapeutic arsenal:

Functional Groups consisting of Hydrocarbons: Alkyl ( Ethane), Alkenyl ( Ethylene) , Alkynyl (Acetylene), Phenyl (Cumene), Benzyl (Benzyl bromide).

Functional Groups containing Halogens: Halo ( Chloroethane), fluoro (Fluoromethane), chloro (Chloromethane), bromo (Bromomethane), iodo (Iodomethane).

Functional Groups containing oxygen: Hydroxyl (Methanol), Carbonyl (Butanone), Aldehyde (Acetaldehyde), Haloformyl (Acetyl chloride), Carbonate ester (Triphosgene), Carboxylate (Sodium acetate), Carboxyl (Acetic acid), Ester (Ethyl butyrate), Methoxy, Hydroperoxy (Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide), Peroxy (Di-tert-butyl peroxide), Ether (Diethyl ether), Hemiacetal, Hemiketal, Acetal, Ketal , Orthoester, Orthocarbonate ester.

Functional Groups containing nitrogen: Carboxamide (Acetamide), Primary amine (Methylamine), Secondary amine (Dimethylamine), Tertiary amine (Trimethylamine), 4° ammonium ion (Choline), Primary ketimine, Secondary ketimine, Primary aldimine, Secondary aldimine, Imide (Succinimide), Azide (Phenyl azide), Azo (Methyl orange), Cyanate (Methyl cyanate), Isocyanate (Methyl isocyanate), Nitrate (Amyl nitrate), Nitrile (Benzonitrile), Isonitrile (Methyl isocyanide), Nitrosooxy (Isoamyl nitrite), Nitro (Nitromethane), Nitroso (Nitrosobenzene), Pyridyl (Nicotine).

Functional Groups containing sulphur: Sulfhydryl (Ethanethiol), Sulfide (Dimethyl sulfide), Disulfide (Dimethyl disulfide), Sulfinyl (Dimethyl sulfoxide), Sulfonyl (Dimethyl sulfone ), Sulfino (2-Aminoethanesulfinic acid), Sulfo (Benzenesulfonic acid), Thiocyanate (Phenyl thiocyanate), Isothiocyanate (Allyl isothiocyanate), Carbonothioyl (Diphenylmethanethione), Carbonothioyl.

Groups containing phosphorus: Phosphino (Methylpropylphosphane), Phosphono (Benzylphosphonic acid), Phosphate (Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate), Phosphodiester (O‑[(2‑Guanidinoethoxy)hydroxyphosphoryl]‑l‑serine).

Groups containing boron: Borono, Boronate, Borino, Borinate.

THIS IS ONLY A PRELIMINARY THOUGHT IN THIS DIRECTION.

The corner-stone of all skeptic arguments against homeopathy is that ‘similia similibus curentur’ is not a real ‘pattern’ existing in nature- but only an unreal imagination of hahnemann which was wrongly raised to the status of a ‘natural law’ and ‘followed’ by the homeopaths without questioning. Skeptics raise this argument to establish that homeopathy is a ‘pseudoscience’ and ‘faith healing’, since it is the method of pseudoscience to read out imaginary patterns of events from nature and make them ‘laws and principles’ of their theoretical ‘systems’.

If ‘similia similibus curentur’ is only an unreal and imaginary ‘pattern’, homeopathy ceases to exist. That is obvious, since whole system of homeopathy is founded on this ‘basic principle’.

There are two components involved in this ‘principle’- ‘drug symptoms’ and ‘disease symptoms’. This principle tries to explain a peculiar relationship existing between these components. Does such a relationship exist in nature, or is it only an ‘imagination’ of hahnemann? If there exist such a relationship, can we explain its molecular level mechanism in scientific terms leaving aside the ‘explanation’ provided by hahnemann within the historical limitations of scientific knowledge available to him during his period?

We have to examine this question from two angles. First, we have to verify whether there exist an ‘objective’ relationship between drug symptoms and disease symptoms which hahnemann observed and interpreted. Second point is, if such a relationship is real, whether the subjective ‘explanation’ or ‘interpretation’ of hahnemann about such an ‘objective’ phenomenon was right or wrong. Hahnemann might be right or wrong, or partially right. Even if he ‘explained’ it wrongly, that does not mean the objective’ pattern of events in nature he observed in nature do not exist. If the phenomenon is real and hahnemann explain it wrongly, we have to explain it rightly using the advanced scientific knowledge now available to us now- it should not inevitably lead us to the conclusion that the observed phenomenon does not exist.

In its elaborate sense, the term ‘symptoms’ incorporates ‘every’ subjective and objective expressions that could be observed or perceived in the individual, including the chemical processes as revealed by laboratory investigations as well as physical changes as revealed by modern diagnostic tools and gadgets.

SImilia Similibus Curentur explains the peculiar relationship between ‘disease symptoms’ and ‘drug symptoms’.

DRUG SYMPTOMS means, symptoms representing the molecular level errors produced by the inhibitory actions of drug molecules upon the biological molecules in a healthy organism when drug substance is introduced into it.

DISEASE SYMPTOMS means, symptoms representing the molecular level errors produced by the inhibitory actions of endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules upon the biological molecules in a healthy organism.

When disease symptoms expressed by a patient appears to be SIMILAR to the known drug symptoms produced by any of the previously proven drug substance upon a healthy individual, that means, the molecular errors present in the disease as well as the molecular level errors produced by the drug substance were SIMILAR. That in turn means, same biological molecules were affected by the drug molecules and the disease-causing pathogenic molecules. Such a similarity of molecular error happens only when the pathogenic molecules and drug molecules have similar functional groups having similar molecular conformations, so that they could bind to same biological target molecules.

When disease-causing molecules and drug molecules are having similar molecular conformations, they will compete each other to bind to the biological targets, when both the pathogenic molecules and drug molecules work in the body simultaneously. Such a competitive relationship between drug molecules and pathogenic molecules may be utilized to remove pathological molecular inhibitions by applying similar drug molecules. Hahnemann was observing this competitive relationship between SIMILAR drug molecules and disease molecules while talking about ‘similia similibus curentur’, even though he could not explain the molecular mechanism behind this phenomenon, due to obvious historical limitations.

If you were simply ‘practicing homeopathy’ using potentized drugs with ‘sole aim of curing the sick’, with out making any tall claims of scholarly ‘theories’ and ‘methods’, i would have never come in your way with any criticisms. Problems arise only when you pretend to know everything about which you are actually ignorant about, talk unscientific and pseudoscientific ‘dynamic’ theories about homeopathy and boast that your ‘practice’ and ‘experience’ prove and justify all those absurd theories you make.

————————————————————-

I hate people who claim themselves to be homeopaths but propagate most unsientific theories about homeopathy, much more than I hate the venomous anti-homeopathic skeptics. It is because, the internal damage that could be done to homeopathy by nonsense unscientific homeopathic ‘theoreticians’ are more devastating and irrepairable to our system than the external harm caused by the skeptics.

———————————————————————————————–

I am not “negative” to any individual, movement, or any ‘theory’ for personal reasons. I cannot be positive to every absurd things you say, only because you claim those things to be homeopathy. I stand for scientific rebuilding and advancement of homeopathy. I am negative to all unscientific theories and practices happening in the label of homeopathy, and same time positive to everything positive. I am only bothered about ‘what is said’ – not ‘who said it’. That is why i call my approach ‘dialectical’.

————————————————————————————————–

I AM ACCUSED OF BEING THE ‘MOST NEGATIVE PERSON’ BY ALL THOSE DIVERSE COLORS OF SO-CALLED CLASSICAL HOMEOPATHS AND ‘THEORETICIANS’ PROPAGATING VITAL FORCE THEORY, DYNAMISM, FREQUENCIES, ENERGY MEDICINE, SPIRITUAL HOMEOPATHY, HAIR TARANSMISSION, PREDICTIVE THEORY, SENSATION METHOD, SEHGAL METHOD, REFLEXOLOGY, RADIONICS, DREAM PROVING, MEDITATION PROVING, CAM AND ALL SORTS OF NONSENSE AND OCCULTS IN HOMEOPTHY.

YES, I AM. DO YOU KNOW WHY? SCIENTIFIC AWARENESS AND APPROACH I TRY TO PROMOTE IN HOMEOPATHY ARE OBVIOUSLY ‘MOST NEGATIVE’ TOWARDS THEIR UNSCIENTIFIC AND PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC THEORIES AND PRACTICES .

——————————————————————————————-

I was tagged by one of my friends yesterday to a group called ‘Homeopathy For Humanity’. Out of courtesy, I happened to visit their web page, and was shocked to read the articles there. I commented on my friend’s wall narrating my shock, and quoting some paragraphs from there page as follows:
—————————————————————————

I visited the web site of that group, and is totally disillusioned after reading this piece there :

“What is to be treated in a patient?:- A person seeks professional help of a physician when he is lacking in his vital energy. If this much is clearly understood then it is obvious that the treatment of the patient is restoration of the lost energy. If the appropriate energy is given to the patient, the autocratic power that animates the organism works towards restoring the body to the optimal level of normalcy. So the pathology is reversed last but the vital energy is restored first. It is this restoration of vital energy that gives the feeling of well being to a person on being given the correct dose of a homeopathic medicine.

What is homeopathic medicine?:- “Homeopathic medicine is the meta­physical energy that gives the character to the substance / form of its origin. So, a homeopathic medicine prepared out of Aur Met has the meta­physical energy of the quality of Aurum metallicum. When a patient has a loss of energy akin to that of the energy of Aur met and a homeopathic dose of Aur met is given to the patient, the miracle of homeopathic cure takes place. If a wrong medicine is prescribed, no harm is done as the healthy vital force is strong and does not get affected by this minimal dose of energy.”

Another sample: “We are spiritual beings, not just physical entities. We receive energy from the heavens and the earth. We have special energy vortexes throughout our bodies. One of these energy points is in the neck called the Throat Chakra. The Throat Chakra is associated with speech and ability to communicate. If we don’t feel that we are heard or if we feel that we are unwelcome or our feelings and opinions don’t matter this can harm our Throat Chakra and lead to neck pain and/or headaches and even thyroid or larynx issues. Expressing our feelings and connecting to our higher self is the function of the Throat Chakra. We need to stay connected to our higher selves and connect with our creativity, strength and intuition and follow it!”
____________________________________________________________

Responding to my comment, HOMEOPATH 1 posted:

” Chandran I do believe you are the most negative person I have ever met.
I am sorry that you don’t realize that we are spiritual beings.

ME: Yes. I am proud to be the person “most negative” to the NEGATIVE theories that destroy homeopathy, by making homeopathy most unscientific, irrational and unacceptable to modern scientific community. Homeopathy should be dealt with as a medical science. You make it a ‘vortex of absurdity’ by mixing it with ‘energy vortes in body’, ‘chakras’, ‘energy from heavens’ and all sorts of nonsenses. I would not have commentd, unless you drag homeopathy into this “vortex”. Please talk science. Leave spiritual theories to religious forums

HOMEOPATH 2: “Chandran how many patient have u treated homoeopathically..we talk practically, not just theories”

ME: “If you are “talking practically”, to which “practice” these nonsense theories of “energy vortex’, “chakra” and ” “energy from heavens” belong, sir? o you think your “theories” are practical talking, and I am talking theories without any bearing on practice? How can you claim talking about “metaphysical energy” is “practical”? It is nothing but baseless speculative theorization, arising from utter ignorance of scientific concepts of “energy”. Kindly refer to your physics text to know how “energy” is defined in science.

You said in your article on the basis of “practical knowledge” as follows: “If we dont feel that we are heard, or if we feel that we are unwelcome, or our feelings and opinions dont matter, this can harm our throat chakra and lead to neck pain and/or headaches, or even thyroid and larynx issues”.

At least remember, you are talking in 21st century. Kindly think over, how much this kinds of nonsense talks damage the scientific credentials of homeopathic community.”

HOEOPATH 2: “Thanks you dear chandran…. Let go in ‘Liga’ paris there will will thousand of stupid homoeopaths like Us.. You can tell how we people right from hahneman are doing harm to homoeopathy.. See you there in july .. Take care”

—————————————————————————————————

From scientific point of view of pharmaceutical chemistry, a DRUG is a biologically active unit contained in a substance used as therapeutic agent. IT is the structure and properties of that chemical molecule that decides its medicinal properties and therapeutic actions. If such as substance contains only ONE type of biologically active unit, it is a SINGLE drug. If it contains different types of biologically active units, it is a COMPOUND drug. It is obvious that most of the drugs we use in homeopathy – especially drugs of biological origin and complex minerals- contain diverse types of biologically active units, and hence they cannot be considered SINGLE drugs.

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

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

———————————————————————————————

Since I perceive the active principles of potentized drugs in terms of diverse types of hydrosomes or molecular imprints they contain, acccording to my view, SIMILIMUM essentially does not mean SINGLE drug substance. It is the constituent molecular imprints contained in my prescription that matter. I try to ensure that my prescription supplies ALL the diverse types of molecular imprints required to deactivate all the diverse types of pathogenic molecules working in the patient, as indicated by the diverse groups of subjective and objective symptoms expressed by him. If I could find a SINGLE drug preparation that could supply all the molecular imprints required by the patient I am dealing with, I will use only SINGLE drug preparation. If I do not find such a single drug, I will use as many number of drug preparations in my prescription, that are necessary to provide all the molecular imprints required by the patient. SINGLE-MULTIPLE drug confusion never bothers me, as I am thinking in terms of molecular imprints- not drug names. I consider only SINGLE molecular imprint as single drug. IF a drug contains more than one type of molecular imprints, for me it is a COMPOUND DRUG, even if it is meade from a single drug SUBSTANCE.

—————————————————————————————————-

Participating a discussion on MINIMUM DOSE, homeopath working as a lecturer in a homeopathic medical college in India, defined ‘minimum dose’ as follows:

“Confusion will not be resolved as minimum can only be defined through individual experience. Minimum dose means well whatever will bring about a curative effect with minimal disturbance of the patients economy. It is in retrospect.”

According to your definition, the defining factor of ‘minimum dose’ is ”minimal disturbance in economy’. Right? And you mean, ‘minimum dose’ could be determined only ‘in retrospect’. Right? That means, minimum dose can be determined only “after” cure is produced? Any potency, any quantity, any measure, any number of repetitions, should be considered ‘minimum dose’, if it could “bring about a curative effect with minimum disturbance of patients economy”- Right?

If ‘minimum’ dose could be determined only though ‘individual experience”, that too AFTER curative effect is produced, how can you apply that law while a prescription is being made?

Many homeopaths consider an initial aggravation after administering the dose as a desirable thing. According to you, such a “disturbance of patients economy” will have to be considered undesirable, as it shows the dose was not “minimum”. Am i right?

Most importantly, your DEFINITION does not provide the answer for my original questions regarding MINIMUM DOSE. My question was, what you understand by ‘minimum dose’ as hahnemann meant it? Is it minimum quantity of drug substance, so that higher the potency smaller will be the quantity of drug contained in it? Or, does it mean that lower the potency smaller is the dose? OR, does it mean the ‘measure’ administered, such as number of drops or globules, irrespective of potency? Or, does ‘minimum dose’ means minimum ‘number’ of repetitions only? Do the terms ‘minimum dose’ and ínfinitesimal dose’ mean the same?

All these confusions happen because we are discussing ‘dose’ of some thing of which we actually know nothing. We do not know what are the active principles of drugs we are using. We do not know by what biological mechanism they “bring curative effect”. We are not even bothered to know such things. Without knowing such basic things, we make theories and laws about doses!

———————————————————————————————-

According to my view, ‘following’ hahnemann should not mean walking backward and groping in the darkness of two century old primitive knowledge environment where hahnnemann lived and worked in, but to take the essence of hahnemann’s epoch-making ideas 250 years forward through the course of human history, and update it in a way to make it fit to the advanced modern scientific knowledge system.

————————————————————————————————-

I never ‘blame’ hahnemann for the ‘wrong’ things he said. I will not ever do it. I always use to stress that all those ‘wrongs’ were due to the historically imposed limitations of scientific knowledge available to him during his period. Truthfully identifying the ‘wrongs’ does not mean ‘blaming’. They appear ‘wrong’ only because we are perceiving them in modern scientific light, 250 years more advanced than the knowledge that were available during his period . Only if you do a comparative study of his ‘organon’ and ‘chronic diseases’ with the works of his contemporary allopaths, you can realize the greatness, farsightedness, and the epoch-making genius of hahnnemann.

————————————————————————————————

Read organon once again completely and carefully. Then tell me, what you understand by ‘minimum dose’ as hahnemann meant it? Is it minimum quantitity of drug substance, so that higher the potency, smaller will be the quantity of drug contained in it? Or, does it mean that lower the potency, smaller is the dose? OR, does it mean the ‘measure’ administered, such as number of drops or globules, irrespective of potency? Or, does ‘minimum dose’ means minimum ‘number’ of repetitions only? Do the terms ‘minimum dose’ and ínfinitesimal dose’ mean the same?

————————————————————————————————-

You cannot understand or evaluate hahenemann and his teachings in a rational way, in the absence of a ‘historical’ and ‘scientific’ perspective. Always remember, hahnemann was talking 250 years ago. Take his limitations, shortcomings and mistakes in a positive way, since his great contributions to humanity in the form inventing ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’ supercedes all his historically imposed shortcomings and limitations

———————————————————————————————–

The corner-stone of all skeptic arguments against homeopathy is that ‘similia similibus curentur’ is not a real ‘pattern’ existing in nature- but only an unreal imagination of hahnemann which was wrongly raised to the status of a ‘natural law’ and ‘followed’ by the homeopaths without questioning. Skeptics raise this argument to establish that homeopathy is a ‘pseudoscience’ and ‘faith healing’, since it is the method of pseudoscience to read out imaginary patterns of events from nature and make them ‘laws and principles’ of their theoretical ‘systems’.

If ‘similia similibus curentur’ is only an unreal and imaginary ‘pattern’, homeopathy ceases to exist. That is obvious, since whole system of homeopathy is founded on this ‘basic principle’.

There are two components involved in this ‘principle’- ‘drug symptoms’ and ‘disease symptoms’. This principle tries to explain a peculiar relationship existing between these components. Does such a relationship exist in nature, or is it only an ‘imagination’ of hahnemann? If there exist such a relationship, can we explain its molecular level mechanism in scientific terms leaving aside the ‘explanation’ provided by hahnemann within the historical limitations of scientific knowledge available to him during his period?

We have to examine this question from two angles. First, we have to verify whether there exist an ‘objective’ relationship between drug symptoms and disease symptoms which hahnemann observed and interpreted. Second point is, if such a relationship is real, whether the subjective ‘explanation’ or ‘interpretation’ of hahnemann about such an ‘objective’ phenomenon was right or wrong. Hahnemann might be right or wrong, or partially right. Even if he ‘explained’ it wrongly, that does not mean the objective’ pattern of events in nature he observed in nature do not exist. If the phenomenon is real and hahnemann explain it wrongly, we have to explain it rightly using the advanced scientific knowledge now available to us now- it should not inevitably lead us to the conclusion that the observed phenomenon does not exist.

In its elaborate sense, the term ‘symptoms’ incorporates ‘every’ subjective and objective expressions that could be observed or perceived in the individual, including the chemical processes as revealed by laboratory investigations as well as physical changes as revealed by modern diagnostic tools and gadgets.

SImilia Similibus Curentur explains the peculiar relationship between ‘disease symptoms’ and ‘drug symptoms’.

DRUG SYMPTOMS means, symptoms representing the molecular level errors produced by the inhibitory actions of drug molecules upon the biological molecules in a healthy organism when drug substance is introduced into it.

DISEASE SYMPTOMS means, symptoms representing the molecular level errors produced by the inhibitory actions of endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules upon the biological molecules in a healthy organism.

When disease symptoms expressed by a patient appears to be SIMILAR to the known drug symptoms produced by any of the previously proven drug substance upon a healthy individual, that means, the molecular errors present in the disease as well as the molecular level errors produced by the drug substance were SIMILAR. That in turn means, same biological molecules were affected by the drug molecules and the disease-causing pathogenic molecules. Such a similarity of molecular error happens only when the pathogenic molecules and drug molecules have similar functional groups having similar molecular conformations, so that they could bind to same biological target molecules.

When disease-causing molecules and drug molecules are having similar molecular conformations, they will compete each other to bind to the biological targets, when both the pathogenic molecules and drug molecules work in the body simultaneously. Such a competitive relationship between drug molecules and pathogenic molecules may be utilized to remove pathological molecular inhibitions by applying similar drug molecules. Hahnemann was observing this competitive relationship between SIMILAR drug molecules and disease molecules while talking about ‘similia similibus curentur’, even though he could not explain the molecular mechanism behind this phenomenon, due to obvious historical limitations.

Even though SIMILAR drug molecules can remove molecular inhibibitions caused by pathogenic molecules and thereby cure diseases, there is always the chances of producing new inhibitions by drug molecules, which hahnemann observed as side effects and medicinal aggravations. In order to avoid this possibility, hahnemannn started to make drug substances more and more diluted, which led him to the invention of POTENTIZATION. BY potentization, drug molecules are replaced by HYDROSOMES or molecular imprinted supra-molecular nano cavities, which can act as target specific artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules due to the complementary conformational affinity. Since molecular imprints cannot produce molecular inhibitions in biological molecules, they never produce bad effects.

Similia Similibus Curentur is not anybody’s imagination as skeptics try to depict it. It is a REAL PATTERN existing in nature, that explains the competitive relationship in biological environment between drug molecules and pathogenic molecules having functional groups of similar conformations.

———————————————————————————————–

It is the out look and approach that makes a homeopath good or bad, by molding his skills. It is the way he understands and applies homeopathy. It is obvious that the ‘theories’ and ‘hypotheses’ we follow are very important in deciding our ‘approach and outlook’.

————————————————————————————————

Organon is already there as a historical text, with all its strengths and weaknesses. Nobody has the right to rewrite or change the original text, which is the property of hahnemann. We have to study it in present context with a historical and scientific perspective, sort out what are scientifically right and wrong in it, and accept right things, without hesitating to discard and reject the obsolete ideas in it. That is what I mean by dialectical approach. That is the way human knowledge advances to more and more perfection through the course of history

———————————————————————————————

SImilia Similibus Curentur explains the peculiar relationship between ‘disease symptoms’ and ‘drug symptoms’. DRUG SYMPTOMS means, symptoms representing the molecular level errors produced by the inhibitory actions of drug molecules upon the biological molecules in a healthy organism when drug substance is introduced into it. DISEASE SYMPTOMS means, symptoms representing the molecular level errors produced by the inhibitory actions of endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules upon the biological molecules in a healthy organism. When disease symptoms expressed by a patient appears to be SIMILAR to the known drug symptoms producd by any of the previously proven drug substance upon a healthy individual, that means, the molecular errors present in the disease as well as the molecular level errors produced by the drug substance were SIMILAR. That in turn means, same biological molecules were affected by the drug molecules and the disease-causing pathogenic molecules. Such similarity of molecular error happens only when the pathogenic molecules and drug molecules have similar functional groups having similar molecular conformations, so that they could bind to same biological target molecules. WHen disease-causing molecules and drug molecules are having similar molecular conformations, they will compete each other to bind to the biological targets, when both the pathogenic molecules and drug molecules work in the body simultaneously. Such a competitive relationship between drug molecules and pathogenic molecules may be utilized to remove pathological molecular inhibitions by applying similar drug molecules. Hahnemann was observing this competitive relationship between SIMILAR drug molecules and disease molecules while talking about ‘similia similibus curentur’, even though he could not explain the molecular mechanism behind this phenomenon, due to obvious historical limitations.

Even though SIMILAR drug molecules can remove molecular inhibibitions caused by pathogenic molecules and thereby cure diseases, there is always the chances of producing new inhibitions by drug molecules, which hahnemann observed as side effects and medicinal aggravations. In order to avoid this possibility, hahnemannn started to make drug substances more and more diluted, which led him to the invention of POTENTIZATION. BY potentization, drug molecules are replaced by HDROSOMES or molecular imprinted supra-molecular nanocavities, which can act as target specific artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules due to the complementary conformational affinity. SInce molecular imprints cannot produce molecular inhibitions in biological molecules, they never produce bad effects.

———————————————————————————————–

All my ideas about homeopathy are based on my truthful observation and conviction that HOMEOPATHY WORKS. I have no doubt on that, since I have been experiencing and witnessing it happening for more than last 42+ years through thousands and thousands of cases. I believe nothing blindly.

I am also very much convinced that hahnemann was wrong in his ‘theories’ and explanations of HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS, due to the historically imposed inevitable limitations of scientific knowledge available to him during his period. Leaving aside SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR and the MOLECULAR IMPRINTING involved in POTENTIZATION, more than 80% of text that constitute aphorisms of ORGANON are pure absurdity.

———————————————————————————————-

If homeopaths cannot think beyond ORGANON, they can never face the intellectual challenges posed by scientific-minded people against homeopathy. Homeopath should study, interpret and update ORGANON with a scientific perspective.

———————————————————————————————–

Objective and subjective symptoms are the perceptible indicators that help us in identifying the molecular level processes happening in the organism. Normal symptoms indicate normal biochemical processes, where as abnormal symptoms indicate abnormal or pathological processes.

Disease symptoms indicate the abnormal changes in molecular processes happening as part of disease events, where as drug symptoms indicate the changes induced by the action of drug molecules upon the biological molecules and the deviations in biochemical processes arising there from.

Symptoms include everything that could be observed in the individual, including chemical processes as revealed by laboratory investigations as well as physical changes as revealed by modern diagnostic tools and gadgets.

Homeopathy selects appropriate therapeutic agents by matching of ‘disease symptoms’ with ‘drug symptoms’, which actually involves matching of molecular changes produced by diseases with molecular changes produced by drugs. Homeopathy is the art of removing molecular inhibitions produced by pathogenic molecules, using molecular imprints of drug molecules having conformations similar to that of pathogenic molecules.

—————————————————————————————————-

Homeopathic therapeutics can be considered as a peculiar process of SCAVENGING of disease-causing pathogenic molecules using MOLECULAR IMPRINTS that act as conformation-specific artificial LIGAND-TRAPS or molecular TRAWLING NETS

—————————————————————————————————–

‘HYDROSOMES’ OR ‘MOLECULAR IMPRINT’S CONTAINED IN POTENTIZED DRUGS ACT AS CONFORMATION-SPECIFIC ‘LIGAND TRAPS’ OR ‘ARTIFICIAL BINDING SITES’ FOR ‘DISEASE-PRODUCING’ PATHOGENIC MOLECULES.

In biochemistry and pharmacology, a LIGAND is a substance- usually a small molecule, ion or functional group- that binds with a bio-molecule and change its conformation to serve a biological purpose. It may be signal triggering molecules such as hormones and cytokines, substrates, inhibitors, activators, co-factors, neurotransmitters, drug molecules, or pathogenic molecules that bind to a site on a target protein and modifies it actions.

The binding between LIGANDS and TARGETS occurs by inter-molecular forces, such as ionic bonds, hydrogen bonds and van der Waals forces. The docking or association is usually reversible.

Ligand binding to a receptor proteins alters its chemical conformation or three dimensional shape. The conformational state of a receptor protein determines its functional state. The tendency or strength of binding between LIGAND and TARGET is called affinity.

PATHOGENIC MOLECULES as well as DRUG MOLECULES act by binding to biological molecules and modifying their actions by producing conformational changes.

HYDROSOMES are the active principles of potentized drugs. They are ‘molecular imprinted nanocavities’ formed in a supra-molecular matrix of water-ethyl alcohol molecules. These nanocavities can bind to PATHOGENIC MOLECULES having conformations similar to those of drug molecules used for potentization. Potentized drugs act as LIGAND TRAPS or ARTIFICIAL BINDING SITES that can ‘scavenge’ pathogenic molecules.

———————————————————————————————-

We have to select and procure one chemical compound each to represent all the different biologically active FUNCTIONAL GROUPS. These functional groups belong to SEVEN major categories such as HYDROCARBON GROUPS, HALOGEN GROUPS, OXYGEN GROUPS, NITROGEN GROUPS, SULPHUR GROUPS, PHOSPOROUS GROUPS an BORON GROUPS. They should be potentized separately up to above avogadro limit, so as to produce molecular imprints. These drugs will be enough for homeopathic use.

Functional groups containing HYDROCARBONS are Alkyl, Alkenyl , Alkynyl , Phenyl and Benzyl. HALOGEN GROUP consists of Halo, fluoro, chloro, bromo and iodo. Hydroxyl, Carbonyl , Aldehyde , Haloformyl , Carbonate ester, Carboxylate, Carboxyl , Ester , Methoxy, Hydroperoxy , Peroxy, Ether, Hemiacetal, Hemiketal, Acetal, Ketal , Orthoester and Orthocarbonate ester are OXYGEN GROUPS. Carboxamide, Primary amine , Secondary amine, Tertiary amine, 4° ammonium ion, Primary ketimine, Secondary ketimine, Primary aldimine, Secondary aldimine, Imide , Azide , Azo, Cyanate, Isocyanate, Nitrate, Nitrile, Isonitrile , Nitrosooxy Nitro and Nitroso, Pyridyl belong to NITROGEN GROUP. SULPHUR GROUP consists of Sulfhydryl, Sulfide, Disulfide, Sulfinyl, Sulfonyl , Sulfino, Sulfo, Thiocyanate, Isothiocyanate , Carbonothioyl and Carbonothioyl. PHOSPHOROUS GROUP includes Phosphino, Phosphono , Phosphate and Phosphodiester. BORON GROUP is made up of Borono, Boronate, Borino, Borinate.

All our complex drug substances contain diverse types of chemical compounds that act by any one or more of these 68 types of FUNCTIONAL GROUPS they carry. Simple drug molecules contain functional ‘moieties’ which can mimic the actions of such complex functional groups by similarity with the chemical moieties of functional groups while acting upon the biological molecules.

That means, total 68 chemical compounds can represent all the biologically active FUNCTIONAL GROUPS required for curing all the diverse types of diseases caused by all the diverse types of pathogenic molecules. According to this way of thinking, these SIXTY EIGHT DRUGS will be enough for HOMEOPATHIC THERAPEUTICS.

————————————————————————————————

PATHOGENIC MOLECULES produce diseases by binding their active FUNCTIONAL GROUPS to the specific biological molecules in the organism due to their molecular affinity, and producing molecular errors.

During drug proving, poisoning and crude molecular actions, DRUG MOLECULES produce bio-molecular errors and symptoms in the healthy organism by binding their FUNCTIONAL GROUPS to the biological molecules.

When disease symptoms and drug symptoms appear SIMILAR, that means functional groups of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules were similar, so that they could bind to similar bio-molecular targets and produce similar molecular errors in the organism.

HYDROSOMES or ‘molecular imprints’ of ‘functional groups’ of drug molecules contained in the potentized drugs can act as ‘artificial binding sites or LIGAND TRAPS towards the SIMILAR pathogenic molecules, due to their COMPLEMENTARY conformation.

It is now obvious that when using SIMILIMUM as therapeutic agents, we are actually using MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of ‘functional groups’ of drug molecules to bind to the ‘functional groups’ of pathogenic molecules and deactivate the.

This observation leads us to some very important conclusions: What we actually need is the MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of biologically active FUNCTIONAL GROUPS. If we can prepare molecular imprints of all biologically active functional groups, and make them available as homeopathic remedies, we will not need all these thousands of different drug substances. We will require only a very limited number of drugs, which could be universally applied as per homeopathic indications.

We will have to prepare MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of only following classes of FUNCTIONAL GROUPS to make our wonderful therapeutic arsenal:

Functional Groups consisting of Hydrocarbons: Alkyl ( Ethane), Alkenyl ( Ethylene) , Alkynyl (Acetylene), Phenyl (Cumene), Benzyl (Benzyl bromide).

Functional Groups containing Halogens: Halo ( Chloroethane), fluoro (Fluoromethane), chloro (Chloromethane), bromo (Bromomethane), iodo (Iodomethane).

Functional Groups containing oxygen: Hydroxyl (Methanol), Carbonyl (Butanone), Aldehyde (Acetaldehyde), Haloformyl (Acetyl chloride), Carbonate ester (Triphosgene), Carboxylate (Sodium acetate), Carboxyl (Acetic acid), Ester (Ethyl butyrate), Methoxy, Hydroperoxy (Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide), Peroxy (Di-tert-butyl peroxide), Ether (Diethyl ether), Hemiacetal, Hemiketal, Acetal, Ketal , Orthoester, Orthocarbonate ester.

Functional Groups containing nitrogen: Carboxamide (Acetamide), Primary amine (Methylamine), Secondary amine (Dimethylamine), Tertiary amine (Trimethylamine), 4° ammonium ion (Choline), Primary ketimine, Secondary ketimine, Primary aldimine, Secondary aldimine, Imide (Succinimide), Azide (Phenyl azide), Azo (Methyl orange), Cyanate (Methyl cyanate), Isocyanate (Methyl isocyanate), Nitrate (Amyl nitrate), Nitrile (Benzonitrile), Isonitrile (Methyl isocyanide), Nitrosooxy (Isoamyl nitrite), Nitro (Nitromethane), Nitroso (Nitrosobenzene), Pyridyl (Nicotine).

Functional Groups containing sulphur: Sulfhydryl (Ethanethiol), Sulfide (Dimethyl sulfide), Disulfide (Dimethyl disulfide), Sulfinyl (Dimethyl sulfoxide), Sulfonyl (Dimethyl sulfone ), Sulfino (2-Aminoethanesulfinic acid), Sulfo (Benzenesulfonic acid), Thiocyanate (Phenyl thiocyanate), Isothiocyanate (Allyl isothiocyanate), Carbonothioyl (Diphenylmethanethione), Carbonothioyl.

Groups containing phosphorus: Phosphino (Methylpropylphosphane), Phosphono (Benzylphosphonic acid), Phosphate (Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate), Phosphodiester (O‑[(2‑Guanidinoethoxy)hydroxyphosphoryl]‑l‑serine).

Groups containing boron: Borono, Boronate, Borino, Borinate.

THIS IS ONLY A PRELIMINARY THOUGHT IN THIS DIRECTION.

————————————————————————————————

To understand the real science behind the phenomena of ‘similia similibus curentur’, ‘drug proving’ and ‘potntization’, we should study drug substances in terms of not only their ‘constituent molecules’, but in terms of ‘functional groups’ and ‘moieties’ of those drug molecules. A drug substance is composed of diverse types of drug molecules. A drug molecule interacts with ‘active groups’ of biological target molecules such as enzymes and receptors using their ‘functional groups’ or ‘moieties’. It is the ‘functional groups’ and ‘moieties’ on the individual drug molecules that decide to which biological molecules they can bind to and produce molecular inhibitions. Different drug molecules with different size and structures, but having same ‘functional group’ or ‘moiety’ can bind to same biological molecules and produce similar molecular errors and similar groups of symptoms. A drug molecule become similimum to a disease when the drug molecule and disease-producing molecule have same functional groups, so that they could bind to same biological targets producing same molecular errors and same symptom groups.

Drug molecules act upon the biological molecules in the organism by binding their ‘functional groups’ to the active groups on the complex biological molecules such as receptors and enzymes. These molecular interactions are determined by the affinity between functional groups or moieties of drug molecules and active sites of biological molecules. Here, the functional groups of drug molecules are called ‘ligands’, and the biological molecules are called ‘targets’. Ligand-target interaction is determined by a peculiar ‘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 molecules and disease-causing molecules have same functional groups on them, by which they bind to same biological molecules. 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.

According to the scientific definition proposed by Dialectical Homeopathy, ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ means:

“If a drug substance in crude form is capable of producing certain groups of symptoms in a healthy human organism, that drug substance in potentized form can cure diseases having similar symptoms”.

Potentization is explained in terms of molecular imprinting. As per this concept, potentized drugs contains diverse types of molecular imprints representing diverse types of constituent molecules contained in the drug substances used for potentization.

In other words, “potentized drugs can cure diseases having symptoms similar to those produced by that drug in healthy organism if applied in crude forms”.

Homeopathy 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”.

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 ‘similar’ does not mean pathological molecule and drug molecules should be similar in their ‘whole’ molecular structure. To bind to same targets, similarity of ‘functional groups’ or even a ‘moeity’ is enough. If the adjacent groups that facilitate binding with targets are also same, similarity becomes more perfect. If a drug molecule could produce symptoms similar to a disease, that means the drug molecules contains some functional groups simialr to those of pathogenic molecules that caused the disease. By virtue of these similar functional groups, both pathogenic molecules and drug molecules could bind to same biological targets, producing similar molecular errors and symptoms in the organism.

Molecular imprints of similar functional groups will also be similar. As such, potentized forms of a drug substance can bind and deactivate the pathogenic molecules having similar functional groups. This is the real molecular mechanism of ‘similia similibus curentur’.

Except those substances of simple chemical formula belonging to mineral groups, most of the pathogenic agents as well as drug substances consist of complex organic molecules. In the study of chemical interactions involving these organic molecules, understanding the concept of ‘functional groups’ is very important. ‘Functional groups’ are specific groups of atoms within large organic molecules that are responsible for their characteristic chemical reactions. Different organic molecules having 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 or influenced to an extent by nearby functional groups.

Even though the word moiety is often used synonymously to “functional group”, according to the IUPAC definition,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.

Organic reactions are facilitated and controlled by the functional groups of the reactants.

A ‘moeity’ represents discrete non-bonded components. Thus, Na2SO4 would contain 3 moieties (2 Na+ and one SO42-). A “chemical formula moiety” is defined as “formula with each discrete bonded residue or ion shown as a separate moiety”.

We should learn different types of ‘functional groups’ and ‘moieties’ of constituent molecules of our drug substances, as well as diverse types of pathogenic molecules. We have to study our materia medica from this viewpoint, comparing symptoms of different drug molecules having same functional moieties. Then we can logically explain the phenomenon of ‘drug relationships’. We can explain the similarity of drugs belonging to different groups such as ‘calcarea’, ‘merc’, ‘kali’, ‘acid’, ‘sulph’, ‘mur’ etc. Such an approach will make our understanding of homeopathy more scientific and accurate.

The following is a list of common functional groups.

Functional Groups containing Hydrocarbons:

Functional groups, called hydrocarbyls, that contain only carbon and hydrogen, but vary in the number and order of π bonds. Each one differs in type (and scope) of reactivity.

Alkyl ( Ethane), Alkenyl ( Ethylene) , Alkynyl (Acetylene), Phenyl (Cumene), Benzyl (Benzyl bromide).

Hydrocarbons may form charged structures: positively charged carbocations or negative carbanions. Carbocations are often named -um. Examples are tropylium and triphenylmethyl cations and the cyclopentadienyl anion.

Functional Groups containing halogens:

Halo ( Chloroethane), fluoro (Fluoromethane), chloro (Chloromethane), bromo (Bromomethane), iodo (Iodomethane).

Haloalkanes are a class of molecule that is defined by a carbon-halogen bond. This bond can be relatively weak (in the case of an iodoalkane) or quite stable (as in the case of a fluoroalkane). In general, with the exception of fluorinated compounds, haloalkanes readily undergo nucleophilic substitution reactions or elimination reactions. The substitution on the carbon, the acidity of an adjacent proton, the solvent conditions, etc. all can influence the outcome of the reactivity.

Functional Groups containing oxygen:

Hydroxyl (Methanol), Carbonyl (Butanone), Aldehyde (Acetaldehyde), Haloformyl (Acetyl chloride), Carbonate ester (Triphosgene), Carboxylate (Sodium acetate), Carboxyl (Acetic acid), Ester (Ethyl butyrate), Methoxy, Hydroperoxy (Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide), Peroxy (Di-tert-butyl peroxide), Ether (Diethyl ether), Hemiacetal, Hemiketal, Acetal, Ketal , Orthoester, Orthocarbonate ester.

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 (carbonyl groups) and the donating effects of sp2 hybridized oxygen (alcohol groups).

Functional Groups containing nitrogen:

Compounds that contain nitrogen in this category may contain C-O bonds, such as in the case of amides.

Carboxamide (Acetamide), Primary amine (Methylamine), Secondary amine (Dimethylamine), Tertiary amine (Trimethylamine), 4° ammonium ion (Choline), Primary ketimine, Secondary ketimine, Primary aldimine, Secondary aldimine, Imide (Succinimide), Azide (Phenyl azide), Azo (Methyl orange), Cyanate (Methyl cyanate), Isocyanate (Methyl isocyanate), Nitrate (Amyl nitrate), Nitrile (Benzonitrile), Isonitrile (Methyl isocyanide), Nitrosooxy (Isoamyl nitrite), Nitro (Nitromethane), Nitroso (Nitrosobenzene), Pyridyl (Nicotine).

Functional Groups containing sulphur:

Sulfhydryl (Ethanethiol), Sulfide (Dimethyl sulfide), Disulfide (Dimethyl disulfide), Sulfinyl (Dimethyl sulfoxide), Sulfonyl (Dimethyl sulfone ), Sulfino (2-Aminoethanesulfinic acid), Sulfo (Benzenesulfonic acid), Thiocyanate (Phenyl thiocyanate), Isothiocyanate (Allyl isothiocyanate), Carbonothioyl (Diphenylmethanethione), Carbonothioyl.

Compounds that contain sulfur exhibit unique chemistry due to their ability to form more bonds than oxygen, their lighter analogue on the periodic table. Substitutive nomenclature (marked as prefix in table) is preferred over functional class nomenclature (marked as suffix in table) for sulfides, disulfides, sulfoxides and sulfones.

Groups containing phosphorus:

Phosphino (Methylpropylphosphane), Phosphono (Benzylphosphonic acid), Phosphate (Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate), Phosphodiester (O‑[(2‑Guanidinoethoxy)hydroxyphosphoryl]‑l‑serine).

Compounds that contain phosphorus exhibit unique chemistry due to their ability to form more bonds than nitrogen, their lighter analogues on the periodic table.

Groups containing boron:

Borono, Boronate, Borino, Borinate.

Compounds containing boron exhibit unique chemistry due to their having partially filled octets and therefore acting as Lewis acids..

————————————————————————————————–

If you ask different homeopaths to prescribe for a SINGLE patient, they will make DIFFERENT prescriptions, and in most cases, they get more or less desired results also. How would we explain this common experience?

Most people consider this as showing the weakness of homeopathy. Once you understand the molecular mechanism involved in pathology, ‘similia similibus curentur and potentization as explained by MIT, you would realize that it expresses the strength of homeopathy.

We have been taught to believe that finding similimum is a process of matching ‘personality of patients’ with ‘personality of drugs’, and that a patient will have only ONE similimum that exactly fits to his ‘personality’. The concept of ‘constitutional prescriptions’ is based on this idea. As per this concept, if the ‘personality’ of a patient is CALC, any disease he suffer from will be cured by CALC. Any drug, other than CALC will be an WRONG prescription.

MIT teaches us to perceive drug substances in terms of constituent molecules and their functional groups. Crude drug substances act up on our organism not by their ‘drug personality’, but by binding their INDIVIDUAL constituent molecules to different biological molecules so as to produce molecular inhibitions, which amount to pathology. Exactly, it is the FUNCTIONAL GROUPS or MOIETIES of individual drug molecules that binds to specific functional sites of biological molecules.

During potentization, it is not the ‘drug personality’ that is ‘imprinted’, but the INDIVIDUAL drug molecules. Potentized drugs contains MOLECULAR IMPRINTS, which are three-dimensional negative copies of drug molecules or functional groups formed as ‘depressions’ in water-alcohol matrix. A molecular imprint act as ARTIFICIAL BINDING SITE for ANY molecule that has functional groups similar to the drug molecule imprinted to it, due to complementary conformation. A sample of potentized drug will be containing diverse types of molecular imprints representing diverse types of consituent molecules and functional groups, each of which can INDIVIDUALLY act as therapeutic agents. That means, potentized drug is not SINGLE, but a mixture of many different molecular imprints that act independently.

DISEASE also should be understood as MOLECULAR ERRORS happened in one or biochemical pathways, due to binding of exogenous or endogenous pathogenic molecules on essential biological molecules which result in PROTEIN DEFORMATIONS. CURE is the removal of these molecular inhibitions by using appropriate means.

Once we perceive diseases in terms of molecular level errors and biomolecular inhibitions, we would realize that a patient coming to us will be suffering from diverse types of entirely different molecular inhibitions, caused by entirely different pathogenic molecules. Such different molecular errors will be expressed through DIFFERENT groups of subjective and objective symptoms. Each different molecular inhibition may need different molecular imprints that fits well to the specific molecular conformation of particular pathogenic molecule.

It is obvious that DISEASE is not SINGLE, DRUGS are not SINGLE.

Since it is the SIMILARITY of conformation of pathogenic molecules and conformation of functional groups of individual drug molecules that decide SIMILIMUM, a SINGLE patient could be cured by entirely DIFFERENT DRUGS, if they contain molecular imprints of similar functional groups.

That means, ALL symptoms of a DRUG substance NEED NOT necessarily match to ALL symptoms of a particular patient to cure a particular disease. If the selected drug contains the particular molecular imprint required for removing a particular molecular inhibition by conformational similarity, it will cure. No need of worrying about MATCHING of the entire DRUG PERSONALITY and PATIENT PERSONALITY.

According to my view, this FLEXIBILITY of prescriptions shows the STRENGTH of homeopathy.

I hope this explanation will resolve the confusions over the experience that different homeopaths prescribe different drugs for a single patient, all of them getting desired positive result.

————————————————————————————————-

Homeopathy is PATIENT-SPECIFIC- we have to find a SIMILIMUM for the INDIVIDUAL patient, considering his TOTALITY OF SYMPTOMS. This ‘individual’ approach is the greatest merit of homeopathy, which enable us to successfully treat even very complicated, un-diagnosed and non-specific diseases where other systems fail.

Problem with PATIENT-SPECIFIC approach is, it demands utmost accuracy in selecting ONE ‘perfectly indicated’ drug from ‘seemingly indicated’ hundreds of drugs. If the selection is wrong the prescription fails. Most of the homeopathic failures belong to this class.

If we could develop a DISEASE-SPECIFIC approach at least for WELL-DIAGNOSED diseases and clinical emergencies , practice of homeopathy will become more simple, and rate of failures could be reduced to a great extent. It will enable freshers and average homeopaths to stick on to practicing homeopathy by producing reasonable results until he master the classical PATIENT-SPECIFIC methods of homeopathic practice.

Here is the importance of HOMEOPATHIC SPECIFICS. Kindly do not misunderstand me. I am not talking about the so-called ‘specifics’ in the market prepared by mixing of mother tinctures and low potencies, which are no way different from their allopathic or ayurverdic counterparts. I am talking about HOMEOPATHIC SPECIFICS, which contain not any drug molecules, but only MOLECULAR IMPRINTS- drugs potentized above 12c.

———————————————————————————————–

A learned homeopath commented on my page: “I differ with you about avogadra theory, limitation to 12c. See jakoi venvenista a scientist of france. he denied yr theory in 1988”.

Sir, ‘avogadro theory’ is not mine. It is well accepted and well verified theory in modern science, based on which many calculations are made in successful scientific researches. If you “disagree with avogadro theory”, it is not a silly matter. If you or anybody can prove avogadro theory wrong, it will have great implications upon whole modern science. Kindly give details regarding your disagreements, with references to the works of that scientist who disproved it.

By “jakoi venvenista” are you referring to the works of the famous french immunologist Jacques Benveniste(1935–2004)? Did you actually read or understand what were the works of benveniste all about? Who told you he disproved avogadro theory?

————————————————————————————————

Whenever you come across a NEW drug in homeopathy, you should inquire what is its source, how it is potentized and how it is proved. There are lot of nonsense happening around the world in the name of MODERN DRUGS. Most of them are ‘proved’ by absurd methods such as ‘dream proving’, ‘meditation proving’, ‘trituration proving’, ‘kingdom studies’, ‘periodic table’ etc. These MODERN drugs and their rubrics are added to the so-called MODERN repertories also, to make them appear BIG! Most ridiculous thing is, these MODERN drugs are ‘prepared’ from NOTHINGNESS using ‘radionics machines’, which claim to prepare ‘ANY DRUG, ANY POTENCY’ with in seconds without using any crude drug or back potency, but only ‘CODES OF FREQUENCIES”!

————————————————————————————————-

Unless we develop a whole range of local as well as systemic SPECIFICS for ANAESTHESIA and to tackle emergency situations such as bleeding, surgical shock, infections, inflammations, etc, we cannot think about incorporating surgery into homeopathic practice

———————————————————————————————–

I have explained my ideas about homeopathy in every details, and believe that I am right. If you think I am wrong or ‘ridiculous’, kindly tell me on which POINTS I am wrong and ‘ridiculous’. We can discuss. Do not make sweeping comments and disappear.

———————————————————————————————-

My question was, “If you do not know what are actually contained in the potentized drugs you use, how can you rationally make theories and laws about ‘selection of potencies’?”

According to a learned homeopath friend, this question is “RIDICULOUS”! He says “study hahnemann and his all writings properly through a good teacher and you will not raise your all ridiculous questions , and queries.”

He seems to think that I am asking all these “ridiculous questions” only because I did not “study hahnemann and his all writings properly through a good teacher”. That means, people who “study hahnemann and his all writings properly through a good teacher” are not expected to ask this type of “ridiculous questions” about homeopathy. They should only ‘follow’ what was taught by the teacher! NICE!

————————————————————————————————–

I am not trying to interpret the ‘words’ of hahnemann. I am trying to ‘study’ hahnemann and his works with a rational and scientific perspective. I am trying to scientifically understand the ‘real’ phenomena and processes of nature hahnemann studied, utilized and explained using the knowledge available to him during his period. Obviously, I will have to take the ideas and observations of hahnemann 250 years forward through the history of human knowledge and make it compatible with the modern scientific knowledge environment. For me, ‘following’ the master means not to recite and quote his ‘aphorisms’ blindly and dogmatically without considering their rational essence and historical context, but to understand and update them dialectically.

———————————————————————————————–

Many ‘modern’ drugs are claimed to be proven by methods such as ‘meditation proving’, ‘dream proving’, ‘trituration proving’etc. They have published ‘big’ materia medica of those drugs. They claim many miraculous cures with those drugs. There are people ‘publishing’ hundreds of cures made by ‘hair transmission’. Many ‘homeopaths’ claim to ‘make’ potencies of any drugs from ‘nothingness’ using radionics machines. They also ‘cure’ people! Should I agree that all these nosense are ‘working’, only because their propagaters claim of ‘cures’? Same is applicable also to the claims regarding ‘high potency’ provings.

If ‘high potencies’ can be used for proving, you should be able to identify already proven drugs by administering them in healthy persons and observing the symptoms they produce. Can anybody claim they can identify drugs by observing symptoms only, if their identity is kept hidden? That is my ever-standing challenge to ‘high potency provers’, which nobody dared to take up so far.

—————————————————————————————————-

Most homeopaths are comfortable with whatever small ‘money’ they could generate from their practice, and the euphoria arising from the respect and recognition they get in the community as ‘doctors’ and ‘professionals’. They love to make themselves believe that they have ‘big’ knowledge, much ‘bigger’ than the ‘non-professional’ and less qualified ‘lay men’ straying around. They love to believe that homeopathy is a ‘perfect’ science, much advanced than modern science. They sincerely believe that their ‘master’ is the ‘greatest ever’ scientist lived on this earth, and every word of ‘master’ is ultimate science and immutable truth. They cannot tolerate anybody who say they know very little about modern science and ask them to update. They cannot tolerate anybody who say their master’s knowledge was limited by the knowledge environment of his period, and that there are many unscientific things in his ‘words’. They cannot tolerate anybody asking them hard questions that force them to come out of thier comfort zones. Their displeasure and bitterness towards me are quite understandable.

————————————————————————————————

If you do not know what are actually contained in the potentized drugs you use, how can you rationally make theories and laws about ‘selection of potencies’?

———————————————————————————————-

How can you rationally talk about dosage, repetition, antidoting, duration of actions, drug relationships and such things if you do not know anything scientifically about what are the ‘active principles’ of substances you use as medicines, and what is the biological mechanism by which they act? Only on the basis of what ‘master said’ 250 years ago in the light of very limited scientific knowledge available to him during his period?

——————————————————————————————

DISEASE SYMPTOMS and DRUG SYMPTOMS appear to be SIMILAR when the PATHOGENIC MOLECULES and DRUG MOLECULES have similar conformations, so that they can bind to SIMILAR biological molecules and produce SIMILAR molecular inhibitions which are expressed through SIMILAR symptoms.

MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug molecules will be ‘nano cavities’ having molecular conformations exactly COMPLEMENTARY to the drug molecules used for imprinting, as well as to the pathogenic molecules having conformations similar to the drug molecules. These NANO CAVITIES can bind to the pathogenic molecules by COMPLEMENTARY relationship by acting as LIGAND TRAPS or ARTIFICIAL BINDING SITES, and deactivate them. This process leads to the removal of MOLECULAR INHIBITIONS in the biological molecules caused by the pathogenic molecules. This is the molecular mechanism of homeopathic cure.

——————————————————————————————–

Bio-molecular mechanism of a curative process could be considered ‘homeopathic’, only if the ‘active principles’ of therapeutic agent interact with pathogenic molecules by a ‘homeopathic’ relationship. In such a relationship, the molecular conformation of ‘active principles’ of ‘remedies’ will be exactly complementary to the conformation of pathogenic molecules, so that they can bind each other by a ‘key-lock’ mechanism wherein the pathogenic molecules act as ‘keys’ and the active factors of therapeutic agents as ‘key-holes’ of the ‘locks’. Such a ‘homeopathic’ relationship happens only when the ‘active principles’ of therapeutic agents are ‘hydrosomes’ or ‘molecular imprinted nanocavities’ that can act as ‘ligand traps’ or ‘artificial binding sites’ for the pathogenic molecules. That means, the therapeutic agents should be made by ‘molecular imprinting’ or ‘potentization’ of pathogenic molecules themselves, or any drug molecules having conformations ‘similar’ to the pathogenic molecules. This is the molecular basis of ‘similia similibus curentur’ explained in scientific terms.

————————————————————————————————-

If you are not using drugs in ‘molecular imprints’ forms (means potentized above avogadro limit or 12c), it is not homeopathy whatever ‘theories’ and ‘laws’ you talk about. Only molecular imprints can act by a bio-molecular mechanism that is truly ‘homeopathic’. When you use ‘molecular forms’ of drugs (mother tinctures and potencies below avogadro limit or 12c), they act by a bio-molecular mechanism exactly same as allopathy or ayurveda. It is the ‘active principles’ of therapeutic agents you use and the way they act in the body that determines whether you are doing homeopathy or allopathy- not your theories, laws, labels or degrees.

——————————————————————————————————

I am trying to talk biochemistry, molecular biology, protein chemistry, enzyme kinetics, bio-molecular inhibitions, molecular pathology, ligand-target interactions, supra-molecular chemistry, molecular imprinting, biological mechanism of cure, off-target actions of antibodies and such subjects to a community represented by this young homeopath! I feel a bit of self pity. Excuse me, friends.

A young homeopath from Kerala posted: “We homeopaths explained it how the medicines acts. Do the allopaths give any explanation about how their medicines act? If they give explanation on the action of their drugs, then why do their medicines give such side effects, which shows that they can’t explain thier medicines action on the human body……”

I just intervened: “Did the homeopaths ever “explain how potentized drugs act, or what are the ‘active principles of potentized drugs’? If there is any such explanation, kindly share

His confident reply: “Yep its clearly explained how these homeopathic remedies act”

Me: “Could you tell here what is that “clear” explanation?

The young man posted a link and asked me: “Click on the link to know how they act”

Eager to know what is that “clear explanation”, I went to that page. It was a blog by a man named Dr William.E.Thomas MD. The article is quoted below:

“Hahnemann was a vitalist and believed that the cause of a disease is the untuning of the vital force which manifests itself on the outside of the body by many various symptoms. He approached therapy following the Law of Similars.

This is what Hahnemann said in his book Materia Medica Pura in a chapter called ‘Spirit of Homeopathic Healing’: “The diseases are only dynamic disharmonies of our existence and nature, therefore it is impossible for people to destroy them in any other way than through forces and powers, which also have the ability to bring forward dynamic changes of the human existence; that is the diseases will be really and dynamically cured through medicines.”

In Hahnemann’s view medicines directly affect the nerves, that is, that part of the body which is in the closest contact with the soul. By diluting medicines their coarse effect (‘grobmaterielle Wirkung’) is removed on other organs except the nervous system. After the medicament has been freed of coarse and useless matter (‘durch diese Befreiung von der groben und hindernden Materie’) what is left is a medicament weaker in material substance but dynamically more effective.

But how can such small doses of medicine show their strength? How to achieve their potentization, how to release the hidden healing force from inside the drugs, how to dynamize them? Hahnemann explains in Organon §11: “What is dynamic influence, dynamic force? We see that earth causes the moon to revolve around it … by some invisible mysterious force and that the moon in its turn produces in the ocean at regular intervals alternating tides of ebb and flow … A magnet powerfully attracts a piece of iron or steel near it in a similar way; …The invisible force of the magnet does not need any mechanical (material) means, such as a hook or lever; it attracts the iron or a steel needle by its own pure, nonmaterial, invisible, spirit-like force. We have here a dynamic phenomenon. …In a similar way a child who has smallpox or measles will transmit them to a healthy child by approaching him, even without touching him. This contamination takes place invisibly (dynamically) at a distance, with no more transmission of any material particle from one to the other than from the magnet to the steel needle. A specific, spirit-like influence communicates smallpox or measles to the child nearby, just as the magnet communicates magnetic force to the needle.”

Hahnemann is quite specific in Organon, §269: “This remarkable transformation of the properties of natural bodies through the mechanical action of trituration and succussion on their particles (while these particles are diffused in an inert dry or liquid substance) develops the latent dynamic powers previously imperceptible and as it were lying hidden asleep in them. These powers electively affect the vital principle of animal life. This process is called dynamization or potentization (development of medicinal power), and it creates what we call dynamizations or potencies of different degrees.”

Answering the question, how to release the hidden healing force from inside the drug, how to achieve its potentization or how to dynamize the medicine, Hahnemann recalled Rumford’s experiments.

Benjamin Rumford (1753 – 1814) is considered to be the inventor of mechanical heat theory. He knew the transformation of labour into heat by speculating that heat is nothing else but movements of the smallest particles. By swift movements, that is, by friction of two metallic plates in a closed room, Rumford achieved an increase in temperature inside that room.

From this phenomenon Hahnemann deducted that metal contains untapped reserves of heat energy in latent, bound, undeveloped state: “…latent heat, even in metals that feel cold, is manifested when they are rubbed …” Hahnemann used this partial discovery of physics – that the rubbing together of two metallic objects brings out heat – to support his theory of dynamization.

Hahnemann performed dynamization, or potentization, of medicines by a precise numbers of shakings – succussions – in given time sequences, or by an exact number of mixing – triturations – of a pure, diluted medicinal substance that was free from all coarse materials. Such high dilution was than potentized – dynamized – by repeated shakings. For treatment Hahnemann used as a rule high potencies which he achieved by diluting thirty times and than by dynamizing with exact number of shakings.

Hahnemann came to these results:

I. = 1 millionth part = C3 = D6
II. = 1 billionth part = C6 = D12
III. = 1 sextillionth part = C18 = D36
IV. = 1 decillionth part = C30 = D60

The “spirit-like” power of medicines (‘fast geistige Kraft der Arzneien’) cannot be discovered and neither can the cause of the disease itself. We may learn about both from their symptoms only. Hahnemann understood the disease and remedy as pure dynamic states. In the state of untuning, disharmony, of the spirit-like vital force in man, which is the disease, homeopathic remedy evokes a new, artificial sickness. The original disease is replaced by a new sickness (‘Arzneiliche Krankheitsaffektion’), which either extinguishes itself, or is overpowered by the original vital force. The result is a state of health again.

Hahnemann firmly believed in the effect of the dynamically potentized homeopathic medicines. The technical way of preparing homeopathic remedies has been described by Hahnemann himself. The technique of preparing homeopathic medicines was improved later. Nowadays machines are used by pharmaceutical manufacturers. This was made possible because the theory of “spirit-like” powers of homeopathic drugs has been abandoned. It has not been replaced by any other theory and present homeopaths quote “positive personal experiences … subjectively persuasive.” In most cases homeopathic remedies nowadays do not exceed in dilutions the Avogadro number.

In order to avoid the strong effect of medicines used internally, Hahnemann introduced as well as dilutions and powders a form of sugar globules – Streukuegelchen – where the homeopathic substance was 1:300 parts. Such a globule was meant only to be put on the tongue. Hahnemann’s belief in the spirit-like power of dynamized medicines led him to allow patients only to smell the homeopathic remedies. He believed for example that Drosera can cure after two shakings in the decillionth solution (X. = C30 = D60), whereas from the same (D60) dilution after twenty or more shakings, one drop taken in a teaspoon could bring a person into mortal danger.

Homeopathy does not search for the reasons of vital force disharmony, that is, for the causes of diseases. It is sufficient to find a homeopathic medicament by comparing the similarity of symptoms. Hahnemann maintained that diseases are not and could not be caused by mechanical or chemical changes of the material body substance. In Organon §25, Hahnemann stated: “… physicians of the old school…a number of diseases that they … recognize only according to the categories of orthodox pathology, they fancy that they see in them an imaginary disease substance or some hypothetical inner abnormality. They always see something, but never know what it is; the obtain results that no human but only a god could decipher in such a muddle of forces converging on an unknown object, results from which there is nothing to be learned, nothing to be gained. Fifty years of this sort of experimentation are like fifty years spent looking into a kaleidoscope fitted with multicolored unknown things endlessly revolving upon themselves; in the end one has seen thousands of shapes perpetually changing, without accounting for any of them.”

Hahnemann’s medical doctrine claimed good results in acute benign illnesses and from chronic diseases in the category of psychosomatic disorders. There are doctors who give homeopathy credit for psychotherapeutic effects. Others identify homeopathic therapy with placebo effect. At the time when the main therapeutic method was bloodletting, then called in jest “Broussai’s vampirism”, the harmless medicinal treatment of homeopaths with a certain dose of psychotherapy could have shown success compared with other therapeutic systems.

The homeopathic system of therapy had to deal with chronic diseases as well. Hahnemann’s work ‘Chronic Diseases, their Nature and Homeopathic Treatment’ [5] was published in 1828, and shall be referred to later. There are only a few comments to be made on homeopathic treatment of chronic diseases. The method was a disappointment, and was discredited even more by the unique view of its founder on the causes and nature of chronic illnesses as described by Hahnemann in his book.

In 1926, when professor of History of Medicine Paul Diepgen published his book ‘Hahnemann und die Homoeopathie’ (Freiburg 1926), he could cite just one case of a patient treated by Hahnemann himself. Nowadays there is at our disposal a study by Dr.Heinz Heine from 1963, ‘Hahnemanns Krankenjournale Nr.2, 3.’ [6] The volumes consist of accurate transcripts of Hahnemann’s notes from his medical records from 1801 until 1803 of patients under his treatment. There are very few chronic cases treated by Hahnemann himself.”

ACCORDING TO OUR YOUNG HOMEOPATH, THIS ARTICLE PROVIDES THE MOST “SCIENTIFIC” “CLEAR” EXPLANATION OF HOMEOPATHIC DRUG ACTION! HE IS ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT THIS “EXPLANATION” IS MUCH CLEARER AND FAR SUPERIOR THAN THE EXPLANATIONS OF ALLOPATHY REGARDING THE ACTIONS OF THEIR DRUGS! I WAS DUMB-FOUNDED!

I just said: “Thanks. Now the explanation is ‘clear’”! What else I can?

I am trying to talk biochemistry, molecular biology, protein chemistry, enzyme kinetics, bio-molecular inhibitions, molecular pathology, ligand-target interactions, supra-molecular chemistry, molecular imprinting, biological mechanism of cure, off-target actions of antibodies and such subjects to a community represented by this young homeopath! I feel a bit of self pity. Excuse me, friends

————————————————————————————————-

Only those symptoms which are produced by ‘proving’ drugs in MOLECULAR FORMS, or obtained from accidental poisonings or toxicological studies are homeopathically reliable.

Since MOLECULAR IMPRINTS contained in potentized drugs cannot produce any effects up on normal interactions of biological molecules, symptoms claimed to be collected from so-called ‘high potency’ provings are unreliable as homeopathic indicators of remedies.

Most of such ‘high potency’ symptoms are pure imaginations or placebo effects exacly similar to ‘meditation provings’, ‘dream provings’, ‘trituration provings’ and other absurd ‘proving’ techniques propagated by ‘energy medicine’ homeopaths.

In certain cases, ‘high potency’ symptoms may represent molecular level changes happening in the organism as a result of he removal of some already existing molecular errors by the molecular imprints contained the potentized drugs. Obviously, they are not symptoms caused by drugs, but symptoms representing the curative actions of potentized drugs. They cannot be considered ‘drug symptoms’ in its real sense, and cannot be used as indicators for selecting similimum

————————————————————————————————-

THEORY as well as PRACTICE of homeopathy is actually very simple, if taught scientifically and perceived rationally. People with vested interests make it appear complex and difficult, so that beginners and students get confused and throng into their ‘seminar’ halls to ‘learn’ and pay for the wonderful ‘methods’ they market!

————————————————————————————————–

I do not expect existing generation of ‘official authorities’ of homeopathy can ever accept MIT concepts of scientific homeopathy. First of all, they cannot understand it. Even if anyone among them understand it, they cannot accept it, or even will try to strangle it, since MIT will sweep away the sand hills of fame, positions and fortunes they have built so far, by teaching, propagating, writing text books and conducting seminars about the unscientific dogmatic ‘theories and methods’ in the name of homeopathy. I know, I will have to wait until a new generation of science-conscious homeopaths take over the charge

————————————————————————————————

Submitting MIT concepts of scientific homeopathy for the evaluation and judgement of ‘official authorities’ is like entrusting jackals as the caretakers of chickens! They will ‘take care’ of it by instantly killing it!

————————————————————————————————-

QUESTION 1: What are the ‘active principles of potentized drugs?

ANSWER: ‘Active principles’ of potentized drugs are ‘hydrosomes’ or ‘molecular imprinted supra-molecular nanocavities of water-ethyl alcohol molecules’ prepared by a process of molecular imprinting known as potentization.

QUESTION 2: What is the molecular mechanism by which potentized act as therapeutic agents?

ANSWER: Due to the complementary conformational affinity, ‘hydrosomes’ or ‘molecular imprinted supra-molecular nanocavities’ contained in potentized drugs can remove the pathogenic molecular inhibitions in the organism by acting as ‘ligand traps’ or ‘artificial binding sites’, for pathogenic molecules having conformations similar to the drug molecules used for potentization.

————————————————————————————————

I do not think RECOGNITION from any ‘official authority’ is inevitable to establish an objective TRUTH. I do not also think a WRONG idea will become RIGHT only because it is ‘recognized’ by an ‘authority’. I could not so far see any ‘official authority’ in HOMEOPATHY intellectually and materially competent to verify and judge MIT concepts using scientific methods. All those who belong to the class of ‘official authorities’ are people teaching, practicing and propagating most unscientific and dogmatic ‘theories and methods of practices’ in homeopathy. They never bother even about questions such as what are the active principles of potentized drugs, or what is biological mechanism by which potentized drugs act. They never think beyond organon, vital force and dynamic drug energy. They are very poor in scientific knowledge to such a low level that they cannot even understand what is discussed in MIT. I have no hope in these ‘official authorities’ and ‘international masters’ of homeopathy. I am looking forward with all hopes to the new generation of science-conscious homeopaths and students. Only they can bring a revolution in homeopathy.

—————————————————————————————————

A homeopath raises a very important issue as follows:

In Organon Hahnemann uses the word “small dose” in the meaning “low potency”. But Kent says in Lectures that it “small dose” means “the medicine actually have lesser substance”. If so, “small dose” means higher potency. Further, Hahnemann says in 159 that small dose cause small aggravation. Does it mean “higher” potencies causes “smaller” aggravation?”

My Comment: Kent and hahnemann made these controversial statements without any scientific understanding regarding what are the active principles of substances they are using, or how they actually act. As such, in the present context, this question itself is IRRELEVANT. You can resolve these types of questions only through scientific studies-not through INTERPRETATION of master’ or stalwart’s words. There are many statements in organon and chronic diseases that are not acceptable from a scientific view point. Only thing we can settle in this type of controversial statements is which of these is the “bigger” nonsense!

Even hahnemann has said that chicken pox and measles are transferred from person to person exactly like a magnet attracting an iron needle, by an ‘immaterial way’. There is no meaning in trying to interpret such obviously irrational and unscientific statements NOW. Simply throw such wrong things away and clean up organon and homeopathy.

————————————————————————————————

It is wrong to say 200c contains ‘lesser substance’ than 30c. Both of them -everything above 12c- contain NO SUBSTANCE. Actually, there is no difference between 30c and 200c regarding ‘contents’. They contain nothing but ‘molecular imprinted supra-molecular nano cavities of water’ or ‘hydrosomes’ that can act as ‘ligand traps’ and to bind to pathogenic molecules.

————————————————————————————————–

Any individual writes or talks about his ‘experiences’ and ‘observations’ according to HIS understanding and judgement of those experiences and observations. His understanding and judgement will be based on his level of knowledge and his world outlook. If his understanding and judgement is wrong, he will write or talk it wrong, even if they are ‘based’ on his ‘truthful’ experiences and observations. This is applicable to hahnemann, kent or any ‘stalwart’. Of course, it is applicable to you and me also!

————————————————————————————————–

Do not accept or ignore any idea only because it is OLD. Do not accept or ignore any idea only because it is NEW. Try to discriminate between right and wrong, disregarding whether they are new or old. We should make our OWN judgment on the basis of advanced scientific knowledge, using scientific methods and of course, rational thinking.

————————————————————————————————-

Once you understand potentized drugs in terms of ‘hydrosomes’ or ‘molecular imprinted supra-molecular nanocavities of water’, all your confusions regarding selection of potencies will spontaneously melt away. Only thing you will have to decide will be whether you want to use the drugs in ‘molecular form’ or ‘molecular imprints form. Potencies below 12c are ‘molecular’, and above 12c are ‘molecular imprints’. Molecular drugs act by a biological mechanism exactly similar to allopathic drugs. To be genuinely homeopathic in actions, you have to use drugs in molecular imprints forms, or above 12c.

————————————————————————————————–

I would suggest to use the term HYDROSOMES for ‘molecular imprinted supra-molecular nano cavities of water’. It would be a most appropriate, original, meaningful and convenient term for regular use. ‘HYDRO’ indicates ‘water’, and ‘SOMES’ indicates ‘cavities’. Now we can say, active principles of potentized homeopathic drugs are HYDROSOMES.

———————————————————————————————-

I hope scientists will shortly realize the implications of homeopathic potentization as a process of preparing ‘molecular imprinted nano cavities’ in water-alcohol supra-molecular matrix, which could be used as ‘ligand traps’ that can act as conformation-specific artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules. Such a realization would enable them to develop a whole new range of safe and target-specific medicinal agents that could be incorporated into the therapeutic armamentarium of modern molecular medicine. Once it happens, modern medical science and pharmaceutical industry will undergo revolutionary changes.

————————————————————————————————

Molecular imprinted nano cavities contained in potentized drugs act as conformation-specific LIGAND TRAPS that can ‘entrap’ pathogenic ligands having shapes exactly similar to the drug molecules used for imprinting. Hope I sad it clearly.

—————————————————————————————————

Once you start talking about potentized drugs and homeopathy in terms of ‘molecular imprinted nano cavities’ they contain, you can rationally and convincingly explain the ‘biological mechanism’ of therapeutics involved in ‘Similia Similibus Curentur using modern scientific paradigms even to a member of modern medical profession who so far considered homeopathy a ‘fake’ or ‘placebo’. Only thing is, you should have some working knowledge about the bio-molecular interactions underlying the vital processes underlying life, disease and cure as revealed by modern biochemistry and molecular biology.

————————————————————————————————–

Study, preparation and application of NANO CAVITIES is special area of NANO TECHNOLOGY. Polymer-based nano cavities are prepared by MOLECULAR IMPRINTING IN POLYMERS. Molecular imprinted polymers could not be applied as therapeutic agents in living organisms. Homeopathic potentization is a process of preparing MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or supra-molecular NANO CAVITIES in water-ethyl alcohol matrix, that could be safely used as therapeutic agents.

————————————————————————————————-

Once you could perceive potentized drugs in terms of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or supra-molecular NANO CAVITIES that can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules having complimentary conformation, you will see that you can answer any hard questions about homeopathy rationally and scientifically. You will see how much rationally you can explain the biological mechanism of ‘similia similibus curentur’ in a way exactly fitting to the paradigms of modern science. You will see no questions remain unanswered, or no riddles unresolved in homeopathy. You will see, homeopathy becomes a full-fledged MEDICAL SCIENCE.

—————————————————————————————————

It is totally wrong to say potentized homeopathic drugs contain NANO PARTICLES. They contain NANO CAVITIES. It makes a big difference in its implications, which IIT scientists failed to understand.

————————————————————————————————

Active principles of POTENTIZED DRUGS are ‘molecular imprints’ consisting of supra-molecular ‘NANO CAVITIES’ or EMPTY SPACES previously occupied by drug molecules used for potentization. These supra-molecular NANO CAVITIES can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules similar to the drug molecules, due to their complimentary conformations, thereby relieving the biological molecules from INHIBITIONS caused by pathogenic molecules. This is the molecular mechanism involved in MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS known as HOMEOPATHY.

———————————————————————————————-

Read Organon : Aphorism 17 : Sixth Edition

“Now, as in the cure effected by the removal of the whole of the perceptible signs and symptoms of the disease the internal alteration of the vital principle to which the disease is due – consequently the whole of the disease – is at the same time removed,1 it follows that the physician has only to remove the whole of the symptoms in order, at the same time, to abrogate and annihilate the internal change, that is to say, the morbid derangement of the vital force – consequently the totality of the disease, the disease itself.2 But when the disease is annihilated the health is restored, and this is the highest, the sole aim of the physician who knows the true object of his mission, which consists not in learned – sounding prating, but in giving aid to the sick.

Foot note1: A warning dream, a superstitious fancy, or a solemn prediction that death would occur at a certain day or at a certain hour, has not unfrequently produced all the signs of commencing and increasing disease, of approaching death and death itself at the hour announced, which could not happen without the simultaneous production of the inward change (corresponding to the state observed internally); and hence in such cases all the morbid signs indicative of approaching death have frequently been dissipated by an identical cause, by some cunning deception or persuasion to a belief in the contrary, and health suddenly restored, which could not have happened without the removal, by means of this mortal remedy, of the internal and external morbid change that threatened death.

Foot note 2: It is only thus that God the preserver of mankind, could reveal His wisdom and goodness in reference to the cure of the disease to which man is liable here below, by showing to the physician what he had to remove in disease in order to annihilate them and thus re-establish health. But what would we think of His wisdom and goodness if He has shrouded in mysterious obscurity that which was to be cured in diseases (as is asserted by the dominant school of medicine, which affects to possess a supernatural insight into the nature of things), and shut it up in the hidden interior, and thus rendered it impossible for man to know the malady accurately, consequently impossible for him to cure it?”

POINTS TO BE NOTED:

Cure is effected by the removal of the “whole of the perceptible signs and symptoms” of the disease.

“internal alteration of the vital principle (understand as vital processes) to which the disease is due”, and “consequently the whole of the disease” will be removed once “the whole of the perceptible signs and symptoms” are removed.

“to abrogate and annihilate” the “internal change”, we have only to remove the “whole of the perceptible signs and symptoms”.

“when the disease is annihilated the health is restored, and this is the highest, the sole aim of the physician”.

“whole of the perceptible signs and symptoms” shows the physician what he had to remove in disease in order to annihilate them and thus re-establish health.

Listen, hahnemann does not merely say “symptoms”- he says “whole of the perceptible signs and symptoms of disease”. It is obvious that he wanted to say something more comprehensive than that could be conveyed by the word “symptoms”.

SYMPTOMS+ PERCEPTIBLE SIGNS. NOT SYMPTOMS ALONE. That is what he said. PERCEPTIBLE SIGNS OF DISEASE covers everything that could be PERCEIVED about the INTERNAL DERANGEMENT underlying the disease. In modern context, it includes EVERYTHING that could be perceived about disease, with the help of modern instruments and TECHNOLOGIES that work as extensions of our SENSE ORGANS. Our PERCEPTION of SIGNS of diseases changes and becomes more and more deeper, accurate and comprehensive as modern science and technology advances.

I want to make a point here regarding the importance of studying aphorisms of organon in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge context.

————————————————————————————————

In modern knowledge context, definition of “knowledge of diseases” hahnemann proposed as a basic qualification of “good physician” inevitably should mean the understanding of biochemical processes involved in the ‘molecular level pathology’ of diseases.

“Knowledge of medicinal powers” should include the knowledge regarding the exact ‘active principles’ of potentized drugs, and the biological mechanism by which they produce cure.

“Proper dose and repetition” could be scientifically decided only if you know ‘what is the exact active principles’ of potenteized drugs we are using, and ‘how they actually work’.

“Knowledge of things deranging health” actually means scientific understanding of modern hygiene and nutrition.

Our practice will become “judicious and rational” as hahnemann defined, only if modern homeopaths attain at least that much of scientific awareness . Do you say “most of homeopaths” are equipped with these essential scientific knowledge to be qualified as ‘good physicians’?

—————————————————————————————————–

SEE HOW HAHNEMANN DEFINES THE QUALITIES OF A GOOD ‘PHYSICIAN’:

The physician’s high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed. The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible principles.

To be “a true practitioner of the healing art.”, a physician should know “how to treat judiciously and rationally”. He should have “knowledge of disease”. He should have “knowledge of medical powers”. He should have knowledge of “choice of the medicine indicated”. He should have knowledge of “proper dose and the proper repeating the dose”. He should have knowledge of “obstacles to recovery in each case”. He should have knowledge of “how to remove” those obstacles. He should also know about the “things that derange health and cause disease, and how to remove them from persons in health”.

Each word in this definition is important. Every homeopath should honestly look into himself and examine whether he is at least earnestly trying to fit himself to this wonderful definition.

———————————————————————————————-

I think hahnemann asked us to be ‘free from prejudice’ only in the meaning that we should be free from blind, irrational or vested prejudices- he would not have wanted us to be ’empty-heads’. Only an empty-headed idiot can be 100% ‘free’ from PREJUDICES. If you already know something, that knowledge itself will be a ‘prejudice’ that determines the way you approach new things. Our ‘prejudices’ form the basis of our world outlook. That may be blind or learned. I do not think all ‘prejudices’ other than those with vested interests are deplorable. We should be prejudiced in favor of science, truth and everything progressive.

————————————————————————————————–

Once you start perceiving drug substances in terms of their ‘constituent’ molecules, and potentized drugs in terms of independent ‘molecular imprints’ of ‘individual’ drug molecules, you will experience a fundamental change in your whole approach to homeopathic theory and practice.

You will see most of our existing ‘beliefs’ and ‘laws’ vanishing spontaneously. Questions regarding selection of potencies, single/multiple drugs, drug relationships, second prescriptions, fear of suppression, miasmatic analysis, and many other issues that confuse young homeopaths simply fade away in the light of this rational scientific approach.

Collecting ‘complete’ symptoms of the patient, finding similimum that contain all the required molecular imprints, administering them in potencies just above 12c, and repeating doses appropriately until cure is ensured- homeopathy is so simple and straight forward. No scope for confusions once you understand MIT!

————————————————————————————————–

JAN SCHOLTEN describes his most favored MEDITATION DRUG PROVING TECHNIQUE on his interhomeopathy website as follows:

“Image provings (looking at a plant or an image of it and meditating on it), thought provings.

Some homeopaths have the idea that dream or meditation provings cannot give correct results. All provings have advantages and disadvantages and I’ve placed some of them in the table below.

For me the meditation proving is often the most convenient and helpful. It gives results fast and with little effort. The disadvantages are that the picture will not be complete and can be incorrect in parts. But that can also be the case with other provings.

In my experience, meditation provings often are quite reliable and give the essence of the remedy, more so than dream provings. For others the opposite can be true.

When used with care, the information in meditation provings can be and has been very helpful in the development of the remedy pictures.

Advantages of MEDITATION PROVING: Low cost in time and energy, Full attention, Little event disturbance, Full tuning.

Disadvantages of MEDITATION PROVING: Meditation disturbance, Personal Disturbance, Partial picture”

—————————————————————————–

DEAR HOMEOPATH FRIENDS, WHAT ARE YOUR OPINIONS REGARDING THIS ‘MEDITATION PROVING’, where the proving is done by simply “looking at a plant or an image of it and meditating on it”? Do you subscribe to SCHOLTEN’s view that it is “very helpful in the development of the remedy pictures”?

————————————————————————————————–

We all know, ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ is the essential, fundamental ‘principle’ of HOMEOPATHY. Even though this ‘therapeutic law’ was evolved by the founder of homeopathy 250 years ago under severe limitations of scientific knowledge, it is wonderful to note that it still holds good even under modern scientific scrutiny. Credit goes to the extra ordinary genius of Dr Hahnemann.

Hahnemann explained “similia similibus curentur’ in terms of ‘similarity of disease-symptoms’ and ‘drug-symptoms’. I think it is inappropriate in modern knowledge context to reduce ‘similia similibus curentur’ to mean only ‘similarity of symptoms’, once we understand molecular level biological mechanism of disease and cure. It is genuine ‘homeopathy’ if we are curing diseases by using ‘potentized’ or ‘molecular imprints’ forms of drugs, even if prescribed without considering ‘similarity of symptoms’ in its ‘classical’ meaning.

Exactly, the concept of ‘similimum’ should be re-interpreted in terms of ‘conformational similarity of functional groups of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules’-not ‘similarity of symptoms’.

‘Similia similibus curentur’ actually means, ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules having ‘similar’ conformation, and bind to them so as to remove the molecular inhibitions they produced up on the biological molecules.

‘Similarity of symptoms’ is only ONE of the many ‘practical’ ways of determining this similarity of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules. Selecting similimum by comparing disease symptoms and drug symptoms is based on the idea that similar molecules can bind to similar bio-molecular targets and produce similar molecular errors in the organism, which will be expressed through similar symptoms. There is nothing ‘un-homeopathic’ if you could find similimum by some methods other than comparing symptoms, such as knowledge of biochemistry or molecular pathology, if it is possible.

Actually, we make many excellent ‘homeopathic’ cures bypassing the concept of ‘similarityof symptoms’. So called ‘tautopathic’ prescriptions, where molecular imprints of modern chemical drugs are used to remove their bad effects, belong to this class. Many ‘specifics’ and ‘experience-based’ prescriptions are successfully used in day-to-day homoeopathic practice ignoring the ‘similarity of symptoms’. Many of the potentized hormone remedies, biological products and nosodes are commonly used without any ‘matching’ of symptoms, but on the basis of peripheral knowledge only. Most of the ‘causational’ prescriptions never consider ‘similarity of symptoms’. All of these various approaches work well in most occasions. Only those ‘well-proved’ drugs with complete materia medica of mental and constitutional symptoms could be used if we strictly follow the principle of ‘totality of symptoms’.

————————————————————————————————–

Only way to know whether a new idea is only an ‘imagination’ or a ‘scientific working hypothesis’ is to verify whether it agrees with existing scientific knowledge in every aspects. If it is a ‘scientific working hypothesis’, it would be capable of explaining the particular phenomenon rationally and logically, in a way fitting to the principles, paradigms and frameworks of existing scientific knowledge system. Anybody can verify whether MIT concepts satisfies this basic requirement to qualify as a viable scientific hypothesis or is it only a story of fanciful imagination.

————————————————————————————————-

By whatever way you select drugs, or by whatever ‘theory’ you ‘explain’ homeopathy, if we are using those drugs in potencies above 12c or ‘molecular imprints form’, they ‘work’ by same biological mechanism, by binding to pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity and removing the pathological molecular inhibitions in the organism.

Same way, whether you call your practice as allopathy, homeopathy or anything else, if you are using drugs in ‘molecular forms’- crude drugs, mother tinctures and potencies below 12c- they ‘work’ by same biological mechanism, by acting upon the biological molecules by the chemical properties of their constituent molecules.

———————————————————————————————–

Hahnemann’s statement “disease may be produced by sufficient disturbance of the vital force through the imagination and also cured by the same means” actually explains the phenomena of so-called psychosomatic diseases, which are well explained by biochemistry, without any involvement of vital force theory.

According to scientific view, “imaginations’ and “emotions” are not “non-material” What we call ’emotions’ and ‘sensations’ are actually very complex biochemical processes happening in our brain. There is nothing ‘immaterial’ in ’emotions’ and other mental processes. During those biochemical processes, different types of chemical molecules are synthesized and utilized by the central nervous system, such as hormones, cytokines, neuro-mediators and neurotransmitters etc. What we call ‘bad effects’ of emotions are actually the delayed, off-target or rebound chemical actions of these biochemical molecules.

Biochemistry can explain phenomena such as diseases caused by ‘imaginations and emotions’ without any involvement of any ‘immaterial’ or ‘dynamic’ vital force.

————————————————————————————————-

Regarding the question “how vital force causes disease”, Hahnemann declares “it would be of no practical utility to the physician to know, and will forever remain concealed”. Up on god, he says the physician should try to know only “what it is necessary for him to know of the disease and what is fully sufficient for enabling him to cure it”! Lazy and dogmatic homeopaths love to quote this statement frequently to cover up their inability to answer “how homeopathy works”. According to them, our master has eternally forbidden us from asking such questions!

————————————————————————————————-

Listen to this statement in foot-note of aphorism 11, which amounts to a confession by Hahnemann:

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

This statement clearly explains how Hahnemann happened to “think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal”. It was only “since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner”! He was compelled to explain homeopathy using concepts of “dynamic energy” and “vital force”, only because he could not explain the phenomena of cure he observed, using “any other manner”!

This statement constitutes a great historical truth.

——————————————————————————————————

According to hahnemann, vital force is a ‘dynamis’ that ‘animates’ and ‘rules’ the ‘material body’. It is this vital force that “retains all the parts of the organism in admirable, harmonious, vital operation, as regards both sensations and functions”. As per this view, “material body” is only an “instrument” of “indwelling, reason-gifted mind”.

Hahnemann seems to think that the role of “material body” is limited to obeying the “rule” of vital force and act as an “instrument” of mind. He do not consider the molecular level structure, organization and chemical properties of the complex biological molecules constituting the ‘material body’ to play a role in the evolution of the phenomena he call ‘vital force’.

He failed to understand that a ‘vital force’ cannot ‘animate’ a NON-LIVING ‘material body’ irrespective of its molecular level structure, organization and chemical properties? Actually, it is the STRUCTURE, ORGANIZATION and CHEMICAL PROPERTIES of complex biological molecules in the organism that initiate the MOLECULAR INTERACTIONS of ‘vital processes’ hahnemann call “vital force”.

It is obvious that VITAL FORCE theory perceives biological processes upside down! At least, hahnemann should have noticed that this “all powerful” VITAL FORCE cannot “animate” MATERIAL BODIES if they have no a molecular level structure appropriate for the complex biological interactions constituting the vital processes.

————————————————————————————————

Homeopathy can exist even without vital force theory. Actually, it becomes more rational and scientific by replacing the concept of ‘vital force’ with modern scientific understanding of ‘molecular level biochemical vital processes’.

————————————————————————————————-

The most relevant question our ‘vital force’ theoreticians have to answer is, can this “immaterial” vital force ‘animate’ a metal body, a stone or a piece of wood and convert them into LIVING organisms, and give them ‘sensations’? Why vital force is capable of “animating” ONLY “material bodies” having a peculiar molecular structure and organization?

No ‘vital force’ can ‘animate’ a dead organism and bring it back to life, once the biochemical processes essential for normal vital functions are stopped and biological molecules are disorganized. All the functions you consider as vital force are seen only in highly organized organism constituted by complex biological molecules. It is the molecular level structure and organization of biological molecules and their interactions that impart properties of life to a ‘material body’. Vital force cannot animate a ‘material object’ in the absence of biological chemical molecules.

———————————————————————————————–

What we call ’emotions’ and ‘sensations’ are actually very complex biochemical processes happening in our brain. There is nothing ‘immaterial’ in ’emotions’ and other mental processes. During those biochemical processes, different types of chemical molecules are synthesized and utilized by the central nervous system, such as hormones, cytokines, neuromediators and neurotransmitters etc. What we call ‘bad effects’ of emotions are actually the delayed, off-target or rebound chemical actions of these biochemical molecules. Biochemistry can explain such phenomena without any involvement of any ‘immaterial’ or ‘dynamic’ vital force.

————————————————————————————————–

‘Vital Force’ or ‘Vital Process’?- How to study aphorisms with a scientific perspective:

In Aphorisms 9 to 16 hahnemann explains his VITAL FORCE THEORY, which is actually a reassertion of unscientific philosophy of DYNAMISM that was a strong intellectual presence during his period. This part of ORGANON contributes much in making homeopathy incompatible with modern scientific knowledge, and it seems to be the greatest stumbling block in our efforts of making homeopathy a MEDICAL SCIENCE. This part of organon reflects the most primitive state of scientific knowledge that existed during hahnemann’s period. There is no doubt, if master had lived a few years later, he would have completely avoided this part from organon. In my opinion, these most unscientific aphorisms should be bracketed from new editions of organon being taught in our colleges, classifying it as only of historical interest. They should be replaced and updated with NEW scientific understanding of life, disease and cure, based on modern biochemistry and advanced life sciences.

For a scientific-minded person, there nothing to be seriously debated or argued in the following aphorisms, other than noting its historical premises and moved away into the archives.

Homeopathy can exist even without vital force theory. Actually, it becomes more rational and scientific by replacing the concept of ‘vital force’ with modern scientific understanding of ‘molecular level biochemical vital processes’.

READ Organon : Aphorism 9:

“In the healthy condition of man, the spiritual vital force (autocracy), the dynamis that animates the material body (organism), rules with unbounded sway, and retains all the parts of the organism in admirable, harmonious, vital operation, as regards both sensations and functions, so that our indwelling, reason-gifted mind can freely employ this living, healthy instrument for the higher purpose of our existence.”

My comments:

According to hahnemann, vital force is a ‘dynamis’ that ‘animates’ and ‘rules’ the ‘material body’. It is this vital force that “retains all the parts of the organism in admirable, harmonious, vital operation, as regards both sensations and functions”. As per this view, “material body” is only an “instrument” of “indwelling, reason-gifted mind”.

Hahnemann seems to think that the role of “material body” is limited to obeying the “rule” of vital force and act as an “instrument” of mind. He do not consider the molecular level structure, organization and chemical properties of the complex biological molecules constituting the ‘material body’ to play a role in the evolution of the phenomena he call ‘vital force’. He failed to understand that a ‘vital force’ cannot ‘animate’ a NON-LIVING ‘material body’ irrespective of its molecular level structure, organization and chemical properties? Actually, it is the STRUCTURE, ORGANIZATION and CHEMICAL PROPERTIES of complex biological molecules in the organism that initiate the MOLECULAR INTERACTIONS of ‘vital processes’ hahnemann call “vital force”. It is obvious that VITAL FORCE theory perceives biological processes upside down! At least, hahnemann should have noticed that this “all powerful” VITAL FORCE cannot “animate” MATERIAL BODIES if they have no a molecular level structure appropriate for the complex biological interactions constituting the vital processes.

Organon : Aphorism 10 : Sixth Edition:

“The material organism, without the vital force, is capable of no sensation, no function, no self-preservation1, it derives all sensation and performs all the functions of life solely by means of the immaterial being (the vital principle) which animates the material organism in health and in disease.

Foot notes:- It is dead, and only subject to the power of the external physical world; it decays, and is again resolved into its chemical constituents.”

My comments:

The most relevant question is, can this “immaterial” vital force ‘animate’ a metal body, a stone or a piece of wood and convert them into LIVING organisms, and give them ‘sensations’? Why vital force is capable of “animating” ONLY “material bodies” having a peculiar molecular structure and organization?

No ‘vital force’ can ‘animate’ a dead organism and bring it back to life, once the biochemical processes essential for normal vital functions are stopped and biological molecules are disorganized. All the functions you consider as vital force are seen only in highly organized organism constituted by complex biological molecules. It is the molecular level structure and organization of biological molecules and their interactions that impart properties of life to a ‘material body’. Vital force cannot animate a ‘material object’ in the absence of biological chemical molecules.

Organon : Aphorism 11 : Sixth Edition:

“When a person falls ill, it is only this spiritual, self acting (automatic) vital force, everywhere present in his organism, that is primarily deranged by the dynamic1 influence upon it of a morbific agent inimical to life; it is only the vital force, deranged to such an abnormal state, that can furnish the organism with its disagreeable sensations, and incline it to the irregular processes which we call disease; for, as a power invisible in itself, and only cognizable by its effects on the organism, its morbid derangement only makes itself known by the manifestation of disease in the sensations and functions of those parts of the organism exposed to the senses of the observer and physician, that is, by morbid symptoms, and in no other way can it make itself known.

Foot notes:- What is dynamic influence, – dynamic power? Our earth, by virtue of a hidden invisible energy, carries the moon around her in twenty-eight days and several hours, and the moon alternately, in definite fixed hours (deducting certain differences which occur with the full and new moon) raises our northern seas to flood tide and again correspondingly lowers them to ebb. Apparently this takes place not through material agencies, not through mechanical contrivances, as are used for products of human labor; and so we see numerous other events about us as results of the action of one substance on another substance without being able to recognize a sensible connection between cause and effect. Only the cultured, practised in comparison and deduction, can form for himself a kind of supra-sensual idea sufficient to keep all that is material or mechanical in his thoughts from such concepts. He calls such effects dynamic, virtual, that is, such as result from absolute, specific, pure energy and action of the one substance upon the other substance.

For instance, the dynamic effect of the sick-making influences upon healthy man, as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the principle of life in the restoration of health is nothing else than infection and so not in any way material, not in any way mechanical. Just as the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material, not mechanical. One sees that the piece of iron is attracted by one pole of the magnet, but how it is done is not seen. This invisible energy of the magnet does not require mechanical (material) auxiliary means,
hook or lever, to attract the iron. The magnet draws to itself and this acts upon the piece of iron or upon a steel needle by means of a purely immaterial invisible, conceptual, inherent energy, that is, dynamically, and communicates to the steel needle the magnetic energy equally invisibly (dynamically). The steel needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property.

In a similar way, the effect of medicines upon living man is to be judged. Substances, which are used as medicines, are medicines only in so far as they possess each its own specific energy to alter the well-being of man through dynamic, conceptual influence, by means of the living sensory fibre, upon the conceptual controlling principle of life. The medicinal property of those material substances which we call medicines proper, relates only to their energy to call out alterations in the well-being of animal life. Only upon this conceptual principle of life, depends their medicinal health-altering, conceptual (dynamic) influence. Just as the nearness of a magnetic pole can communicate only magnetic energy to the steel (namely, by a kind of infection) but cannot commu nicate other properties (for instance, more hardness or ductility, etc.). And thus every special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of man in a peculiar manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only small-pox and not measles.

These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of the medicinal substances, thus dynamically, as if through infection. Far more healing energy is expressed in a case in point by the smallest dose of the best dynamized medicines, in which there can be, according to calculation, only so little of material substance that its minuteness cannot be thought and conceived by the best arithmetical mind, than by large doses of the same medicine in substance.

That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed, conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses.

It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or mathematical surfaces (with which the higher energies of the dynamized medicines are being interpreted but vainly as still sufficiently material) that the medicinal energy is found. More likely, there lies invisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated, specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has become through the dynamization.

Is it then so utterly impossible for our age celebrated for its wealth in clear thinkers to think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner?

If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination? And if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?”

My Comments:

Listen to this statement, which amounts to a confession by Hahnemann: “think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner”. That clearly explains how Hahnemann happened to “think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal” It was only “since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner”! He was compelled to explain homeopathy using concepts of “dynamic energy” and “vital force”, only because he could not explain the phenomena of cure he observed, using “any other manner”! This statement constitutes a great historical truth.

In my opinion, foot note of aphorism 11 is a severe self-insult Hahnemann inflicted upon his own credibility, as it contains a lot of most irrational and unscientific statements that reflects the limitations of scientific knowledge available to him.

Please read carefully the following statements I quoted from this most unscientific and most unwanted foot-note:

“Our earth, by virtue of a hidden invisible energy, carries the moon around her”
“moon raises our northern seas to flood tide and again correspondingly lowers them to ebb by a hidden invisible energy”

“we see numerous other events about us as results of the action of one substance on another substance without being able to recognize a sensible connection between cause and effect.”

“calls such effects dynamic, virtual, that is, such as result from absolute, specific, pure energy and action of the one substance upon the other substance.”

“For instance, the dynamic effect of the sick-making influences upon healthy man, as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the principle of life in the restoration of health is nothing else than infection and so not in any way material, not in any way mechanical. “

“the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material, not mechanical.”

“the piece of iron is attracted by one pole of the magnet, but how it is done is not seen.”

“The magnet draws to itself and this acts upon the piece of iron or upon a steel needle by means of a purely immaterial invisible, conceptual, inherent energy, that is, dynamically, and communicates to the steel needle the magnetic energy equally invisibly (dynamically).”

“a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property.”

“Substances, which are used as medicines, are medicines only in so far as they possess each its own specific energy to alter the well-being of man through dynamic, conceptual influence, by means of the living sensory fibre, upon the conceptual controlling principle of life “

“The medicinal property of those material substances which we call medicines proper, relates only to their energy to call out alterations in the well-being of animal life.”

“Only upon this conceptual principle of life, depends their medicinal health-altering, conceptual (dynamic) influence, just as the nearness of a magnetic pole can communicate only magnetic energy to the steel, namely, by a kind of infection.”

“every special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of man in a peculiar manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only small-pox and not measles. “

“These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of the medicinal substances, thus dynamically, as if through infection”

“That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed, conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses”

“It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or mathematical surfaces that the medicinal energy is found. “

“there lies invisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated, specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has become through the dynamization.”

“If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination?”

“And if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?”

IF YOU READ ALL THESE SENTENCES I QUOTED FROM ABOVE FOOT NOTE, YOU WILL REALIZE WHY I CONSIDER THIS FOOT NOTE AS A SELF-INFLICTED INSULT UP ON CREDENTIALS OF OUR MASTER.

Organon : Aphorism 12 : Sixth Edition:

“It is the morbidly affected vital energy alone that produces disease, so that the morbid phenomena perceptible to our senses express at the same time all the internal change, that is to say, the whole morbid derangement of the internal dynamis; in a word, they reveal the whole disease; consequently, also, the disappearance under treatment of all the morbid phenomena and of all the morbid alterations that differ from the healthy vital operations, certainly affects and necessarily implies the restoration of the integrity of the vital force and, therefore, the recovered health of the whole organism.

Foot notes:- How the vital force causes the organism to display morbid phenomena, that is, how it produces disease, it would be of no practical utility to the physician to know, and will forever remain concealed from him; only what it is necessary for him to know of the disease and what is fully sufficient for enabling him to cure it, has the Lord of life revealed to his senses”

My Comments:

Regarding the question “how vital force causes disease”, Hahnemann declares “it would be of no practical utility to the physician to know, and will forever remain concealed”. Up on god, he says the physician should try to know only “what it is necessary for him to know of the disease and what is fully sufficient for enabling him to cure it”! Lazy and dogmatic homeopaths love to quote this statement frequently to cover up their inability to answer “how homeopathy works”. According to them, our master has eternally forbidden us from asking such questions!

Organon : Aphorism 13:

“Therefore disease (that does not come within the province of manual surgery) considered, as it is by the allopathists, as a thing separate from the living whole, from the organism and its animating vital force, and hidden in the interior, be it ever so subtle a character, is an absurdity, that could only be imagined by minds of a materialistic stamp, and has for thousands of years given to the prevailing system of medicine all those pernicious impulses that have made it a truly mischievous (non-healing) art.”

My comments:

Hahnemann considers asking questions about the inner processes of disease is an “absurdity” “imagined by minds of a materialistic stamp”, and it is this “materialistic mind” that made “the prevailing system of medicine” “a truly mischievous (non-healing) art.”

Organon : Aphorism 14 : Sixth Edition:

“There is, in the interior of man, nothing morbid that is curable and no invisible morbid alteration that is curable which does not make itself known to the accurately observing physicians by means of morbid signs and symptoms – an arrangement in perfect conformity with the infinite goodness of the all-wise Preserver of human life.”

My comments:
“”There is, in the interior of man, nothing morbid that is curable and no invisible morbid alteration that is curable which does not make itself known to the accurately observing physicians by means of morbid signs and symptoms”- It is a correct statement even valid from modern scientific point of view, even if we discard the vitalistic interpretations of Hahnemann.

Organon : Aphorism 15 : Sixth Edition:

“The affection of the morbidly deranged, spirit-like dynamis (vital force) that animates our body in the invisible interior, and the totality of the outwardly cognizable symptoms produced by it in the organism and representing the existing malady, constitute a whole; they are one and the same. The organism is indeed the material instrument of the life, but it is not conceivable without the animation imparted to it by the instinctively perceiving and regulating dynamis, just as the vital force is not conceivable without the organism, consequently the two together constitute a unity, although in thought our mind separates this unity into two distinct conceptions for the sake of easy comprehension.”

My comments:

I would suggest to modify this aphorism as follows: “”The affection of the morbidly deranged molecular level vital processes, and the totality of the outwardly cognizable symptoms produced by it in the organism and representing the existing malady, constitute a whole; they are one and the same. The molecular processes in the organism are indeed the material basis of the phenomenon life.

Organon : Aphorism 16 : Sixth Edition:

“Our vital force, as a spirit-like dynamis, cannot be attacked and affected by injurious influences on the healthy organism caused by the external inimical forces that disturb the harmonious play of life, otherwise than in a spirit-like (dynamic) way, and in like manner, all such morbid derangements (diseases) cannot be removed from it by the physician in any other way than by the spirit-like (dynamic1, virtual) alterative powers of the serviceable medicines acting upon our spirit-like vital force, which perceives them through the medium of the sentient faculty of the nerves everywhere present in the organism, so that it is only by their dynamic action on the vital force that remedies are able to re-establish and do actually re-establish health and vital harmony, after the changes in the health of the patient cognizable by our senses (the totality of the symptoms) have revealed the disease to the carefully observing and investigating physician as fully as was requisite in order to enable him to cure it.

Foot notes:- Most severe disease may be produced by sufficient disturbance of the vital force through the imagination and also cured by the same means.”

My Comments:

Hahnemann says: “alterative powers of the serviceable medicines acting upon our spirit-like vital force, which perceives them through the medium of the sentient faculty of the nerves everywhere present in the organism”. According to this view, homeopathic potentized drugs act through “sentient nerves”. But research works proved otherwise. Researchers have proved that potentized drugs act even up on in vitro biological samples which do not contain any ‘sentient nerves’ or nerve cells. There are enough scientific evidences now to prove that potentized drugs act up on biological molecules- not merely ‘sentient nerves’.

Hahnemann’s statement “disease may be produced by sufficient disturbance of the vital force through the imagination and also cured by the same means” actually explains the phenomena of so-called psychosomatic diseases, which are well explained by biochemistry, without any involvement of vital force theory. According to scientific view, “imaginations’ and “emotoions” are not “non-material” What we call ’emotions’ and ‘sensations’ are actually very complex biochemical processes happening in our brain. There is nothing ‘immaterial’ in ’emotions’ and other mental processes. During those biochemical processes, different types of chemical molecules are synthesized and utilized by the central nervous system, such as hormones, cytokines, neuro-mediators and neurotransmitters etc. What we call ‘bad effects’ of emotions are actually the delayed, off-target or rebound chemical actions of these biochemical molecules. Biochemistry can explain such phenomena without any involvement of any ‘immaterial’ or ‘dynamic’ vital force.

—————————————————————————————————-

In Aphorism 8, Hahnemann defines what is meant by CURE:

Read Organon Aphorism 8:

“It is not conceivable, nor can it be proved by any experience in the world, that, after removal of all the symptoms of the disease and of the entire collection of the perceptible phenomena, there should or could remain anything else besides health, or that the morbid alteration in the interior could remain uneradicated.

Foot note:- When a patient has been cured of his disease by a true physician, in such a manner that no trace of the disease, no morbid symptom, remains, and all the signs of health have permanently returned, how can anyone, without offering an insult to common sense, affirm in such an individual the whole bodily disease still remains interior? And yet the chief of the old school, Hufeland, asserts this in the following words: Homoeopathy can remove symptoms, but the disease remains. (Vide Homoopathie, p.27, 1, 19.) This he maintains partly from mortification at the progress made by homoeopathy to the benefits of mankind, partly because he still holds thoroughly material notions respecting disease, which he is still unable to regard as a state of being of the organism wherein it is
dynamically altered by the morbidly deranged vital force, as an altered state of health, but he views the disease as a something material, which after the cure is completed, may still remain lurking in some corner in the interior of the body, in order, some day during the most vigorous health, to burst forth at its pleasure with its material presence! So dreadful is still the blindness of the old pathology! No wonder that it could only produce a system of therapeutics which is solely occupied with scouring out the poor patient.”

POINTS TO BE NOTED:

1. DISEASE is “morbid alteration in the interior”

2. DISEASE is a “a state of being of the organism wherein it is
dynamically altered by the morbidly deranged vital force”

3. DISEASE is “an altered state of health”

4. HAHNEMANN does not agree with the view that “disease as a something material”.

5. Cure is “removal of all the symptoms of the disease and of the entire collection of the perceptible phenomena”

6. CURE is a state where “no trace of the disease, no morbid symptom, remains, and all the signs of health have permanently returned”

Hahnemann was actually criticizing the “blindness” of “OLD PATHOLOGY” that existed during his time, which considered disease as a “material object” that “remain lurking in some corner in the interior of the body”, which should be “scoured out the poor patient” using blood-letting, emetics, cathartics and mercurials.

While criticizing the view of “old pathology” which perceived “disease as a something material”, hahnemann actually meant that “disease is not a material object”. But he failed to understand the difference between “material object” and “material process”. Scientifically, “life as well as disease are material processes”- not “material objects”. There is a big difference between these two perspectives.

Even though hahnemann rightly observed the “blindness of pathology”, he failed to understand diseases as “molecular level material processes”, due to the limitations of scientific knowledge available to him during his period. Modern BIOCHEMISTRY had not even evolved. With in his historical context, only way he could explain DISEASE was in terms of “dynamically deranged vital force”. Influence of unscientific philosophy of ‘dynamism’ upon hahnemann is evident here. In modern scientific knowledge environment, such a philosophy is not at all worthy for a scientific debate.

In the light of modern scientific knowledge, we should change hahnemann’s definition of DISEASE from “deranged vital force” into “deranged vital processes”, to make it clear that disease is basically nothing but a molecular level ‘material’ derangement of ‘processes”. Such a change is essential step in scientific updating of homeopathy in a way to agree with modern scientific understanding of life, disease and cure. Actually, we have to agree with his statement “disease is morbid alteration in the interior”, understanding it in present context as “morbid alteration of molecular processes in the interior”

Same time, in its broadest meaning, Hahnemann’s definition of CURE as “removal of all the symptoms of the disease and of the entire collection of the perceptible phenomena” and “all the signs of health have permanently returned” still remains valid, as the “entire collection of the perceptible phenomena” includes the removal of ALL the molecular level errors in vital processes that could be verified by modern scientific equipments and procedures. It should be particularly noted that hahnemann does not stop by saying merely “removal of all symptoms”, probably to ensure that it should not be interpreted as superflous symptoms only. “All the signs of health have permanently returned” is an all’inclusive definition of CURE as a “permanent” return into an IDEAL state of health, which practically impossible to happen . In modern context, these “signs” include all verifiable physiological parameters of health.

————————————————————————————————–

Some friends have expressed their apprehension that publicly criticizing wrong theories and practices in homeopathy promoted by ‘great homeopaths’ such as vijaykar and sankaran will harm the good will and reputation of our community and our therapeutic system.

I do not subscribe to that view. All these ‘wrong things’ in homeopathy are done and promoted by their propagators in public, with out any concern about the harm they are doing, through articles, books, interviews and seminars all over the world, making homeopathy a topic of unending mockery before the scientific community. All these things are already known to general public better than homeopaths themselves.

These people have already done enough damage to homeopathy through their unscientific theories and nonsense practices. They supply arms and ammunition to skeptics to attack homeopathy. There is no meaning in covering up this dirt. Public dirt should be washed in public, to get the lost reputation and credibility of homeopathy back.

If homeopathic community continue let these people go like this, we cannot even dream about making homeopathy a scientific medical system, and get it recognized as such even in a far distant future.

In his Homeopathic Links interview, Vithoulkas PUBLICLY says: “Sankaran alone has done more harm to homeopathy than all the enemies of homeopathy together.”

———————————————————————————————-

The SENSATIONS sankaran talks about has nothing to do with the ‘sensations’ we study as part of homeopathic case taking, or scientific understanding of ‘sensations’. Scientifically, ‘sensations’ are the effects of external ‘sensory signals’ acting upon the NERVOUS SYSTEM through ‘sense organs’. SANKARAN is theorizing about a ‘sensation at a deeper level’, totally unconnected with sensory signals or sense organs. In my opinion, the phenomena he is talking about does not belong to the realm of SENSATIONS in its scientific sense.

SENSATION has a specific meaning according to SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE, of which I am talking about. If sankaran has invented another HIS OWN meaning for that word, let it be so. No problem.

————————————————————————————————-

Hahnemann says, “totality of MORBID symptoms, is the “outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease”. According to him, INTERNAL ESSENCE OF DISEASE means, “affection of the vital force”.

Medical practice of hahnemann’s time was actually TREATING THE SYMPTOMS, based on mere ‘experiences’ and ‘speculations’ of physicians, without any scientific understanding regarding the actions, effects and dangers of crude drugs and methods they utilized. They considered SYMPTOMS as DISEASES.

Hahnemann actually initiated a revolution by declaring that MORBID SYMPTOMS are not DISEASES, but only the “outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease”. He made physicians to understand the importance of INTERNAL ESSENCE rather than its REFLECTED PICTURE. Same time, he demonstrated how this REFLECTED PICTURE could be utilized to identify the peculiarities of underlying INTERNAL ESSENCE, and to select appropriate remedial agents to correct its DEVIATIONS.

It was hahnemann who for the first time taught physicians to look into the ‘internal essence’ of diseases rather than the ‘outward reflections’ or ‘morbid symptoms’, same time utilizing the ‘outward reflections’ as a tool for studying and manipulating the ‘internal essence’.

Remember, hahnemann was making this statement 250 years ago, when modern BIOCHEMISTRY has not even emerged to inquire into the “internal essence of disease” in a scientific way. Nothing was known regarding the BIO-MOLECULAR processes involved in the phenomena of life and disease. In such a knowledge environment, it was impossible for hahnemann to understand or explain what is exactly the “internal essence of disease”. Only thing he could do was to explain it as “affection of the vital force”.

Empowered with the great advancements in scientific knowledge during last 250 years after hahnemann, we are now in a position to explain “internal essence of disease” in scientific terms. Modern biochemistry and life sciences have proved beyond any doubt that “internal essence” of disease lies in the MOLECULAR LEVEL ERRORS.

We have to re-write hahnemann’s statement as follows:

“the totality of symptoms is the outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease, that is, of the MOLECULAR LEVEL ERRORS in ‘vital processes’.

———————————————————————————————–

READ Organon : Aphorism 7:

“Now, as in a disease, from which no manifest exciting or maintaining cause (causa occasionalis) has to be removed, we can perceive nothing but the morbid symptoms, it must (regard being had to the possibility of a miasm, and attention paid to the accessory circumstances, § 5) be the symptoms alone by which the disease demands and points to the remedy suited to relieve it – and, moreover, the totality of these its symptoms, of this outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease, that is, of the affection of the vital force, must be the principal, or the sole means, whereby the disease can make known what remedy it requires – the only thing that can determine the choice of the most appropriate remedy – and thus, in a word, the totality of the symptoms must be the principal, indeed the only thing the physician has to take note of in every case of disease and to remove by means of his art, in order that it shall be cured and transformed into health.

READ Organon : Aphorism 5:

“Useful to the physician in assisting him to cure are the particulars of the most probable exciting cause of the acute disease, as also the most significant points in the whole history of the chronic disease, to enable him to discover its fundamental cause, which is generally due to a chronic miasm. In these investigations, the ascertainable physical constitution of the patient (especially when the disease is chronic), his moral and intellectual character, his occupation, mode of living and habits, his social and domestic relations, his age, sexual function, etc., are to be taken into consideration.”

MAIN LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM THESE TWO APHORISMS:

1.”in a disease, we can perceive nothing but the MORBID symptoms”

2. “totality of symptoms are the outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease”

3. “totality of the symptoms must be the principal, indeed the ONLY thing the physician has to take note of in every case of disease and to remove by means of his art”

4. “symptoms are the only thing that can determine the choice of the most appropriate remedy”

5. In “acute diseases”, “particulars of the most probable exciting cause of the acute disease” has to be considered.

6. In chronic diseases, “the most significant points in the whole history of the chronic disease, has to be studied to discover its fundamental cause”

7. Chronic diseases are “generally due to a chronic miasm”.

8. “physical constitution of the patient should “ascertained” especially when the disease is chronic”

9. “regard has to be given to the possibility of a miasm”

10. MIASMS could be “discovered” only by “the most significant points in the whole HISTORY”

11. “Patient’s moral and intellectual character, his occupation, mode of living and habits, his social and domestic relations, his age, sexual function, etc., are to be taken into consideration in chronic diseases”

12. “manifest exciting or maintaining cause (causa occasionalis) has to be removed” as they are “useful” to the physician “in assisting” him to cure

————————————————————————————————-

From homeopathic point of view, what are the SYMPTOMS to be considered in the selection of SIMILIMUM?

NORMAL SYMPTOMS that represent normal physiological processes are of no value in selecting a homeopathic similimum. We need only ABNORMAL SYMPTOMS, which represent the ABNORMAL or DEVIATED bio-molecular processes happening in the organism.

Let us examine what Dr Hahnemann says about this issue. Read Organon(6th edition) Aphorism 6 :

“The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived
externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.”

Hahnemann rules out all “transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience” as “futile”.

According to him, physician should take note of ONLY “the changes in the health of the body and of the mind”. Kindly notice- The CHANGES only!

He elaborates further: “only the deviations from the former healthy state” should be “noticed” by the physician. It is obvious that he was asking to avoid SYMPTOMS OF PREVIOUS HEALTHY SATE, and consider only symptoms that represents DEVIATIONS from healthy state. According to this view, symptoms representing FORMER HEALTHY STATE or CONSTITUTION are of no value in determining the similimum

Hahnemann considers “these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent” as “only conceivable portrait of the disease”

APHORISM 6 clearly shows, hahnemann was also of the opinion that only ABNORMAL SYMPTOMS that represent DISEASE should be considered for deciding a similimum.

Any comments, friends?

————————————————————————————————-

I love myself to be my own PATH FINDER, rather than being a FOLLOWER of somebody else. Excuse me if it is wrong to think so!

————————————————————————————————-

When somebody asks you a question for which you have no answer, simply say “I dont know”, instead of arguing and trying to prove even that question is wrong or irrelevant, as if the other person has committed a big crime by asking such a question to you.

If you do not know ‘how homeopathy works’, why cant you say ‘I dont know’, instead of making nonsense fanciful theories about it, or quoting organon to prove that ‘master’ has eternally forbidden all future generations of homeopaths from asking such an ‘unnecessary’ question?

————————————————————————————————

In order to mask their ignorance in modern science, and their indolence and laziness to update, ‘classical homeopaths’ quote APHORISM 1 very enthusiastically. According to them, ‘master’ has by aphorism 1 eternally forbidden all the coming generations of homeopaths from any endeavor to explain homeopathy scientifically.

Let us see what APHORISM 1 says:

“The physician’s high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed.
————————————————————————————–
Foot notes:- His mission is not, however, to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes and the mode in which diseases originate in the interior of the organism, (whereon so many physicians have hitherto ambitiously wasted their talents and their time); nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate cause (which must ever remain concealed), wrapped in unintelligible words and an inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned in order to astonish the ignorant –
whilst sick humanity sighs in vain for aid. Of such learned reveries (to which the name of theoretic medicine is given, and for which special professorships are instituted) we have had quite enough, and it is now high time that all who call themselves physicians should at length cease to deceive suffering mankind with mere talk, and begin now, instead, for once to act, that is, really to help and to cure.”

Actually, hahnemann is warning about the futility and undesirability of “constructing so-called systems”, “interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses” and “deceiving suffering mankind with mere talk”, “in unintelligible words and an inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned in order to astonish the ignorant”, “whilst sick humanity sighs in vain for aid”.

Does the ‘master’ actually rule out the necessity of all SCIENTIFIC STUDIES AND UPDATING of homeopathy in future, by this statement? Why homeopaths fail to see the difference between what hahnemann meant by “empty speculations” and the REAL serious scientific research for updating homeopathy? Do you think SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH belong to the category of what master explained as “deceiving suffering mankind with mere talk”?

WHY THESE CLASSICAL HOMEOPATHS IGNORE WHAT ‘MASTER’ SAID IN APHORISM 3?

Read Organon : Aphorism 3: “If the physician clearly perceives what is to be cured in diseases, that is to say, in every individual case of disease (knowledge of disease, indication), if he clearly perceives what is curative in medicines, that is to say, in each individual medicine (knowledge of medical powers), and if he knows how to adapt, according to clearly defined principles, what is curative in medicines to what he has discovered to be undoubtedly morbid in the patient, so that the recovery must ensue – to adapt it, as well in respect to the suitability of the medicine most appropriate according to its mode of action to the case before him (choice of the remedy, the medicine indicated), as also in respect to the exact mode of preparation and quantity of it required (proper dose), and the proper period for repeating the dose; – if, finally, he knows the obstacles to recovery in each case and is aware how to remove them, so that the restoration may be permanent, then he understands how to treat judiciously and rationally, and he is a true practitioner of the healing art.”

According to this aphorism, hahnemann defines the fundamental qualities and requirements of a homeopathic ‘physician” or “a true practitioner of the healing art.”:

1. PHYSICIAN should “clearly perceives what is to be cured in diseases”.

In modern context, it means, WHAT IS BIOCHEMISTRY OF DISEASE AND CURE.

2. PHYSICIAN should “clearly perceive what is curative in medicines”.

In modern context, it means, WHAT ARE THE ACTIVE PRINCIPLES OF POTENTIZED DRUGS

3. PHYSICIAN should “know how to adapt, according to clearly defined principles, what is curative in medicines to what he has discovered to be undoubtedly morbid in the patient, so that the recovery must ensue”

In modern context, it means, WHAT IS THE BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM BY WHICH POTENTIZED DRUGS ACT UPON ORGANISM AND PRODUCE CURE.

————————————————————————————————-

I am totally against ‘system building’ in homeopathy. Actually I use the word ‘dialectical’ to make it clear that I disagree with ‘system’ approach in homeopathy.

Something ‘dialectical’ cannot be a ‘system’. A ‘system’ is always a closed one with its own ‘dogmas’, ‘principles’, ‘laws’ and ‘methods’, where as ‘dialectical’ indicates ‘openness’, ‘amenable to change’, constant ‘growth’. ‘Dialectical’ is just opposite to ‘dogmatic’. ‘Dialectical’ only indicates an approach. Science is always ‘dialectical’. Science never tolerates ‘dogmas’ and ‘systems’.

The word ‘dialectical’ comes from latin word ‘dialego’, which originally means ‘dialogue’ or ‘ideological interaction’. Dialogue is not argument. Dialogue is always creative. The dialogue between ‘thesis’ and ‘antithesis’ results in ‘synthesis’, which is a higher stage of knowledge totally different from both ‘thesis’ and ‘antithesis’. That is the way human knowledge advances towards more and more perfection. Scientific method is always ‘dialectical’. There is no ‘immutable’, ‘eternal’ principles in science. Every laws, every principles, every theories change and become more and more perfect through an evolutionary process of human knowledge, experience and collective thought.

By ‘dialectical homeopathy’, I only mean that this scientific method of constant rejuvenation and advancement should be brought into homeopathy. That is the only way of making homeopathy scientific. Scientific homeopathy means ‘dialectical homeopathy’. It is an approach towards homeopathy.

Originally, homeopathy was also ‘dialectical’. Hahnemann was most ‘scientific’ and ‘dialectical’ in his approach. He questioned existing medical ‘system’ through his dialectical approach. He did not accept any ‘dogma’, ‘principle’ or ‘beliefs’ that cannot withstand rational experimentation, logical thinking, and verification with the available scientific knowledge. Actually, homeopathy is the result of his ‘dialectical’ rebellion against existing ‘medical system’.

Hahnemann was ready to revise everything according to new experience and updated knowledge. The fact that he re-wrote organon six times during his life-span clearly shows that he was ‘dialectical’ in his approach. For him, homeopathy was a constantly advancing ‘science’- a medical science. Not a ‘closed system’. He was willing to accommodate the experiences and suggestions of others also.

After the death of hahnemann, initially homeopathy continued to be an open system. That is why the thought of hering, kent, nash, boenninghaussen and many other stalwarts were incorporated into homeopathy, and became part of homeopathy.

Once hahnemann and the first generation of homeopaths also disappeared from the scene, homeopathy began to be more and more institutionalized and ‘dogmatized’. It lost the character of science, and became more or less a closed ‘system’. For the last 200 years, homeopathy hesitated to interact with modern scientific knowledge- abstained from creative ‘dialogue’ with other areas of human knowledge. Homeopaths started call this ‘closed’ system as ‘classical homeopathy’. ‘Purity’ was the key word. Safeguarding the purity of ‘original’ dogmas were considered to be the sacred duty of homeopathy. Ultimately, this approach grew into an ‘anti-scientific’ outlook, constantly resisting all innovations and scientific intrusions into the sacred lands of ‘pure homeopathy’.

I am trying to make homeopathy a science again. For that, homeopathy has to bridge the great knowledge divide of 200+years and reach abreast with modern scientific human knowledge.

We have to explain each and every ‘principles’ and ‘laws’ of homeopathy in terms of modern science. We have to experiment every claims of homeopathy in accordance with scientific method. We have to be brave enough to accept new knowledge into homeopathy, same time discarding everything obsolete and unscientific in homeopathy. That is the duty of all true followers of hahnemann.

By saying ‘Dialectical Homeopathy’, I want to instill this scientific sense and approach into fellow homeopaths. I want to declare our willingness to change, growth and advancement towards more and more perfection. I want to declare that homeopathy is ‘science’, not a ‘system of immutable dogmas’.

—————————————————————————————————-

Homeopathy identifies the exact ‘molecular pathology’ underlying the disease states of an individual by monitoring and analyzing all the perceivable symptoms caused by such molecular level deviations.

Derangement in any particular biochemical pathway resulting from molecular inhibitions produced by pathogenic molecules are expressed through specific trains of subjective and objective symptoms in the organism. Each specific group of symptoms exhibited by the organism indicates a particular error occurred in the molecular level.

Homeopathy chases these trains of symptoms to their minutest level, in order to identify the exact molecular errors underlying the particular state of pathology, and to determine the exactly matching ‘molecular imprints’ required to remove those molecular inhibitions. Not even the most sophisticated tools of ultra-modern technologies can monitor biological molecular errors with such a level of perfection as homeopathy does.

Once identified, those pathological molecular inhibitions are removed by applying appropriate ‘molecular imprints’, 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 community realize and recognize this truth, and incorporate 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, far superior to currently available modern therapeutic technologies.

————————————————————————————————–

A young homeopath commented:

“Whatever be the explanation, there is only one way by which you can cure a diseased person is symptom similarity. It is up to what you want- to cure people or to search for how it works.”

This young man represents those “practical” homeopaths who are not interested in the “search for how it works”. They believe that homeopaths should only “want to cure people”, and need not worry about HOW the cure happens! Wonderful thing is, they consider “search for how it works” is the job of those who do not “want to cure people”! He even said, I am doing this work only because I am “retired and having regular pension”!

WHATEVER be the explanation, homeopathy will work, and we will get money! WHATEVER be the explanation, electricity ‘works’! WHATEVER be the explanation, gravitation ‘works’! WHATEVER be the explanation, magnets will attract iron needles! WHATEVER be the explanation, day and night comes and goes! WHATEVER be the explanation, we can live if our belly is full! GREAT “practical” approach, sir

——————————————————————————————————-

Basis of Similia Similibus Curentur is the observation that where as a CRUDE drug can produce symptoms of disease, its POTENTIZED form can cure diseases having similar symptoms. That means, ‘disease-curing’ properties of potentized drugs are exactly opposite to the ‘disease-producing’ properties of same drugs in their crude form. In other words, a crude drug and its potentized form act upon the biological organism by a molecular mechanism exactly opposite to each other. Crude drugs produce pathological molecular inhibitions that cause disease conditions, whereas their potentized forms remove that molecular inhibitions.

Any scientific model for biological mechanism of Similia Similibus Curentur as well as potentization should be capable of explaining this ‘reverse’ biological actions of crude forms and potentized forms of same drugs. Such a model will have to explain the molecular process happening during potentization by which the biological properties of drug molecules are transferred into the potentizing medium in an exact ‘reverse order’, even without a single drug molecule remaining in the potentized preparation.

Only MOLECULAR IMPRINTING can explain this phenomenon rationally and logically, in a way exactly fitting to the existing scientific knowledge system, and also in a way capable of proposing a SCIENTIFICALLY viable biological model for homeopathic cure within the paradigms of modern biochemistry and life sciences.

MIT explains potentization as a process of molecular imprinting, by which the CONFORMATION of drug molecules are imprinted into a supra-molecular matrix of water-ethyl alcohol molecules. By this process, hydrogen-bonded nano-structures or ‘cavities’ having a three dimensional conformation exactly complimentary to the drug molecules are produced. These MOLECULAR IMPRINTS can act as ‘artificial locks’ or ‘binding sites’ for any molecule having conformation similar to the original drug molecules. When molecular imprints, when used as therapeutic agents, specifically bind to the pathological molecules having a conformation similar to the original drug molecules, thereby removing the pathological molecular inhibitions that produced the particular disease state in the organism. This is the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure involved in similia similibus curentur.

MIT model satisfactorily explains the ‘reverse’ biological properties of crude drug molecules and their potentized forms in terms of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS, which are ‘three-dimensional negatives’ of drug molecules. Normal biological ligands are ORIGINAL KEYS of biological molecules which act as LOCKS for normal biochemical interactions. PATHOGENIC MOLECULES are FAKE KEYS that enter the key holes by mimicking as the original natural keys and blocking the keyholes, thereby disrupting the normal biochemical interactions. MOLECULAR IMPRINTS prepared by imprinting the drug molecules similar to the pathogenic molecules can act as ARTIFICIAL KEY HOLES that can bind to the pathogenic molecules and deactivate them, These ARTIFICIAL KEYHOLES or molecular imprints are the exact active principles of potentized homeopathic drugs.

————————————————————————————————–

“Paucity of symptoms” in most cases is only an excuse for poor case taking, may be due to laziness or deficiency of expertise on the part of physician, or due to non-cooperation of patient. If there is disease, there will be some underlying ‘molecular errors’, and some abnormal subjective and objective symptoms representing them- whether we succeed in noticing and utilizing them or not.

———————————————————————————————-

Whatever imaginative theories you make, if they do not agree with the proven scientific knowledge system as well as scientific methods, they are of no value in scientific understanding of homeopathy.

On what ever “principles and methods” you prescribe, potentized homeopathic drugs will act, if they contain some molecular imprints matching to the molecular errors in the patient, irrespective of your theories and methods. It is homeopathy working- not your nonsense theories

—————————————————————————————-

We should approach homeopathy not as ‘applying’ some theories, but making theories for ‘explaining’ what is experienced and applied. Hahnemann developed homeopathy not by making theories first, but by observing and experimenting real objective phenomena of nature, and then making theories to explain what he observed.

Applied part of homeopathy is primary, and it represents the objective reality, where as theoretical part is only a subjective explanation of this objective reality. Even if subjective part is proved scientifically wrong, objective part will remain, because it represents truth. We can explain this objective truth in a different way, more correctly, more rationally and more scientifically. Theory of homeopathy may change, but truth of homeopathy will not change.

What we call ‘theory of homeopathy’ is essentially a SUBJECTIVE explanation hahnemann provided for his OBJECTIVE observations regarding a peculiar kind of relationship between ‘drug and disease’ and the phenomenon of cure on the basis of that relationship. We have to differentiate between these ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ parts of homeopathy

Subjective or theoretical part of homeopathy is bound to have limitations, since it is based on the primitive forms of scientific knowledge available to hahnemann 250 years ago, when modern science was in its infantile stage of evolution.

When scientific community say ‘homeopathy is unscientific’, I will have to agree with that statement, in the meaning that ‘theory of homeopathy’ as it stands today is ‘unscientific’ and ‘scientifically implausible’. Many things in present theory of homeopathy are evidently incompatible with our most advanced and well proven scientific knowledge system.

According to SCIENTIFIC METHOD, anything not explained and proved scientifically are labelled UNSCIENTIFIC.

I do not think everything ‘not scientifically proved’are ‘scientifically implausible’. If something ‘really exists’, it could be and should be scientifically explained and proved in accordance with scientific method. Until that happens, it should not be considered ‘scientifically implausible’.

There are many phenomena which really exists or WORKS, but not ‘still’ scientifically explained or proved. But they are not ‘scientifically implausible’. Many things we NOW call ‘scientific’ were not ‘scientific’ in yesterdays, since they were not explained or proved scientifically. Gravitation, electricity, magnetism and many phenomena existed and worked here for centuries without any scientific explanation or proving- but everybody really experienced it.

My request to scientific community is, do not label or cast aside homeopathy as ‘unscientific’ or ‘scientifically implausible’, only because it is presently explained using most unscientific and scientifically implausible theories. Do not ignore the ‘objective truth’ involved in homeopathy that is being proved through thousands of cures experienced by homeopaths everyday.

At least, wait for a scientific theory of homeopathy to evolve in near future.

———————————————————————————————–

A few days back, a homeopath friend from NIGERIA asked me to suggest a prescription for his wife, and I did it (pitutrinum) after studying the detailed case he sent to me.

I got a message from him today:

“I sent you a message yesterday but you did not reply. I wanted to get the code for ‘pitutrinum’ from you so that my homoephatic pharmacist can make that remedy. But I did not get reply from you. Please can I get the pitutrinum code so that I can send it to pharmacist to prepare the drug for me. He has a small machine that makes drug in 10mins. But does not have code for that”.

I told my frined nobody can make genuine homeopathic medicines in 10 minutes using a SMALL MACHINE! You have to BUY homeopathic dilutions from genuine pharmacies selling GERMAN medicines. PITUTRIN is prepared by POTENTIZING original PITUTARY EXTRACT. It takes many days even in a well equipped factory. I think you are talking about ‘RADIONIC MACHINES’, that claim to make ANY medicine, ANY potency, using CODES within minutes!. It is pure QUACKERY, dear friend! You never get genuine MEDICINES from such people. You are getting FOOLED!

THIS IS THE PATHETIC STATE OF INTERNATIONAL HOMEOPATHY!

———————————————————————————————-

For most people, ‘loving’ homeopathy means fighting to’prove’ the superiority of what they consider as homeopathy over all scientific knowledge- superiority of the aphorisms, master’s words, works of stalwarts, fundamental laws, cardinal principles, laws of cure, vital force, dynamic energy etc. They want to prove ‘our master’ is the ‘greatest scientist’ ever lived, and homeopathy is the greatest science far advanced than all modern science. In order to prove this superiority, they think it is their primary duty to prove ‘science is unscientific’. They are more enthusiastic to discuss the ‘limitations of science’, rather than the achievements of modern science. They cannot tolerate anything or anybody that questions the righteousness and superiority of anything in the ‘rule books’ written by their ‘great master’.

Fundamentalists always behave the same way everywhere- whether it be religious, racial or homeopathic. Fundamentalism easily deteriorates into dangerous terrorism, and declares: “we will not allow anybody to escape if they question the rules of our sacred ‘rule books’.

———————————————————————————————-

You will not become a ‘good’ homeopath, only on the reason that you use only’single’ drug. You will not become a ‘bad’ homeopath only on the reason that you use ‘multiple’ drugs.

You are not a homeopath- not even a ‘bad’ homeopath, if you use ‘molecular forms’ of drugs such as mother tinctures, low potencies and triturations below avogadro limit, even if you use ‘only single drug’.

You are a ‘good’ homeopath if you can produce reasonable rate of cure in most of the acute and chronic cases of ‘non-genetic’ diseases, and at least some symptomatic relief even in ‘genetic’ diseases, using drugs only in MOLECULAR IMPRINTS forms or potencies above avogadro limit, even if you use ‘single’ drug or ‘multiple’ drugs.

————————————————————————————————–

Students of homeopathy should learn ‘classical’ homeopathy only as subject of academic interest, as part of history of homeopathy. It will help them to learn how homeopathy evolved as a revolutionary stream of medical practice in a two-century old knowledge environment, fighting against various odds and obstacles. Such a study will help them to understand how much it agrees and disagrees with modern scientific knowledge system of present historical context, and to update homeopathy scientifically.

Homeopaths should practice only modern homeopathy, which is homeopathy dialectically updated in a way to agree with the ever-advancing scientific knowledge. Place of ‘classical’ homeopathy is only in the homeopathy museum.

———————————————————————————————–

‘Classical homeopaths’ are more interested in ‘proving’ science is ‘unscientific’, and discussing the ‘limitations’ of science. They are not interested in discussing the ‘science’ of homeopathy. They seem to believe that homeopathy cannot be proved right, without proving science wrong. By experience, I can identify them very easily, from the very first comment they post. They are intellectually stunted and handicapped to such an extent that it is a waste of time to argue with them, as they cannot understand anything we talk about science.

————————————————————————————————

“PURE” homeopaths WILL NEVER use “more than one” drug. But their “purity” is not damaged even if they use mother tinctures, low potencies and biochemic ‘salts’ ‘ad libitum’, as a ‘supportive’ to that “single” drug!

———————————————————————————————-

WE TEND TO ‘FOLLOW’ OTHERS BLINDLY, WHEN WE ARE INCAPABLE OF FINDING A WAY OF OUR OWN TO TREAD ON

———————————————————————————————–

WE TEND TO QUOTE OTHERS TOO MUCH, WHEN WE HAVE VERY LITTLE TO OFFER OUR OWN

———————————————————————————————–

PRIMARY ACTIONS and SECONDARY ACTIONS of drugs:

We should study the biochemistry involved in ‘biomolecular feedbacks’, ‘cascading of molecular inhibitions’ and ‘upregullation-down regulation’ mechanisms of cellular receptors, to understand the phenomenon of rebound actions and secondary actions. Trying to explain these complex biochemical interactions using 250 year old concepts and ideas of hahnemann will lead us no where.

For example, the “action of opium causing deep sleep followed by much longer lasting wakefulness” is related with the phenomenon of ‘nerve receptors getting blocked by accumulation of ligand molecules, thereby initiating feedback mechanisms’ inducing the up-regulation of glutamate and other pathways in the brain induced by the over-activation of opioid receptors, thereby exert an opioid-opposing effect and so reduce the effects of opioid drugs by altering downstream pathways.

The terms ‘potency’, ‘infenitsmel’ all comes from the concept of ‘dynamic drug energy’, which is part of vitalistic or ‘energetic’ approach to homeopathy. According to me, drugs belongs to only two groups- molecular forms and molecular imprints forms. All allopathic drugs, homeopathic mother tincures, low potencies belong to molecular forms. They act by their molecular level chemical properties. Molecular imprints forms are drugs diluted above avogadro limit, which do not contain drug particles. As per calculations, this limit comes around 12c. Molecular imprints act by their complementary configurational affinity towards pathogenic molecules.

We cannot expect molecular imprints to create molecular inhibitions in biological molecules. Natural ligands and their biological targets interact by a double affinity- configurational and energetic. Since molecular imprints have only configurational affinity, they cannot compete with natural ligands to bind with biological molecules. Only molecules can create molecular inhibitions- molecular imprints cannot. As such, potentized drugs above 12c will not create any molecular inhibitions or pathological response in organism, in the absence of endogenous or exogenous pathological molecules. ‘Actions’ and ‘reactions’ happen only when we use molecular forms of drugs.

Actually, so called ‘rebound actions’ have to me studied on the basis of scientific knowledge of ‘biomolecular feedback systems’- not in a vitalistic view point. We can explain any rebound actions or secondary actions using biochemistry.
Since potenized forms of opium do not contain ‘molecules’ to block the nerve receptors, they cannot cause any ‘secondar’ action. In a crude opium-dosed individual, only thing molecular imprints contained in potentized opium is to bind to the molecules of opium, and relieve the nerve cells from ‘block’. That means, potentized opium can antidote the biological actions of crude opium- that is all.

Similar way, we can explain this phenomenon of ‘primary-secondary’ actions regarding any drug substance in terms of modern biochemistry, by studying the molecular pathways affected by the constituent molecules of those drug substances. There is nothing ‘mysterious’ in it. We need not drag any ‘dynamic’ ‘vital force’ into it.

———————————————————————————————–

Homeopaths use to say that the “inherent curative properties” of drugs are “liberated and enhanced” by the process of potentization.

According to scientific view, ‘medicinal properties’ of drug substances are determined by the ‘chemical properties’ of their constituent molecules, which are the functions of their molecular level structure and conformation, by which they act upon biological molecules in the organism. It is totally absurd to believe that there can be an “inherent medicinal property” unrelated with the chemical properties of constituent molecules, a ‘medicinal property’ that could be ‘liberated’ from the ‘substance’ and can ‘exist’ as a ‘dynamic energy’ free from the ‘material’ molecules.

Potentized drugs cures diseases that are produced by original drugs, as well as diseases ‘similar’ to them. That means, medicinal properties of potentized drugs are exactly opposite to that of original drug substance. It is obvious that medicinal properties of potentized drugs are not due to any ‘chemical properties’ of original drugs, since not a single molecule of original drug will be remaining in preparations potentized above avogadro limit.

Only way by which medicinal properties of drug substances could be ‘transferred’ to the potentizing medium in a ‘reverse’ order, without ‘transferring’ any drug molecule into it, is by ‘molecular imprinting’. Molecular imprinting is a process by which the conformation of a molecule is engraved into a medium as three dimensional ‘nanocavities’, which can act as artificial binding sites for the original molecules as well as ‘similar’ molecules. Only ‘molecular imprinting’ can explain the ‘reversed’ medicinal property exhibited by potentized drugs, without any original drug molecule remaining in them.

Where as the medicinal properties of crude drugs are due to the ‘chemical properties’ of constituent molecules, the ‘reverse order’ medicinal properties of potentized drugs are due to the ‘physical’ properties or ‘conformational’ properties of ‘molecular imprints’ that represent the original molecules as three-dimensional nano-cavities.

Hope the concept of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS is clear by this explanation.

—————————————————————————————————

When a homeopath declares he is ‘classical’, it only means he is intelectually stunted, and incapable of understanding or assimilating any new scientific knowledge. It means he is dogmatic, unwilling to update himself. He uses the term ‘classical’ to mask his ignorance and inertia, same time trying to appear as a man of immense experience, knowledge and wisdom. He declares ‘science is unscientific’, only because he does not know even the essential basics of scientific method.

—————————————————————————————————

If you think ‘science is unscientific’, or concepts and methods of modern science are not valid or applicable in the study and explanation of homeopathy, kindly stay away from my pages. I have nothing to share with you.

————————————————————————————————–

What is the role of succussion in the process of potentization? Is it necessary to succuss the solution in order to potentize, or will just diluting and draining the solute attain the same result?

It needs further study and research. My present opinion is, sucuussion or violent shaking and churning is essential part of potentization.

It is essential that individual drug molecules should come in contact with water molecules and form hydration shells in order to happen molecular imprinting. In a solution where the number of solute molecules are very very low when compared to water molecules, we cannot ensure such individual contacts withoult violent shaking. If we simply dilute serially without shaking, newly added water molecules cannot come in contact with drug molecules and get imprinted. Longer and stronger the succussion at each stage of diluting, better will be the rate of molecular imprinting. More the dilution, more violent and longer should be the succussion.

————————————————————————————————

A SENIOR HOMEOPATH COMMENTED ON MY PAGE:

“Proving of homeopathy on the basis of present so called scientific knowledge is like trying to test and prove petrol in diesel lab. Most things are still unknown in the universe. Neurology is still not described clearly. Neurotransmitters are assumed. Receptors are assumed. Ionization is assumed. So how you can say this medical science is scientific?”

For him, SCIENCE is “so-called scientific knowledge”, and are mere “assumptions”! And, medical science is not “scientific”.

Wonderful thing about him is, he considers aphorism are real, organon is real, direction of cure is real, vital force is real, dynamic drug energy is real, words of master are real, homeopathy is ultimate science- they are not “assumptions”!

This person is an ideal representative of “classical homeopathy’.

—————————————————————————————————–

My point is, POTENTIZED drugs never exist in nature. They have to be synthesized artificially by molecular imprinting, in which NATURAL drugs are used only as STARTING MATERIAL. Potentized drugs cannot be considered natural, as they never exist in nature.

Starting material for even SYNTHETIC drugs of modern medicine are from NATURAL sources. Homeopathy also uses NATURAL substances, only as STARTING MATERIAL to prepare potentized drugs, which actually involves synthesizing of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS which are ARTIFICIAL- not NATURAL.

—————————————————————————————————-

“Water with negligible solute” cannot be considered POTENTIZED. They are DILUTE SOLUTIONS only. To consider “potentized”, ALL solute molecules should be removed by SERIAL DILUTION. Such a process can never happen NATURALLY.

CHURNING AND SHAKING, or SUCCUSSION does not produce potentized drugs, if it is not SERIALLY diluted. If CHURNING AND SHAKING will result in potentization, whole sea water will have to be considered potentized! A bottle of drug in 30C transported from DELHI by road would have become 200C by the time it reaches KOCHI!

I know many homeopaths who falsely believe that simply shaking the bottle of medicine, or stirring it violently, will raise its potency and increase its medicinal ‘powers’!

————————————————————————————————–

Potentized drugs never act as nutritional supplements, since they do not contain any chemical molecules. As such, potentized drugs never “improve” health, if they are not specifically INDICATED. Potentized drugs act only if there are PATHOLOGICAL molecules present in the body, having conformational affinity towards the molecular imprints contained in them.

————————————————————————————————

Drug substances NATURALLY exist in ‘molecular forms’, which by their chemical properties bind to biological molecules and produce pathological conditions similar to diseases. By the process of potentization, we prepare MOLECULAR IMPRINTS in a water-ethyl alcohol matrix, which can bind to pathological molecules having complementary conformation, there by producing CURE. Actually, we have modified natural substances into a new ARTIFICIAL form by potentization, which is the basis of its medicinal property. Natural property of drug substance was disease-producing. We converted into an ARTIFICIAL FORM, to make it medicinal. How can we claim potentized drugs are ‘natural’, and their medicinal properties are ‘natural’? They are ARTIFICIAL!

Anything we use in a FORM as it exist in nature is NATURAL. If we use it after artificially modifying its natural form of existence, it is ARTIFICIAL. POTENTIZED drug never exist in nature. It has to be ARTIFICIALLY prepared . Hence they are ARTIFICIAL drugs. Homeopathy will not become degraded by recognizing this scientific TRUTH.

————————————————————————————————–

“We can never reduce Biology to Physics and Chemistry, or explain psychology entirely by means of physiology”- This is a usual argument raised by some ‘classical’ homeopaths to mask their ignorance in modern science and inertia in learning BIOCHEMISTRY and other advanced sciences that explain phenomena such as LIFE, MIND, SYMPTOMS, DISEASE and CURE.

Modern science never REDUCE “Biology to Physics and Chemistry”. It tries to analyse, explain and handle phenomena of “biology” using knowledge and tools evolved from ‘biochemistry’ and ‘biophysics’.

————————————————————————————————–

Homeopaths use to claim: “Allopathy is artificial, but homeopathy is natural”. Would anybody explain in SCIENTIFIC TERMS why they believe so?

Is it right to claim ‘homeopathy uses only natural remedies’, when we never use DRUG SUBSTANCES in their NATURAL forms? Homeopathy uses POTENTIZED drugs, which are not NATURAL, but ARTIFICIAL in FORM!

Can anybody show me an example of any DRUG substance existing NATURALLY in potentized form?

How can you say POTENTIZED drugs which never exist in nature, but has to be prepared ARTIFICIALLY, are more natural than a crude drug that naturally exist around us?

———————————————————————————————-

Concepts regarding DRUG RELATIONSHIPS, such as’complementary’, ‘inimical’ and ‘antidoting’, are part of deep-rooted homeopathic ‘belief system’ that influence and complicate the selection and application of homeopathic remedies to a great extent.

My approach to this is simple. According to me, one MOLECULAR IMPRINT cannot interact with another molecular imprint, since they are only supra-molecular nanocavities of water-ethyl alcohol molecules that can interact ONLY with molecules having complementary conformation. Hence, homeopathic drugs potentized above avogadro limit will not under any circumstance antidote, complement or act inimacally in between them.

DRUG MOLECULES contained in crude drugs and low potencies may completely or partially antidote high potencies of same drugs and similar drugs as the case may be, by binding and deactivating the molecular imprints having complementary conformations. Due to same complementary relationship, potentized drugs can antidote the biological effects produced by same or similar drugs, depending up on the comparative availability and biological affinity of drug molecules and molecular imprints in the organism.

—————————————————————————————————

According to homeopathic ‘belief system’, CAMPHOR is a universal antidote, antidoting all other potentized drugs. From my forty years of experience with homeopathy, and according to MIT understanding of potentization, I am sure, it is a ‘blind belief’. Crude camphor and other volatile substances with ester functional groups may antidote certain potentized drugs having molecular affinity. But there is no any justification to believe that potentized camphor is by any way different from other potentized drugs regarding ‘antidoting’ capacity. Nobody bothers to verify whether this ‘universal antidote’ theory is scientifically right or wrong, but we simply believe…

—————————————————————————————————-

How Potentized Silicea Works as ‘Homeopathic Scalpel’- Exploring the Biochemistry Involved

Materia Medica of Silicea says: “Silica can stimulate the organism to re-absorb fibrotic conditions and scar-tissue. Ripens abscess since it promotes suppuration. Promotes expulsion of foreign bodies from tissues. In phthisis, it must be used with care, for here it may cause the absorption of scar-tissue, liberate the disease, walled in, to new activities.”

“Re-absorbing of fibrotic scar tissues, ripening, opening up and healing of abscesses by promoting suppuration, expulsion of foreign bodies from tissues”- these clinically well established homeopathic properties of SILICEA have assigned it a honorable title- “homeopathic scalpel”. Exactly, in homeopathic doses silicea causes absorption of scar tissue being part of abscess walls, and ‘liberates the contents, walled in’.

Some homeopaths prefer to use silicea as ‘homeopathic scalpel’ in ‘high potencies’- in 30c or above, where as there are others who use it as triturations- 3x, 6x etc. All of them vouch excellent results, but molecular mechanism of ‘scalpel’ actions of silicea in ‘molecular forms’ and ‘molecular imprints’ forms are entirely different, as explained later in this article.

How and why silicea acts as ‘homeopathic scalpel’? To provide a scientific explanation to this phenomenon, we have to inquire deeply into the exact role of silicea in biological systems.

Silicea is known as a polycrest remedy in homeopathy. Silica, which is also known as silicea in homeopathic pharmacy, is the chemical compound silicon dioxide. It is an oxide of chemical element silicon, with the chemical formula SiO2.

Silica is most commonly found in nature as sand or quartz. Measured by mass, silicon makes up 27.7% of the earth’s crust and is the second most abundant element in the crust, with only oxygen having a greater abundance.Silicon is usually found in the form of complex silicate minerals, and less often as silicon dioxide or silica, a major component of common sand. Pure silicon crystals are very rarely found in nature. The silicate minerals—various minerals containing silicon, oxygen and reactive metals—account for 90% of the mass of the earth’s crust.

Ocean bed is covered by diatoms, cells of which contain large quantities of silica. Silica is the primary compound in rice husk and coconut shells. Stems of various plants, such as rice, bamboo etc also contain silica in large amounts.

Silicon is an essential element in biology, although only tiny traces of it appear to be required by animals,however various sea sponges need silicon in order to have structure. It is much more important to the metabolism of plants, particularly many grasses, and silica in the form of silicic acid act as the basis of the striking array of protective shells of the microscopic diatoms.

Diatoms, radiolaria and siliceous sponges use biogenic silica as a structural material to construct skeletons. In more advanced plants, the silica phytoliths (opal phytoliths) are rigid microscopic bodies occurring in the cell; some plants, for example rice, need silicon for their growth.Although silicon was proposed to be an ultra trace nutrient, its exact function in the biology of animals is still under discussion. Higher organisms are only known to use it in very limited amounts in the form of silicic acid and soluble silicates.

Silicon is currently considered as a “plant beneficial substance by the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials (AAPFCO). Silicon has been shown in university and field studies to improve plant cell wall strength and structural integrity,improve drought and frost resistance, decrease lodging potential and boost the plant’s natural pest and disease fighting systems.Silicon has also been shown to improve plant vigor and physiology by improving root mass and density, and increasing above ground plant biomass and crop yields.

It has been proved that Silica can bind to DNA and RNA in certain situations. Silicification in and by cells has been common in the biological world for well over a billion years. In the modern world it occurs in bacteria, single-celled organisms, plants, and animals (invertebrates and vertebrates). Examples include: ‘frustules’ of ‘diatoms’, Silica ‘phytoliths’ in the cells of many plants, practically all grasses. The spicules which form the skeleton of many primitive creatures are also rich in silica.

Crystalline silica formed in the physiological environment often show exceptional physical properties- e.g. strength, hardness, fracture toughness. Formation of the mineral may occur either within the cell wall of an organism (such as with phytoliths), or outside the cell wall, as typically happens with ‘tests’ and ‘diatoms’. Specific biochemical reactions exist for mineral deposition. Such reactions include those that involve lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates.

It is yet unclear in what ways silica is important in the nutrition of developed animal species.This remains a challenging field of research, due to its ubiquitous presence in the environment and in most circumstances it dissolves in trace quantities into the animal bodies. It certainly does occur in the living body, leaving us with the problem that it is hard to create proper silica-free controls for purposes of research. This makes it difficult for researchers to be sure when the silica present has had operative beneficial effects, and when its presence is coincidental, or even harmful.

As per latest studies, silica is recognized to play many important roles in the growth, strength, and management of many connective tissues. This is true not only for hard connective tissues such as bone and tooth.

Inhaling finely divided crystalline silica dust in very small quantities over time can lead to silicosis, bronchitis, or cancer, as the dust becomes lodged in the lungs and continuously irritates them, reducing lung capacities by inducing synthesis and accumulation of Type 1 collagen fibrils around the silica deposits. In the body, crystalline silica particles do not dissolve over clinically relevant periods of time. This effect can create an occupational hazard for people working with sandblasting equipment, products that contain powdered crystalline silica and so on. Children, asthmatics of any age, allergy sufferers, and the elderly can be affected in much less time. Even though amorphous silica, such as fumed silica is not associated with development of silicosis,but it may cause irreversible lung damage in some cases.

Continuing research of the correlation of aluminium and Alzheimer’s disease has in the last few years included the use of silicic acid in beverages, due to its abilities to both reduce aluminium uptake in the digestive system as well as cause renal excretion of aluminium.

A study which followed subjects for 15 years found that higher levels of silica in water appeared to decrease the risk of dementia. The study found that with an increase of 10 milligram-per-day of the intake of silica in drinking water, the risk of dementia dropped by 11%.

Choline stabilized silica in the form of orthosilicic acid is now used as bioavailable nutritional supplement. It has been shown to prevent the loss of hair tensile strength,have positive effect on skin surface and skin mechanical properties, and on brittleness of hair and nails, abate brittle nail syndrome,partially prevent femoral bone loss, increase collagen concentration in calves, and have potential beneficial effect on bone collagen formation in osteopenic females.

Study has shown that physiological concentration of Silica in the form of orthosilicic acid stimulates Type 1 Collagen synthesis and osteoblastic differentiation in human osteoblast-like cells in vitro. Collagen is a group of naturally occurring proteins found in animals, especially in the flesh and connective tissues of mammals. It is the main component of connective tissue, and is the most abundant protein in mammals,making up about 25% to 35% of the whole-body protein content. Collagen, in the form of elongated fibrils, is mostly found in fibrous tissues such as tendon, ligament and skin, and is also abundant in cornea, cartilage, bone, blood vessels, the gut, and inter-vertebral disc. The fibroblast is the most common cell which creates collagen. In muscle tissue, it serves as a major component of the endomysium. Collagen constitutes one to two percent of muscle tissue, and accounts for 6% of the weight of strong, tendinous muscles.

Collagen, a key component of the animal extracellular matrix, is made through cleavage of pro-collagen by the enzyme collagenase once it has been secreted from the cell. This stops large structures from forming inside the cell itself. Collagenase production can be induced during an immune response, by cytokines that stimulate cells such as fibroblasts and osteoblast, and cause indirect tissue damage. Silica is considered to play a key role in the activation of collagenase enzyme, when induced by the action of immune related signaling molecules known as cytokines.

Formation of abscesses involves a complex chain of biochemic processes induced by cytokines produced in response to immune reactions against foreign substance entering the tissues, such as foreign bodies and infectious agents. Cytokines induces chemotaxis of various immune bodies and white blood cells into the site of foreign body to fight against the intruder. A membrane is formed around the intruder by producing type 1 collagens fibrils embedded with in a layer formed of lipids, proteins and carbohydrates, which encapsulates the foreign body. This capsule ripens into an abscess by accumulation of dead white cells. Finally, once the fight is over and infection is controlled, the collagen disintegrates and the capsule breaks open to discharge the contents.

It is well understood that silica plays a role in the process of membrane formation and encapsulation by promoting the production of type 1 collagen fibrils. Exact molecular mechanism of this role is not well understood yet. May be by acting as co-factors in activating collagenase enzyme to cleavage pro-collagen into collagen, which is the basic building material of capsular membrane of abscesses and cysts. Silicon is also considered to act as a hardening and stabilizing agent of collagen fibrils. During stage of ripening of abscesses, as concentration of inflammatory cytokines decrease, silicea also gradually decreases in collagen fibrils, thereby helping the disintegration of capsular membrane and opening up of abscesses.

Bilologically available crude silica particles help the process of formation of cysts and indurations around foreign bodies, presumably by supplying silicon ions to activate collagenase enzyme in the build up of type 1 collagen and capsular membranes. Silicon also infiltrates into cyst walls, and act as a structural ingredient. That is why silicosis develops in lungs due to accumulation of silica particles.

Triturated forms of silica below 12c contain ionized silica particles, which are highly activated by breaking of inter-molecular bonds during process of trituration. These activated particles can compete with biological silica molecules in binding to collagen fibrils, there by resulting in removal of silica and inducing ripening of abscesses. But we should remember, using of these molecular forms of activated silica may pose dangerous to the organism, as they will create off-target molecular inhibitions and unexpected states of pathology in various biochemical pathways in the organism.

Silica potentized above Avogadro limit contains only ‘molecular imprints’ of silica, without any silica molecules present. Due to complementary configuration, these molecular imprints can bind only to off target excess biological silica molecules , there by removing them from the collagen matrix, and helping in their disintegration, leading to easy maturation and opening up of abscess walls.

Potententized silica contains only ‘molecular imprints’, which cannot bind to any biological targets except off target silica. As such, they are safe to be used as ‘homeopathic scalpels’ without any fear of unwanted side effects.

It is the biological role of silicea as a co-factor in the synthesis of type 1 collagen, and its property of getting embedded in collagen fibrils that makes it an effective homeopathic therapeutic agent in potentized forms in many pathological conditions such as abscesses, indurations, cysts, skin problems, nail problems, joint problems, keloids etc etc.

This is only a humble introductory study on silica biochemistry in relation with its role in abscess formations. There remains a lot to be researched, explored and explained on this topic. A lot of questions yet remain to be answered.

————————————————————————————————

I am not a good organizer, leader or a money manager. Actually, I feel very uncomfortable to be in a collective. Always preferring to be independent, unaccountable to anybody, unanswerable to anybody and free to act according to my wishes and inclinations. I am a most ‘unsociable’ person. It is the biggest limitation about my personality.

———————————————————————————————–

Even if any ‘scientist’ could ‘detect’ some ‘traces of nano-particles of metallic elements floating in upper layers of potentized drugs procured from market’, that cannot any way explain the versatile medicinal properties of potentized drugs prepared from substances that contain very COMPLEX drug molecules. Such a ‘detection’ cannot any way explain the biological mechanism of similia similibus curentur. Such a ‘detection’ only proves that the were not genuine high potencies as shown in the labels.

Only MOLECULAR IMPRINTS can explain medicinal properties of potentized drugs prepared from drug substances containing very complex chemical molecules, in a way fitting to the accepted SCIENTIFIC models of biological mechanism of disease and cure.

——————————————————————————————————

In a society maligned with corruption in every field, and everybody ready to stoop to any level to amass money, it is foolish to expect that ALL those people who are in the homeopathic drug manufacturing BUSINESS are trustworthy and truthful. We should urgently evolve some mechanism to ensure the drugs we get are genuine- labels need not always tell the truth, especially when our drugs are believed to contain nothing ‘material’!

———————————————————————————————————-

First of all, somebody should do a chemical analysis of samples of Blank Tabs and BIOCHEMIC tablets available in market. Probably, most of them will turn out to be the same, only the cartons being different!!! It is easy for drug manufacturers to fool homeopaths who ‘believe’ in ‘immaterial dynamic energy’, and not bothered about the MATERIAL contents of the drugs they purchase or use!

———————————————————————————————————-

Schusslers’ ‘biochemic salts’ in low triturations belong to the class of ‘molecular forms’ of drugs, which may play a role in treating conditions of PRIMARY DEFICIENCY of those elements.

Trituated remedies are biologically more active than their crude forms, due to the breakage of inter-molecular bonds that hold molecules close together, and probable ionization. Studies should be conducted to ensure whether trituartion leads to conversion into nano-particles, since nano-particles of metal elements are known to pose dangers of nano-toxicity. Chances of triturated drugs anti-doting molecular imprints contained in certain potentized drugs having similarity of functional moieities also have to be considered. According to my view, there should be some control in using triturated minerals such as biochemic salts, which many homeopaths feed their patients even in place of placebo.

—————————————————————————————————-

Before advising nutritional supplements, physician should closely watch the nutritional status and food habits of the individual, and carefully ascertain whether it is actual PRIMARY DEFICIENCY. If the person is eating more or less balanced food, and still deficiency symptoms exist, it should be treated as SECONDARY DEFICIENCY, using SIMILIMUM in potentized forms- not by overloading with extra nutrition which may be more harmful.

—————————————————————————————————–

Anything that induces chemical processes of pleasure sensation in our brain through sensory signals is BEAUTIFUL. It may be PRIMARY SIGNALS such as visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, gustatory, or their combinations, or, SECONDARY SIGNALS such as language in the form of written or spoken words, signs and pictures.

—————————————————————————————————–

DEFICIENCY DISEASES AND HOMEOPATHY:

Deficiencies may be of two types: 1. Primary deficiency- which is non-availability of chemical molecules that are destined to act as ‘building blocks’, ‘precursors’ and ‘facilitators’ of biological molecules due to their actual deficient supply. Problems arising from deficient supply could be resolved only by administering those deficient chemical ‘molecules’ or ions through foods, drugs or supplements. Molecular imprints cannot do that job.

2. Secondary deficiency is the non-availability of ‘building blocks’, ‘precursors’ and ‘facilitators’ of biological molecules due to biochemical errors at various stages of their digestion, absorption, assimilation, transportation, transformation and utilization, even though they are supplied in optimal quantities. This type of problems should be resolved by rectifying the biochemical errors using appropriate molecular imprints or potentized drugs selected as SIMILIMUM.

But remember, NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTATION is always prone to bad effects, since the molecules used for ‘supplementation’ may produce unexpected molecular errors by binding to various biological targets. More over, it is practically very difficult to ascertain whether the deficiency is primary or secondary. Using supplements in conditions of secondary deficiency may produce harmful results by clogging the channels of absorption and assimilation. As such, it is more advisable to treat deficiency symptoms first by well selected SIMILIMUM in potentized form, and later switch over to nutritional supplements only if homeopathic treatment fails.

————————————————————————————————-

PALLIATION using un-homeopathic methods, especially MOLECULAR FORMS of drugs such as crude drugs, mother tinctures and low potencies, will make the situation more complicated and confusing by producing new molecular errors, there by making the case more difficult to cure

———————————————————————————————–

We have to differentiate between TOTAL CURE, PARTIAL CURE and PALLIATION.

When all ABNORMAL subjective and objective SYMPTOMS representing ALL the underlying molecular errors in the vital processes in the organism are removed, the patient could be considered totally CURED.

When the most troublesome symptoms are made bearable by ANY MEANS so as to give only temporary relief, without considering underlying pathological molecular errors, it is PALLIATION.

If the molecular errors are partially resolved and their representative symptoms removed using partially indicated POTENTIZED medicines, it is PARTIAL CURE.

————————————————————————————————–

HOMEOPATHY is HOMEOPATHY. There is only one homeopathy. Its essential basis is ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ and ‘Potentization’.

People may have different approaches and explanations to homeopathy, on the basis of which they use different methods in its applications. The terms such as scientific, dialectical, classical, pure, hahnemannian, predictive, revolutionary, sensation, sehgal- all these refer to these differences in approaches, explanations and methods.

Whatever be your approaches, explanations and methods, if you are prescribing SIMILIMUM, and using POTENTIZED drugs, it is HOMEOPATHY. It will work if you prescribed right drug. You can produce more or less satisfactory results. It is homeopathy that works-not your ‘methods’.

————————————————————————————————-

Target of my criticism is wrong ideas in homeopathy. Not any particular person. I am not bothered who is the person behind the wrong idea- whether it be the master himself. Aim of my criticism is to deconstruct, rebuild and fortify homeopathy on a scientific foundation. Not demolishing, destructing or weakening homeopathy.

————————————————————————————————

Some people consider each and every words uttered by our ‘master’ as ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy. Some others would even include the words of other ‘stalwarts’ like Kent, Herring and the like also in the category of ‘fundamental’ principles.

All these ‘theories’ are only philosophical explanations, conjectures, interpretations, opinions and empirical conclusion based on personal experiences of ‘stalwarts’ and ‘masters’. They are not ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy.

If you understand the scientific meaning of ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’, and judiciously apply them for curing the patients, you are a ‘true homeopath’, even if you do not ‘follow’ the ‘seven cardinal principles’ invented by unscientific interpreters of hahnemann.

A ‘true’ homeopath is one who understands and applies homeopathy ‘scientifically- not one who learns homeopathy dogmatically and applies it blindly.

The main point I raise here is whether the concept of “seven cardinal principles” originally belongs to hahnemann or his later interpreters. Hahnemann said many things in his books, from ‘similia’ to ‘mesmerism’. Who decided only these ‘seven’ are ‘cardinal’ and others are not? What is the logic behind such a selection? Who did it?

———————————————————————————————-

I EXPECT NOBODY TO ‘FOLLOW’ MIT. I EXPECT HOMEOPATHS TO DISCUSS IT, UNDERSTAND IT AND CONTRIBUTE TO ITS ADVANCEMENT INTO A FULL FLEDGED SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF HOMEOPATHY

———————————————————————————————-

There is nothing in organon that I could not understand if read carefully. But there are a lot of things in it that a scientific minded person could not agree with, and which I want to update in the light of modern scientific knowledge. If I make list of my disagreements, very little ‘volume’ in organon will remain outside that list. But that ‘very little’ is the core of that monumental work, which constitutes the essential ‘fundamental’ of homeopathy.

———————————————————————————————–

We cannot promote SCIENTIFIC HOMEOPATHY without exposing, criticizing and defeating all UNSCIENTIFIC “theories’ and ‘methods’ currently promoted in the label of homeopathy, as well as whatever unscientific ideas are there in organon and other works of ‘masters’. There is nothing personal in my criticisms.

———————————————————————————————–

The SCIENCE our ‘classical homeopaths’ talk about has nothing to do with modern science or its methods. All ‘classical’ homeopaths explain homeopathy in terms of most UNSCIENTIFIC ‘vital force’ and ‘dynamic energy’, which shows they have no SCIENTIFIC reasoning.

If you are really ‘scientific’, you should at least try to understand and explain the phenomena of LIFE, DISEASE, CURE and SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR in scientific terms, in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge system.

It is true that HOMEOPATHY WORKS if it is applied rightly. But that by itself does not prove all those nonsense theories propagated in the name of homeopathy are SCIENTIFIC.

You have right to ‘believe’ any thing. But in order to claim those ‘beliefs’ are SCIENCE, they should agree with the well proven SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. If you think any CLASSICAL HOMEOPATH “around the world” has explained homeopathy scientifically, would you kindly enlighten me, according to their “scientific reasoning”, what are the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of potentized drugs, and what is the exact BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM by which homeopathy works? Without answering these TWO fundamental questions, there is no meaning in claiming that CLASSICAL HOMEOPATHS have “scientific reasoning”

————————————————————————————————–

SCIENCE is SCIENCE. There is a SCIENTIFIC METHOD accepted by SCIENCE. I am talking about that SCIENCE- not about the “broad spectrum” science of ‘vital force’ and ‘dynamic energy’ propagated by CLASSICAL homeopaths.

———————————————————————————————————

Once we perceive drug substances in terms of their individual constituent ‘molecules’ and ‘functional groups’, and potentized drugs in terms diverse types of ‘molecular imprints’ they contain and act as individual units, we can understand why and how a SINGLE drug does the works of DIFFERENT drugs in entirely different diseases. Where as one type of ‘molecular imprints’ act in one case and others keep silent, it is another type acting in another case, making it appear for us as if all these works were done by SINGLE drug!

Now it is obvious that why a well studied SINGLE drug we call polycrest is equivalent to hundreds of drugs, and why I say I require less than hundred drugs to manage any case I encounter. It is more important to study and use our existing drugs of materia medica more effectively, than worrying about ‘new’ drugs and new provings. If we study 10 or 15 well proved drugs in their all details and use them creatively and imaginatively, they will do the works of 1000 drugs for us!

—————————————————————————————————–

I am sure I “know more than organon” many things. Most of us know. That is not because I am more intelligent than hahnemann, but only because I live 250 year after hahnemann wrote organon. Modern science I study is much advanced than the knowledge available to hahnemann 250 years ago.

I never claimed I am equal to hahnemann. I know very well what really I am. I am an ordinary humble lay man with very little knowledge. I never ‘underestimate’ hahnemann. But I have all the right to say what I think about hahnemann and his ideas, on the basis of scientific knowledge I possess. I have great regards for hahnemann and homeopathy. Otherwise I would not have dedicated my life for the updating and advancement of homeopathy.

I am not a very learned man. But I have seriously read organon and chronic diseases many times and tried to understand them. I never talk about topics which I do not know. I criticize the unscientific things contained in aphorisms of organon after studying them well.

——————————————————————————————-

Most of the ‘new’ rubrics added to modern repertories are not from ‘proving’ or materia medica, but from subjective interpretations of individual ‘experiences’ of practitioners. They call it ‘clinical proving’. When a symptom is reported to have removed by using a drug, that drug is as added as a rubric for that drug. Actually, many symptoms disappear even without any drug, spontaneously or even by placebo. It is irrational to ascribe such ‘disappeared’ symptoms to the drugs used, based only on the interpretation of practitioner. If you add ‘removed’ symptoms into materia medica of a drug, you can prepare a big materia medica for even sugar of milk or water, since placebo removes a lot of symptoms.

Many provings of ‘new’ drugs appearing in ‘modern’ repertories are fake and utter nonsense. A lot of drugs such as berlin wall, rainbow, elephant, saturn etc etc are proved by ‘dream proving’, ‘meditation proving’, ‘trituration proving’ and such absurd methods. Such drugs and their queer symptoms are then added into repertories, and drugs marketed.

—————————————————————————————–

According to my view, may be due to market compulsions, those ‘modern’ repertories are adding a lot of unreliable rubrics and drugs to appear BIG, and establish an edge over the competitors. I don’t think KENT is a SMALL repertory. IN my opinion, our repertories and materia medica should be revised not by adding new rubrics and drugs, but by culling unreliable ones. Even KENT REPERTORY contains a lot of unnecessary rubrics that are never used by anybody. It is not the size of book or number of rubrics that decide the quality of repertories or success of a homeopath- it is the authenticity and reliability of rubrics that matter. Of course the SKILL of the homeopath in using the tools at his possession effectively also matters a lot.

I can resolve any case using a much smaller repertory than even KENT. A repertory containing 500 general and mental rubrics, and 100 drugs is enough for me to produce reasonable result. If we know how to work out cases systematically, it will be enough for anybody

—————————————————————————————-

A message just received from a young homeopath:

“You want to show- your ideas and want to dominance your ideas on all and you know more than Organon. You always judge the comments and posts of others and criticize them of those person whose understanding will not match with you,its not good. Before comment on any posts,you should have knowledge of what ,why,when,who & whose of Organon. You have not right to underestimate our Master’s ideas and you are not equal to him. You should read about him and his work before any comments. Any knowledgeable person never criticize the ideas of his Legend.”

I am sure I “know more than organon” many things. Most of us know. That is not because I am more intelligent than hahnemann, but only because I live 250 year after hahnemann wrote organon. Modern science I study is much advanced than the knowledge available to hahnemann 250 years ago.

I never claimed I am equal to hahnemann. I know very well what really I am. I am an ordinary humble lay man with very little knowledge. I never ‘underestimate’ hahnemann. But I have all the right to say what I think about hahnemann and his ideas, on the basis of scientific knowledge I possess. I have great regards for hahnemann and homeopathy. Otherwise I would not have dedicated my life for the updating and advancement of homeopathy.

I am not a very learned man. But I have seriously read organon and chronic diseases many times and tried to understand them. I never talk about topics which I do not know. I criticize the unscientific things contained in aphorisms of organon after studying them well.

—————————————————————————————————-

‘Classical’ is a word conveniently used by certain homeopaths for masking their ignorance in modern scientific advancements, their inertia in learning new things, and inability to update themselves. They are ‘experts’ in quoting masters, and giving queer interpretation to ‘aphorisms’.

—————————————————————————————————-

Homeopathy is all about treating people using molecular imprints of drug molecules and curing their DISEASES. In order to explain homeopathic cure in scientic terms, first of all you should explain DISEASE and CURE in scientific terms, in a way fitting to existing scientific knowledge system. If you keep on talking about ‘deranged vital force’ and ‘dynamic drug energy’, nobody belonging to scientific community is going to listen what you are talking about, or take homeopathy seriously. Talk science, first.

————————————————————————————————–

Scientific explanation of HOMEOPATHY should be based on a proper understanding of the the complex dynamics of bio-molecular interactions involved in vital processes and DISEASES, especially PROTEIN BIOCHEMISTRY.

Proteins are a class of highly complex nitrogen-containing bio-molecules, functioning as the primary carriers of all the biochemical 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 amino acids, in different proportions and sequences. Each protein type has its own specific role in the biochemical interactions in an organism. Most of the amino acids necessary for the synthesis of proteins are themselves synthesized from their molecular precursers inside the body. A few types of amino acids 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 biochemical process that take place in the body. Various proteins play different types of roles, such as biological catalysts or enzymes, receptors, transport molecules, hormones, antibodies etc. Some proteins function as specialized molecular switches, systematically switching on and off of specific biochemical 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 of specific conformations. 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 disulphide bonds and hydrogen bonds. Water plays a vital 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 biochemical 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. Buffering properties of body fluids also are decisive in maintaining the specific conformations of proteins and keeping them reactive.

Whenever any kind of error occurs in the particular three-dimensional structure of a given protein molecule, it obviously fails to interact with other biomolecules to accomplish the specific functions it is intended to play in the concerned biochemical processes. Such a failure leads to harmful deviations in several biochemical 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 biochemical 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 biochemical pathways, or, if these are irreversible, the bio-chemical processes ultimately stop and death happens.

DISEASE is a state of derangement in biochemical interactions so as to disrupt the normal pathways of vital processes of the organism

Derangement in normal biochemical interactions amounting to a state of DISEASE may happen due to diverse reasons.

1. GENETIC FACTORS: Defects in genetic codes arising from heredity or acquired by mutations result in the absence of certain proteins (enzymes, receptors, antibodies etc) that are essential for normal biochemical interactions. defective genes may also synthesis faulty proteins with wrong conformation, which can act as endogenous pathogenic agents by binding to various biological targets.

2. EPIGENETIC FACTORS: Defects of enzymes involved in genetic expressions and post synthetic translations and modifications of protein molecules act as epigenetic factors of diseases.

3. NUTRITIONAL DEFICIENCIES: Nutritional deficiencies of essential building blocks and precursors of biological molecules , such as amino acids and other monomers, vitamins, co-factors, elements, metal ions, minerals etc may disrupt the normal biochemical interactions. Any shortage in the availability of various amino acids and their precursers may lead to non- production of essential proteins in the organism. In some cases, it may also result in the production of defective proteins.

4. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT: Biochemical interactions happen only if an appropriate pH level and temperature is maintained in the body fluids. Any physical influence that may derange these physical parameters will act as pathogenic factors by deactivating protein molecules. Temperature, magnetic field, electromagnetic radiations, vibrations and various other physical influences can affect the normal biochemical processes. Physical influences actually act as pathogenic agents by producing derangement in protein conformations, which are deactivated or converted to pathogenic molecules.

5. EXOGENOUS MOLECULAR FACTORS: Chemical molecules released by infectious agents invading the organism, drugs, toxins, food articles, environmental pollutants alien proteins entering the body act as EXOGENOUS factors of disease by binding to various biological molecules such as enzymes and receptors and producing molecular inhibitions.

6. ENDOGENOUS MOLECULAR FACTORS: Antibodies, hormones, neuro-mediators, neurotransmitters, cytokines, growth factors, super-oxides, enzymes and various biological molecules of endogenous origin may cause molecular inhibitions of proteins such as enzymes and receptors, thereby acting as pathogenic agents.

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 biochemical processes. Moreover, most of such molecular errors other than of nutritional deficiencies or genetic origin, arise due to binding of some exogenous or endogenous foreign molecules or ions on the active, binding or allosteric sites of protein molecules, effecting changes in their three-dimensional conformations. A host of diseases originating from viral-bacterial infections, allergies, poisoning, drugs, food articles etc, belong to this category. Chronic diseases caused by antibodies, which are considered in homeopathy as miasmatic diseases and modern medicine as auto-immune diseases, also belong to this class. Diseases caused by emotional factors, hormones, neuro-mediators, neurotransmitters, cytokines, growth factors, super-oxides, enzymes and various biological molecules also include in this group. Diseases belonging to these categories can be effectively treated by removal of molecular inhibitions using MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or POTENTIZED DRUGS.

—————————————————————————————————————

Please remember, homeopathy so far lacks something that could at least be legitimately called ‘a scientific working hypothesis’. We are learning, teaching, practicing and boasting about some ‘theories’ that are not even ‘hypotheses’ in its scientific sense. Yet, we dare to declare that homeopathy is ‘ultimate science’! We dare to declare that ‘hypotheses are unnecessary’!

For the first time in the history of homeopathy, MIT proposes some concepts that could be presented as a legitimate candidate to be called a ‘scientific working hypothesis’ that could be proved according to scientific methods.

There lies the historical relevance of concepts put forward by MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS, which proposes for the first time a scientifically TESTABLE model for BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM of homeopathic therapeutics, in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge system.

MIT is not to be “followed” or “practiced” in its present state of evolution- It has to be understood, verified and proved.

I see facebook not as a place of fun or leisure. I consider it as a serious and effective WORK PLACE. I make hundreds of posts and comments daily on my facebook timeline, discussion groups, pages as well as on twitter, as part of my endeavor to evolve and promote MIT concepts of scientific homeopathy. My friends, who come on face book only occasionally, and those who are able to spend very limited time here, may miss most of my updates. There are also many late comers in my growing friends list. There may be also some people willing to read some of my posts again and again. In order to ensure my works are secured for future use, and to make them easily available for everybody any time, I regularly compile my face book posts and updates into large volumes. So far, SEVEN volumes have been compiled.

VOLUME- I:

http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/selected-facebook-updates/

VOLUME- II:

http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/volume-ii-compilation-of-my-selected-facebook-updates/

VOLUME- III:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/05/12/volume-three/

VOLUME- IV:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/06/04/selected-facebook-updates-volume-four/

VOLUME V:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/10/09/volume-v-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

VOLUME VI:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/10/11/volume-vi-selected-facebook-updates/

VOLUME VII:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/10/24/volume-vii-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

If homeopaths really want to become scientific PHYSICIANS, they should first of all learn to UNLEARN what they were taught about the ‘immaterial vital force and dynamic energy’, and start to think about the MATERIAL LEVEL molecular processes involved in phenomena of life, mind, disease, symptoms, drugs and cure.

—————————————————————————————

Is it not silly to talk big theories about the QUANTITY and FREQUENCY of using something considered to be a MEDICINE, without any idea regarding the CONTENTS of what you are giving or HOW it acts in the body? Homeopaths should think over

—————————————————————————————

Which potency hahhenemann, nash, kent, boericke, hering, boeninghaussen or any other “stalwart used” were decided by levels of knowledge available during their time, their experience and their philosophy, which are SCIENTIFICALLY of very little consequence in the modern advanced knowledge environment. We have to resolve this POTENCY issue not by discussing “what stalwarts used” or “what master advised”, but by using scientific knowledge and tools of modern scientific method.

————————————————————————————-

As far as we do not know what are the exact active principles of potentized drugs, or how ‘low potency’ and ‘high potency’ differ regarding their ‘contents’, anybody is free to use any potency, or repeat it any way according to his likes, experience and ‘philosophy’. Anybody can make any claims or make any ‘theories’ about it. Nobody can say this is right or this is wrong! In such a situation, discussions become mere arguments that no way help to resolve any confusion.

—————————————————————————————

Confusions and controversies over the issue of ‘selection of potency’ could be resolved only when you are in a position to answer the questions ‘what exactly happens during potentization’ and ‘what are the active principles of potentized drugs’. If you have no answers to these questions, how can you participate a rational discussion on ‘potency issue’? Do not think this issue could be resolved by arguing over ‘what master said’ or ‘what stalwarts used’. From my part, my statements on this topic are based on the idea that potentization involves a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, and active principles of potentized drugs are ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules which can bind to pathogenic molecules by acting as ‘artificial binding sites’. If you do not understand this idea, you cannot follow what I am talking about ‘potency issue’, or discuss my statements.

—————————————————————————————–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to me, there only two classes of drugs:

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

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

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

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

When crude drugs and low potencies are applied as ‘similimum’, the ‘drug’ molecules contained in them, if having configurational similarity to the active groups of pathological molecules, may compete with the pathological molecules in binding to the target bio-molecules, and in that process, relieve the bio-mole\cules from pathological inhibitions. In this case, drug molecules act as ‘competitive molecular factors’ towards pathologic molecules. It should be understood that crude drugs and low potencies act in certain cases as therapeutic agents by this ‘competitive’ mechanism, when selected according to the principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’.
In certain situations, where there is real scarcity of certain molecules necessary for metabolism, crude substances and low potencies or mother tinctures will have to be used by their supplementary or nutritional value. This belongs to Nutritional Therapy, and should not be confused with homeopathy. Various minerals, vitamins, co-factors, micro-nutrients and amino-acid supplements belong to this category.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ALWAYS USE 12C-30C. IF IT DOES NOT ACT, OR STOP ACTING, AND IF YOU ARE SURE YOU HAVE SELECTED CORRECT SIMILIMUM, USE SAME POTENCY FROM ANOTHER SAMPLE OBTAINED FROM ANOTHER SOURCE.
COLLECT MAXIMUM SAMPLES OF 30C OF SAME DRUG FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES AND MIX THEM FOR BETTER THERAPEUTIC RESULT. IT WOULD BE A GREAT EXPERIENCE!

————————————————————————————-

Homeopaths are taught that repetition of doses at frequent intervals is harmful. ‘Waiting’ is their keyword advised to follow for administering the second dose.

I would like to differ with CONVENTIONAL Homeopathy on this point. I think many a excellent homeopathic prescriptions are spoiled only due to our ‘theoretical’ hesitation to repeat the doses in adequate intervals, and these failures are wrongly attributed to ‘wrong similimum’ or ‘wrong potency’ selection. We could have avoided such failures by repeating the doses frequently so as to maintain the drug action at optimum levels to effect a complete cure. I know ‘classical homeopaths’ would tear me into pieces for proposing this ‘unhomeopathic’ concept, which according to them would be an unpardonable offense against the ‘purity of homeopathy’ and a gross disrespect to our ‘masters and stalwarts’.

Whatever be the consequences, I want to discus my logic regarding this issue here. I believe I have strong point to share.

I know my friends would jump in with quotes from the master. Excuse me, I am not unaware of those aphorisms you are going to to quote. I simply differ.

My concepts regarding ‘repetitions’ come from the scientific understanding of potentization as ‘molecular imprinting’ and the active principles of potentized medicines as ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent drug molecules used for potentization. You cannot follow me without understanding the concept of ‘molecular imprints’.

According to me, Molecular Imprints are the active principles of potentized drugs. These ‘molecular imprints’ bind to the pathological molecules having ‘complementary’ configuration, there by relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions and effect Cure.

Since molecular imprints cannot interfere in the normal biochemical interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands, potentized drugs cannot do any harm even if given without indications, or repeated frequently

Same time,these ‘molecular imprints’ could be got anti-doted or deactivated by by molecules or ions having complementary configurations. That means, ‘molecular imprints’ we introduced into the body get deactivated by pathological molecules or other molecules having congigurational affinity. Molecules and ions of vegetable alkaloids, enzymes, food additives, environmental toxins, infectious agents, bacterial-viral toxins and a host of other agents may antidote these ‘molecular imprints’.

Hence, it is necessary to replenish the supply of ‘molecular imprints’ at frequent intervals to ensure a complete cure. That is my point.

————————————————————————————–

Need of using placebo arises from physician’s totally unfounded fear or hesitation to repeat medicinal doses once or twice daily until cure. They are taught that repetitions of potentized drugs are harmful. Once homeopaths realize the scientific truth that potentized drugs cannot do any harm even if repeated frequently, and that frequent repetition is favorable for cure, need of placebo will cease to arise.

—————————————————————————————

It is true that we can make satisfactory homeopathic prescriptions in many cases using right combinations of OBJECTIVE SYMPTOMS only, if reliable SUBJECTIVE SYMPTOMS are not available. We prescribe for infants, imbeciles, unconscious or uncommunicative persons and live stocks by this way. OBJECTIVE symptoms are those belonging to General Physique, Behavior, Postures, Lesions, Gestures, Discharges, Objective Hot or Cold, Objective Locations, Objective Causes, Objective Aggravations & Ameliorations Excretions, Color changes, Texture, Movements, Swellings, Clinical values, Skin, Hair etc etc that could be OBSERVED by the patient himself, physician or onlookers.

We can also make homeopathic prescriptions in most cases using the SUBJECTIVE SYMPTOMS alone, if they are in right combination. SUBJECTIVE symptoms are those belonging to Desires, Aversions, Sensations, Pains, Thirst, Appetite, Urges, Phobias, Feelings, Sensory, Emotions, Moods, Intellect, Dispositions, Dreams, Delusions, Subjective Hot or Cold, Subjective Locations, Subjective Causes, Subjective Aggravation & Amelioration- symptoms that could be experienced or perceived subjectively, ONLY by the patient.

But remember, most PERFECT homeopathic prescriptions could be made if we get and consider both OBJECTIVE as well as SUBJECTIVE symptoms that represent the exact pathological molecular level errors existing in the patient. An ideal combination of OBJECTIVE symptoms as well as their SUBJECTIVE counter parts, which I prefer to call SUBJECTIVE-OBJECTIVE AXIS will ensure a perfect prescription.

Role of SUBJECTIVE symptoms become crucial in identifying a similimum since they represent the biochemical processes taking place in the central nervous system in response to the extremely minute molecular level pathological errors happening in the cells and tissues of the body, which are instantly relayed to the brain centers through chemical signalling molecules and nerve signals. That is why SUBJECTIVE symptoms appear much before observable objective changes take place in the body. Actually, this phenomenon led our masters wrongly think that diseases have their origin in subjective or mental plane. We should realize, diseases are MOLECULAR errors happening in OBJECTIVE or MATERIAL body, but those changes are first recognized by CENTRAL NERVOUS system and instantly responded in the form of SUBJECTIVE SYMPTOMS.

————————————————————————————–

If a homeopath is not dispensing medicines from his own clinic, how can he prescribe placebo? What will he do if one patient insists to get his prescriptions in black and white? What if law makes it compulsory, as it belongs to the right of consumers? What will happen if somebody takes up this as an issue of of consumer rights? If allopaths can practice and give ‘satisfaction’ to his patients without using any placebo, why homeopaths only need it?

————————————————————————————–

We cannot change or avoid earlier books written by old masters and stalwarts, which obviously contain some occasional scientifically wrong or historically obsolete statements along with very valuable lessons about homeopathy. We have to study and use them with a historical, rational and scientific approach. Never follow their advice or recommendations blindly. I regularly use boericke repertory and materia medica, but do not follow his recommendations to use low potencies. I use kent repertory and materia medica as my favorite reference books, but do not agree with his spiritualistic philosophical interpretations of homeopathy. I daily read organon as the source and foundation of all my knowledge about homeopathy, but do not accept the unscientific ideas of hahnemann expressed in his works. I have included all the important reference materials in my Similimum Ultra Software irrespective of my ‘theoretical’ disagreements, to make it useful to all homeopaths preferring to follow any method of practice. This is what I mean by DIALECTICAL APPROACH

—————————————————————————————-

Homeopathic therapeutics is based on THREE basic observations:

1. SIMILAR chemical molecules can bind to similar biological targets and produce similar molecular errors that are reflected through SIMILAR subjective and objective symptoms.

2. MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of similar chemical molecules can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for all similar molecules and bind to them, thereby relieving the biological molecules from the pathological molecular inhibitions they produced.

3. Work of homeopath is intended to identify the exact SIMILAR DRUGS that in potentized forms contain the exact MOLECULAR IMPRINTS required for removing the molecular inhibitions in the patient, by observing the SYMPTOMS existing in the patient, and comparing them with the known symptoms that have been earlier produced by drugs when applied on healthy individuals.

DEAR HOMEOPATHS, TRY TO UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC TRUTH

—————————————————————————————

SYMPTOMS BELONG TO TWO BROAD CLASSES:

SUBJECTIVE: Symptoms belonging to Desires, Aversions, Sensations, Pains, Thirst, Appetite, Urges, Phobias, Feelings, Sensory, Emotions, Moods, Intellect, Dispositions, Dreams, Delusions, Subjective Hot or Cold, Subjective Locations, Subjective Causes, Subjective Aggravations & Ameliorations, that could be experienced or perceived subjectively, only by the patient.

OBJECTIVE: Symptoms belonging to General Physique, Behavior, Postures, Lesions, Gestures, Discharges, Objective Hot or Cold, Objective Locations, Objective Causes, Objective Aggravations & Ameliorations Excretions, Color changes, Texture, Movements, Swellings, Clinical values, Skin, Hair etc etc that could be OBSERVED by the patient himself, physician or onlookers.

Try to find the OBJECTIVE- SUBJECTIVE AXIS working behind a given SYMPTOM COMPLEX, and find a drug that matches to this AXIS. It will be the most appropriate SIMILIMUM for that particular SYMPTOM COMPLEX

Please try this method, and see how it works.

—————————————————————————————

Living organism is a highly organized MATERIAL system involving millions of complex chemical molecules in mutual interaction, formed through an evolutionary process of millions of years from the simple forms of same elementary particles that constitute the non-living world also. Difference between living and nonliving forms of matter is only ‘organizational’. When the peculiar ‘organization’ is any way disrupted, the molecular interactions we call vital processes are disrupted. We call this disruption as disease. If the disruption is beyond certain limit that there is no any chance of correction, it leads to the stoppage of of vital processes, which we call death.

What we call MIND is the sum total of complex biochemical processes happening in brain or central nervous system, which is also an integral part of material BODY. There is no MIND or spirit without the biomolecular system of brain or body.

My point is, LIFE is material, DISEASE is material, CURE is material, MEDICINES are material. Therapeutics is a material art- not immaterial or spiritual.

—————————————————————————————

A particular GROUP OF SYMPTOMS in a given patient indicates a particular remedy when that group of symptoms exists on a specific SUBJECTIVE-OBJECTIVE AXIS which has its equivalent in that particular remedy also. That is all. It never means, to be similimum the WHOLE symptoms of drug and the WHOLE symptoms of PERSON should be equivalent.

————————————————————————————-

During my 43+ years of experience with homeopathy, I have never seen a single person with a PURE ‘calc carb’, ‘sulphur”, ‘pulsatilla’ or any other DRUG CONSTITUTION, with ALL his mental, general and particular symptoms EXACTLY fitting to any SINGLE drug that could be called his PERFECT CONSTITUTIONAL DRUG. Any person we consider of SULPHUR or CALC constitution will have some symptoms that do not fit to sulphur or calcarea. We are bound to rationally explain this experience.

——————————————————————————————-

Claiming to be practicing EVIDENCE BASED HOMEOPATHY is the latest fashion among modern ‘elite’ homeopaths. By this claim, they actually hope to practice as ‘free birds’, conveniently evading from all hard questions regarding ‘how homeopathy works’, as well as without any commitment to ‘classical’ philosophy or principles of homeopathy. By this way, they try to mask their lack of scientific knowledge, and their perennial laziness to update themselves. They also think, by using the title of ‘evidence based medicine’ it will make them appear as peers with modern ‘physicians’.

Concept of ‘evidence based medicine’ was actually coined by modern medicine to ensure that current medical practice does not suffer from the inevitable delay in ‘explaining’ each and every clinical experiences through scientific protocols, and to incorporate clinical ‘evidences’ also as factors in therapeutic decision making. For them, ‘evidence based medicine’ is only a practical extension of ‘science based medicine’ they are practicing.

‘Evidence based medicine’ is an important concept in modern medical practice, as it is based on RATIONAL ‘scientific evidence’, and practiced as an extension of ‘science based medicine’. It cannot be used to displace or ignore the relevance of scientific understanding or explaining in medicine. Evidence based medicine never deny the importance of scientific knowledge, but it utilizes ‘evidences’ anticipating their scientific explanation- it is a form of forecasting into the future medicine, based on existing scientific knowledge. That means, ‘evidences’ used in ‘evidence based medicine’ should be strictly based on and fitting to the existing scientific knowledge- not contradicting it. Modern medicine uses the term ‘evidence’ to refer to scientifically proven evidences fitting well to the existing scientific knowledge system.

But our ‘evidence based’ homeopaths actually use the term ‘evidence’ in the meaning ‘experiences’ of individual practitioners and their subjective interpretations, or some ‘studies’ without any scientific foundation, which totally contradict existing scientific knowledge. They practice it without any understanding of the exact scientific basis of what they are practicing. They try to use the concept of ‘evidence based medicine’ to mask their inability even to explain ‘how homeopathy works’, or ‘what are the active principles of potentized drugs’. They try to evade from all fundamental questions of homeopathy by talking about ‘evidence based medicine’. Some convenient phrases hijacked from modern medicine will not be enough to hide the scientific deficiencies of homeopaths, unless they update homeopathy in accordance with advancing scientific knowledge existing around us.

‘Evidence based medicine’ should not mean ‘irrational medicine’ or ‘ignorance based medicine’. It should be based on rational and logical ‘evidence’ that fit to the existing scientific knowledge system. Claims of ‘experiences’ that contradict existing scientific knowledge system and logical reasoning do not come under the purview of authentic ‘evidence’. Without explaining and proving homeopathy in terms of modern science, it will be a futile exercise to hide behind the term ‘evidence based medicine’.

Before talking about ‘evidence based medicine’, homeopathy should be first of all placed on a reasonably sound scientific footing. At least, we have to be able to answer the question ‘what are the active principles of potentized drugs’. It simply means, ‘what are you actually giving to the patient’ as ‘medicine’? In order to answer that question, you will have to explain what is the exact process happening during potentization. Of course, you will be required to propose a scientifically viable biological mechanism for its therapeutic action. Only after that much is attained, we can talk about practicing ‘evidence based medicine’ in homeopathy.

‘Evidence based’ homeopaths conveniently ignore all the fundamental hard questions, because they really know nothing about the science involved in homeopathy. They are also not willing to learn and update themselves. To evade from fundamental questions and to hide the deficiencies, they are pretending to be practicing ‘evidence based medicine’.

One prominent ‘evidence based’ homeopath explained his ‘philosophy’ as follows on my page:

“Let likes be treated with likes. This is the real fact you cannot deny. This fact can be described and explained in thousands of daily examples. Homeopathy works under the law of similar. Thousands of examples could be cited. Suppose this is real fact and reality you also accept. Can you prove the existence of spirit or soul? But you cannot deny it. Similar way, homeopathy is reality, which cannot be denied. It is not important to explain its existence in the acceptable meaning of skeptic . Fact is fact”.

This statement is a classical example demonstrating the approach of ‘evidence based’ homeopaths. For him, scientific explanation is only for “the acceptance of skeptics”. Law of similars is “described and explained in thousands of daily examples”, and hence, scientific explanations are “not important”! Homeopaths should learn only to treat “likes with likes”- no need to understand or explain how ‘likes cure the likes’. Proving homeopathy is like proving the existence of “spirit or soul”. “Homeopathy is a reality that cannot be denied”. Finished!

Talking about ‘evidence based homeopathy’, and practicing ‘freely’, merely on the basis of ‘experiences’ and ‘clinical results’ will not any way help in the future advancement of homeopathy as a MEDICAL SCIENCE. You cannot ignore the fundamental questions by this type of gimmicks for long. Without even any idea about the contents of ‘substances’ you are giving to the patients as medicines, how can you talk about any ‘scientific evidence’?

Please do not hope to mask your intellectual inertia and lack of scientific knowledge by declaring ‘we practice evidence based medicine’. Please do not think that fundamental questions such as ‘what is the biological mechanism by which homeopathy works’, ‘what happens during potentization’, ‘what are the active principles of potentized drugs’ could be wished away as ‘irrelevant’ as far as you are ‘producing results’ in your practice. Anybody practicing occults and woodoo also argue the same way: ‘we produce results as per experience’. They also claim to be ‘evidence based practitioners’ in their own domains.

Homeopaths can practice ‘evidence based medicine’ only after making homeopathy a ‘scientific medicine’ by answering the fundamental questions about homeopathy- only as an extension of scientific homeopathy. Do not be under the false notion that you can fool the science-conscious community by mere play of words such as ‘evidence based medicine’ and ‘experience based medicine’.

YOU DO NOT KNOW SOMETHING IS NOT A SIN. BUT, HESITATING TO LEARN WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW IS NOT ONLY A SIN, BUT A CRIME! WHEN IT IS COMMITTED BY PEOPLE CLAIMING TO BE PHYSICIANS, IT IS AN UNPARDONABLE CRIME.

—————————————————————————————-

Hahnemann actually initiated a revolution by declaring that MORBID SYMPTOMS are not DISEASES, but only the “outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease”.

He made physicians to understand the importance of INTERNAL ESSENCE rather than its REFLECTED PICTURE. Same time, he demonstrated how this REFLECTED PICTURE could be utilized to identify the peculiarities of underlying INTERNAL ESSENCE, and to select appropriate remedial agents to correct its DEVIATIONS.

Medical practice of hahnemann’s time was actually TREATING THE SYMPTOMS, based on mere ‘experiences’ and ‘speculations’ of physicians, without any scientific understanding regarding the actions, effects and dangers of crude drugs and methods they utilized. They considered SYMPTOMS as DISEASES.

It was hahnemann who for the first time taught physicians to look into the ‘internal essence’ of diseases rather than the ‘outward reflections’ or ‘morbid symptoms’, same time utilizing the ‘outward reflections’ as a tool for studying and manipulating the ‘internal essence’.

Remember, hahnemann was making this observation 250 years ago, when modern BIOCHEMISTRY has not even emerged to inquire into the “internal essence of disease” in a scientific way. Nothing was known regarding the BIO-MOLECULAR processes involved in the phenomena of life and disease. In such a knowledge environment, it was impossible for hahnemann to understand or explain what is exactly the “internal essence of disease”.

Only thing he could do was to explain it as “affection of the vital force”.

————————————————————————————–

Similar chemical MOLECULES can produce similar DISEASES by binding to similar biological molecules; MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of similar molecules can bind to similar pathogenic molecules and cure DISEASES produced by them.

—————————————————————————————

Exactly, the concept of ‘similimum’ should be scientifically re-interpreted in terms of ‘conformational similarity of functional groups of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules’- not merely as ‘similarity of symptoms’. Similarity of of symptoms is ONLY ONE OF THE MANY WAYS of identifying this conformational similarity.

——————————————————————————————

Actually, we can make many excellent ‘homeopathic’ cures even bypassing the concept of ‘similarity of symptoms’.

So called ‘tautopathic’ prescriptions, where molecular imprints of modern chemical drugs are used to remove their bad effects, belong to this class. Many ‘specifics’ and ‘experience-based’ prescriptions are successfully used in day-to-day homeopathic practice ignoring the ‘similarity of symptoms’. Many of the potentized hormone remedies, biological products and nosodes are commonly used without any ‘matching’ of symptoms, but on the basis of peripheral knowledge only. Most of the ‘causational’ prescriptions never consider ‘similarity of symptoms’.

All of these various approaches work well in most occasions. Only those ‘well-proved’ drugs with complete materia medica of mental and constitutional symptoms could be used if we strictly follow the principle of ‘totality of symptoms’.

——————————————————————————————

Even though Hahnemann explained “similia similibus curentur’ in terms of ‘similarity of disease-symptoms’ and ‘drug-symptoms’, I think it is inappropriate in modern knowledge context to reduce ‘similia similibus curentur’ to mean only ‘similarity of symptoms’, once we understand molecular level biological mechanism of disease and cure.

It is genuine ‘homeopathy’ if we are curing diseases by using ‘potentized’ or ‘molecular imprints’ forms of drugs, even if prescribed without strictly considering ‘similarity of symptoms’ in its ‘classical’ meaning.

‘Similarity of symptoms’ is only ONE of the many ‘practical’ ways of determining this similarity of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules.

Selecting similimum by comparing disease symptoms and drug symptoms is based on the idea that similar molecules can bind to similar bio-molecular targets and produce similar molecular errors in the organism, which will be expressed through similar symptoms.

There is nothing ‘un-homeopathic’ if you could find similimum by some methods other than comparing symptoms, such as knowledge of biochemistry or molecular pathology, if it is possible.

—————————————————————————————–

Put in modern scientific terms ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ means, ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules having ‘similar’ conformation, and bind to them so as to remove the molecular inhibitions they produced up on the biological molecules.

—————————————————————————————–

The corner-stone of all skeptic arguments against homeopathy is that ‘similia similibus curentur’ is not a real ‘pattern’ existing in nature- but only an unreal imagination of hahnemann which was wrongly raised to the status of a ‘natural law’ and ‘followed’ by the homeopaths without questioning. Skeptics raise this argument to establish that homeopathy is a ‘pseudoscience’ and ‘faith healing’, since it is the method of pseudoscience to read out imaginary patterns of events from nature and make them ‘laws and principles’ of their theoretical ‘systems’.

If ‘similia similibus curentur’ is only an unreal and imaginary ‘pattern’, homeopathy ceases to exist. That is obvious, since whole system of homeopathy is founded on this ‘basic principle’.

There are two components involved in this ‘principle’- ‘drug symptoms’ and ‘disease symptoms’. This principle tries to explain a peculiar relationship existing between these components. Does such a relationship exist in nature, or is it only an ‘imagination’ of hahnemann? If there exist such a relationship, can we explain its molecular level mechanism in scientific terms leaving aside the ‘explanation’ provided by hahnemann within the historical limitations of scientific knowledge available to him during his period?

We have to examine this question from two angles. First, we have to verify whether there exist an ‘objective’ relationship between drug symptoms and disease symptoms which hahnemann observed and interpreted. Second point is, if such a relationship is real, whether the subjective ‘explanation’ or ‘interpretation’ of hahnemann about such an ‘objective’ phenomenon was right or wrong. Hahnemann might be right or wrong, or partially right. Even if he ‘explained’ it wrongly, that does not mean the objective’ pattern of events in nature he observed in nature do not exist. If the phenomenon is real and hahnemann explain it wrongly, we have to explain it rightly using the advanced scientific knowledge now available to us now- it should not inevitably lead us to the conclusion that the observed phenomenon does not exist.

In its elaborate sense, the term ‘symptoms’ incorporates ‘every’ subjective and objective expressions that could be observed or perceived in the individual, including the chemical processes as revealed by laboratory investigations as well as physical changes as revealed by modern diagnostic tools and gadgets.

SImilia Similibus Curentur explains the peculiar relationship between ‘disease symptoms’ and ‘drug symptoms’.

DRUG SYMPTOMS means, symptoms representing the molecular level errors produced by the inhibitory actions of drug molecules upon the biological molecules in a healthy organism when drug substance is introduced into it.

DISEASE SYMPTOMS means, symptoms representing the molecular level errors produced by the inhibitory actions of endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules upon the biological molecules in a healthy organism.

When disease symptoms expressed by a patient appears to be SIMILAR to the known drug symptoms produced by any of the previously proven drug substance upon a healthy individual, that means, the molecular errors present in the disease as well as the molecular level errors produced by the drug substance were SIMILAR. That in turn means, same biological molecules were affected by the drug molecules and the disease-causing pathogenic molecules. Such a similarity of molecular error happens only when the pathogenic molecules and drug molecules have similar functional groups having similar molecular conformations, so that they could bind to same biological target molecules.

When disease-causing molecules and drug molecules are having similar molecular conformations, they will compete each other to bind to the biological targets, when both the pathogenic molecules and drug molecules work in the body simultaneously. Such a competitive relationship between drug molecules and pathogenic molecules may be utilized to remove pathological molecular inhibitions by applying similar drug molecules. Hahnemann was observing this competitive relationship between SIMILAR drug molecules and disease molecules while talking about ‘similia similibus curentur’, even though he could not explain the molecular mechanism behind this phenomenon, due to obvious historical limitations.

Even though SIMILAR drug molecules can remove molecular inhibibitions caused by pathogenic molecules and thereby cure diseases, there is always the chances of producing new inhibitions by drug molecules, which hahnemann observed as side effects and medicinal aggravations. In order to avoid this possibility, hahnemannn started to make drug substances more and more diluted, which led him to the invention of POTENTIZATION. BY potentization, drug molecules are replaced by HYDROSOMES or molecular imprinted supra-molecular nano cavities, which can act as target specific artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules due to the complementary conformational affinity. Since molecular imprints cannot produce molecular inhibitions in biological molecules, they never produce bad effects.

Similia Similibus Curentur is not anybody’s imagination as skeptics try to depict it. It is a REAL PATTERN existing in nature, that explains the competitive relationship in biological environment between drug molecules and pathogenic molecules having functional groups of similar conformations.

—————————————————————————————-

A few months back, a famous 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 ‘medicinalenergy’. 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!

—————————————————————————————–

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?”

—————————————————————————————–

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 and 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 want to remind you, medicinal properties of drugs are determined by the structure and properties of molecules, not the ‘energy’ packed in them!

—————————————————————————————-

PATHOGENIC MOLECULES produce diseases by binding their active FUNCTIONAL GROUPS to the specific biological molecules in the organism due to their molecular affinity, and producing molecular errors.

During drug proving, poisoning and crude molecular actions, DRUG MOLECULES produce bio-molecular errors and symptoms in the healthy organism by binding their FUNCTIONAL GROUPS to the biological molecules.

When disease symptoms and drug symptoms appear SIMILAR, that means functional groups of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules were similar, so that they could bind to similar bio-molecular targets and produce similar molecular errors in the organism.

HYDROSOMES or ‘molecular imprints’ of ‘functional groups’ of drug molecules contained in the potentized drugs can act as ‘artificial binding sites or LIGAND TRAPS towards the SIMILAR pathogenic molecules, due to their COMPLEMENTARY conformation.

It is now obvious that when using SIMILIMUM as therapeutic agents, we are actually using MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of ‘functional groups’ of drug molecules to bind to the ‘functional groups’ of pathogenic molecules and deactivate them.

This observation leads us to some very important conclusions: What we actually need is the MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of biologically active FUNCTIONAL GROUPS. If we can prepare molecular imprints of all biologically active functional groups, and make them available as homeopathic remedies, we will not need all these thousands of different drug substances. We will require only a very limited number of drugs, which could be universally applied as per homeopathic indications.

We will have to prepare MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of only following classes of FUNCTIONAL GROUPS to make our wonderful therapeutic arsenal:

Functional Groups consisting of Hydrocarbons: Alkyl ( Ethane), Alkenyl ( Ethylene) , Alkynyl (Acetylene), Phenyl (Cumene), Benzyl (Benzyl bromide).

Functional Groups containing Halogens: Halo ( Chloroethane), fluoro (Fluoromethane), chloro (Chloromethane), bromo (Bromomethane), iodo (Iodomethane).

Functional Groups containing oxygen: Hydroxyl (Methanol), Carbonyl (Butanone), Aldehyde (Acetaldehyde), Haloformyl (Acetyl chloride), Carbonate ester (Triphosgene), Carboxylate (Sodium acetate), Carboxyl (Acetic acid), Ester (Ethyl butyrate), Methoxy, Hydroperoxy (Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide), Peroxy (Di-tert-butyl peroxide), Ether (Diethyl ether), Hemiacetal, Hemiketal, Acetal, Ketal , Orthoester, Orthocarbonate ester.

Functional Groups containing nitrogen: Carboxamide (Acetamide), Primary amine (Methylamine), Secondary amine (Dimethylamine), Tertiary amine (Trimethylamine), 4° ammonium ion (Choline), Primary ketimine, Secondary ketimine, Primary aldimine, Secondary aldimine, Imide (Succinimide), Azide (Phenyl azide), Azo (Methyl orange), Cyanate (Methyl cyanate), Isocyanate (Methyl isocyanate), Nitrate (Amyl nitrate), Nitrile (Benzonitrile), Isonitrile (Methyl isocyanide), Nitrosooxy (Isoamyl nitrite), Nitro (Nitromethane), Nitroso (Nitrosobenzene), Pyridyl (Nicotine).

Functional Groups containing sulphur: Sulfhydryl (Ethanethiol), Sulfide (Dimethyl sulfide), Disulfide (Dimethyl disulfide), Sulfinyl (Dimethyl sulfoxide), Sulfonyl (Dimethyl sulfone ), Sulfino (2-Aminoethanesulfinic acid), Sulfo (Benzenesulfonic acid), Thiocyanate (Phenyl thiocyanate), Isothiocyanate (Allyl isothiocyanate), Carbonothioyl (Diphenylmethanethione), Carbonothioyl.

Groups containing phosphorus: Phosphino (Methylpropylphosphane), Phosphono (Benzylphosphonic acid), Phosphate (Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate), Phosphodiester (O‑[(2‑Guanidinoethoxy)hydroxyphosphoryl]‑l‑serine).

Groups containing boron: Borono, Boronate, Borino, Borinate.

THIS IS ONLY A PRELIMINARY THOUGHT IN THIS DIRECTION.

————————————————————————————–

A ‘single drug’ means a drug substance that contains ‘single type of biologically active molecules’. If a drug substance contains different types of biologically active molecules, it is not a ‘single’ drug- it is a compound drug. Nux vomica is a COMPOUND drug, SEPIA is a compound drug- all vegetable and animal drugs as well as most of the mineral drugs we wrongly consider SINGLE drugs are actuallyCOMPOUND drugs.

Whether we call NUX a ‘single’ drug or ‘multiple’ drug would not have been a matter of any consequence, if homeopaths abstained from making so much controversy over ‘single-multiple’ drug issue. We are compelled to point out that even NUX is not a SINGLE drug in scientific sense, when they declare that ‘SINGLE DRUG’ is a ‘fundamental principle’ of homeopathy, and that anybody using more than one drug is not a TRUE homeopath!

————————————————————————————–

Hahnemann could not provide any scientific explanation for the phenomena involved in homeopathy, due to the historical limitations of knowledge environment available to him. That is understandable and acceptable.

But, what were those ‘faithful disciples’ of hahnemann doing for
explaining homeopathy scientifically all these 200 hundred years after hahnemann? Only making it appear more and more absurd by talking all sorts of ‘anti-scientific’ and ‘ultra-scientific’ nonsense ‘energy medicine’ theories that contradict all existing scientific knowledge system. By talking about ‘miracles’ ‘magics’, and doing occult practices in the name of homeopathy that no rational minded human beings can agree with.

Nobody so far bothered to evolve even a scientifically viable working hypothesis about homeopathy that could be presented as a candidate for verification according to scientific methods.

All those ‘newtons’, ‘ensteins’ and ‘gurus’ of homeopathy were only busy with amassing money by conducting seminars, propagating and marketing their branded ‘methods and principles’.

Our ‘research institutions’ were only interested in preparing fake projects, reports, bills and vouchers for ‘utilizing’ and sharing the huge funds they were allotted from public exchequers.

How can we blame scientific community for saying homeopathy is unscientific?

——————————————————————————————-

All vegetable and animal drugs, as well as most of the mineral drug substances we consider SINGLE, actually contain many different types of chemical molecules. When introduced into a living body, these chemical molecules act upon different biological targets as individual units in capacity of their chemical properties, thereby producing multitudes of molecular inhibitions and deviations in various biochemical pathways, and produce associated subjective and objective symptoms.

During potentization, these drug molecules undergo MOLECULAR IMPRINTING as individual units, and hence, even a potentized drug we consider SINGLE will be actually a MIXTURE of diverse types of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS representing diverse types of individual molecules.

When applied as a therapeutic agent, this individual molecular imprints contained in the potentized drug will act as individual units, and bind to different pathogenic molecules having configurational offinity.

Why can’t you realize the meaninglessness of this ‘single drug/multiple drug’ controversy?

—————————————————————————————

According to scientific view, it is the number of biologically active chemical molecules contained in a drug substance that determines whether it is a SINGLE drug or COMPOUND drug. If it contains SINGLE type of biologically active chemical molecules, it is a SINGLE drug. If it contains differet types of biologically active chemical molecules, it is a COMPOUND drug. What somebody blindly believes, or what somebody wrote two centuries ago, cannot change this well-proven and universally accepted scientific truth. Dear homeopath, try to understand and accept undeniable scientific truths, and discard your foolish beliefs.

—————————————————————————————

If you have no any idea about WHAT ‘active principles’ you are actually giving to your patient when administering a ‘high potency drug’, and HOW they exactly work, how can you make ‘theories’ about its dose, repetition, number of drugs etc? Only on the basis of what ‘master did say’ or ‘did not say’ 250 years ago? Do you expect homeopathy can exist here for long, facing the scientific challenges of future successfully with this dogmatic approach, by feigning deaf, dumb and blind towards the questions raised by advancing scientific knowledge?

—————————————————————————————-

Read foot note of aphorism 276:

“The praise bestowed of late years by some homoeopathists on the larger doses is owing to this, either that they chose low dynamizations of the medicine to be administered (as I myself used to do twenty years ago, from not knowing any better), or that the medicines selected were not perfectly homoeopathic.”

This statement of hahnemann should be read by those who justify the use of mother tinctures by saying “master also used mother tinctures”. Hahnemann confesses, he used ‘large’ doses and ‘low dynamizations’ TWENTY YEARS AGO, ( means twenty years before he wrote 6th edition of organon), from “not knowing any better”. Please note, “FROM NOT KNOWING ANY BETTER!”

Still not convinced of what was master’s views regarding mother tinctures?

—————————————————————————————-

‘How potentized drugs work’ is a question not yet answered, since they do not contain any drug molecules, and nobody so far knows what exactly are the active principles of potentized drugs. MIT hypothesis proposed by me is a serious attempt to resolve this riddle by scientific methods.

But there is nothing to prove in ‘how mother tinctures work’. They contain drug molecules with specific chemical properties, which can work exactly by the same biological mechanism as any MOLECULAR DRUG such as allopathic or ayurvrdic drug works.

—————————————————————————————–

I think ‘totality of symptoms’ does not mean ‘all symptoms’ of the patient. It actually means, ‘each symptom considered in its totality’. A symptom becomes a ‘total symptom’ when it is considered with its all available qualifying accessories such as locations, causations, sensation, presentations, modalities and concomitants. From this point of view, even a single symptom if considered with all its qualifying accessories may constitute ‘totality of symptoms’, which will be enough to decide a similimum for the patient.

—————————————————————————————

Whether you use mother tinctures alone, mixed, or as ‘additional’ ‘supportive’ to the selected ‘similimum’ used in high potencies, what ever theories, aphorisms and principles you talk about, actually you are doing ‘very bad’ homeopathy. In fact, you are not doing homeopathy at all.

————————————————————————————–

Do you ever use MOTHER TINCTURES strictly following the similia principle, by working out as SIMILIMUM by repertorizing using the totality of mental and physical symptoms? If not, how can you say it is a genuine homeopathic prescription? How can you expect our mother tinctures to act by a biological mechanism different from that of allopathic and ayurvedic tinctures, only because we put a label ‘homeopathic’ on our bottles.?

————————————————————————————–

We use SYMPTOMS as indicators of pathological molecular errors existing in the individual, so as to identify the exact pathogenic molecules that produced those molecular errors, and then find the drug molecules that could produce SIMILAR molecular errors in healthy individuals, by a process of comparing and matching of drug symptoms and disease symptoms.

Once the drug substance containing the molecules similar to the pathogenic molecules are identified by a comparative study of their symptoms, we use the potentized form of that drug as therapeutic agent, in order to supply the appropriate MOLECULAR IMPRINTS that could bind to the pathogenic molecules and remove the molecular inhibitions they produced in the organism.

This is the most rational and scientific explanation of homeopathy. Kindly think over.

—————————————————————————————

While a homeopath searches for a SIMILIMUM for his patient by matching DISEASE symptoms and DRUG symptoms, he is actually searching for appropriate MOLECULAR IMPRINTS that could act is LIGAND LOCKS or ‘artificial binding sites’ to bind to the pathogenic molecules that produced the ‘molecular inhibitions’ in the organism and caused the disease condition.

This search is based on the knowledge involved in homeopathy that if the symptoms produced by drugs when applied on healthy individuals and the symptoms produced an a particular disease condition are SIMILAR, that means the particular drug substance contained some drug molecules that could bind to same biological target molecules which were attacked by the pathogenic molecules to produce disease condition, so that the molecular errors and their symptoms appear SIMILAR.

It further means, the drug substance as well as causative agents of disease contained some molecules having SIMILAR functional groups or moieties, so that they could bind to same molecular targets and produce similar molecular errors.

MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of similar molecules can act as ‘artificial binding site’ for any molecule having similar configuration, since the molecular imprints will have a configurational complementary affinity towards those molecules.

This peculiar ‘DRUG-DISEASE’ relationship is expressed by the dictum SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR, which explains the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure.

——————————————————————————————

‘Molecular Imprinting’ is the key word in the scientific understanding of homeopathic ‘potentization’ and ‘simila similibus curentur’.

First of all, I want to make it clear that ‘molecular imprinting’ concept I talk about has nothing to do with the ‘spiritualistic’ ‘water memory’ or such psudoscientific theories our ‘dynamic’ ‘energy medicine’ homeopaths promote.

Once you get the concept of ‘molecular imprinting’ in its right scientific perspective, everything about homeopathy will be rational, clear and simple. Then you will instantly see that homeopathy fits well into the scientific paradigms of modern biochemistry and molecular medicine.

Please google to learn the modern technology of ‘Molecular Imprinted Polymers’ and ‘guest-host’ molecular formations. Then learn supra-molecular properties of water, such as di-electric properties, hydrogen bonding, hydration shells, supra-molecular networks, polymer-like behaviors, clathrates, liquid crystals etc. You can understand what I mean by ‘molecular imprinting’ in water.

At that stage, take a little time to study supra-molecular properties of ethyl alcohol, and water-alcohol complexes. Understanding the molecular structure of oligosaccharides such as lactose and sucrose also will be useful.

Then update your biochemistry from latest textbooks or internet, especially regarding proteins and protein inhibitions, and understand the ‘key-lock’ mechanism involved in ligand-target, substrate-enzyme, antigen-antibody and signal-receptor relationships. Now will be clear on the molecular mechanisms of pathologic molecular inhibitions and therapeutics. Try to understand homeopathic ‘drug proving’ from this angle.

Once you are clear on these subjects, it will be easy for you perceive ‘potentization’ in terms of ‘molecular imprinting’, and potentized drugs in terms of ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent drug molecules. You will understand the real science involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’.

ONCE YOU GET THE BASICS, THINK OVER MY EXPLANATIONS OF HOMEOPATHY:

‘Similimum’ is the drug which in crude form produced ‘molecular errors’ similar to those of the particular ‘disease’ we consider. Similar molecular errors produce similar symptoms, and as such, homeopathy finds ‘similimum’ using ‘similarity of symptoms’. Potentized forms of ‘similimum’ contain ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules, which can bind to pathogenic molecules and act as therapeutic agent.

Perceive ‘drugs’ in terms of diverse types of independent ‘constituent drug molecules’, and potentized medicines as a mixture of independent ‘molecular imprints’ of these drug molecules. Perceive diseases as ‘molecular errors’ in vital processes, and ‘symptoms’ in terms of ‘symptom complexes’ representing ‘molecular errors’. You get a scientific understanding of “Similia Similibus Curentur”.

“Similia Similibus Curentur” means: “Diseases with specific symptoms can be cured by potentized forms of drugs that can create similar symptoms in healthy organism if applied in crude form”.

Same can be stated in a more scientific way: “Pathological molecular errors can be rectified using ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules that can create similar molecular errors if applied in molecular form”.

Diseases can be cured by potentized forms of drug substances that in crude form can create similar diseases in healthy individuals”.

Since ‘diseases’ are molecular errors’ in vital processes, and potentized drugs are ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules, we can change this statement as follows: “ Pathological molecular errors can be rectified by ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules that in crude form can create similar molecular errors in the healthy organism’.

Since similar ‘molecular errors’ created by pathogenic molecules and drug molecules exhibit similar ‘symptoms’, appropriate ‘molecular imprints’ for curing a disease can be determined by a process of observing and matching the ‘disease symptoms’ and ‘drug symptoms(material medica)’.

————————————————————————————–

Whether you select the drug on the basis of ‘totality of symptoms’, ‘multiple symptom complexes’, as ‘constitutional’ remedy, by singular ‘key note symptoms’, as ‘specifics’, as ‘tautopathic’ remedies, as ‘isopathic’ remedies, on the basis of biochemistry of ‘molecular pathology’, on the basis of ‘toxicological’ knowledge, ‘plant kingdoms’, or by any other principles or indications, if the selected drug contains appropriate ‘molecular imprints’ required to remove the pathological molecular inhibitions existing in the particular patient, that drug is ‘his’ SIMILIMUM- may be perfect or partial. IT WILL WORK.

————————————————————————————–

ENERGY MEDICINE nonsense is based on the concepts of IMMATERIAL vibrations, immaterial FORCES, immaterial FREQUENCIES, immaterial RESONANCE and such things, which contradict all the well-proved fundamental principles of our existing scientific knowledge system. That is why they talk about a DRUG ENERGY that can exist without any DRUG MOLECULES or particles, which can ‘act’ from DISTANCE by some mysterious ‘dynamic’ mechanism. I know it is a futile exercise to talk science to those who do not know even the basic lessons of science.

—————————————————————————————-

In the absence of essential basic scientific knowledge and rational perspective, you will go on talking about ‘energy medicine’, vital force, dynamic drug energy, spiritual healing, vibrations, resonance, distance healing and such diverse unscientific and pseudo-scientific things, and continue to make homeopathy and homeopaths a subject of unending mockery and ridicule before the scientific community.

And of course, you will go on declaring homeopathy is the ultimate science far advanced than modern science, hahnemann is the greatest scientist ever lived, and aphorisms of organon are ‘immutable’ truths!

————————————————————————————–

Scientific understanding of homeopathy, similar to any rational science of medicine, should be primarily based on the realization of ‘life’ as a ‘material’ phenomenon.

Living world represents a higher level of organization of same elemental factors existing in the non-living world, an advanced stage of its evolution that happened through millions of years.

‘Living organism’ is a highly complex and self-regulated material system that exists through ‘vital processes’ or metabolic processes, consisting of systematic chains of inter-dependent biochemical pathways of complex molecular interactions, enabling an unhindered flow and conversion of matter and energy between organism and its environment that ensures the existence of life.

Phenomena of ‘mind’ and ‘mental faculties’ are the ‘functional’ products of complex biochemical molecular processes happening in the central nervous system, which is an integral part of ‘body’, and as such, mind has no existence free from the material body.

If you cannot understand this basic scientific perspective of ‘life’, ‘vital processes’ and ‘mind’, you cannot follow the scientific explanations of homeopathy.

——————————————————————————————

Without getting yourselves introduced to the latest information regarding supra-molecular properties of water and ethyl alcohol, hydrogen bonding, hydration shells, supra-molecular nano-structures, guest-host complexes, molecular imprinting in polymers and related subjects, you cannot follow the scientific explanations of potentization in terms of ‘molecular imprinting’ as proposed by MIT.

————————————————————————————–

Without a scientific perspective regarding the molecular composition of drug substances and the molecular mechanism by which the drug substances interact with biological organism to produce pathological inhibitions and symptoms, you cannot follow the scientific explanations of drug proving proposed by MIT.

————————————————————————————–

Without a baseline knowledge of essentials of biochemistry- especially regarding the mechanism of ‘ligand-target’ interactions involved in biological processes, molecular basics of protein kinetics and molecular inhibitions, as well as dynamics of ‘cure’ as removal of molecular inhibitions, you cannot effectively follow the scientific explanation of similia similibus curentur proposed by MIT.

—————————————————————————————-

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, every events and symptoms that ‘follows’ that act will be attributed as the ‘miraculous effect’ of their ‘single dose’. Many claims of ‘cures’, ‘aggravations’, ‘side effects’ and ‘provings’ are actually the product of this perverted understanding of ’cause and effect’.

Dear friends, ‘Cause-Effect’ relationship is different from ‘Before-After’ relationship. Kindly use some logical thinking and rational experiments before drawing foolish conclusions and ‘theories’ from ‘experiences’.

—————————————————————————————

On the one side, homeopathy is considered by the scientific community as a nonsense theory and practice amounting to quackery based on unscientific philosophy of vitalism, where as on the other side, all the foremost proponents of homeopathy still prefer to explain and market it as a ‘spiritualistic’ healing art.

In this peculiar intellectual context where both sides see me as an ‘agent of otherside’, I am aware that it will be an extremely difficult exercise for me to break the baricades on both sides and convince 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 science and logic behind my claim in a convincing way.

————————————————————————————-

Concept Of ‘Dynamic Drug Energy’ Evolved From Master’s Inability To Explain Phenomena ‘In Any Other Manner’

In his Footnote to to Aphorism 11 of Organon Sixth Edition, Hahnemann has put on record: “Is it then so utterly impossible for our age celebrated for its wealth in clear thinkers to think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner?”.

This statement amounts to a humble confession by the MASTER regarding his “inability” to explain the phenomena “in any other manner”, which compelled him to explain homeopathy in terms of VITAL FORCE and DYNAMIC ENERGY. This “inability” of master clearly demonstrates the infantile state of scientific knowledge available to him, obviously due to the limitations of historical context he lived in.

While commenting on my facebook post, one senior homeopath from India told me: “Since potentized drugs contain DYNAMIC drug energy, SIMILIMUM will act curative, even if the patient simply holds the DRUG BOTTLE in his hands for a few minutes, without opening it.”

Even though his statement may at first glance seem to be only a BELIEF of an individual homeopath, actually it represents a strong current of ‘philosophical’ thought existing among the homeopathic community. More over, this ‘philosophy’ has its roots in the original theory of homeopathy based on VITAL FORCE and DYNAMIC ENERGY. Dogmatic ‘followers’ of hahnemann believe that potentized drugs contain DYNAMIC DRUG ENERGY, which act ‘dynamically’ up on the ‘vital force’ of organism. According to hahnemann, DYNAMIC ENERGY is ‘immaterial’, ‘conceptual’, and ‘spirit-like’, which act from a distance, without any carrier particles.

DYNAMIC ENERGY is different from the forms of PHYSICAL ENERGY we study in science. PHYSICAL ENERGY always act through exchange of CARRIER particles, which are forms of matter. LIGHT, ELECTRICITY, MAGNETISM, GRAVITATION, NUCLEAR FORCES- all these physical energies act through exchange of CARRIER PARTICLES.
If we believe in a NON-MATERIAL, SPIRIT-LIKE DYNAMIC DRUG ENERGY, that can act from a DISTANCE without any carrier particles, there is nothing wrong in believing that potentized drugs can act from a distance, or by holding bottle in hands. REAL PROBLEM LIES IN THE THEORY OF DYNAMIC DRUG ENERGY.

If you believe in DYNAMIC DRUG ENERGY and VITAL FORCE, you will have to agree with all these NONSENSE theories these people talk. You cannot disown the statement of that ‘senior homeopath’ that potentized drug will act by ‘holding’ the bottle, without actually disowning the concept of DYNAMIC DRUG ENERGY. Both ‘ACTING FROM A DISTANCE’ and ‘ACTING DYNAMICALLY’ are same in meaning. Both concepts evolves from UNSCIENTIFIC philosophy of DYNAMISM.

If you believe potentized drugs carry DYNAMIC ENERGY, how can you imagine it to remain confined inside the bottle only? How can a glass bottle prevent the IMMATERIAL, CONCEPTUAL, SPIRIT-LIKE FORCE from ‘radiating’ out? Why can you say, the ‘energetic’ VIBRATIONS of drugs will remain inside the bottle? Is it not ridiculous to say that a MATERIAL object can block the escape of an IMMATERIAL FORCE?

There a lot of DRUGS marketed by HELIOS, which are PROVED by TRITURATION PROVING, DREAM PROVING and MEDITATION PROVING. In TRITURATION PROVING, the PROVER simply TRITURATES the drug up to 3c, by which time he is said to produce SYMPTOMS by dynamic effect of drugs he triturated. Those symptoms are collected and compiled as materia medica. In DREAM PROVING, the drug is kept under the pillow of the prover. Due to the dynamic effects of that drug, prover is said to experience characteristic DREAMS in his sleep, which are immediately recorded. In MEDITATION PROVING, the prover simply MEDITATES about the drug kept in his hand. In meditation, he experience the symptoms. If all these things could actually happen, drugs will act by simply holding the bottles in hands. WHY NOT?

SEE HAHNEMANN EXPLAINING HIS CONCEPTS OF ‘DYNAMIC ENERGY’ AND ‘DYNAMIC ACTIONS’ IN ORGANON:

Organon : Aphorism 11 : Sixth Edition: Foot Note:

“What is dynamic influence, – dynamic power? Our earth, by virtue of a hidden invisible energy, carries the moon around her in twenty-eight days and several hours, and the moon alternately, in definite fixed hours (deducting certain differences which occur with the full and new moon) raises our northern seas to flood tide and again correspondingly lowers them to ebb. Apparently this takes place not through material agencies, not through mechanical contrivances, as are used for products of human labor; and so we see numerous other events about us as results of the action of one substance on another substance without being able to recognize a sensible connection between cause and effect. Only the cultured, practised in comparison and deduction, can form for himself a kind of supra-sensual idea sufficient to keep all that is material or mechanical in his thoughts from such concepts. He calls such effects dynamic, virtual, that is, such as result from absolute, specific, pure energy and action of the one substance upon the other substance.”

“For instance, the dynamic effect of the sick-making influences upon healthy man, as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the principle of life in the restoration of health is nothing else than infection and so not in any way material, not in any way mechanical. Just as the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material, not mechanical. One sees that the piece of iron is attracted by one pole of the magnet, but how it is done is not seen. This invisible energy of the magnet does not require mechanical (material) auxiliary means, hook or lever, to attract the iron. The magnet draws to itself and this acts upon the piece of iron or upon a steel needle by means of a purely immaterial invisible, conceptual, inherent energy, that is, dynamically, and communicates to the steel needle the magnetic energy equally invisibly (dynamically). The steel needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property.”

“In a similar way, the effect of medicines upon living man is to be judged. Substances, which are used as medicines, are medicines only in so far as they possess each its own specific energy to alter the well-being of man through dynamic, conceptual influence, by means of the living sensory fibre, upon the conceptual controlling principle of life. The medicinal property of those material substances which we call medicines proper, relates only to their energy to call out alterations in the well-being of animal life. Only upon this conceptual principle of life, depends their medicinal health-altering, conceptual (dynamic) influence. Just as the nearness of a magnetic pole can communicate only magnetic energy to the steel (namely, by a kind of infection) but cannot commu nicate other properties (for instance, more hardness or ductility, etc.). And thus every special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of man in a peculiar manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only small-pox and not measles. These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of the medicinal substances, thus dynamically, as if through infection. Far more healing energy is expressed in a case in point by the smallest dose of the best dynamized medicines, in which there can be, according to calculation, only so little of material substance that its minuteness cannot be thought and conceived by the best arithmetical mind, than by large doses of the same medicine in substance. That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed, conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses.”

“It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or mathematical surfaces (with which the higher energies of the dynamized medicines are being interpreted but vainly as still sufficiently material) that the medicinal energy is found. More likely, there lies invisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated, specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has become through the dynamization.”

“Is it then so utterly impossible for our age celebrated for its wealth in clear thinkers to think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner? If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination? And if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?”

Explanations hahnemann provide for his concept of DYNAMIC DRUG ENERGY quoted above clearly demonstrate the infantile state of scientific knowledge available to him, obviously due to the limitations of historical context he lived in.

Note the following points carefully:

” If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination?”

” if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?”

” Our earth, by virtue of a hidden invisible energy, carries the moon around her in twenty-eight days and several hours, and the moon alternately, in definite fixed hours (deducting certain differences which occur with the full and new moon) raises our northern seas to flood tide and again correspondingly lowers them to ebb. Apparently this takes place not through material agencies, not through mechanical contrivances”

“we see numerous other events about us as results of the action of one substance on another substance without being able to recognize a sensible connection between cause and effect”

“dynamic effect of the sick-making influences upon healthy man, as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the principle of life in the restoration of health is nothing else than infection and so not in any way material, not in any way mechanical”

“Just as the energy of a magnet attracting 6a piece of iron or steel is not material, not mechanical”

“One sees that the piece of iron is attracted by one pole of the magnet, but how it is done is not seen.”

” This invisible energy of the magnet does not require mechanical (material) auxiliary means, hook or lever, to attract the iron. The magnet draws to itself and this acts upon the piece of iron or upon a steel needle by means of a purely immaterial invisible, conceptual, inherent energy, that is, dynamically, and communicates to the steel needle the magnetic energy equally invisibly (dynamically).”

” The steel needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered previously by the magnetic rod”

” a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected”

” A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property.”

” Substances, which are used as medicines, are medicines only in so far as they possess each its own specific energy to alter the well-being of man through dynamic, conceptual influence, by means of the living sensory fibre, upon the conceptual controlling principle of life.”

” The medicinal property of those material substances which we call medicines proper, relates only to their energy to call out alterations in the well-being of animal life. Only upon this conceptual principle of life, depends their medicinal health-altering, conceptual (dynamic) influence.”

” every special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of man in a peculiar manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only small-pox and not measles”.

“These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of the medicinal substances, thus dynamically, as if through infection.”

” Far more healing energy is expressed in a case in point by the smallest dose of the best dynamized medicines, in which there can be, according to calculation, only so little of material substance that its minuteness cannot be thought and conceived by the best arithmetical mind, than by large doses of the same medicine in substance”.

“That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed, conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses.”

“It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or mathematical surfaces (with which the higher energies of the dynamized medicines are being interpreted but vainly as still sufficiently material) that the medicinal energy is found”.

“there lies invisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated, specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has become through the dynamization.”

“Is it then so utterly impossible for our age celebrated for its wealth in clear thinkers to think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner?”

Please note the hahnemann’s last sentence quoted above carefully: “think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner”. IT AMOUNTS TO A HUMBLE CONFESSION BY THE MASTER:

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain how limbs are raised at will- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain why people get nauseated by seeing others vomit- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain how measles and chicken pox are transmitted- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain why earth revolves around sun- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain the phenomena of high and low ebbsl- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain how a magnet attracts an iron needle- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain how a steel needle gets magnetized in the vicinity of a magnet – and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain the phenomenon of LIFE – and hence, he explained it using VITAL FORCE and DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain DISEASE and CURE- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain SYMPTOMS and DRUG PROVING- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain how substances get medicinal property- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain how potentization really worksl- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

Hahnemann could not scientifically explain how potentized drugs act- and hence, he explained it using DYNAMIC ENERGY.

THE TRUTH IS OBVIOUS: HAHNEMANN WAS COMPELLED TO ‘THINK’ ABOUT A ‘NON-CORPOREAL’ ‘DYNAMIC ENERGY’, ONLY BECAUSE HE SAW MANY DAILY PHENOMENA WHICH HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN IN “ANY OTHER MANNER”‘

—————————————————————————————

If a ‘homeopath’ declares “homeopathy is far advanced than modern science”, “everything is said in organon”, “science cannot explain how homeopathy works- but I can”, “homeopathic medicines are immaterial energy”, “ask me any questions about homeopathy, I can answer” etc etc, the picture is clear. Only thing I can do is, say good bye to that wonderful genius!

————————————————————————————–

A day will come when scientific community and their ‘modern’ medical fraternity will feel sorry for the wonderful opportunities they missed by ignoring homeopathy for more than two centuries, and failing to understand homeopathic potentization as a technology of preparing DESIGNER DRUGS by molecular imprinting in water. They will feel sorry for their failure in realizing the great truth that Similia Similibus Curentur involves a technique of TARGET SPECIFIC DRUG PILOTING and MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS, that should have been incorporated into the arsenal of MODERN MOLECULAR MEDICINE.

————————————————————————————–

While handling life-threatening cases, homeopaths should always remember: “LIFE OF PATIENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRIDE OF HOMEOPATHY OR EGO OF HOMEOPATH”

————————————————————————————-

According to Hahnemann, “knowledge of diseases” and “knowledge of medicinal powers” are the essential qualities of a ‘good physician’. In modern knowledge context, definition of “knowledge of diseases” hahnemann proposed as a basic qualification of “good physician” inevitably should mean the understanding of biochemical processes involved in the ‘molecular level pathology’ of diseases. “Knowledge of medicinal powers” should include the knowledge regarding the exact ‘active principles’ of potentized drugs, and the biological mechanism by which they produce cure. “Proper dose and repetition” could be scientifically decided only if you know ‘what is the exact active principles’ of potenteized drugs we are using, and ‘how they actually work’.

Our practice will become “judicious and rational” as hahnemann defined, only if modern homeopaths attain at least that much of scientific awareness Each homeopaths has to equip himself with these essential scientific knowledge to be qualified as ‘good physicians’.

We cannot evade from answering TWO fundamental questions in order to equip with ‘knowledge of disease’ and ‘knowledge of medicinal powers’:

Question 1: What are the ‘active principles of potentized drugs?

Answer: ‘Active principles’ of potentized drugs are ‘hydrosomes’ or ‘molecular imprinted supra-molecular nano cavities of water-ethyl alcohol molecules’ prepared by a process of molecular imprinting known as potentization.

Question 2: What is the molecular mechanism by which potentized act as therapeutic agents?

Answer: Due to the complementary conformational affinity, ‘hydrosomes’ or ‘molecular imprinted supra-molecular nano cavities’ contained in potentized drugs can remove the pathogenic molecular inhibitions in the organism by acting as ‘ligand traps’ or ‘artificial binding sites’, for pathogenic molecules having conformations similar to the drug molecules used for potentization.

It is totally wrong to say potentized homeopathic drugs contain NANO PARTICLES. They contain NANO CAVITIES. It makes a big difference in its implications, which the most-celebrated ‘nanoparticle theory’ of IIT scientists failed to recognize.

Active principles of POTENTIZED DRUGS are ‘molecular imprints’ consisting of supra-molecular ‘NANO CAVITIES’ or EMPTY SPACES previously occupied by drug molecules used for potentization. These supra-molecular NANO CAVITIES can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules similar to the drug molecules, due to their complimentary conformations, thereby relieving the biological molecules from INHIBITIONS caused by pathogenic molecules. This is the molecular mechanism involved in MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS known as HOMEOPATHY.

Molecular imprinted nano cavities contained in potentized drugs act as conformation-specific LIGAND TRAPS that can ‘entrap’ pathogenic ligands having shapes exactly similar to the drug molecules used for imprinting. Hope I sad it clearly.

I hope scientists will shortly realize the implications of homeopathic potentization as a process of preparing ‘molecular imprinted nano cavities’ in water-alcohol supra-molecular matrix, which could be used as ‘ligand traps’ that can act as conformation-specific artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules. Such a realization would enable them to develop a whole new range of safe and target-specific medicinal agents that could be incorporated into the therapeutic arsenal of modern molecular medicine. Once it happens, modern medical science and pharmaceutical industry will undergo revolutionary changes.

Study, preparation and application of NANO CAVITIES is special area of NANO TECHNOLOGY. Polymer-based nano cavities are prepared by MOLECULAR IMPRINTING IN POLYMERS. Molecular imprinted polymers could not be applied as therapeutic agents in living organisms. Homeopathic potentization is a process of preparing MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or supra-molecular NANO CAVITIES in water-ethyl alcohol matrix, that could be safely used as therapeutic agents.

I would suggest to use the term HYDROSOMES for ‘molecular imprinted supra-molecular nano cavities of water’. It would be a most appropriate, original, meaningful and convenient term for regular use. ‘HYDRO’ indicates ‘water’, and ‘SOMES’ indicates ‘cavities’. Now we can say, active principles of potentized homeopathic drugs are HYDROSOMES.

Bio-molecular mechanism of a curative process could be considered ‘homeopathic’, only if the ‘active principles’ of therapeutic agent interact with pathogenic molecules by a ‘homeopathic’ relationship. In such a relationship, the molecular conformation of ‘active principles’ of ‘remedies’ will be exactly complementary to the conformation of pathogenic molecules, so that they can bind each other by a ‘key-lock’ mechanism wherein the pathogenic molecules act as ‘keys’ and the active factors of therapeutic agents as ‘key-holes’ of the ‘locks’. Such a ‘homeopathic’ relationship happens only when the ‘active principles’ of therapeutic agents are ‘hydrosomes’ or ‘molecular imprinted nanocavities’ that can act as ‘ligand traps’ or ‘artificial binding sites’ for the pathogenic molecules. That means, the therapeutic agents should be made by ‘molecular imprinting’ or ‘potentization’ of pathogenic molecules themselves, or any drug molecules having conformations ‘similar’ to the pathogenic molecules. This is the molecular basis of ‘similia similibus curentur’ explained in scientific terms.

DISEASE SYMPTOMS and DRUG SYMPTOMS appear to be SIMILAR when the PATHOGENIC MOLECULES and DRUG MOLECULES have similar conformations, so that they can bind to SIMILAR biological molecules and produce SIMILAR molecular inhibitions which are expressed through SIMILAR symptoms.

MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug molecules will be ‘nano cavities’ having molecular conformations exactly COMPLEMENTARY to the drug molecules used for imprinting, as well as to the pathogenic molecules having conformations similar to the drug molecules. These NANO CAVITIES can bind to the pathogenic molecules by COMPLEMENTARY relationship by acting as LIGAND TRAPS or ARTIFICIAL BINDING SITES, and deactivate them. This process leads to the removal of MOLECULAR INHIBITIONS in the biological molecules caused by the pathogenic molecules. This is the molecular mechanism of homeopathic cure.

If you are not using drugs in ‘molecular imprints’ forms (means potentized above avogadro limit or 12c), it is not homeopathy whatever ‘theories’ and ‘laws’ you talk about. Only molecular imprints can act by a bio-molecular mechanism that is truly ‘homeopathic’. When you use ‘molecular forms’ of drugs (mother tinctures and potencies below avogadro limit or 12c), they act by a bio-molecular mechanism exactly same as allopathy or ayurveda. It is the ‘active principles’ of therapeutic agents you use and the way they act in the body that determines whether you are doing homeopathy or allopathy- not your theories, laws, labels or degrees.

Only those symptoms which are produced by ‘proving’ drugs in MOLECULAR FORMS, or obtained from accidental poisonings or toxicological studies are homeopathically reliable.

Since MOLECULAR IMPRINTS contained in potentized drugs cannot produce any effects up on normal interactions of biological molecules, symptoms claimed to be collected from so-called ‘high potency’ provings are unreliable as homeopathic indicators of remedies.

Most of such ‘high potency’ symptoms are pure imaginations or placebo effects exacly similar to ‘meditation provings’, ‘dream provings’, ‘trituration provings’ and other absurd ‘proving’ techniques propagated by ‘energy medicine’ homeopaths.

In certain cases, ‘high potency’ symptoms may represent molecular level changes happening in the organism as a result of he removal of some already existing molecular errors by the molecular imprints contained the potentized drugs. Obviously, they are not symptoms caused by drugs, but symptoms representing the curative actions of potentized drugs. They cannot be considered ‘drug symptoms’ in its real sense, and cannot be used as indicators for selecting similimum.

Once you start talking about potentized drugs and homeopathy in terms of ‘molecular imprinted nano cavities’ they contain, you can rationally and convincingly explain the ‘biological mechanism’ of therapeutics involved in ‘Similia Similibus Curentur using modern scientific paradigms even to a member of modern medical profession who so far considered homeopathy a ‘fake’ or ‘placebo’. Only thing is, you should have some working knowledge about the bio-molecular interactions underlying the vital processes underlying life, disease and cure as revealed by modern biochemistry and molecular biology.

Once you could perceive potentized drugs in terms of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or supra-molecular NANO CAVITIES that can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules having complimentary conformation, you will see that you can answer any hard questions about homeopathy rationally and scientifically. You will see how much rationally you can explain the biological mechanism of ‘similia similibus curentur’ in a way exactly fitting to the paradigms of modern science. You will see no questions remain unanswered, or no riddles unresolved in homeopathy. You will see, homeopathy becomes a full-fledged MEDICAL SCIENCE.

THEORY as well as PRACTICE of homeopathy is actually very simple, if taught scientifically and perceived rationally. People with vested interests make it appear complex and difficult, so that beginners and students get confused and throng into their ‘seminar’ halls to ‘learn’ and pay for the wonderful ‘methods’ they market!

————————————————————————————–

HOMEOPATHIC Case Taking should start with the question WHAT made the patient to seek a medical help NOW? Most probably, there should be an issue or complaint related with his health that disturbs him. Identify it first. Consider all most prominent and ABNORMAL factors from them. It may be a pain, a sensation, a lesion, a condition- any DISORDER of his mind or body that is EXPERIENCED to be a hindrance to his normal happy living. Complaints need not be always singular- may be multiple. Identify the important ABNORMAL BASIC SYMPTOMS to be considered.

Once the important ABNORMAL BASIC SYMPTOMS are identified, take each one and collect their ACCESSORY SYMPTOMS. Note down whether the complaints are GENERALIZED physically, or pertaining to MIND, or referred to a parficular LOCATION. Try to identify whether there are any any specific physical or mental CAUSATION for the complaints, immediate, from personal or family history. Take note of every abnormality related with PRESENTATION, such as lesions, skin eruptions, discharges and excretions, tone of voice, coughing, hair, body frame, facial expressions, gestures, posture etc. Trace out all ABNORMAL and peculiar SENSATIONS, which includes pains, perceptions, delusions, emotions, dreams, desires, aversions and and everything ‘sensed’ by his nervous system. Any peculiar condition or time of particular AGGRAVATION or AMELIORATION? Are there any notable complaints or symptoms appearing in association such as EXTENDING to other parts, ALTERNATING with or CONCOMITANT with the main complaint?

Once this work is over, combine each ABNORMAL BASIC SYMPTOM with its ACCESSORIES such as location, causation, presentation, sensation, modalities and concomitants, so that it is made a COMPLETE HOMEOPATHIC SYMPTOM that by its own capacity can decide a SIMILIMUM.

————————————————————————————–

If a substance is proved to be useful in capacity of its biological properties to treat a disease , it is a MEDICINE. There is no such a thing called ‘alternative’ medicine. Medicine is ‘medicine’- it cannot be ‘alternative’ or ‘mainstream’.

————————————————————————————

Any drug, belonging to any therapeutic system, if it is used in MOLECULAR FORMS, always poses the possibilities of producing NEW unexpected and unknown molecular inhibitions and and conditions of pathology. Only homeopathy, which uses drug substances in MOLECULAR IMPRINTS forms are free from such a possibility of unwanted pathogenic inhibitions. In this aspect, homeopathy differs from all other therapeutic systems, which is the comparative superiority of homeopathy.

————————————————————————————-

ANTIBODIES or MOLECULAR IMPRINTED GLOBULINS, which I consider as the material carriers of the phenomenon hahnemann called as MIASMS, are also known as IMMUNOGLOBULINS in biochemistry.

ANTIBODIES belong to a a larger family of GLOBULIN proteins known as IMMUNOGLOBULIN SUPER FAMILY, consisting of cell surface antigen receptors, co-receptors and co-stimulatory molecules of the immune system, molecules involved in antigen presentation to lymphocytes, cell adhesion molecules, certain cytokine receptors and intracellular muscle proteins. They are commonly associated with roles in the immune system.

Exactly, what we call ANTIBODIES are ‘antigen receptors’. They are found on the surface of T and B lymphocytes. In humans, there are five distinct types of immunoglobulin molecule all containing a heavy chain with four Ig domains and a light chain with two Ig domains. The antigen receptor of T cells is the T cell receptor (TCR), which is composed of two chains, either the TCR-alpha and -beta chains, or the TCR-delta and gamma chains. All TCR chains contain two Ig domains in the extra-cellular portion; one IgV domain at the N-terminus and one IgC1 domain adjacent to the cell membrane.

All ANTIBODIES are not similar in their structures, biological roles and life span. They differ widely in their amino-acid sequences and 3-D configurations. ALL antibodies will not necessarily exist in the body for long periods or whole life of the individual, and produce CHRONIC MIASMS.

————————————————————————————

You need not have to get a complete profile or DNA sample to identify a person in a crowd on a street. You can easily identify one, if you have his info such as ‘fat, bald man with his right hand amputated and limp in right leg while walking’. Same way, you need not have to get ALL symptoms, diagnosis and biochemical studies to select a SIMILIMUM- a few DISTINGUISHING symptoms are enough- such as ‘headache in forehead, accompanied with violent yawning, relieved by sleep or vomiting’.

————————————————————————————

Always look for some characteristic CONCOMITANT symptoms that qualify an ABNORMAL basic symptom. Concomitants include EXTENSIONS and ALTERNATING SYMPTOMS also. Then add with SENSATIONS and MODALITIES. If you get it, your work is half done in finding a SIMILIMUM.

————————————————————————————-

If you succeed in identifying at least ONE ‘abnormal’ symptom in your patient, and collect at least THREE of its associated accessory symptoms such as sensations, modalities and concomitants, you can confidently make a successful working homeopathic prescription.

————————————————————————————-

Abnormal Basic Symptom+ Characteristic Accessory Symptoms = Complete Homeopathic Symptom >>>>Similimum:

Success in homeopathic practice depends up on physician’s skills to collect ‘complete symptoms’ that would indicate most appropriate similimum.

First of all, we should be capable of differentiating between ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ symptoms.

‘Normal’ symptoms are those which represent ‘normal’ physiological processes in organism, which have no role in determining a similimum. Normal thirst, normal perspiration, normal bowel movements, normal appetite, normal sleep, normal emotions, normal body temperature, normal thermal responses etc etc.

Normal thirst represents normal physiology. But, if a person is thirstless in conditions where he should be thirsty, for example, when exposed in hot atmosphere for long time, it shows an abormality. To be extremely thirsty in very cold climate is also abnormal. Feeling extremely hot in chilly climates abnormal, and feeling chilly in very hot climate is also abnormal. Perspiring in hot climate is normal, but in cold climate is abnormal. Soft stool passed with difficulty is abnormal, but hard stool passed with difficulty is normal.

‘Abnormal’ symptoms are those symptoms that represent an ‘abnormal’ state of affairs in the organism- or, a molecular level pathology. It is these ‘abnormal’ symptoms that decide our selection of similimum. Abnormal thermal reactions, abnormal emotions, abnormal body temperature, abnormal appetite, abnormal thirst, abnormal sleep, abnormal perspiration, abnormal behaviors etc etc.

Identifying ‘abnormal’ symptoms is a tough task, if we are not aware of ‘normal physiology’ that are represented by ‘normal symptoms’.

Next stage is, identifying ‘basic symptoms’ and ‘accessory symptoms’.

A ‘basic symptom’, such as headache, joint pain, abdominal pain or any such ‘complaints’ for which a person seeks medical aid, becomes a valuable homeopathic symptom, only when it is made ‘complete’ by adding with their ‘characteristic’ ‘accessory’ symptoms.

‘Accessory symptoms’ are factors that make a ‘basic’ symptom a ‘complete’ one.

The word ‘accessory’ means something that ‘adds completeness’ to something else. In that sense an ‘accessory symptom’ might be a symptom that gives ‘completeness’ for another symptom. If a ‘headache’ is ‘amel by cold applications’, ‘amel by cold applications’ is the ‘accessory’ of the symptom ‘headache’, thereby making it a ‘complete symptom’.

Locations, presentations, sensations, modalities, concomittants, extensions etc constitute the broad class of ‘accessory symptoms’. Such factors make the symptoms ‘complete’. Accessory factors are also known as ‘symptom qualifications’. ‘ACCESSORY’ seems to be more meaningful and appropriate.

Accessory symptoms may be either ‘essential/common’ or characteristic/uncommon’. We are concerned with only ‘characteristic/uncommon’ accessories. A joint pain increasing by movement is common, but relieving by movement is uncommon. Sensation of heat relieving by cold application is common, but relieving by heat is uncommon. A joint pain increasing by movement is common, but relieving by movement is uncommon. Sensation of heat relieving by cold application is common, but relieving by heat is uncommon. Toothache relieved by chewing is uncommon, but increased by chewing is common.

Once the patient describes a ‘basic symptom’, homeopath should be always on the look out for as many related characteristic accessories that would make it a ‘complete symptom’. Converting trivial ‘basic symptoms’ into valuable ‘complete’ symptoms need much observation and reasoning skills on the part of homeopath, which decides his success as homeopath.

We should ignore Normal Basic Symptoms, and collect only Abnormal Basic Symptoms. We should ignore Essential/Common Accessory Symptoms, and collect only Characteristic/Uncommon Accessory Symptoms. This is the secret of successful case taking.

Here is the success formula for finding perfect similimum:

Abnormal Basic symptom+ Characteristic Accessory symptoms = Complete Homeopathic symptom >>> Perfect Similimum.

CAUSATION- LOCATION- PRESENTATIONS- SENSATION- MODALITIES- CONCOMITANTS(EXTENSIONS, ALTERNATIONS). THESE ARE THE SIX CATEGORIES OF ACCESSORY SYMPTOMS THAT QUALIFY EACH ‘ABNORMAL BASIC SYMPTOM’ TO MAKE IT A ‘COMPLETE HOMEOPATHIC SYMPTOM’. COLLECTING AS MUCH ‘COMPLETE HOMEOPATHIC SYMPTOMS’ IN A CASE IS THE KEY TO SUCCESSFUL PRESCRIPTION.

First step in case taking is distinguishing between ‘ABNORMAL’ and ‘NORMAL’ from among the BASIC SYMPTOMS expressed by the patient. We need to consider only ABNORMAL ones, since they are the representatives of pathological molecular errors existing in the organism

Next step is, collecting the available ACCESSORY symptoms (CLOSMC) relating to each ABNORMAL BASIC SYMPTOM.

Next step is, making COMPLETE HOMEOPATHIC SYMPTOMS by combining each ABNORMAL BASIC SYMPTOM with their ACCESSORY SYMPTOMS.

Each COMPLETE HOMEOPATHIC SYMPTOM forms a separate SYMPTOM COMPLEX, that represent a particular MOLECULAR ERROR in the organism.

After collecting and preparing maximum number of SYMPTOM COMPLEXES, we can repertorize each SYMPTOM COMPLEX separately and find a SIMILIMUM for each.

If all SYMPTOM COMPLEXES of a patient indicates SAME drug, it is happy and welcome. If different SYMPTOM COMPLEXES indicates DIFFERENT DRUGS, we will have to consider a MULTIPLE DRUG prescription.

If you succeed in identifying at least ONE ‘abnormal’ symptom in your patient, and collect at least THREE of its associated accessory symptoms such as sensations, modalities and concomittants, you can confidently make a successful working homeopathic prescription.

—————————————————————————————

My work on ‘miasms’ started from two basic convictions:

Firstly, I am convinced that infectious diseases have life-long residual effects on our organism, producing chronic constitutional disease dispositions.

Secondly, I am convinced that any disposition, disease, sensation, mental condition, emotion or constitutional tendency will have a material, ‘molecular level’ biochemical basis underlying it, and a biological mechanism through which it is executed.

Begining with hahnemann’s observation that ‘miasms’ are chronic disease dispositions produced by infectious diseases, I wanted to know the molecular level material basis of miasms, and the biological mechanism by which they produce chronic diseases.

My inquiry was, how can an infectious disease produce ‘residual effects’ in the body even after the infection is over. What remains in the body that can produce such a residual effect?

One thing common to all infectious agents are that all of them introduce some chemical molecules of protein nature into the host, which act as antigens and lead to the production of ‘antibodies’ or immune substances that help the body to fight the invading infectious agents.

Antibodies are native globulin proteins imprinted with antigens, and can bind to the specific antigens by conformational affinity. These antibodies remain in the organism even after the infection is over.

It is these antibodies generated in the organism against specific infectious agents, that produce ‘residual effects’ which hahnemann called miasms. Antibodies circulate in the body, and can bind to various ‘off target’ bilogical molecules such as receptors and enzymes, producing molecular inhibitions in various biochemical pathways. They produce many chronic pathological conditions we call as ‘auto immune’ diseases. Antibodies can even bind to enzymes involved in biochemical processes of genetic expressions, producing phenotype changes in constitutions. It is these phenotype changes that underlie the dispositions we call ‘miasmatic constitutions’.

Any substance of PROTEIN nature, alien to the genetic code of a given living organism can act as MIASM when it enters into the system, by generating antibodies that can bind to ‘off-target’ biological molecules and produce pathological molecular inhibitions. Bacteria, virus, vaccines, body fluids of other animals, venom, biological toxins, deformed proteins or any other substance of protein structure that do not agree with the genetic code of the host can act as miasms. Hahhnemann studied only ITCH, GONORRHOEA AND SYPHILIS, since those three infectious agents were most rampant in europe during his time, causing many chronic disease conditions in the population. Hahnemann never said miasms are ONLY three.

I have identified the material level molecular basis of ‘miasms’, and explained the biological mechanism by which they produce ‘chronic disease dispositions’. I think my work has contributed in the scientific advancement of hahnemann’s concept of miasms, thereby making it fitting to the modern scientific knowledge system. I have shown that masm is not an unscientific belief, but a scientific fact.

According hahnemann, MIASMS are not INFECTIOUS DISEASES as such- but miasms are CHRONIC DISEASE DISPOSITIONS produced by infectious diseases. Miasm is the chronic RESIDUAL effects of infectious diseases that remain IMPRINTED in the organism for the whole life, which produces disease dispositions, constitutional derangement, and obstructions to cure. Please note that point.

Modern ‘miasmatic experts’ ignore the fact that no where hahnemann talks about miasms unconnected with ‘infectious diseases’. If you read ‘chronic diseases’ carefully, you will realize that hahnemann considered miasms ONLY as ‘chronic disease dispositions’ produced by infectious diseases. He says very specifically that PSORA is the miasm of INFECTIOUS ITCH, SYPHILIS is the miasm of SYPHILIS INFECTION, and SYCOSIS is the miasm of FIGWARTS/GONORRHOEA infection.

It is the later ‘interpreters’ who disconnected miasms from infectious diseases, and started to explain miasms as ‘constitutional dispositions’, ‘genetic inheritence’, ‘original sin’, ‘mental make up’ ‘deviated vital force’ and such things, thereby creating all confusions now known as ‘miasmatic analysis’.

If you really want to study hahnemann’s concept of miasms, and to understand my scientific explanations for it, you should start by carefully reading ‘chronic diseases’. You will be gravely misguided if you try to learn miasms from the works of later interpreters known as ‘miasmatic experts’- they have hijacked hahnemann’s original idea to make it fit to the nonsense theories and methods they propagate. They are confusing the whole homeopathic community with their futile intellectual pretensions and obscurantism in the name of ‘miasmatic analysis’, masking their own ignorance and confusions by playing with complex phrases meaning of which even they fail to understand.

————————————————————————————–

Proponents of all those ‘modern’ ENERGY MEDICINE models and practices of homeopathy and CAM, amounting to sheer occults such as ‘vibrations’, ‘resonance’, ‘wave theory’, ‘frequencies’, ‘EM signals’, ‘bio-photons’, ‘bio-magnetism’, ‘distance healing’, ‘hair transmission’, ‘photo transmission’, ‘PC resonance remedies’, ‘paper remedies’, ‘water remedies’, ‘mp3 remedies’, ‘radionics’, ‘reflexology’, ‘meditation proving’, ‘dream proving’, ‘trituration proving’, etc etc seek their solace of ‘scientific’ foundation in the ‘DIGITAL BIOLOGY’ of BENVENISTE. It is almost like a BIBLE to them. In my opinion, the REDUCTIONIST and PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC speculations of benveniste, which he called ‘Digital Biology’, is actually the ‘MOTHER OF QUACKERY’ in homeopathy as well as everything known as CAM practices.

Jacques Benveniste(1935–2004), who was once a famous and respected French immunologist, published a research paper in Nature magazine in the year 1988. This paper and the subsequent controversies which shook the world of science, were incidents which roused great interest as far as Homoeopathy was concerned. It was through this article that the idea of ‘molecular memory of water’ became a subject of discussion in the world of science. But an influential section of scientists took a stand that ideas put forward by Benveniste were nothing but nonsense. Heated controversies followed, which have not subsided yet, even after 22 years. The accusation raised by his enemies was that Benveniste could not prove his arguments in the controlled experiments overseen by experts appointed by Nature. Benvenistse had later put on record that he was a made a scapegoat, and subjected to ‘inhuman revenge and character assassination’ from the part of representatives of official science.

In his original paper, Beneveniste claimed that he could observe in his experiments that human basophil degranulation can be triggered by very dilute aqueous solutions of anti- IgE antiserum. Using the molecular weight of immunoglobulins and Avogadro’s number, he calculated that less than one molecule of antibody is present in the assay when anti-IgE antiserum is diluted to 1 x 1014(corresponding to 2.2 x 10-20 M). But in the experiments he reported, he could detect significant basophil degranulation down to the 1x l0120 dilution. Specific effects have also been triggered by highly diluted agents in other in vitro and in vivo biological systems, but he consented that it still remained unexplained. He pointed to the possibility of biological effects in the physical absence of molecules. He argued that the entities supporting this ‘meta-molecular’ biology can only be explored by physical investigation of agitation causing interaction between the original molecules and water, thus yielding activity capable of specifically imitating the native molecules, though any such hypothesis is unsubstantiated at present.

He suspected that the molecular memory of the antibodies which was imprinted in water during dilution is responsible for this peculiar phenomenon. But the sad part of this story is that he failed to prove his arguments in the repeated experiments which were conducted in an atmosphere of absolute hostility, under the supervision of experts who were inimical to him, whose sole aim was to disprove him.

If we carefully examine the story of Benevenite’s failure, we would understand that it was not his basic observations that failed, but his interpretations of those observations. It led to submitting himself to experiments which were doomed to fail. Firstly, his argument that the drugs so diluted to the extent of making it impossible to contain a single molecule, can interfere in biological processes exactly mimicking the basic drug substance was a wrong and exaggerated interpretation of results of his original experiments. This inaccurate interpretation of the phenomena he observed, led him to agree to subject himself to inappropriate experiments, obviously designed to defeat him. He failed to understand that the molecular memory of the drug substances is imprinted into water in a negative direction, in complementary configuration. Put in another way, drug molecules will be imprinted in water not as exact configurational duplicates, but as negative complements, and hence, they cannot mimic the original drug molecules in biological processes.

Failure to understand the exact process of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING involved in the observed phenomenon of WATER MEMORY was a great mistake, that cost heavy to him. His conclusion that the ‘imprinted water’ interferes in biochemical processes exactly SIMILAR to the original molecules used for imprinting proved to be immature. He failed to comprehend the exact mechanism of molecular imprinting in water, and design his experiments accordingly. Had he understood the real mechanism of molecular imprinting, he would have been conscious about the UNSTABLE behavior of hydration shells in water, and would have taken necessary precautions, before subjecting himself to a controlled experiment. He could have devised some techniques to ensure the stability of hydration shells, such as using alcohol-water mixture instead of pure water, as done in homeopathic potentization.

He tried to explain it as ‘water memory’ that can mimic the original molecules. Actually, molecular imprints never can ‘mimic’ original molecules. They can only ‘complement’ and bind to original molecules and deactivate them by configurational affinity. If drug molecules are considered ‘keys’, ‘mimics’ should act as ‘duplicate keys’. But ‘molecular imprints’ act as ‘artificial keyholes’ for those ‘keys’ and ‘similar ‘keys. This point is very important. If we forget this point, we cannot logically explain ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘similia similibus curentur’.

If beneviste could have perceived the concept of ‘molecular imprints’ acting not as ‘duplicate keys’ but as ‘artificial keyholes’, he would have designed his experiments accordingly, so that he can prove that ‘molecular imprints’ can ‘antidote’ or ‘deactivate’ original molecules, thereby preventing them from interacting with biological molecules. Since ‘anti- IgE antiserum’ contains natural ligands of enzymes involved in human basophil de-granulation, ‘molecular imprints’ of anti- IgE antiserum cannot be prevent their natural interaction. We should not forget that ‘molecular imprints’ cannot interfere in the interaction between biological targets and their natural ligands. In the absence of this understanding, the experiments of beneveniste were wrongly designed, and were inevitably bound to fail.

‘Molecular imprints’ can prevent only ‘off-target’ actions of biological ligands. For example, we use potentized thyroid extract, which contain molecular imprints of various thyroid hormones having specific roles in metabolism. Potentized thyroid extract never interferes in the natural biological actions of thyroid hormones. But those molecular imprints can rectify the pathological conditions caused by ‘off-target’ bindings of thyroid hormones, especially in situations of hyperthyroidism. This is applicable to all potentized hormone remedies. They never interfere in normal biological actions of those hormones. Reason behind this phenomenon is related with the dynamics of molecular interactions. Interactions between natural targets and their ligands involves two factors: configurational affinity and charge affinity. But interactions of ‘molecular imprints’ and their ‘ligands’ involves ‘configurational affinity’ only, without any charge affinity.

BENVENISTE’s failure to understand ‘water memory’ in its right MOLECULAR IMPRINTING perspective gradually led him to speculating more and more absurd theories, which finally led to DIGITAL BIOLOGY, and then into setting up a business of preparing and marketing of what he called DIGIBIO ‘digital signature’ products.

———————————————————————————————

I am reproducing here Benveniste’s article on ‘UNDERSTANDING DIGITAL BIOLOGY’:

“Explaining digital biology is impossible without explaining its principle. The purpose of this text is not to report experimental results. Rather, it tries to explain to laymen, in the simplest terms, this radically new approach to biology. We hope it will be useful to all, scientists or not, who find it hard to “make the leap”. Indeed, is it possible to believe that the specific activity of biologically-active molecules (e.g. histamine, caffeine, nicotine, adrenalin), not to mention the immunological signature of a virus or bacterium can be recorded and digitized using a computer sound card, just like an ordinary sound? Imagine the perplexity of Archimedes confronted with a telephone, and being told that by using it he could be heard on the other side of the world, were we not to explain the nature of sound waves or their translation into electromagnetism.”

“Life depends on signals exchanged among molecules. For example, when you get angry, adrenalin “tells” its receptor, and it alone (as a faithful molecule, it talks to no other) to make your heart beat faster, to contract superficial blood vessels, etc.. In biology, the words “molecular signal” are used very often. Yet, if you ask even the most eminent biologists what the physical nature of this signal is, they seem not even to understand the question, and stare at you wide-eyed. In fact, they’ve cooked up a rigorously Cartesian physics all their own, as far removed as possible from the realities of contemporary physics, according to which simple contact (Descarte’s laws of impact, quickly disproved by Huygens) between two coalescent structures creates energy, thus constituting an exchange of information. For many years, I believed and recited this catechism without realizing its absurdity, just as mankind did not realize the absurdity of the belief that the sun circles the earth.”

“The truth, based on facts, is very simple. It does not require any “collapse of the physical or chemical worlds.” That molecules vibrate, we have known for decades. Every atom of every molecule and every intermolecular bond – the bridge that links the atoms – emits a group of specific frequencies. Specific frequencies of simple or complex molecules are detected at distances of billions of light-years, thanks to radio-telescopes. Biophysicists describe these frequencies as an essential physical characteristic of matter, but biologists do not consider that electromagnetic waves can play a role in molecular functions themselves. We cannot find the words “frequency” or “signal” (in the physical sense of the term) in any treatise on molecular interactions in biology, not to speak of the term “electromagnetic,” use of which would be – at least in France – a cause for excommunication of any offending biologist by the scientific Papal Office.”

“Like Archimedes, I would have liked to have had a brilliant idea in my bathtub: “Eureka, the vibrations of molecules don’t exist for them to dance the salsa at a Saturday night ball; vibrations are the tools of their trade, which allow them to send instructions to the next molecule down the line in the cascade of events which govern biological functions, and probably, to a large extent, chemical ones as well.” Unfortunately, this was not the case. I followed a purely experimental approach. After eight years of research, around 1991, my experiments showed that we could transfer specific molecular signals by using an amplifier and electromagnetic coils. In July, 1995, I recorded and replayed these signals using a multimedia computer. A computer sound card only records frequencies up to about 20,000 Hz. In the course of several thousand experiments, we have led receptors (specific to simple or complex molecules) to “believe” that they are in the presence of their favorite molecules by playing the recorded frequencies of those molecules. In order to arrive at this result, two operations are necessary: 1) record the activity of the substance on a computer; 2) “replay” it to a biological system. sensitive to the same substance. Therefore, there is every reason to think that when a molecule itself is in the presence of its receptor, it does the same thing: it emits frequencies which the receptor is capable of recognizing.”

“Which means that: A molecular signal can be efficiently represented by a spectrum of frequencies between 20Hz and 20,000 Hz, the same range as the human voice or music. For several hundred thousand years, human beings have been relating sound frequencies to a biological mechanism: the emotions. The signal to start a love affair is not given by a resounding rendition of the Marseillaise under our new flame’s balcony. Neither was Brahms’ lullaby played for soldiers charging out of the trenches. Composers of background music for supermarkets or elevators are practicing neuropsychology without knowing it. High-pitched rapid sounds engender lightness of spirit, high-pitched slow sounds, sweetness, sounds both deep and rapid awaken the fighting spirit, while deep, slow sounds invoke serious emotions, sadness and mourning. These are fundamentally cerebral physico-chemical phenomena, triggered by defined frequencies. We do nothing more than this when we transmit pre-recorded molecular activities to biological systems.”

“Biological systems function like radio sets, by coresonance. If you tune a receiver to 92.6 Mhz, you tune in Radio-This, because the receiver and the transmitter vibrate at the same frequency. If we change the setting a little to, say, 92.7, we no longer receive Radio-This, but Radio-That instead.”

“These advances in understanding the inmost mechanism of molecular recognition and signaling do not overturn the science of biology, and even less those of physics and chemistry. We have taken nothing away from classic descriptions, but only taken a step forward by adding to the present body of knowledge. This is the normal course of scientific progress, and there is no reason for it to provoke imprecations and anathema.”

“We can now understand how millions of biological molecules can communicate (at the speed of light), each with its own corresponding molecule, and it alone, the basic requirement for the functioning of biological systems – and why minute chemical modifications produce considerable functional consequences, something “structural” biologists are at a loss to explain. In deciding that only structures can have an action, biologists find themselves in a pre-Newtonian world where the movement of celestial bodies is described by Ptolemy in terms of epicycles. Hence the inability of contemporary biology to provide answers to the major pathologies of the end of this century (my article in Le Monde, May 22, 1996, which has not been challenged to date). The passage from the rigid biology of structures to one of information traveling at the speed of light can be accomplished without a “revolution.” Contrary to what is stupidly claimed by scientific gossips, recording the activity of molecules no more implies denying their existence (after all, molecule-specific electromagnetic messages must come from specific molecules) than it does denying the law of mass action, according to which the effect is directly proportional to the number of molecules. One might as well expect a singer to disappear by recording his voice! In other words, we eliminate neither the light-switch nor the light bulb; we only say that a wire with a current of electrons connects the two. We are not in another, electromagnetic world which we are substituting for the old molecular world. We capture, copy, transfer – and soon will modify – electromagnetic signals emitted by molecules in the course of their normal functioning.”

“What about water in all this? It is the vehicle for information. This cannot be avoided, since there are 10,000 water molecules in the human body for every molecule of protein. There is no problem with this either; a submarine communicates with its base via low-frequency electromagnetic waves, not with megahertz frequencies, which do not penetrate water. We have recently completed very simple experiments showing that a molecule at a normally active concentration does not work in a medium devoid of water. Adding water is not enough to restore activity; it must be “informed.” In other words, when molecules trigger a biological effect, they are not directly transmitting the signal. The final job is done by perimolecular water which relays and possibly amplifies the signal. Sound is not directly created by a compact disc. The latter carries data which is audible only after being amplified by an electronic system.”

“The “memory of water?” It is more mysterious, but no more so than the fact that a compound formed from two gases should be liquid at normal temperature and pressure, and dilate as it cools. Coherent domains with laser-like properties have been described in water (E. del Giudice, G. Preparata, G. Vitiello (1988) ‘Water as a free electric dipole laser’, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61:1085-1088). More recently, a unique type of stable (non-melting) ice crystal that maintains an electrical field has been identified and characterized in water (Shui-Yin Lo, Angela Lo, Li Wen Chong, et al., (1996) ‘Physical properties of water with IE structures’, Modern Physics Letters B, 10,19:921-930.) Truly, unemployment should not be a worry for physicists! Nonetheless, water has not been our subject of investigation for a long time. What interests us now is not the nature of the magnetic medium and how it functions, but the message recorded in it, which can be copied and transmitted. In the light of our experimental results, we are confident in our belief that we have elucidated the physical nature of the molecular signal. The principle is as simple as exploding a mixture of air and gasoline, but the consequences are enormous.”

“We present them in detail elsewhere. Here is a summary: At the present time, the only way to identify a molecule is to carry a sample, most often obtained invasively or even destructively, to a laboratory. With the digital method, we dispose of a signal which can be instantly transmitted and analyzed at the other end of the world by classic means of telecommunication. Using this method, the detection of toxic substances, proteins (antigens, antibodies, prions) or molecular complexes (parasites, bacteria, viruses, abnormal cells) should become possible without physical sampling. It is noteworthy that no in vivo detection methods of prions presently exists, with well-known epidemiological and economic consequences. As far as the detection of antigens and antibodies is concerned, it represents a considerable share of the activity of clinical biology laboratories. Moreover, some results seem to indicate that these methods should be applicable to the chemical industry and to environmental surveillance, e.g. to detecting, at a distance, micro-organisms or products from genetically modified plants.”

“Completion of these projects would have immense consequences on medical diagnostic procedures and the agro-food industry, with huge technological and commercial impact.”

“A final question: why are scientists so opposed to the evolution of science? Is it to defend their piece of turf? Why, in the name of intangible dogmas, which the history of science has shown to be so often ephemeral, do they reject advances which represent progress for their discipline? Do these advances appear to threaten their all-too-fragile certitudes? Such questions are not just philosophical, because these people are respected counselors, advisers to political and industrial decision-makers. They orient – most often by hampering – new applications flowing from scientific progress. I don’t know where these mental blocks come from, but they are, in theory at least, irreconcilable with a scientist’s function. Here is a quote (translated from the French edition of Encyclopedia Universalis, taken from the article on Mechanism) which shows, alas, that those blocks are eternal: We have a good example of the dilemma of “mechanism” in the Cartesians’ opposition to the Newtonian world-view, which they felt completely called into question the new science and pushed scientific thinking back to a level beneath what “mechanism” had already achieved. The problem is, for Descartes, that movement is only possible if there is contact and impulsive force; action at a distance – attraction, as Fontenelle was to say – can only mean a return to a physics of sympathetic motion and occult attributes. In this way, they do not engage Newton in a scientific controversy; they disqualify him for obscurantism. Thus the French scientific community resisted Newtonian theory for a long time, or would prefer to ignore it. But “mechanism,” which is an obstacle to scientific progress, remains blocked. No doubt, Newton is less an opponent of “mechanism” than he is the proposer, by provoking a total break, of another model of physical mechanics in which movements other than those produced by impulsion become possible.”

“Four centuries later, we hear the same words: “there must be molecules” (François Jacob) – that is, contact, forceful impulsion – according to our sages of science, still frozen in the Cartesian mechanistic dogma: the same denial of action at a distance, and the same accusations of a return to obscurantism. Descartes versus Newton. We’re in good company_ January 8, 1998; mod. June 14, 1998- J. Benveniste- LABORATOIRE DE BIOLOGIE NUMERIQUE.”

———————————————————————————–

Beneveniste’s works DIGITAL BIOLOGY culminated in a 1997 paper claiming that this effect could be transmitted over phone lines. This culminated in two additional papers in 1999 and another on remote-transmission in 2000.

WIKIPEDIA says: “US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) asked Dr. Wayne Jonas, homeopath and then director of the US National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, to organize an attempt at independently replicating the claimed results. An independent test of the 2000 remote-transmission experiment was carried out in the USA by a team funded by the US Department of Defense. Using the same experimental devices and setup as the Benveniste team, they failed to find any effect when running the experiment. Several positive results were noted, but only when a particular one of Benveniste’s researchers was running the equipment. Benveniste admitted to having noticed this himself, and offered a variety of reasons to explain away what appeared to be another example of experimenter effect. The experiment is also notable for the way it attempted to avoid the confrontational nature of the earlier Maddox test. The study implemented “A social and communication management process that was capable of dealing with conflicting interpersonal dynamics among vested parties in the research effort.” One of Benveniste’s machines was used, and, in the design and pilot project phase in 2001, Benveniste and other members of his DigiBio lab participated as consultants. Interviews at the time indicated study participants were satisfied with the way the study was being conducted. In the end, the authors reported in the FASEB Journal in 2006 that “Our team found no replicable effects from digital signals”.

According to BENVENISTE, he is bringing a ‘revolution’ in biology. Essence of this ‘revolution’ is that he reduces the whole complex molecular interactions involved in biological process into EXCHANGE OF SIGNALS between molecules. He says: “”Life depends on signals exchanged among molecules”. This reductionist idea works as the foundation of his whole ‘science’ of DIGITAL BIOLOGY. He even ridicules the community of biological scientists by this statement: “If you ask even the most eminent biologists what the physical nature of this signal is, they seem not even to understand the question, and stare at you wide-eyed”.

Benveiste’s statement “when you get angry, adrenalin “tells” its receptor, and it alone (as a faithful molecule, it talks to no other) to make your heart beat faster, to contract superficial blood vessels, etc” clearly demonstrates that this ‘prominent’ biological scientist lacks some essential basics of scientific knowledge.

Anybody having a minimum working knowledge of protein chemistry and kinetics of bio-molecular interactions know HOW adrenalin “tells’ its receptors ” to “make your heart beat faster, to contract superficial blood vessels, etc”. According to BENEVENISTE, it happens through “EM signals’ of adrenaline “transmitted to its receptors” from a “DISTANCE”. He should have understood, adrenaline molecules never “talk’ to its receptors from a “distance’ as he imagines, but they have to come close together and BIND to the appropriate BINDING SITES of receptor proteins in capacity of their CONFIGURATIONAL affinity and CHARGE affinity for passing the “signals”. Benveniste and his disciples should update themselves with the basics of signal-receptor, ligand-target, substrate-enzyme, antigen-antibody interactions, before making theories about RESONANCE OF EM SIGNALS as the model of bio-molecular interactions. They should also revise their lessons about kinetics of molecular inhibitions and re-activations involved in pathology, drug actions and cure. No biological ligand interacts and “exchanges information” with its target from a “distance” without coming close together and binding to appropriate sites. According to BENVENISTE, this basic scientific understanding of kinetics bio-molecular interactions are mere “absurdity, just as mankind did not realize the absurdity of the belief that the sun circles the earth!”

Nobody will disagree with BENVENISTE on his statement: “every atom of every molecule and every intermolecular bond – the bridge that links the atoms – emits a group of specific frequencies- specific frequencies of simple or complex molecules are detected at distances of billions of light-years, thanks to radio-telescopes- biophysicists describe these frequencies as an essential physical characteristic of matter”. But the problem arises when he REDUCES all particles, atoms, molecules, organisms, objects, celestial bodies and EVERYTHING into their VIBRATIONS, disregarding their STRUCTURE and MATERIAL COMPOSITION. Actually, benveniste forgot the fact that VIBRATIONS represent only ONE aspect of MATTER- it does not represent the WHOLE aspects of matter. For him, VIBRATIONS of an atom, molecule, object, organism or human being can do ALL the works of those THINGS even their absence! VIBRATIONS of benveniste will do ALL jobs and interactions of BENVENISTE! With his flawed REDUCTIONIST views of VIBRATIONS, benveniste fell into gutters of absurd pseudo-scientific speculations, which he called DIGITAL BIOLOGY.

According to BENVENISTE, atoms communicate with other atoms from a DISTENCE, by ‘resonance of frequencies’ of their specific ‘vibrations’. Molecules communicate, organisms communicate, celestial bodies COMMUNICATE from any ‘DISTANCE’, if their ‘frequencies’ are in ‘resonance’! Infectious agents produce diseases by their vibrations acting from any DISTANCE on our body through resonance! DRUGS can ‘communicate’ with our body from a DISTANCE, through resonance and CURE! Perhaps, food articles may nourish us through resonance, because, ‘vibrations’ represent the objects!

BENVENISTE’s theories of DIGITAL BIOLOGY overnight became very popular and dear to all those who propagate and practice ENERGY MEDICINE and CAM, as they expected it to be very useful in making their practices appear as SCIENTIFIC. CLASSICAL HOMEOPATHS welcomed it with much enthusiasm, since it provided a seemingly ‘SCIENTIFIC’ explanation for their beloved VITAL FORCE and DYNAMIC DRUG ENERGY, for which they were desperately groping in the darkness for centuries. Now, every OCCULT and WOODOO could be ‘SCIENTIFICALLY’ be explained in terms of ‘vibrations’ and ‘resonance’! Homeopathic drugs are ‘vibrations’, and they act by ‘resonance’!! Vibrations could be RECORDED as MP3 files on DIGITAL MEDIUM and played to patients to produce ‘miraculous’ CURES! Any homeopathic drug in any potency could be instantly ‘prepared’ by recording ‘vibrations’ into water or sugar pills using RADIONICS machines, without bothering about any DRUG SUBSTANCES! ‘VIBRATIONS’ of diseases such as HIV or BIRD FLU are ‘recorded’ into water and marketed worldwide as ‘PC resonance medicines’ by some ‘prominent international homeopaths’ to amass wealth of billions! He claims to collect all ‘information’ about a disease in his computer, synthesizes specific ‘vibrations’ of that disease using a computer program, and then ‘records’ it on digital media or water. His ‘medicines’ for HIV and BIRD FLU are available for downloading to your computer from his website by paying a few dollars. VIBRATIONS of homeopathic drugs could be ‘transmitted’ to patients in remote corners of the world, using their photographs, hair, blood, nail or other BODY WASTES as ‘transmission antennas”

Even there is an ‘institution’ in India, where ‘distant drug transmission though hair’ is ‘taught’ to young homeopathic graduates qualified from regular colleges! These ‘institutions’ are run by people having high influence among official academic community, and they conduct SEMINARS on ‘hair transmission’ method, hosted in co-operation with official professional organizations!

ENERGY MEDICINE nonsense is based on the concept of IMMATERIAL vibrations, immaterial FORCES, immaterial FREQUENCIES, immaterial RESONANCE and such things, which contradict our existing scientific knowledge system. That is why they talk about DRUG ENERGY without any DRUG MOLECULES, which act from DISTANCE dynamically. I know it a futile exercise to talk science to those who do not know the basic lessons of science.

A particle represents a specific ‘quantum equilibrium’ of forces. Once this ‘equilibrium’ is lost beyond certain limits, it cannot exist as it is- it will have to get divided into smaller particles, or modified to another structure. Every particle of matter vibrates in an attempt to resist external forces, and to maintain its specific internal balance of forces or quantum equilibrium. Whenever some extra force from an external source try to disturb its equilibrium, it vibrates more, in order to shed off the extra force, and retains equilibrium. That means, vibrations or motions are processes related with maintaining Quantum Equilibrium of particles. When a particle sheds of extra forces, that extra force will obviously be transmitted to other particles nearby, since force cannot exist free from matter particles. That is why motion of an object set other objects also into motion, which we call ‘resonance’.

When our vocal chords vibrate using extra forces transmitted into it by the energy generated in the mitochondria of muscle cells, that vibrations shed off forces to produce vibration in the air. Those vibrations in air travels through air or any medium as waves. It affects our body, when these vibrations reach their. Various neurochemicals in the cells in our skin is activated, and these vibrations are converted into chemical signals, which travels to brain, producing a cascading of chemical changes which we experience as SENSATIONS as well MENTAL processes. Vibrations belonging to specific frequencies activate neurochemicals in our internal ears, which are transmitted to certain centers of brain through auditory nerves, which produces the sensation of HEARING, and followed by generation of mental images associated with it.

ALL the vibrations entering our body from environment can affect the biochemical processes in our body in different ways. They can have disease-causing and disease-curing effects.

Most important point to be noted is, VIBRATIONS are physical motion of matter particles, which can be transmitted through a material medium, and its effects on our body are purely BIOCHEMICAL. There is no IMMATERIAL vibrations. Nothing immaterial, divine or spiritual in these sounds or its effects. No saint can chant mantra if there is no air to be set into motion by the motion of his vocal chords. Even if he saint chants any holy mantra of whatever intensity, it can be transmitted only through MATERIAL medium such as air. His mantra will not travel through vaccum, or affect anybody if there is no a MATERIAL medium to carry it forward to a listener.

Regarding the possibility of DNA changes or PROGRAMING by sounds as some people imagine to happen, it seems to be an exaggerated fancy. Better to say BIOCHEMICAL changes. EVEN if any effects are produced in our bodies by material vibrations of various frequencies, they are BIOCHEMICAL effects produced by PHYSICAL motion of MATTER particles. There is nothing IMMATERIAL or SPIRITUAL in this phenomenon.

There are ‘self-proclaimed’ ‘homeopaths’ using RADIONICS machines in their day-to-day practice to ‘prepare’ medicines from NOTHINGNESS, by ‘imprinting’ pre-stored ‘vibrations’ of any drug in any potency they want, into plain water or sugar pills- ANY DRUG, ANY POTENCY! It is most distressing to know that some homeopathy ‘schools’ in UK and US even ‘teach’ their students on how to use these devices, as part of their curriculum.

A message I recently received from one of homeopath friends – a teacher at a Homeopathy school- from BELFAST, UNITED KINGDOM, demonstrates this grave situation as follows:

“I was wondering, and I hope you can forgive the intrusion, what is your personal view on the use of radionics machines in the preparation of homeopathic remedies? It is something I am very uncomfortable with indeed but find myself in a situation where I am having to face the issue head on as one has been introduced to the school pharmacy where I teach.

Unfortunately, it is being used to prepare remedies for the student clinic, needless to say, no clients have shown any improvement since its introduction. I fear it is a deeply flawed financial decision and little can be learned at a teaching clinic if remedies are ineffectual. This is obviously just my own opinion, so I am making sure that it is circumstance and not my own bias that makes me uncomfortable with the situation. Un-medicated pilules are placed in the machine, and a dial is moved to the correlating remedy and potency, apparently the frequency of the medicine is imprinted onto the un-medicated pillules which are then given to the waiting client.

The manufacturer of the machine identifies and replicates the exact frequency of each remedy, in each potency, and duplicates it with a frequency on the radionics machine. I think it is all made to sound convincing to the unquestioning mind or the open impressionable minds of students, but I am unconvinced, and very uncomfortable with it. Even if this method did work, and I don’t believe it does, the frequency being used is artificial.
The idea is that no raw samples are needed, no substances need be collected and prepared in the traditional way , the frequency needs only to be duplicated by the machine.

I don’t think I am a dismissive or narrow minded person but the fact that nobody is getting better speaks volumes to me. Unfortunately it is the director of our school who is the biggest advocate of them, quite likely getting some sort of financial incentive for his enthusiasm. I think I will have to resign my job as I cannot possibly be associated with a school which teaches potential new homeopaths that this is a way forward”.

“Nobody is getting better” using ‘medicines’ prepared by RADIONICS MACHINES- but the business continues to thrive! That could be explained only by the clever art of money-making and marketing!

If it is possible as BENEVISTE theorized, that “the specific activity of biologically-active molecules (e.g. histamine, caffeine, nicotine, adrenalin), not to mention the immunological signature of a virus or bacterium can be recorded and digitized using a computer sound card, just like an ordinary sound”, and transmitted through telephone, CDs, radio or internet, and other digital media, and if by playing those DIGITAL SIGNATURES can produce the effects on human beings exactly similar to those of ORIGINAL SUBSTANCE, its implications will be beyond imagination. We could FEED millions in starvation around the globe, using NOTHING but ‘vibrations’ of nourishing food articles recorded into water or digital media! We could kill people by ‘transmitting’ DIGITAL SIGNATURE of CYANIDE POISON through a mere phone call? Terrorists could operate without guns and bombs, using digital signatures of deadly poisons, or HIV like infectious agents? Wars between countries could be waged using DIGITAL SIGNATURES of BIOLOGICAL and CHEMICAL DRUGS? If BENVENISTE is right, nobody will be starving, nobody will be safe in that illusionaary world of DIGITAL SIGNATURE!

We cannot deny one thing for sure- Jacques Benveniste, with his DIGITAL BIOLOGY, has indeed brought a GREAT REVOLUTION! A pseudo-scientific revolution that keeps practitioners of all OCCULT arts high and cheering!

————————————————————————————-

Now, let us discuss the issue of so-called ‘homeopathic aggravations’. This phenomenon is very much discussed by homeopaths. It is true that in many instances we experience such aggravation of symptoms after prescribing homeopathic medicines. Some homeopaths believe that aggravations occur due to wrong prescriptions, whereas some others consider it happening as part of curative process due to ‘exact’ prescriptions. Some homeopaths differentiate between ‘medicinal’ aggravations which are harmful, and ‘homeopathic’ aggravations which are welcome.

In my opinion such ‘aggravations’ are not due to ‘prescribing wrong drugs’ or ‘exact drugs’, but due to prescribing drugs that cover only part of the ‘symptom complexes’ present in the patient. To follow what I say, one should be well aware of the concepts of ‘molecular errors’ underlying pathology, as well as ‘molecular imprints’ present in potentized medicines. As per our view, an individual will be having multitudes of ‘molecular errors’ caused by binding of diverse types of pathogenic molecules on different biological molecules. Each individual ‘molecular error’ may be expressed in the form of specific subjective and objective ‘symptom complexes’. If we select a drug as a similimum on the basis of some of the leading symptoms only, ignoring other symptoms, that similimum in fact covers only some of the molecular errors. The ‘molecular imprints’ contained in that similimum may remove those molecular errors only. But other molecular errors remain. The ‘symptom complexes’ representing those remaining molecular errors would become more expressive and come to the fore. In the absence of scientific understanding regarding the molecular processes behind this phenomenon, we happen to interpret these new expressions as ‘homeopathic aggravation’.

We experience many instances of wonderful cures that do not obey “Dr.Kent’s 3rd observation” or “Hering’s Law”. They are not universal laws of homeopathic cures. They are all only speculative theories based on isolated experiences. Many of such ‘principles’ and ‘laws’ will have to be abandoned as our scientific understanding of real process of homeopathic cure become more and more perfect and accurate.

Most of us would have experienced some initial aggravations followed by complete relief. We should understand ‘molecular errors’ not as singular static incidents. A particular molecular error caused by a particular pathogenic molecule may result in cascading of new molecular errors. It is like a traffic block in a city. A small traffic block may cause cascading of traffic blocks, ultimately resulting in total failure of traffic system in the city. When a molecular error occurs in a particular biochemical pathway in the organism, it may affect other related pathways also. That is why diseases progress expressing trains of new symptoms. When we start removing these molecular blocks, there may be readjustments happening in all these related biochemical pathways, which may appear as aggravations of symptoms. That is part of normal curative process.

That means, when studying the phenomena of ‘homeopathic aggravations”, both chances will have to be considered. “Re-adjustments’ happening in various biochemical pathways as part of curative process, as well as ‘appearing of remaining symptoms’ because of prescription being partial.

When we follow the TOTAL CURE METHOD of prescribing a combination of drugs that would contain all the ‘molecular imprints’ required to rectify all the ‘molecular errors’ covering all ‘symptom complexes’ expressed by the individual, so-called ‘homeopathic aggravations’ are never experienced.

—————————————————————————————-

Stuart N. Close in his ‘Lectures on Philosophy’ (Chapter 13) pp 184-5 says:

“The homeopathic doctrine of dosage, like the law of cure was based upon the discovery of the opposite action of large and small doses of medicine. It is another application in medicine of Law of Mutual Action – the third Newtonian law motion – “Action and Reaction are Equal and Opposite”. Every one at all acquainted with the action of drugs knows, for example, that Ipecac in large doses causes nausea and vomiting and in small doses, under certain conditions, will cure the same; that Opium in large doses will cause a deep sleep or narcosis, and in small doses, under certain conditions, will cure the same.”

I disagree with Stuart Close regarding his concepts of ‘primary-secondary’ actions of drugs.

I cannot see any substance in the comparison of homeopathic principle and newton’s laws of motion.Newton’s law is related with the action of ‘mechanical force on material bodies’, where as homeopathy deals with an entirely different subject. The principle “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction’ is applicable to the interaction of ‘material bodies and mechanical forces’. Even if a great homeopath like Stuart Close says that homeopathy “is another application in medicine of Law of Mutual Action – the third Newtonian law motion”, it amounts to utter nonsense. He interprets homeopathy as well as newton’s law in a very absurd way through this statement. How can anybody with sound reasoning say that the phenomenon of ‘Opium in large doses causing deep sleep and in small doses cure the same’ is similar to ‘for every action there is an opposite reaction’?Newton’s law has nothing in it comparable to action of ‘Opium in large doses causing deep sleep and in small doses cures the same’. Anybody with minimum common sense would realize that Stuart Close has used a wrong comparison here.

Stuart Close says: “Closely allied to this is the so-called primary and secondary action of drugs, in which we see many drugs, in the first or primary stage of their action producing one group of symptoms, and in the second stage a directly opposite set of phenomena; as when the deep sleep of the primary action of Opium is followed by much longer lasting wakefulness; or where the diarrhea induced by a cathartic is followed by a longer lasting constipation. This applies, of course, only to drugs given in tangible form and considerable quantities, in what are called “physiological doses”.

How can anybody say the phenomenon of “so-called primary and secondary action of drugs, in which we see many drugs, in the first or primary stage of their action producing one group of symptoms, and in the second stage a directly opposite set of phenomena” is “closely allied to” the phenomenon of “opium in large doses causing deep sleep and in small doses cure the same”. First phenomenon is related with ‘large dose’ getting antidoted by ‘small dose’ of same drug, where as second phenomenon is related with “action of opium causing deep sleep followed by much longer lasting wakefulness”.

The logic of Stuart close has obviously misfired in both these statements.

In fact, the ‘effects of large doses being antidoted by small dose of same substance’, on which the principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’ is built up, is related with the known phenomenon of ‘molecular inhibitions getting removed by competitive affinity of similar molecules’. But the “action of opium causing deep sleep followed by much longer lasting wakefulness” is related with the phenomenon of ‘nerve receptors getting blocked by accumulation of ligand molecules, thereby initiating feedback mechanisms’ inducing the up-regulation of glutamate and other pathways in the brain induced by the over-activation of opioid receptors, thereby exert an opioid-opposing effect and so reduce the effects of opioid drugs by altering downstream pathways.

Both are different, and cannot be compared to one another.

In any discussion regarding the ‘primary-secondary’ actions of homeopathic drug substances, the phenomenon of ‘opium causing excessive sleep and constipation, later followed by profound sleeplessness” is always cited as an example.

Opium contains two main groups of alkaloids. Phenanthrenes such as morphine, codeine, and thebaine are the main narcotic constituents. Isoquinolines such as papaverine and noscapine have no significant central nervous system effects

To understand the biochemistry of ‘primary- secondary’ actions of opium, we should learn the biochemical processes involving μ-opioid receptors.

Read from Wikipedia: “The μ-opioid receptors (MOR) are a class of opioid receptors with high affinity for enkephalins and beta-endorphin but low affinity for dynorphins. They are also referred to as μ opioid peptide (MOP) receptors. The prototypical μ receptor agonist is the opium alkaloid morphine; μ (mu) refers to morphin. MOR can mediate acute changes in neuronal excitability via “disinhibition” of presynaptic release of GABA. Activation of the MOR leads to different effects on dendritic spines depending upon the agonist, and may be an example of functional selectivity at the μ receptor. The physiological and pathological roles of these two distinct mechanisms remain to be clarified. Perhaps, both might be involved in opioid addiction and opioid-induced deficits in cognition.

Activation of the μ receptor by an agonist such as morphine causes analgesia, sedation, slightly reduced blood pressure, itching, nausea, euphoria, decreased respiration, miosis (constricted pupils) and decreased bowel motility often leading to constipation. Some of these side effects, such as sedation, euphoria and decreased respiration, tend to lessen with continued use as tolerance develops. Analgesia, miosis and reduced bowel motility tend to persist; little tolerance develops to these effects.

As with other G protein-coupled receptors, signalling by the mu opioid receptor is terminated through several different mechanisms, which are upregulated with chronic use, leading to rapid tachyphylaxis. The most important regulatory proteins for the mu opioid receptor are the β-arrestins Arrestin beta 1 and Arrestin beta 2, and the RGS proteins RGS4, RGS9-2, RGS14 and RGSZ2.

Long-term or high dose use of opioids may also lead to additional mechanisms of tolerance becoming involved. This includes downregulation of mu opioid receptor gene expression, so the number of receptors presented on the cell surface is actually reduced, as opposed to the more short-term desensitisation induced by β-arrestins or RGS proteins. Another long-term adaptation to opioid use can be upregulation of glutamate and other pathways in the brain which can exert an opioid-opposing effect and so reduce the effects of opioid drugs by altering downstream pathways, regardless of mu opioid receptor activation.

Opioid overdoses kill through apnea and fatal hypoxia, often aggravated by simultaneous use of alcohol, benzodiazepines or barbiturates. Substantial tolerance to respiratory depression develops quickly, and tolerant individuals can withstand larger doses. However tolerance to respiratory depression is lost just as quickly during withdrawal. Many overdoses occur in people who misuse their medication after being in withdrawal long enough to lose the tolerance to respiratory depression. Less commonly, massive overdoses have been known to cause circulatory collapse.

Opioid overdoses can be rapidly reversed with any of several opioid antagonists: naloxone, or naltrexone, differing primarily in their duration of action and potency. While commonly referred to as antagonists, and when used to treat an overdose they do appear to function as such, naloxone & naltrexone are inverse agonists”.

So-called secondary actions of opioid substances such as opium can be explained by the phenomenon up-regulation of glutamate and other pathways in the brain induced by the over-activation of opioid receptors, thereby exert an opioid-opposing effect and so reduce the effects of opioid drugs by altering downstream pathways, regardless of mu opioid receptor activation. In effect, the ‘primary-action’ of opioids finally lead to ‘secondary actions’, which are totally in reverse direction.

This is the biochemical mechanism underlying the ‘primary-secondary actions’ of ‘opioid’ substances.

Opium Induces Profound sleep, followed by sleeplessness- To understand this phenomenon, study the biochemistry of ‘rebound actions’ and ‘secondary actions’ of drugs

We should study the biochemistry involved in ‘biomolecular feedbacks’, ‘cascading of molecular inhibitions’ and ‘upregullation-down regulation’ mechanisms of cellular receptors, to understand the phenomenon of rebound actions and secondary actions. Trying to explain these complex biochemical interactions using 250 year old concepts and ideas of hahnemann will lead us no where.

For example, the “action of opium causing deep sleep followed by much longer lasting wakefulness” is related with the phenomenon of ‘nerve receptors getting blocked by accumulation of ligand molecules, thereby initiating feedback mechanisms’ inducing the up-regulation of glutamate and other pathways in the brain induced by the over-activation of opioid receptors, thereby exert an opioid-opposing effect and so reduce the effects of opioid drugs by altering downstream pathways.

The terms ‘potency’, ‘infenitsmel’ all comes from the concept of ‘dynamic drug energy’, which is part of vitalistic or ‘energetic’ approach to homeopathy. According to me, drugs belongs to only two groups- molecular forms and molecular imprints forms. All allopathic drugs, homeopathic mother tinctures, low potencies belong to molecular forms. They act by their molecular level chemical properties. Molecular imprints forms are drugs diluted above avogadro limit, which do not contain drug particles. As per calculations, this limit comes around 12c. Molecular imprints act by their complementary configurational affinity towards pathogenic molecules.

We cannot expect molecular imprints to create molecular inhibitions in biological molecules. Natural ligands and their biological targets interact by a double affinity- configurational and energetic. Since molecular imprints have only configurational affinity, they cannot compete with natural ligands to bind with biological molecules. Only molecules can create molecular inhibitions- molecular imprints cannot. As such, potentized drugs above 12c will not create any molecular inhibitions or pathological response in organism, in the absence of endogenous or exogenous pathological molecules. ‘Actions’ and ‘reactions’ happen only when we use molecular forms of drugs.

Actually, so called ‘rebound actions’ have to me studied on the basis of scientific knowledge of ‘biomolecular feedback systems’- not in a vitalistic view point. We can explain any rebound actions or secondary actions using biochemistry.

Since potenized forms of opium do not contain ‘molecules’ to block the nerve receptors, they cannot cause any ‘secondar’ action. In a crude opium-dosed individual, only thing molecular imprints contained in potentized opium is to bind to the molecules of opium, and relieve the nerve cells from ‘block’. That means, potentized opium can antidote the biological actions of crude opium- that is all.

Similar way, we can explain this phenomenon of ‘primary-secondary’ actions regarding any drug substance in terms of modern biochemistry, by studying the molecular pathways affected by the constituent molecules of those drug substances. There is nothing ‘mysterious’ in it. We need not drag any ‘dynamic’ ‘vital force’ into it.

—————————————————————————————

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.

—————————————————————————————-

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

We are taught by our ‘teachers’ that ‘sycosis’ is the miasm of gonorrhoea. But on closely observing the symptoms hahnemann said to be of ‘sycotic miasm’, we can understand that many of those symptoms like warts belong to human papilloma virus infection.

Acually, Gonorrhoea and HPV comes mostly as mixed infections. Since much information was not available during Hahnemann’s time about HPV 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’. Gonorrhoea cannot produce papillomma.

Kindly note, in most occasions hahnemann refers his miasm of ‘sycosis’ as ‘miasm of figwart disease’, not ‘miasm of gonorrhoea. Obviously, hahnemann confused between gonorrhoea and ‘figwart disease’. ‘Figwart disease is not gonorrhoea- it is Human Papilloma Virus disease. Since he could not differentiate between gonorrhoea and HPV, he wrongly considered ‘figwart disease’ as part of gonorrhoea.

—————————————————————————————-

I was trying to explain concept of ‘miasms’ as ‘chronic disease dispositions’ due to the ‘off-target’ molecular inhibitions caused by ‘antibodies’ formed against ‘infectious agents’ and ‘alien’ proteins. As per this view, antibodies are the causative agents of ‘miasms’.

Many friends now raise the question ‘how would you explain autoimmune diseases?”

All of us know, so-called ‘autoimmune diseases’ are caused by ‘antibodies’. But, those ‘antibodies’ are considered to be formed not against ‘exogenous antigens’, but ‘endogenous or host antigens’. If we explain ‘miasms’ as ‘antibodies’ formed against ‘exogenous’ proteins, should we exclude ‘autoimmune diseases’ from ‘miasms’, since they are considered to be formed against ‘endogenous antigens’, not ‘exogenous proteins’?

Here, we have to undertake a serious study of the phenomena of ‘autoimmunity’ and ‘autoimmune diseases.

According to immunologists, ‘autoimmune diseases’ arise from an overactive immune response of the body against substances and tissues normally present in the body. In other words, the body actually attacks its own cells. The immune system mistakes some part of the body as a pathogen and attacks it. This may be restricted to certain organs (e.g. in autoimmune thyroiditis) or involve a particular tissue in different places (e.g. Goodpasture’s disease which may affect the basement membrane in both the lung and the kidney).

Hundreds of chronic systemic diseases are now classified as ‘autoimmune diseases’. This group include Coeliac disease, diabetes mellitus type 1, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), Sjögren’s syndrome, Churg-Strauss Syndrome, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, Graves’ disease, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), lupus and allergies. This group is expanding every day.

Autoimmune diseases are broadly divided into systemic and organ-specific or localised autoimmune disorders, depending on the principal clinico-pathologic features of each disease.

Systemic autoimmune diseases- include SLE, Sjögren’s syndrome, scleroderma, rheumatoid arthritis, and dermatomyositis. These conditions tend to be associated with antibodies to antigens which are not tissue specific. Thus although polymyositis is more or less tissue specific in presentation, it may be included in this group because the autoantigens are often ubiquitous t-RNA synthetases.

Local syndromes which affect a specific organ or tissue:

Endocrinologic: Diabetes mellitus type 1, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, Addison’s diseaseGastrointestinal: Coeliac disease, Crohn’s Disease, Pernicious anaemia

Dermatologic: Pemphigus vulgaris, Vitiligo

Haematologic: Autoimmune haemolytic anaemia, Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura

Neurological: Myasthenia gravis

Autoimmunity is defined as “the failure of an organism to recognize its own constituent parts as self, which allows an immune response against its own cells and tissues. Any disease that results from such an aberrant immune response is termed an autoimmune disease”.

This definition does not answer the question we are interested. Are the antibodies ‘formed against’ native targets, or ‘antibodies formed against’ exogenous antigens mistaking native targets as the ‘exogenous antigens’?

Actually, are the antibodies considered to be the causative agents of ‘autoimmune diseases’ really formed against ‘host antigens’? Or, are they ‘antibodies’ formed against ‘exogenous proteins’ attacking ‘off-target’ sites in the organism?

This topic is still a controversial subject in immunology. We should remember that ‘immune’ mechanism is basically a defense mechanism of our organism to identify and destroy ‘exogenous proteins’ which are alien to our genetic blueprint. Several mechanisms are thought to be operative in the pathogenesis of autoimmune diseases, against a backdrop of genetic predisposition and environmental modulation. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss each of these mechanisms exhaustively, but a summary of some of the important mechanisms suggested by various hypotheses may be examined.

1. T-Cell Bypass – A normal immune system requires the activation of B-cells by T-cells before the former can produce antibodies in large quantities. This requirement of a T-cell can be bypassed in rare instances, such as infection by organisms producing super-antigens, which are capable of initiating polyclonal activation of B-cells, or even of T-cells, by directly binding to the β-subunit of T-cell receptors in a non-specific fashion.

2. Molecular Mimicry – An exogenous antigen may share structural similarities with certain host antigens; thus, any antibody produced against this antigen (which mimics the self-antigens) can also, in theory, bind to the host antigens, and amplify the immune response. The idea of molecular mimicry arose in the context of Rheumatic Fever, which follows infection with Group A beta-haemolytic streptococci. Although rheumatic fever has been attributed to molecular mimicry for half a century no antigen has been formally identified (if anything too many have been proposed). Moreover, the complex tissue distribution of the disease (heart, joint, skin, basal ganglia) argues against a cardiac specific antigen. It remains entirely possible that the disease is due to e.g. an unusual interaction between immune complexes, complement components and endothelium.

3. Idiotype Cross-Reaction – Idiotypes are antigenic epitopes found in the antigen-binding portion (Fab) of the immunoglobulin molecule. Plotz and Oldstone presented evidence that autoimmunity can arise as a result of a cross-reaction between the idiotype on an antiviral antibody and a host cell receptor for the virus in question. In this case, the host-cell receptor is envisioned as an internal image of the virus, and the anti-idiotype antibodies can react with the host cells.

4. Epitope spreading or epitope drift – when the immune reaction changes from targeting the primary epitope to also targeting other epitopes. In contrast to molecular mimicry, the other epitopes need not be structurally similar to the primary one.

If we carefully study the above hypotheses proposed by modern immunology, you will find that all these hypotheses indirectly agree with our contention that so called autoimmune diseases are actually caused by ‘off-target’ inhibitions created by ‘antibodies’ formed against ‘exogenous antigens’

A recent observation regarding relationship of autoimmune diseases and infectious diseases is found to be very important from our ‘miasmatic’ angle. Studies revealed strong association of certain microbial organisms with autoimmune diseases. For example, Klebsiella pneumoniae and coxsackievirus B have been strongly correlated with ankylosing spondylitis and diabetes mellitus type 1, respectively. This has been explained by the tendency of the infecting organism to produce ‘super-antigens’ that are capable of polyclonal activation of B-lymphocytes, and production of large amounts of antibodies of varying specificities, some of which may be self-reactive.

This ‘polyclonal’ ‘super-antigen’ theory goes very close to our explanation of ‘miasms’ as antibody-mediated.

There is a recent proposal among immunologist that the spectrum of autoimmunity should be viewed along an “immunological disease continuum,” with classical autoimmune diseases at one extreme and diseases driven by the innate immune system at the other extreme. Within this scheme, the full spectrum of autoimmunity can be included. Many common human autoimmune diseases can be seen to have a substantial innate immune mediated immunopathology using this new scheme.

————————————————————————————-

MODERN SCIENCE is advancing towards the realization about the TOXIC and PATHOGENIC properties of DEFORMED PROTEINS and their role as a major class of pathogenic agents that cause most of the chronic diseases.

Peculiar three-dimensional conformations resulting from characteristic tertiary folding decides the specific biological roles of protein molecules. If this three-dimensional shape is ‘deformed’ by any way, a protein molecule becomes incapacitated to perform its biological function, and may turn into pathogenic agents.

Proteins could be deformed by various ways:

1. Genetic errors: Presence of faulty genes with wrong nucleotide sequences may result in production of deformed protein molecules.

2. Genetic expression errors: Genetic expression or synthesizing of protein molecules utilizing the genetic blueprints involve a series of systematic biochemical processes involving diverse types of enzymes. Any errors in these enzyme systems may result in the production of deformed proteins. This includes epigenetic errors also, resulting from inhibitions of enzymes involved in dna mythylation and histone folding.

3. Post translational Misfolding : Peculiar three dimensional structures of individual protein molecules synthesized by genetic expression are attained through their post-translational tertiary folding. Errors in mediator enzymes as well as inappropriate intracellular physical environment may result in misfolding of protein molecules.

4. Off-target binding of hormones, enzymes and other endogenous biological molecules: Even though hormones and enzymes have specifically determined roles in biochemical processes, and they are expected to bind only to specific molecular targets for executing these functions, there are occasions when some of them bind to unexpected off-target protein molecules, there by changing their tertiary structures. In such cases, protein molecules get deformed, and may become pathological.

5. Binding with harmful endogenous byproducts such as reactive oxygen species: As part of normal biochemical processes, various harmful reactive molecules such as superoxides are produced in the system, which get instantly destroyed or eliminated by a special defense mechanism working in our body. But in some cases, these hyper-reactive superoxides may bind to essential protein molecules and deform them. Such deformations lead to pathological conditions.

6. Binding with metal ions, toxic drugs or other exogenous molecules.

7. Denaturation by chemicals, ionizing radiations, pH variations, dehydration, abnormal temperature etc.

8. Molecular imprinting by alien proteins such as infectious agents: ANTIBODIES generated against various infectious agents belongs to this class of DEFORMED PROTEINS.

9. Molecular misfolding induced by other deformed proteins: DEFOEMED PROTEINS can act as templates to induce similar proteins also to undergo deformation through a process of molecular imprinting. Prion diseases are found to advance by this process.

It is obvious that DEFORMED proteins cannot perform their SPECIFIC biological functions, which by itself results in pathological conditions.

Moreover, DEFORMED PROTENS can act as PATHOLOGICAL factors in TWO ways.

Deformed proteins bind to totally unexpected biological targets and produce pathological molecular errors. Diverse types of auto-immune diseases and antibody-mediated diseases belong to this class of CHRONIC DISEASES.

Deformed proteins can INDUCE other proteins into MISFOLDING, through a process of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING. Alshiemer’s, Parkinson’s. Prion diseases and various other Amyloid diseases belong to this class.

Various ANTIBODIES generated in the body against infectious agents and other alien proteins can remain in the body for long periods, and probably induce misfolding in diverse types of native proteins through molecular imprinting. By this way, antibodies act as a major class of pathological factors that cause diverse kinds of CHRONIC DISEASES.

Hahnemann explained CHRONIC DISEASES in terms of MIASMS, which he considered to be the life long disease dispositions caused by INFECTIOUS DISEASES such as itch and leprosy, sexually transmitted genital pappiloma disease, and syphilis. He named these three miasms as PSORA, SYCOSIS and SYPHILIS respectively, of which prime importance was given to PSORA.

Due to limitations of scientific knowledge available during his period, hahnemann could not explain the molecular mechanism by which infectious diseases can produce diverse types of life long chronic diseases. As such, he tried to explain this phenomenon in terms of ‘vital force’ concepts.

With great scientific advancements that happened during last 250 years after hahnemann, we are now in a position to explain how infectious diseases can produce chronic diseases. We know, ANTIBODIES are produced in the body when it get infected. Though antibodies are normally considered to be defense molecules that fight infections, they remain in the body for long periods after infections are over. Since ANTIBODIES are actually globular proteins getting molecular imprinted by ALIEN PROTEINS of infectious gents, these antbodies can act as DEFORMED PROTEINS. Similar to other deformed proteins, ANTIBODIES can act as pathogenic agents by attacking other native proteins, and inducing them to DEFORM.

It is these ANTIBODIES or DEFORMED PROTEINS generated against infectious agents and ALIEN PROTEINS that cause the whole range of CHRONIC DISEASES hahnemann called as MIASMATIC DISEASES.

ANTIBODIES may be playing a causative role in the development of so called AUTO IMMUNE DISEASES, AMYLOID DISEASES and PRION DISEASES by INDUCING deformation in various kinds of native proteins. I hope this possibility also will be considered by the scientists in future. If this prediction is proved to be true, It will be a great recognition of hahnemann’s concept of MIASMS as causative factors of chronic diseases.

Treating DISEASE DISPOSITIONS caused by DEFORMED PROTEINS is a very difficult task even for MODERN MEDICINE. These protein molecules do not undergo normal biological degrading or destruction. Chemical drugs are no effective in most of such diseases.

Homeopathy can treat chronic diseases caused by DEFORMED PROTEINS by a process of Molecular Capping, which involves deactivation of functional groups of DEFORMED PROTEINS using molecular imprints of causative antibodies, thereby making them incapable of binding to biological molecules. It will prevent deformed proteins from inducing misfolding in other similar proteins or forming supra-molecular complexes by combining themselves.

A whole new range of target specific therapeutic agents that could be used for ‘molecular capping’ of deformed proteins could be effectively synthesized using modern drug designing technology in future. Same time, possibilities of these designer drugs themselves producing new molecular inhibitions and molecular pathologies also will have to be addressed.

All these things scientifically ratify the 250 year old theory of MIASMS proposed by hahnemann, and the wonderful technology of homeopathic potentization

I hope the scientific community could probe deeper into the ideas put forward in this article regarding role of antibodies formed against infectious agents, in producing various types of AUTO-IMMUNE DISEASES, AMYLOID DISEASES, PRION DISEASES and various other CHRONIC DISEASES. Researches on these lines may lead to the development of a whole new range of target specific therapeutic agents to combat these diseases, synthesized by utilizing Molecular Imprinting Technology. If this idea is found to be of any relevance, scientific community should be thankful to hahnemann, homeopathy and theory of MIASMS for enabling this great REVELATION.

It was hahnemann, who for the first time proposed that diverse types of CHRONIC DISEASES could be produced in the long run by INFECTIOUS agents, which he called MIASMS.

I have been trying to explain in scientific terms, how CHRONIC DISEASES could be produced by infectious agents, even after the infections are over. This led me into the realization that INFECTIOUS AGENTS can produce life-long chronic disease dispositions only through OFF TARGET actions of ANTIBODIES generated in the body against them.

I came to the conclusion that ANTIBODIES generated against ALIEN PROTEINS such as infectious agents and vaccines could be the real carriers of MIASMS hahnemann considered to be the fundamental cause of CHRONIC DISEASES.

Since ANTIBODIES are actually DEFORMED globulin proteins, subjected to MOLECULAR IMPRINTING by ALIEN PROTEINS, they can induce MOLECULAR MISFOLDING in native proteins having complementary conformations. Such misfolded proteins are already known to be the causative agents of diverse types of PROTEINOPATHIES such as amyloid diseases and prion diseases.

These diseases include AUTO-IMMUNE DISEASES (Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis , Addison’s disease, Agammaglobulinemia, Alopecia areata, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Ankylosing Spondylitis, Antiphospholipid syndrome, Antisynthetase syndrome, Atopic allergy, Atopic dermatitis, Autoimmune aplastic anemia, Autoimmune cardiomyopathy, Autoimmune enteropathy, Autoimmune hemolytic anemia, Autoimmune hepatitis, Autoimmune inner ear disease , Autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome, Autoimmune pancreatitis, Autoimmune polyendocrine syndrome , Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis , Autoimmune thrombocytopenic purpura, Autoimmune urticaria, Autoimmune uveitis, Balo disease/Balo concentric sclerosis, Behçet’s disease, Berger’s disease, Bickerstaff’s encephalitis , Blau syndrome, Bullous pemphigoid, Cancer , Castleman’s disease , Celiac disease, Chagas disease, Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy , Chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis , Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Churg-Strauss syndrome, Cicatricial pemphigoid, Cogan syndrome, Cold agglutinin disease, Complement component 2 deficiency, Contact dermatitis, Cranial arteritis, CREST syndrome, Crohn’s disease, Cushing’s Syndrome, Cutaneous leukocytoclastic angiitis , Dercum’s disease, Dermatitis herpetiformis , Dermatomyositis , Diabetes mellitus type 1 , Diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis , Dressler’s syndrome , Eczema, Endometriosis , Enthesitis-related arthritis, Eosinophilic fasciitis, Eosinophilic gastroenteritis , Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, Erythema nodosum, Erythroblastosis fetalis , Essential mixed cryoglobulinemia, Evan’s syndrome, Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva , Fibrosing alveolitis, Gastritis , Glomerulonephritis , Goodpasture’s syndrome, ,Graves’ disease, Guillain-Barré syndrome, Hashimoto’s encephalopathy, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, Henoch-Schonlein purpura, Herpes gestationis aka Gestational Pemphigoid, Hidradenitis suppurativa, Hughes-Stovin syndrome, Hypogammaglobulinemia , Idiopathic inflammatory demyelinating diseases, Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis , Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, Inclusion body myositis, Interstitial cystitis, Juvenile idiopathic arthritis, Kawasaki’s disease, Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome, Leukocytoclastic vasculitis , Lichen planus, Lichen sclerosus , Linear IgA disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Lupoid hepatitis aka Autoimmune hepatitis, Lupus erythematosus, Ménière’s disease, Microscopic polyangiitis , Miller-Fisher syndrome, Mixed connective tissue disease, Morphea , Mucha-Habermann disease, Multiple sclerosis, Myasthenia gravis, Myositis , Narcolepsy, Neuromyelitis optica , Neuromyotonia , Occular cicatricial pemphigoid , Opsoclonus myoclonus syndrome , Ord’s thyroiditis, Palindromic rheumatism, PANDAS, Paraneoplastic cerebellar degeneration , Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, Parry Romberg syndrome , Parsonage-Turner syndrome , Pars planitis , Pemphigus vulgaris , Pernicious anaemia , Perivenous encephalomyelitis , POEMS syndrome , Polyarteritis nodosa , Polymyalgia rheumatica , Polymyositis , Primary biliary cirrhosis , Primary sclerosing cholangitis , Progressive inflammatory neuropathy, Psoriatic arthritis , Pyoderma gangrenosum , Pure red cell aplasia , Rasmussen’s encephalitis, Raynaud phenomenon, Relapsing polychondritis, Reiter’s syndrome , Restless leg syndrome , Retroperitoneal fibrosis , Rheumatoid arthritis, Rheumatic fever, Sarcoidosis, Schizophrenia, Schmidt syndrome, Schnitzler syndrome, Scleritis , Scleroderma, Serum Sickness, Sjögren’s syndrome, Spondyloarthropathy , Stiff person syndrome, Subacute bacterial endocarditis, Susac’s syndrome , Sweet’s syndrome , Sydenham chorea, Sympathetic ophthalmia, Takayasu’s arteritis , Temporal arteritis, Thrombocytopenia, Tolosa-Hunt syndrome, Transverse myelitis, Ulcerative colitis, Undifferentiated connective tissue disease, Undifferentiated spondyloarthropathy , Urticarial vasculitis , Vasculitis, Vitiligo, Wegener’s granulomatosis Etc Etc), AMYLOID DISEASES, PARKINSONS DISEASE, ALZHEIMERS DISEASES, PRION DISEASES, PROTEINOPATHIES, TYPE2 DIABETES, Cerebral β-amyloid angiopathy, Retinal ganglion cell degeneration in glaucoma, Tauopathies , Frontotemporal lobar degeneration , Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis , Huntington’s disease , dementia, Alexander disease, amyloidotic neuropathy, Senile systemic amyloidosis, primary systemic amyloidosis, Aortic medial amyloidosis, Lysozyme amyloidosis, Fibrinogen amyloidosis, Dialysis amyloidosis, Inclusion body myositis/myopathy, Retinitis pigmentosa , Medullary thyroid carcinoma, Cardiac atrial amyloidosis, Pituitary prolactinoma, lattice corneal dystrophy, Cutaneous lichen amyloidosis, Mallory bodies, Corneal lactoferrin amyloidosis, Pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, Odontogenic (Pindborg) tumor amyloid, Seminal vesicle amyloid, Cystic Fibrosis, Sickle cell disease etc etc. This list is growing day by day.

At this point, THEORY OF MIASMS as causative factors of CHRONIC DISEASES proposed by hahnemann fits well to the modern SCIENTIFIC view of CHRONIC diseases in terms of PROTEINOPATHIES caused by DEFORMED PROTEINS.

Hahnemann’s observations of CHRONIC DISEASES, relating it with INFECTIOUS MIASMS, would have been a revolutionary event in medical history, had anybody- hahnemann, his followers or scientists- taken up the task of explaining it in scientific terms.

Had anybody asked the question how an infectious disease can cause life-long RESIDUAL EFFECTS in the organism even after the infection is over, everything would have been clear. It would have been obvious that infectious agents can produce life-long RESIDUAL EFFECTS in the form of CHRONIC DISEASES only through ANTIBODIES generated in the body against infectious agents.

Such a realization would have helped medical as well as scientific community to view ANTIBODIES from a different perspective- as CAUSATIVE AGENTS of diverse types of CHRONIC DISEASES.

The molecular mechanism by which ANTIBODIES produce chronic diseases could be now ell explained by the scientific knowledge already available now. ANTIBODIES being DEFORMED PROTEINS can bind to various types of NATIVE PROTEINS, and induce them to deform themselves, resulting in diverse types of PROTEINOPATHIES, AMYLOID DISEASES, AUTO IMMUNE DISEASES and PRION DISEASES.

See, how Hahnemann’s concept of CHRONIC DISEASES relating it with INFECTIOUS MIASMS, paves the way for a SCIENTIFIC understanding of a whole class of grave diseases, and developing of a whole new range of therapeutic agents and techniques to combat them.

MIASMS, ANTIBODIES, MOLECULAR IMPRINTED PROTEINS or MISFOLDED PROTEINS- what ever we call it, this factor plays a big role in determining the process of AGING as well as natural LIFE SPAN. As the age of an individual advances, the harmful ANTIBODIES and MISFOLDED PROTEINS accumulate in the system, resulting in more and more diseases, age-related problems and gradual decay. Once we could find some ways to combat ANTIBODIES and MISFOLDED PROTEINS, we may be capable of enhancing our life span an delay aging and natural death. I hope HOMEOPATHY can find answer to this greatest question haunting humanity

————————————————————————————-

MIASMS, ANTIBODIES, MOLECULAR IMPRINTED PROTEINS or MISFOLDED PROTEINS- what ever we call it, this factor plays a big role in determining the process of AGING as well as natural LIFE SPAN. As the age of an individual advances, the harmful ANTIBODIES and MISFOLDED PROTEINS accumulate in the system, resulting in more and more diseases, age-related problems and gradual decay. Once we could find some ways to combat ANTIBODIES and MISFOLDED PROTEINS, we may be capable of enhancing our life span and delay aging and natural death. I hope HOMEOPATHY can find answer to this greatest question haunting humanity

————————————————————————————

MIASMS are expressed through a complex interaction of ANTIBODIES with the specific GENETIC substance of an INDIVIDUAL. Antibodies may bind to various enzyme systems involved in genetic expression and PROTEIN SYNTHESIS, as well as cell division , there by influencing the phenotype constitution of the individual and the EPIGENETICS of inheritance also.Through these EPIGENETIC role, miasms can affect the next generation also. It is obvious that inheritance of miasms is not by GENETIC route, but it is EPIGENETIC inheritance. Actually, CHRONIC DISEASES involves a very complex interplay of ANTIBODIES or MIASMS, GENETIC substance, and INTERNAL BIOCHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT decided by NUTRITION and external ENVIRONMENTAL factors.

————————————————————————————-

According to hahnemann, there are no ‘miasms’ unrelated with infectious agents. He explains PSORA as miasm PRODUCED BY ‘infectious agents of itch’, SYCOSIS as miasm PRODUCED BY’infectious agents of ‘figwart disease’, and SYPHILIS as miasm PRODUCED BY ‘infectious agents of syphilis’.

My inquiry is: HOW an infectious agent can create a life long ‘chronic diseases and dispositions’ that are no way part of the pathology of that infectious disease? WHAT is the biological mechanism working behind that phenomenon? WHAT are the material molecular factors that act as carriers of this phenomenon?

My answer is, it can happen only through the antibodies generated in the body against the specific infectious agents. Antibodies remain life long in the body, creating off-target molecular inhibitions and chronic multi-system disease dispositions. We can explain miasms scientifically only in terms of antibodies.

————————————————————————————–

What is an ‘ANTI-MIASMATIC’ drug? An anti-miasmatic drug is a drug substance, which in potentized forms contain specific types of ‘molecular imprints’ that can either prevent ‘anti-bodies’ from producing ‘off-target’ molecular inhibitions or remove such inhibitions in the organism that cause chronic diseases and disease dispositions. Potentized forms of antibodies, antigens, off-target biological molecules, drugs having functional moieties or groups similar to those of antigens or off-target biological molecules- all these can be used as ANTI-MIASMATIC DRUGS.

————————————————————————————–

One homeopath expressed his displeasure to my posts on MIT by making a comment as follows:

“We need skills for speedy healing to suffering humanity rather than vivid theories.Unfortunately there are too many theories without proofs.I feel many homoeopaths make fool of patients.”

Sir, do you mean to say “it is unfortunate” to have MIT explanation of homeopathy also? If ‘yes’, did you read MIT concepts before reaching this conclusion?

Saying “we need only skills” and “not scientific knowledge” is equivalent to saying “we need no light, we need skills to grope in the dark”.

————————————————————————————-

MOLECULAR MEDICINE is an advanced branch of theory and practice of modern medicine based on the modern scientific understanding of bio-molecular mechanisms of life, disease, cure and drug actions as explained by modern biochemistry and molecular biology.

MIT or MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS is a SPECIALIZED branch of modern MOLECULAR MEDICINE, which uses ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules as therapeutic agents., where as molecular medicine uses drug molecules themselves. HOMEOPATHY is actually MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS.

————————————————————————————-

Once the explanation of ‘miasms’ in terms of ‘off-target’ actions of antibodies is understood and accepted, scientific community will have to recognize that ‘theory of miasms’ proposed by hahnemann was an invention of great historical relevance and implications in understanding ‘chronic diseases’, which will give homeopathy decisive edge for homeopathy over modern medicine.

————————————————————————————-

Once the homeopathic community understands the scientific explanation regarding the biological mechanism of ‘miasms’ in terms of ‘off-target’ actions of antibodies generated against infectious agents and alien proteins, all intellectual exercises of our ‘miasmatic experts’ and modern gurus will become obsolete as null and void. It is obvious that they will not be happy with me, as it will ultimately lead to the withdrawal of their textbooks and closing down of their seminar businesses.

————————————————————————————

ANTIBODIES are MOLECULAR IMPRINTED PROTIENS- native globulin proteins into which spacial configuration of active functional groups of ANTIGENS are engraved as three-dimensional nano-pockets through a process of ‘molecular imprinting’. These ‘molecular imprinted proteins’ act by binding to the antigens and initiating a process of deactivation as part of defense mechanism of the living organism. This is the biological mechanism of ‘immune response’. These ANTIBODIES or MOLECULAR IMPRINTED PROTEINS can also bind to any ‘off-target’ biological molecules that carry functional groups having configurational similarity to the specific antigens. Such ‘off-target’ bindings lead to unexpected molecular inhibitions in associated biochemical pathways, leading to diverse types of chronic diseases and disease dispositions, including so-called ‘auto-immune’ diseases. This is the biological mechanism of MIASMATIC DISEASES.

————————————————————————————

Once you understand ‘miasms’ as chronic disease dispositions caused by ‘off-target’ bio-molecular actions of ANTIBODIES generated and circulated in the body against protein molecules such as infectious agents which are ‘alien’ to the genetic code of of an organism, all confusions created by our ‘experts’ and ‘interpreters’ will be finally resolved for ever. The term ‘miasm’ becomes a part of paradigms of modern science and scientific medical thoughts and dialogues.

————————————————————————————

What ‘material’ factors an infectious agent leaves behind in a living body once the disease process is over? ANTIBODIES. Antibodies generated by the immune system in the body against the ‘specific’ infectious agents. They remain in in the body even after the infectious disease is gone. These antibodies can bind to varoius ‘off-target’ biological molecules in the body, and produce disease dispositions and chronic diseases. We already know hundreds of chronic diseases caused by off-target actions of antibodies, which are presently classified as ‘auto-immune’ diseases. Presumably, ANTIBODIES are the ‘material causative factors’ of MIASMS. Hope my point is clear

————————————————————————————

Kindly read ‘chronic diseases’ once again carefully. You will understand, hahnemann NEVER considered ‘miasms’ unrelated with ‘infectious diseases’, even though our ‘modern experts’ theorize about miasms as if they have no any relationship with infectious diseases. According to hahnemann, PSORA is the miasm CAUSED by itch infection, SYPHILIS is the miasm CAUSED by syphilis infection, and SYCOSIS is the miasm CAUSED by gonorrhoes infections. According to master, an individual attains miasms only by getting infected by that disease. He never said miasms are ONLY three in number. He said, he was considering only three miasms, as they were the major ‘infectious’ diseases most wide spread in EUROPE ‘during his period’.

————————————————————————————-

You are learning and talking a lot of ‘theories’ about ‘miasms’. Did you ever think WHAT is the molecular level biological mechanism by which these ‘miasms’ work? Did you ever think WHAT are the ‘molecular factors’ that influence the biological molecules to induce changes in vital processes and produce ‘miasmatic dispositions’ and ‘chronic diseases’? Did you ever think HOW an ‘infectious disease’ such as itch, gonorrhoea or syphilis can leave a life-long chronic disease disposition in a living body even after the disease is cured? Did you ever think WHAT are the molecular factors left behind by an infectious disease in a living body? Did you see any ‘stalwart’ or ‘theoretician’ ever asking or answering such fundamental questions while making elaborate theories and interpretations about miasms? How can you understand ‘miasms’ scientifically, if you do not begin your inquiries by asking these preliminary questions and searching for rational answers for them?

—————————————————————————————

If you consider ‘miasms’ as some ‘immaterial’, ‘dynamic’ and ‘spritual’ influence that affect the vital force without any mediation of any ‘material’ agent, I do not agree with your concept of miasms. According to me, there should be a ‘material’ agent for miasms, that can act upon the biological molecules by a ‘material’ biomolecular mechanism and produce molecular errors in vital processes that amounts to ‘miasmatic dispositions’ and ‘diseases’. We should explain the biological mechanism of the phenomena we call ‘miasms’.

————————————————————————————-

I consider myself a proud heir to all knowledge humanity so far acquired through various civilizations. I do not find a division between ‘indian’ knowledge and ‘western’ knowledge. I see only ‘human’ knowledge. Of course, ‘ancient’ knowledge of our visionery forefathers contain many great things, but they can never be more advanced and perfect than modern scientific knowledge we possess, as advancement and perfection of knowledge is a historical process. We know many things far better and clearer than our ancient forefathers, and our next generation will know everything still better than we do now.

————————————————————————————

I am not against ‘ancient indian vedic knowledge’, or do not want to belittle its ‘greatness’. But I disagree with the view that ‘ancient indian vedic knowledge’ was more advanced than modern scientific knowledge. Such theories about an ‘ancient indian vedic knowledge more advanced than modern science’ are always promoted by people who want to justify unscientific concepts and occult practices. Their intentions are obvious.

————————————————————————————

As part of his tricks for providing a ‘quantum’ glare to ‘hair transmission’, one of my learned friends proposes to consider ‘anti-matter’ as the active principles of potentized drugs!

This proposal gives hope of making a new ‘quantum theory’ to homeopaths who are eagerly waiting to grab any nonsense ‘ultra science’ that may justify their superstitious beliefs. Now they can theorize about ‘anti-matter’ generated by potentization, and ‘preserved’ in potentized drugs! They will be elated to know that with ‘anti-matter’ theory, they can now comfortably defy space and time, and all ‘limitations’ of physics, chemistry and biology. They can now fly freely in the unlimited sky of fancies and imaginations, and practice any occults in the name of ‘anti-matter’. VIVA ANTI-MATTER THEORY!

———————————————————————————–

Plausible explanations for homeopathy will not come from heavens. It will not come from simply ‘interpreting’ and theorizing about the writings of the master and ‘stalwarts’. It should be explored using the light of ‘existing’ modern scientific knowledge and tools of modern scientific methods.

————————————————————————————

Please do not misunderstand what I said. I never said the terms ‘vital force’ and ‘dynamic energy’ should be removed from organon or other works of hahnemann. Nobody has right to remove change anything from those texts of great historical importance. What I said is, we should avoid such unscientific terms and concepts from “any explanation WE PROPOSE for homeopathy”. Hope you understand the difference.

————————————————————————————

Without FACEBOOK, my MIT concepts of scientific homeopathy would have remained unknown to the community for ever. Being an insignificant person, no journals would have published my ideas. Nobody would have organized seminars or offered me a platform. Nobody would have discussed it anywhere. Even if I wrote a book, no publishers would have shown interest, as I have no ‘credentials’.

Thanks to the wonderful opportunities provided by the digital and cyber worlds, especially FACE BOOK, now I am able to interact effectively with a large section of the world homeopathic community and talk to them about my ideas. I can share my ideas instantly as they germinate in my brain, get responses and discuss them. Actually my ideas evolve into more and more perfection through these interactions.

I know MIT is now widely being discussed by the young generation of homeopaths around the world, especially in campuses. My posts and articles are shared and downloaded by thousands. It is a matter of immense satisfaction for me. Seeds of scientific revolution in homeopathy is already sown by MIT. Now I am sure the revolution will happen, whether I am here or not

I have 13500+ members in my HOMEOPATHY FOR TOTAL CURE group, 5500 members in my SIMILIMUM ULTRA group, and 4250 members in my friends list. I have 62000 readers for my blog REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY. I am talking to them daily, most of them seeing and reading my posts whether they respond or agree with me or not.

THANKS FACE BOOK!

————————————————————————————-

Concepts of ‘vital force’ and ‘dynamic drug energy’ come from most unscientific or ‘pre-scientific’ philosophy of ‘dynamism’ and ‘spiritualism’. These ideas have no any role or relevance in the scientific understanding of life, disease and cure in modern knowledge context. To make homeopathy a real medical science, we should stubbornly reject these terms from any explanation we propose for homeopathy.

————————————————————————————-

Scientific community casts aside homeopathy as ‘implausible’, only because it was so far presented before them using scientifically ‘implausible’ paradigms, theories and explanations such as vital force and dynamic drug energy, which contradict even the basic principles and methods of modern scientific knowledge.

In order to effectively communicate with scientific community, it is essential that we propose a scientifically viable hypothesis that rationally explains potentization as well as biological mechanism of homeopathic cure, using concepts and paradigms of modern science.

By explaining potentization in terms of molecular imprinting, and homeopathic cure in terms of molecular mechanism of biological interactions as envisaged in modern biochemistry, MIT is trying to address this preliminary task.

Once we could there by open up a channel of reasonable communication with scientific community, I hope we can convince them to experiment with MIT concepts of homeopathy using scientific methods, without any bias and prejudice.

————————————————————————————–

If you are doubtful whether something is real or not, ‘experimenting’ is the ideal way to resolve that doubt. But we need not experiment things which we are very much sure about, and is clear regarding the scientific answers to the ‘what-why-how’ of it. Regarding hair transmission and other occult arts, I have no doubts. Hence there is no need of experimenting them as far as I am concerned. I do not consider the idea of ‘a plucked hair keeping its contact and interacting with its owner even if he is thousands of kilometers away’ worthy of any experimentation. My existing scientific knowledge is enough for me to cast it aside as UTTER NONSENSE. If anybody has doubt on it, let them experiment and report.

Any scientific-minded person with essential knowledge in fundamental principles of physics and biological sciences can DISMISS THIS NONSENSE called ‘hair transmission’, without any ‘experiments’. When you ask for experimenting, it means you are still in doubt on it.

If you think ‘hair transmission’ is a ‘new idea’ deserving experimentation before rejecting it, you will have to experiment with woodo, black magics, demons, witch crafts, tarot reading, talisman, occult, astrology, prayers, reflexology, radionics, paper remedies, digital remedies, mp3 remedies, photo-transmission, phone transmission- everything. All of them say “it works”. All of them say “come to me, i will show you”. If you go for it, your whole life hereafter will be very busy and engaged with ‘new ideas’ and ‘experiments’.

————————————————————————————

HAIR TRANSMISSION EXPERT: “The biggest difference between ours and Chandra ji is that we are doing it practically with all the patients all the time and and he is only THEORIZING about Drug Transmission with his limited knowledge”.

MY COMMENT: “Sir, you are repeatedly asking for doing scientific “research” about ‘hair transmission’. But how can you do any research without any ‘hypothesis’ or ‘theorizing’? Do you think ‘research’ involves ‘practice’ only? According to SCIENTIFIC METHOD, a research should be done according to a systematic protocol. First, there should be a ‘phenomenon’ to be researched about. In the present case, it is ‘hair transmission’. Then there should be a ‘hypothesis’ that explains the ‘phenomenon’ in terms of existing scientific knowledge. You cannot develop a ‘hypothesis’ without some ‘theorizing’ about the phenomenon you are going research up on. Then only it becomes a ‘scientific hypothesis’ that could be presented as a candidate for ‘verification through experiments’. Once the ‘scientific hypothesis’ is evolved, we have to prepare a list of ‘questions’ to prove the hypothesis. Then comes of designing ‘experiments’ to find the answers for the questions. Scientific ‘experimentation’ are done for verifying each ‘question’. Results are analyzed, and the ‘hypothesis’ is either rejected or accepted. If accepted, it becomes a ‘scientific theory’.

I have explained all these steps of scientific research to say that you cannot do research on ‘hair transmission’ without doing some ‘theorizing’ to develop a ‘hypothesis’ that should be the basis of our research work.

I KNOW IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO DISCUSS THIS NONSENSE CALLED ‘HAIR TRANSMISSION’. BUT WE ARE FORCED TO SPEND OUR TIME SINCE THIS NONSENSE IS PROMOTED AMONG STUDENTS BY A PERSON HOLDING THE CHAIR OF ‘HEAD OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE OF CCH OF INDIA’.

————————————————————————————

MY QUESTION: “For ‘hair transmission’ to work, a plucked strand of hair should be capable of keeping its contact with its owner even if he is thousands of kilometers away. Do you think it is plausible?”

HAIR TRANSMISSION EXPERT: “Yes They are but not perceptible by any scientific instrument devised so far”

I KNOW IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO DISCUSS THIS NONSENSE CALLED ‘HAIR TRANSMISSION’. BUT WE ARE FORCED TO SPEND OUR TIME SINCE THIS NONSENSE IS PROMOTED AMONG STUDENTS BY A PERSON HOLDING THE CHAIR OF ‘HEAD OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE OF CCH OF INDIA’.

————————————————————————————-

MY QUESTION: “For hair transmission to work, hair should have ‘life’ and ‘vital force’ even after it is separated from a body. Do you think it is plausible?”

HAIR TRANSMISSION EXPERT: “Yes, please read foot not of aphorism 11 of 6th Edition of Organon to know the dynamic nature of disease and medicine”

I KNOW IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO DISCUSS THIS NONSENSE CALLED ‘HAIR TRANSMISSION’. BUT WE ARE FORCED TO SPEND OUR TIME SINCE THIS NONSENSE IS PROMOTED AMONG STUDENTS BY A PERSON HOLDING THE CHAIR OF ‘HEAD OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE OF CCH OF INDIA’.

————————————————————————————–

MY QUESTION: “For hair transmission to work, there should be ‘vital force’ vibrating in resonance with the vital force of the owner, even after away from the body. Do you think it is plausible?”

HAIR TRANSMISSION EXPERT: “Yes resonance may be best possible phenomenon occuring at Drug Transmission”

I KNOW IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO DISCUSS THIS NONSENSE CALLED ‘HAIR TRANSMISSION’. BUT WE ARE FORCED TO SPEND OUR TIME SINCE THIS NONSENSE IS PROMOTED AMONG STUDENTS BY A PERSON HOLDING THE CHAIR OF ‘HEAD OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE OF CCH OF INDIA’.

————————————————————————————

MY QUESTION: “For hair transmission to work, changes in ‘vibrations’ of vital force of the body will have to produce same changes in the vibrations of his hair kept thousands of kilometers away. Do you think it is possible?”

HAIR TRANSMISSION EXPERT: “Yes even thousands of KM away patients are feeling the changes”

I KNOW IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO DISCUSS THIS NONSENSE CALLED ‘HAIR TRANSMISSION’. BUT WE ARE FORCED TO SPEND OUR TIME SINCE THIS NONSENSE IS PROMOTED AMONG STUDENTS BY A PERSON HOLDING THE CHAIR OF ‘HEAD OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE OF CCH OF INDIA’.

————————————————————————————

MY QUESTION: “For hair transmission to work, when an individual is affected with a disease, his hair kept thousands of kilometers away will be affected with same disease. When he is cured, the distant hair also will be cured. Do you think it is plausible?”

HAIR TRANSMISSION EXPERT: “Distant hair is not cured but the person whose belonging is this”

I KNOW IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO DISCUSS THIS NONSENSE CALLED ‘HAIR TRANSMISSION’. BUT WE ARE FORCED TO SPEND OUR TIME SINCE THIS NONSENSE IS PROMOTED AMONG STUDENTS BY A PERSON HOLDING THE CHAIR OF ‘HEAD OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE OF CCH OF INDIA’.

—————————————————————————————-

MY QUESTION: “For hair transmission, any thing that produce changes in ‘vibrations’ of vital force of hair should produce similar changes in vital force of its owner, how far away he stays. Do you think it is plausible?”

HAIR TRANSMISSION EXPERT: “I have patients in 8 countries who are experincing benefits of this method, hence distance is no bar—even can provide u email id and phone no of patients”

I fear he does not understand what is meant by ‘plausible’ in scientific terms.

I KNOW IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO DISCUSS THIS NONSENSE CALLED ‘HAIR TRANSMISSION’. BUT WE ARE FORCED TO SPEND OUR TIME SINCE THIS NONSENSE IS PROMOTED AMONG STUDENTS BY A PERSON HOLDING THE CHAIR OF ‘HEAD OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE OF CCH OF INDIA’.

————————————————————————————-

MY QUESTION: “If hair transmission works, you should be capable of producing toxic changes in a body by applying toxic substances upon a hair kept in a distant place. Do you think it is plausible?”

HAIR TRANSMISSION EXPERT: “This will depends on susceptibility of person in question— till date no malicious person is doing so”.

I KNOW IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO DISCUSS THIS NONSENSE CALLED ‘HAIR TRANSMISSION’. BUT WE ARE FORCED TO SPEND OUR TIME SINCE THIS NONSENSE IS PROMOTED AMONG STUDENTS BY A PERSON HOLDING THE CHAIR OF ‘HEAD OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE OF CCH OF INDIA’.

————————————————————————————

OCCULT PRACTITIONERS are never bothered about the fundamental principles of science or methods of science. See how they respond to scientific discussions:

MY QUESTION: “For hair transmission to work, potentized drugs should have a drug energy that can travel in great distances through space without any carrier particle. Do you think it is plausible?—-”

ANSWER FROM HAIR TRANSMISSIONIST: “If u don’t believe/know potentised drug has energy , then my dear Sir u are far from homeopathy—”

I was trying to discuss the scientific ‘plausibility’ of the concept that potentized drugs contain an “energy that can travel in great distances through space without any carrier particle”. But for him, it was a question of my “belief” in homeopathy. For him, my question has proved I am “far from homeopathy”!

To prove I am ‘close to homeopathy’, I should believe that “potentized drugs contain an “energy that can travel in great distances through space without any carrier particle”! I should not ask any questions about its plausibility or the physics involved in it!

I KNOW IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO DISCUSS THIS NONSENSE CALLED ‘HAIR TRANSMISSION’. BUT WE ARE FORCED TO SPEND OUR TIME SINCE THIS NONSENSE IS PROMOTED AMONG STUDENTS BY A PERSON HOLDING THE CHAIR OF ‘HEAD OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE OF CCH OF INDIA’.

————————————————————————————-

Proponents of all those ‘modern’ ENERGY MEDICINE models and practices of homeopathy and CAM, amounting to sheer occults such as ‘vibrations’, ‘resonance’, ‘wave theory’, ‘frequencies’, ‘EM signals’, ‘bio-photons’, ‘bio-magnetism’, ‘distance healing’, ‘hair transmission’, ‘photo transmission’, ‘PC resonance remedies’, ‘paper remedies’, ‘water remedies’, ‘mp3 remedies’, ‘radionics’, ‘reflexology’, ‘meditation proving’, ‘dream proving’, ‘trituration proving’, etc etc seek their solace of ‘scientific’ foundation in the ‘DIGITAL BIOLOGY’ of BENVENISTE. It is almost like a BIBLE to them. In my opinion, the REDUCTIONIST and PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC speculations of benveniste, which he called ‘Digital Biology’, is actually the ‘MOTHER OF QUACKERY’ in homeopathy as well as everything known as CAM practices.

————————————————————————————-

IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO DISCUSS THIS NONSENSE CALLED ‘HAIR TRANSMISSION’. BUT WE ARE FORCED TO SPEND OUR TIME SINCE THIS NONSENSE IS PROMOTED AMONG STUDENTS BY A PERSON HOLDING THE CHAIR OF ‘HEAD OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE OF CCH OF INDIA’.

Let us think whether ‘hair transmission’ is plausible.

For ‘hair transmission’ to work, a plucked strand of hair should be capable of keeping its contact with its owner even if he is thousands of kilometers away. Do you think it is plausible?

For hair transmission to work, hair should have ‘life’ and ‘vital force’ even after it is separated from a body. Do you think it is plausible?

For hair transmission to work, there should be ‘vital force’ vibrating in resonance with the vital force of the owner, even after away from the body. Do you think it is plausible?

For hair transmission to work, changes in ‘vibrations’ of vital force of the body will have to produce same changes in the vibrations of his hair kept thousands of kilometers away. Do you think it is possible?

For hair transmission to work, when an individual is affected with a disease, his hair kept thousands of kilometers away will be affected with same disease. When he is cured, the distant hair also will be cured. Do you think it is plausible?

For hair transmission, any thing that produce changes in ‘vibrations’ of vital force of hair should produce similar changes in vital force of its owner, how far away he stays. Do you think it is plausible?

If hair transmission works, you should be capable of producing toxic changes in a body by applying toxic substances upon a hair kept in a distant place. Do you think it is plausible?

For hair transmission to work, potentized drugs should have a drug energy that can travel in great distances through space without any carrier particle. Do you think it is plausible?

————————————————————————————-

Homeopathic community should come forward and demand CCH to urgently intervene and take necessary steps to stop the most unscientific practice of ‘hair transmission method’ promoted by DR M K SAHNI, who decorates the high profile position of ‘chairman, educational committee of central council of homeopathy’. He also conducts a private ‘institution’ to offer ‘training’ to homeopathy graduates and distribute ‘post graduate diploma in hair transmission’. Utilizing his official clout, he is influencing homeopathic medical colleges to conduct seminars and training programs in ‘drug transmission’, misleading the new generation into occult practices under the label of homeopathy. It is totally illegal and unethical to offer ‘post graduate diploma’ in a ‘speciality’ not recognized by CCH, and obviously superstitious. It should be immedeately stopped, if we want homeopathy to be recognized as a legitimate MEDICAL SCIENCE.

————————————————————————————

The claim that ‘hair transmission was ‘invented’ by Dr Sahni is untrue. The concept of ‘hair transmission’ actually evolved from what is known as “radionics”. Roots of this ‘philosophy’ could be found in the ‘black magics’ inherited from ancient civilizations, and still existing among certain tribal communities, street healers and occult practitioners.

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, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not recognize any legitimate medical uses of any such device. According to David Helwig in The Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine, “most physicians dismiss radionics as quackery.”

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. The United States Food and Drug Administration do not recognize any legitimate medical uses for such devices.

————————————————————————————

Why should I experiment with a ‘practice’ that is based on the ‘theory’ that discarded ‘body wastes’ such as hair, nail, excreta, skin scrapings, blood clots etc will maintain a ‘dynamic relationship’ with its owners from thousands of kilometers away, and can ‘transmit’ vibrational energy of drugs applied on them to the distant owners by a ‘dynamic’ way so far ‘unknown’ to science? I never experiment with obviously NONSENSE THINGS!

————————————————————————————-

If anybody ‘practice’ ‘hair transmission’ method, that means he is pathetically ignorant of modern scientific advancements happening around. Homeopathic community should feel ashamed that there are some people among them practicing this occult art.

————————————————————————————

HAIR TRANSMISSION is based on the belief that a plucked hair maintains a ‘dynamic’ relationship with its owner even if he is thousands of kilometers away, and it can ‘transmit’ the energy of drugs to the owner. There is nothing to experiment in this nonsense theory. NONSENSE IS NONSENSE. Would you ask me to “test” woodo, occult, tarot, faith healing, prayers, and such things before “blaming” them?

If this type of occult practice is being claimed to be homeopathy, I really feel ashamed to say I am a homeopath. How can I face the scientific community and talk about “scientific explanation of homeopathy”?

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!

If any body want to ‘practice’ ‘drug transmission’ or any other such occult practices, it is their choice. But when you link those unscientific practices with homeopathy, and to 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. Sir, did you ever think about the harm you 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. You are making homeopathy a subject of constant mockery before the scientific community.I feel very much disgusted to see eminent respected homeopaths like you being part of these unscientific practices. I can only pray your goodness to return back to your rational senses.

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..

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.

————————————————————————————-

When a BHMS holder, with an additional MPhil in psychology attached to his name, writes “Hair transmission might be considered as an advanced variant under animal magnetism.”, I prefer to leave him without further argument.

My sympathies, sir!

————————————————————————————-

Personally, I have nothing against Dr Sahni or anybody else promoting ‘hair transmission’. We are totally strangers. But,sorry to say, the HAIR TRANSMISSION being practiced and promoted by them is PURE OCCULT. Anybody may practice any occult as they like- it is their right, if law permits. My request is, kindly avoid claiming such practices are homeopathy. Such claims are seriously eroding the scientific credentials of homeopathy, and making it a piece of mockery before the scientific community as well as elite public in general.

————————————————————————————

If ‘homeopathic distant hair transmission’ is right, whole of the existing physics books will have to be rewritten or withdrawn. All research institutes working on physics will have to be shut down. All nobel prizes so far given to scientists for inventions in physics will have to be taken back by swedish academy. And all nobel prizes will have to be given to dr sahni and dr ravi singh. There should be some limits in talking nonsense, sir

————————————————————————————-

Pseudoscience and occults always present anecdotes of ‘experiences’ as ‘proofs’ for their claims. They come with ‘witnesses’ to vouch for them. Scientific method never accepts anecdotes as ‘scientific proof’. To be acceptable to scientific community, homeopathy should be validated by ‘scientific proof’- not anecdotes and witnesses.

————————————————————————————-

Today I got a message from GOOGLE+, which led me to this picture:

“Dr. Mridul Kumar Sahani, FACE TO FACE WITH PG STUDENTS OF DR.M.L.DHAWALE INSTITUTE OF HOMOEOPATHY, PALGHAR, MUMBAI SHARING TANSMISSION OF HOMOEO DRUG ENERGY FROM A DISTANCE ON 23rd NOVEMBER 2013”

Do you know who is this Dr M K Sahni? He is the “Chairman, Education Committee, Central Council of Homoeopathy, New Delhi” .

He runs the Research Institute Of Sahani Drug Transmission & Homoeopathy in Patna . The Sahani protocol is rather wonderful: a homeopathic remedy is chosen in the classical way, by matching symptoms to a remedy. The chosen pill is then dissolved in a vial and a single hair is then plucked from the customer’s head and placed in the vial with a little bit sticking out. The hair is then able to transmit the ENERGY of the remedy back to the owner.

This Institute with the present Chairman Dr.M.K.Sahani is now working on Research, Teaching and Clinical Help to patient by this method. It has come out with a postgraduate course in Drug Transmission for the medical graduates, which is of three months duration . Institute is also working on the project of Tele-medical Center with satellite center in different places, with facility to treat patient with Drug Transmission.

According to their website, Dr. M K Sahani MD (Hom.) PGDHHM is also the Chairman, Education Committee, Central Council of Homoeopathy, New Delhi, and President, The Homeopathic Medical Association of India, Bihar State Branch.

KINDLY NOTE: A person decorating the high profile official position of “Chairman, Education Committee, Central Council of Homoeopathy, New Delhi” is also working as the “Chairman of Institute Of Sahnai Drug Transmission & Homoeopathy in Patna”, and conducting “postgraduate course in Drug Transmission for the medical graduates”. Did anybody inquire whether “hair transmission” is RECOGNIZED by Central Council Of Homeopathy? Is it LAWFUL and ETHICAL for the Head of Education Committee of Central Council of Homoeopathy of Government of India to run such an UNRECOGNIZED ‘post graduate course’ in DRUG TRANSMISSION?

By electing the chairman of ‘Institute Of Sahani Drug Transmission & Homeopathy’ as the Chairman of Education Committee of CCH, the CCH authorities are giving a dangerous message to homeopathic community. What SCIENTIFIC educational system we can expect from this EDUCATION COMMITTEE for homeopathy?

And remember, CCH is the highest statutory body constituted under government of india as per a parliamentary act, to oversee the whole system of education and practice of homeopathy in india. It is a shame for indian homeopathy that such an important body is headed by the top-most proponent and trainer of the most unscientific occult practice known as DRUG TRANSMISSION THROUGH HAIR

AND, YOU ARE ASKING ME TO ‘SUBMIT’ MIT CONCEPTS FOR ‘VERIFICATION, EVALUATION AND SANCTION’ BY AN ‘AUTHORITY’ CONSISTING OF PEOPLE LIKE DR M K SAHNI! I FEEL ASHAMED AND HUMILIATED!

———————————————————————————–

Homeopaths should demonstrate the humility and wisdom to limit themselves to saying “homeopathy works, but presently we do not know how it exactly works”. That is the plain truth, and there is no harm in telling it openly. Why should we fool ourselves and try to make fools of others by talking nonsense ‘theories’ that contradict all existing scientific knowledge system, until we are well equipped and confident in winning our case scientifically?

————————————————————————————-

My advice to all students of homeopathy who study ‘organon of medicine’:

Be careful not to allow your ‘new’ teachers to erase from your brains the basic science lessons you so far painstakingly learned in your school and college classes. Learn organon with a rational, scientific and historical perspective, keeping in mind that it is a medical text more of historical relevance, not a religious book. Guard yourselves from dogmatism. Always remember organon was written 250 years ago, in a very primitive scientific knowledge environment. Hesitate to follow anything or anybody blindly. Keep your inner eyes always open. Build up the habit of always asking ‘what-why-how’ of everything you are taught.

————————————————————————————-

The deeper I explore and the more I excavate the real science behind ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’, the more fascinating homeopathy appears to me. It always makes me wonder about the sharp observational skills and genius of hahnemann, which led him into the making of these epoch-making inventions utilizing the limited resources availabe to him during his period. From his ‘dynamic’ ‘explanations’ of HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS, it is obvious and understandable that he has no and cannot have any scientific idea about the biological mechanism involved in homeopathic cure or molecular imprinting involved in potentization. He succeeded in observing and experimenting with certain unexplored natural phenomena very sharply, and in deducting the ‘natural laws’ involved in them very accurately, even though his ‘theorizations’ regarding its ‘HOW’ went awry due to his historically imposed inevitable limitations.

————————————————————————————

Dr Dharmendra Sharma, Principal at Dr D Y Patil Homoeopathic Medical College, says about MIT explanation of homeopathy:

“As of today its the best explanation by far…”

Thank you, sir.

————————————————————————————-

Dr. Paramjeet Singh Ranu Posted on my timeline:

“In my Opinion MIT is the right answer to the modern challenges which Homoeopathy is facing in this materialistic age of Modern Medicine and I personally feel that MIT can help the Homoeopaths to explain the theory of How Homoeopathy works which has been a mystery till now.

Even our books were silent on the Phenomenon of working of Homoeopathy and we used to explain through hypothesis that Homoeopathy is just like electricity which can run a fan but it cant be seen only the action can be seen and all and all..Now I think we have reached to some conclusion with scientific and authentic facts based on Principles.

Even this theory has proved that our Master Hahnemann was a farsighted scientist and his Organon was based on scientific principles prevailing during his times and as we know that the science has developed a lot hence something has to be changed and though based on the past one.

So I hope that not only the new generation but the Old one should also be happy enough to recieve it with an open Mind and broad Heart..REGARDS to ALL….

Dr.Paramjeet Singh Ranu”

————————————————————————————

If MIT explanations were attached to the name of a scientist belonging to any premier research organization, a noblel laureate, an academician or any ‘powerful’ person in the higher echelons of ‘authority’, the whole homeopathic profession the world over would have been by now celebrating it with seminars, honors and awards, even without understanding what it is all about. It happened with the ‘water memory’ of benveniste, theory of hormesis, ‘nano-particle’ theory of IIT-B, Luc Montaigner’s casual statements, BARC gadget, various ‘methods’, and even radionics machines and many such things. I know very well why the majority of profession is feigning deaf and dumb to MIT.

I am a bit disappointed by the coldness, but I am fully confident, how much you ignore, MIT will have to be ultimately accepted as the SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF HOMEOPATHY, because it is the TRUTH of homeopathy. May be tomorrow or day after tomorrow. I am prepared to wait.

———————————————————————————–

Do you think the ideas proposed by MIT is a positive step in homeopathy and it will help the future advancement of homeopathy? Or, do you think it is totally wrong, irrelevant, misguiding, or harmful for homeopathy? Inviting your assesments opinions, whatever it may be.

I see facebook not as a place of fun or leisure. I consider it as a serious and effective WORK PLACE. I make hundreds of posts and comments daily on my facebook timeline, discussion groups, pages as well as on twitter, as part of my endeavor to evolve and promote MIT concepts of scientific homeopathy. My friends, who come on face book only occasionally, and those who are able to spend very limited time here, may miss most of my updates. There are also many late comers in my growing friends list. There may be also some people willing to read some of my posts again and again. In order to ensure my works are secured for future use, and to make them easily available for everybody any time, I regularly compile my face book posts and updates into large volumes. So far, SEVEN volumes have been compiled.

VOLUME- I:

http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/selected-facebook-updates/

VOLUME- II:

http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/volume-ii-compilation-of-my-selected-facebook-updates/

VOLUME- III:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/05/12/volume-three/

VOLUME- IV:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/06/04/selected-facebook-updates-volume-four/

VOLUME V:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/10/09/volume-v-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

VOLUME VI:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/10/11/volume-vi-selected-facebook-updates/

VOLUME VII:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/10/24/volume-vii-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

VOLUME VIII: http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/12/16/volume-viii-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

VOLUME IX:

When I say ‘homeopathic drug’, I mean ONLY potencies 12c or above, which contain only ‘molecular imprints’ that act by a ‘homeopathic’ mechanism of biological action by binding to the specific pathogenic molecules. I do not consider ‘molecular forms’ (crude and below 12c) of drugs as ‘homeopathic’ – whether they are single or mixed. They act by a biological mechanism exactly same as allopathic drugs. Mere label does not make a drug ‘homeopathic’.

————————————————————-

When TWO entirely different drug substance show during proving some symptom groups that are similar, that means both drug substances contain ‘some’ constituent molecules having ‘similar’ functional groups, so that those molecules could bind to similar biological molecules and produce similar molecular errors. This phenomenon explains why different physicians reach entirely different prescriptions in same case, and all such different prescriptions work.

———————————————————————————–

One homeopath friend just asked me today: “Do you accept our master’s aphorisms as the final word in homeopathy? If you do not, you are an enemy of homeopathy”.

I consider aphorisms of organon as the ‘initial word’ of homeopathy- not “final word”. Organon was the starting point of the great journey of homeopathy- not the destination point, which is still in the distant future. All of us are marching towards that destination of ‘scientific homeopathy’.

Hope my view is clear by this statement. I am not bothered whether you consider me a ‘friend’ or ‘enemy’ of homeopathy. I am only what I am. I say what I am convinced right according to my level of knowledge

————————————————————————————-

Crude forms and potencies below 12c (molecular forms) of any drug can ANTIDOTE the therapeutic effects of ‘molecular imprints’ (12c and above) of same drug as well as similar drugs.

‘Molecular imprints’ or potencies above 12c of any drug can antidote the biological effects of ‘molecular forms’ or crude drugs and below 12c of same drug or similar drugs.

————————————————————————————

Any drug will ‘follow’ each other very well, if it is prescribed as per indications, and used in potencies above 12c. No need of any worry over the issue of ‘drug relationship’.

———————————————————————————–

Drugs potentized above 12c contain only molecular imprints. Molecular imprints can act ONLY upon pathogenic molecules having complementary conformation. One molecular imprint cannot act upon another molecular imprint, or produce changes in its therapeutic effects. Any number of different molecular imprints can co-exist without any interaction in between them. That means, we cannot ANTIDOTE the actions of a a potentized drug using anothe potentized drug. Idea of antidoting homeopathic drugs using another potentized drug has no any scientific basis. It is only a blind BELIEF.

———————————————————————————–

Any new prescription will be ‘complementary’ to the earlier prescription, if the latter one can provide some additional ‘molecular imprints’ required to remove the remaining molecular inhibitions and complete the cure, which were missing in the earlier prescription. We can use ANY drug as complementary prescription, if symptoms indicate it.

————————————————————————————-

To understand the scientific MIT interpretation of ‘similia similibus curentur’ in its real perspective, one should know the fundamentals of ‘target-ligand’ relationships and dynamics of ‘bio-molecular inhibitions’.

There are diverse types of molecular ‘targets’ such as receptors, enzymes and antibodies which interact with appropriate ‘ligands’, so that the biochemical pathways underlying vital processes are maintained unhindered. Knowledge of the real molecular dynamics involved in ‘ligand-target’, ‘signals-receptors’, ‘substrates-enzymes’ and ‘antigen-antibody’ interactions is essential for understanding the science behind ‘similia similibus curentur’.

A receptor is a molecule found on the surface of a cell, which receives specific chemical signals from neighbouring cells or the wider environment within an organism. These signals tell a cell to do something—for example to divide or die, or to allow certain molecules to enter or exit the cell.

In biochemistry, a receptor is a protein molecule, embedded in either the plasma membrane or the cytoplasm of a cell, to which one or more specific kinds of signaling molecules may attach. A molecule which binds (attaches) to a receptor is called a ligand or ‘signal’, and may be a peptide (short protein) or other small molecule, such as a neurotransmitter, a hormone, a pharmaceutical drug, or a toxin. Each kind of receptor can bind only certain ligand shapes. Each cell typically has many receptors, of many different kinds. Simply put, a receptor functions as a keyhole that opens a neural path when the proper ligand is inserted.

A ligand may be a whole molecule, a functional group, a moiety or even a radical or free ion.

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

Studies on the the shapes and actions of target molecules, especially receptors and enzymes have advanced the understanding of drug action at the binding sites of biological molecules.

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

Some receptor proteins are peripheral membrane proteins.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dynamcs of ‘ligand-target’ interactions can be understood only if we have a working knowledge of protein chemistry, especially enzyme chemistry.

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 amino acids, in different proportions and sequences. Each protein type has its own specific role in the bio-chemic interactions in an organism. Most of the amino acids necessary for the synthesis of proteins are themselves synthesized from their molecular precursers inside the body. A few types of amino acids 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 a vital 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-chemical 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-chemical processes. Such a failure leads to harmful deviations in several bio-chemical 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-chemical 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-chemical pathways, or, if these are beyond self repair, the bio-chemical processes ultimately stop and death happens.

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-chemical processes. Moreover, most of such molecular errors other than genetic origin, arise due to binding of some exogenous or endogenous 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, miasms, poisoning, drugs, food 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 part of 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-chemical 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 configurations that fit 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 structures 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 at the molecular level. Endogenous or exogenous foreign molecules or ions having any functional moieties with 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 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. These types 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. Such substances are known as anti-melabolities.

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

————————————————————————————

What actually happens when potentization is continued ‘higher’ even after crossing avogadro limit or 12C?

Actually, large-sized drug molecules disappear from the potentizing medium much before 12c. By crossing 12c, even the smallest molecules will be removed. 12c will contain only molecular imprints. In order to understand what exactly happens when potentization goes higher and higher, we should study the behavior of supra-molecular nano-aggregates. They can act as ‘seeds’ to induce other water-alcohol molecules to form similar nano-structures. This phenomenon is commonly studied and utilized in making of crystals using ‘seeding’. Crystals are nothing but supra-molecular clusters. A few crystals are added to a solution as ‘seeds’ to induce further supra-molecular assembling and crystallization. When 1 drop of 12c is adding to 99 drops of water-ethyl alcohol, we are actually using molecular imprints as ‘seeds’ to induce the formation of similar molecular imprints.

It is obvious that there is no any special benefit by potentizing ‘higher’ above 12c. There is no any increase in power by going higher. Active principles of all potencies above 12c are molecular imprints, which act same way what ever the potency is. Actually, 12c will be ideal, as it contains molecular imprints formed by direct molecular imprinting, where as in higher potencies it is produced by ‘induced’ molecular assembly

————————————————————————————–

TWO IMPORTANT RESEARCH STUDIES THAT INDIRECTLY VINDICATE THE MIT CONCEPTS OF SCIENTIFIC HOMEOPATHY:

If the concept of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING is right, potentized drug should act not as MIMICS of original drugs, but as OPPOSITES of original drugs. Actually, the essence of Similia Similibus Curentur is all about this OPPOSITE relationship of crude drugs and their potentized forms- former ‘produces’ disease, and latter ‘cures’ the disease. Only MIT scientifically explains this OPPOSITE actions of crude drugs and their potentized forms.

Most of the current ‘theories’ homeopaths maintain that medicinal properties of crude drugs are just ‘transferred’ to the medium during potentization. What ever they call it, – ‘vibrations’, ‘electromagnetic signals’, ‘medicinal memory’, ‘dynamic power’, nano particles’ or anything else, the basic idea is that they can MIMIC the properties of original drugs. Everybody- from Benveniste and Montaigner to IIT scientists were trying to explain homeopathy with this “mimic” theory. Only MIT says potentized drugs act not as ‘mimics’, but as ‘antidotes’ or ‘artificial binding sites’ for original drugs as well as pathogenic molecules SIMILAR to them.

If potentized medicines were really ‘mimicking’ the medicinal properties of parent drugs, they should be able to produce biological effects exactly similar to original drugs. On the other hand, if potentized drugs are experimentally proved to be ANTIDOTES to original drugs, it will strongly vindicate MIT concept of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING involved in homeopathic potentization.

It is obvious that the question whether potentized medicines can antidote the biological effects of parent drugs is of paramount importance in validating MOLECULAR IMPRINTS concept. According to the hypothesis put forward by MIT, potentized medicines contains ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent molecules of parent drugs. As such, these molecular imprints can act as artificial recognition sites for parent molecules, and bind to them, thereby preventing them from interacting with biological targets.

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

STUDY I:

Here I am reproducing research report regarding such a successful experiment published in 2001.

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

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

Through these experiments, the team could prove that both Cad Sulph-30 and 200 were able to combat cadmium induced genotoxic effects in mice. From the results of the reported investigation it is revealed that both Cad Sulph-30 and Cad Sulph-200 showed remarkable potential to reduce genotoxic effects produced by CdCl2. In the study the homeopathic drug apparently enhanced/activated the process of maintaining the structural integrity of chromosomes and sperm either protecting them from the destructive ability of CdCl2 in causing DNA damage or else, by enhancing the process of repair of DNA already damaged by activating specific enzyme systems to repair the damage. Even in the absence of a single original drug molecule both Cad Sulph-30 and 200 elicited spectacular ability of protection/repair to damaged chromosomes and sperm, a fact which would lead one to speculate that the drugs must have acted through the genetic regulatory mechanisms.

STUDY II:

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

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

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

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

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

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

INDIRECTLY, THESE STUDIES STRONGLY SUPPORT IN PROVING THE “MOLECULAR IMPRINTING” HYPOTHESIS PROPOSED BY MIT REGARDING MOLECULAR MECHANISM OF POTENTIZATION AND HOMEOPATHIC THERAPEUTICS.

————————————————————————————

We already know that most of the diseases are caused by endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules binding to various essential biological molecules and inhibiting their normal functioning.

When biological molecules are inhibited, they are prevented from interacting with their natural ligands, where as such interactions are essential for normal vital processes.

Pathogenic molecules block the biological molecules by binding to the binding sites or active sites. This happens when the functional groups of pathogenic molecules are similar in conformation to those of natural ligands.

From homeopathic point of view, it is obvious that natural ligands of biological molecules will be the most appropriate similimum for the pathogenic molecules that may inhibit those biological molecules. That means, molecular imprints of biological ligands will be capable of binding to the pathogenic molecules that may attack those biological molecules. As such, it is possible that potentized biological ligands could be used as powerful therapeutic agents in various kinds of diseases.

This understanding opens up possibilities of developing a whole new range of novel potentized homeopathic drugs from BIOLOGICAL LIGANDS, that could be used as SPECIFIC therapeutic agents on the basis of advanced knowledge of biochemistry and molecular pathology.

Here I am for the first time introducing an idea of revolutionary dimensions, not only for homeopathy, but for whole medical science and pharmaceutical industry. Potentized BIOLOGICAL LIGANDS will be a great leap in establishing homeopathy as a part of modern medical science. It will also make homeopathic prescriptions more SPECIFIC.

WHAT ARE BIOLOGICAL LIGANDS?

Understanding LIGANDS is very important in studying the BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM of homeopathic drug action as proposed by the scientific explanation of homeopathy proposedd by MIT.

In biochemistry and pharmacology, a LIGAND is a substance- a small molecule- that forms a complex by binding with a biomolecule to serve a biological purpose. In protein-ligand binding, ligand usually is a signal triggering molecule, binding to a site on a target protein. In DNA-ligand binding studies, ligand is usually any small molecule or ion, or even a protein that binds to the DNA double helix.

The binding occurs by intermolecular forces, such as ionic bonds, hydrogen bonds and van der Waals forces. The docking (association) is usually reversible (dissociation). Actual irreversible covalent bonding between a ligand and its target molecule is rare in biological systems. In contrast to the meaning in metalorganic and inorganic chemistry, it is irrelevant whether the ligand actually binds at a metal site, as is the case in hemoglobin.

Ligand binding to a receptor (receptor protein) alters its chemical conformation (three dimensional shape). The conformational state of a receptor protein determines its functional state. Ligands include substrates, inhibitors, activators, and neurotransmitters. The tendency or strength of binding is called affinity. Binding affinity is determined not only by direct interactions, but also by solvent effects that can play a dominant indirect role in driving non-covalent binding in solution.

Radioligands are radioisotope labeled compounds are used in vivo as tracers in PET studies and for in vitro binding studies.

The interaction of most ligands with their binding sites can be characterized in terms of a binding affinity. In general, high-affinity ligand binding results from greater intermolecular force between the ligand and its receptor while low-affinity ligand binding involves less intermolecular force between the ligand and its receptor. In general, high-affinity binding involves a longer residence time for the ligand at its receptor binding site than is the case for low-affinity binding. High-affinity binding of ligands to receptors is often physiologically important when some of the binding energy can be used to cause a conformational change in the receptor, resulting in altered behavior of an associated ion channel or enzyme.

A ligand that can bind to a receptor, alter the function of the receptor and trigger a physiological response is called an agonist for that receptor. Agonist binding to a receptor can be characterized both in terms of how much physiological response can be triggered and in terms of the concentration of the agonist that is required to produce the physiological response. High-affinity ligand binding implies that a relatively low concentration of a ligand is adequate to maximally occupy a ligand-binding site and trigger a physiological response.

Various pathogenic molecules and drug molecules work by binding and blocking upon the biological molecules, thereby preventing the normal interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands. LIGANDS that facilitate biological actions are called AGONISTS, and those inhibiting biological actions are called ANTAGONISTS. LIGANDS are also called as ‘inhibitors’ and ‘activators’ according to the roles they play.

ANY endogenous or exogenous molecule may be considered a LIGAND, if it can bind to a BIOLOGICAL MOLECULE and modify its action.

By BIOLOGICAL LIGANDS, we refer to various endogenous molecules and ions that play essential roles in normal biological processes by acting upon biological molecules. Cytokines, signalling molecules, hormones, neuromediators, co-factors, vitamins, neurotransmitters, free radicals— list of biological ligands will be very exhaustive.

————————————————————————————-

TWO major ‘limitations’ of homeopathy are: 1. Homeopathy cannot cure diseases originating from ‘primary’ nutritional deficiencies, unless those deficiencies are provided for through proper nutrition or supplementation. 2. Homeopathy cannot cure diseases originating from defective genetic substance, unless those defects are not caused by errors in epigenetic factors of genetic expressions. All diseases other than those belonging to these two categories can be successfully treated using well-selected homeopathic drugs in potentized forms.

————————————————————————————–

Drugs potentized above 12C will not contain any drug molecule. Active principles of such a preparation are ‘molecular imprints’. If a drug substance in its crude form contained different chemical molecules, its potentized form also will contain different types of molecular imprints that represent all those different individual chemical molecules. These individual molecular imprints cannot interact each other even while co-existing.

Molecular imprints can interact only with its specific parent drug molecule, or any other molecule having conformations exactly similar to the parent molecules. When introduced into the body as therapeutic agent, these molecular imprints act in their individual capacities, by binding to specific pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity.

Actually, molecular imprints act as ‘artificial key holes’ for the specific pathogenic molecules. In the absence of exactly ‘fitting’ pathogenic molecule, these molecular imprints remain inactive, since they are made up of only alcohol and water molecules.

Since molecular imprints can co-exist without interacting each other, and since they do not have action in the body if ‘fitting’ pathogenic molecules are not present, it is obvious that there will not be any harm if we combine two or more drugs in potencies above 12C. There is no need of any hesitation or confusion on this point.

Kindly do not try to ‘teach’ me by quoting from ‘aphorisms’ or ‘words of masters’. I am not interpreting organon here. I am only saying what I think on the basis of ‘my understanding’ of homeopathy in the light of scientific knowledge available to me. Anybody is free to disagree. I am ready for rational discussions, but not available for ‘blind’ arguments.. please…

————————————————————————————–

Once modern biochemistry advances to such a stage of perfection that the molecular pathology and biochemical mechanisms of all diseases are explored and revealed to the homeopaths, and pharmaceutical chemistry advances to such a stage that the molecular structure and biological actions of all drug substances are clearly known, homeopathic practice will gradually evolve from present ‘symptom-based’ and ‘evidence-based’ practice into ‘science-based’ and ‘knowledge-based’ practice. I know, such an evolution will be a gradual, very slow and long-term process. At that stage, homeopathy will be universally recognized as an advanced branch of modern molecular medicine, and rightfully designated as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics.

————————————————————————————

Research shows that a dysregulated hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA axis) plays a role in the pathology of major depression. Recently, there has been additional research showing that the HPA axis also contributes to the pathology of bipolar disorder. One study found an increase in cortisol in major depression patients and in bipolar patients in both manic and depressed phases. An additional study found that there were increases in cortisol in both active bipolar patients and remissive bipolar patients indicating an overall deficit in HPA axis functioning in people with bipolar disorder.

Based on this observation, I have been using a combination therapy of CORTISOL 30 and PITUTRIN 30 TDS for long periods in BIPOLAR patients, with excellent results. You can try it without any fear of harmful effects.

———————————————————————————–

What one claims as his “experience” does not make him more wise, if he cannot understand, interpret and explain the experiences rationally and scientifically. Those FIVE poor blind men of our proverbial fable, who ‘found the elephant’ were also talking about their “experiences”! Do not try to create ‘principles’ and ‘theories’ about homeopathy on the basis of BLIND “experiences” of yourself or even any other ‘master’. First of all, learn to interpret your experiences scientifically before making them ‘principles’.

————————————————————————————

‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ means, if a drug substance can PRODUCE a peculiar combination of symptoms when applied in crude form in a healthy individual, that substance in potentized form can CURE diseases in any person if SIMILAR combinations of symptoms are present in him.

In order that the DRUG SYMPTOMS and DISEASE SYMPTOMS become similar, it is obvious that SAME biological molecules are affected and similar molecular errors could be produced by DISEASE-causing molecules and DRUG molecules. In order to affect similar biological molecules, drug substance should contain some molecules that carry some FUNCTIONAL GROUPS exactly similar to the functional groups of disease-causing molecules, so that both could bind to similar biological targets and produce similar molecular inhibitions.

POTENTIZATION is a process by which the individual constituent molecules are subjected to MOLECULAR IMPRINTING, through a process of ‘guest-host’ interactions, where drug molecules act as guests and water-ethyl alcohol molecules act as hosts. By the time potentization crosses avogadro limit or 12c dilution, all drug molecules will be removed and only MOLECULAR IMPRINTS will remain. Molecular imprints are hydrogen-bonded supramolecular nanoclusters of water-ethyl alcohol molecules, into which three-dimensional conformations of individual drug molecules are engraved.

When applied as therapeutic agent by selecting as similimum, these molecular imprints can act as selective artificial binding sites for pathogentic molecules having complementary configuration. Thus, the molecular imprints deactivate the pathogenic molecules, thereby relieving the biological molecules from the molecular inhibitions. Removal of biological molecular inhibitions amount to CURE of the disease.

This is the simple, rational and scientific truth involved in similia similibus curentur. It is not difficult to understand, if you have an open mind and basic scientific knowledge. You cannot become a scientific physician without understanding these fundamental things about homeopathy

————————————————————————————-

You are totally mistaken, if you think finding similimum using ‘totality of symptoms’ means matching of ‘ALL symptoms of a drug’ with ‘ALL symptoms of a patient’. Actually it means, taking maximum available ‘total symptoms’ from the patient, and finding a drug that has this ‘totality of symptoms’ in its drug pathogenesis. By ‘total symptoms’, we does not mean ‘all symptoms’, but any basic abnormal symptom from the patient taken in its totality, by combining it with all its ‘accessories’ such as causations, locations, sensations, presentations, modalities and concomitants.

————————————————————————————-

A Research Study Disproving The Role Of ‘Vital Force’ In Homeopathic Drug Action

The MODEL proposed by MIT regarding biological mechanism of homeopathic drug action does not consider VITAL FORCE as a factor. This approach totally disagrees with the models most homeopaths propagate as ‘true homeopathy’. MIT considers any process of cure as a MOLECULAR level process, and explains ‘similia similibuscurentur’ in terms of modernbiochemistry.

According to ‘classical homeopathy, disease and cure take place only at the level of ‘vital force’, which is an ‘immaterial’, ‘spirit like’ force animating the living organism. According to this theory, potentized drugs should act only up on the living organism as a whole, animated by ‘vital force’ and having ‘mind’ and ‘nerve tissue’.

If this vitalistic model of homeopathy is right, potentized drug should ACT only on LIVING ORGANISMS, having mind and nervous tissue. Any evidence that proves potentized drug can act on CHEMICAL MOLECULES devoid of nerve cells, mind and vital force, will inevitablyprove this ‘vital force’ theory wrong.

Now we have a RESEARCH report before us that clearly PROVES that potentized drugs act on biological molecules through a ‘material’ mechanism similar to the action of modern drugs. That means, we have to explain the dynamics of homeopathic therapeutics in accordance with the principles of modern biochemistry and molecular medicine. This report ratifies the model proposed by MIT, which explains the biological mechanism of potentized drugs in terms of molecular level interactions.

This study also proved that potentized homeopathic drugs cannot produce any BAD EFFECTS upon healthy cells, which disproves the theory that homeopathic drugs used without indications may harm the organism. MIT always maintains that molecular imprints cannot PRODUCE molecular inhibitions, but only REMOVE molecular inhibitions.

I am referring to a recent study published in the February 2010 issue of the International Journal of Oncology has documented that homeopathic remedies applied to breast cancer cells caused significant cell death, while resulting in nearly indiscernible harm to normal breast cells. The study, done by the respected MD Anderson Cancer Center, was entitled, ‘Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells’. (“Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells”; Frenkel et al, International .Journal of Oncology, 36: 395-403, 2010)
Report says:
“This reported study was done same way as any new chemotherapeutic drugs are tested. The researchers proved that homeopathic remedies have similar effects to chemotherapy on breast cancer cells but without affecting normal cells. This is the first study that evaluated the effect of homeopathic remedies on breast cancer cells using same methodology used for chemotherapeutic drugs”.

“Modern automated equipment was used to test the effects of four homeopathic remedies on two adenocarcinoma cell lines. Controls of normal breast cells and cells treated only with solvent were done”. “Cell lines were cultured and treated with solvent or solvent with one of four remedies added: Carcinosin 30C, Conium maculatum 3C, Phytolacca decandra 200C, and Thuja occidentalis 30C”.

“The results were remarkable. The viability of cells treated only with solvent were inhibited, on average, by 20-30% in the three cell lines, to a maximum of 35% at the longest exposures. All four remedies further inhibited viability in the two breast cancer cell lines, but did not show a significant reduction in the normal cell lines. The amount varied by cell line, remedy, concentration of remedy, and time. One of the cancer cell lines was less viable in the face of homeopathic remedies than theother.”

“The two most effective remedies on these cell lines were Carcinosin and Phytolacca. At 5µl/ml, they reduced viability in one cancer cell line at 48 & 72 hours by 50-65%, and at 10µl/ml, viability was reduced by 65-70%. In the other cancer cell line at the same times, 5µl/ml concentrations reduced viability by 60-75% and at 10µl/mo, viability was reduced by 70-80%. The maximum viability reduction by solvent alone in the two cancer cell lines was 30-35%.”

“The effects of all the remedies on the normal cell line were nearly indistinguishable from the solvent’s effect, which showed potentized drugs has no action upon normal cells.”

MY COMMENTS:

Let us examine the implications of this scientific study on homeopathic theory and practice from a different angle. In my opinion, this scientific study has following implications upon homeopathy:

First of all, this study proved the efficacy of potentized homeopathic drugs on cultured samples of cancer cells, thereby providing a fitting answer to the distracters of homeopathy who argue that potentized drugs have only placebo effect.

This study done by Frenkel and his team provides compelling evidence that homeopathic remedies have an impact on living cells, and may indicate an ability to distinguish between healthy and diseased tissues. It doesn’t demonstrate how homeopathic remedies work,though it does provide some evidence for cellular changes they produce in some cancerous cells.

At the very least, Frenkel’s team has shown that homeopathy and its remedies work without any role of ‘placebo effect’ as some people wrongly allege. Nobody can say ‘placebo’ can work on biological molecules outside the organism.

Secondly, even though my inference may not be acceptable to ‘classical homeopaths’, this study scientifically disproves the homeopathic theory regarding mode of action of potentized drugs, and role of ‘vital force’ in the action of potentized drugs.

Most homeopaths maintain that the ‘dynamic medicinal energy’ of potentized drugs act upon the organism through ‘nerve signals’, which is proved incorrect through this study, since ‘cancer cell cultures’ used for here do not contain nerve cells.

According to ‘classical homeopaths’, ‘dynamic drug energy’ acts up on ‘vital force’, which cures the disease first at ‘mental level’. It is believed that the ‘mind’ in turn cures the disease in the ‘physical body’. There is no ‘mind’ or ‘vital force’ present in cell cultures, and as such, this study totally disproves the whole theory of ‘vital force’ in the homeopathic drug action.

According to ‘classical homeopathy, disease and cure takes place only at the level of ‘vital force’, which is an ‘immaterial’, ‘spirit like’ force animating the living organism. According to this theory, potentized drugs should act only up on the living organism as a whole, animated by ‘vital force’ and having ‘mind’ and ‘nerve tissue’.

The present study is not conducted on living individuals, but in vitro cell cultures, same way as modern chemotherapeutic drugs are tested. Cell cultures do not contain nerve cells, mind or vital force, which totally disproves the theory of vital force, nerves and mind as factors in homeopathic therapeutic process

Thirdly, this study has documented that homeopathic remedies applied to breast cancer cells caused significant cell death, while resulting in no harm to normal breast cells. That shows potentized homeopathic drugs have no action upon healthy cells, which disproves the theory that homeopathic drugs used without indications may harm the organism.

Lastly, since this in vitro study was conducted in the same way as modern chemotherapeutic drugs, it clearly proves that potentized drugs act on biological molecules through a mechanism similar to the action of modern drugs. That means, we have to explain the dynamics of homeopathic therapeutics in accordance with the principles of modern biochemistry and molecular medicine.

I think this study is a decisive step in PROVING the biological model of homeopathic drug actions proposed by MIT, and the over all the scientific understanding of homeopathy.

————————————————————————————-

One of the basic questions listed to be proved as part of scientific verification of MIT concepts was, whether potentized drugs, devoid of any original drug molecules, differ from untreated diluent medium in its molecular level structure. If MIT is right, they should obviously differ, since ‘molecular imprinting’ is envisaged as formation of hydrogen-bonded supra-molecular nano-structures of water-ethyl alcohol molecules.

An elaborate study conducted by a research group, eventhough without any idea of molecular imprinting involved in potentization, rightly observes that the homeopathic potencies and their original diluent medium differ from each other with respect to the number of H-bonded water species and their H-bonding strengths. Interpretations and conclusions of authors were different from that of mine, but that does not lessen the historical relevance of this study in the scientific understanding and explaining of homeopathy.

I think this study contributes much in proving MIT concepts right. Even though the authors could not understand the real process of “MOLECULAR IMPRINTING” involved in the phenomenon, their observation amply proves that the supra-molecular structure of potentized medicines differs from ethyl alcohol/water mixture, even though their chemical composition remained the same. That means, through the process of potentization, supra-molecular structure of ethyl alcohol/water mixture has undergone fundamental changes.

Obviously, it is through these structural changes that the medicinal properties of drug molecules are transferred to the diluent medium. This proven difference in the structure of potentized medicines from their original medium, the specificity of medicinal properties exhibited by potentized medicines, and the fact that potentized medicines exhibit medicinal properties exactly opposite and antidoting to that of parent drugs can be satisfactorily explained only on the basis of “molecular imprinting’ as proposed by MIT.

This remarkable study regarding the variation in Fourier Transform Infrared Spectra of some homeopathic potencies and their diluent media, conducted by N.C.SUKUL, Ph.D., SUDESHNA GHOSH, M.Sc., A. SUKUL, Ph.D., and S.P. SINHABABU, Ph.D. It is published in THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, Volume 11, Number 5, 2005, pp. 807–812. The report is available at this link:http://www.homeopathy.org/research/basic/ acm-2005-11_11.pdf

————————————————————————————–

BIOLOGICAL molecular processes being inter-related and inter-dependent, a particular ‘molecular error’ happening in a particular biochemical pathway may inevitably lead to cascading of molecular errors in various related biochemical pathways. This ‘cascading’ effect is expressed as ‘trains’ of symptoms called ‘symptom complexes’.

By carefully observing the ‘symptom complexes’ existing in a patient, and comparing them with ‘symptom complexes’ known to be produced by various drug substances, we can infer the exact type and character of molecular errors underlying them, and select an appropriate remedial agent that in ‘molecular imprints forms’ can remove those molecular errors. ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ actually embodies this scientific truth.

————————————————————————————-

Since ‘life’ consist of highly complex and self-organized chains of inter-related biochemical processes involving interactions of diverse biological molecules, DISEASE also should be understood at molecular level.

Every state of DISEASE has an underlying ‘deficiency’ or ‘molecular error’ created by an endogenous or exogenous factor that inhibits the normal functioning of any of the biological molecule playing a role in the vital processes.

These ‘molecular errors’ lead to deviations in related biochemical pathways which amount to a state of pathology. Such molecular errors are expressed in the living organism through subjective and objective manifestations we call ‘SYMPTOMS’.

———————————————————————————–

If we could identify the exact molecular errors involved in a state of pathology and its homeopathic remedial agent by any advanced KNOWLEDGE other than observation and comparing of symptoms, I do not see anything wrong or ‘unhomeopathic’ in selecting a ‘similimum’ by using such knowledge.

What I mean is, ‘matching disease symptoms and drugs symptoms’ is not the ONLY way to decide a similimum. If we know the exact pathogenic molecules that caused a given pathological condition, we can select the molecular imprints of that pathogenic molecule as the homeopathic therapeutic agent without any matching of symptoms.

Actually, this is what happens when we prescribe various specifics, nosodes and sarcodes which are not selected by ‘matching of symptoms’. Autopathic and tautopathic prescriptions are also not based on similarity of symptoms. When we prescribe PEPSINUM 30 for gastritis, it is not based on ‘similarity of symptoms’, but the knowledge that PEPSIN can cause gastritis. Many wonderful homeopathic prescriptions could be made without any ‘matching of disease symptoms and drug symptoms’.

————————————————————————————

According to my view, ‘similimum’ does not necessarily mean a drug selected ONLY on the basis of ‘similarity of symptoms’. ’Similimum’ should exactly mean ‘similarity between pathological molecular errors’ and ‘drug-induced molecular errors’, or ‘conformational similarity between pathogenic molecules and drug molecules’. SIMILARITY OF SYMPTOMS is only one of the many ways of identifying the ‘similimum’.

———————————————————————————–

If I am asked to define ‘similimum’, I would say similimum is the drug that contains ALL the diverse molecules that could produce ALL the diverse molecular inhibitions and symptoms in healthy organism EXACTLY SIMILAR to the molecular inhibitions and symptoms existing in the patient before us, by binding to same biological target molecules.

Potentized forms of the similimum would contain molecular imprints of constituent molecules of the drug substance, which can bind to the pathogenic molecules due to complementary conformational affinity and remove the pathological molecular inhibitions.

To be a PERFECT SIMILIMUM, our drug should contain ALL the diverse molecules that could produce ALL the diverse molecular inhibitions and symptoms, so that in potentized form it would contain ALL the diverse molecular imprints required to remove ALL the diverse molecular inhibitions in the patient.

If the selected drug does not contain ALL the diverse molecular imprints required for the patient, it will be PARTIAL SIMILIMUM. In such cases, we can make a PERFECT SIMILIMUM by combining two or more PARTIAL SIMILIMUMS indicated by the symptoms.

————————————————————————————

When a well selected drug fails to produce desired effects, or curative process come to standstill after initial improvement in spite of repetition of doses, most people tend to change potencies or altogether change the drug itself.

My suggestion is, instead of changing the drug or potency, use the same drug in same potency from another sample procured from another source. It will work.

For example, when nux is indicated drug, and given it in 30c with good response. After a few repititions, it becomes standstill. Then you try NUX 30 from another source. It works, same way as you get response from using higher potency. When you get results from changing potencies, it is actually the change in sample and source that work.

Every sample of nux may not contain all types of molecular imprints of constituent molecules of nux vomica. When we change sample, the patient gets those imprints which were absent in first sample.

It is not at all realistic to imagine that the same drug sample of Nux Vomica used for proving is always used for preparing its potencies also. It may have been procured and prepared from another location, climate, environment, time and circumstances. All of these factor may necessarily influence their chemical constitution also.

Contaminants and pollutants also differ with time, place and persons who handled it. Yet, we are obliged to call all these different samples as Nux Vomica, and use it as same drug, believing that it is a ‘single drug’!

In reality, potentized Nux Vomica we get now from pharmacies are prepared from samples very much different from the samples used for proving it two hundred years back. It might not necessarily be the same contaminations and foreign molecules which happen to be mixed with the drug during procurement and potentization. Entirely new type of impurities and foreign molecules, different from proven samples, shall definitely get mixed with drugs while potentizing. Naturally, these contaminants and foreign molecules also get subjected to potentization along with original drug molecules.

It is evident that the homeopathic potencies of Nux Vomica we get from pharmacies contain the potentized forms of these new contaminant molecules also. In other words, they are mixed with potentized forms of these unknown substances, entirely different from those were subjected to proving. We cannot ignore the fact that we are not using potencies of same drug, that have been proved earlier and recorded in the materia medica, eventhough we call it with same name. It is composed of an entirely different mixture, much more different in molecular structure from the one subjected to original proving. We use the potentized form of this new combination, on the basis of symptoms produced by another combination earlier, using the therapeutic principle ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’. Is not this realization somewhat emberassing?

Unless we provide convincing solutions to the ethical, theoretical and practical problems raised by this situation, it would be unfair to continue claiming that we are using ‘single drugs’, only because our ‘master’ said so!

————————————————————————————-

I think many excellent homeopathic prescriptions are spoiled only due to our ‘theoretical’ hesitation to repeat the doses in adequate intervals, and these failures are wrongly attributed to ‘wrong drug’ selection or ‘wrong potency’ selection. We could have avoided such failures by repeating the doses frequently so as to maintain thedrug action at optimum levels to effect a complete cure.

My concepts regarding ‘repetitions’ come from the scientific understanding of potentization as ‘molecular imprinting’ and the active principles of potentized medicines as ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent drugmolecules used for potentization.

According to my view, Molecular Imprints are the active principles of potentized drugs. These ‘molecular imprints’ act by binding to the pathological molecules having ‘complementary’ configuration, thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions and effect cure.

It is always possible that these ‘molecular imprints’ could themselves get antidoted or deactivated by by molecules or ions having complementary configurations. That means, ‘molecular imprints’ we introduced into the body may get deactivated by pathological molecules or other molecules having congigurational affinity. Molecules and ions of metabolites, vegetable alkaloids, enzymes, food additives, environmental toxins, infectious agents, bacterial-viral toxins and a host of other agents may antidote these ‘molecular imprints’. Such antidoting may hinder or reduce the therapeutic effects of potentized drugs used as similimum. Hence, it is necessary to replenish the supply of ‘molecular imprints’ by repeating doses at frequent intervals to ensure a complete cure. That is my point.

————————————————————————————-

Once you understand the scientific explanation of homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, instantly you start experiencing the self-confidence it provides, the great empowerment and transformation it brings to your over-all outlook and practice as as a homeopath.

Once you understand homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, and start practicing it in this light, you will realize that your whole erstwhile perceptions of homeopathy is undergoing a wonderful change- your methods, targets and approaches changing radically. You will realize that you are no more a ‘healer’ practicing a ‘belief healing system’, but a proud scientific medical professional, capable of understanding and scientifically explaining your tools and principles to anybody. Your language becomes scientific, your thoughts become rational and your explanations becomes logical and convincing. You will no more have to talk about miracles, wonders, riddles and mysteries of homeopathy. Experience this change yourselves!

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you would realize that any individual patient coming to you will have diverse types of molecular errors in him, caused by diverse types of endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules, and as such, diverse types of molecular imprints will be required to remove all these multitudes of molecular inhibitions to effect a complete cure. In most cases, all these diverse molecular imprints required for the patient will not be available in a ‘single’ drug, and hence, we will have to select more than one drug according to similarity of symptom groups, and apply them simultaneously, alternatingly or serially as decided by the physician. In my opinion, there is no harm even if they are applied together.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, all your confusions over ‘miasms’ could be resolved by perceiving miasms as chronic disease dispositions caused by the off-target actions of antibodies generated against exogenous or endogenous proteins including infectious agents. It would help you in scientifically understanding and treating various types of chronic diseases including auto immune diseases

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that concepts such as ‘internal essence of drug substance’, ‘dynamic drug energy’, ‘drug personality’ etc are all scientifically baseless, and that the medicinal property of drug substance is decided by the structure and properties of constituent molecules, where as the medicinal properties of potentized drugs are decided by the 3-d configuration of molecular imprints they contain.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that when applied as similimum, potentized drug does not act as a ‘whole’ unit, but it is the individual constituent ‘molecular imprints’ that independently bind to the pathogenic molecules having configurational affinity, remove pathological molecular inhibitions and cure the disease. You will realize that you need not worry over single/multiple drugs issue any more.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that during ‘drug proving’, drug substance does not act as a ‘whole’ unit, but it is the individual constituent drug molecules that independently act up on the biological molecules, cause molecular inhibitions and produce symptoms.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that since molecular imprints do not interact each other, and since they act as individual units when applied as therapeutic agents, there cannot by any harm even if we mix two or more potentized drugs together, or prescribe them simultaneously- they will work.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that even so-called ‘single drugs’ are not really single, but combinations of diverse types of independent ‘molecular imprints’, representing diverse types of drug molecules, acting as independent units upon pathogenic molecules having configurational affinity and removing molecular inhibitions

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that ‘molecular imprints’ forms of drugs cannot interact each other, and as such, one cannot antidote another, or act inimical to each other.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that there is no chance of so-called aggravations, suppressions, provings or any other harm even if ‘wrong’ drug, ‘wrong’ potency or ‘untimely repetitions are used, if you are using only ‘molecular imprints’ forms of drugs.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you realize that selecting drug, potency, dose and follow up and getting cure are not a so much complex things as we are made to believe.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics,you realize no more ‘riddles and mysteries’ remain in homeopathy that could not be explained.

Only Molecular Imprints Therapeutics provides a rational explanation of homeopathy, fitting well to modern science and our every day experiences in application of homeopathy.

————————————————————————————

In many western countries, homeopathy is taught in ‘alternative medicine schools’, as part of their CAM learning programs. Homeopathy is considered by them not as a ‘medical science’, but as one among their ‘holistic’ or ‘spiritual’ healing practices known as ‘energy medicine’. And these people appear in public forums as ‘masters’, ‘representatives’ and ‘international spokes persons’ of homeopathy!

HOMEOPATHS coming out of these ‘colleges’ practice not only homeopathy, but a ‘mixture’ or ‘integration’ of spiritual healing, Naturopathy, traditional chinese medicine, accupuncture, pranic healing, massage therapy, ayurveda, chiropractic, chromotherapy, phototherapy, magnetotherapy, gem therapy, astrology, biofield therapy, reiki, hypnotherapy, relaxation, yoga, meditation, herbalism, flower essence, osteopathy, breathing therapy, aromatherapy, reflexology, radionics, dowsing, music therapy, shamanic, and a host of other ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES- most of them pure OCCULT or QUACKERY.

Situations in certain countries like INDIA is entirely different, where homeopathy is considered an independent MEDICAL SYSTEM. In India, homeopathy is taught only in homeopathic colleges controlled by a central homeopathy council constituted on the basis of a parliamentary act. Homeopathy education and practice are under the strict control of state, exactly similar to modern medicine. Syllabus and curriculum for homeopathy courses are designed in a way fitting to a SCIENTIFIC MEDICAL SYSTEM. Homeopaths graduating from these colleges practice as SCIENTIFIC PHYSICIANS- not as HEALERS. They never promote any ALTERNATIVE therapies by ‘mixing’ up with homeopathy practice.

Homeopathic educational and practicing system in INDIA could be used as an ideal model for homeopathy in all countries. Such a re-modelling will help WORLD homeopathy to come out of CAM UMBRELLA, and establish as an independent and SCIENTIFIC medical system.

————————————————————————————-

Homeopaths should realize that VITAL FORCE and DYNAMIC ENERGY concepts are the greatest stumbling blocks that prevent homeopathy from getting recognized as a MEDICAL SCIENCE.

We have to explain homeopathy in scientific terms, using scientific paradigms, in a way fitting to the modern BIOCHEMISTRY, PHARMACOLOGY and LIFE SCIENCES, and prove it using SCIENTIFIC METHODS.

WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS, IF WE WE WANT HOMEOPATHY TO SURVIVE IN THIS ERA OF SCIENTIFIC AWARENESS AND ENLIGHTENMENT. BY RESISTING SUCH A TRANSFORMATION, YOU ARE DIGGING THE GRAVE FOR HOMEOPATHY!!

If you cannot say an emphatic ‘NO’ to ‘ENERGY MEDICINE HOMEOPATHY’ of all shades and colors, you cannot LEARN, PRACTICE and PROPAGATE homeopathy as a MEDICAL SCIENCE. You cannot effectively communicate with scientific community as EQUALS, and say HOMEOPATHY IS SCIENCE- NOT FAITH HEALING OR OCCULT.

————————————————————————————–

Only MIT concepts can RATIONALLY answer the fundamental question “what is the active MATERIAL FACTOR of potentized drugs”, and propose a viable BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM for its therapeutic actions, in a way that could be subjected to validation by SCIENTIFIC METHODS.

Earlier the homeopathy community realize the importance and implications of MIT for the survival and advancement of homeopathy, the better. If you fail or hesitate by prejudices to understand and accept this wonderful concept, homeopathy will be the ultimate loser, NOT ME.

You cannot dream about making homeopathy SCIENTIFIC, and getting recognized as a MEDICAL SCIENCE, unless you are ready to abandon the UNSCIENTIFIC concepts of VITAL FORCE and DYNAMIC DRUG ENERGY.

————————————————————————————

Homeopaths should be aware of a hard truth: Without providing a DIRECT and convincing answer to the fundamental question “what is the active MATERIAL FACTOR of potentized drugs”, and without proposing a viable BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM for its therapeutic actions, in a way that could be subjected to validation by SCIENTIFIC METHODS, there is no hope for homeopathy to SURVIVE in an enlightened modern knowledge society.

———————————————————————————–

Success in homeopathic practice depends up on physician’s skills to collect ‘complete symptoms’ that would indicate most appropriate similimum.

First of all, we should be capable of differentiating between ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ symptoms.

‘Normal’ symptoms are those which represent ‘normal’ physiological processes in organism, which have no role in determining a similimum. Normal thirst, normalperspiration, normal bowel movements, normal appetite, normal sleep, normal emotions, normal body temperature, normal thermal responses etc etc.

Normal thirst represents normal physiology. But, if a person is thirstless in conditions where he should be thirsty, for example, when exposed in hot atmosphere for long time, it shows an abormality. To be extremely thirsty in very cold climate is also abnormal. Feeling extremely hot in chilly climates abnormal, and feeling chilly in very hot climate is also abnormal. Perspiring in hot climate is normal, but in cold climate is abnormal. Soft stool passed with difficulty is abnormal, but hard stool passed with difficulty is normal.

‘Abnormal’ symptoms are those symptoms that represent an ‘abnormal’ state of affairs in the organism- or, a molecular level pathology. It is these ‘abnormal’ symptoms that decide our selection of similimum. Abnormal thermal reactions, abnormal emotions, abnormal body temperature, abnormal appetite, abnormal thirst, abnormal sleep, abnormal perspiration, abnormal behaviors etc etc.

Identifying ‘abnormal’ symptoms is a tough task, if we are not aware of ‘normal physiology’ that are represented by ‘normal symptoms’.

Next stage is, identifying ‘basic symptoms’ and ‘accessory symptoms’.

A ‘basic symptom’, such as headache, joint pain, abdominal pain or any such ‘complaints’ for which a person seeks medical aid, becomes a valuable homeopathic symptom, only when it is made ‘complete’ by adding with their ‘characteristic’ ‘accessory’ symptoms.

‘Accessory symptoms’ are factors that make a ‘basic’ symptom a ‘complete’ one.

The word ‘accessory’ means something that ‘adds completeness’ to something else. In that sense an ‘accessory symptom’ might be a symptom that gives ‘completeness’ for another symptom. If a ‘headache’ is ‘amel by cold applications’, ‘amel by cold applications’ is the ‘accessory’ of the symptom ‘headache’, thereby making it a ‘complete symptom’.

Locations, presentations, sensations, modalities, concomittants, extensions etc constitute the broad class of ‘accessory symptoms’. Such factors make the symptoms ‘complete’. Accessory factors are also known as ‘symptom qualifications’. ‘ACCESSORY’ seems to be more meaningful and appropriate.

Accessory symptoms may be either ‘essential/common’ or characteristic/uncommon’. We are concerned with only ‘characteristic/uncommon’ accessories. A joint pain increasing by movement is common, but relieving by movement is uncommon. Sensation of heat relieving by cold application is common, but relieving by heat is uncommon. A joint pain increasing by movement is common, but relieving by movement is uncommon. Sensation of heat relieving by cold application is common, but relieving by heat is uncommon. Toothache relieved by chewing is uncommon, but increased by chewing is common.

Once the patient describes a ‘basic symptom’, homeopath should be always on the look out for as many related characteristic accessories that would make it a ‘complete symptom’. Converting trivial ‘basic symptoms’ into valuable ‘complete’ symptoms need much observation and reasoning skills on the part of homeopath, which decides his success as homeopath.

We should ignore Normal Basic Symptoms, and collect only Abnormal Basic Symptoms. We should ignore Essential/Common Accessory Symptoms, and collect only Characteristic/Uncommon Accessory Symptoms. This is the secret of successful case taking.

Here is the success formula for finding perfect similimum:

Abnormal Basic symptom+ Characteristic Accessory symptoms = Complete Homeopathic symptom >>> Perfect Similimum.

CAUSATION- LOCATION- PRESENTATIONS- SENSATION- MODALITIES- CONCOMITANTS(EXTENSIONS, ALTERNATIONS). THESE ARE THE SIX CATEGORIES OF ACCESSORY SYMPTOMS THAT QUALIFY EACH ‘ABNORMAL BASIC SYMPTOM’ TO MAKE IT A ‘COMPLETE HOMEOPATHIC SYMPTOM’. COLLECTING AS MUCH ‘COMPLETE HOMEOPATHIC SYMPTOMS’ IN A CASE IS THE KEY TO SUCCESSFUL PRESCRIPTION.

First step in case taking is distinguishing between ‘ABNORMAL’ and ‘NORMAL’ from among the BASIC SYMPTOMS expressed by the patient. We need to consider only ABNORMAL ones, since they are the representatives of pathological molecular errors existing in the organism

Next step is, collecting the available ACCESSORY symptoms (CLOSMC) relating to each ABNORMAL BASIC SYMPTOM.

Next step is, making COMPLETE HOMEOPATHIC SYMPTOMS by combining each ABNORMAL BASIC SYMPTOM with their ACCESSORY SYMPTOMS.

Each COMPLETE HOMEOPATHIC SYMPTOM forms a separate SYMPTOM COMPLEX, that represent a particular MOLECULAR ERROR in the organism.

After collecting and preparing maximum number of SYMPTOM COMPLEXES, we can repertorize each SYMPTOM COMPLEX separately and find a SIMILIMUM for each.

If all SYMPTOM COMPLEXES of a patient indicates SAME drug, it is happy and welcome. If different SYMPTOM COMPLEXES indicates DIFFERENT DRUGS, we will have to consider a MULTIPLE DRUG prescription.

If you succeed in identifying at least ONE ‘abnormal’ symptom in your patient, and collect at least THREE of its associated accessory symptoms such as sensations, modalities and concomittants, you can confidently make a successful working homeopathic prescription.

————————————————————————————-

Diseases, other than those originating from genuine nutritional deficiencies and genetic abnormalities, are caused by diverse types of exogenous or endogenous pathological molecules, which inhibit the normal actions of essential biological molecules by binding to them. Exactly, it is the ‘functional groups’ of pathological molecules that bind to biological molecules and produce pathological inhibitions, which are expressed through subjective and objective symptoms we call as ‘diseases’.

Constituent chemical molecules of a drug substance interact with our body by binding their diverse types of ‘functional groups’ or ‘moieties’ with specific biological target molecules in our organism and modifying their actions. This interaction is determined by configurational as well as charge affinities between those functional groups and biological target molecules. It is the number of types of biologically active ‘functional groups’ or ‘moieties’ available in a drug substance that decides whether it is a ‘single’ drug or ‘multiple’ drug.

Different types of ‘functional groups’ of individual molecules contained in a drug substance bind to different biological target molecules, and produce different types of modifications. It is this ‘modifying’ or ‘inhibitory’ actions that produce molecular states of pathologies during drug proving, which are expressed through diverse types of subjective and objective symptoms.

Similar functional groups being part of different drug molecules of even different drug substances can bind to same target molecules and produce similar bio-molecular modifications and similar symptoms.

When a drug molecule has functional groups or moieties similar to those of a pathological molecule, they can attack same biological targets, and symptoms they produce would be similar. In such a situation, the drug molecule is said to be ‘similimum’ to that pathological molecule. Obviously, according to scientific perspective, we should understand the concept of ‘similimum’ in terms of similarity of ‘functional groups’ or ‘moieties’ of pathological molecules and drug molecules.

Potentization is exactly a process of controlled ‘host-guest’ interactions, by which the three-dimensional configuration of ‘functional groups’ of individual constituent molecules of drug substances (host) are imprinted into a hydrogen-bonded supra-molecular matrix of water-ethyl alcohol molecules (guest) as ‘nanocavities’.

These nanocavities or ‘molecular imprints’ can bind to and deactivate any functional group having configuration similar to that of original ‘host’ molecule imprinted into it. As such, a potentized drug can act as biological antidote towards any pathological molecule, if the drug and disease were capable of producing ‘similar’ symptoms, which actually mean, they contain similar ‘functional groups’.

I hope, scientific meaning of ‘similia similibus curentur’ is well explained here, and scientifically viable answers provided for the THREE fundamental questions of homeopathy- what happens during potentization, what are the active principles of potentized drugs, and what is the exact molecular mechanism by which potentized drugs produce a therapeutic effect. Answers to all other secondary questions could be easily evolved once you comprehend these fundamental answers.

—————————————————————————————–

Whenever any of your professional counter part from modern medicine argues with you saying that homeopathy is unscientific, try to explain homeopathy to him in terms of MIT concepts.

Explain him the difference between modern medicine and homeopathy in terms of difference between ‘molecular forms’ of drugs and ‘molecular imprints’ forms of drugs. Explain the difference in the molecular level biological mechanisms of actions of both forms of drugs.

You will instantly feel a change in his attitude, approach and language, becoming more interested and responsive in the discussions. He can understand MIT concepts very easily, as it communicates in the same scientific language he talks about modern medicine.

Only thing is, he will ask a lot of new questions, demand more explanation on different points. You should be intellectually and factually eqipped to answer them properly.

————————————————————————————–

Scientific community will have to recognize Homeopathy as the most perfect and most advanced speciality of scientific modern molecular medicine, if it is explained, proved and applied scientifically by understanding it as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics.

Homeopathy so far appeared a nonsense and pseudo science only because it was explained in terms of most unscientific ‘theories’ of ‘vital force’ and ‘dynamic drug energy’, and practiced more or less like an ‘ocult’ healing art as if it is ‘energy medicine’, ‘faith healing’ or ‘spiritual healing’.

————————————————————————————-

A homeopath registered under CCH has to practice ONLY homeopathy as per the rules and regulations stipulated under CCH act. This is not an issue of ‘democratic rights’ of individuals. It is an issue of rule books of this land, as well as fundamental ethics of a professional. A state govt cannot amend CCH act by a cabinet decision.

If a homeopath is in a position to practice allopathy to ‘earn his daily bread’, or to justify homeopaths practicing allopathy, that only means, HE IS AN UTTER FAILURE AS A HOMEOPATH. It is a pathetic and shameful situation. If you need allopathy practice for ‘daily bread’, why should you use the title ‘HOMEOPATH’? Are you not ashamed?

————————————————————————————

A DRUG is a substance of animal, plant, mineral or synthetic origin, that can act upon the biological molecules and produce some changes in them. These ‘changes’ caused by substances may be beneficial or harmful to the organism, according to which their biological roles are considered nutritional, medicinal, or pathogenic.

Nutritional, medicinal or pathogenic roles of ‘substances’ are determined by the CHEMICAL PROPERTIES of individual molecules contained in them, and the ‘affinities’ of those individual molecules to specific biological molecules. Any SINGLE drug substance may be made up of single type of chemical molecules, or hundreds of types of different chemical molecules with their individual chemical properties and biological affinities.

Since PATHOGENIC or MEDICINAL properties of a drug substance are determined by the CHEMICAL PROPERTIES of the individual molecules they contain, homeopaths have to learn to percieve drugs in terms of their constituent molecules. They have to umderstand that there cannot be an ‘inherent’ or ‘hidden’ MEDICINAL POWER or DRUG PERSONALITY unrelated with the chemical properties and biological affinities of individual constituent molecules. When introduced into the bodies as DRUGS, these drug substance act up on the body not as a whole unit, but as different individual molecules acting upon different individual biological molecules and producing changes in them.

————————————————————————————-

RANGE OF HOMEOPATHY is limited to the treatment of diseases arising from molecular errors caused by exogenous or endogenous pathogenic molecules binding to various biological molecules and producing their INHIBITIONS. Exogenous pathogenic molecules may be coming from environment through food, water, air, drugs, toxins, alien proteins, infectious agents and the like. Endogenous pathogenic molecules may be off-target actions of metabolic byproducts, free radicals, various biological substrates and ligands, endocrine secretions, neuro transmitters, deformed proteins, antibodies (miasms), immune bodies etc etc. MOLECULAR IMPRINTS contained in potentized drugs selected as SIMILIMUM can bind to these pathogenic molecules in capacity of their complementary conformational affinity and deactivate them, thereby removing the molecular inhibitions they produced.

————————————————————————————-

Diseases originating from molecular errors caused by SECONDARY DEFICIENCIES cannot be treated by supplying the missing nutrients alone. In this case, there is no actual deficiency in the supply of nutrients, but the state of deficiency arises from the failure of the biochemic processes in the organism at any of the various stages of their digestion , absorption, assimilation, transportation, conversion or utilization.

In certain cases, such failures may be due to some abnormalities in genetic substance involved in the production of some essential enzymes required for these processes. Secondary nutritional deficiencies caused by such genetic abnormalities cannot be rectified by molecular imprints contained in potentized drugs.

Same time, secondary nutritional deficiencies arising from molecular inhibitions of biological molecules such as enzymes and transporters involved in digestion , absorption, assimilation, transportation, conversion or utilization of nutrients can be rectified by molecular imprints.

HOMEOPATHY is very effective in treating diseases belonging to this latter class of SECONDARY nutritional deficinencies.

————————————————————————————

MOLECULAR ERRORS arising from PRIMARY DEFICIENCIES of nutrients cannot be rectified by MOLECULAR IMPRINTS. As such, this class of diseases cannot be cured by applying potentized homeopathic drugs. They should be rectified by supplying the missing nutrient molecules in the form of food or food supplements. Homeopaths should be aware of this inevitable LIMITATION of HOMEOPATHY.

————————————————————————————–

DISEASE is a state of derangement and disharmony in vital processes of the organism, due to a MOLECULAR LEVEL ERROR in the biochemical interactions. All such molecular errors, other than those arising from inherited genetic disorders and primary nutritional deficiencies, are caused by some endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules binding to the biological molecules and producing pathological INHIBITIONS in them, so that they are prevented from performing their normal biological functions. Without a scientific understanding of this biological mechanism of disease process, you cannot become a SCIENTIFIC PHYSICIAN, or practice SCIENTIFIC MEDICINE.

————————————————————————————

Apart from WATER molecules, different types of bio-polymers such as POLYSACHHARAIDES and NUCLEIC ACIDSs 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 pathogenic 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.

Though in a slightly lesser level, ETHYL ALCOHOL, LACTOSE and various simple SUGARS are also capable of forming polymer-like supra-molecular formations through hydrogen bonding, and hence may be considered as candidates for molecular imprinting experiments. Possibilities of these substances in combination with water also have to be explored.

————————————————————————————

Young homeopaths and students want homeopathy made ‘simple’. They should uderstand, homeopathy is actually very simple, if our practice is based on the scientific understanding of ‘similia similibus curentur’. Only favor you should ask from your ‘teachers’ and ‘gurus’ is that they stop their ‘seminar business’ that makes homeopathy complex and confusing by their irrational absurd ‘theories’, ‘methods’.

————————————————————————————–

Homeopathy works. So far, nobody really knows exactly HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS. We can evolve a flawless and sure-shot ‘method’ of applying homeopathy only if we know ‘HOW homeopathy works’. Until that, homeopathic practice is only an art of trial and error- often with more failure than success. All those who boast about their innovative ‘methods’ and big success stories always hide a lot of their failures also.

————————————————————————————-

I stand with homeopathy, only because I am convinced there is truth in homeopathy. I am fully convinced of this great truth through years of studying, thinking, experimenting and experiencing. If it were otherwise, I would have left homeopathy without waiting for a moment.

—————————————————————————————

If you fear nothing, and dare to face any consequence of staying with truth, you will never have to lie or hide anything. If you want peace in mind, always be truthful to your self

————————————————————————————–

Most of you will not like or agree with what I am saying today- but it is the bitter and painful truth. As per the existing state of affairs, ‘teaching’ homeopathy in our colleges is an art of ‘confused’ teachers lecturing to confused students about irrational and unscientific ‘lessons’ which everybody so far are in utter confusion, and producing doctors who are destined to live and ‘practice’ their whole life in total confusion.

If you have any doubt whether my statement is right, ask your teacher ‘what are the active principles of potentized drugs, and what is the biological mechanism by which our remedies act as therapeutic agents’. And compare his answers with the lessons you learned at least in your high school level science classes.

If anybody claim he has no any confusion about homeopathy, it only means that his confusion is so severe that he has become blind and impersonalized to such an extend that he cannot even introspect or realize his own confused state.

All these questions will be rationally answered and confusions resolved once you learn MIT concepts of scientific homeopathy.

————————————————————————————-

The proverbial saying ‘goal justifies the path’ is very much relevant in the selection of similimum. It is not the ‘way’ or ‘method’ that matter. It is the ‘result’. If you could arrive at the right similimum, your ‘method’ was right- whatever it be. If you could not arrive at the right similimum, your ‘method’ was wrong- whatever it be.

Another point to be remembered is, you need not necessarily arrive at same SIMILIMUM even in SAME case, when you are using different methods in your search. Different SIMILIMUM are possible in same case, and all of them will work if the selection is right.

————————————————————————————-

See how simple it is to select a SIMILIMUM through ELIMINATION METHOD of Similimum Ultra Software using prominent mental symptoms and physical generals:

Let JEALOUSY is found to be the most important characteristic in the mental make up of the patient. My approach of individualization and deciding similimum in such case is as follows:

1. I would use the rubric ‘jealousy’ for this symptom for starting the ELIMINATION process, if it is very prominent

[Kent]Mind : JEALOUSY:- Anan., Apis., Calc-p., Calc-s., Camph., Cench., Coff., Gall-ac., Hyos., Ign., Lach., Nux-v., Op., Ph-ac., Puls., Raph., Staph., Stram.

2. Then I can ‘eliminate’ drugs from this group, using two or more prominent mentals, generals and particulars expressed by the patient. For example, if patient is GENERALLY aggravated after sleep, I would use the following rubric:

[Kent]Generalities : SLEEP : After : Agg.:- Acon., Aesc., Ambr., Am-m., Anac., Apis., Arn., Ars., Asaf., Bell., Bor., Bov., Bry., Cadm., Calc., Camph., Carb-s., Carb-v., Caust., Cham., Chel., Chin., Cina., Cocc., Coff., Con., Crot-c., Dig., Euphr., Ferr., Ferr-ar., Graph., Hep., Hyos., Ign., Kali-ar., Kali-c., Kali-p., Kreos., Lac-c., Lach., Lyc., Mag-c., Mur-ac., Naja., Nat-a., Nux-m., Nux-v., Olnd., Op., Paeon., Ph-ac., Phos., Phyt., Puls., Rheum., Rhus-t., Sabad., Samb., Sel., Sep., Spig., Spong., Stann., Staph., Stram., Sulph., Thuj., Verat.

3. If the patient is prominently hot generally, I would use this rubric:

[Kent]Generalities : HOT REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s):- Aesc., All-c., Aloe., Ambr., Apis., Arg-n., Asaf., Aur-i., Aur-m., Bar-i., Bry., Calad., Calc-i., Calc-s., Coc-c., Com., Croc., Dros., Ferr-i., Fl-ac., Grat., Ham., Iod., Kali-i., Kali-s., Lach., Led., Lil-t., Lyc., Nat-m., Nat-s., Nicc., Op., Pic-ac., Plat., Ptel., Puls., Sabin., Sec., Spong., Sul-i., Sulph., Thuj., Tub., Ust., Vesp., Vib.

After eliminating with these three rubrics, only Lach.(8), Apis.(7), Puls.(7), Op.(4) remain.

4. If the patient is very talkative, I will use this rubric:

[Kent]Mind : LOQUACITY:- Abrot., Acon., Aeth., Agar., Agn., Aloe., Ambr., Anac., Ant-t., Apis., Arg-m., Arn., Ars., Ars-h., Ars-i., Aur., Bapt., Bar-c., Bell., Bor., Bov., Calad., Calc., Camph., Cann-i., Canth., Carb-s., Carl., Caust., Chel., Cimic., Coc-c., Cocc., Coff., Croc., Crot-c., Crot-h., Cupr., Dulc., Eug., Eup-pur., Ferr-m., Ferr-p., Gamb., Gels., Glon., Grat., Guare., Hydrc., Hyos., Iod., Ip., Kali-i., Lach., Lachn., Lil-t., Lyss., Mag-c., Meph., Merc-i-f., Mur-ac., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nicc., Nux-m., Nux-v., Oena., Onos., Op., Par., Petr., Phos., Plb., Podo., Psor., Pyrog., Rhus-t., Sec., Sel., Stann., Staph., Stict., Stram., Sulph., Tab., Tarax., Tarent., Teucr., Thea., Ther., Thuj., Trom., Verat., Viol-o., Zinc.

Now, the choice is between Apis.(8), Op.(6), Lach.(11)

5. If there is underlying grief as causative factor, I can use this rubric:

[Kent]Mind : GRIEF : Ailments, from:- Am-m., Anac., Ant-c., Apis., Ars., Aur., Calc-p., Caust., Clem., Cocc., Colch., Coloc., Con., Cycl., Gels., Graph., Hyos., Ign., Kali-p., Lach., Lob-c., Lyc., Naja., Nat-m., Nit-ac., Nux-v., Ph-ac., Plat., Puls., Staph., Tarent., Verat.

Now, only Lach.(14), Apis.(10) remain.

6. If the patient dislikes company, I can use this rubric:

[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.

Now, Only LACHESIS (16) remains.

I will then go through the materia medica of LACHESIS and verify whether it agrees with all other important symptoms given by the patient.

This is the most ideal, simple, homeopathic way of differentiating between drugs to reach a similimum by ELIMINATION METHOD.

————————————————————————————-

By making homeopathy appear very complex and ‘dangerous’ to handle, our modern ‘gurus’ and ‘seminar people’ have been doing very bad service to emerging homeopaths. Those complex ‘suppression’ theories , ‘miasmatic analysis’ and ‘methods’ they propagate are actually confusing these new homeopaths, and making them scary to prescribe freely, since they are ‘taught’ that wrong prescriptions or potencies will ‘drive’ diseases to the ‘interior’ and may even ‘kill’ the patients. This fear leads to hesitation to prescribe, fail in practice, worry about ‘bread and butter’ and think about short cuts such as allopathy practice.

Young homeopaths should be told that there is nothing to be scary about in homeopathic practice. Making homeopathy prescriptions is very simple. No need of any complex ‘methods’. Simply collect COMPLETE ABNORMAL symptoms, find similimum using REPERTORY- that is all. Even if you happen to make wrong selection of drugs, or use ‘wrong’ potencies, it cannot cause any harm to your patient. Potentized homeopathic drugs are very safe, even if used with out indications, repeated frequently, or even used in combination. Do not be scary or confused by these ‘seminar people’ or their ‘theories.

————————————————————————————-

What happened in maharashtra is already happened. Our homeopathic colleges there has produced a big community of bhms holders who are not capable of earning their daily bread by practicing homeopathy. That is why they cry for permission to practice allopathy.

Now we have to work up on damage control measures. We should address fundamental issues that led to this situation. We cannot ignore the fact that a prominent section of young homeopaths and students are disillusioned and worried about their future.

Professional organizations such as IHMA and HMAI should immediately wake up and intervene.

Firstly, somebody in charge should come forward with long term action plans to raise the professional skills, confidence and motivation of young homeopaths who seem to be disillusioned with homeopathy. Homeopaths should be given free and compulsory cme programs to train how to take case, prescribe and manage cases in a simple way, and to instill in them a spirit of scientific approach to homeopathy.

Secondly, some schemes such as chains of free medical camps should be chalked out and implemented in a big scale for effective popularisation of homeopathy.

Government should make a plan through any agency or bank for some kind of easily available financial support to young homeopaths to set up a clinic, if they cannot provide jobs under government.

State medical council should have an urgent plan to provide a subsistence allowence to newcomers for minimum three years. Instead, they could be asked to provide free treatment to bpl patients at their clinics during this period. Amount of allowence could be linked to the number of free treatments given during a month- I mean giving incentives to homeopaths based on the number of free cases handled at their clinics. That will ensure universal free medical aid to poor people with minimum burden on the government, same time providing young homeopaths a support to survive and build up practice

————————————————————————————–

Anti-homeopathic skeptics all over the world are celebrating the news regarding the maharashtra govt decision permitting homeopaths to practice allopathy. They say, indian homeopaths turn to allopathy practice for survival. Is it not a shame and set back to homeopathy?

Dear homeopaths, are you aware of the severe damage and negative impact this decision satisfying the narrow self-interests of a small section of short-sighted homeopaths has done to homeopathy as a whole?

———————————————————————————–

If a ‘BHMS HOLDER’ wants permission to practice allopathy in whatever disguise, it only means he has failed to be a HOMEOPATH. It is obvious.

————————————————————————————–

Even without any ‘degree’ in homeopathy, motivated and empowered only by the unshakable determination and confidence in the POTENTIALS OF HOMEOPATHY as well as the ‘unrecognized’ knowledge and practical experience in homeopathy, I decided to quit my ‘safe and profitable’ government job and dedicated my remaining life for homeopathy years ago. I opted myself to be a ‘quack’.

My family, friends and relatives suspected I have gone crazy by reading homeopathy. But time proved my decision was not wrong. Homeopathy gave me a new mission in life, worth living for.

I could successfully treat and give life to thousands of patients during the last 40+ years using ‘pure’ ‘high potency’ homeopathy, avoiding even mother tinctures and triturations. I never thought about using allopathy drugs. Whenever I felt homeopathy is not producing expected results for any patient, I boldly and confidently asked them to consult a modern physician. I knew my patient will come back to me once the crisis is over.

By my ‘quack’ homeopathic practice, I could earn not only ‘bread and butter’, but everything I cherished in life. Later I also developed a complete clinical utility software for homeopaths, which is well-accepted by the profession and presently fetching me reasonable regular income since I stopped practicing. My unrelenting learning and inquiries into the depths of mysteries and riddles of homeopathy have finally led me into evolving a scientifically viable working hypothesis regarding the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure, which I prefer to call MIT or Molecular Imprints Therapeutics.

I am narrating my ‘bad’ story here to tell my dear young homeopaths one point: If a lay man like me without any degree in homeopathy could make life a success by dedicating for homeopathy, why should you worry about ‘bread butter’ or your future? You have a valuable BHMS degree in your hand. It is a special privilege life has offered to you, which I am always sorry to have missed in my life. To be a homeopath is much much higher than to be an allopath. You are ready to leave homeopathy and fighting for right to practice allopathy, where as I left my safe job in government in my prime of life to dedicate for homeopathy. Have faith and confidence in the potentials of homeopathy. Learn homeopathy well. Sharpen your skills. Dedicate your life for homeopathy. Show results by working hard and prove your worth to the world around you. Never think about using allopathy drugs. Face reality bravely and confidently. People will come to you in hundreds every day. Success will be yours.

————————————————————————————-

If a homeopath with a BHMS degree can attract at least 10 patients a day from among the thousands of people suffering from chronic diseases and thronging into the allopathy clinics around his place and getting no relief, he can earn minimum Rs 30000 per month by practicing pure homeopathy. He will not have to cry for permission to practice allopathy to earn his ‘bread and butter’.

If you do not know how to treat patients by applying homeopathy, you cannot attract patients for long. Only way to attract patients regularly is to treat them well and cure them well.

————————————————————————————-

Excuse me. What are our homeopathic colleges in maharashtra teaching these students for 5 years? It is the failure of our colleges there that the students they teach are not equipped to earn their bread and butter by practicing what they have studied. Either the teachers are very poor homeopaths, or they are not doing their job. It is really shameful and pathetic. It is time for a serious rethinking

————————————————————————————–

Integration of modern medicine and homeopathy is a nice idea. If it happens universally, it will be a great revolutionary advance of immense dimensions in preservation and enhancement of human health and longevity.

But, integration does not mean allopaths prescribing homeopathic medicines, or homeopaths prescribing allopathic medicines. Integration means healthy co-existence and mutually respectful interactions between experts of both systems as equals, providing options for patients to avail the benefits of both systems under same roof. Such an integration will lead to the effective utilization of full potentials of homeopathy for the welfare of humanity.

For such an integration to work, it is essential that modern physicians should accept homeopathy as a scientific medical system, capable of doing some good to their patients and worthy of such an integration. There is no scope for a one-sided marriage.

Modern physicians will agree for such an integration only if homeopaths succeed in convincing them that homeopathy really works and is useful, by conducting strictly-controlled scientific studies under the effective supervision of medical experts of proven credibility and impartiality. Homeopaths should also succeed in explaining ‘how homeopathy works’, in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge system, so that it will be understandable and acceptable to modern physicians as well as scientific community. Homeopaths should be capable of answering the fundamental questions such as what are the active principles of potentized homeopathic ‘drugs’, and what is the proposed biological mechanism by which homeopathic medicines work. Homeopaths should stop talking nonsense theories such as ‘energy medicine’, ‘vital force’ and ‘dynamic drug energy’, and learn to talk the language of science and behave as scientific physicians.

————————————————————————————-

Homeopaths Cannot And Should Not Practice Allopathy- Legally, Ethically And Philosophically

Parents dream and groom their children to make ‘doctors’, which is seen as a good ‘money-making’ profession with high social status. But the child fails to get appropriate ranking in entrance exams, and do not get admission to MBBS course. Parents could not invest lakhs to ‘buy’ an MBBS seat for their child. Finally, cursing his parents and his fate, he is enrolled for BHMS course to get at least a ‘doctor’ label. He ‘studies’ homeopathy with indignation, reluctance and inferiority complex. He never loves his homeopathy lessons. For him homeopathy is like a hard dry coconut, and do not know how to dehull it and relish its sweet inner kernel. He comes out of college after completing the course with a BHMS degree. He is never a HOMEOPATH in his hearts. He wants to make some money any how, by practicing allopathy. Such ‘misplaced’ homeopaths are making all these noises in the name of “permitting homeopaths to practice allopathy”! Poor guys!

If a homeopath feels ‘allopathy is better than homeopathy’, and he desires to practice allopathy, let him get an admission in a medical college and get an MBBS degree, and then register himself under MCI. ‘ONLY THEN’ he can practice allopathy. He should not practice allopathy on the strength of BHMS degree. That amounts to quackery, beyond any doubt.

An MBBS and pamphlets supplied by medical reps are enough to practice allopathy, it is simple. To be a homeopath, BHMS is only a first step. He has to learn a lot by himself, through reading, meditation, experience and constant introspection. It is really a hard job for a lazy man.

A homeopath can and should say which is ‘his’ system. There should not be confusion on that. Question here is not ‘which is better’ for ’emergency’, but ‘which system a homeopath should practice’. He should practice ‘only’ homeopathy. Let allopaths practice allopathy.

‘Emergency handling’ cannot be used as a justification for homeopaths practicing allopathy. Even an MBBS doctor cannot deal an ’emergency’ case. He will have refer ’emergency’ cases to well equipped hospitals having special emergency management units. In such a situation no homeopath can handle ’emergency’ cases even if he is permitted to use a few allopathic drugs. This talk of ’emergency dealing’ is only a cover to mask their ignorance and laziness to learn and apply genuine homeopathy. IF YOU GET A CASE THAT YOU FEEL IS BEYOND THE RANGE OF HOMEOPATHY, REFER IT TO COMPETENT HANDS.

MONEY IS THE REAL ISSUE. NOTHING ELSE!

Though holding BHMS degree, some people always compares homeopathy and allopathy, and strives to establish that homeopathy is good for nothing. They are totally ignorant of homeopathy, and argue to ‘modernise’ homeopathy by permitting homeopaths to practice allopathy. They never learns anything from discussions, but think they know ‘everything’. They will not allow genuine discussions on homeopathy. Fed up with such arguments for ‘allopathizing’ homeopathy, I was finally compelled to remove such people from my groups. They doing same thing on all groups.

People who fail in their practice due to ignorance or laziness desperately want to practice allopathy to exist as ‘doctors’. They are looking for loopholes in laws. Allopathic practice is controlled by MCI as per their laws. CCH is managing homeopathic practice as per Homeopathy Central Council Act. CCH has no right to ‘permit’ homeopaths to use allopathy drugs without the permission of MCI. As per Central Council Act, a homeopath registered under central council of homeopathy cannot use any drugs not included in homeopathic pharmacopea. All these factors are well known to everybody. Homeopaths using allopathic drugs is pure quackery. A genuine homeopath never think about it. Those ‘doctors’ who have a BHMS degree in their hands but no homeopathy in their heads only need ‘permission’ to use allopathic drugs. Why should people come to a homeopath for allopathic treatment? Why should a homeopath use allopathic drugs if he knows homeopathy? And you call it ‘modern approach’?

I do not think modern medicine is irrelevant. 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.

Let those qualified in modern medicine do it. Homeopaths are legally, ethically and philosophically not permitted to practice modern medicine. As a medical system Homeopathy is qualitatively much above and different from modern medicine, if homeopaths approaches it scientifically.

————————————————————————————–

As for any other medical system, homeopathy has limitations. It is true that we cannot deal with all situations. When modern life supporting facilities are required, homeopath should refer the case to a modern hospital, instead of himself trying to use allopathic drugs. I had had many occasions when I had to consult allopaths for myself as well as my family members, when homeopathy did not help. Same way, in many chronic cases where allopathy has nothing to do, homeopathy will solve the problem like a magic wand. We should be well aware of the strengths and limitations of homeopathy.

Homeopathy is not a ‘panacea’. Homeopath is not an ‘all-healer’. Homeopathy is a specialized branch of therapeutics with its specialized area of application. Homeopathy is a ‘method of treating diseases using molecular imprints forms of drugs’. Nothing more, nothing less. Surgery is another specialization, which should be done by surgeons- not homeopaths. Even in modern medicine, a medical specialist will not do surgery. He will send his patients to surgeons, when surgery is required. A cardiologist will not do surgery, but send his patient to a cardiac surgeon. An interventional cardiologist will not do a bye-pass surgery. Every specialization has its special field, and its limitations. RECOGNIZE THE LIMITATIONS OF HOMEOPATHY. IT WILL ONLY STRENGTHEN YOU.

————————————————————————————–

Did you ever notice two entirely different symptoms often appearing as ‘pairs’, with specific type of relationship between them that the patient expresses using phrases such as ‘during’, ‘after’, ‘along with’, ‘while’, ‘concomitant with’, ‘alternating with’, ‘extending to’ etc?. I have found that such ‘pairing symptoms’ can be used as a reliable ‘entry point’ into the further exploration of the case as well as in selecting the similimum. I always try to dig out as many ‘symptom pairs’ as possible from a patient during case taking. Actually, these ‘pairing’ indicates the peculiar direction in which the pathological molecular errors cascade in the particular case, which in turn indicates the exact biochemical pathways that are affected, which will be peculiar to the specific biological molecules affected and the specific pathogenic agent that caused the error. When two or three such peculiar ‘symptom pairs’ are present in a patient that match to the ‘symptom pairs’ in the symptomatology of a particular drug, we can confidently select that drug as the similimum of the patient.

————————————————————————————-

Commenting on my post regarding the importance of ‘concomitants’, one homeopath said:

“A patient can be treated based on his behavior and temperament & personality rather than all this things”

Can anybody decide the “behavior, temperament & personality” of a patient without observing and studying his SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE symptoms? ‘Concomitants’ need not be always ‘physical’ or particular’. It may be ‘behavioral’, ‘temperamental’ or abnormalities in ‘personality’. If patient shows some ‘change of mood such as violent outbursts, weeping or anger during headache’, the mood changes are CONCOMITANTS of headache. If a patient ‘desires to sit in solitude’ during headache, ‘desire solitude’ is a CONCOMITANT of headache. If it is ‘weeping’ during ‘dysmenorrhoea’, ‘weeping’ is a CONCOMITANT of ‘dysmenorrhoea’. There is no scope for any confusion in this regard.

Any ABNORMAL objective and subjective symptom, that reflects any ABNORMAL molecular processes happening in the body that have to be corrected by using a medicinal agent, are to be considered by the homeopath in deciding an appropriate remedy for that patient. If anything ABNORMAL is there in his ‘behavior, temperament or personality’, it will of course provide a strong indication to an appropriate remedy. But remember, it should be an ABNORMAL one, or DEVIATION from normal, to be of worth consideration. NORMAL ‘behavior, temperament or personality’ indicates NORMAL physiological processes, where as we are looking for what is going ABNORMAL in him.

When I use the terms SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE symptoms, that no way disregards ‘behavior, temperament or personality’. Every general, particular, mental, or physical symptom, including those of ‘behavior, temperament or personality’ come under the purview of ‘subjective and objective’ symptoms.

Some people accuse BOENNINGHAUSSEN has ignored mentals, generals as well as ‘behavior, temperament or personality’ aspects while defining TOTALITY in terms of ‘causations, locations, sensations, modalities and concomitants’. This accusation arises from incorrect understanding of boenninghaussen’s approach. CAUSATION may be physical or mental. LOCATION includes generals and particulars. SENSATIONS comprises of all SUBJECTIVE symptoms, including general or particular sensations as well as mentals. MODALITIES also include mental and general aspects of aggravations and ameliorations. CONCOMITANTS may be general, mental, physical, or particular. Boenninghaussen’s method no way disregards or ignores ‘behavior, temperament or personality’, but explains and classifies them with a different approach, more systematic, specific and scientific.

I have felt that boenninghaussen ignored or did not give due consideration to the PRESENTATION or APPEARANCE aspects of symptoms, such as general and particular physical appearance, type of discharges, type of eruptions, lesions, skin changes, hair, gestures, gaits, facial expressions etc etc. That is why I include a new category PRESENTATIONS along with CAUSATION, SENSATION, LOCATION, MODALITIES and CONCOMITANTS schema of boenninghaussen. I also want to stress the importance of ALTERNATING SYMPTOMS and EXTENSIONS under the category of CONCOMITANTS. By this way, I think I have updated boenninghaussen’s schema into more perfection.

————————————————————————————-

Standard ‘recommended’ measurements of ‘nutritional’ requirements for vitamins and minerals are much higher than the exact ‘biological’ requirements. Since individual molecules are free from inter-molecular bonds in triturated forms, they will be biologically more reactive than crude forms, and hence minute quantities of triturated minerals may be enough to satisfy the biological requirements of the organism. As such, it is possible that triturated minerals or so-called bio-cheimc salts may play a role in mineral supplementation.

Same time, triturated minerals may act harmfully by causing unexpected molecular errors, when used without actual primary deficiency, which is very difficult to ascertain in clinical conditions. It is obvious that the wide spread practice of uncontrolled feeding ‘biochemics’ to the patients in the presumption that they have ‘deficiency’ may do more harm in the long run than good.

Another problem is, most of the ‘biochemics’ sold in market are not genuine tritrations, but lactose tablets sprayed with a dilute solution of the ‘drug’.

It is ideal to treat suspected deficiencies of minerals and vitamins with similimum selected by totality of symptoms, which will correct the errors in digestion, absorption, assimilation and utilization of nutrients in the food. Ensure simultaneously a balanced diet also, which will resolve most deficiency issue.

—————————————————————————————

Our body requires vitamins, minerals and other nutrients in molecular form, to enable the normal biochemical interactions involved in vital processes.

They should be given in molecular form. This is applicable to all nutrients and essential chemical molecules. Body absorbs those chemical molecules from the ‘food’ we consume. If there is actual ‘primary’ deficiency of any nutrient due to inappropriate nutrition, they should be supplemented.

Molecular imprints or ‘homeopathic’ forms of vitamins and minerals can be used to combat the adverse effects of their over dosages or ‘off-target’ effects, but they cannot substitute their normal nutritional requirements.

If it is a ‘secondary’ deficiency, which happens due to errors in absorption, assimilation or conversion of any nutrient, even if it is present in adequate amounts in food, such cases of ‘molecular errors’ should be treated using ‘similimum’ in molecular imprints forms.

————————————————————————————-

CONCOMITANT symptoms are very important in deciding a similimum, since they will be always very peculiar to the PATIENT. Never ignore concomitants if they are peculiar. In most cases, concomitants will lead us to a right remedy or group of probable remedies. During case taking, we should be very careful for not to miss these valuable indicators of SIMILIMUM.

CONCOMITANTS mean potentially independant symptoms that appear as ADDITIONAL symptoms, along with or accompanying with a BASIC symptom. ALTERNATING SYMPTOMS as well as EXTENSIONS also may be considered as concomitants, as they also are ADDITIONAL symptoms appearing DURING, ALONG WITH or RELATED WITH the main BASIC symptoms. Concomitants are most helpful indicators for individualizing the patient by identifying the exact molecular errors working behind a particular symptom group, and for identifying the exact molecular imprints required to remove those molecular errors.

Concomitants are always explained by the patients as well as in repertories using terms such as ‘accompanied with’ ‘along with’, ‘during’, ‘alternating’, ‘extending to’, or ‘concomitant with’ itself.

For example, VOMITING during HEADACHE- here vomiting is a concomitant of headache. If it is HEADACHE during VOMITING, headache is the concomitant of vomiting. NAUSEA during headache, YAWNING during headache, BACKACHE along with piles, DIARRHOEA with COLIC, ABDOMINAL pain extending to back, ASTHMA with URTICARIA, ASTHMA alternating with URTICARIA, CORYZA during EATING, CHEST PAIN extending to FINGERS, HEADACHE with SLEEPINESS- we can cite thousands of examples for CONCOMITANTS from our repertories. Study them with special care, to be a successful prescriber.

MODALITIES are different from CONCOMITANTS. Modalities are not additional symptoms like concomitants. They are only factors such as CONDITIONS or TIME that ameliorate or aggravate certain symptoms. In some cases, CONCOMITANT symptoms may also MODIFY the basic symptoms by aggravating or ameliorating it. Such MODIFYING CONCOMITANTS are far more helpful in selecting a similimum even more than pure concomitants or modalities.

————————————————————————————-

See how simple and spontaneous a case of headache was narrated in its COMPLETE form by Dr Bhavana Raghuwanshi, a homeopathy student. She says:

“Can i ask about my headache? I have a headache when i expose to heat or in summer weather.. No concomitant . No any modalities. I have to sleep then, and then I feel better in next morning.. Plz tel me what is the remedy? I am thirsty”

MY ANSWER:

You have given good symptoms, enough for a reasonable prescription. Your explanation contains CAUSATION, AGGRAVATION, CONCOMITANT and AMELIORATION. That is enough. See how simple was it to work out this case using QUICK PICK tool of Similimum Ultra- Homeopathic Software

Your headache is CAUSED and AGGRAVATED by exposure to SUN HEAT and in SUMMER. You have SLEEPINESS as concomitant. Headache is AMELIORATED by SLEEP. Your medicine is GLONOINE. Take it in 30C repeatedly as required.

[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.

[Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Summer:- Ant-c., Bar-c., Bell., Bry., Carb-v., Glon., Graph., Lyc., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nat-s., Puls., Sulph., Thuj.

[Kent]Sleep : SLEEPINESS : Headache, during:- Acon., Aesc., Agar., Ail., Aml-n., Ars., Asar., Bruc., Camph., Cham., Chin-s., Con., Corn., Equis., Gels., Gins., Glon., Grat., Hipp., Hydr., Ign., Ind., Ip., Jug-r., Kali-n., Kreos., Lach., Laur., Lob., Merc-i-r., Mur-ac., Myric., Nat-s., Nux-m., Op., Phos., Plb., Puls., Ran-b., Stann., Stront., Sul-ac., Tanac., Vip., Zinc.

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

I am posting this case here to demonstrate how simple it is to prescribe for headache, using 3 or 4 ACCESSORY SYMPTOMS combined with a BASIC SYMPTOM.

——————————————————————————–

Dr Revti Raman Kapoor asked:

“Sir if Natrum Mur or Silicea is given in 6 x or 6C potent but on complete case taking and symptoms similarity, and if they cures, isn’t it that they acts homeopathically? Is crossing avogadro number more important than similia similibus curantur?”

MY ANSWER: I had answered this question many times earlier. It is very rare homeopaths prescribe ‘rightly selected’ similimum in such very low potencies. They mostly use low potencies and tinctures on considerations other than ‘symptomatic’ similarity.

Any how, it is true that similimum will work curatively in certain situations even if in ‘molecular’ forms or below 12c. But such actions happen by a biological mechanism entirely different from ‘molecular imprints’ forms.

Drug ‘molecules’ of similimum ‘compete’ with pathogenic molecules and thereby remove the pathological molecular inhibitionss, where as ‘molecular imprints’ of similimum bind to pathogenic molecules by ‘complementary’ affinity and deactivate them.

Molecular forms of similimum can produce new molecular inhibitions in unexpected biological targets and thereby result in harmful bad effects. That is the draw back of using similimum in low potencies below 12c.

But ‘molecular imprints’ cannot interfere in the normal biochemical interactions between biological targets and their natural ligands, and as such, cannot produce any harmful effects. If you really expect a ‘homeopathic cure’ without any harmful after effects, you should use ‘similimum’ in ‘molecular imprints’ forms only- 12C or above. Hope my point is clear.

———————————————————————————–

I have no right to advise anybody. Hope young homeopaths and students may take my words as an earnest suggestion or humble request:

If you really desire to become a good homeopath, never think or ask questions such as “what is the medicine for headache” or “what is the medicine for rheumatism”. Asking such questions will ruin your career as a homeopath. Always think and ask “how to find a similimum for a CASE of headache”, “how to find a similimum for a CASE of rheumatism” and the like.

You may think about short-cuts such as SPECIFICS only after you have mastered the art of homeopathic case taking and various techniques of finding the similimum. Short-cuts are for experts- not for novices.

If it is a case of headache, inquire about the type of pain, location of pain, how and when relieved, how and when aggravated, any peculiar extensions or alternations, any concomitants such as vomiting, yawning, nausea, sleepiness, irritability etc. Collect maximum SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE symptoms from the patient. Then find a similimum. You can do it by five minutes, if you are using QUICK PICK tool of similimum ultra software

————————————————————————————–

Some homeopaths seem to consider avogadro as their number one enemy, since his theory is often used to disprove their ‘infinite’ ‘dynamic’ nonsense!

They will be the happiest people if anybody proves avohadro is wrong! Actually, the WANT it to be wrong, so that they could make new ‘ultra-scientific’ theories about ‘dynamic’ homeopathy. They should understand, even if avogadro number is wrong, there should be another number. There should be a limit to the number of molecules contained in a given quantity of any substance. It cannot be infinite in number.

————————————————————————————-

A drug substance cannot be called ‘homeopathic drug’, if it contains drug ‘molecules’ as its active factors. All ‘drugs’ in molecular forms, what ever labels are assigned, act by a biological mechanism similar to allopathic drugs.

A medicinal substance could be called ‘homeopathic’ only if it is ‘homeopathized’ by potentizing above avogadro limit, so that it contains only ‘molecular imprints’ asactive principles, which act in the living body by a ‘homeopathic’ biological mechanism.

Different from drug molecules which act by their chemical properties, molecular imprints act by their conformational properties, by binding to either pathogenic molecules or biological target molecules having conformational affinity.

Molecular imprints can remove the molecular inhibitions caused by pathogenic molecules, or selectively shield the biological molecules from the attack of pathogenic molecules, without interefering in the normal physiological interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands.

This selective action of molecular imprints is entirely different from the action of molecular drugs, which by their chemical properties interfere in the normal biochemical processes and produce unwanted and unexpected bad effects in the organism.

That means, a drug substance becomes ‘homeopathic’ only when it is ‘homeopathized’ by a process of molecular imprinting or potentizing ‘above avogadro limit’.

————————————————————————————–

Do you know, many ‘new generation drugs’ marketed as ‘homeopathic potencies’ especially in western countries are prepared using computerized ‘potentizing machines’? Many practitioners also prepare ‘potencies’ as per requirement in their clinics using these ‘machines’. This machine is claimed to consist of a source of ‘energy’ that could be generated and transmitted in specific ‘frequencies’ as required. Machine works on the principle that each ‘drug’ and each ‘potency’ could be represented by a specific beam of ‘vibrations’ in a specific ‘frequency’. There is a computer program loaded in the machine, which provides specific ‘codes’ for each drug and each potency. ‘Making medicines’ is very simple. Place a bottle of globules, water or alcohol in the machine, select the appropriate ‘codes’ for the drug and potency you want to ‘make’, and press the switch! With in seconds, the samples you placed in the machine will be converted into a ‘potentized drug’ you wanted to make. You can dispense it right away! Homeopathic drugs are ‘made’ from nothingness, without worrying about original drugs or back potencies, or the laborious triturating, diluting or succussing! Is it not nice and easy? Those ‘medicine making machines’ are available in market, if you are ready to spend a few thousand dollars!

I came to know about this machine a few months back, when a nigerian homeopath discussed a case with me. I suggested to prescribe PITUTRINUM for that patient. Then the homeopath asked me what is the “code” for piturtrinum. He said he never purchases any medicine, but ‘makes’ drugs in his ‘machine’ using ‘codes’! I was shocked to know that. Then I got into more inquiries about this machine, which led me to the knowledge that most of the ‘new generation drugs’ flooding the market such as ozone, saturn, rainbow, berlin wall etc are ‘made’ using these ‘machines’.

HOMEOPATHY IS BECOMING ‘ULTRA-SCIENTIFIC’- IS IT NOT A MATTER OF PRIDE? ONLY PROBLEM IS, MODERN SCIENCE IS ‘LAGGING BEHIND’ THIS ‘DYNAMIC SCIENCE’!!!

ACCORDING TO THESE PEOPLE, MODERN SCIENCE IS ‘UNSCIENTIFIC’, AND WOODOOS AND OCCULTS ARE ‘SCIENTIFIC’! I FEEL ASHAMED!

————————————————————————————

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 reactive 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.

————————————————————————————-

According to my view, crude drugs, mother tinctures and potencies below avogadro limit (below 12C) contain DRUG MOLECULES as their active contents which work by their CHEMICAL PROPERTIES, by a biological mechanism exactly same as any other therapeutic method that utilize ‘molecular’ drugs such as modern medicine, ayurveda, herbal therapy etc.

Triturations below 12C are ‘molecular’, but they will be biologically more reactive due to the breakage of intermolecular bonds and probable ionization happening during trituration. But their biological mechanism of action will not be any way different from that of mother tinctures and crude drugs.

ALL potencies above avogadro limit or 12C will contain only MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of constituent molecules, which can act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity. Any potency above 12C will be similar regarding their CONTENTS as well as the molecular mechanism of their biological action. If you have selected the right drug, it will not make much difference in therapeutic actions whether you use 12C, 30C, 200 C, 1 M or LM potencies.

————————————————————————————–

Some homeopaths claim potentized homeopathic drugs are NANOMEDICINES, hoping to give a scientific flavor to their arguments. But remember, NANO PARTICLES are not ‘immaterial’ or ‘dynamic’ as you think. They are ‘material particles’. Actually they are multi-atomic or multi-molecular congregations of particles. If avogadro number is right, there cannot be a MOLECULE present in a preparation diluted above 12c. If you say potentized drugs are NANOPARTICLES, it means you are saying homeopathic drugs are not DYNAMIC, but MATERIAL. You cannot same time say they are “dynamic” and they are “nanoparticles”.

————————————————————————————–

Would you kindly explain your ideas about the difference between MOTHER TINCTURES, 3X, 30C, 200 C and 1M of a medicine, regarding their CONTENTS? I am asking about the CONTENTS or ACTIVE PRINCIPLES, please! I am asking this question since any talk about ‘theories’ regarding selection or USING of potencies is meaningless if we have no satisfactory answer to this fundamental question.

————————————————————————————-

MOLECULAR SHIELDING by using ‘molecular imprints’ of vitally important biological molecules such as major PROTEINS and DNA to protect themselves from the damages that may be produced by the attacks of endogenous and exogenous pathogenic molecules is a new extended area of application of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS involved in homeopathy, even though it is not homeopathy in its limited classical meaning as defined by ‘similia similibus curentur’. I consider this idea as a new revolutionary stage in the scientific advancement of homeopathy, since it has evolved from the amalgamation of understanding of homeopathic potentization as molecular imprinting, and the knowledge of modern biochemistry. This idea of MOLECULAR SHIELDING of biological molecules using their own molecular imprints may open up new avenues of opportunities in our fight against many chronic and incurable diseases such as cancers, aging and age related diseases. I sincerely hope somebody would take up this idea forward for the benefit of humanity.

————————————————————————————-

Molecular Imprints contained in potentized drugs cannot produce any pathological molecular inhibitions of biological molecules, not because they cannot bind to biological molecules having conformational affinity, but because they cannot successfully compete with biological ligands in binding to their natural biological targets having much higher affinity in betweeen them. That is the reason why molecular imprints can protect biological molecules from the attacks of pathogenic molecules, but cannot damage biological molecules. In order to understand this phenomenon, we should have a working knowledge in the subject of dynamics of ‘molecular affinity’ involved in biochemical interactions.

————————————————————————————–

If I am right in my assumptions that molecular imprints can selectively bind to the biological molecules having configurational affinity and safeguard them against the attacks of pathogenic molecules, same time without hindering the normal biochemical interactions between the biological molecules and their natural ligands, it will open up new avenues for potentized drugs as prophylactic, health-enhancing and age-retarding agents. Molecular imprints prepared by potentizing biological molecules such as enzymes, receptors, genes etc could be used for this purpose. Damages and mutations caused to genetic substance by pathogenic agents of endogenous and exogenous origin could be prevented by shielding genes using their own molecular imprints. If my thinking is right, MOLECULAR IMPRINTS will herald a new revolution of GENETIC SHIELDING in modern health science.

I will cite just an example. There is class of GENES in our chromosomes which play a key role in the natural defense system of our cells against CANCERS. These are known as TUMOR SUPPRESSOR GENES. A tumor suppressor gene, or anti-oncogene, is a gene that protects a cell from one step on the path to cancer by synthesizing tumor fighting proteins. When this gene is mutated to cause a loss or reduction in its function, the cell can progress to cancer, usually in combination with other genetic changes. The loss of these genes may be even more important than proto-oncogene/oncogene activation for the formation of many kinds of human cancer cells. Cancerous changes in cells happen when these PROTECTIVE GENES are damaged by the action of radiations, drugs or any other environmental factors up on it. If we can find a way to prevent damages happening to these tumor suppressor genes, it may be a big step in the fight against CANCER.

Tumor-suppressor genes, or more precisely, the proteins for which they code, either have a dampening or repressive effect on the regulation of the cell cycle or promote apoptosis, and sometimes do both.

Damages in tumor suppressor genes increase the risk of cancer, for example mutations in HNPCC, MEN1 and BRCA. Furthermore, increased mutation rate from decreased DNA repair leads to increased inactivation of other tumor suppressors and activation of oncogenes.

An important tumor suppressor gene identified is the p53 tumor-suppressor protein TP53 gene which encodes p53 tumor-suppressor protein Homozygous loss of p53 is found in 65% of colon cancers, 30–50% of breast cancers, and 50% of lung cancers. Mutated p53 is also involved in the pathophysiology of leukemias, lymphomas, sarcomas, and neurogenic tumors. Abnormalities of the p53 gene can be inherited in Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS), which increases the risk of developing various types of cancers.

As the costs of DNA sequencing have diminished, many cancers have now been sequenced for the first time revealing novel tumor suppressors.

One of the most frequently damaged TUMOR SUPPRESSOR genes are components of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex, which are lost in about 20% of tumors. Other examples of tumor suppressors include pVHL, APC, CD95, ST5, YPEL3, ST7, and ST14.

Molecular Imprints prepared using specific tumor suppressor genes can act as PROTECTIVE agents for these GENES by safeguarding them from the attacks of endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules. Actually, molecular imprints work as protective layers around the vulnerable active groups of these genes

————————————————————————————-

‘Molecular imprints’ can bind to any molecule -even with biological molecules- if there is configurational affinity between them. But the point to be noted is, molecular imprints cannot compete with biological ligands in binding to their natural target molecules. As such, molecular imprints cannot hinder normal biological interactions, and hence, cannot produce any pathological molecular errors. That means, molecular imprints can act as protective agents in safeguarding biological molecules from the attacks of pathogenic molecules, but cannot any produce pathological molecular errors by their own action. That is why we say homeopathic drugs cannot produce any harmful effects in our body. This is a very important point regarding the ‘safety’ of homeopathy when compared to any other therapeutic system that uses molecular forms of drugs.

————————————————————————————

Due to reasons only known to them, teachers and seniors make young homeopaths believe that administration of homeopathic remedies without perfect indications especially in high potencies would do grave harm to the patients, and may cause even death. It is warned that our drugs should be used with great care, and many young homeopaths are scared to prescribe, lest it may be a wrong prescription.

If potentized drugs were dangerous things as you believe, homeopaths would have been the greatest criminals in human history, since each of us would have so far killed thousands by our prescriptions! We would have already harmed a big section of human race by this time! Even you and me make many many wrong prescriptions everyday, believing that we are making correct prescriptions. Can anybody deny this fact with a sincere heart?

Living roofs of safety of homeopathic medicines are the thousands of people we so far treated with wrong prescriptions and stay undamaged!

————————————————————————————–

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

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

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

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

Two questions have to be answered here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. ‘On-target interactions’

2. ‘Off-target interactions’.

‘On-target’ interactions are those happening between
natural ligands and their genuine targets. Such
interactions are essential part of vital processes through
which biochemical pathways are carried unhindered.

Natural ligands and their genuine targets interact through
two stages:

a). molecular identification and binding, which is effected by complementary configurational affinity between targets and ligands,

b). actual chemical interaction, which is effected through perfect charge affinity between ligands and their genuine targets.

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

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

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

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

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

————————————————————————————-

How Potentized Silicea Works as ‘Homeopathic Scalpel’- Exploring the Biochemistry Involved:

Materia Medica of Silicea says: “Silica can stimulate the organism to re-absorb fibrotic conditions and scar-tissue. Ripens abscess since it promotes suppuration. Promotes expulsion of foreign bodies from tissues. In phthisis, it must be used with care, for here it may cause the absorption of scar-tissue, liberate the disease, walled in, to new activities.”

“Re-absorbing of fibrotic scar tissues, ripening, opening up and healing of abscesses by promoting suppuration, expulsion of foreign bodies from tissues”- these clinically well established homeopathic properties of SILICEA have assigned it a honorable title- “homeopathic scalpel”. Exactly, in homeopathic doses silicea causes absorption of scar tissue being part of abscess walls, and ‘liberates the contents, walled in’.

Some homeopaths prefer to use silicea as ‘homeopathic scalpel’ in ‘high potencies’- in 30c or above, where as there are others who use it as triturations- 3x, 6x etc. All of them vouch excellent results, but molecular mechanism of ‘scalpel’ actions of silicea in ‘molecular forms’ and ‘molecular imprints’ forms are entirely different, as explained later in this article.

How and why silicea acts as ‘homeopathic scalpel’? To provide a scientific explanation to this phenomenon, we have to inquire deeply into the exact role of silicea in biological systems.

Silicea is known as a polycrest remedy in homeopathy. Silica, which is also known as silicea in homeopathic pharmacy, is the chemical compound silicon dioxide. It is an oxide of chemical element silicon, with the chemical formula SiO2.

Silica is most commonly found in nature as sand or quartz. Measured by mass, silicon makes up 27.7% of the earth’s crust and is the second most abundant element in the crust, with only oxygen having a greater abundance.Silicon is usually found in the form of complex silicate minerals, and less often as silicon dioxide or silica, a major component of common sand. Pure silicon crystals are very rarely found in nature. The silicate minerals—various minerals containing silicon, oxygen and reactive metals—account for 90% of the mass of the earth’s crust.

Ocean bed is covered by diatoms, cells of which contain large quantities of silica. Silica is the primary compound in rice husk and coconut shells. Stems of various plants, such as rice, bamboo etc also contain silica in large amounts.

Silicon is an essential element in biology, although only tiny traces of it appear to be required by animals,however various sea sponges need silicon in order to have structure. It is much more important to the metabolism of plants, particularly many grasses, and silica in the form of silicic acid act as the basis of the striking array of protective shells of the microscopic diatoms.

Diatoms, radiolaria and siliceous sponges use biogenic silica as a structural material to construct skeletons. In more advanced plants, the silica phytoliths (opal phytoliths) are rigid microscopic bodies occurring in the cell; some plants, for example rice, need silicon for their growth.Although silicon was proposed to be an ultra trace nutrient, its exact function in the biology of animals is still under discussion. Higher organisms are only known to use it in very limited amounts in the form of silicic acid and soluble silicates.

Silicon is currently considered as a “plant beneficial substance by the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials (AAPFCO). Silicon has been shown in university and field studies to improve plant cell wall strength and structural integrity,improve drought and frost resistance, decrease lodging potential and boost the plant’s natural pest and disease fighting systems.Silicon has also been shown to improve plant vigor and physiology by improving root mass and density, and increasing above ground plant biomass and crop yields.

It has been proved that Silica can bind to DNA and RNA in certain situations. Silicification in and by cells has been common in the biological world for well over a billion years. In the modern world it occurs in bacteria, single-celled organisms, plants, and animals (invertebrates and vertebrates). Examples include: ‘frustules’ of ‘diatoms’, Silica ‘phytoliths’ in the cells of many plants, practically all grasses. The spicules which form the skeleton of many primitive creatures are also rich in silica.

Crystalline silica formed in the physiological environment often show exceptional physical properties- e.g. strength, hardness, fracture toughness. Formation of the mineral may occur either within the cell wall of an organism (such as with phytoliths), or outside the cell wall, as typically happens with ‘tests’ and ‘diatoms’. Specific biochemical reactions exist for mineral deposition. Such reactions include those that involve lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates.

It is yet unclear in what ways silica is important in the nutrition of developed animal species.This remains a challenging field of research, due to its ubiquitous presence in the environment and in most circumstances it dissolves in trace quantities into the animal bodies. It certainly does occur in the living body, leaving us with the problem that it is hard to create proper silica-free controls for purposes of research. This makes it difficult for researchers to be sure when the silica present has had operative beneficial effects, and when its presence is coincidental, or even harmful.

As per latest studies, silica is recognized to play many important roles in the growth, strength, and management of many connective tissues. This is true not only for hard connective tissues such as bone and tooth.

Inhaling finely divided crystalline silica dust in very small quantities over time can lead to silicosis, bronchitis, or cancer, as the dust becomes lodged in the lungs and continuously irritates them, reducing lung capacities by inducing synthesis and accumulation of Type 1 collagen fibrils around the silica deposits. In the body, crystalline silica particles do not dissolve over clinically relevant periods of time. This effect can create an occupational hazard for people working with sandblasting equipment, products that contain powdered crystalline silica and so on. Children, asthmatics of any age, allergy sufferers, and the elderly can be affected in much less time. Even though amorphous silica, such as fumed silica is not associated with development of silicosis,but it may cause irreversible lung damage in some cases.

Continuing research of the correlation of aluminium and Alzheimer’s disease has in the last few years included the use of silicic acid in beverages, due to its abilities to both reduce aluminium uptake in the digestive system as well as cause renal excretion of aluminium.

A study which followed subjects for 15 years found that higher levels of silica in water appeared to decrease the risk of dementia. The study found that with an increase of 10 milligram-per-day of the intake of silica in drinking water, the risk of dementia dropped by 11%.

Choline stabilized silica in the form of orthosilicic acid is now used as bioavailable nutritional supplement. It has been shown to prevent the loss of hair tensile strength,have positive effect on skin surface and skin mechanical properties, and on brittleness of hair and nails, abate brittle nail syndrome,partially prevent femoral bone loss, increase collagen concentration in calves, and have potential beneficial effect on bone collagen formation in osteopenic females.

Study has shown that physiological concentration of Silica in the form of orthosilicic acid stimulates Type 1 Collagen synthesis and osteoblastic differentiation in human osteoblast-like cells in vitro. Collagen is a group of naturally occurring proteins found in animals, especially in the flesh and connective tissues of mammals. It is the main component of connective tissue, and is the most abundant protein in mammals,making up about 25% to 35% of the whole-body protein content. Collagen, in the form of elongated fibrils, is mostly found in fibrous tissues such as tendon, ligament and skin, and is also abundant in cornea, cartilage, bone, blood vessels, the gut, and intervertebral disc. The fibroblast is the most common cell which creates collagen. In muscle tissue, it serves as a major component of the endomysium. Collagen constitutes one to two percent of muscle tissue, and accounts for 6% of the weight of strong, tendinous muscles.

Collagen, a key component of the animal extracellular matrix, is made through cleavage of pro-collagen by the enzyme collagenase once it has been secreted from the cell. This stops large structures from forming inside the cell itself. Collagenase production can be induced during an immune response, by cytokines that stimulate cells such as fibroblasts and osteoblast, and cause indirect tissue damage. Silica is considered to play a key role in the activation of collagenase enzyme, when induced by the action of immune related signaling molecules known as cytokines.

Formation of abscesses involves a complex chain of biochemic processes induced by cytokines produced in response to immune reactions against foreign substance entering the tissues, such as foreign bodies and infectious agents. Cytokines induces chemotaxis of various immune bodies and white blood cells into the site of foreign body to fight against the intruder. A membrane is formed around the intruder by producing type 1 collagens fibrils embedded with in a layer formed of lipids, proteins and carbohydrates, which encapsulates the foreign body. This capsule ripens into an abscess by accumulation of dead white cells. Finally, once the fight is over and infection is controlled, the collagen disintegrates and the capsule breaks open to discharge the contents.

It is well understood that silica plays a role in the process of membrane formation and encapsulation by promoting the production of type 1 collagen fibrils. Exact molecular mechanism of this role is not well understood yet. May be by acting as co-factors in activating collagenase enzyme to cleavage pro-collagen into collagen, which is the basic building material of capsular membrane of abscesses and cysts. Silicon is also considered to act as a hardening and stabilizing agent of collagen fibrils. During stage of ripening of abscesses, as concentration of inflammatory cytokines decrease, silicea also gradually decreases in collagen fibrils, thereby helping the disintegration of capsular membrane and opening up of abscesses.

Bilologically available crude silica particles help the process of formation of cysts and indurations around foreign bodies, presumably by supplying silicon ions to activate collagenase enzyme in the build up of type 1 collagen and capsular membranes. Silicon also infiltrates into cyst walls, and act as a structural ingredient. That is why silicosis develops in lungs due to accumulation of silica particles.

Triturated forms of silica below 12c contain ionized silica particles, which are highly activated by breaking of intermolecular bonds during process of trituration. These activated particles can compete with biological silica molecules in binding to collagen fibrils, there by resulting in removal of silica and inducing ripening of abscesses. But we should remember, using of these molecular forms of activated silica may pose dangerous to the organism, as they will create off-target molecular inhibitions and unexpected pathologies in various biochemical pathways in the organism.

Silica potentized above Avogadro limit contains only ‘molecular imprints’ of silica, without any silica molecules present. Due to complementary configuration, these molecular imprints can bind only to off target excess biological silica molecules , there by removing them from the collagen matrix, and helping in their disintegration, leading to easy maturation and opening up of abscess walls.

Potententized silica contains only ‘molecular imprints’, which cannot bind to any biological targets except off target silica. As such, they are safe to be used as ‘homeopathic scalpels’ without any fear of unwanted side effects.

It is the biological role of silicea as a cofactor in the synthesis of type 1 collagen, and its property of getting embedded in collagen fibrils that makes it an effective homeopathic therapeutic agent in potentized forms in many pathological conditions such as abscesses, indurations, cysts, skin problems, nail problems, joint problems, keloids etc etc.

This is only a humble introductory study on silica biochemistry in relation with its role in abscess formations. There remains a lot to be researched, explored and explained on this topic. A lot of questions yet remain to be answered.

————————————————————————————

Molecular Imprinting is not my original idea or invention. My contribution in this concept is actually very limited, by way of trying to explain homeopathic potentization as a bio-friendly version of already existing Molecular Imprinting In Polymers

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

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

Since ‘molecular imprinted polymers’ prepared by this process are synthetic polymers, they cannot be used as drugs. Homeopathy uses water-ethyl alcohol mixture as ‘host’ in place of polymers, and drug molecules as ‘templates’ or ‘guests’ for preparing molecular imprints that could be used as drugs. Since molecular imprints prepared by this process consist of only water and ethyl alcohol molecules, they could be safely used as therapeutic agents.
————————————————————————————-

Wishing a happy new year to all my dear friends here. 2013 was a wonderful year for me in your nice company. Many memorable milestones have been crossed and targets achieved. I have been enjoying every moment here in your company day in and day out, all round this year talking with you about homeopathy.

I could prove how facebook could be converted into my living room, my office, my work place and above all a great place for unending learning. I could convert facebook as an INTERNATIONAL VIRTUAL SEMINAR HALL OF HOMEOPATHY. With more than 25000 homeopaths in my friends list and discussion groups, somebody from some part of the globe were always here discussing with me about homeopathy. My knowledge and ideas have been evolving into more and more perfection everyday through the interactions with you here. THANKS, EVERYBODY.

Looking forward to 2014 with more expectations of ever greater achievements. Planning to publish a few peer-reviewed articles on MIT on the basis of my almost completed research works. Planning to publish a complete BOOK on MIT as requested by my friends. Looking forward to convert our discussion group ‘HOMEOPATHY FOR TOTAL CURE’ into an International Institution of Scientific Homeopathy with all our group members as its part.

HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYBODY!

—————————————————————————

I make hundreds of posts and comments daily on my facebook timeline, discussion groups, pages as well as on twitter, as part of my endeavor to evolve and promote MIT concepts of scientific homeopathy. My friends, who come on face book only occasionally, and those who are able to spend very limited time here, may miss most of my updates. There are also many late comers in my growing friends list. There may be also some people willing to read some of my posts again and again. In order to ensure my works are secured for future use, and to make them easily available for everybody any time, I regularly compile my face book posts and updates into large volumes. So far, NINE volumes have been compiled.

LATE COMERS TO MY FRIENDS LIST AND DISCUSSION FORUMS ARE REQUESTED TO READ MY FOLLOWING COMPILATIONS OF FACEBOOK UPDATES TO GET A PRELIMINARY IDEA OF WHAT IS GOING ON HERE:

VOLUME IX:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/12/16/volume-ix-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

VOLUME VIII:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/12/16/volume-viii-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

VOLUME VII:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/10/24/volume-vii-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

VOLUME VI:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/10/11/volume-vi-selected-facebook-updates/

VOLUME V:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/10/09/volume-v-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

VOLUME- IV:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/06/04/selected-facebook-updates-volume-four/

VOLUME- III:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/05/12/volume-three/

VOLUME II:

http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/volume-ii-compilation-of-my-selected-facebook-updates/

VOLUME- I:

http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/selected-facebook-updates/

CONCOMITANT symptoms are very important in deciding a similimum, since they will be always very peculiar to the PATIENT. Never ignore concomitants if they are peculiar. In most cases, concomitants will lead us to a right remedy or group of probable remedies. During case taking, we should be very careful for not to miss these valuable indicators of SIMILIMUM.

CONCOMITANTS mean potentially independant symptoms that appear as ADDITIONAL symptoms, along with or accompanying with a BASIC symptom. ALTERNATING SYMPTOMS as well as EXTENSIONS also may be considered as concomitants, as they also are ADDITIONAL symptoms appearing DURING, ALONG WITH or RELATED WITH the main BASIC symptoms. Concomitants are most helpful indicators for individualizing the patient by identifying the exact molecular errors working behind a particular symptom group, and for identifying the exact molecular imprints required to remove those molecular errors.

Concomitants are always explained by the patients as well as in repertories using terms such as ‘accompanied with’ ‘along with’, ‘during’, ‘alternating’, ‘extending to’, or ‘concomitant with’ itself.

For example, VOMITING during HEADACHE- here vomiting is a concomitant of headache. If it is HEADACHE during VOMITING, headache is the concomitant of vomiting. NAUSEA during headache, YAWNING during headache, BACKACHE along with piles, DIARRHOEA with COLIC, ABDOMINAL pain extending to back, ASTHMA with URTICARIA, ASTHMA alternating with URTICARIA, CORYZA during EATING, CHEST PAIN extending to FINGERS, HEADACHE with SLEEPINESS- we can cite thousands of examples for CONCOMITANTS from our repertories. Study them with special care, to be a successful prescriber.

MODALITIES are different from CONCOMITANTS. Modalities are not additional symptoms like concomitants. They are only factors such as CONDITIONS or TIME that ameliorate or aggravate certain symptoms. In some cases, CONCOMITANT symptoms may also MODIFY the basic symptoms by aggravating or ameliorating it. Such MODIFYING CONCOMITANTS are far more helpful in selecting a similimum even more than pure concomitants or modalities.

Some homeopaths claim that they can prescribe “without all these things”, on the basis of “behavior, temperament & personality” only. Can anybody decide the “behavior, temperament & personality” of a patient without observing and studying his SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE symptoms? ‘Concomitants’ need not be always ‘physical’ or particular’. It may be ‘behavioral’, ‘temperamental’ or abnormalities in ‘personality’. If patient shows some ‘change of mood such as violent outbursts, weeping or anger during headache’, the mood changes are CONCOMITANTS of headache. If a patient ‘desires to sit in solitude’ during headache, ‘desire solitude’ is a CONCOMITANT of headache. If it is ‘weeping’ during ‘dysmenorrhoea’, ‘weeping’ is a CONCOMITANT of ‘dysmenorrhoea’. There is no scope for any confusion in this regard.

Any ABNORMAL objective and subjective symptom, that reflects any ABNORMAL molecular processes happening in the body that have to be corrected by using a medicinal agent, are to be considered by the homeopath in deciding an appropriate remedy for that patient. If anything ABNORMAL is there in his ‘behavior, temperament or personality’, it will of course provide a strong indication to an appropriate remedy. But remember, it should be an ABNORMAL one, or DEVIATION from normal, to be of worth consideration. NORMAL ‘behavior, temperament or personality’ indicates NORMAL physiological processes, where as we are looking for what is going ABNORMAL in him.

When I use the terms SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE symptoms, that no way disregards ‘behavior, temperament or personality’. Every general, particular, mental, or physical symptom, including those of ‘behavior, temperament or personality’ come under the purview of ‘subjective and objective’ symptoms.

Some people accuse BOENNINGHAUSSEN has ignored mentals, generals as well as ‘behavior, temperament or personality’ aspects while defining TOTALITY in terms of ‘causations, locations, sensations, modalities and concomitants’. This accusation arises from incorrect understanding of boenninghaussen’s approach. CAUSATION may be physical or mental. LOCATION includes generals and particulars. SENSATIONS comprises of all SUBJECTIVE symptoms, including general or particular sensations as well as mentals. MODALITIES also include mental and general aspects of aggravations and ameliorations. CONCOMITANTS may be general, mental, physical, or particular. Boenninghaussen’s method no way disregards or ignores ‘behavior, temperament or personality’, but explains and classifies them with a different approach, more systematic, specific and scientific.

I have felt that boenninghaussen ignored or did not give due consideration to the PRESENTATION or APPEARANCE aspects of symptoms, such as general and particular physical appearance, type of discharges, type of eruptions, lesions, skin changes, hair, gestures, gaits, facial expressions etc etc. That is why I include a new category PRESENTATIONS along with CAUSATION, SENSATION, LOCATION, MODALITIES and CONCOMITANTS schema of boenninghaussen. I also want to stress the importance of ALTERNATING SYMPTOMS and EXTENSIONS under the category of CONCOMITANTS. By this way, I think I have updated boenninghaussen’s schema into more perfection.

A.R. Khuda-Bukhsh, PhD., is a professor at the Cytogenetics and Molecular Biology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Kalyani, Kalyani-741235, India. He has conducted groundbreaking investigations on homeopathic medicine since 1980 and has published dozens of scientific articles on homeopathic topics and other areas of research.

Khuda-Bukhsh  has published nearly thirty scientific articles in peer-reviewed  medical journals related to, or directly investigating homeopathic treatment, including cancer treatment, and yet many homeopathic practitioners  have  never  heard  of  him.  His  investigations  have  shown  strong  evidence  that  homeopathic  treatment  has  a biological effect, a fact that is still not widely accepted among scientists.

On the basis of his studies, Khuda-Bukush has also proposed a “hypothesis” regarding the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure. According to him, homeopathic drugs act by “modulating genetic expression”. Here, I am trying to evaluate his “hypothesis” on the basis of  an analytical study of his research works themselves.

In the present article, I am trying to evaluate the ‘hypothesis’ proposed by Prof Khuda Bukush, through a critical appreciation of his EIGHT important scientific studies.

STUDIES CONDUCTED BY PROF. KHUDA BUKUSH, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE CLAIMS TO PROPOSE HIS ‘GENETIC MODULATION’ HYPOTHESIS REGARDING BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM OF HOMEOPATHIC CURE. MY COMMENTS ARE GIVEN UNDER EACH STUDY:

KHUDA-BUKHSH STUDY 1. Mechanism of biological action(s) of the potentized homeopathic remedies can be scientifically explained through a working hypothesis- By Professor A. R. Khuda-Bukhsh, PhD in Genetics, Former Head, Department of Zoology, University of Kalyani, India

One of the main reasons for the lack of acceptance of homeopathy as a scientific mode of treatment is the absence of a clear understanding of its mechanism of action, particularly of the ultra-high diluted potentized remedies. At the present state of our knowledge, the mechanism of action of the potentized homeopathic remedies diluted beyond Avogadro’s limit is extremely difficult to understand and explain. But here is a working hypothesis that can throw light on the possible mechanism of biological action of the potentized homeopathic remedies with concrete supportive evidences. In the beginning, let me focus on the intricacies that come in the way of a scientific explanation of the mechanism of action of the homeopathic remedies, particularly those diluted above the Avogadro’s limit. Firstly, to understand the mechanism of action of the potentized homeopathic drugs, one has to satisfactorily answer the problem of how the medicinal property of the original drug substance can be transferred to and retained by the ethanolic vehicle. Several working hypotheses have been proposed in this aspect (Anaganostatos et al., 1998; Allegre et al., 1989; Bellavite and Signorini, 2002; Elia and Niccoli 1999; Lo, 1996; Anick and Ives, 2007; Rey et al., 2007). The leading current proposal for the mode of action of such “ultra molecular” dilutions is that water (and aquatic ethanol as well) is capable of storing information relating to substances with which it has been in contact and subsequently can transmit this information to pre-sensitized biological system. The process is believed to be mediated by structural modification of water (or the aquatic ethanol, the “vehicle” of the homeopathic remedies), analogous to storage of information by magnetic media. Such information is retained in physical, rather than chemical form (Bellavite and Signorini, 2002). Several aspects of the “water structure” and “memory of water” have been critically analyzed recently by Chaplin (2007). Results of studies conducted on nature of molecular clustering in water solutions showed that as a solution is made more and more dilute, larger and very stable aggregates develop (Samal and Geckeler, 2001). This would mean that residual molecular clusters of the original substance may be present in homeopathic dilutions. Interestingly, alcohol also forms clusters with water (Wisnieski et al., 2001), which would further support the homeopathic analogy. Being an associative liquid, that is having hydrogen bonds between molecules, it is thus possible that alcohol can form its very own clusters. In fact, the presence of alcohol in water may actually be favorable for the moderation of succussion energy (by increasing vapor pressure). Andersson et al (1997) and Markovic et al (1999) were able to create individual clusters, using sudden evaporative cooling. According to these authors, cluster mixtures can generate many different isomeric forms in different geometric forms, and each isomer can represent a unique bit of information. Thus it is possible that millions of different “information bits” can be produced which may be “biologically active”. Hameroff and Penrose (2001) have proposed that microtubules in our brain are the seat of our conscious mind and consist of quantum micro switches (protein qubits), which contain “pure” ordered water. The microtubules interconnect every cell in a multicellular organism possibly being the means to extend the brain’s consciousness throughout the entire body. These authors further suggest that this microtubule network can explain the mind-body interactions, such as psycho-somatic pain. There are many research articles that suggest the role of cell cytoskeleton in genome regulation in cancer. Further there are evidences that support the fact that internal microtubules of the cell control mitosis (cell division), regulate the genes, decide which gene to turn on and so forth not only in terms of differentiation in development but also in health and in the steady-state. They believe that consciousness, the microtubules and quantum coherence play an essential role in health and diseases. Thus, in fine, the water cluster model and microtubule network model are comparable with Hahnemann’s concept of vital force in which a biological network offers all the action/reaction properties. Additionally, Hameroff’s (2001) work suggests that the quantum state of the microtubule’s elemental building block can be altered by an ‘ordered’ water structure attached to the external side of the microtubules. The water cluster(s), which is (are) specific to the problems, can simply throw the right switch or switches to correct the error in the network. Thus molecular architecture of water has a key role to play in understanding homeopathic mechanism of action and has therefore been vigorously studied (Dantas et al., 2007; Elia et al., 2007; Anick and Ives (2007).

The next part of the mechanism that should be addressed is how the tiny drop of a potentized remedy or a few sugar globules soaked with the remedy can trigger the recovery process of the disease/abnormal symptoms. There are several hypotheses based on in vivo and in vitro studies with various animal models in relation to various immunological, cardiovascular and molecular aspects and various kinds of hypotheses like “hormesis”, “allergic reaction”, or “immunological responses” etc. have been proposed (see The HomBRex database, available at: http://www.carstens-stiftung.de/hombrex ). These hypotheses have their apparent merits, but also suffer from some inadequacies in explaining the action of homeopathic drugs in unicellular organisms like protozoans or bacteria. Any acceptable hypothesis has to be able to explain the mechanism of action universally in all kinds of organisms where homeopathic remedies have been reported to act. Khuda-Bukhsh (1997, 2003, 2006, 2009) proposed a hypothesis based on various scientific evidences that potentized homeopathic drugs act through regulation of relevant gene expression. The possible pathways and sites of action have also been discussed by this group (Khuda-Bukhsh, 1997; Mallick et al., 2003; Pathak et al., 2006; 2007; Khuda-Bukhsh and Pathak, 2008). According to this hypothesis, homeopathic remedies carry specific “signals”/”information” that can be identified by specific receptors of the cells. These “signals” can act as a “trigger” for turning “on” or “off” some relevant genes, initiating a cascade of gene actions to alter and correct the gene expressions that went wrong to produce the disorder/disease. Presumably, the homeopathic drugs are mediated through cytokine responses. Thus, administration of a potentized homeopathic drug can elicit response in suitable signal proteins and can either up-regulate or down-regulate such signal proteins to bring back the recovery of the patient to normal health (Khuda-Bukhsh et al., 2009). For the same reason a global microarray after a homeopathic drug administration in a disease/abnormal state should provide evidence for modulated expression of a large number of genes that has actually been reported recently (D Oliveira et al., 2008).

In higher eukaryotes like mammals, the regulation of gene expression is, however, a very complex phenomenon. In principle, the expression of genes might be regulated at any one of several stages. At least five control points can be distinguished that form the series, through which gene expression is regulated (see Lewin 2004): Activation of structure – Initiation of transcription – Processing the transcript – Transport to cytoplasm – Translation of mRNA. Many eukaryotic genes have multiple regulatory binding sites and are controlled by more number of regulatory proteins (see Watson et al., 2004). Enhancers bind regulators responsible for activating the gene at a given time and place. Alternative enhancers bind different groups of regulators and control expression of the same gene at different times and places in response to different signals. Some regulators bind sites far from the genes they control, by repressor proteins. Repressors work by a variety of ways, including the way which is called “gene silencing”. Modification to regions of chromatin keep genes in sometimes large stretches of DNA “switched off”. Similarly, there are “activators”, which do not always have well-defined structure. Activators recruit the transcriptional machinery to the gene, and sometimes recruit nucleosome modifiers that help the transcription machinery bind at the promoter. Activators are known to work synergistically to integrate signals. Synergy is critical for signal integration by activators. Each signal is communicated to the gene by a separate activator (signal recognition particle). Signals are often communicated to transcriptional regulators through signal transduction pathways. There are various ways that signals are detected by a cell and communicated to a gene. It can also refer to the “information” as it passes from detection of the ligand to the regulators that directly control the genes- that is, as it passes along a signal transduction pathway. In a signal transduction pathway, the initiating ligand is typically detected by a specific cell surface receptor: the ligand binds to an extracellular domain of the receptor and this binding is communicated to the intracellular domain. From there the signal is relayed to the relevant regulator, often through a cascade of kinases. Generally binding of ligand alters the shape (and thus activity) of the intracellular domain. Alternatively the ligand can act simply to bring together two or more receptor chains, allowing interaction domains of those receptors to activate each other (see Watson et al., 2004). However, how a homeopathic drug can elicit response in a cell receptor and can bind with the receptor is not precisely known. These are the areas that should be more specifically searched. Our research points out a possibility that homeopathic drug can have interaction with some nano-particles that can tag onto some proteins. That can make it possible for some drug-associated nano-particles to get attached to some proteins, which then act as the ligand (Bhattacharyya et al., 2008). However, this is only speculative at this stage of our knowledge and needs validation by further research. A recent finding that nano-particles of metals can be traced in ultra-high diluted homeopathic remedies through high powered electron microscopes vindicates our hypothesis.

Likewise, there are STAT and MAP kinase pathways activated by ligand (a cytokine) in which phosphorylation and dephosphorylation of different kinases occur to carry forward the information to produce activities in genes downstream as a cascade of reactions. Perhaps signals of potentized homeopathic drugs are carried through this method (Khuda-Bukhsh, 2009; Khuda-Bukhsh et al., 2009). Gene expression can also be controlled by “signals” received by a cell from its environment. For example, the presence of sugar lactose activates the transcription of the lac operon in E. coli, while viral infection activates the expression of β-interferon gene in mammals (see Watson et al., 2004). Interestingly, in our recent experiment on E. colisubjected to low dose of arsenic, Arsenicum Album 30C showed modulatory effect in their glucose uptake (results unpublished). Generally speaking, the strategies that are used to instruct genetically-identical cells to express distinct sets of genes and thereby perform different sets of function include m-RNA localization, cell-to-cell contact and signaling through the diffusion of a secreted signaling molecule. Microarray assays can thus help further in the analysis of gene expression profiles of experimental organisms administered micro doses of the homeopathic drug.

In fine, the reasons and circumstantial evidences that support gene regulatory hypothesis are:

• The use of various state-of-the art techniques has now quite convincingly proved the efficacy of several potentized homeopathic drugs diluted beyond Avogadro’s limit in modulating significantly many parameters of study. These parameters are considered scientifically acceptable and dependable. The potentized homeopathic remedies are capable of modulating such parameters, while the succussed alcohol (placebo) can not. Further, the homeopathic drug can bring about changes in multiple parameters at any given time frame, which without a cascade of gene actions is not possible.

• The homeopathic remedies are diluted to such an extent that there can not be physical existence of a single molecule of the original drug substance. Therefore it is simply not possible for the remedy to react chemically with all the cells undergoing some degree of quantifiable/visible changes at the patho-physiological level. But there are many evidences that demonstrate modulations by the potentized homeopathic remedy (diluted beyond Avogadro’s limit) in regard to almost every endpoint studied.

• This leaves us with the only possibility that the homeopathic drug carries molecular imprints or definite signal/information of the original drug molecule that can be deciphered by the cells’ receptors. If one knows a particular language, no matter if the size of the script is small or large, the message will carry the same meaning. Therefore, if they indeed carry some signals, and the cells can perceive that, then there should be a reactive process going on in the transduction of the signal to the target organ. Most of the parameters of study, particularly the expression of signal proteins, are indicators of the fact that their genes have been expressed in terms of either up-regulation or down regulation, as the case may be, that is good evidence of their ability to exert influence on the regulatory genes of these signal proteins; since the expression of these signal proteins and some other specific receptor proteins (like AhR or PCNA) have also been tested positive by some other confirmatory tests like immunohistochemical localization as well. Further, the ability of the homeopathic drugs in bringing about structural alterations at the sub-cellular levels in some vital organs (like liver) has been evidenced by electron microscopic studies as well, that would also speak for its ability to tackle matters at the molecular level.

• The use of several modern techniques involving monoclonal antibodies for the detection of these signal proteins through immunoblot experiments are currently accepted to be quite dependable scientific tool for ascertaining gene modulating effects of any drug.

• Nanoparticles have been shown to have effect on the physico-chemical property of the homeopathic dilutions (Bhattacharyya et al., 2008), that may indicate some role of the nano-particles during the potentization process of the homeopathic drugs.

• All parameters of study tested so far are strictly gene controlled.

• Homeopathic dilutions have been noted to have demonstrable and reproducible action on plants, and bacteria, which lack any central nervous system.

• And finally, the simultaneous treatment of Actinomycin D, a transcription blocker, the action of a potentized homeopathic remedy fails (Dutta et al., 1999; Chakrabarti et al., 2001).

Thus, our extensive research on homeopathy yielded much suggestive information for understanding the biological part of the mechanism of action. More in-depth research, particularly by other independent researchers, to test and verify our research findings will be highly solicited, because validation of results obtained by us can indeed open up newer avenues, paving the way for a better understanding of the mechanism and pathways of biological action of the potentized homeopathic remedies in near future, and to establish the “gene regulation” hypothesis as universally acceptable one.

 My comments on Study 1:

I really wonder what scientist of big stature like him really intended by including in his articles some introductory references to the pseudo scientific theories and concepts of Anaganostatos et al., 1998; Allegre et al (1989) Bellavite and Signorini (2002), Elia and Niccoli  (1999),  Lo (1996), Anick and Ives (2007) , Rey et al (2007), Beneviste  and Signorini (2002),  Chaplin (2007), Samal and Geckeler (2001), Wisnieski et al (2001),  Andersson et al (1997), Markovic et al (1999)  Hameroff and Penrose (2001) etc etc. All these pseudo-scientific references severely damage the scientific credentials of the hypothesis proposed by the professor.

Professor Khuda Bukhush rightly says:

“One of the main reasons for the lack of acceptance of homeopathy as a scientific mode of treatment is the absence of a clear understanding of its mechanism of action, particularly of the ultra-high diluted potentized remedies. At the present state of our knowledge, the mechanism of action of the potentized homeopathic remedies diluted beyond Avogadro’s limit is extremely difficult to understand and explain”.

After saying this much, he offers us to propose “a working hypothesis that can throw light on the possible mechanism of biological action of the potentized homeopathic remedies with concrete supportive evidences”.

He identifies the primary task of such a hypothesis: “Firstly, to understand the mechanism of action of the potentized homeopathic drugs, one has to satisfactorily answer the problem of how the medicinal property of the original drug substance can be transferred to and retained by the ethanolic vehicle.”

The sad part of his neatly written article is that no where he tries “answer the problem of how the medicinal property of the original drug substance can be transferred to and retained by the ethanolic vehicle”.  Instead, he quotes from various references from pseudoscientific literature, never explaining his stand on those ideas he quoted.

Listen to some of his quotes:

“The leading current proposal for the mode of action of such “ultra molecular” dilutions is that water (and aquatic ethanol as well) is capable of storing information relating to substances with which it has been in contact and subsequently can transmit this information to pre-sensitized biological system.” Does the professor authenticate this “leading current proposal”? He keeps silent.

The process is believed to be mediated by structural modification of water (or the aquatic ethanol, the “vehicle” of the homeopathic remedies), analogous to storage of information by magnetic media”. Author says “process is believed to be”. Does he share this “belief”?

“Such information is retained in physical, rather than chemical form (Bellavite and Signorini, 2002).” What is your opinion on this, sir?

Several aspects of the “water structure” and “memory of water” have been critically analyzed recently by Chaplin (2007).” Do you agree with Chaplin’s analysis?

“Results of studies conducted on nature of molecular clustering in water solutions showed that as a solution is made more and more dilute, larger and very stable aggregates develop (Samal and Geckeler, 2001). This would mean that residual molecular clusters of the original substance may be present in homeopathic dilutions.” Here also, professor says “may be”. He has no his own opinion.

“Interestingly, alcohol also forms clusters with water (Wisnieski et al., 2001), which would further support the homeopathic analogy. Being an associative liquid, that is having hydrogen bonds between molecules, it is thus possible that alcohol can form its very own clusters. In fact, the presence of alcohol in water may actually be favorable for the moderation of succussion energy (by increasing vapor pressure).” See-  again he says “it is possible” and “may actually be favorable”!

“Andersson et al (1997) and Markovic et al (1999) were able to create individual clusters, using sudden evaporative cooling. According to these authors, cluster mixtures can generate many different isomeric forms in different geometric forms, and each isomer can represent a unique bit of information. Thus it is possible that millions of different “information bits” can be produced which may be “biologically active”. Professor says “according to these authors”. He does not open up his mind here also.

Hameroff and Penrose (2001) have proposed that microtubules in our brain are the seat of our conscious mind and consist of quantum micro switches (protein qubits), which contain “pure” ordered water. The microtubules interconnect every cell in a multicellular organism possibly being the means to extend the brain’s consciousness throughout the entire body. These authors further suggest that this microtubule network can explain the mind-body interactions, such as psycho-somatic pain. There are many research articles that suggest the role of cell cytoskeleton in genome regulation in cancer. Further there are evidences that support the fact that internal microtubules of the cell control mitosis (cell division), regulate the genes, decide which gene to turn on and so forth not only in terms of differentiation in development but also in health and in the steady-state. They believe that consciousness, the microtubules and quantum coherence play an essential role in health and diseases”. Listen, professor has no opinion- he said “they believe”!

“Thus, in fine, the water cluster model and microtubule network model are comparable with Hahnemann’s concept of vital force in which a biological network offers all the action/reaction properties”.  Here the professor seems to agree with the idea that “water cluster model and microtubule network model are comparable with Hahnemann’s concept of vital force”!

“Additionally, Hameroff’s (2001) work suggests that the quantum state of the microtubule’s elemental building block can be altered by an ‘ordered’ water structure attached to the external side of the microtubules. The water cluster(s), which is (are) specific to the problems, can simply throw the right switch or switches to correct the error in the network.” OK sir, “Hameroff’s work suggests”- but what is your opinion on that “suggestion”?

He concludes this inquiry by the statement: “Thus molecular architecture of water has a key role to play in understanding homeopathic mechanism of action and has therefore been vigorously studied (Dantas et al., 2007; Elia et al., 2007; Anick and Ives (2007).”

Did this discussion by the learned professor positively contribute any thing for the scientific understanding of the “mechanism of action of the potentized homeopathic drugs, one has to satisfactorily answer the problem of how the medicinal property of the original drug substance can be transferred to and retained by the ethanolic vehicle”, as he initially identified as the primary task of a hypothesis regarding biological mechanism of homeopathic drug actions?

Leaving the “first part” in utter confusion, the professor moves on to “second part” of his ‘hypothesis’:

“The next part of the mechanism that should be addressed is how the tiny drop of a potentized remedy or a few sugar globules soaked with the remedy can trigger the recovery process of the disease/abnormal symptoms”

In this article, Khuda-Bukhsh explains his ‘hypothesis’ that potentized homeopathic drugs act through “regulation of relevant gene expression”, which is claimed to be based on various “scientific evidences” he could collect through his scientific studies.

He says: “According to this hypothesis, homeopathic remedies carry specific “signals”/”information” that can be identified by specific receptors of the cells. These “signals” can act as a “trigger” for turning “on” or “off” some relevant genes, initiating a cascade of gene actions to alter and correct the gene expressions that went wrong to produce the disorder/disease. Presumably, the homeopathic drugs are mediated through cytokine responses. Thus, administration of a potentized homeopathic drug can elicit response in suitable signal proteins and can either up-regulate or down-regulate such signal proteins to bring back the recovery of the patient to normal health”.

What does this statement show? It shows he has no any idea about the exact active principles of potentized drugs, which should actually be the basis of any rational ‘hypothesis’ regarding the ‘biological mechanism’ of drug actions. He says “homeopathic remedies carry specific “signals”/”information”. What is the mechanism by which these “signals/information” are transferred from drugs substances into potentizing medium during the process of potentization? In what form these  “signals” exist in potentized drugs? In what form these “information” is stored, and transmitted? Is he talking about “electromagnetic signals” or ‘waves’ as our ‘energy medicine’ theoreticians talk about? Or, is it “chemical” signals or ‘nanoparticles’ as he proposes in later part of his article? How can an eminent biologist can talk about active principles of drug substances and their biological actions in such vague terms of  “signals/information”? How can he say these “signals/information” being “identified by specific receptors of the cells”? Without giving any clarification regarding the form in which these “signals/information” exist, how can he say these ‘signals” can act as a trigger for turning “on” or “off” some relevant genes, initiating a cascade of gene actions to “alter and correct the gene expressions that went wrong to produce the disorder/disease”?

What is the role of “similia similibus curentur” in this process? How can anybody make a hypothesis about homeopathy, without any mention of its fundamental principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’? How can he incorporate  this concept of “up-regulate or down-regulate such signal proteins to bring back the recovery of the patient to normal health” into the frame work of ‘similia similibus curentur’?

According to the author, “administration of a potentized homeopathic drug can elicit response in suitable signal proteins and can either up-regulate or down-regulate such signal proteins to bring back the recovery of the patient to normal health”. Where as according to him, “potentized homeopathic drugs” mean “signals/information’, hat is the proposed biochemical process by which the “signals” “elicit response in suitable signal proteins”? He is expected to explain. According to homeopathy, only indicated drugs can produce any therapeutic effect. As such, Professor should explain how the biological actions of “signals” of indicated drugs differ from non-indicated drugs? All the studies of the author no where consider or mention about the importance of indicated remedy, which very important in homeopathy.

He continues: “However, how a homeopathic drug can elicit response in a cell receptor and can bind with the receptor is not precisely known. These are the areas that should be more specifically searched”. That means, his ‘hypothesis’ does not address the fundamental aspect of ‘biological mechanism’ of homeopathic cure!

Listen to his another statement: “Our research points out a possibility that homeopathic drug can have interaction with some nano-particles that can tag onto some proteins. That can make it possible for some drug-associated nano-particles to get attached to some proteins, which then act as the ligand (Bhattacharyya et al., 2008). However, this is only speculative at this stage of our knowledge and needs validation by further research. A recent finding that nano-particles of metals can be traced in ultra-high diluted homeopathic remedies through high powered electron microscopes vindicates our hypothesis.” He is now talking about “possibilities”! See him conveniently shifting to “nanoparticle” theory from his “signal/information” theory he originally proposed! How can he say his hypothesis is “vindicated” by the “recent finding that nano-particles of metals can be traced in ultra-high diluted homeopathic remedies through high powered electron microscopes”? What will happen to this “vindication” if “nanoparticle” theory of IIT-B scientists are proved wrong?

He next jumps to another theory: “Likewise, there are STAT and MAP kinase pathways activated by ligand (a cytokine) in which phosphorylation and dephosphorylation of different kinases occur to carry forward the information to produce activities in genes downstream as a cascade of reactions. Perhaps signals of potentized homeopathic drugs are carried through this method”. It is “perhaps”- he is not sure about anything he says. His ‘hypothesis’ is all about various ‘possibilities’, ‘probable’, ‘may have’  and ‘perhaps’. Is it the way a scientist should propose a ‘scientific hypothesis’ to explain a controversial phenomenon?

KHUDA-BUKHSH STUDY 2. Evidence in support of gene regulatory hypothesis: Gene expression profiling manifests homeopathy effect as more than placebo . By Santu Kumar Saha, Sourav Roy and Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh

  ABSTRACT

 Background: Use of ultra-high diluted remedies in homeopathy and their claimed efficacy in curing diseases has been challenged time and again by non-believers despite many evidence-based positive results published in favor of their efficacy in curing/ameliorating disease symptoms.

Aims: To test the ability of ultra-high diluted homeopathic remedies beyond Avogadro’s limit, if any, in manifesting gene modulating effects in controlled in vitro experimental model.

Methods: Since cancer cells manifest aberrant epigenetic gene expressions, we conducted global microarray gene expression profiling of HeLa cells (an established epigenetic model of HPV18 positive cell line) treated with two different potentized homeopathic remedies, namely, Condurango 30c and Hydrastis canadensis 30C (used in the treatment of cancer), as compared to that of placebo (succussed alcohol 30c).

Results: Data revealed distinctly different expression patterns of over 100 genes as a consequence of treatment with both homeopathc remedies compared to placebo.

Conclusion: Results indicate that action of the potentized drugs was “more than placebo” and these ultra-highly diluted drugs acted primarily through modulation of gene expression.

 Key words: Gene regulatory hypothesis, DNA microarray profile, potentized remedies.

 Introduction: Homeopathy is one of the most widely practiced controversial modes of treatment as it uses extremely diluted remedies in micro-doses to alleviate patients’ complaints. Despite being used for centuries with great effect, non-believers of homeopathy mainly ask two questions: (a) as drugs diluted beyond Avogadro’s limit (6.023 x 1023) are not expected to contain even one single molecule of the original drug substance, how can the homeopathic medicines then be physical-chemically different from “vehicle” ethanol, and claimed to be effective in curing many diseases? (b) What might the mechanism of action of these ultra-highly diluted remedies be?

In this report, we present gene expression profiling results that give strong support to a hypothesis proposed by Khuda-Bukhsh [1, 2], to wit, that potentized homeopathic drugs act through regulation of gene expression. Thangapazham et al. [3], in turn, apparently failed to find changes in gene expression induced by homeopathic drugs used in in vitro experiments with human breast cancer cells MDA-MB-231, human prostate cancer cells DU-145 and LNCaP, and rat prostate cancer cells MAT-LyLu treated with some potentized homeopathic remedies like Conium maculatum, Sabal serrulata, Thuja occidentalis, Asterias rubens, and Phytolacca decandra in dilutions 30c, 200c and 1,000c, and Carcinosinum (1,000 c) although they Int J High Dilution Res 2013; 12(45):162-167 163  had found in an earlier in vivo study reduction in the number and size of cancer nodules supported by histological analysis in prostate cancer MAT-LyLu cell–injected Copenhagen rats given homeopathic treatment containing Thuj, Con, Sabal serrulata, and in MAT-LyLu cell with Carc [4]. However, the authors did not conduct gene expression studies of any signal proteins in these rats in vivo, where modulation of certain gene expression would be expected.

The controversy surrounding research in homeopathy moves along two different directions. On the one hand, the mechanism of action of the potentized homeopathic remedies diluted beyond Avogadro’s limit remains an open research problem, which has received widespread attention from the research community, and many competing hypotheses have been proposed. On the other hand, some studies that indicate homeopathy is no better than placebo, which thus makes any claim about the mechanism of action of homeopathic drugs null and void. There have been many results highly critical of homeopathy. For example, The Lancet of August 27, 2005 featured an article that was highly dismissive of homeopathy [5] along with a press release: “homeopathy is no better than placebo”. The meta-analysis was accompanied by a short, anonymous editorial entitled ‘The end of homoeopathy’. This resulted in the eruption of a ravaging controversy: whether homeopathy is really better than placebo or not, culminating in a debate in the British Parliament [6]. Homeopathy was decried and its use as a beneficial and scientifically proven mode of treatment was voted against. However, most clinical research conducted with homeopathic medicines has shown positive results [7]. Biological activities of ultra-high diluted potentized homeopathic remedies have also been confirmed by basic research studies with respect to a multitude of scientifically accepted protocols, both in animals and plants in vivo and in vitro [8]. Nevertheless, the argument persisted, as ultra-highly diluted homeopathic medicines are supposed to possess “nothing” in terms of the original drug molecules, and as such their effect on biological systems was unacceptable until recently. During the last few years, presence of “nanoparticles” of the starting materials, even at extremely high dilutions, has been reported [9, 10]. Moreover, Montagnier [11] countered through experiments that “high dilutions of something are not ‘nothing’, they are water structures which mimic the original molecules”.

We decided to use one of the most modern tools, global microarray profiling of genes, to verify whether the effects of ultra-highly diluted homeopathic drugs on the expression profile of genes were distinctly different compared to “placebo”. DNA microarrays are widely used to measure the expression levels of large numbers of genes simultaneously, with the aid of selective probes under highly stringent conditions. Gene expression profiling experiments are specially effective for monitoring the expression levels of thousands of genes to study the effects of certain treatments, for example, to identify genes whose expression changes in response to pathogens or drugs, by comparing the gene expression in the infected and drug-treated cells or tissues [12].

Materials and methods: The aim of the present study was, therefore, to find out whether the global gene expression profiles in cancer cell line, HeLa (an established epigenetic model of HPV18 positive cell line) differed significantly, in quantitative as well as qualitative terms, after treatment with 2 homeopathic remedies used against cancer [13-15], namely, Condurango 30c and Hydrastis canadensis 30c (both diluted 10-60 times, much above Avogadro’s limit) compared to ethanol 30c, (placebo, prepared from the same stock of 70% alcohol giving 10 jerks at each step in the same manner as the verum was potentized). Affymetrix Gene Chip Human Primeview gene expression arrays were used for this purpose.

Cervical cancer cell line HeLa was obtained at National Centre for Cell Science, Pune. The cells were routinely maintained in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium supplemented with 10% FBS and 1% antibiotic at 37 ºC in a humidified incubator containing 5% CO2. The cells were plated one day before treatment. 4% (v/v) of drugs and “placebo” (succussed ethanol 30c, 10 jerks at each step of dilution) were added to the cell Int J High Dilution Res 2013; 12(45):162-167 164 cultures and kept for 48 hr. Cells without any treatment in the normal medium were considered as negative control.

Separate groups of cells were subjected to treatment with Cond 30c, Hydr 30c, and succussed alcohol placebo. The cells were sent to iLife Discoveries, Gurgaon, India for providing us global microarray data conducted on Affymetrix platform, using 25-mer probes. The total number of probes detected for the experiment was 49,395; hybridization was performed at 45 oC for 16 hrs at 60 rpm.

Slides were scanned with 3000 7G microarray scanner and raw data sets were extracted from the Cel (raw intensity) files. Microarray data analysis, differential gene expression analysis, fold change analysis and cluster analysis were performed using GeneSpring GX12.5 software.

 Results and discussion:  Microarray data analyses showed that out of a total of 40,678 genes, for which probe sets remained after data processing, normalization and quality control, 6,024 were differentially expressed at a p-value cutoff of 0.05, in a one-way ANOVA. The expression levels of the genes in the cells were treated with Hydr 30c (Set I) and Cond30c (Set II) were compared to the levels in the untreated (control) as well as succussed ethanol 30c (placebo) treated cells (Set III). Using a cutoff of 1.5 folds it was observed that in Set I, 3 genes each were up- and down-regulated when compared to the control as well as Set III samples. Similarly, there were 2 genes in Set II that were up-regulated by at least 1.5 folds when compared to the two sets mentioned above, whereas 122 genes were down-regulated by ≥1.5 folds. Two and 10 genes were up- and down-regulated by ≥ 1.5 folds, respectively, in both sets (Set I and Set II) when compared to the control as well as Set III. In addition, there were another 23 genes in Set I and 12 genes in Set II that were differentially expressed by ≥ 1.5 folds, when compared to Set III. Upon comparing the expression levels of genes in Set I and Set II, it was observed that for 36 genes, there were ≥ 1.5 fold differences in expression between the 2 treatments. These findings suggest that the drugs did not only affect the gene expression, but also that the effect of one drug was different from the other in a number of genes.

The findings of the present study clearly demonstrate that the expression profiles of certain genes of the drug-treated HeLa cells were significantly different from that of the placebo treated cells. This suggests that both drugs and placebo differed in their ability to trigger gene responses, some of which were implicated in cancer. Thus, although the drugs were ultra highly diluted, they still retained the ability to trigger gene responses in a cascade of reactions, diving support to Khuda-Bukhsh’s hypothesis[1-2]. Epigenetic modifications are a hallmark of cancer, and a large number of genes remain in modified state of expression in cancer cells. Both Hydr[13, 15] and Cond [14, 15] had been previously reported to induce apoptosis in cancer cells, while “placebos” do not exhibit this property. Therefore, it is logical to infer that homeopathic remedies contain some form of molecular imprints of the original drug substance [16], while the “placebo”, in the absence of such imprints, fails to elicit the required effect.

Incidentally, ultra-highly diluted preparations of glucose 30c, Arsenicum album 30c, and Arnica montana 30c were shown to induce gene modulatory effects in bacteria, E. coli and yeast Saccraromyces cerevisiae, either subjected to insult with sodium arsenite or UV-irradiation [17-19]. Those authors [17-19] explained that the potentized homeopathic remedies carry specific “signals”/”information” that can be identified by certain cell receptors. Those “signals” may act as a “trigger” for turning “on” or “off” some relevant genes, initiating a cascade of gene actions, while the “placebo” failed to elicit any such favorable responses. It has been previously documented that administration of a potentized homeopathic drug altered the expressions of a large number of signal proteins in mice induced to develop skin cancer [20]. Int J High Dilution Res 2013; 12(45):162-167 165

The results of the present study, therefore, contribute to support the gene regulatory hypothesis proposed by Khuda-Bukhsh [1, 2]. Further studies are needed to ascertain the ability of Cond 30c, if any, to modulate activities like DNA methylation/demethylation and histone acetylation/deacetylation, 2 hallmarks of epigenetic modifications, to produce additional support to the gene regulatory hypothesis.

 My comments on  Study 2:

This is a great study, but the authors arrived at wrong conclusions. They actually wanted to “prove” their hypothesis regarding the biological mechanism of potentized homeopathic drug action in terms of “genetic modulation”. That is why they made wrong interpretations of this great work.

Actually, this study leads us to a different conclusion if analyzed rationally. This study has proved that the rightly selected potentized drugs can rectify the errors happened in normal gene regulation processes produced by the action of pathogenic molecules. Errors in genetic expression and dna replication are produced by the inhibition of various enzymes involved in essential molecular processes such as “DNA methylation/demethylation and histone acetylation/deacetylation”. Endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules bind to the enzymes and inhibit them, resulting in faulty genetic expression and dna replication. This is exactly how various carcinogenic substances produce tumor growth and cancers. Molecular imprints of these carcinogenic agents can act as artificial binding sites for these carcinogenic molecules, and remove the molecular inhibitions that produced errors in genetic expression and dna replication.

It should be specifically noted that these experiments were conducted by determining the effects of of potentized drugs in reducing or rectifying the in the “genetic expression aberrations” already produced by pathogenic agents. This study no way prove potentized drugs has any effect up on genetic expressions  in the absence of existing pathological “aberrations”. If the hypothesis regarding “genetic modulation” power of potentized drugs were right, it should be possible to produce “aberrations” by using potentized drugs upon healthy cells. This study proves that potentized drugs can act only if pathogenic molecules are present in the system, which in turn proves that potentized drugs act ONLY upon pathogenic molecules, and not upon normal biological molecules. Potentized drugs act not by genetic modulation, but by rectifying the errors in in genetic modulation produced by pathogenic molecules inhibiting the enzyme system.

In fact, all pathological conditions are not produced by modulation of genetic expression. There are many diseases that are caused by inhibitions of various enzymes, cellular receptors, transport molecules and various other biological molecules. Many pathogenic agents such as infectious agents, drugs, toxins and metabolic byproducts produce diseases by inhibiting different biological molecules other than those involved in genetic modulation.

I request respected KHUDA BUKHUSH to modify his ‘hypothesis’ a little: Potentized homeopathic drugs act by rectifying the molecular errors produced by pathogenic molecules. Potentized drugs can also bind to pathogenic molecules and rectify the errors  they produced in the enzymes involved in genetic expression and dna replication. All his reported great research studies will ratify such a rational hypothesis.

It is obvious that Prof Khuda- Bukush is in utter confusions regarding the active principles of potentized drugs, as well as the molecular mechanism of their biological actions. He says:

“Despite being used for centuries with great effect, non-believers of homeopathy mainly ask two questions: (a) as drugs diluted beyond Avogadro’s limit (6.023 x 1023) are not expected to contain even one single molecule of the original drug substance, how can the homeopathic medicines then be physical-chemically different from “vehicle” ethanol, and claimed to be effective in curing many diseases? (b) What might the mechanism of action of these ultra-highly diluted remedies be?”.

Read him further: “The controversy surrounding research in homeopathy moves along two different directions. On the one hand, the mechanism of action of the potentized homeopathic remedies diluted beyond Avogadro’s limit remains an open research problem, which has received widespread attention from the research community, and many competing hypotheses have been proposed. On the other hand, some studies that indicate homeopathy is no better than placebo, which thus makes any claim about the mechanism of action of homeopathic drugs null and void. There have been many results highly critical of homeopathy. For example, The Lancet of August 27, 2005 featured an article that was highly dismissive of homeopathy [5] along with a press release: “homeopathy is no better than placebo”. The meta-analysis was accompanied by a short, anonymous editorial entitled ‘The end of homoeopathy’. This resulted in the eruption of a ravaging controversy: whether homeopathy is really better than placebo or not, culminating in a debate in the British Parliament [6]. Homeopathy was decried and its use as a beneficial and scientifically proven mode of treatment was voted against. However, most clinical research conducted with homeopathic medicines has shown positive results [7]. Biological activities of ultra-high diluted potentized homeopathic remedies have also been confirmed by basic research studies with respect to a multitude of scientifically accepted protocols, both in animals and plants in vivo and in vitro [8]. Nevertheless, the argument persisted, as ultra-highly diluted homeopathic medicines are supposed to possess “nothing” in terms of the original drug molecules, and as such their effect on biological systems was unacceptable until recently. During the last few years, presence of “nanoparticles” of the starting materials, even at extremely high dilutions, has been reported [9, 10]. Moreover, Montagnier [11] countered through experiments that “high dilutions of something are not ‘nothing’, they are water structures which mimic the original molecules”.

Kindly notice his confusions in this regard: “During the last few years, presence of “nanoparticles” of the starting materials, even at extremely high dilutions, has been reported. Moreover, Montagnier  countered through experiments that “high dilutions of something are not ‘nothing’, they are water structures which mimic the original molecules”.  That means, he has no any idea of molecular imprinting involved in homeopathic potentization. He relies up on “nanoparticle” theory as well as Montainer’s observations of  “water structures which mimic the originalmolecules”.

Had Prof. Khuda Bukush arrived at molecular imprints as active principles of potentized drugs, he could have utilized his wonderful research works for providing a rational and scientific explanation for the biological mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics, which he actually could not. I feel extremely sorry for that.

KHUDA-BUKHSH STUDY 3. Comparative efficacy of two microdoses of a potentized homoeopathic drug, Cadmium Sulphoricum, in reducing genotoxic effects produced by cadmium chloride in mice: a time course study- By Datta SS, Mallick PP, Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh AA.

“In this experiment, the researchers tested  the efficacy of two potencies of a homeopathic drug, Cadmium Sulphoricum (Cad Sulph), in reducing the genotoxic effects of Cadmium chloride in mice.  For this, healthy mice, Mus musculus, were intraperitoneally injected with 0.008% solution of CdCl2 @ 1 ml/100 gm of body wt (i.e. 0.8 mcg/gm of bw), and assessed for the genotoxic effects through such studies as chromosome aberrations (CA), micronucleated erythrocytes (MNE), mitotic index (MI) and sperm head anomaly (SHA), keeping suitable succussed alcohol fed (positive) and CdCl2 untreated normal (negative) controls. The CdCl2 treated mice were divided into 3 subgroups, which were orally administered with the drug prior to, after and both prior to and after injection of CdCl2 at specific fixation intervals and their genotoxic effects were analyzed. While the CA, MNE and SHA were reduced in the drug fed series as compared to their respective controls, the MI showed an apparent increase. The combined pre- and post-feeding of Cad Sulph showed maximum reduction of the genotoxic effects. Both Cad Sulph-30 and 200 were able to combat cadmium induced genotoxic effects in mice and that combined pre- and post-feeding mode of administration was found to be most effective in reducing the genotoxic effect of CdCl2 followed by the post-feeding mode.”

 My comment on Study 3:

What did this experiment actually proved? It proved that cadmium sulph in crude form can act as a carcinogen as shown by increased  chromosome aberrations (CA), micronucleated erythrocytes (MNE) and sperm head anomaly (SHA). Potentized cadmium sulph could prevent, reduce or rectify these damages caused by crude cadmium sulph. We do not know the exact molecular mechanism by which cadmium sulph molecules produce genotoxic effects. Probably, cadmium sulph might have produced molecular inhibitions upon various enzymes involved in the process of genetic expression. Molecular imprints of cadmium sulph contained in its potentized form could bind to the cadmium sulph molecules and relieve the enzyme system from their inhibitions. This experiment no way prove potentized drugs “ACT” by  “interacting with DNA”- it only proved potentized drugs can prevent dna damages caused by the inhibitions of genetic expression enzyme systems produced by pathogenic molecules.

KHUDA-BUKHSH STUDY 4. Efficacy of the potentized homeopathic drug, Carcinosin 200, fed alone and in combination with another drug, Chelidonium 200, in amelioration of p-dimethylaminoazobenzene-induced hepatocarcinogenesis in mice- By Biswas SJ, Pathak S, Bhattacharjee N, Das JK, Khuda-Bukhsh AR.

“This study was conducted to examine whether the potentized homeopathic remedy Carcinosin 200, fed alone and in combination with Chelidonium 200, has differential protective effects against p-dimethylaminoazobenzene (p-DAB)-induced hepatocarcinogenesis in mice. Liver tumors were induced in mice through chronic feeding of p-DAB (initiator) and phenobarbital (PB, promoter). The mice were divided into two subgroups: (1) one was fed potentized Alcohol 200 and served as controls; and (2) the other was fed Carcinosin 200 alone or in combination with Chelidonium 200 and divided into several sets. The relative efficacy of the two potentized remedies, alone or in combination, in combating hepatocarcinogenesis was assessed through several cytogenetical endpoints such as chromosome aberrations, induction of micronuclei, sperm head anomaly, and mitotic index at several intervals of fixation  Several toxicity biomarkers such as acid and alkaline phosphatases, glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase, glutamate pyruvate transaminase, and lipid peroxidation activity were also assayed in three organs of treated and control mice. In addition, recovery by the homeopathic drugs, if any, of tissue damage inflicted because of chronic feeding of p-DAB and PB was also assessed by optical, scanning, and transmission electron microscopies of liver done at days 60 and 120. Both Carcinosin 200 and Chelidonium 200 when administered alone show considerable ameliorative effect against p-DAB-induced hepatocarcinogenesis in mice; but the conjoint feeding of these two drugs appears to have had a slightly greater protection. These homeopathic remedies have the potential to be used as complementary and alternative medicine in liver cancer therapy, particularly as supporting palliative measures.”

My comments on Study 4:

 It is well known that liver tumors were induced in mice through chronic feeding of p-DAB and phenobarbital.This reported experiment has proved that molecular imprints contained in  carcinosin 200, as well as Chelidonium 200 can rectify the hepatocarcinogenesis induced by  p-dimethylaminoazobenzene (p-DAB)-induced hepatocarcinogenesis in mice. That means, some molecular imprints contained in carcinosin 200 and chelidonium 200 could bind to the ‘p-dimethylaminoazobenzene’ and ‘phenobarbital’ molecules, and remove the pathological inhibitions they produced in the enzyme systems involved in genetic expressions which caused the carcinogenic changes. This experiment also no way prove that potentized drugs “act” by  “interacting with DNA”- it only proved potentized drugs can prevent dna damages caused by the inhibitions of genetic expression enzyme systems produced by pathogenic molecules.

KHUDA-BUKHSH STUDY 5. Amelioration of carcinogen-induced toxicity in mice by administration of a potentized homeopathic drug, natrum sulphuricum 200- By Bhattacharjee N, Pathak S, Khuda-Bukhsh AR.

“To examine if a potentized homeopathic drug, Natrum Sulphuricum 200 (Nat Sulph-200) has protective potentials against hepatocarcinogenesis,liver tumors were induced in mice through chronic feeding of P-dimethylaminoazobenzene (p-DAB; initiator of hepatocarcinogenesis) and phenobarbital (PB; promoter),  Mice were divided into five sub-groups: fed normal low protein diet (Gr. I, normal control); fed normal low protein plus alcohol-200 (vehicle of the homeopathic remedy) (Gr. II); fed diet mixed with 0.06% p-DAB plus 0.05% PB (Gr. III); fed diet and carcinogens like Gr.III, plus alcohol 200 (positive control for drug fed mice) (Gr. IV) and fed diet and carcinogens like Gr. III, plus Natrum Sulphuiricum-200 (Gr. V; drug fed). Mice were sacrificed at day 7, 15, 30, 60, 90 and day 120 for study of cytogenetical endpoints like chromosome aberrations (CA), micronuclei (MN), mitotic index (MI) and sperm head anomaly (SHA) and biochemical toxicity parameters like aspartate amino transferase (AST), alanine amino transferase (ALT), acid (AcP) and alkaline (AlkP) phosphatases, lipid peroxidation (LPO) and reduced glutathione (GSH) content. Less number of liver tumors were observed in Gr. V (drug fed) mice. Administration of Nat Sulph 200 reduced genomic damage, activities of AcP, AlkP, AST, ALT, LPO and increased GSH content. Therefore, independent replication of the study by others is encouraged.”

 My comment on Study 5: 

This study proved that molecular imprints contained in potentized  Natrum Sulph could remove the molecular inhibitions by P-dimethylaminoazobenzene and Phenobarbital. This experiment also no way prove that potentized drugs “act” by  “interacting with DNA”- it only proved potentized drugs can prevent dna damages caused by the inhibitions of genetic expression enzyme systems produced by pathogenic molecules.

KHUDA-BUKHSH STUDY 6. Can administration of potentized homeopathic remedy, Arsenicum album, alter antinuclear antibody (ANA) titer in people living in high-risk arsenic contaminated areas? I. A correlation with certain hematological parameters.- By Belon P, Banerjee P, Choudhury SC, Banerjee A, Biswas SJ, Karmakar SR, Pathak S, Guha B, Chatterjee S, Bhattacharjee N, Das JK, Khuda-Bukhsh AR.

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

MY comments on Study 6: 

This study scientifically proves molecular imprints contained in potentized forms of ars alb can act as artificial binding sites for arsenic ions and antidote the harmful biological effects produced by crude arsenic alb. This study do not or is not intended to provide any proof regarding the ‘biological mechanism’ of actions of potentized homeopathic drugs, but it proves ‘homeopathy works’.

KHUDA-BUKHSH STUDY 7. Evaluation of protective potentials of a potentized homeopathic drug, Chelidonium majus, during azo dye induced hepatocarcinogenesis in mice- ByBiswas SJ, Khuda-Bukhsh AR.

“Several cytogenetical and enzymatic protocols were used to test if two microdoses of Chelidonium majus, namely Chelidonium-30 (Ch-30) and Chelidonium-200 (Ch-200), used as homeopathic drugs, showed anti-tumor activity and also favorably modulated genotoxic damages produced by an azo dye in mice at several intervals of fixation. Different sets of healthy mice were fed: (i) hepatocarcinogen, p-dimethylaminoazobenzene (p-DAB, initiator) + phenobarbital (PB, promoter), (ii) only p-DAB, (iii) only PB, and (iv) neither p-DAB nor PB (normal control). Mice fed with p-DAB + PB were divided into different sets that were also fed either Ch-30 (v) or Ch-200 (vi) or diluted alcohol (vii), the “vehicle” of the microdoses of Chelidonium. All mice of group (i), a few of group (ii) and group (vii) and none of groups (iii) and (iv) developed tumors in liver at the longer intervals of fixation. The frequencies of chromosome aberrations (CA), micronucleated erythrocytes (MN), mitotic index (MI) and sperm head abnormality (SHA) were much higher in groups (i) and (vii) mice than in groups (ii), (iii) and (iv) mice at all fixation intervals. However, in mice of both groups (v) and (vi), the frequencies of CA, MN, SHA were strikingly less than those of groups (i) and (vii), and moderately less than those of groups (ii) and (iii). Both Ch-30 and Ch-200 also modulated favourably some toxicity marker enzymes like acid and alkaline phosphatases, peroxidases, glutamate oxaloacetate and glutamate pyruvate transaminases in liver, kidney and spleen tissues of the carcinogen fed mice. The microdoses of Chelidonium having no visible ill effects of their own, may be strong candidates for use in delaying/protecting liver cancer.”

My comments on Study 7:

 According to the authors themselves, this scientific study proves potentized Chelidonium has no specific  “anti-tumor activity”  against tumors  produced by hepatocarcinogens, ‘p-dimethylaminoazobenzene+ phenobarbital’ in mice”. This result indirectly proves that potentized drugs will have any effects only if indicated according to ‘similia similibus curentur’. It has to be particularly noted that Prof; Khuda Bukush is never concerned about this aspect of homeopathy while designing his research protocols. It also disproves his hypothesis of ‘genetic modulation’, since it shows ‘genetic modulation’ will happen only if the drug is homeopathically indicated by the presence of pathogenic molecules having configurational affinity towards the selected potentized drugs. It is evident from this study that potentized drugs act up on pathogenic molecules, not on genes as proposed by Prof Khuda Bukush. It is sad that  he failed to arrive at this conclusion.

KHUDA-BUKHSH STUDY 8. Comparative efficacy of pre-feeding, post-feeding and combined pre- and post-feeding of two microdoses of a potentized homeopathic drug, mercurius solubilis, in ameliorating genotoxic effects produced by mercuric chloride in mice- by Datta S, Biswas SJ, Khuda-Bukhsh AR.

  “Mercury and its derivatives have become an alarming environmental problem, necessitating the search for effective antagonists, including homeopathic drugs, which are generally used in micro doses and are devoid of any palpable side-effects. On the basis of homeopathic similia principle, two potencies of Mercurius solubilis (Merc Sol-30 and Merc Sol-200) were tested by three administrative modes, i.e. pre-feeding, post-feeding and combined pre- and post-feeding, for their possible efficacy in ameliorating mercuric chloride-induced genotoxicity in mice. Healthy mice, Mus musculus, were intraperitoneally injected with 0.06% solution of mercuric chloride at the rate of 1 ml/100 g of body weight, and assessed for genotoxic effects through conventional endpoints. i.e. chromosome aberrations, micronuclei, mitotic index and sperm head abnormality, keeping suitable controls. Mercuric chloride-treated mice were divided into three sub-groups, which were orally administered with the drug prior to, after and both prior to and after injection of mercuric chloride, and their genotoxic effects were analysed at specific intervals of fixation. Mercuric chloride treatment generally produced more chromosome aberations, micronuclei and sperm head anomaly in mice, but the mitotic index appeared to be slightly reduced. While chromosome aberations, micronuclei and sperm head anomaly were generally reduced in the drug-fed series, the mitotic index showed an apparent increase. In most cases, the combined pre- and post-feeding mode appeared to show the maximum amelioration, followed by post-feeding and pre-feeding, in that order. The amelioration by Merc Sol-200 appeared to be slightly more pronounced. We conclude that potentized homeopathic drugs can serve as possible anti-genotoxic agents against specific environmental mutagens, including toxic heavy metals.”

 My comments on Study 8:

  It is known that mercury can produce ‘genotoxic’ effects by inhibitin certain enzymes involved in the processes of  dna replication and cell division and genetic expression, which could be observed by the conventional endpoints. i.e. chromosome aberrations, micronuclei, mitotic index and sperm head abnormality. In this experiment, it is proved that potentized forms of merc chrloride can prevent or reverse this harmful biological effects of mercury. That means, molecular imprints contained in potentized merc chroride can act as artificial binding sites to bind to mercury ions, and there be relieve the biological molecules from the inhibitions they produced. This experiment no way indicate potentized drugs “interact with genetic substance”, but it only proves that they “interact with” pathogenic molecules that have inhibited the biological molecules that underlie  “genotoxic” effects of mercury.

Once modern biochemistry advances to such a stage of perfection that the molecular pathology and biochemical mechanisms of all diseases are explored and revealed to the homeopaths, and pharmaceutical chemistry advances to such a stage that the molecular structure and biological actions of all drug substances are clearly known, homeopathic practice will gradually evolve from present ‘symptom-based’ and ‘evidence-based’ practice into ‘science-based’ and ‘knowledge-based’ practice. I know, such an evolution will be a gradual, very slow and long- term process. At that stage, homeopathy will be universally recognized as an advanced branch of modern molecular medicine, and rightfully designated as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics.

MIT opens up enormous scope of potentized forms of various biological ligands as powerful therapeutic agents that could be used in different kinds of acute and chronic diseases. Many diseases are caused by blocking of biological receptors by exogenous and endogenous pathogenic molecules. If we could remove those pathological blocks of receptors using appropriate molecular imprints of biological ligands such as hormones, metabolites, signalling molecules, neurotransmitters, cytokines etc, that would herald a great revolution in whole medical science and pharmaceutical research. I hope policy makers and people of authority would listen to this point, for the benefit of humanity.

For example, let us see how insulin 30acts in certain cases of Type 2 Diabetes:

According to my view, molecular imprints of insulin will have conformational affinity to any pathogenic molecule that can bind to insulin receptors. As such, molecular imprints contained in insulin 30 can act as specific binding sites for pathogenic molecules that inhibit insulin receptors. By this action, insulin receptors are relieved of their inhibitions, thereby facilitating the normal interaction between insulin and insulin receptors. Positive effects of insulin 30 in type 2 diabetes could be rationally explained by this model. That means, insulin 30 will be effective only in cases where insulin production is not completely hindered, where diabetes is caused by inhibition of insulin receptors by some exogenous or endogenous pathogenic molecules.

We already know that most of the diseases are caused by endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules binding to various essential biological molecules such as enzymes and receptors, and inhibiting their normal functioning.

When biological molecules are inhibited, they are prevented from interacting with their natural ligands, where as such interactions are essential for normal vital processes.

Pathogenic molecules block the biological molecules by binding to the binding sites or active sites. This happens when the functional groups of pathogenic molecules are similar in conformation to those of natural ligands.

From homeopathic point of view, it is obvious that natural ligands of biological molecules will be the most appropriate similimum for the pathogenic molecules that may inhibit those biological molecules. That means, molecular imprints of biological ligands will be capable of binding to the pathogenic molecules that may attack those biological molecules. As such, it is possible that potentized biological ligands could be used as powerful therapeutic agents in various kinds of diseases.

This understanding opens up possibilities of developing a whole new range of novel potentized homeopathic drugs from biological ligands, that could be used as specific therapeutic agents on the basis of advanced knowledge of biochemistry and molecular pathology.

Here I am for the first time introducing an idea of revolutionary dimensions, not only for homeopathy, but for whole medical science and pharmaceutical industry.

Potentized biological ligandswill be a great leap in establishing homeopathy as a part of modern medical science. It will also make homeopathic prescriptions morespecific.

What are biological ligands?

Understanding ligands is very important in studying the biological mechanism of homeopathic drug action as proposed by the scientific explanation of homeopathy proposed by MIT.

In biochemistry and pharmacology, a ligand is a substance- a small molecule- that forms a complex by binding with a biomolecule to serve a biological purpose. In protein-ligand binding, ligand usually is a signal triggering molecule, binding to a site on a target protein. In DNA-ligand binding studies, ligand is usually any small molecule or ion, or even a protein that binds to the DNA double helix.

The binding occurs by intermolecular forces, such as ionic bonds, hydrogen bonds and van der Waals forces. The docking (association) is usually reversible (dissociation). Actual irreversible covalent bonding between a ligand and its target molecule is rare in biological systems. In contrast to the meaning in metalorganic and inorganic chemistry, it is irrelevant whether the ligand actually binds at a metal site, as is the case in hemoglobin.

Ligand binding to a receptor (receptor protein) alters its chemical conformation (three dimensional shape). The conformational state of a receptor protein determines its functional state. Ligands include substrates, inhibitors, activators, and neurotransmitters. The tendency or strength of binding is called affinity. Binding affinity is determined not only by direct interactions, but also by solvent effects that can play a dominant indirect role in driving non-covalent binding in solution.

Radioligands are radioisotope labeled compounds are used in vivo as tracers in PET studies and for in vitro binding studies.

The interaction of most ligands with their binding sites can be characterized in terms of a binding affinity. In general, high-affinity ligand binding results from greater intermolecular force between the ligand and its receptor while low-affinity ligand binding involves less intermolecular force between the ligand and its receptor.

In general, high-affinity binding involves a longer residence time for the ligand at its receptor binding site than is the case for low-affinity binding. High-affinity binding of ligands to receptors is often physiologically important when some of the binding energy can be used to cause a conformational change in the receptor, resulting in altered behavior of an associated ion channel or enzyme.

A ligand that can bind to a receptor, alter the function of the receptor and trigger a physiological response is called an agonist for that receptor. Agonist binding to a receptor can be characterized both in terms of how much physiological response can be triggered and in terms of the concentration of the agonist that is required to produce the physiological response. High-affinity ligand binding implies that a relatively low concentration of a ligand is adequate to maximally occupy a ligand-binding site and trigger a physiological response.

Various pathogenic molecules and drug molecules work by binding and blocking upon the biological molecules, thereby preventing the normal interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands. LigandS that facilitate biological actions are called ‘agonists’, andthose inhibiting biological actions are called ‘antagonists’.

Ligands are also called as ‘inhibitors’ and ‘activators’ according to the roles they play.

Any endogenous or exogenous molecule may be considered a ligand, if it can bind to a biological molecule and modify its action.

By natural biological ligands,we refer to various endogenous molecules and ions that play essential roles in normal biological processes by acting upon biological molecules. Cytokines, signalling molecules, prostaglandins, hormones, neuromediators, co-factors, vitamins, neurotransmitters, free radicals— list of biological ligands will be very exhaustive.

According to MIT HYPOTHESIS, active principles of post-avogadro  potentized drugs are MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of individual chemical molecules contained in the drug substances used for potentization.

As per this hypothesis, ‘molecular imprints’ are hydrogen-bonded supramolecular formations of  water-ethyl alcohol molecules, into which the three-dimensional  spacial conformations of drug molecules are imprinted or engraved as nanocavities, through a process of host-guest interactions or  MOLECULAR IMPRINTING  involved in the process of potentization.

These ‘molecular imprints’ can act as artificial binding sites or key holes for binding to the original drug molecules as well as any pathogenic molecule conformationally similar to the drug molecules.

When applied as therapeutic agent, these molecular imprints specifically bind to the pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity, thereby deactivating them and relieving the biological molecules from pathological molecular inhibitions.

This is the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure as proposed by MIT HYPOTHESIS.

Actually, the biological mechanism of cure proposed in this model is not a new idea. It is well accepted in modern molecular medicine and pharmacology, and is the basis of target-specific drug designing techniques currently very popular in pharmaceutical researches. There remains nothing to be proved on this idea.

Molecular imprinting in polymers (MIP) also is recently a very popular research area, a technique used in developing artificial binding sites in polymer matrices through a process of molecular level ‘host-guest’ interactions. These ‘molecular imprinted polymers’ are currently utilized in various laboratory procedures as molecular binding and filtering agents.

What I have been trying to do by MIT hypothesis is to adapt these well-accepted scientific concepts into the theoretical frame work of homeopathy, so that a scientific model could be developed to explain the biological mechanism of homeopathic  cure. MIT hypothesis explains homeopathic potentization in terms of ‘molecular imprinting in water’, and homeopathic cure in terms of removal of molecular inhibitions.

Only thing remaining to be scientifically proved is that potentized homeopathic drugs contain ‘molecular imprints’. It raises the question whether water-ethyl alcohol mixture can act as a medium for molecular imprinting, similar to polymers. Various studies regarding supra molecular properties of water indicate some ‘polymer-like’ properties of water and formations of hydrogen-bonded nanoclusters in a micro-environment, which obviously opens up possibilities of molecular imprinting in water-ethyl alcohol matrix.

IF WE COULD EXPERIMENTALLY PROVE:

a) high dilution drugs really work as curative agents when applied according to indications,

b) high dilution drugs works not only in living bodies, but also up on ‘in vitro’ biological samples,

c) high dilution drugs cannot interfere or prevent the normal interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands,

d) high dilution drugs can antidote the biological effects of same drugs used in crude or molecular forms,

e) biological properties of high dilution drugs are different or reverse to those of same drugs in molecular forms,

f) high dilution drugs do not contain original drug molecules,

g) high dilution drugs and unpotentized water-alcohol mixture are similar in their chemical structure and properties,

h) high dilution drugs differ from unpotentized water-alcohol mixture regarding physical properties and various physical parameters,

i) high dilution drugs  differ from unpotentized water-alcohol mixture regarding supra-molecular arrangements by formation of nano-clusters as could be observed by difference in spectroscopic studies,

j) Medicinal properties of high dilution drugs could be destroyed by applying strong heat, electric currents or other forms of electromagnetic energy, which will also change the characteristic physical properties of those potentized drugs,

MIT HYPOTHESIS COULD BE CONSIDERED SCIENTIFICALLY PROVED.

Scientists and cancer researchers have lately identified a particular biological molecule in our body known as BETA CATENIN as an ideal molecular target for anti-cancer therapy. They have been trying to develop drugs that could inhibit the over-expressions and aberrations of BETA CATENIN, which is recognized to be playing a big role in the biochemical processes underlying various types of cancers. Their attempts have not been so far successful, since any chemical compound they develop to target BETA CATENIN will inevitably have serious harmful effects upon the organism, since it is an essential biological molecule having diverse roles normal vital processes, and its complete inhibition may lead to be very dangerous consequences.

BETA CATENIN is a protein found as part of molecular complexes in forming cadherin cell adhesion factors of animal cells. It belongs to a family of biological compounds known as catenins, consisting of alpha catenin, beta catenin and gamma catenin. B-CATENIN binds the cytoplasmic domain of some cadherins. Cell-cell adhesion complexes are required for simple epithelia in higher organisms to maintain structure, function and polarity. These complexes, which help regulate cell growth in addition to creating and maintaining epithelial layers, are known as ‘adherens junctions’ and they typically include at least cadherin, beta catenin, and alpha catenin. Catenins play roles in cellular organization and polarity long before the development and incorporation of ‘Wnt signaling pathways’ and cadherins.

BETA CATENIN is a dual function protein, regulating the coordination of cell–cell adhesion and gene transcription. In humans, this protein is encoded by the CTNNB1 gene. β-catenin is a subunit of the cadherin protein complex and acts as an intracellular signal transducer in the Wnt signaling pathway.

BIOLOGICAL ROLE OF BETA CATENIN:

The primary mechanical role of catenins is connecting cadherins to actin filaments, specifically in these adhesion junctions of epithelial cells. Most studies investigating catenin actions focus on alpha catenin and beta catenin. Beta catenin is particularly interesting as it plays a dual role in the cell. First of all, by binding to the intracellular cytoplasmic tail domains of cadherin receptors, it can act as an integral component of a protein complex in adherens junctions that helps cells maintain epithelial layers. Beta catenin acts basically by anchoring the actin cytoskeleton to the adherens junctions, and also aid in contact inhibition signaling within the cell. For instance, when an epithelial layer is complete and the adherens junctions indicate that the cell is completely surrounded, beta catenin may play a role in telling the cell to stop proliferating, as there is no room for more cells in the area. Secondly, beta catenin participates in the ‘Wnt signaling pathway’ as a downstream target.

The Wnt signaling pathways are a group of signal transduction pathways made of proteins that pass signals from outside of a cell through cell surface receptors to the inside of the cell. Wnt/ beta catenin pathway, also known as canonical Wnt pathway is the Wnt pathway that causes an accumulation of beta catenin in the cytoplasm and its eventual translocation into the nucleus to act as a transcriptional coactivator of transcription factors that belong to the TCF/LEF family. Without Wnt signaling, the beta catenin would not accumulate in the cytoplasm since a destruction complex would normally degrade it. This destruction complex includes the following proteins: Axin, adenomatosis polyposis coli (APC), protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A), glycogen synthase kinase 3 (GSK3) and casein kinase 1a (CK1α). It degrades beta catenin by targeting it for ubiquitination, which subsequently sends it to the proteasome to be digested. However, as soon as Wnt binds Fz and LRP-5/6, the destruction complex function becomes disrupted. This is due to Wnt causing the translocation of both a negative regulator of Axin and the destruction complex to the plasma membrane. This negative regulator becomes localized to the cytoplasmic tail of LRP-5/6. Phosphorylation by other proteins in the destruction complex subsequently binds Axin to this tail as well. Axin becomes de-phosphorylated and its stability and levels are decreased. Dsh then becomes activated via phosphorylation and its DIX and PDZ domains inhibit the GSK3 activity of the destruction complex. This allows beta catenin to accumulate and localize to the nucleus and subsequently induce a cellular response via gene transduction alongside the TCF/LEF .

In general, when ‘Wnt’ is not present, GSK-3B (a member of the pathway) is able to phosphorylate beta catenin as a result of a complex formation that includes beta catenin, AXIN1, AXIN2, APC (a tumor suppressor gene product), CSNK1A1, and GSK3B. Following phosphorylation of the N-terminal Serine and Thrionin residues of beta catenin, BTRC promotes its ubiquitination, which causes it to be degraded by the TrCP/SKP complex. On the other hand, when ‘Wnt’ is present, GSK-3B is displaced from the previously mentioned complex, causing beta catenin to not be phosphorylated, and thus not ubiquitinated. As a result, its levels in the cell are stabilized as it builds up in the cytoplasm. Eventually, some of this accumulated beta catenin will move into the nucleus. At this point, beta catenin becomes a co-activator for TCF and LEF to activate ‘Wnt genes’ by displacing Groucho and HDAC transcription repressors. These ‘Wnt’ gene products are important in determining cell fates during normal development and in maintaining homeostasis, or they can lead to de-regulated growth in disorders like cancer by responding to mutations in beta catenin, APC or Axin, each of which can lead to this de-regulated beta catenin level stabilization in cells.

Beta-catenin has a central role in directing several developmental processes, as it can directly bind transcription factors and be regulated by a diffusible extracellular substance- Wnt. It acts upon early embryos to induce entire body regions, as well as individual cells in later stages of development. It also regulates physiological regeneration processes.

Wnt signaling and beta-catenin dependent gene expression plays a critical role during the formation of different body regions in the early embryo. Experimentally modified embryos that do not express this protein will fail to develop mesoderm and initiate gastrulation. It also plays a role in inducing the antero-posterior axis formation, regulate the precise placement of the primitive streak (gastrulation and mesoderm formation) as well as the process of neurulation (central nervous system development).

Beta catenin is initially equally localized to all regions of the egg, but it is targeted for ubiquitination and degradation by the beta catenin destruction complex. Fertilization of the egg causes a rotation of the outer cortical layers, moving clusters of the Frizzled and Dsh proteins closer to the equatorial region. Beta catenin will be enriched locally under the influence of ‘Wnt’ signaling pathway in the cells that inherit this portion of the cytoplasm. It will eventually translocate to the nucleus in order to activate several genes that induce dorsal cell characteristics. This signaling results in a region of cells known as the grey crescent, which is a classical organizer of embryonic development. If this region is surgically removed from the embryo, gastrulation does not occur at all. Beta Catenin also plays a crucial role in the induction of the blasopore lip, which in turn initiates gastrulation. Inhibition of GSK-3 translation by injection of antisense mRNA may cause a second blastopore and a superfluous body axis to form. A similar effect can result from the over expression of beta catenin.

Beta-catenin has also been implicated in regulation of cell fates through asymmetric cell division in the model organisms. One of the most important results of Wnt signaling and the elevated level of beta-catenin in certain cell types is the maintenance of pluripotency. In other cell types and developmental stages, beta catenin may promote differentiation, especially towards mesodermal cell lineages.

Beta-catenin also acts as a morphogen in later stages of embryonic development. Together with TGF beta, an important role of beta catenin is to induce a morphogenic change in epithelial cells. It induces them to abandon their tight adhesion and assume a more mobile and loosely associated mesenchymal phenotype. During this process, epithelial cells lose expression of proteins like E- cadherin, Zonula occludens 1and cytokeratin. At the same time they turn on the expression of vimentin, alpha smooth muscle actin(ACTA2), and fibroblast-specific protein 1 (FSP1). They also produce extracellular matrix components, such as type 1 collagen and fibronectin.. Aberrant activation of the Wnt pathway has been implicated in pathological processes such as fibrosis and cancer.

ROLE OF BETA CATENIN IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CANCERS:

The same properties of beta catenin that give it an important role in normal cell fate determination, homeostasis and growth of cells, also make it susceptible to alterations that can lead to abnormal cell behavior and growth that leads to cancerous changes in the cells.

Any changes in cytoskeletal organization and adhesion can lead to altered signaling, migration and a loss of contact inhibition that can promote cancer development and tumor formation. In particular, beta catenin have been identified to be major player in aberrant epithelial cell layer growth associated with various types of cancer. Mutations in genes encoding these proteins can lead to inactivation of cadherin cell adhesions and elimination of contact inhibition, allowing cells to proliferate and migrate, thus promoting tumorigenesis and cancer development. Beta catenin is known to be associated with colorectal and ovarian cancer, and they have been identified in cancers such as pilomatrixoma, medulloblastoma, pleomorphic adenomas, and malignant mesothelioma. Mutations and overexpression of β-catenin are associated with many cancers, including hepatocellular carcinoma, colorectal carcinoma, lung cancer, malignant breast tumors, ovarian and endometrial cancer. Major B-CATENIN associated cancers are: colorectal and ovarian cancer; pilomatrixoma; medulloblastoma; pleomorphic adenomas; malignant mesothelioma. β-catenin is regulated and destroyed by the beta-catenin destruction complex, and in particular by the adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) protein, encoded by the tumour-suppressing APC gene. Therefore genetic mutation of the APC gene is also strongly linked to cancers, and in particular colorectal cancer resulting from familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP).

While less is known about the exact mechanism of alpha catenin, its presence in cancer is also widely felt. Through the interaction of beta catenin and alpha catenin, actin and E-cadherin are linked, providing the cell with a means of stable cell adhesion. However, decrease in this adhesion ability of the cell has been linked to metastasis and tumor progression. In normal cells, alpha catenin may act as a tumor suppressor and can help prevent the adhesion defects associated with cancer. On the other hand, a lack of alpha catenin can promote aberrant transcription, which can lead to cancer. As a result, it can be concluded, that cancers are most often associated with decreased levels of alpha catenin.
BETA CATENIN plays a more significant role in various forms of cancer development. However, in contrast to alpha catenin, heightened beta catenin levels may be associated with carcinogenesis. In particular, abnormal interactions between epithelial cells and the extracellular matrix are associated with the over-expression of these beta catenin and their relationship with cadherins in some cancers. Stimulation of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway, and its role in promoting malignant tumor formations and metastases, has also been implicated in cancers.

Mutations in catenin genes can cause loss of contact inhibition that can promote cancer development and tumor formation.

Beta-catenin is a proto oncogene. Mutations of this gene are commonly found in a variety of cancers- in primary hepatocellular carcinoma, colorectal cancer, ovarial carcinoma, breast cancer, lung cancer and glioblastoma. It has been estimated that approximately 10% of all tissue samples sequenced from all cancers display mutations in the CTNNB1 gene. Most of these mutations cluster on a tiny area of beta catenin. Loss-of-function mutations of beta catenin essentially make ubiquitinylation and degradation of beta catenin impossible. It will cause beta catenin to translocate to the nucleus without any external stimulus and continuously drive transcription of its target genes. Increased nuclear β-catenin levels have also been noted in basal cell carcinoma (BCC), head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), prostate cancer (CaP), pilomatrixoma (PTR) and medulloblastoma (MDB). These observations may or may not implicate a mutation in the beta catenin gene: other Wnt pathway components can also be faulty.

Similar mutations are also frequently seen in the beta catenin recruiting sites of APC. Hereditary loss-of-function mutations of APCcause a condition known as Familial Adenomatous Polyposis. Affected individuals develop hundreds of polyps in their large intestine. Most of these polyps are benign in nature, but they have the potential to transform into deadly cancer as time progresses. Somatic mutations of APC in colorectal cancer are also not uncommon. Beta-catenin and APC are among the key genes involved in colorectal cancer development. The potential of beta catenin to change the previously epithelial phenotype of affected cells into an invasive, mesenchyme-like type contributes greatly to metastasis formation.

Mutations associated with aberrant epithelial cell layer growth due to lack of adhesions and contact inhibition Down-regulated levels of α-catenin Up-regulated levels of β-catenin Stimulation of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway Catenin alteration (and Wnt/β-catenin pathway up-regulation) may help stimulate epithelial-mesenchymal transition (or EMT) Mutations or aberrant regulation of catenins may also associate with other factors that promote metastasis and tumorigenesis Treatments focus on correcting aberrant catenin levels or regulating catenin pathways that are associated with cancer development and progression.

The role of catenin in epithelial-mesenchymal transition (or EMT) has also received a lot of recent attention for its contributions to cancer development. It has been shown that HIF-1α can induce the EMT pathway, as well as the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway, thus enhancing the invasive potential of LNCaP cells (human prostate cancer cells). As a result, it is possible that the EMT associated with upregulated HIF-1α is controlled by signals from this Wnt/β-catenin pathway. Catenin and EMT interactions may also play a role in hepatocellular carcinoma. VEGF-B treatment of hepatoma carcinoma cells can cause alpha catenin to move from its normal location on the membrane into the nucleus and E-cadherin expression to decrease, thus promoting EMT and tumor invasiveness.

There are other physiological factors that are associated with cancer development through their interactions with catenins. For instance, higher levels of collagen XXIII have been associated with higher levels of catenins in cells. These heightened levels of collagen helped facilitate adhesions and anchorage-independent cell growth and provided evidence of collagen XXIII’s role in mediating metastasis. In another example, Wnt/β-catenin signaling has been identified as activating microRNA-181s in hepatocellular carcinoma that play a role in its tumorigenesis.

BETA CATENIN AS A PROJECTED DRUG TARGET IN MODERN CANCER THERAPY:

Recently, there have been a number of studies in the lab and in the clinic investigating new possible therapies for cancers associated with beta catenin. Integrin antagonists and immonochemotherapy with drugs such as 5-fluorouracil and polysaccharide-K have shown promising results. Polysaccharide K can promote apoptosis by inhibiting NF-κB activation, which is normally up-regulated, and inhibiting apoptosis, when beta catenin levels are increased in cancer. Therefore, using polysaccharide K to inhibit NF-κB activation can be used to treat patients with high beta catenin levels, which is recognized to be a major contributing factor in cancer formation.

In the short-term, combining current treatment techniques with new drugs targeting catenin-associated elements of cancer is expected by researchers to be a most effective way of treating the cancer. By disrupting Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathways, short-term neoadjuvant radiotherapy (STNR) may help prevent clinical recurrence of the disease after surgery, but much more work is needed before an adequate treatment based on this concept can be determined.

Research studies have also implicated potential therapeutic targets for future clinical studies. VEGFR-1 and EMT mediators may be ideal targets for preventing cancer development and metastasis. 5-aminosalicylate (ASA) has been shown to reduce β-catenin and its localization to the nucleus in colon cancer cells isolated from and in patients. As a result, it may be useful as a chemopreventative agent for colorectal cancer. Additionally, acyl hydrazones have been shown to inhibit the Wnt signaling characteristic of many cancers by destabilizing β-catenin, thus disrupting Wnt signaling and preventing the aberrant cell growth associated with cancer. On the other hand, some treatment concepts involve upregulating the E-cadherin/catenin adhesion system to prevent disruptions in adhesions and contact inhibition from promoting cancer metastasis. One possible way to achieve this, which has been successful in mouse models, is to use inhibitors of Ras activation in order to enhance the functionality of these adhesion systems. Other catenin, cadherin or cell cycle regulators may also be useful in treating a variety of cancers.

While recent studies in the lab and in the clinic have provided promising results for treating various catenin-associated cancers, the Wnt/β-catenin pathway may make finding a single correct therapeutic target difficult as the pathway has been shown to elicit a variety of different actions and functions, some of which may possibly even prove to be anti-oncogenic.

Due to its involvement in cancer development, inhibition of beta-catenin continues to receive significant attention. But the targeting of the binding site on its armadillo domain is not the simplest task, due to its extensive and relatively flat surface. However, for an efficient inhibition, binding to smaller “hotspots” of this surface is sufficient. This way, a “stapled” helical peptide derived from the natural beta catenin binding groups found in LEF1 was sufficient for the complete inhibition of beta catenin dependent transcription. Recently, several small-molecule compounds have also been developed to target the same. In addition, beta catenin levels can also be influenced by targeting upstream components of the Wnt pathway as well as the beta catenin destruction complex. The additional N-terminal binding pocket is also important for Wnt target gene activation. This site can be pharmacologically targeted by carnosic acid, for example. That “auxiliary” site is another attractive target for drug development. Despite intensive preclinical research, no beta catenin inhibitors are available as therapeutic agents yet.

MOLECULAR IMPRINTS OF BETA CATENIN AS THERAPEUTIC AGENT AGAINST CANCERS:

In my opinion, Molecular Imprints of BETA CATENIN could be effectively used as a therapeutic agent to inhibit the over expression and aberrant actions of this biological component that plays a crucial role in development of cancers. Since molecular imprints cannot interfere in the NORMAL interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands, their use will not any way disrupt the normal biochemical processes involving BETA CATENIN.

BETA CATENIN potentized above 12C or Avogadro limit will contain only molecular imprints, and as such, will be a very effective and safe therapeutic weapon in our fight against various types of cancers such as hepatocellular carcinoma, lung cancer, malignant breast tumors, endometrial cancer, colorectal cancer, ovarian cancer, pilomatrixoma, medulloblastoma, pleomorphic adenomas, malignant mesothelioma, basal cell carcinoma, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, prostate cancer, pilomatrixoma and various metastases. Since aberrations and over expression of BETA CATENIN is implicated in more and more types of cancers, use of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of beta catenin could be proved in future as a general therapeutic approach to cancer.

I would request scientists and cancer researchers to explore more in this direction. It will herald a new revolution in cancer treatment.

Apart from molecular imprints of beta catenin, from homeopathic point of view, any drug substance that can induce over expression of BETA CATENIN in healthy individuals can act as anti-cancer drugs if used in potentized or molecular imprints forms. This realization leads us to the possibility of exploring various existing homeopathic drugs that have shown anti-cancer properties, from a biochemical angle. Such drugs have to be scientifically re-proved to verify whether they can induce over expression of beta catenin during drug proving.

(This is not an original work of the author. This study is based on information collected and extracted from various biochemistry texts as well as Wikipedia articles. But the concepts of ‘molecular imprints of beta catenin for cancer therapy’ is the original idea of the author )

Even if you give a ‘single’ dose of pure water to a set of ‘provers’ and start recording the symptoms they report for months AFTER that dose, without revealing the secret to the ‘provers’ and ‘compilers’, you will be amazed to see that they have compiled a BIG ‘materia medica’ of water! Do some experiments if anybody can.

This is exactly what happens when some people conduct ‘high potency proving’, ‘dream proving’, ‘meditative proving’, ‘trituration proving’, and other such nonsense ‘methods’ by which the MAKE ‘materia medica’!

To be rational, reliable and scientific, MATERIA MEDICA should be compiled by ‘proving’ drug substances in MOLECULAR FORMS- potencies below 12c, mother tinctures or crude substances. Only molecular forms of drugs can can act upon biological molecules and produce molecular errors in vital processes, which will be reflected through subjective and objective symptoms

———————————————————————————–

The ESSENCE of ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ is- “DISEASE-CURING properties of potentized drugs are directly reverse to the DISEASE-PRODUCING properties of those drugs in crude form”. SIMPLE!

———————————————————————————–

You will be gravely disappointed if you believe that the job of science is to ratify all your beliefs, laws, principles, methods and aphorisms regarding homeopathy.

There are a lot of unscientific ideas in what are so far considered to be ‘fundamentals’ of homeopathy, and most of them cannot withstand scientific scrutiny.

If you are committed to uphold what are scientific, truthful and rational in homeopathy, you will have to be prepared to bravely and mercilessly discard those obviously unscientific things. That is the real meaning of hahnemann’s dictum “be unprejudiced”

————————————————————————————-

Explained in scientific terms, homeopathic POTENTIZATION is a ‘nano-technique’ of TRANSLATING drug molecules into their ‘reverse copies’ or ‘spacial negatives’ in water-alcohol matrix through a process of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING , accomplished by ‘guest-host’ interactions between drug molecules and water-ethyl alcohol molecules.

If you cannot understand this statement, you cannot understand MIT concepts of Scientific Homeopathy

————————————————————————————-

Once ‘drug molecules’ are translated into ‘molecular imprints’ by the process of potentization, the ‘disease-producing’ properties of drug substances are converted into ‘disease-curing’ properties.

This ‘reversal’ of properties happens since molecular imprints are ‘reverse copies’ or ‘spacial negatives’ of drug molecules, which enables them to act in biological environments by an exactly ‘reverse’ molecular mechanism.

Hahnemann’s greatest contributions to medical science was the invention of the universal relationship between ‘disease-producing’ and ‘disease-curing’ properties of substances, and the technique of preparing ‘reverse copies’ or ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules.

Hahnemann and his followers failed to explain this invention in a way fitting to the scientific knowledge system. Scientific community failed to realize the meaning and implications of this epoch-making invention. Medical science failed to imbibe this most powerful weapon into its arsanal for the last two centuries. Ultimate losers of this negligence were the whole suffering humanity.

————————————————————————————

Drug Proving is done by administering medicines in APPARENTLY HEALTHY individuals. “Apparently healthy” is a very relative and subjective concept. It only means a person ‘appear to be healthy’ to the observers as per ‘symptoms and physiological values’.

We have to bear in mind that even though a person is ‘apparently healthy’, it does not mean that he is free from all sorts of probable molecular errors in his vital processes. There will be diverse types of hidden molecular errors existing in him, arising from diverse types of factors such as nutritional, environmental, miasmatic, genetic, emotional, metabolic, infectious and others. ‘Apparently healthy’ only means that those molecular errors could not be observed or identified by the observers. There will be many subjective and objective symptoms, which the observers wrongly takes as ‘normal’ ones.

What will happen if we administer ‘molecular imprints’ in the form of ‘high potency drugs’ in such ‘apparently healthy’ persons with hidden molecular errors, accidentally or for conducting ‘drug proving’?

When potentized drugs are introduced into the body of ‘apparently healthy’ individuals having hidden molecular errors, some of the molecular imprints may act upon the pathogenic molecules if there exist a ‘conformational affinity’ in between them. Some of the ‘hidden’ molecular errors may get rectified, which will result in some sort of changes or readjustments in the ‘apparently’ normal symptom picture of the individual. Such changes appears for the observer as the appearance of ‘new’ symptoms. If we have no idea regarding the biological mechanism of ‘high dilution effects’, such changes will be interpreted as ‘drug proving’.

Actually, those occasional ‘new’ symptoms appearing after the use of ‘high potency’ drugs are not indicating the ‘disease producing’ properties of potentized drugs, but their ‘diseases curing’ properties. By wrongly incorporating such symptoms in the ‘symptomatology’ as genuine drug symptoms, a lot of confusions have been created by our masters and ‘drug provers’ in our materia medica works.

To be reliable and genuine, materia medica should be compiled incorporating ‘drug symptoms’ produced by ‘drug proving’ conducted using ‘molecular forms’ of drugs only- crude forms, mother tinctures and potencies below 12C.

—————————————————————————————

Drugs potentized above Avogadro limit (12C) will not contain any original drug molecule. They contain only ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’ of individual constituent molecules.

These molecular imprints can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ ONLY upon their original drug molecules, or pathological molecules having conformational similarity to those drug molecules. It is due to this complementary spacial affinity that molecular imprints contained in potentized drugs act as therapeutic agents.

Molecular imprints cannot interfere in the normal biochemical interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands, since their interactions are based on much stronger ‘conformational+charge’ AFFINITY.

Drug molecules and pathogenic molecules are ‘fake keys’ that can mimic as ‘original keys’ and bind to bio-molecular ‘key holes’ and prevent them from interacting with their ‘original keys’ or natural ligands. Molecular imprints contained in potentized drugs are ‘artificial key-holes’ for binding and deactivating the ‘fake keys’. ‘Artificial key holes’ cannot compete with natural ‘bilogical key holes’ in binding with their ‘original keys’.

Obviously, ‘molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs cannot produce any molecular errors in normal vital processes. Then, how can we imagine about DRUG PROVING using potentized drugs?

———————————————————————————-

One important point we have to note is that most drug substances, especially of vegetable or animal origin, are not ‘simple’ substances as homeopaths are taught to imagine. Even though we CONSIDER them as ‘single’ substances, actually they consist of diverse types of individual molecules.

Next point to be noted is that a substance can interact with biological molecules only as INDIVIDUAL molecules- NOT AS WHOLE SUBSTANCES .

Once we introduce a sample of drug substance into the living organism for ‘proving’, its constituent molecules are instantly subjected to various processes such as disintegration, ionization, hydration and certain chemical transformations. It is these INDIVIDUAL molecules that act upon biological molecules, produce deviations in biochemical processes and produce SYMPTOMS.

If we really want to understand homeopathy and drug proving scientifically, we should first of all learn to perceive drug substance in terms of its diverse constituent molecules, with their specific molecular structures and chemical properties. It is the CHEMICAL PROPERTY of a molecule that determines its BIOLOGICAL as well as MEDICINAL properties.

SYMPTOMS produced by a drug substance such as NUX VOMICA is actually the SUM TOTAL of all symptoms representing all the diverse types of molecular deviations produced in different biochemical pathways in the organism by the action of HUNDREDS of types of individual chemical molecules with entirely different chemical properties contained in nux vomica upon different biological molecules.

If we could remove some of the constituent chemical molecules from a sample of Nux Vomica, and use that sample for drug proving, we will not get certain symptoms that represent the removed chemical molecules.

Obviously, the concept of DRUG PERSONALITY is a myth that originated from the ignorance of our masters regarding the molecular constitution of complex drug substances, or how they exactly interact with biological molecules and produce symptoms. DRUG PERSONALITY will change if the molecular constitution of a drug substance changes.

———————————————————————————

Whereas researchers of modern medicine introduce new drugs by studying the DISEASE-CURING properties of substances, new drugs are introduced in homeopathy by studying the their DISEASE-PRODUCING proeprties. That makes a great difference, which skeptics and critics of homeopathy fail to understand.

————————————————————————————–

According to scientific view promoted by MIT, ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ means: “pathological molecular inhibitions can be rectified using ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules that can create similar molecular inhibitions if applied in molecular form”.

Once you understand this simple explanation, you will experience your whole perspective and approach to ‘aphorisms’ ‘principles’, ‘laws’ and ‘methods’ of homeopathy undergoing a revolutionary transformation.

————————————————————————————-

What exactly happens during ‘drug proving’?

If a drug substance in ‘molecular form’ is introduced to a healthy living organism, which exists in a relative state of dynamic equilibrium, constituent molecules of that drug substance are conveyed by the internal transport systems into different parts of the body.

Individual drug molecules bind by their conformational affinity to any of the complexbio-molecules such as receptors, enzymes etc engaged in various 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 such as genetic expressions and protein synthesis mediated or participated by those bio-molecules are affected, and dependent biological pathways are subsequently blocked.

Since different biological pathways are interdependent, deviations in one pathway naturally affects the dependent ones also.

Subsequent cascading of molecular errors influence the biochemical processes in nervous system and neuro-endocrine system and finally manifest in the form of particular groups of subjective and objective symptoms.

This is the real biochemical kinetics of molecular level drug-induced pathology involved in drug proving.

————————————————————————————

I am accused that I am making “tall claims and foolish theories” without understanding the “essence of organon”.

For the last 42+ years, I have read organon thousands of times. As per my understanding, “essence” of organon is ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’.

I have been trying to understand, explain and prove this “essence” of organon in a way fitting to the modern scientific knowledge and its methods, using the paradigms and concepts of modern biochemistry as well as supramolecular chemistry. I have been trying to propose a scientifically viable model for biological mechanism of homeopathic cure involved the law of ‘similia similibus curentur’.

If anybody think my concepts and explanations are wrong, kindly tell me on which specific points I am wrong. Kindly tell me, what is the “essence of organon” according to your understanding.

Mud-slinging and venom-spitting are not the answers for the hard questions I raise.

—————————————————————————————–

A SENIOR HOMEOPATH SAYS IN HIS COMMENT ON MY POST ON MY WALL:

1. I have not read organon.

2. I did not know the “essence” of organon.

3. I am “putting tall claims and foolish theories”.

4. I am doing research without “knowing anything.”

5. I am trying to inventing or discovering new things about homeopathy without “reading or understanding” homeopathy.

6. I am not ” trained in a proper recognised college”, and hence I am a “quack”.

7. Homeopaths should be careful about me, as I will damage homeopathy.

8. I can only “sing in the bath room”- not in “public forums”.

THESE ARE ARE THE VALUABLE “CRITICISMS” OF THIS LEARNED HOMEOPATH ABOUT MIT CONCEPTS I PROPOSE.

He asks me to “face the critics , then only one can improve”. HE GENUINELY WANTS ME TO “IMPROVE”. THANKS, DR. DEEPAN SHAH !!

I am not inclined to argue with him. I had many such encounters with him. He never comments about topics i posted. Comes only for personal attacks. I just BLOCKED this venom-spitting person

————————————————————————————-

If a homeopath- especially a young one- declares that he “reads only organon”, I wiil suspect something seriously deranged in his mental condition.

————————————————————————————

I had witnessed a prominent “seminar holder” of Kerala saying to his audience that he had an experience of “LACHESIS 200” causing heart attack! What was his “experience”? He “wrongly” gave ‘single dose of lachesis 200’ to ONE of his patients during day time “for eczema”, and the patient was admitted to hospital due to a serious heart attack that night. Inference of the “homeopath” is that the heart attack was CAUSED by lachesis 200, since it happened AFTER he gave it to that patient! “Wrongly prescribed Lachesis 200 has driven the disease from the skin to inner layers”! This is the LOGIC OF HOMEOPATHY!!!

————————————————————————————–

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 ‘miraculous effect’ of their ‘single dose’. Many ‘cures’, many ‘drug relations’, many ‘aggravations’, many ‘side effects’ and MANY DRUG PROVINGS are actually the products of this perverted understanding of ‘cause and effect’.

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

——————————————————————————————

One homeopath commented on my wall:

“I dont know MIT theory but I am curing patients on the law given in Organon of Medicine by Hahnemann . I am driven my car on driving principles but I dont fully know Physics & Chemistry working in car Engine .Practitioner work on some principles but Scientist explains Principles working within”!

MY RESPONSE:

“For ‘curing’ patients by giving homeopathic drugs, one need not necessarily know “how homeopathy works”. But you can apply it more accurately and successfully, if you know its “how” also.

You need not know the principles of nutrition to fill your belly. Does it mean we need not know the science of nutrition and the nutritional contents of food articles? More you know, better will be your application. There is much difference between BLIND application and SCIENTIFIC application.

If you are not interested to know HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS, no body will compel you to study it, if you will keep silent without talking nonsense theories about it. There are people who want to know the science behind homeopathy. Let them do it. Those who are not interested, may keep away from such scientific discussions and continue their “driving”.”

———————————————————————————-

If you can “prove” drugs using “high”potencies, you should also be capable of identifying the drugs by observing the symptoms they produce. Can you?

If you believe you can ‘prove’ drugs in 30C or higher, kindly agree to jointly conduct some simple experiments, sir.

I will give 10 samples of well proven polychrest drugs in 30C potency in ten serially numbered bottles, without revealing their names. You should ‘prove’ them and identify at least five samples from them by observing the symptoms they produce during proving. Bottling and numbering of drug samples will be done by a panel of credible persons, and they will keep the exact identity of each bottle well documented and sealed to be revealed during final verification.

ARE YOU READY FOR SUCH AN EXPERIMENT? IF YES, WE CAN DISCUSS ABOUT ITS DETAILS AND MODALITIES. IF YOU ARE NOT READY, KINDLY STOP THESE HOLLOW CLAIMS OF ‘HIGH POTENCY PROVING’. THIS IS NOT A TOPIC TO BE ‘PROVED’ BY ARGUMENTS, BUT BY SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS.

————————————————————————————–

A friend of mine, a senior political leader of kerala, called me over phone three days back. He told me, he gets severe hoarseness and loss of voice while making public speeches, and asked me to send some medicines. He did not give any more symptoms. I decided to try a SPECIFIC. I sent him 2 dram pills of WYETHIA 30, and advised to take 4 pills 2 hly. He called me next day, and told that he has good relief by the medicine. It is three days now. He called me just now, and told me thankfully that he has no any hoarseness now, even if speaking continuously for hours. VIVA HOMEOPATHY!

————————————————————————————–

Most homeopaths, especially those considered to be the ‘international spokespersons’ and ‘gurus’ of homeopathy, always evade fundamental questions in a very clever way. They talk a lot, write a lot, teach a lot. They discuss very complex issues, conduct costly seminars- but always feign deaf and dumb when simple fundamental questions are asked to them. Actually, we have to make them answer a few fundamental questions regarding homeopathy and prove them according to scientific methods, so that this noble therapeutic system can claim its rightful status as a MEDICAL SCIENCE. I am here trying to sum up these basic questions:

1. What is the real scientific explanation for ‘similia similibus curentur’?

2. What really happens at ‘material’ level during the process of potentisation?

3. What are the active principles of potentized medicines?

4. What is the biological mechanism by which potentized medicines remove the pathological molecular inhibitions to produce cure?

Unless these questions are answered according to scientific method, we cannot claim homeopathy to be a scientific medical system.

MY ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS:

Question 1: What is the real scientific explanation for ‘similia similibus curentur’?

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 substances, which in crude form could produce similar molecular inhibitions in healthy individuals, expressed through similar groups of symptoms”.

Question 2: What really happens at ‘material’ level during the process of potentisation?

During initial stages of drug potentization, crude drug substances undergoes division and ionization, therby individual constituent molecules getting freed from intermolecular bonds. During progressive dilution and succussion, these constituent drug molecules undergo a process of ‘molecular imprinting’. During this process, three dimensional ‘molecular imprints’ or hydrosomes of drug molecules are formed in the supra-molecular clusters of water/alcohol medium through stabilization of hydration shells. Due to serial dilution, drug molecules gradually get removed from medium, and by 12c it becomes free of drug molecules and only ‘molecular imprints’ remain.

Question 3: What are the active principles of potentized medicines?

‘Molecular imprints’ of constituent drug molecules are the active principles of potentized homeopathic drugs.

Question 4: What is the biological mechanism by which potentized medicines remove the pathological molecular inhibitions to produce cure?

‘Diseases’ are errors in vital processes due to derangement of biochemical pathways in the organism, caused by inhibitions of biological molecules by binding of exogenous or endogenous pathogenic molecules. ‘Molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs selectively binds to the pathogenic molecules having complementary affinity due to the conformational similarity of pathogenic molecules and original drug molecules used for potentization. This conformational similarity is expressed as ‘similarity of symptoms’. Pathogenic molecules are thus entrapped by the ‘molecular imprints’, thereby relieving the biological molecules from inhibitions. Disease is cured at molecular level itself.

If anybody can propose a more rational and comprehensive SCIENTIFIC model for homeopathy than what is described above, please come forward. Do not run away from basic questions, and hide your heads in the ‘aphorisms’ of organon like an ostrich.

————————————————————————————

We hear a lot of claims about “proving” of drugs in “high” potencies.

If anybody believe he can ‘prove’ drugs in 30C or higher, kindly agree to conduct a simple experiment. I will give 10 samples of well proven polychrest drugs in 30C potency in ten serially numbered bottles, without revealing their names. You should ‘prove’ them and identify at least five samples from them by observing the symptoms they produce during proving. Bottling and numbering of drug samples will be done by a panel of credible persons, and they will keep the exact identity of each bottle well documented and sealed to be revealed during final verification.

ANY BODY THERE READY FOR THIS EXPERIMENT? IF NOT, ALL THESE CLAIMS OF ‘HIGH POTENCY PROVING’ ARE MEANINGLESS. THIS IS NOT A TOPIC TO BE ‘PROVED’ BY ARGUMENT, BUT BY SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS.

——————————————————————————–

PATHOGENIC MOLECULES produce diseases by binding their active FUNCTIONAL GROUPS to the specific biological molecules in the organism due to their molecular affinity, and producing molecular errors.

During drug proving, poisoning and crude molecular actions, DRUG MOLECULES produce bio-molecular errors and symptoms in the healthy organism by binding their FUNCTIONAL GROUPS to the biological molecules.

When disease symptoms and drug symptoms appear SIMILAR, that means functional groups of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules were similar, so that they could bind to similar bio-molecular targets and produce similar molecular errors in the organism.

HYDROSOMES or ‘molecular imprints’ of ‘functional groups’ of drug molecules contained in the potentized drugs can act as ‘artificial binding sites or LIGAND TRAPS towards the SIMILAR pathogenic molecules, due to their COMPLEMENTARY conformation.

It is now obvious that when using SIMILIMUM as therapeutic agents, we are actually using MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of ‘functional groups’ of drug molecules to bind to the ‘functional groups’ of pathogenic molecules and deactivate the.

This observation leads us to some very important conclusions: What we actually need is the MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of biologically active FUNCTIONAL GROUPS. If we can prepare molecular imprints of all biologically active functional groups, and make them available as homeopathic remedies, we will not need all these thousands of different drug substances. We will require only a very limited number of drugs, which could be universally applied as per homeopathic indications.

We will have to prepare MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of only following classes of FUNCTIONAL GROUPS to make our wonderful therapeutic arsenal:

Functional Groups consisting of Hydrocarbons: Alkyl ( Ethane), Alkenyl ( Ethylene) , Alkynyl (Acetylene), Phenyl (Cumene), Benzyl (Benzyl bromide).

Functional Groups containing Halogens: Halo ( Chloroethane), fluoro (Fluoromethane), chloro (Chloromethane), bromo (Bromomethane), iodo (Iodomethane).

Functional Groups containing oxygen: Hydroxyl (Methanol), Carbonyl (Butanone), Aldehyde (Acetaldehyde), Haloformyl (Acetyl chloride), Carbonate ester (Triphosgene), Carboxylate (Sodium acetate), Carboxyl (Acetic acid), Ester (Ethyl butyrate), Methoxy, Hydroperoxy (Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide), Peroxy (Di-tert-butyl peroxide), Ether (Diethyl ether), Hemiacetal, Hemiketal, Acetal, Ketal , Orthoester, Orthocarbonate ester.

Functional Groups containing nitrogen: Carboxamide (Acetamide), Primary amine (Methylamine), Secondary amine (Dimethylamine), Tertiary amine (Trimethylamine), 4° ammonium ion (Choline), Primary ketimine, Secondary ketimine, Primary aldimine, Secondary aldimine, Imide (Succinimide), Azide (Phenyl azide), Azo (Methyl orange), Cyanate (Methyl cyanate), Isocyanate (Methyl isocyanate), Nitrate (Amyl nitrate), Nitrile (Benzonitrile), Isonitrile (Methyl isocyanide), Nitrosooxy (Isoamyl nitrite), Nitro (Nitromethane), Nitroso (Nitrosobenzene), Pyridyl (Nicotine).

Functional Groups containing sulphur: Sulfhydryl (Ethanethiol), Sulfide (Dimethyl sulfide), Disulfide (Dimethyl disulfide), Sulfinyl (Dimethyl sulfoxide), Sulfonyl (Dimethyl sulfone ), Sulfino (2-Aminoethanesulfinic acid), Sulfo (Benzenesulfonic acid), Thiocyanate (Phenyl thiocyanate), Isothiocyanate (Allyl isothiocyanate), Carbonothioyl (Diphenylmethanethione), Carbonothioyl.

Groups containing phosphorus: Phosphino (Methylpropylphosphane), Phosphono (Benzylphosphonic acid), Phosphate (Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate), Phosphodiester (O‑[(2‑Guanidinoethoxy)hydroxyphosphoryl]‑l‑serine).

Groups containing boron: Borono, Boronate, Borino, Borinate.

THIS IS ONLY A PRELIMINARY THOUGHT IN THIS DIRECTION.

————————————————————————————-

Study of ‘Molecular Imprinting’ involved in homeopathic ‘potentization’, as well as the ‘biological mechanism’ of therapeutic actions of potentized drugs belong to the domain of SUPRA-MOLECULAR CHEMISTRY, rather than CHEMISTRY or BIOCHEMISTRY. Molecular imprints contained in potentized drugs, and their biological actions may be considered exactly as APPLIED BIOMIMETIC ARCHITECTURES.

Supramolecular chemistry refers to the study of supra-molecular systems, and focuses on the peculiar molecular formations made up of a discrete number of assembled molecular subunits or components. The forces responsible for the supra-molecular spatial organization are mostly those weak intermolecular forces and electrostatic or hydrogen bonding. In certain cases, strong covalent bonding are also involved, provided that the degree of electronic coupling between the molecular component remains small with respect to relevant energy parameters of the component.

While traditional chemistry focuses on the covalent bonding involved in formation of stable chemical ‘molecules’, supra-molecular chemistry studies the weaker and reversible ‘non-covalent’ interactions between molecules. These ‘non-covalent’ forces include hydrogen bonding, metal coordination, hydrophobic forces, van der Waals forces, pi-pi interactions and electrostatic effects.

Supra-molecular chemistry studies the phenomena such as molecular self-assembly, protein folding, molecular recognition, host-guest chemistry, mechanically-interlocked molecular architectures, and dynamic covalent chemistry.

The study of non-covalent interactions and supra-molecular formations is crucial to understanding many biological processes such as cell structure, biomolecular interactions, molecular recognition, protein kinetics, ligand-target interactions, antigen-antibody interactions, genetic expression, molecular inbitions, proteinopathies etc. Study of biological systems is often the inspiration for supra-molecular research.

Homeopathy and its therapeutic principle ‘similia sibilibus curentur’, as well as ‘drug potentization’ could be rationally explained only with the help of supra-molecular chemistry.

The existence of intermolecular forces was first postulated by Johannes Diderik van der Waals in 1873. However, Nobel laureate Hermann Emil Fischer developed supra-molecular chemistry’s philosophical roots. In 1894, Hermann Emil Fischer suggested that enzyme-substrate interactions take the form of a “lock and key”, the fundamental principles of molecular recognition and host-guest chemistry. In the early twentieth century non-covalent bonds were understood in gradually more detail, with the hydrogen bond being described by Latimer and Rodebush in 1920.

The use of these principles gradually led to an increasing understanding of protein structure and other biological processes. For instance, the important breakthrough that allowed the elucidation of the double helical structure of DNA occurred when it was realized that there are two separate strands of nucleotides connected through hydrogen bonds. The use of non-covalent bonds is essential to replication because they allow the strands to be separated and used to template new double stranded DNA.

Eventually, chemists were able to take these concepts and apply them to synthetic systems. The breakthrough came in the 1960s with the synthesis of the crown ethers by Charles J. Pedersen. Following this work, other researchers such as Donald J. Cram, Jean-Marie Lehn and Fritz Vogtle became active in synthesizing shape- and ion-selective receptors, and throughout the 1980s research in the area gathered a rapid pace with concepts such as mechanically-interlocked molecular architectures emerging.

The importance of supra-molecular chemistry was established by the 1987 Nobel Prize for Chemistry which was awarded to Donald J. Cram, Jean-Marie Lehn, and Charles J. Pedersen in recognition of their work in this area. The development of selective “host-guest” complexes in particular, in which a host molecule recognizes and selectively binds a certain guest, was cited as an important contribution.

In the 1990s, supra-molecular chemistry became even more sophisticated, with researchers such as James Fraser Stoddart developing molecular machinery and highly complex self-assembled structures, and Itamar Willner developing sensors and methods of electronic and biological interfacing. During this period, electrochemical and photochemical motifs became integrated into supramolecular systems in order to increase functionality, research into synthetic self-replicating system began, and work on molecular information processing devices began. The emerging science of nanotechnology also had a strong influence on the subject, with building blocks such as fullerenes, nanoparticles, and dendrimers becoming involved in synthetic systems.

Supramolecular chemistry deals with subtle interactions, and consequently control over the processes involved can require great precision. In particular, noncovalent bonds have low energies and often no activation energy for formation. As demonstrated by the Arrhenius equation, this means that, unlike in covalent bond-forming chemistry, the rate of bond formation is not increased at higher temperatures. In fact, chemical equilibrium equations show that the low bond energy results in a shift towards the breaking of supramolecular complexes at higher temperatures.

However, low temperatures can also be problematic to supramolecular processes. Supramolecular chemistry can require molecules to distort into thermodynamically disfavored conformations, and may include some covalent chemistry that goes along with the supramolecular. In addition, the dynamic nature of supramolecular chemistry is utilized in many systems such as molecular mechanics, and cooling the system would slow these processes.

Thus, thermodynamics is an important tool to design, control, and study supra-molecular chemistry. Perhaps the most striking example is that of warm-blooded biological systems, which entirely cease to operate outside a very narrow temperature range.

The molecular environment around a supra-molecular system is also of prime importance to its operation and stability. Many solvents have strong hydrogen bonding, electrostatic, and charge-transfer capabilities, and are therefore able to become involved in complex equilibria with the system, even breaking complexes completely. For this reason, the choice of solvent can be critical.

‘Molecular self assembly’ is the construction of systems without guidance or management from an outside source other than to provide a suitable environment. The molecules are directed to assemble through non-covalent interactions. Self-assembly may be subdivided into intermolecular self-assembly to form a supramolecular assembly, and intra-molecular self-assembly or folding as demonstrated by foldamers and polypeptides. Molecular self-assembly also allows the construction of larger structures such as micelles, membranes, vesicles, liquid crystals, and is important to crystal engineering.

Molecular self-assembly is a key concept in supramolecular chemistry. This is because assembly of molecules in such systems is directed through noncovalent interactions such as hydrogen bonding, metal coordination, hydrophobic forces, van der Waals forces, pi-pi interactions, as well as electromagnetic interactions. Common examples include the formation of micelles, vesicles, liquid crystal phases, and Langmuir monolayers by surfactant molecules. Further examples of supramolecular assemblies demonstrate that a variety of different shapes and sizes can be obtained using molecular self-assembly.

Molecular self-assembly allows the construction of challenging molecular topologies. One example is Borromean rings, interlocking rings wherein removal of one ring unlocks each of the other rings. DNA has been used to prepare a molecular analog of Borromean rings. More recently, a similar structure has been prepared using non-biological building blocks.

Molecular self-assembly underlies the construction of biologic macromolecular assemblies in living organisms, and so is crucial to the function of cells. It is exhibited in the self-assembly of lipids to form the membrane, the formation of double helical DNA through hydrogen bonding of the individual strands, and the assembly of proteins to form quaternary structures. Molecular self-assembly of incorrectly folded proteins into insoluble amyloid fibers is responsible for infectious prion-related neurodegenerative diseases. Molecular self-assembly of nanoscale structures plays a role in the growth of the remarkable β-keratin lamellae/setae/spatulae structures used to give geckos the ability to climb walls and adhere to ceilings and rock overhangs

DNA nanotechnology is an area of current research that uses the bottom-up, self-assembly approach for nanotechnological goals. DNA nanotechnology uses the unique molecular recognition properties of DNA and other nucleic acids to create self-assembling branched DNA complexes with useful properties. DNA is thus used as a structural material rather than as a carrier of biological information, to make structures such as two-dimensional periodic lattices (both tile-based as well as using the “DNA origami” method) and three-dimensional structures in the shapes of polyhedra. These DNA structures have also been used to template the assembly of other molecules such as gold nanoparticles and streptavidin proteins

Study of ‘molecular self assembly’ is very important in understanding molecular imprinting involved in homeopathic drug potentization.

‘Molecular recognition’ is the specific binding of a guest molecule to a complementary host molecule to form a ‘host-guest complex’. Often, the definition of which species is the “host” and which is the “guest” is arbitrary. The molecules are able to identify each other using non-covalent interactions. Key applications of this field are the construction of molecular sensors and catalysis.

Molecular recognition and self-assembly may be used with reactive species in order to pre-organize a system for a chemical reaction to form one or more covalent bonds. It may be considered a special case of supra-molecular catalysis. Non-covalent bonds between the reactants and a “template” hold the reactive sites of the reactants close together, facilitating the desired chemistry. This technique is particularly useful for situations where the desired reaction conformation is thermodynamically or kinetically unlikely, such as in the preparation of large macrocycles. This pre-organization also serves purposes such as minimizing side reactions, lowering the activation energy of the reaction, and producing desired stereochemistry. After the reaction has taken place, the template may remain in place, be forcibly removed, or may be “automatically” decomplexed on account of the different recognition properties of the reaction product. The template may be as simple as a single metal ion or may be extremely complex.

‘Mechanically-interlocked molecular architectures’ consist of molecules that are linked only as a consequence of their topology. Some non-covalent interactions may exist between the different components often those that were utilized in the construction of the system, but covalent bonds do not. Supramolecular chemistry, and template-directed synthesis in particular, is key to the efficient synthesis of the compounds. Examples of mechanically-interlocked molecular architectures include catenanes, rotaxanes, molecular knots, molecular Borromean rings and ravels.

In certain situations, ‘supra-molecular chemistry’ may include ‘covalent bondings’ also. In such ‘dynamic covalent chemistry’, covalent bonds are broken and formed in a reversible reaction under thermodynamic control. While covalent bonds are key to the process, the system is directed by non-covalent forces to form the lowest energy structures

‘Biomimetics’ is an important application of supra-molecular chemistry. Many synthetic supra-molecular systems are designed to copy functions of biological systems. These bio-mimetic architectures can be used to learn about both the biological model and the synthetic implementation. Examples include photoelectrochemical systems, catalytic systems, protein design and self-replication.

‘Molecular imprinting’ is another application of supra-molecular chemistry, which describes a process by which a host is constructed from small molecules using a suitable molecular species as a template. After construction, the template is removed leaving only the host. The template for host construction may be subtly different from the guest that the finished host binds to. In its simplest form, imprinting utilizes only steric interactions, but more complex systems also incorporate hydrogen bonding and other interactions to improve binding strength and specificity.

Homeopathic potentization could be rationally explained by molecular imprinting.

‘Molecular machines’ are molecules or molecular assemblies derived from supramolecular chemistry, that can perform functions such as linear or rotational movement, switching, and entrapment. These devices exist at the boundary between supramolecular chemistry and nanotechnology, and prototypes have been demonstrated using supramolecular concepts

Different synthetic recognition motifs commonly utilized in supramolecular chemistry: The ‘pi-pi charge-transfer interactions’ of bipyridinium with dioxyarenes or diaminoarenes have been used extensively for the construction of mechanically interlocked systems and in crystal engineering. The use of ‘crown ether binding’ with metal or ammonium cations is ubiquitous in supramolecular chemistry. The formation of ‘carboxylic acid dimers’ and other simple hydrogen bonding interactions. The complexation of bipyridines or tripyridines with ruthenium, silver or other metal ions is of great utility in the construction of complex architectures of many individual molecules. The complexation of porphyrins or phthalocyanines around metal ions gives access to catalytic, photochemical and electrochemical properties as well as complexation. These units are used a great deal by nature. ‘Macrocycles’ are also very useful in supramolecular chemistry, as they provide whole cavities that can completely surround guest molecules and may be chemically modified to fine-tune their properties. Cyclodextrins, calixarenes, cucurbiturils and crown ethers are readily synthesized in large quantities, and are therefore convenient for use in supramolecular systems. More complex cyclophanes, and cryptands can be synthesised to provide more tailored recognition properties. Supramolecular metallocycles are macrocyclic aggregates with metal ions in the ring, often formed from angular and linear modules. Common metallocycle shapes in these types of applications include triangles, squares, and pentagons, each bearing functional groups that connect the pieces via “self-assembly”. Metallacrowns are metallomacrocycles generated via a similar self-assembly approach from fused chelate-rings.

Many supramolecular systems require their components to have suitable spacing and conformations relative to each other, and therefore easily-employed structural units are required. Commonly used spacers and connecting groups include polyether chains, biphenyls and triphenyls, and simple alkyl chains. The chemistry for creating and connecting these units is very well understood. Nanoparticles, nanorods, fullerenes and dendrimers offer nanometer-sized structure and encapsulation units.

Surfaces can be used as scaffolds for the construction of complex systems and also for interfacing electrochemical systems with electrodes. Regular surfaces can be used for the construction of self-assembled monolayers and multilayers.

Photo-electro-chemically active units are used in supra-molecular chemistry. Porphyrins, and phthalocyanines have highly tunable photochemical and electrochemical activity as well as the potential for forming complexes. Photochromic and photoisomerizable groups have the ability to change their shapes and properties (including binding properties) upon exposure to light. TTF and quinones have more than one stable oxidation state, and therefore can be switched with redox chemistry or electrochemistry. Other units such as benzidine derivatives, viologens groups and fullerenes, have also been utilized in supramolecular electrochemical devices.

Certain ‘biologically-derived units’ are also utilized in supra-molecular chemistry. The extremely strong complexation between avidin and biotin is instrumental in blood clotting, and has been used as the recognition motif to construct synthetic systems. The binding of enzymes with their cofactors has been used as a route to produce modified enzymes, electrically contacted enzymes, and even photoswitchable enzymes. DNA has been used both as a structural and as a functional unit in synthetic supramolecular systems.

Applications of supramolecular chemistry is fastly expanding. Supramolecular chemistry and molecular self-assembly processes in particular have been applied to the development of new materials. Large structures can be readily accessed using bottom-up synthesis as they are composed of small molecules requiring fewer steps to synthesize. Thus most of the bottom-up approaches to nanotechnology are based on supramolecular chemistry.

A major application of supramolecular chemistry is the design and understanding of catalysts and catalysis. Noncovalent interactions are extremely important in catalysis, binding reactants into conformations suitable for reaction and lowering the transition state energy of reaction. Template-directed synthesis is a special case of supramolecular catalysis. Encapsulation systems such as micelles and dendrimers are also used in catalysis to create microenvironments suitable for reactions (or steps in reactions) to progress that is not possible to use on a macroscopic scale.

Supramolecular chemistry has been used to demonstrate computation functions on a molecular scale. In many cases, photonic or chemical signals have been used in these components, but electrical interfacing of these units has also been shown by supramolecular signal transduction devices. Data storage has been accomplished by the use of molecular switches with photochromic and photoisomerizable units, by electrochromic and redox-switchable units, and even by molecular motion. Synthetic molecular logic gates have been demonstrated on a conceptual level. Even full-scale computations have been achieved by semi-synthetic DNA computers.

Research in supramolecular chemistry also has application in green chemistry where reactions have been developed which proceed in the solid state directed by non-covalent bonding. Such procedures are highly desirable since they reduce the need for solvents during the production of chemicals.

Supramolecular chemistry is often pursued to develop new functions that cannot appear from a single molecule. These functions also include magnetic properties, light responsiveness, self-healing polymers, synthetic ion channels, molecular sensors, etc. Supramolecular research has been applied to develop high-tech sensors, processes to treat radioactive waste, and contrast agents for CAT scans.

Supramolecular chemistry is also important to the development of new pharmaceutical therapies by understanding the interactions at a drug binding site. The area of drug delivery has also made critical advances as a result of supramolecular chemistry providing encapsulation and targeted release mechanisms. In addition, supramolecular systems have been designed to disrupt protein-protein interactions that are important to cellular function. Supramolecular chemistry and molecular imprinting could be utilized in modern drug designing technology of next generation. Molecular imprinted water and biomolecules such as proteins are promising areas. It should be in this connection that we should study the MOLECULAR IMPRINTING perspective of homeopathic potentization, proposed by MIT concepts.

—————————————————————————–

I just want to say: “Scientific Approach is Possible in Homeopathy”! To know HOW, study the concepts proposed by ‘Molecular Imprints Therapeutics- MIT”

—————————————————————————-

By posting articles based on biochemical approach to similimum in various diseases, I actually want to convey the message to homeopaths that once they understand MIT concepts, they can now approach disease, similimum and homeopathic therapeutics from a scientific angle, entirely different from what we were taught so far. This is ‘science-based homeopathy’. This approach is not a deviation from ‘fundamentals’ of homeopathy as some friends suspect. It is based on the advanced scientific definition of ‘similia similibus curentur’ that “molecular imprints of pathogenic molecules or of similar molecules that could cause the molecular inhibitions can remove those inhibitions”.

I just want to say: “Scientific Approach is Possible in Homeopathy”

————————————————————————————-

Potentized homeopathic nosodes prepared from disease products are ‘molecular imprints’ in water-alcohol medium that can act inside the organism in a similar way as ANTIBODIES do. They can act as PROPHYLACTICS by binding to the invading pathogenic molecules and preventing them from attacking biological molecules.

Vaccines are disease products that can induce the organism to produce antibodies. Exactly, antibodies are ‘molecular imprinted’ native proteins, especially globulins.

Since antibodies are ‘molecular imprinted proteins’, the can remain in the system very long periods, and attack the surface proteins of invading microorganisms having configurational complementary relationship. That way, vaccines builds up immunity against specific diseases. Same time, these antibodies can cause various off-target molecular blocks, that my result in various pathological deviations known as ‘side effects’. That means, antibodies can PRODUCE chronic ‘miasms’ also.

Production of antibodies involves a natural process of ‘molecular imprinting’ similar to that happen during homeopathic potentization. Molecules contained in the vaccine substance creates spacial imprints up on native globulin proteins, inducing conformational changes in them. These ‘deformed globulins’ bearing spacial imprints of vaccine molecules are called ANTIBODIES’.

ANTIBODIES ARE ‘MOLECULAR IMPRINTED PROTEINS”. POTENTIZED NOSODES ARE “MOLECULAR IMPRINTED WATER”. BOTH ACT ON PATHOGENIC MOLECULES BY COMPLEMENTARY CONFIGURATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. DIFFERENCE IS, ANTIBODIES CAN ATTACK BIOLOGICAL MOLECULES AND PRODUCE MIASMS, WHEREAS MOLECULAR IMPRINTS CANNOT.

Since potentized nosodes contains only ‘molecular imprints’ in water/alcohol clusters, they will not remain inside the organism for long periods, and cannot cause off-target molecular blocks. Hence, potentized nosodes are safer than vaccines. VACCINES CAN PRODUCE CHRONIC DISEASES, WHEREAS NOSODES CURE CHRONIC DISEASES.

As such, molecular imprints contained in potentized drugs can provide prophylactic protection only for short periods. Life ling prophylaxis is not possible with homeopathy. It could be useful in epidemics

————————————————————————————-

You cannot approach, understand, explain or apply homeopathy as a ‘medical science’, if you have no essential basic knowledge in modern biochemistry. I would humbly request all homeopaths to update their biochemistry urgently.

For those who lack this scientific basis, and for those who think learning homeopathy means blindly ‘following’ the ‘masters’ and the ‘gurus’, everything I talk about homeopathy will appear “imaginary theories” and “empty sounds”, since my ideas will be simply flying over their head.

Problem becomes even worse, if they suffer from inflated egos, which prevent them from learning anything new, since they are under the illusion that they “know everything about homeopathy”!

—————————————————————————————

Due to their deficiencies in essential minimum scientific background, many homeopaths fail to understand MIT concepts of scientific homeopathy. They cannot even tolerate my questions about ‘active principles of potentized drugs’ or ‘biological mechanism of homeopathic cure’, as “it is not said in organon”!

One ‘senior homeopath’ told me : “YOUR WRITINGS ARE USELESS HIGH SOUNDING EMPTY POSTULATIONS”. He could hear only ‘high sounds’- not their meaning!. I can understand this state of mind, but can only sympathize with those ‘learned’ friends. There is no meaning in requesting them to learn science- they cannot!

————————————————————————————–

Hering’s four ‘observations’, now commonly known as ‘herings laws’, are actually some empirical assumptions regarding ‘order of cure’ in the homeopathic curative process.

Following are the four assumptions of hering:

In a genuine curative process,

a. Symptoms should disappear in the reverse chronological order of their appearance in disease.

b. Symptoms should travel from internal parts of body to external parts

c. Symptoms should travel from more vital organs to less vital organs.

d. Symptoms should travel from ‘upper’ parts of the body to ‘lower’ parts.

According to those who consider these as the ‘fundamental law of cure’, any drug effect that happen not in accordance with above laws are ‘suppressive’, and hence not ‘curative’.

‘Disease processes and curative processes always happen in reverse directions’ is the fundamental observation hering actually tried to establish regarding ‘directions of disease and cure’.

Hering never called these observations as ‘laws’. None of his famous contemporaries and close colleagues ever discussed or made 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. 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. 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. Again no mention is made of the famous law.

In 1865, Hering described these observations not as a law but as Hahnemann’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 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 as far as available literature shows.

‘Curative processes happen in a direction just reverse to disease processes’- that is the sum total of Hering’s observations regarding ‘directions of cure’.

Hering no where mentioned about such ‘laws’!

Actually, Hahnemann did not seriously work upon those aspects of curative processes which we call ‘directions of cure’, or considered it a decisive factor in homeopathic therapeutics. He made some observations regarding ‘order of cure’. He was more concerned about ‘misms’ in the management of ‘chronic diseases’, where as Hering did not consider ‘miasms’ at all.

Some modern ‘theoreticians’ have come with new theories by combining ‘hering laws’ and theory of miasms, also mixing up with terms of ‘genetics’ and ‘embryology’ which they propagate as the ‘only’ correct understanding of homeopathy.

It was ‘KENT’ who later actually called these observations as ‘Herings laws’ and converted these four observations into ‘fundamental laws’ of homeopathic cure. KENT taught to understand and apply these ‘laws’ in a mechanical way. He taught homeopaths to consider ‘hering laws’ regarding ‘directions of cure’ as one of the ‘fundamental laws’ of homeopathy, similar to ‘similia similibus curentur’. Kent made homeopaths believe that drug effects that do not agree with these ‘laws’ cannot be considered ‘curative’, and are ‘suppressive’. There are some modern streams of homeopathic practice such as that of Dr Vijaykar, which rely more upon ‘hering laws’ even than ‘similia similibu curentur’ in their methods of therapeutic applications. In 1911,Kent, almost arbitrarily, calls the original observations of Hahnemann “Hering’s law”.

According to so-called hering’s laws, natural disease processes always advances from lower parts of the body to upper parts, from less vital to more vital organs and from external to internal organs. More over, all these disease processes advance in a chronological order.

Logically, Hering’s observations only meant that “all genuine ‘curative processes’ should happen in a direction just reverse to disease processes”.

Over-extending and mechanical application of ‘herings laws’ without understanding their exact premises and scientific meaning may lead to grave errors regarding interpretation of curative processes and drug effects.

This phenomenon could be explained in the light of modern scientific understanding of ‘cascading of pathological molecular inhibitions’ and complex dynamics of ‘bio-molecular feed back mechanisms’.

To understand this explanation, one has to equip himself with at least a working knowledge regarding the concepts of modern biochemistry regarding the bio-molecular inhibitions involved in pathology and therapeutics.

Except those diseases which are purely due to errors in genetic substances, and those diseases which are due to genuine deficiency of building materials of biological molecules, all other diseases are considered to be caused by ‘molecular inhibitions’. Pathogenic molecules of endogenous or exogenous origin bind to some biological molecules in the organism, causing ‘molecular inhibitions’ which lead to pathological derangement in associated biochemical pathways. These pathogenic molecules may be of infectious, environmental, nutritional, metabolic, drug-induced, miasmatic or any other origin. Derangement in biochemical pathways are expressed through diverse groups of subjective and objective symptoms. This is the fundamental biochemistry of pathology.

Molecular inhibitions happening in a biological molecule due to the binding of a pathogenic molecule initiates a complex process of ‘cascading of molecular errors’ and ‘bio-feedback mechanisms’ in the organism. Errors happening in a particular biochemical pathway leads to errors in another pathway which is dependant on the first pathway for regular supply of metabolites, which further lead to errors in another pathway. This ‘cascading of molecular errors’ happens through successive stages, which is expressed through new subjective and objective symptoms. This ‘cascading’ is behind what we call ‘advancing of disease’ into new systems and organs, exhibiting ever new groups of associated symptoms. For an observer, this cascading appears in the form of ‘traveling of disease’ from one system into another. Along with these ‘cascading’ of molecular errors, there happens a series of activation and shutting down of complex ‘bio-molecular feedback’ mechanisms also. The phenomenon of ‘advancing of diseases’ should be studied in this scientific perspective of modern biochemistry.

When a molecular inhibition happens in some biological molecule ‘A’ due to binding of a pathogenic molecule ‘a’, it actually stops or decreases some essential molecular conversions that are essential part of a complex biochemical pathway P. If ‘G’ is the normal ligand of ‘A’, and ‘g’ is the product of biochemical interaction involving ‘A’, the result of this molecular inhibition is that ‘G’ accumulates on one side, and ‘g’ is not available for the next stage of molecular processes. Accumulating ‘P’ may induce a feedback mechanism leading to reduction or stoppage its production itself, or may move to other parts of organism and bind to unwanted molecular targets, initiation a new stream of pathological derangement.

Obviously, ‘traveling’ of disease or ‘advancing’ of disease happens through cascading of molecular errors in various biochemical pathways. Some disease processes may ‘travel’ from ‘external’ to internal organs, some from ‘lower parts’ to upper parts, some from ‘less vital’ parts to ‘more vital’ parts. All these ‘traveling’ is basically decided by the involved biochemical pathways. It would be wrong to generalize these observations in such a way that ‘all diseases travel from exterior to interior, lower parts to higher parts, and less vital to more vital parts’. It is also wrong to generalize in such a way that ‘curative process always travel from interior to exterior, above downwards, and from vital to less vital parts’. This is mechanical understanding and application of hering’s observations.

Actually, curative processes happens in a direction opposite to the direction of disease process. That depends upon the biochemical pathways involved and the exact dynamics of cascading of molecular inhibitions. Its dynamics is very complex, and should not be interpreted and applied in a mechanistic way. When ‘molecular inhibitions’ underlying the disease processes are systematically removed using molecular imprints, the curative process also would take place in the reverse direction of disease processes.

To sum up, Hering’s observations regarding a ‘directions of disease and cure’ is a valuable one, but it should be studied in the light of modern biochemistry.

‘Curative processes happen in a direction just reverse to disease processes”- that is the sum total of Hering’s observations regarding ‘directions of cure’.

Obviously there is something paradoxical in ‘herig laws’ which everybody over look. It is said that “disease advances in a direction from outer parts to internal parts”, and “direction of cure is from inner to outer”. If it is right, symptoms appeared last (inner) will be cure first, and symptoms appeared earlier (outer) will be cured last! But as per the first law, the reverse should happen- symptoms appeared first (outer) should go first, and those appeared later (inner) will go second. Is it not paradoxical?

There are many diseases that appear first in internal organs, and their external manifestations appear only during later stages of disease process. What should be their “direction of cure” according to hering law?

Concept of “outer-internal” most time contradicts with the concept of “lower-upper”. Did anybody notice this contradiction? Top of head is “upper”, but it is same time “outer”!

Same way, according to hering, “direction of disease process is lower to upper”, and “direction of cure is upper to lower”. This is contrary to the other law “cure happens in reverse order of appearance”!

Does “cure in reverse order” actually means “reappearance of old symptoms”? Should we agree with the theory that all cures ‘without reappearance of old symptoms” are not “genuine cures”?

Regarding upper limb, which is “upper” and which is “lower” – fingers or axille? In the case of dogs and cows, which limb is upper and which is lower- front limbs or hind limbs?

According to embryology:

“The gastrula with its blastopore soon develops three distinct layers of cells (the germ layers) from which all the bodily organs and tissues then develop:the innermost layer, or endoderm, gives rise to the digestive organs, lungs and bladder; the middle layer, or mesoderm, gives rise to the muscles, skeleton and blood system; the outer layer of cells, or ectoderm, gives rise to the nervous system and skin” (Wikipedia).

Which is ‘inner most’? Homeopaths believe mind is innermost. But embryology says nervous system belongs to ectoderm. “Lungs, bladder and digestive system” are inner! ‘Mind’ is ‘outer’ than lungs, bladder and lungs! Bladder is much ‘lower’ than brain, but ‘innermost’! What should be the ‘direction of cure’ in a disease that ‘moved’ from bladder to brain?

I always wonder why our GURUS and MASTERS ignored this paradoxical states in hering laws!

————————————————————————————

Biological molecules interact with their natural ligands by a ‘key-lock’ relationship, where biological molecules can be considered as ‘locks’, and their natural ligands as ‘original keys’.

Drug molecules and pathogenic molecules having conformations ‘similar’ to the original keys can act as ‘fake keys’, and enter the ‘keyholes’ of biological ‘locks’, thereby hindering the normal interaction between natural ‘locks’ and ‘keys’. This hindrance in bio-molecular interactions underlie the molecular level mechanism of ‘pathology’ as well as ‘drug proving’.

Molecular imprints are ‘artificial keyholes’ exactly fitting to the ‘drug molecules’ used to prepare them. If drug molecules and pathogenic molecules are of ‘similar’ conformation, molecular imprints of drug molecules can act as ‘artificial keyholes’ for similar pathogenic molecules also, and bind to them. ‘Fake keys’ that block the keyholes of biological molecules can be removed by using these ‘artificial keyholes’.

This is the molecular mechanism involved in homeopathic therapeutics.

———————————————————————————–

First of all, we have to understand the fundamental difference between drug substances BELOW 12C or AVOGADRO LIMIT, and ABOVE 12C or AVOGADRO LIMIT. Former contains DRUG MOLECULES, where as latter contains ONLY MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug molecules. They act by entirely different BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM.

When applied as SIMILIMUM, ‘molecular forms’ or crude drugs may COMPETE with pathogenic molecules for binding to the targets, and give some therapeutic effects. But they cannot bind to the pathogenic molecules as such, and hence the therapeutic effect will be very temporary. More over, these drug molecules can bind to various unexpected molecular targets, resulting in harmful effects commonly known as SIDE EFFECTS.

When applied as SIMILIMUM, ‘molecular imprints’ act by an entirely different biological mechanism. They act as ARTIFICIAL BINDING SITES for pathogenic molecules having conformational complementary affinity, and BIND to them and deactivate them. Hence, cure will be long lasting and more permanent. More over, molecular imprints cannot interfere in the normal interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands. As such, issue of SIDE EFFECTS does not arise when we use drugs potentized above 12C.

————————————————————————————

Some homeopaths ‘believe’ that ‘highly potentized’ drugs can produce symptoms, and can be used for ‘drug proving’. They believe it is dangerous to use potentized drugs without indications.

One homeopath claimed: “I once took a dose of medhorrinum 1M, because I really wanted to know more about Homeopathy, and I got a date of symptoms for some time (a month or less), most corresponded well to the set of symptoms described in materia medica for medhorrinum… So you say that high dilutions is not good for experimentations…. I think it is not correct…”

Pure rubbish. If he wanted to “know more about homeopathy”, this is not the way he should do experiments. Taking oneself ‘single dose’ of a drug and waiting for ‘its symptoms’ to appear! And he got symptoms of that drug for one month! And he considers he has ‘proved’ that “high dilutions are good for experimentation” beyond any doubt!

If he really wanted to ‘prove’ that potentized drugs can produce symptoms, he should conduct the experiments according to scientific method. Person who is subjected to experiment should not know which medicine he is taking. Person conducting the experiment should not know which drug is given to which individual. There should be enough controls also. Then we should try to identify the drugs from comparing the symptoms produced with symptoms in materia medica. Only when we succeed in identifying drugs from symptoms in such a well controlled blinded experiment, we can say we ‘proved’ that high potency drugs could produce symptoms.

Taking a dose of ‘known’ drug oneself, waiting for its symptoms for one month, and ascribing all symptoms you produced during one month to that single drug- it is a joke. After taking that ‘single dose’, he will be ‘taking’ diverse types of exogenous molecules into your body- through food, water, drinks, air and many many other environmental factors. All those molecules can produce symptoms in him. How can he say all symptoms produced for one month ‘after’ a ‘single dose of medorrhinum 1m’ were due that ‘single dose’?

Only homeopaths, blinded by ‘beliefs’ can make such claims. For them, everything that happens ‘after’ their dose is the ‘effect’ of that dose! They never bother to consider the variables involved! I know it is a waste of time arguing to convince them. They cannot be convinced by logic or science. They are ‘believers’.

Homeopathic drugs potentized above avogadro limit (12c) contain only ‘molecular imprints’. Molecular imprints are supramolecular nanostructures formed by hydrogen bonding of ethyl alcohol-water molecules, into which the 3-dimensional configuration of drug molecules are imprinted as nano-cavities. These nano-cavities can act as artificial binding sites for endogenous or exogenous molecules having configurational similarity to the molecules used for imprinting. We can say, molecular imprints are ‘artificial key-holes’ for pathogenic molecular keys.

Biochemical processes involves two aspects: 1.Binding of ligands to targets, which is determined by configurational affinity.2. Chemical transformation, which is determined by charge affinity of ligands and targets. Since ‘molecular imprints’ have only ‘configurational affinity’, without any ‘charge affinity’ towards biological molecules, potentized drugs cannot interfere in normal biological processes.

Molecular imprints contained in the potentized homeopathic preparations bind to ligands or biological molecules due to their complementary cofigurational affinity, whereas natural ligands bind to their biological target molecules in capacity of their appropriate spacial configurations as well as charge affinities. So, the bindings of molecular imprints with biological molecules or their ligands will be very temporary and cannot stay long. Such bindings of molecular imprints cannot replace the natural ligand-target interactions happening as part of vital processes. Molecular imprints can not compete with natural ligands in binding to their natural biological targets. Hence it is obvious that potentized homeopathic preparations cannot interfere in biological ‘ligand-target’ processes such as ‘substrate-enzyme’, ‘antigens-antibodies’, ‘signal-receptor’ etc. As such, chances of potentized homeopathic medicines acting as pathological agents are very rare even if used indiscriminately. Molecular imprints can interfere only in interactions between pathogenic molecules and biological molecules, as well as off-target bindings of ligands with biological molecules, to which their comparative configurational affinity is more. Obviously, molecular imprints can act upon only the molecular blocks created by exogenous or endogenous foreign pathological molecules.

Molecular imprints contained in the potentized homeopathic preparations cannot successfully compete with natural ligands in binding with their biological target molecules, and hence, cannot interfere in the interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands. Obviously, potentized drugs cannot produce any pathological molecular inhibitions in the organism or produce symptoms.

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

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

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

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

First point we have to note is that most drug substances, especially of vegetable or animal origin, are not ‘simple’ substance. Even if we use them as a ‘single’ substance, actually they consist of diverse types of individual molecules. A substance can interact with biological molecules only as individual molecules. If we really want to understand homeopathy and drug proving scientifically, we should first of all learn to perceive drug substance in terms of its diverse constituent molecules. Once we introduce a sample of drug substance into the living organism for ‘proving’, its constituent molecules are instantly subjected to various processes such as disintegration, ionization, hydration and certain chemical transformations.
Individual constituent molecules are carried and conveyed through blood and other internal transport systems into the cells and body fluids in different parts of the body. They can interact with various enzymes, receptors, and other biological molecules inside the organism. Individual drug molecules, in capacities of their molecular affinities, get themselves bound to various bio-molecules which participate in the essential biochemical activities in the organism. These interactions are decided and directed by the specific properties such as configurations and charges of active groups of individual drug molecules, and their specific affinity towards biological target molecules.

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

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

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

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

Drugs potentized above 12c cannot cause pathological molecular inhibitions or produce symptoms. As such ‘drug proving’ with ‘high potencies’ is only a myth- a false belief that is deep-rooted in the minds of homeopaths.

————————————————————————————-

Many homeopaths argue that ‘high potencies’ will be ‘proved’ if used without indications. By ‘proving’, they mean producing of ‘drug symptoms’. If their claim is right, those friends should be capable of identifying a particular polycrest drug by observing the symptoms they ‘produce’, and comparing them with the symptoms described in materia medica books. Anybody there to take up this challenge?

———————————————————————————–

You are talking about ‘immutable laws’ of homeopathy that cannot be ever changed. Please understand, those ‘laws’ where made by human beings on the basis of their available knowledge regarding phenomena of nature. Nature is not immutable, our knowledge is not immutable- how can you then imagine about immutable ‘laws’ of homeopathy?

The great genius of hahnemann made some observations regarding the relationship between drug-induced diseases and phenomenon of curative process, which he developed into a ‘principle’ called ‘similia similibus curentur’. This principle was based on his observation that if a disease has symptoms similar to those produced by a drug substance in healthy individuals, a ‘infinitely diluted’ dose of that drug could cure that disease.

Constrained by the historical limitations of knowledge environment he lived in, he could not scientifically understand how this curative process actually happened, or how the ‘infinitely diluted’ drug substance got medicinal properties. He tried to explain these phenomena on the basis of ideas he generated using the philosophy of ‘dynamism’ and ‘vitalism’ that were strong influences in his world outlook. He developed the idea that the ‘infinitely diluted’ drug substances contained some ‘dynamic medicinal energy’ that acted upon the ‘vital force’ of the patients and produced a curative effect.

Everything hahnemann said about the ‘application’ of homeopathy, such as dose, repetition, drug interactions, miasms, mode of application and a lot of other things were based on his ‘dynamic’ concepts regarding ‘potentization’ and drug actions, which were actually evolved from his limitations of scientific knowledge. He had no any scientific idea regarding what exactly happened during ‘potentization’. He had no any idea regarding the ‘biological mechanism’ by which potentized drugs acted upon the organism. He applied a lot of imaginations to fill the gaps of scientific knowledge, in order to construct a ‘complete’ therapeutic system.

Once we scientifically understand ‘potentization’ as a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, and we could explain the biological mechanism of ‘similia similibus curentur’ in terms of modern biochemistry, all those old ‘laws’ cannot stay ‘immutable’. They will have to be modified or discarded. That is the way human knowledge advances.

MIT concepts represent an advanced stage in this dialectical evolution of homeopathy. It is SCIENTIFIC HOMEOPATHY. Homeopathy cannot be ‘immutable’- it is undergoing ‘mutations’!

———————————————————————————

Every word occasionally uttered by the ‘master’ or later ‘stalwarts’ during their life times cannot be considered ‘fundamental laws’ of homeopathy, as our ‘classical homeopaths’ believe. Most of these so-called ‘laws’ are only irrational subjective interpretations, speculations and imaginations of ‘masters’, which do not agree with principles of modern science and its methods.

Actually, ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ is the ONLY ‘fundamental principle’ of homeopathy, with the technique of ‘potentization’ as its integral part. It explains the ‘biological mechanism’ of processes involved in homeopathic cure, which still holds valid in the light of modern scientific knowledge also.

————————————————————————————-

I am not making any ‘new’ law in homeopathy. Actually, I am verifying and explaining the existing ‘laws’ in the light of advanced scientific knowledge. Obviously, those ‘laws’ which fail to withstand such a scientific scrutiny will be automatically deleted. It will only strengthen the foundation of homeopathy, and make its practice more rational, systematic and accurate.

————————————————————————————

Prescribe confidently. Even if you happen to give a ‘wrong’ drug to your patient, it will not do any harm if you are using in ‘molecular imprints’ forms or potencies 12C or above. You can safely switch over to right drug any time, if your earlier prescription proves to be wrong.

—————————————————————————–

Find a similimum using all ÀBNORMAL MENTALS and ABNORMAL PHYSICAL GENERALS. It can be considered the CONSTITUTIONAL DRUG of the patient.

If the constitutional drug covers the ABNORMAL PARTICULAR SYMPTOMS also, it could be confidently prescribed.

If there are ABNORMAL PARTICULARS that are not covered by the selected constitutional drug, repertorize the particulars separately and find similimum. Prescribe the constitutional similimum as well as particular similimum, as combination or alternatingly.

In some cases, where there are entirely unrelated pathological conditions existing in the patient, particular symptoms may be arranged in different groups, and repertorized separately. In such cases, there will be two or more PARTICULAR similimums. Prescribe them along with CONSTITUTIONAL similimum.

I know, ‘classical homeopaths’ will not agree with this method. Let them disagree. One thing is sure- this method is very practical , and it simplifies homeopathic prescribing for young homeopaths. Cure is ensured.

————————————————————————-

If the patient invites your attention to an ‘abnormal’ OBJECTIVE or ‘observable’ symptom such as a lesion, a tissue change, a disability, peculiar discharge or a lab report, inquire about its ‘associated’ SUBJECTIVE aspects such as pains, sensations and factors that produce feelings of amel or agg. Such ‘objective-subjective’ combinations of symptoms belong to the category of ‘COMPLETE SYMPTOMS’, which are essential for a successful search of similimum.

If the the patient invites your attention first to a SUBJECTIVE complaint such as some abnormal sensations, pains or mental states, inquire whether there is any OBJECTIVE symptom associated with each of them, and also their aggravations, ameliorations and concomitants. Then only they become COMPLETE symptoms.

Regarding symptoms where ‘subjective-objective’ combinations are not available, look for ‘accompanying’, concomitant, alternating, extending or simultaneous symptoms. All such symptoms belong to the class of CONCOMITANTS, which may by themselves strongly indicate or lead to a similimum.

——————————————————————————–

There are many ways to find similimum for a given patient. You may arrive at different similimums in same case, when you search for it though different ways, and all of them will probably work. Homeopathy is very very flexible.

Even a single ‘key note’ symptom may some times lead to a similimum.

In certain cases, you can select a similimum using totality of ‘abnormal’ mental symptoms only.

You can select a similimum using totality of ‘abnormal’ physical generals only.

Finding similimum is possible using totality of ‘abnormal’ mentals and physical generals, which is called ‘constitutional similimum’.

You can find a similimum using ‘totality’ of abnormal mentals, physical generals and particular symltoms .

In certain cases, you can combine constitutional similimum and particular similimum.

You can find similimum using abnormal particular symptoms only.

You can find multiple similimums using multiple ‘symptom groups’.

There are many specific remedies for different diseases, based on previous experiences of cures.

In iatrogenic diseases and bad effects of allopathic drugs, you can use tautopathic prescriptions.

Sarcodes and potentized biological products could be prescribed on the basis of knowledge of biochemistry.

Nosodes could be used on the basis of miasmatic history such as infections and vaccinations.

MOST IMPORTANT POINT TO BE REMEMBERED IS, USE ONLY POTENCIES ABOVE 12C, SO THAT THE DRUGS WILL ACT BY A ‘HOMEOPATHIC’ BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM. DO NOT HESITATE TO USE MULTIPLE DRUGS IF SYMPTOMS INDICATE SO. DO NOT HESITATE TO REPEAT DOSES FREQUENTLY UNTIL CURE IS COMPLETE.

—————————————————————————–

Some ‘senior’ homeopaths argue that so-called “laws” of homeopathy should not be questioned or revised, as those LAWS were “surviving here for years”!

“Surviving for years” is not a scientifically viable justification for anything. Many superstitions and occult practices were “surviving here” for centuries. Astrology and palmistry are “surviving for years”. Black magics survive here. Should we agree all those things are scientific, only for the reason that they are “surviving for years”?

Try to understand homeopathy scientifically. Try to explain its ‘laws’ scientifically. Try to prove them scientifically. Try to practice them scientifically. Discard what are obviously unscientific. If you cannot, at least keep away from creating hurdles to those who are trying to make homeopathy a MEDICAL SCIENCE.

—————————————————————————–

It is not your “laws” and “methods” that cure, but the ‘molecular imprints’ contained the drugs you selected. You have to worry only about ensuring that all the diverse types of molecular imprints required by the patient are included in your prescription. You need not worry about ‘laws’ and ‘methods’, if you know how to select your prescription.

—————————————————————————–

Dr. Santimoy Mukherjee commented on my post:

“BOGUS IDEA,IF YOU DON’T FOLLOW RULES SUCCESS WILL ONLY REMAIN A DREAM”

MY ANSWER: Sir, what about the “rules”? Are they not “bogus”? On what basis those ‘rules’ are made? Can you explain those ‘rules’ in the light of modern scientific knowledge, other than bogus claims of ‘experiences’ and those dogmatic ‘aphorisms’? If you can, you are welcome for a discussion.

Kindly answer me following fundamental questions, which should be the BASIS of any scientific RULES in homeopathy:

1. What actually happens during potentization, by which the medicinal properties of drug substances are transferred to the medium, with out even a single drug molecule remaining in it?

2. What are the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of potentized drugs?

3. What is the molecular level BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM by which potentized drugs act up on the organism and produce a therapeutic effect?

4. What is the SCIENTIFIC meaning of ‘similia similibus curentur’ in terms of biochemical interactions involved in vital processes?

If you cannot answer these questions, all your UNDERSTANDING of homeopathy and its rules will be simply BOGUS.

Without any idea regarding WHAT are the active factors of ‘drugs’ you use, how can anybody make RULES about its dose, repetition, relationships and such things?

Whithout any idea regarding HOW your drugs really act upon the organism, how can anybody make THEORIS about its harms, suppressions, bad effects and such things?

Are they not BOGUS Ideas, fancies and imaginations of people you consider masters? If not, as their dedicated ‘follower’, you are responsible to explain them in terms of currently available scientific knowledge. If you cannot do that, at least do not try to malign those who try to do it.

I have explained MY IDEAS on the basis of MY ANSWERS for above questions. If you think my ideas are BOGUS, you are expected to explain your ideas by answering the above questions according to your views. If you evade from these FOUR fundamental questions, that means, you are not intellectually equipped for a REASONABLE interaction with me.

—————————————————————————

Homeopaths always justify their ‘laws’ and ‘theories’ not by scientific evidences or rational explanations, but using anecdotes of their ‘experiences’ and quotes from ‘masters’.

What they claim to be ‘experiences’ are actually their absolutely unscientific subjective interpretations of ‘their’ experiences, exactly similar to the ‘experiences’ of the gang of blind men of the proverbial fable, who ‘saw’ the elephant!

Such subjective interpretations and anecdotes have no any value as ‘evidences’ according to scientific method, unless our interpretations and explanations agree with existing scientific knowledge system.

—————————————————————————

What Is The Key To Successful Homeopathic Practice?

Practice homeopathy with minimum THEORY, with minimum ‘DON’TS’. Practice it with confidence- without any fear or foreboding.

COLLECT ALL ‘ABNORMAL BASIC SYMPTOMS’, AND MAKE THEM ‘COMPLETE SYMPTOMS’ BY ADDING WITH THEIR ‘ACCESSORIES’ SUCH AS ‘CAUSATION-LOCATION-SENSATION-PRESENTATION-MODALITY-CONCOMITANTS’. THEN SELECT ONE OR MORE SIMILIMUMS AS REQUIRED, USING ‘ANY’ OF THE VARIOUS METHODS APPROPRIATE FOR YOUR CASE. THIS IS THE PRIMARY SKILL YOU SHOULD MASTER.

Use only 30C.

Do not hesitate to repeat frequently.

Do not hesitate to change remedies as indicated by symptoms .

Do not worry about ‘single-multiple’ drugs.

Do not worry about ‘drug relationships’.

Do not worry about ‘miasmatic analysis’.

Do not worry about ‘suppressions’.

Do not worry about ‘aggravations’ and ‘bad effects’ of potentized drugs.

You will definitely succeed!

—————————————————————————–

Most people do not ‘understand’ the real essence of what they ‘read’ or hear- fact is, they even do not try to understand. It creates a lot of unpropductive arguments.

There are a lot of people here who vehemently argue against MIT, without even trying to understand what is MIT. I am tired of their hollow ‘discussions’.

—————————————————————————–

In most cases, we are actually prescribing a ‘partial’ similimum, thinking that it is a ‘perfect’ similimum.

To be a ‘perfect’ similimum, a drug should contain ALL the diverse types of ‘molecular imprints’ required to remove ALL the diverse types of molecular inhibitions in the patient, caused by ALL the diverse types of pathogenic molecules, and expressed through ALL the diverse groups of subjective and objective symptoms.

It is practically impossible for any drug to be a PERFECT similimum of a patient. Any drug will be missing some or other molecular imprints required for a COMPLETE cure.

—————————————————————————-

Whatever ‘method’ you use to select a prescription for your patient, if it contains the appropriate ‘molecular imprints’ required to remove the bio-molecular errors existing in the patient by acting by a ‘homeopathic’ biological mechanism of deactivating pathogenic molecules, you are doing PURE HOMEOPATHY.

Do not worry about those ‘laws’, ‘principles’, ‘methods’ or even ‘aphorisms’ you were taught to ‘believe’ blindly, which were the products of historically limited knowledge regarding phenomena involved in disease, cure and medicinal substances that existed here in a 250 year old knowledge environment.

—————————————————————————-

DISEASE need not be always SINGLE. Any individual patient will have MULTIPLE diseases, arising from multiple molecular errors caused by multiple types of pathogenic molecules, and represented by MULTIPLE groups of subjective and objective symptoms.

Any DRUG SUBSTANCE contains MULTIPLE types of chemical molecules, which can act up on different biological molecules as individual units and produce MULTIPLE molecular inhibitions, which are represented by MULTIPLE groups of ‘drug symptoms’.

Any POTENTIZED DRUG is composed of MULTIPLE types of molecular imprints representing the MULTIPLE chemical molecules contained in the drug substance.

When used as therapeutic agent, MULTIPLE molecular imprints contained in potentized drugs act upon MULTIPLE pathogenic molecules according to individial conformational affinity, and deactivate them. This deactivating of pathogenic molecules leads to removal of molecular inhibitions of biological molecules, which amount to cure.

Obviously, DISEASES are not SINGLE, DRUG SUBSTANCES are not SINGLE, POTENTIZED DRUGS are not SINGLE, and CURE is not SINGLE.

Obviously, ‘SINGLE DRUG-MULTIPLE DRUG’ issue is totally irrelevant in homeopathic prescribing. We have to ensure that the prescription we give to the patient is capable of providing all the MULTIPLE molecular imprints required to remove all the MULTIPLE molecular inhibitions existing in the patient. Whether those molecular imprints come from SINGLE source or MULTIPLE sources is of no consequence in the process of cure.

—————————————————————————-

Pathogenic molecules and drug molecules can produce ‘similar’ molecular pathology and ‘similar’ symptoms, if they are ‘similar’ in their molecular conformations. Molecular imprints of drug molecules can remove the molecular pathology produced by pathogenic molecules having conformations ‘similar’ to those drug molecules.

‘Similia similibus curentur’ embodies this biological mechanism involved in disease and cure, as well as in ‘disease-drug’ relationship.

—————————————————————————-

The more ‘repertorial rubrics’ you know related with each clinical conditions that may be presented before you, the easier will be the process of case taking for you, and the more complete and perfect the case ‘picture’ you build up. That is why I always insist that the regular study of repertory should be considered as an inevitable part of mastering the art of case taking.

Searching for some thing with a clear idea of what you are searching for is far better than searching without any idea about the things you are actually looking for. It is applicable also for homeopathic case taking, which is essentially a search for symptoms in the patient.

—————————————————————————

Homeopathic ‘case taking’ is all about deciding ‘what are to be taken from a case’ for making a homeopathic prescription. If you do not know what to ‘take’ from a case, you cannot make a right prescription.

————————————————————————–

When I say “homeopathic drugs potentized above 12c CANNOT do any harm”, I am explaining WHY I think so, on the basis of a scientific model for its biological action. When you say “homeopathic drugs potentized above 12c CAN do harm”, I expect you too to explain WHY you think so, on the basis of some rational model for its biological action. Otherwise we cannot have a reasonable interaction.

————————————————————————-

Once you accept the scientific fact that drugs potentized above 12c cannot do any harm, and that they cannot interact each other, making homeopathic prescriptions becomes very simple. Collect symptoms, find similimum, use any number of indicated drugs in potency above 12c, repeat frequently until cure- that is all. No need of worries about ‘single-multiple’ issue, potency ‘selection’, drug relationships, ‘second prescriptions’, ‘miasmatic analysis’, ‘suppressions’ etc etc.

————————————————————————

Any drug substance, whether it be allopathic or homeopathic, can do ‘harm’ in a living body only if it can interfere in the normal interaction between biological molecules and their natural ligands. As far as these normal interactions goes on unhindered, it means there is no ‘errors’ in vital processes- means, no ‘harm’.

If anybody say, homeopathic drugs potentized above 12c will do ‘harm’ if used without indications, they are expected to explain their views regarding the biological mechanism of this ‘harm’. They should explain, HOW these potentized drugs exactly interfere in the normal interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands. Mere quoting of ‘aphorisms’ is not enough for this. Explain in the language of scientific knowledge.

According to my opinion, potentized drugs above 12c cannot do any harm. I am not talking about my belief. I am also explaining why I think so, in scientific terms.

Drugs potentized above avogadro limit contain only ‘molecular imprints’. These molecular imprints are the ‘active principles’ of potentized drugs.

Molecular imprints are supra-molecular congregations of water-ethyl alcohol molecules, into which the ‘spacial form’ of drug molecules are imprinted or engraved as three-dimensional nano-cavities. These nano-cavities have a conformation exactly complementary to the drug molecules used for imprinting. As such, molecular imprints will have a selective affinity towards those drug molecules as well as any other molecule having conformations SIMILAR to those drug molecules.

When potentized drugs are introduced into our body, these molecular imprints selectively bind to the pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity. We say, molecular imprints act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for the pathogenic molecules. Such a binding between pathogenic molecules and molecular imprints ultimately relieves the biological molecules from the inhibitions earlier produced by pathogenic molecules. This is the exact biological mechanism of homeopathic cure.

Molecular imprints may temporarily bind to some biological molecules, if there is any similarity of molecular conformations. But this binding will be very transient and weak, and hence, the natural ligands can easily displace them and interact with their biological targets. Biological ligands and their biological targets interact by their conformational as well as charge affinities, where as molecular imprints have only conformational affinity. That is why the binding between biological molecules and molecular imprints are easily displaced by natural ligands. That means, molecular imprints cannot prevent or interfere in the normal biological interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands. In other words, drugs potentized above 12c cannot do any ‘harm’ even if used without indications.

You are free to disagree with my explanations. But you should be prepared to propose another viable model of biological mechanism of homeopathic drug actions, when declaring “potentized drugs will do harm”.

Here I am not discussing what hahnemann ‘said’ or not said. I am discussing science. Do not quote aphorisms to argue with me. Aphorisms are not ‘ultimate proof’ for anything in science, but aphorisms themselves have to be explained in scientific terms and proved according to scientific methods. If aphorisms could not withstand scientific scrutiny, they will have to moved to archives only to be used only as historical reference materials in future.

—————————————————————————

I do not think that ‘aphorisms’, ‘advice’ or ‘experiences’ of our ‘great master’ are ‘ultimate’ proofs and justifications for everything we teach and practice as homeopathy. We need scientific explanations and proofs for ‘words of master’ if you really want to establish homeopathy as a MEDICAL SCIENCE.

————————————————————————–

Homeopathy should be dealt with as a medical science. Medical science cannot be an art based only on ‘beliefs’ and ‘aphorisms’ . It should be based on scientific knowledge. It should be based rational explanations, facts and proofs. It should be based on reproducible and well-verified evidences and experiences.

—————————————————————————

Since a potentized drug above 12c cannot do any harm, I do not hesitate to prescribe an ‘extra’ drug over and above the selected similimum, if I feel it ‘may’ help. If it helps, it is ok. Even if it does not help, IT WILL NOT DO ANY HARM.

—————————————————————————-

Molecular mechanism underlying a disease process caused by the action of exogenous or endogenous pathogenic agents may be figuratively visualized as an obstruction of a ‘key-hole’ by insertion of a defective ‘duplicate key’ mimicking the original key, where biological molecules are ‘key holes’, their natural ligands are ‘original keys’ and pathogenic molecules are ‘defective duplicate keys’.

Molecular mechanism of homeopathic cure could be visualized as removal of ‘defective duplicate keys’ from the ‘key-holes’ using ‘artificial key holes’ fitting to the ‘duplicate keys’, there by facilating the normal interaction between original ‘key holes’ and their original keys. Molecular imprints contained in potentized drugs act as ‘artificial key holes’ in this model.

You can follow my MIT explanation of ‘similia similibus curentur’, only if you understand this ‘key-lock’ model of disease and cure.

—————————————————————————

We have been taught to believe that ‘CAMPHOR is a universal antidote to homeopathic drugs- camphor bottles should be kept away from other drugs’. Some homeopaths even believe that not only crude camphor, but even potentized camphor can antidote all other homeopathic drugs. I think this topic has to be scientifically explored.

In Chronic Diseases : Para 142, Hahnemann describes the articles to be avoided during homeopathic treatment:

“For many easily perceived reasons, but especially in order that this delicate doses of medicine may not be interfered with in their action, the homoeopathic physician cannot in his antipsoric treatment allow the intermediate use of any hitherto customary domestic remedy, no perfumery of any kind, no fragrant extracts, no smelling-salts, no Baldwin tea, or any other herb teas, no peppermint confection, no spiced confections or anise-sugar or stomach drops, or liqueurs, no Iceland-moss, or spiced chocolate, no spice-drops, tooth-tinctures or tooth-powders of the ordinary kinds, nor any of the other articles of luxury.”

According to this statement of hahnemann, , the ‘delicate doses of medicine’ used in homeopathy may be ‘interfered with in their actions’ by these articles. Kindly notice, all the articles Hahnemann listed here are those which may contain VOLATILE OILS. That indicates a very important observation.

I have been wondering for long whether there exist any scientific basis for this advice made by Hahnemann. After studying the molecular structure of various volatile organic compounds including camphor, and understanding the mechanism of their interactions, now I think there could be some amount of truth in it, though it was somewhat distorted and far stretched by hahnemann. Certain chemical molecules contained in these aromatic organic compounds may be capable of antidoting certain MOLECULAR IMPRINTS contained in a wide class of potentized homeopathic drugs- especially vegetable drugs-, by deactivating their constituent molecular imprints by binding to them due to their conformational affinity.

Most aromatic organic compounds have a C=O moiety 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 possess differing reactivity based upon the location and hybridization of the C-O bond, owing to the electron-withdrawing effect of hybridized oxygen. Certain medicinal properties of various vegetable substances and some animal products are mostly due to the presence of molecules having highly reactive C=O moiety 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.

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 moiety in their functional groups.

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 CAMPHOR IS NOT A UNIVERSAL ANTIDOTE AS WE BELIEVE. Only MOLECULAR or crude forms and low potencies of CAMPHOR can ‘selectively’ antidote particular ‘molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs. MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or or potencies above 12c of camphor cannot antidote any other potentized drugs. More over, even MOLECULAR forms of camphor cannot antidote ALL molecular imprints of potentized drugs, but only those individual molecular imprints which have conformational affinity due to the presence of C=O functional groups.

—————————————————————————-

The terms ‘potentization’ and ’dynamization’ actually come from the concept of ‘dynamic drug energy’, which is part of vitalistic approach to homeopathy. This ‘dynamic’ concept of ‘potency’ is of no any relevance in scientific homeopathy.

According to my view, drugs belong to only two groups- 1. MOLECULAR FORMS, 2. MOLECULAR IMPRINTS FORMS.

All allopathic drugs, homeopathic mother tinctures and low potencies below avogadro limit or 12c belong to the class of MOLECULAR FORMS. They act upon living organism by the chemical properties of their individual constituent molecules. This mechanism of action is actually ALLOPATHIC.

All drugs diluted and succussed above avogadro limit or 12C, which do not contain any drug molecule, belong to the class of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS forms. Molecular imprints act by binding to pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity. This mechanism of action is HOMEOPATHIC.

Exactly, it would be better to use the term ‘HOMEOPATHIZATION, instead of the conventional terms POTENTIZATION or DYNAMIZATION.

———————————————————————————

If we browse through various leading homeopathic websites, we come across hundreds of ‘research studies’, articles and interviews of ‘stalwarts’ 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.

These authors are ‘leading homeopaths’ 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 intellectual exercises is that most homeopaths never read those article, or try to understand even if they read them. Nobody is interested in what is actually said in them. Nobody verifies the correctness of theories or claims made in those articles. Nobody tries to differentiate grains from pebbles. Most people simply wonder at those ‘great’ pieces of knowledge, and go on broadcasting this ‘wonderful knowledge’ by keeping on posting these ‘links’ wherever they 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 propose a scientifically and logically viable model for the exact biological mechanism 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 you get for these FOUR FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS are found to be negative, simply dismiss those ‘theories’. They are nothing but hollow ‘scientific’ verbosity.

———————————————————————————-

Idea of ‘Molecular Imprinting’ involved in potentization was originally concieved as a a bio-friendly adaptation of the technique of Molecular Imprinting In Polymers done by polymer technologists. As such, knowing the basics of ‘molecular imprinted polymers’ will be very helpful in understanding the MIT explanation of homeopathic potentization.

In polymer technology, the technique of molecular imprinting allows for the preparation of synthetic polymers with specific binding sites for a target molecule. This can be achieved if the target is present during the polymerization process, thus acting as a molecular template. Monomers carrying certain functional groups are arranged around the template through either noncovalent or covalent interactions. Following polymerization with a high degree of cross-linking, the functional groups become fixed in defined positions by the polymer network.

Subsequent removal of the template by solvent extraction or chemical cleavage leaves cavities that are complementary to the template in terms of size, shape and arrangement of the functional groups. These highly specific receptor sites are capable of rebinding the target molecule with high specificity, sometimes comparable to that of antibodies. Molecularly imprinted polymers have therefore been named “antibody mimics”. It has been shown that they can be substituted for biological receptors in certain formats of immunoassays and biosensors. They are characterized by high stability.

Target molecules for which we want to prepare ‘artificial binding sites’ or ‘molecular imprints’, which are normally large complex protein molecules, are identified and selected as ‘template molecules. These template molecules are added to a mixture of ‘monomers’ and ‘activators’ and thoroughly mixed. This mixture is allowed to undergo a process of ‘self assembling’ and ‘polymerization’, which is actually a ‘guest-host’ molecular complex, in which the template molecules are trapped in a hardened polymer matrix which act as ‘host’.

This ‘host-guest’ complex is pulverized, and subjected to a process of ‘solvent extraction’, by which soluble template molecules are remove from insoluble polymer matrix. The resultant preparation consists of polymer matrix carrying empty spaces or ‘cavities’ where the template molecules were originally trapped. These cavities are called ‘molecular imprints’, which actually mimic the spacial configuration of template molecules.

Due to this complementary configuration, these ‘molecular imprints’ exhibit a special affinity towards original template molecules, and act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for them. Due to this special affinity, they could be used as substitutes for biological receptors in certain formats of immunoassays and bio-sensors.

Since ‘molecular imprinted polymers’ prepared by this process are synthetic polymers, they cannot be used as drugs or applied in living organisms.

Homeopathy uses water-ethyl alcohol mixture as ‘host’ in place of polymers, and drug molecules as ‘templates’ or ‘guests’ for preparing molecular imprints that could be used as drugs. Since molecular imprints prepared by this process consist of only water and ethyl alcohol molecules, they could be safely used as therapeutic agents. It is obvious that homeopathic potentization is actually a biofriendly adaptation of molecular imprinting originally done in polymer technology.

———————————————————————————–

Most homeopaths vehemently oppose MIT concepts of scientific homeopathy due to the fear that their most cherished ‘fundamentals’ of homeopathy may get ‘distorted’ when homeopathy is explained in the light of modern scientific knowledge.

Their fear is reasonable. I don’t think anybody can scientifically explain homeopathy without “distorting” some of its ‘laws’ and ‘principles’ which were so far taught to be the ‘fundamentals’ of this ‘system’. There are a lot of unscientific things in it, which will have to be abandoned.

This fear actually evolves from the fact that homeopathy has been so far taught as a closed system of eternally immutable ‘laws’, ‘rules’, ‘principles’ and ‘methods’ every ‘true’ homeopath is bound to ‘obey’. We hear ‘seven cardinal principles of hahnemann’, ‘hering laws’, ‘kents observations’ and many other ‘theories’ that rule the practice of homeopathy. Anybody violating or thinking beyond these ‘fundamental laws’ are considered to be ‘wrong homeopaths’. Homeopaths can tolerate modern science only if it helps them to justify their ‘fundamental laws’. If not, ‘science is wrong’- not their ‘immutable laws’!

They should remember, no ‘masters’ so far knew what really happens during potentization. Nobody so far knew what are the exact active principles of potentized drugs. Nobody so far knew the exact molecular level mechanism by which the active principles of potentized drugs interact with the biological organism and produce a therapeutic effect. Only things our masters actually knew was that ‘likes curing likes’ and ‘high dilutions have therapeutic effects’.

Everything else were mere speculations. Speculations based on unscientific philosophy of ‘dynamism’ and ‘vitalism’. All ‘laws’, ‘rules’, ‘methods’ and ‘doctrines’ we consider as ‘cardinal principles of homeopathy evolved from these speculative theories. All ‘directions’ regarding ‘doses’, repetitions’, ‘single drugs’, ‘follow ups’ and everything else were formulated without clearly knowing the substances we are actually dealing with or how they actually work. They were based on misinterpreted ‘experiences’ of ‘stalwarts’ with historically limited scientific knowledge.

Once we acquire scientific knowledge regarding the exact processes involved in potentization, active principles of potentized drugs and the molecular mechanism of their therapeutic action, all the existing ‘methods’, ‘laws’, ‘rules’ and ‘principles’ are bound to change. New ‘principles’ and ‘methods’ will evolve. That means, we will have to discard, change or ‘distort’ many things so far considered as ‘fundamentals’ of homeopathy.

———————————————————————————-

In the PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION of ORGANON, Dr Hahnemann made the following statement:

“In this third edition I have not refrained from making any alterations and emendations suggested by increased knowledge and necessitated by further experience.”

This statement is a fitting answer to those ‘dogmatic’ homeopaths who argue nothing could be changed or updated in homeopathy.

Hahenemann advises us not to “refrain” from making “alterations and emendations”, if “suggested by increased knowledge and necessitated by further experience.”

Advances made by modern science provide us with “increased knowledge”, which inevitably demands “updations and alterations” in theory and practice of homeopathy. Our great ‘master’ realized it very well!

———————————————————————————-

One young homeopath asked me yesterday: “A soft and silent classical musical tune makes happy. Will it make any biological changes?”

Do you think emotions, whether it be “happiness”, ‘sorrow’, ‘anger’ or anything else are not related with any “biological changes”? If anybody think so, you are thoroughly mistaken. I can only request you to update your scientific knowledge, especially modern biochemistry.

Many homeopaths believe that since ’emotions’ and ‘psychosomatic diseases’ originate from MIND, they are outside the realm of biochemistry.

According to them, mind is something ‘immaterial’, ‘dynamic’ and ‘spirit-like’, and hence mental phenomena cannot be explained in terms of SCIENTIFIC knowledge. ‘Mind is beyond science’- they say. And they talk about MIND as part of immaterial VITAL FORCE.

The phenomena we call MIND never exist in the absence of a MATERIAL BODY, and a highly complex central nervous system being part of that body. MIND does not exist free from the complex biochemical molecular level interactions in the central nervous system, which actually represents the highest stage of MATERIAL EVOLUTION on earth. MIND can be influenced by material substances such as drugs, which can modify the biochemical processes in brain.

Any mental activity is related with production, transportation and interactions of some CHEMICAL molecules in the body, that can influence the whole physiological processes in the organism. SENSATIONS, EMOTIONS, COGNITION, MEDITATION, LEARNING, MEMORY, THOUGHTS, CONSCIOUSNESS, MOODS, FEELINGS, DREAMS- every phenomena we associate with MIND happen through BIOCHEMICAL PROCESSES in our nervous system. Some specific chemical molecules are produced as part of those processes.

CHEMICAL MOLECULES produced during mental activities have specific TARGETS and specific FUNCTIONS of their own. It is the actions of those molecules on their specific targets that produce the particular state of mind and its physiological processes.

When these chemical molecules being part of MENTAL ACTIVITIES are produced in excess, or they are not removed from the system in due course, they will circulate in the body, BIND to unexpected OFF-TARGET biological molecules, and lead to their INHIBITION. Such ‘off-target’ inhibitions caused by the neuro-chemicals circulating in the body are the CAUSATIVE FACTORS pf certain pathological conditions we call PSYCHOSOMATIC DISEASES.

Obviously, there is nothing ‘immaterial’ or ‘dynamic’ in PSYCHOSOMATIC diseases. They are purely MATERIAL, that could be treated by MATERIAL drugs. PSYCHOSOMATIC DISEASES also belongs to a class of pathological conditions caused by INHIBITIONS of biological molecules by the ‘off-target’ actions of ENDOGENOUS molecules acting as pathogenic agents.

———————————————————————————–

DEAR FRIENDS,

So far I have written more than TWO HUNDRED ARTICLES explaining various aspects of my MIT concepts on scientific homeopathy, and published on my web site RE-DEFINING HOMEOPATHY. All my important facebook updates about homeopathy are also compiled into TEN VOLUMES and published on same page. I know, most of you have no enough time to spare for reading all these articles, as you are very busy with your practice and other activities.

I want to assure you one thing with confidence: If you read all these articles carefully and try to understand them clearly, you will realize that there remains very few questions un-answered now in homeopathy. Very few ‘riddles’ remain to be resolved. Hope all of you will read them.

Please do not ignore these articles. If you ignore them, it will be great loss to yourselves and homeopathy as a whole. I do not expect everybody to agree with me- but I hope every young homeopath should read what I have written on SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF HOMEOPATHY. I can only request to them.

I am disheartened to see young homeopaths coming to argue with me to safe guard most unscientific notions about homeopathy they were taught. I feel very sorry when those emerging young homeopaths expose their lack of knowledge in modern science, which is essential to understand homeopathy as a MEDICAL SCIENCE, and practice it as a scientific PHYSICIAN. Had they read my articles, they would have not talked that much nonsense as they do now.

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/all-articles-on-scientific-homeopathy/

———————————————————————————-

Anybody who have got any idea about the scientific meaning of the word “energy” cannot even imagine about a concept of “drug energy”.

There cannot exist something called “medicinal energy” as homeopaths are taught to believe. Science can think only about “medicinal properties”, which are nothing but biological actions of drug substances upon biological molecules, determined by the chemical structure and properties of individual molecules contained in those drug substances.

Any substance is made up of molecules and atoms, which if further divided becomes subatomic particles such as protons, electrons, neutrons and the like. If these subatomic particles are again divided into still smaller particles, they release ENERGY, which is actually nothing but a peculiar form of existence of MATTER itself. This energy will be the same whether it is made by division of atoms contained in nux vomica, sulphur or any other drug substance.

Please understand how much utter nonsense it is to imagine that there is a ‘nux vomica energy’, ‘lyco enery’ etc. Do not make homeopathy appear so silly before the scientifically conscious and elite modern community.

———————————————————————————

Homeopathy can rightfully exist as a legitimate THERAPEUTIC PRACTICE once it is proved according to ‘scientific method’ that IT REALLY WORKS.

In order to claim the status of a legitimate MEDICAL SCIENCE, we have to further explain and prove the biological mechanism of HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS, according to ‘scientififc method’.

———————————————————————————-

‘HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS’ belongs to the realm of fundamental research. ‘DOES HOMEOPATHY WORK’ belongs to applied research. Once it is proved that HOMEOPATHY WORKS, the inevitable question that follows will be HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS. Both questions have to be answered according to SCIENTIFIC METHOD, to establish that homeopathy is a MEDICAL SCIENCE. It is for researchers to decide which question they want to answer.

I am more concerned about the question ‘how homeopathy works’, as I already know the answer of the question ‘does homeopathy work’ beyond any doubt. More over, a lot of people have been working on that question and a lot of SCIENTIFIC experiments have been so far conducted which PROVED ‘homeopathy works’, where as NOBODY so far succeeded in proposing even a WORKING HYPOTHESIS to answer the question ‘how homeopathy works’.

———————————————————————————-

Viewing from the standpoint of scientific definition of HYPOTHESIS, it is very much obvious that ALL of the presently existing most celebrated ‘theories’ or hypotheses regarding homeopathy cannot be considered ‘SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS, 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, it is essential that 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’.

Such a working hypothesis of homeopathy, over and above the aforesaid qualifications, should also be immediately useful to the practitioner, because homeopathy is a therapeutic art of practical implications. Besides lending the essential scientific credibility to the homeopathic paradigm, any hypothesis we propose should try to meet some practical utility criteria as a minimum requirement.

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 so far wrongly explained in homeopathy by the the ‘vital force’ concept of vitalistic philosophy. It should 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.

Homeopathy so far lacks something that could be legitimately called ‘a scientific working hypothesis’ on homeopathy. We are learning, teaching, practicing and boasting about some “theories” that are not even ‘hypotheses’.

Yet, we dare to declare that homeopathy is ‘ultimate science’! We dare to declare that ‘modern science is unscientific’!

For the first time in the history of homeopathy, MIT proposes some concepts that could be legitimately called a ‘scientific working hypothesis’ and proved according to scientific methods.

Here lies the historical importance and relevance of MIT concepts.

———————————————————————————-

Any attempt to explain and prove homeopathy according to ‘scientific method’ should start by proposing a SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS regarding the model for ‘biological mechanism’ of its working.

‘Hypothesis’ has a well-defined meaning in scientific methodology. 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 hypothesis is 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.

———————————————————————————-

If anybody thinks he really KNOWS homeopathy- I mean rational knowledge of its ESSENCE, not the dogmatic learning of ‘aphorisms’- , kindly try to answer following questions:

1. What is the molecular level process happening during potentization, by which medicinal properties of drug substances are transferred to the potentizing medium without any drug molecule remaining in it?

2. What are the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of potentized drugs?

3. What is the exact BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM by which potentized drugs act up on the organism and produce therapeutic effect?

If you think answering these questions is not essential for KNOWLEDGE of homeopathy, you can keep away from my posts.

———————————————————————————-

Question of BELIEF arises when we lack rational KNOWLEDGE about something.

———————————————————————————-

The real question is NOT whether you ‘believe’ in homeopathy or not. What matters is whether you REALLY ‘know’ homeopathy or not.

Knowing homeopathy does not mean learning the ‘aphorisms’, ‘principles’ and ‘laws’ written by the ‘master’ by heart, and reciting it and quoting it here and there without understanding its real meaning or relevance. It does not mean simply READING all books written by ‘stalwarts’ and ‘interpreters’.

Knowing homeopathy actually means, understanding the ESSENCE of hahnemann’s writings in a RATIONAL and HISTORICAL perspective, and UPDATING it in accordance with the latest available SCIENTIFIC knowledge, and applying it as a MEDICAL SCIENCE.

Ask yourselves- Do you really KNOW homeopathy?

———————————————————————————-

I would like to invite your attention to what Hahnemann says in ‘Chronic Diseases : Para 139′ regarding administration of homeopathic drugs:

“Sucklings never receive medicine; the mother or wet-nurse receives the remedy instead, and through their milk it acts on the child very quickly, mildly and beneficially”.

This statement prompts us to re-view the fundamentals of homeopathy in a new light. Such a rational review will turn your whole existing ‘principles’ regarding mode of homeopathic drug action upside down.

1. Hahnemann is asking here to give ‘similimum of the infant’ to mother or wet nurse, for whom that drug need not be symptomatically indicated. If a homeopathic drug is taken by a person without being indicated his similimum, it will not act on his ‘vital force’ as per the theory of similia similibus curentur. That means, the ‘mother or wet nurse’ receiving the similimum of infant has no any role in the curative process. Further, if the ‘unindicated’ drug can cause ‘proving’ as believed by classical homeopaths, there is even chances of adverse effects on the individual!

2. Potentized medicines are said to act through ‘nerves’ on the vital force. There is no ‘nerve cells’ present in ‘milk’. If the medicine could be conveyed to infant through the milk of mother or wet nurse, it clearly proves nerves are not involved the conveyance of medicinal action, as ‘believed’ by classical homeopaths. We will have to consider a different explanation regarding mode of conveyance of homeopathic ‘drug energy’ inside organism, if it act through milk.

4. If homeopathic drugs are transferred from mother to child through milk, will not the blood and other body fluids of mother also contain those drugs?

Could homeopathic drugs be administered through blood transfusions? If a person under homeopathic treatment donates blood, will not the recipient also get drugged by our medicines?

Administration of homeopathic drugs by transmission through milk raises a lot of questions regarding active principles of potentized drugs, their mode of conveyance in the body and the mechanism of its action that could not be answered by ‘vital force’ theory.

What if we administer the medicines to a wet nurse, and collect her breast milk in a bottle, will it still preserve its medicinal properties? Can we give that bottled milk to the infant as medicine? Then, in what form medicine exist in that bottled milk? Should this bottled Milk to be considered an organism, with ‘vital force’ present in it?

Some homeopaths believe that “our dynamic homeopathic medicine when work on vital force that is produce some required chemical changes in body, and infant receive medicinal effect by mother’s milk because infant vital energy is strong that is receive this vital effect frequently”.But remember, we are not selecting a similimum for mother or wet nurse, according to their ‘totality of symptoms’. We are selecting similimum for infant. How can an un-indicated homeopathic medicine “work on vital force” and “produce some required chemical changes in body” of mother or wet nurse?

Even if it acts up on their organism of mother, it is said that an un-indicated medicine will have only negative influence. Would anybody say this ‘adverse chemical changes’ produced by these ‘negative influence’ are conveyed by the milk to the infant and curing his disease?

If you want to get a ‘positive’ influence, you will have to determine the similimum for wet nurse by collecting totality of her symptoms, not for infant.

Let us consider the argument “dynamic homeopathic medicine when work on vital force that is produce some required chemical changes in body”. If so, the infant is getting the milk subjected to “chemical changes” by the action of drug upon the “vital force of mother”. It is this “chemically changed milk” that is consumed by the infant. How this “chemically changed” milk would act homeopathically on the organism of ‘infant’?

If anybody argue that the “vital force” of mother is acting on infant through milk, how would you explain this phenomenon if the milk is collected in bottles and given to infant? Would you say “the changed vital force” of mother is collected in a bottle and transferred to infant?

I think we have to explain this phenomenon more rationally and without any confusion. In fact, the MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or ‘active principles’ of potentized drugs selected as similimum for the infant would have been conveyed through blood of mother to the milk, and thereby into the organism of the infant. These MOLECULAR IMPRINTS act in the infant the same way as a similimum given directly. Is not this explanation more rational and simple?

This phenomenon clearly proves that active principles of potentized drugs are conveyed through body fluids as MIT envisages, not through the ‘nerves’ as commonly believed. I wanted only to make that point clear. If it were ‘nerves’, it will never be conveyed to infants through mother’s breast milk.

———————————————————————————-

Most homeopaths are mere ‘believers’. For them, homeopathy is a sacred ‘belief system’ almost similar to religion. 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 unending list of ‘homeopathic beliefs’ is fascinating.

They ask me: “Do you believe in homeopathy?” “Do you believe in our master”?

Sorry friends, I do not think homeopathy is something to be ‘believed’. It should be studied and updated. It is a matter of knowledge-not belief.

———————————————————————————-

Most of us use to wonder, why different homeopaths happen to select entirely different similimum when asked to prescribe for a single case, and how all those different prescriptions give relief in most cases. This is one of the most frequently asked questions that nobody could so far find a rational answer.

This question could be scientifically answered only when we understand the exact biological mechanism involved in homeopathic cure, and when we percieve pathogenic agents and drug substances in terms of the FUNCTIONAL GROUPS and MOIETIES of their constituent molecules.

Any drug substance can act as similimum for a particular case, if it contains some chemical molecules carrying the particular functional groups by which pathogenic molecules have been binding to the biological organism to produce molecular inhibitions. It is not the whole drug, but the particular functional groups of individual chemical molecules that actually work as similimum. In potentized form, it is the molecular imprints of those functional group that bind to pathogenic molecules and remove the blocks they produced upon the biological molecules.

When different drugs selected by different homeopaths for a single case could produce cure, it means all those different drug substances were actually containing some chemical molecules having same functional groups that are similar to those contained in the pathogenic molecules that produced the disease. As such, potentized forms of ANY of those different drugs could provide the molecular imprints required to remove the molecular inhibitions in the patient.

This explains the therapeutic flexibility of homeopathy, and why same case could be cured by entirely different drugs.

———————————————————————————–

Please remember following important points:

1. Homeopathic POTENTIZATION is a process of preparing MOLECULAR IMPRINTS through ‘host-guest’ interactions between individual drug molecules contained in drug substance (guest) and water-ethyl alcohol molecules (host).

2. MOLECULAR IMPRINTS are hydrogen-bonded supra-molecular aggregates of water-ethyl alcohol molecules, into which three-dimensional conformations of ‘guest’ or drug molecules are engraved as nanocavities exactly fitting to the guest molecules as well as other molecules ‘similar’ to the guest molecules.

3. MOLECULAR IMPRINTS can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ or ‘key-holes’ for any drug molecule or pathogenic molecule that are ‘similar’ in conformation to that of ‘guest’ molecules used for imprinting.

4. Drugs potentized above 12C or avogadro limit contain ONLY ‘molecular imprints’, which are the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of potentized drugs.

5. When used as therapeutic agent as per indications, these MOLECULAR IMPRINTS selectively bind to the pathogenic molecules, thereby relieving the biological molecules from pathological inhibitions they produced. This is the exact BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM of homeopathic cure.

6. Due to the phenomenon known as COMPARATIVE AFFINITY, molecular imprints can bind only to pathogenic molecules, whereas they cannot interfere in the normal biochemical interactions between biological molecules and their NATURAL LIGANDS. As such, MOLECULAR IMPRINTS can only CURE diseases, but cannot PRODUCE diseases.

All my suggestions regarding potency selection, dose, repetition etc are based on this understanding. Please try to understand these points very clear, before coming to argue with me. Argue with me ONLY IF you have another more rational and more scientific model of BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM for homeopathic therapeutics.

———————————————————————————-

It is true that I am not a ‘follower’ of hahnemann. Actually, I do not want to follow the ‘foot-steps’ of hahnemann. On the other hand, I want to continue the great journey of homeopathy forward, from the point where hahnemann left it 200 years ago.

———————————————————————————–

PATHOGENIC MOLECULES produce diseases by binding their active FUNCTIONAL GROUPS to the specific biological molecules in the organism due to their molecular affinity, and producing molecular errors.

During drug proving, poisoning and crude molecular actions, DRUG MOLECULES produce bio-molecular errors and symptoms in the healthy organism by binding their FUNCTIONAL GROUPS to the biological molecules.

When disease symptoms and drug symptoms appear SIMILAR, that means functional groups of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules were similar, so that they could bind to similar bio-molecular targets and produce similar molecular errors in the organism.

———————————————————————————–

Organon is a monumental work of theoretical medicine, of great relevance in the history of medical literature. It contains the rudimentary forms of modern molecular medicine and ‘molecular imprints therapeutics’, even though hahnemann did not realize such advanced dimensions of his path-breaking inventions. But that does not mean each and every word of organon are ‘immutable’ truths. By historical reasons, it is bound to be otherwise. If you study organon with a rational and scientific mindset, you will see that there are a lot of unscientific and irrational ideas in organon, reflecting the primitive state of scientific knowledge available to hahnemann 250 years ago.

Fundamental cause of homeopathy still remaining in the present state of backwardness is that homeopaths are not taught to study organon with a ‘historical’ perspective, but only to ‘believe’ it is ‘ultimate science’, and hahnemann is the ‘greatest scientist of all times’. They are taught to be ‘blind’ followers of the ‘great master’! We have to change this perspective as well as approach, if we really want homeopathy to be a ‘medical science’.

———————————————————————————–

Dear friends, learn how to read creatively. ‘Creative reading’ involves the technique of enhancing our knowledge and generating of new ideas along with the reading process itself- ideas which were so far unknown to the reader and not any where mentioned or imagined by the author. Here, reading itself becomes a creative process. Some rudiments of ideas or even hidden hints getting from the author while reading act like sparks that ignites the imagination and thought process of the reader, which leads to the synthesis of entirely new and original ideas. I always try to use this ‘creative reading’ technique while reading anything. Anybody can consciously build up a habit of ‘creative reading’.

———————————————————————————–

I make hundreds of posts and comments daily on my facebook timeline, discussion groups, pages as well as on twitter, as part of my endeavor to evolve and promote MIT concepts of scientific homeopathy. My friends, who come on face book only occasionally, and those who are able to spend very limited time here, may miss most of my updates. There are also many late comers in my growing friends list. There may be also some people willing to read some of my posts again and again. In order to ensure my works are secured for future use, and to make them easily available for everybody any time, I regularly compile my face book posts and updates into large volumes. So far, NINE volumes have been compiled.

LATE COMERS TO MY FRIENDS LIST AND DISCUSSION FORUMS ARE REQUESTED TO READ MY FOLLOWING COMPILATIONS OF FACEBOOK UPDATES TO GET A PRELIMINARY IDEA OF WHAT IS GOING ON HERE:

VOLUME X:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2014/01/06/volume-x-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

VOLUME IX:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/12/16/volume-ix-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

VOLUME VIII:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/12/16/volume-viii-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

VOLUME VII:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/10/24/volume-vii-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

VOLUME VI:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/10/11/volume-vi-selected-facebook-updates/

VOLUME V:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/10/09/volume-v-selected-facebook-updates-and-tweets-of-chandran-k-c-on-scientific-homeopathy/

VOLUME- IV:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/06/04/selected-facebook-updates-volume-four/

VOLUME- III:

http://dialecticalhomeopathy.com/2013/05/12/volume-three/

VOLUME II:

http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/volume-ii-compilation-of-my-selected-facebook-updates/

VOLUME- I:

http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/selected-facebook-updates/

Some people argue that ‘psychological’ and ‘psychosomatic’ phenomena belong to a “higher realm”, and cannot be explained by modern science. Many homeopaths believe that since ’emotions’ and ‘psychosomatic diseases’ originate from MIND, they are outside the realm of biochemistry.

According to them, mind is something ‘immaterial’, ‘dynamic’ and ‘spirit-like’, and hence mental phenomena cannot be explained in terms of SCIENTIFIC knowledge. ‘Mind is beyond science’- they say. And they talk about MIND as part of immaterial VITAL FORCE.

What we call “psychological” are actually  complex biological processes happening in central nervous system.

The phenomena we call MIND never exist in the absence of a MATERIAL BODY, and a highly complex central nervous system being part of that body. MIND does not exist free from the complex biochemical molecular level interactions in the central nervous system, which actually represents the highest stage of MATERIAL EVOLUTION on earth. MIND can be influenced by material substances such as drugs, which can modify the biochemical processes in brain.

Any mental activity is related with production, transportation and interactions of some CHEMICAL molecules in the body, that can influence the whole physiological processes in the organism. SENSATIONS, EMOTIONS, COGNITION, MEDITATION, LEARNING, MEMORY, THOUGHTS, CONSCIOUSNESS, MOODS, FEELINGS, DREAMS- every phenomena we associate with MIND happen through BIOCHEMICAL PROCESSES in our nervous system. Some specific chemical molecules are produced as part of those processes.

Diverse factors can influence these complex molecular biological processes in central nervous system, that we call psychological. They belong to two classes- exogenous and endogenous.

Endogenous factors include various hormones, neurochemicals, neurotransmitters, metabolic byproducts, disease products, etc etc produced inside the body and act upon central nervous system

Exogenous factors include, varuious chemical molecules entering the body through food, medicines, drugs , radiations, as well as various sensory signalsfrom the environment.

All these exogenous and endogenous factors act upon the biochemical molecules in the central nervous system, produce feffects we call psychological Do you think emotions, whether it be “happiness”, ‘sorrow’, ‘anger’ or anything else are not related with any “biological changes”? If anybody think so, you are thoroughly mistaken. I can only request you to update your scientific knowledge, especially modern biochemistry.

CHEMICAL MOLECULES produced during mental activities have specific TARGETS and specific FUNCTIONS of their own. It is the actions of those molecules on their specific targets that produce the particular state of mind and its physiological processes.

When these chemical molecules being part of MENTAL ACTIVITIES are produced in excess, or they are not removed from the system in due course, they will circulate in the body, BIND to unexpected OFF-TARGET biological molecules, and lead to their INHIBITION. Such ‘off-target’ inhibitions caused by the neuro-chemicals circulating in the body are the CAUSATIVE FACTORS pf certain pathological conditions we call PSYCHOSOMATIC DISEASES.

Obviously, there is nothing ‘immaterial’ or ‘dynamic’ in PSYCHOSOMATIC diseases. They are purely MATERIAL, that could be treated by MATERIAL drugs.

PSYCHOSOMATIC DISEASES also belongs to a class of pathological conditions caused by INHIBITIONS of biological molecules by the ‘off-target’ actions of ENDOGENOUS molecules acting as pathogenic agents.

Scientists and cancer researchers have lately identified a particular biological molecule in our body known as BETA CATENIN as an ideal molecular target for anti-cancer therapy. They have been trying to develop drugs that could inhibit the over-expressions and aberrations of BETA CATENIN, which is recognized to be playing a big role in the biochemical processes underlying various types of cancers. Their attempts have not been so far successful, since any chemical compound they develop to target BETA CATENIN will inevitably have serious harmful effects upon the organism, since it is an essential biological molecule having diverse roles normal vital processes, and its complete inhibition may lead to be very dangerous consequences.

BETA CATENIN is a protein found as part of molecular complexes in forming cadherin cell adhesion factors of animal cells. It belongs to a family of biological compounds known as catenins, consisting of alpha catenin, beta catenin and gamma catenin. B-CATENIN binds the cytoplasmic domain of some cadherins. Cell-cell adhesion complexes are required for simple epithelia in higher organisms to maintain structure, function and polarity. These complexes, which help regulate cell growth in addition to creating and maintaining epithelial layers, are known as ‘adherens junctions’ and they typically include at least cadherin, beta catenin, and alpha catenin. Catenins play roles in cellular organization and polarity long before the development and incorporation of ‘Wnt signaling pathways’ and cadherins.

BETA CATENIN is a dual function protein, regulating the coordination of cell–cell adhesion and gene transcription. In humans, this protein is encoded by the CTNNB1 gene. β-catenin is a subunit of the cadherin protein complex and acts as an intracellular signal transducer in the Wnt signaling pathway.

BIOLOGICAL ROLE OF BETA CATENIN:

The primary mechanical role of catenins is connecting cadherins to actin filaments, specifically in these adhesion junctions of epithelial cells. Most studies investigating catenin actions focus on alpha catenin and beta catenin. Beta catenin is particularly interesting as it plays a dual role in the cell. First of all, by binding to the intracellular cytoplasmic tail domains of cadherin receptors, it can act as an integral component of a protein complex in adherens junctions that helps cells maintain epithelial layers. Beta catenin acts basically by anchoring the actin cytoskeleton to the adherens junctions, and also aid in contact inhibition signaling within the cell. For instance, when an epithelial layer is complete and the adherens junctions indicate that the cell is completely surrounded, beta catenin may play a role in telling the cell to stop proliferating, as there is no room for more cells in the area. Secondly, beta catenin participates in the ‘Wnt signaling pathway’ as a downstream target.

The Wnt signaling pathways are a group of signal transduction pathways made of proteins that pass signals from outside of a cell through cell surface receptors to the inside of the cell. Wnt/ beta catenin pathway, also known as canonical Wnt pathway is the Wnt pathway that causes an accumulation of beta catenin in the cytoplasm and its eventual translocation into the nucleus to act as a transcriptional coactivator of transcription factors that belong to the TCF/LEF family. Without Wnt signaling, the beta catenin would not accumulate in the cytoplasm since a destruction complex would normally degrade it. This destruction complex includes the following proteins: Axin, adenomatosis polyposis coli (APC), protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A), glycogen synthase kinase 3 (GSK3) and casein kinase 1a (CK1α). It degrades beta catenin by targeting it for ubiquitination, which subsequently sends it to the proteasome to be digested. However, as soon as Wnt binds Fz and LRP-5/6, the destruction complex function becomes disrupted. This is due to Wnt causing the translocation of both a negative regulator of Axin and the destruction complex to the plasma membrane. This negative regulator becomes localized to the cytoplasmic tail of LRP-5/6. Phosphorylation by other proteins in the destruction complex subsequently binds Axin to this tail as well. Axin becomes de-phosphorylated and its stability and levels are decreased. Dsh then becomes activated via phosphorylation and its DIX and PDZ domains inhibit the GSK3 activity of the destruction complex. This allows beta catenin to accumulate and localize to the nucleus and subsequently induce a cellular response via gene transduction alongside the TCF/LEF .

In general, when ‘Wnt’ is not present, GSK-3B (a member of the pathway) is able to phosphorylate beta catenin as a result of a complex formation that includes beta catenin, AXIN1, AXIN2, APC (a tumor suppressor gene product), CSNK1A1, and GSK3B. Following phosphorylation of the N-terminal Serine and Thrionin residues of beta catenin, BTRC promotes its ubiquitination, which causes it to be degraded by the TrCP/SKP complex. On the other hand, when ‘Wnt’ is present, GSK-3B is displaced from the previously mentioned complex, causing beta catenin to not be phosphorylated, and thus not ubiquitinated. As a result, its levels in the cell are stabilized as it builds up in the cytoplasm. Eventually, some of this accumulated beta catenin will move into the nucleus. At this point, beta catenin becomes a co-activator for TCF and LEF to activate ‘Wnt genes’ by displacing Groucho and HDAC transcription repressors. These ‘Wnt’ gene products are important in determining cell fates during normal development and in maintaining homeostasis, or they can lead to de-regulated growth in disorders like cancer by responding to mutations in beta catenin, APC or Axin, each of which can lead to this de-regulated beta catenin level stabilization in cells.

Beta-catenin has a central role in directing several developmental processes, as it can directly bind transcription factors and be regulated by a diffusible extracellular substance- Wnt. It acts upon early embryos to induce entire body regions, as well as individual cells in later stages of development. It also regulates physiological regeneration processes.

Wnt signaling and beta-catenin dependent gene expression plays a critical role during the formation of different body regions in the early embryo. Experimentally modified embryos that do not express this protein will fail to develop mesoderm and initiate gastrulation. It also plays a role in inducing the antero-posterior axis formation, regulate the precise placement of the primitive streak (gastrulation and mesoderm formation) as well as the process of neurulation (central nervous system development).

Beta catenin is initially equally localized to all regions of the egg, but it is targeted for ubiquitination and degradation by the beta catenin destruction complex. Fertilization of the egg causes a rotation of the outer cortical layers, moving clusters of the Frizzled and Dsh proteins closer to the equatorial region. Beta catenin will be enriched locally under the influence of ‘Wnt’ signaling pathway in the cells that inherit this portion of the cytoplasm. It will eventually translocate to the nucleus in order to activate several genes that induce dorsal cell characteristics. This signaling results in a region of cells known as the grey crescent, which is a classical organizer of embryonic development. If this region is surgically removed from the embryo, gastrulation does not occur at all. Beta Catenin also plays a crucial role in the induction of the blasopore lip, which in turn initiates gastrulation. Inhibition of GSK-3 translation by injection of antisense mRNA may cause a second blastopore and a superfluous body axis to form. A similar effect can result from the over expression of beta catenin.

Beta-catenin has also been implicated in regulation of cell fates through asymmetric cell division in the model organisms. One of the most important results of Wnt signaling and the elevated level of beta-catenin in certain cell types is the maintenance of pluripotency. In other cell types and developmental stages, beta catenin may promote differentiation, especially towards mesodermal cell lineages.

Beta-catenin also acts as a morphogen in later stages of embryonic development. Together with TGF beta, an important role of beta catenin is to induce a morphogenic change in epithelial cells. It induces them to abandon their tight adhesion and assume a more mobile and loosely associated mesenchymal phenotype. During this process, epithelial cells lose expression of proteins like E- cadherin, Zonula occludens 1and cytokeratin. At the same time they turn on the expression of vimentin, alpha smooth muscle actin(ACTA2), and fibroblast-specific protein 1 (FSP1). They also produce extracellular matrix components, such as type 1 collagen and fibronectin.. Aberrant activation of the Wnt pathway has been implicated in pathological processes such as fibrosis and cancer.

ROLE OF BETA CATENIN IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CANCERS:

The same properties of beta catenin that give it an important role in normal cell fate determination, homeostasis and growth of cells, also make it susceptible to alterations that can lead to abnormal cell behavior and growth that leads to cancerous changes in the cells.

Any changes in cytoskeletal organization and adhesion can lead to altered signaling, migration and a loss of contact inhibition that can promote cancer development and tumor formation. In particular, beta catenin have been identified to be major player in aberrant epithelial cell layer growth associated with various types of cancer. Mutations in genes encoding these proteins can lead to inactivation of cadherin cell adhesions and elimination of contact inhibition, allowing cells to proliferate and migrate, thus promoting tumorigenesis and cancer development. Beta catenin is known to be associated with colorectal and ovarian cancer, and they have been identified in cancers such as pilomatrixoma, medulloblastoma, pleomorphic adenomas, and malignant mesothelioma. Mutations and overexpression of β-catenin are associated with many cancers, including hepatocellular carcinoma, colorectal carcinoma, lung cancer, malignant breast tumors, ovarian and endometrial cancer. Major B-CATENIN associated cancers are: colorectal and ovarian cancer; pilomatrixoma; medulloblastoma; pleomorphic adenomas; malignant mesothelioma. β-catenin is regulated and destroyed by the beta-catenin destruction complex, and in particular by the adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) protein, encoded by the tumour-suppressing APC gene. Therefore genetic mutation of the APC gene is also strongly linked to cancers, and in particular colorectal cancer resulting from familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP).

While less is known about the exact mechanism of alpha catenin, its presence in cancer is also widely felt. Through the interaction of beta catenin and alpha catenin, actin and E-cadherin are linked, providing the cell with a means of stable cell adhesion. However, decrease in this adhesion ability of the cell has been linked to metastasis and tumor progression. In normal cells, alpha catenin may act as a tumor suppressor and can help prevent the adhesion defects associated with cancer. On the other hand, a lack of alpha catenin can promote aberrant transcription, which can lead to cancer. As a result, it can be concluded, that cancers are most often associated with decreased levels of alpha catenin.
BETA CATENIN plays a more significant role in various forms of cancer development. However, in contrast to alpha catenin, heightened beta catenin levels may be associated with carcinogenesis. In particular, abnormal interactions between epithelial cells and the extracellular matrix are associated with the over-expression of these beta catenin and their relationship with cadherins in some cancers. Stimulation of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway, and its role in promoting malignant tumor formations and metastases, has also been implicated in cancers.

Mutations in catenin genes can cause loss of contact inhibition that can promote cancer development and tumor formation.

Beta-catenin is a proto oncogene. Mutations of this gene are commonly found in a variety of cancers- in primary hepatocellular carcinoma, colorectal cancer, ovarial carcinoma, breast cancer, lung cancer and glioblastoma. It has been estimated that approximately 10% of all tissue samples sequenced from all cancers display mutations in the CTNNB1 gene. Most of these mutations cluster on a tiny area of beta catenin. Loss-of-function mutations of beta catenin essentially make ubiquitinylation and degradation of beta catenin impossible. It will cause beta catenin to translocate to the nucleus without any external stimulus and continuously drive transcription of its target genes. Increased nuclear β-catenin levels have also been noted in basal cell carcinoma (BCC), head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), prostate cancer (CaP), pilomatrixoma (PTR) and medulloblastoma (MDB). These observations may or may not implicate a mutation in the beta catenin gene: other Wnt pathway components can also be faulty.

Similar mutations are also frequently seen in the beta catenin recruiting sites of APC. Hereditary loss-of-function mutations of APCcause a condition known as Familial Adenomatous Polyposis. Affected individuals develop hundreds of polyps in their large intestine. Most of these polyps are benign in nature, but they have the potential to transform into deadly cancer as time progresses. Somatic mutations of APC in colorectal cancer are also not uncommon. Beta-catenin and APC are among the key genes involved in colorectal cancer development. The potential of beta catenin to change the previously epithelial phenotype of affected cells into an invasive, mesenchyme-like type contributes greatly to metastasis formation.

Mutations associated with aberrant epithelial cell layer growth due to lack of adhesions and contact inhibition Down-regulated levels of α-catenin Up-regulated levels of β-catenin Stimulation of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway Catenin alteration (and Wnt/β-catenin pathway up-regulation) may help stimulate epithelial-mesenchymal transition (or EMT) Mutations or aberrant regulation of catenins may also associate with other factors that promote metastasis and tumorigenesis Treatments focus on correcting aberrant catenin levels or regulating catenin pathways that are associated with cancer development and progression.

The role of catenin in epithelial-mesenchymal transition (or EMT) has also received a lot of recent attention for its contributions to cancer development. It has been shown that HIF-1α can induce the EMT pathway, as well as the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway, thus enhancing the invasive potential of LNCaP cells (human prostate cancer cells). As a result, it is possible that the EMT associated with upregulated HIF-1α is controlled by signals from this Wnt/β-catenin pathway. Catenin and EMT interactions may also play a role in hepatocellular carcinoma. VEGF-B treatment of hepatoma carcinoma cells can cause alpha catenin to move from its normal location on the membrane into the nucleus and E-cadherin expression to decrease, thus promoting EMT and tumor invasiveness.

There are other physiological factors that are associated with cancer development through their interactions with catenins. For instance, higher levels of collagen XXIII have been associated with higher levels of catenins in cells. These heightened levels of collagen helped facilitate adhesions and anchorage-independent cell growth and provided evidence of collagen XXIII’s role in mediating metastasis. In another example, Wnt/β-catenin signaling has been identified as activating microRNA-181s in hepatocellular carcinoma that play a role in its tumorigenesis.

BETA CATENIN AS A PROJECTED DRUG TARGET IN MODERN CANCER THERAPY:

Recently, there have been a number of studies in the lab and in the clinic investigating new possible therapies for cancers associated with beta catenin. Integrin antagonists and immonochemotherapy with drugs such as 5-fluorouracil and polysaccharide-K have shown promising results. Polysaccharide K can promote apoptosis by inhibiting NF-κB activation, which is normally up-regulated, and inhibiting apoptosis, when beta catenin levels are increased in cancer. Therefore, using polysaccharide K to inhibit NF-κB activation can be used to treat patients with high beta catenin levels, which is recognized to be a major contributing factor in cancer formation.

In the short-term, combining current treatment techniques with new drugs targeting catenin-associated elements of cancer is expected by researchers to be a most effective way of treating the cancer. By disrupting Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathways, short-term neoadjuvant radiotherapy (STNR) may help prevent clinical recurrence of the disease after surgery, but much more work is needed before an adequate treatment based on this concept can be determined.

Research studies have also implicated potential therapeutic targets for future clinical studies. VEGFR-1 and EMT mediators may be ideal targets for preventing cancer development and metastasis. 5-aminosalicylate (ASA) has been shown to reduce β-catenin and its localization to the nucleus in colon cancer cells isolated from and in patients. As a result, it may be useful as a chemopreventative agent for colorectal cancer. Additionally, acyl hydrazones have been shown to inhibit the Wnt signaling characteristic of many cancers by destabilizing β-catenin, thus disrupting Wnt signaling and preventing the aberrant cell growth associated with cancer. On the other hand, some treatment concepts involve upregulating the E-cadherin/catenin adhesion system to prevent disruptions in adhesions and contact inhibition from promoting cancer metastasis. One possible way to achieve this, which has been successful in mouse models, is to use inhibitors of Ras activation in order to enhance the functionality of these adhesion systems. Other catenin, cadherin or cell cycle regulators may also be useful in treating a variety of cancers.

While recent studies in the lab and in the clinic have provided promising results for treating various catenin-associated cancers, the Wnt/β-catenin pathway may make finding a single correct therapeutic target difficult as the pathway has been shown to elicit a variety of different actions and functions, some of which may possibly even prove to be anti-oncogenic.

Due to its involvement in cancer development, inhibition of beta-catenin continues to receive significant attention. But the targeting of the binding site on its armadillo domain is not the simplest task, due to its extensive and relatively flat surface. However, for an efficient inhibition, binding to smaller “hotspots” of this surface is sufficient. This way, a “stapled” helical peptide derived from the natural beta catenin binding groups found in LEF1 was sufficient for the complete inhibition of beta catenin dependent transcription. Recently, several small-molecule compounds have also been developed to target the same. In addition, beta catenin levels can also be influenced by targeting upstream components of the Wnt pathway as well as the beta catenin destruction complex. The additional N-terminal binding pocket is also important for Wnt target gene activation. This site can be pharmacologically targeted by carnosic acid, for example. That “auxiliary” site is another attractive target for drug development. Despite intensive preclinical research, no beta catenin inhibitors are available as therapeutic agents yet.

MOLECULAR IMPRINTS OF BETA CATENIN AS THERAPEUTIC AGENT AGAINST CANCERS:

In my opinion, Molecular Imprints of BETA CATENIN could be effectively used as a therapeutic agent to inhibit the over expression and aberrant actions of this biological component that plays a crucial role in development of cancers. Since molecular imprints cannot interfere in the NORMAL interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands, their use will not any way disrupt the normal biochemical processes involving BETA CATENIN.

BETA CATENIN potentized above 12C or Avogadro limit will contain only molecular imprints, and as such, will be a very effective and safe therapeutic weapon in our fight against various types of cancers such as hepatocellular carcinoma, lung cancer, malignant breast tumors, endometrial cancer, colorectal cancer, ovarian cancer, pilomatrixoma, medulloblastoma, pleomorphic adenomas, malignant mesothelioma, basal cell carcinoma, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, prostate cancer, pilomatrixoma and various metastases. Since aberrations and over expression of BETA CATENIN is implicated in more and more types of cancers, use of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of beta catenin could be proved in future as a general therapeutic approach to cancer.

I would request scientists and cancer researchers to explore more in this direction. It will herald a new revolution in cancer treatment.

Apart from molecular imprints of beta catenin, from homeopathic point of view, any drug substance that can induce over expression of BETA CATENIN in healthy individuals can act as anti-cancer drugs if used in potentized or molecular imprints forms. This realization leads us to the possibility of exploring various existing homeopathic drugs that have shown anti-cancer properties, from a biochemical angle. Such drugs have to be scientifically re-proved to verify whether they can induce over expression of beta catenin during drug proving.

(This is not an original work of the author. This study is based on information collected and extracted from various biochemistry texts as well as Wikipedia articles. But the concepts of ‘molecular imprints of beta catenin for cancer therapy’ is the original idea of the author )

Skeptics always ask for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) for proving the ‘efficacy’ of homeopathy.

According to their viewpoint, homeopathy is ‘ineffective’ and ‘fake’ if there are no enough RCTs to support it. Some enthusiastic homeopaths having no understanding of ‘molecular imprints’ and their biological mechanism, often fall in this trap and try to do RCTS, which inevitably result in ‘failures’.

Those friends should be made to understand, RCTs are useful only in proving the efficacy of ‘molecular forms’ of drugs. They are not applicable in verifying the efficacy of ‘molecular imprints forms’ of drugs used as ultra-dilutions of homeopathy.

—————————————————————————————————

WHAT OUR WORLD HOMEOPATHIC COMMUNITY DID TO EFFECTIVELY COUNTER THESE ARGUMENTS AGAINST HOMEOPATHY?

In early 2010, the UK’s Parliamentary Science and Technology Select Committee published a report into homeopathy and whether it should be funded by the government as part of the National Health Service.

I AM QUOTING FROM THE REPORT:

—Select Committee report, p. 47:

“”Overall conclusion- By providing homeopathy on the NHS and allowing MHRA licensing of products which subsequently appear on pharmacy shelves, the Government runs the risk of endorsing homeopathy as an efficacious system of medicine. To maintain patient trust, choice and safety, the Government should not endorse the use of placebo treatments, including homeopathy. Homeopathy should not be funded on the NHS and the MHRA should stop licensing homeopathic products.”

—Select Committee report, p. 9:

“”What is homeopathy? 9. Homeopathy is a 200-year old system of medicine that seeks to treat patients with highly diluted substances that are administered orally. Homeopathy is based on two principles: “like-cures-like” whereby a substance that causes a symptom is used in diluted form to treat the same symptom in illness and “ultra-dilution” whereby the more dilute a substance the more potent it is (this is aided by a specific method of shaking the solutions, termed “succussion”). It is claimed that homeopathy works by stimulating the body’s self-healing mechanisms.

10. Homeopathic products should not be confused with herbal remedies. Some homeopathic products are derived from herbal active ingredients, but the important distinction is that homeopathic products are extremely diluted and administered according to specific principles.”

—Select Committee report, p. 10:

“”14. In June 2009 the Guardian reported that the NHS had spent £12 million on homeopathy in the period 2005–08.16 According to the Society of Homeopaths, the NHS spends £4 million on homeopathy annually. It appears that these figures do not include maintenance and running costs of the homeopathic hospitals or the £20 million spent on refurbishing the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital between 2002 and 2005″.

—Select Committee report, p. 18:

“”47. Our expectations of the evidence base relevant to government policies on the provision of homeopathy are straightforward. We would expect the Government to have a view on the efficacy of homeopathy so as to inform its policy on the NHS funding and provision of homeopathy. Such a view should be based on the best available evidence, that is, rigorous randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses and systematic reviews of RCTs. If the effects of homeopathy can be primarily attributed to the placebo effect, we would expect the Government to have a view on the ethics of prescribing placebos.”

—Select Committee report, p. 18:

“”49. There appear to be two main concerns. The first is the principle of like-cures-like and the second is about how ultra-dilutions could retain characteristics of the active ingredient”.

—Select Committee report, p. 20:

“”54. We conclude that the principle of like-cures-like is theoretically weak. It fails to provide a credible physiological mode of action for homeopathic products. We note that this is the settled view of medical science”

—Select Committee report, p. 23:

“”70. In our view, the systematic reviews and meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that homeopathic products perform no better than placebos.”

—Select Committee report, p. 23:

“”77. There has been enough testing of homeopathy and plenty of evidence showing that it is not efficacious.

MY COMMENTS UPON THE SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT:

A. Select Committee report, p. 18:

“”49. There appear to be two main concerns. The first is the principle of like-cures-like and the second is about how ultra-dilutions could retain characteristics of the active ingredient”.

MIT has taken up the task of addressing these two “main concerns” in most scientific terms

B. Select Committee report, p. 20:

“”54. We conclude that the principle of like-cures-like is theoretically weak. It fails to provide a credible physiological mode of action for homeopathic products. We note that this is the settled view of medical science”

POINT 1. MIT provides a scientifically “credible physiological mode of action for homeopathic products”.

According to MIT hypothesis, potentization involves a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, where in the conformational details of individual drug molecules are ‘imprinted’ or engraved as hydrogen-bonded three dimensional nano-cavities into a supra-molecular matrix of water and ethyl alcohol, through a process of molecular level ‘host-guest’ interactions. These ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’ are the active principles of post-avogadro dilutions used as homeopathic drugs.

Due to ‘conformational affinity’, molecular imprints can act as ‘artificial key holes’ or ‘ligand binds’ for the specific drug molecules used for imprinting, and for all pathogenic molecules having functional groups ‘similar’ to those drug molecules. When used as therapeutic agents, molecular imprints selectively bind to the pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity and deactivate them, thereby relieving the biological molecules from the inhibitions or blocks caused by pathogenic molecules. According to MIT hypothesis, this is the biological mechanism of high dilution therapeutics involved in homeopathic cure.

POINT 2. MIT has shown that the homeopathic principle ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ Is not at all “weak” as the select committee report has observed.

According to MIT hypothesis, ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ means, diseases expressed through a particular group of symptoms could be cured by ‘molecular imprints’ forms of drug substances, which in ‘molecular’ or crude forms could produce ‘similar’ groups of symptoms in healthy individuals. ‘Similarity’ of drug symptoms and diseaes indicates ‘similarity’ of pathological molecular inhibitions caused by drug molecules and pathogenic molecules, which in turn indicates conformational ‘similarity’ of functional groups of drug molecules and pathogenic molecules. Since molecular imprints of ‘similar’ molecules can bind to ‘similar’ ligand molecules by conformational affinity, they can act as therapeutic agents when applied as indicated by ‘similarity of symptoms’.

THE PROBLEM IS, HOMEOPATHIC COMMUNITY FAILED TO PRESENT THIS MIT CONCEPTS BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE. HAD ANYBODY DONE IT, THE OUTCOME WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

—————————————————————————————————

As everything else in this universe, there cannot exist ‘immutable’ laws, principles , theories, or ‘methods’ in homeopathy also.

Once we acquire better scientific knowledge regarding the exact processes involved in potentization, exact active principles of potentized drugs and the exact molecular mechanism of their therapeutic action, all the existing ‘methods’, ‘laws’, ‘rules’ and ‘principles’ are bound to change. New ‘principles’ and ‘methods’ will evolve.

That means, we will have to discard, change or modify many things so far considered as ‘fundamentals’ of homeopathy.

————————————————————————————————

According to some ‘leaders of kerala homeopathy’, Chandran K C is only an ITCH on the body of homeopathy, and they advise their ‘followers’ to ignore that itch, as it will subside gradually. No treatment is required for this ‘minor’ ailment- they can continue their slumber without any worry!

They are asking their followers to avoid discussing MIT. If anybody mentions MIT on their groups, they are instantly removed.

As Dr Hahnemann said, ITCH is not that much simple. It is the MOTHER of all diseases! Creating ITCH using right prescriptions is essential for an ever lasting cure of chronic ailments. I am bringing the ‘long-suppressed’ itches of homeopathy out through MIT ‘prescriptions’. They are right!

————————————————————————————————-

What might have been the intention of Dr Hahnemann , when he first started working on ‘potentization’ of drugs? Was it for ‘enhancing’ the power, or, ‘reducing’ the side effects? ANY IDEA?

During hahnemann’s time, allopaths were using large quantities of mercury, arsenic, toxic chemicals, strong purgatives, blood letting etc as part of their treatments.

Actually, hahnemann wanted to quit medical practice practice due to his disagreements with this crude drugging, and started translating of medical books to earn his living.

———————————————————————————————–

Genius of Hahnemann made two important observations regarding a peculiar type of relationship between drug substances and diseases. 250 years ago:

1. Diseases with specific symptoms can be cured by using preparations made from drugs that can produce similar symptoms in healthy individuals. He called this phenomenon as ‘similia similibus curentur’.

2. When used according to ‘similia similibus curentur’, extremely diluted forms of drug substances can act as powerful therapeutic agents. He called this process of preparing ‘extreme dilutions’ as ‘potentization’.

—————————————————————————————————–

‘Antidoting’ And ‘Deactivating’ Of Potentized Homeopathic Drugs- A Scientific Explanation:

In Chronic Diseases : Para 142, Hahnemann describes the articles to be avoided during homeopathic treatment:

“For many easily perceived reasons, but especially in order that this delicate doses of medicine may not be interfered with in their action, the homoeopathic physician cannot in his antipsoric treatment allow the intermediate use of any hitherto customary domestic remedy, no perfumery of any kind, no fragrant extracts, no smelling-salts, no Baldwin tea, or any other herb teas, no peppermint confection, no spiced confections or anise-sugar or stomach drops, or liqueurs, no Iceland-moss, or spiced chocolate, no spice-drops, tooth-tinctures or tooth-powders of the ordinary kinds, nor any of the other articles of luxury.”

According to this statement of hahnemann, , the ‘delicate doses of medicine’ used in homeopathy may be ‘interfered with in their actions’ by “customary domestic remedy”, “perfumery”, “fragrant” “smelling-salts”, “Baldwin tea”, “herb teas”, “peppermint confection”, “spiced confections”, “anise-sugar” , “liqueurs”, “Iceland-moss”, “spiced chocolate”, “spice-drops”, “tooth-tinctures” “tooth-powders” etc. Kindly notice, most of the articles Hahnemann listed here are those which may contain VOLATILE OILS. That indicates a very important observation.

I have been wondering for long whether there exist any scientific basis for this advice made by Hahnemann. After studying the molecular structure of various volatile organic compounds including CAMPHOR, and understanding the mechanism of their interactions, now I think there could be some amount of truth in it, though it was somewhat distorted and far-stretched by hahnemann. Certain chemical molecules contained in these aromatic organic compounds may be capable of antidoting certain MOLECULAR IMPRINTS contained in a wide class of potentized homeopathic drugs- especially drugs of vegetable origin-, by deactivating their constituent molecular imprints by binding to them due to their conformational affinity.

Most aromatic organic compounds have a C=O moiety 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 possess differing reactivity based upon the location and hybridization of the C-O bond, owing to the electron-withdrawing effect of hybridized oxygen. Certain medicinal properties of various vegetable substances and some animal products are mostly due to the presence of molecules having highly reactive C=O moiety 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.

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 moiety in their functional groups.

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 CAMPHOR IS NOT A UNIVERSAL ANTIDOTE AS WE BELIEVE. Only MOLECULAR or crude forms and low potencies of CAMPHOR can ‘selectively’ antidote particular ‘molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs.

MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or or potencies above 12c of camphor cannot antidote any other potentized drugs. More over, even MOLECULAR forms of camphor cannot antidote ALL molecular imprints of potentized drugs, but only those individual molecular imprints which have conformational affinity due to the presence of C=O functional groups.

Drug relationship is a subject about which most homeo practitioners are very much worried and confused. Some practitioners very much rely upon ‘drug relationships’ even in deciding their treatment protocols. Concepts such as ‘complementary’, ‘inimical’, ‘antidotal’ etc. are frequently utilized in everyday practice. Some doctors even deviate from the theory of similimum, due to their over indulgence with ‘drug relationship’ protocols. When prescribing a drug based on its so-called complementary relationship to the earlier prescriptions, we forget to consider whether it is a similimum by totality of symptoms. Yet, we call it ‘classical’ homeopathy. When searching through the literature and authorities regarding drug relationships, it will be seen that no serious scientific studies have been done on this subject. Most of the drug relationships are proposed by empirical clinical observations of practitioners, and not corroborated by scientific studies or evidences. More over, practitioners who are not much bothered over this relationships between drugs swear that their experiences prove otherwise. Some homeopaths prescribe so-called inimical drugs even simultaneously or alternatingly, and get expected clinical results.

We have already seen during our previous deliberations that in homoeopathic potencies above 12C, there is no chance of drug molecules to exist. These preparations contain only hydrosomes or molecular imprints of constituent molecules of the drug substance subjected to potentization. Molecular imprints are only nanocavities formed by supra-molecular clustering of water and ethyl alcohol. Chemically, they contain only water and ethyl alcohol molecules. Even a given sample of homeopathic potency contains hundreds of types of individual imprints, representing the diverse types of molecules contained in the original drug substance. It is clear that they co-exist without disturbing or influencing each other in anyway, same time preserving their individual properties as molecular imprints of specific drug molecules.

1. This clearly indicates that highly potentized homoeopathic preparations cannot chemically interact with each other, since they contain no drug molecules. Obviously, they are not likely to engage in any mutual interaction within or outside the organism. They can never antidote or destroy each other.

2. Same time, the case of mother tinctures and preparations below 12c potencies may be totally different. They contain crude drug molecules, which can interact with each other due to their chemical properties. The concept of ‘drug relationships’ may be valid in the case of these low potencies. Low potencies may be more active than crude drugs, since they contain free molecules and ions.

3. Low potencies and mother tincture of a drug may antidote higher potencies of same drug, due to the interaction with the hydrosomes which act as counteractive complementary factors to each other.

4. Same way, low potencies and mother tinctures of a drug may antidote higher potencies of another drug that may contain similar constituent molecules, due to the interaction with the hydrosomes having counteractive complementary factors relationship. Obviously, drugs containing similar molecules may have more or less similar symptomatology during drug proving.

5. Higher potencies of a drug may antidote the physiological effects of low potencies and mother tinctures of same drug, due to the interaction with the hydrosomes acting as counteractive complementary factors.

6. Same way, higher potencies of a drug may antidote low potencies and mother tincture of another drug, that may contain similar constituent molecules, due to the interaction with the counteractive complementary factors contained in the higher potencies.

If there is similarity only between certain types of constituent molecules of two drugs, partial antodoting is possible. That means, molecules having configurational similarity only are subjected to antidoting by this way. Such drugs will have partially similar symptomatologies.

We should be aware of the possibility of dangerous chemical interactions that might result between the constituent drug molecules of different drugs, when we mix or administer two or more mother tinctures and low potency preparations together.

Since ‘molecular imprints, the active principles of potentized drugs, are nothing but hydrogen-bonded supra-molecular formations of water-ethyl alcohol molecules into which the three-dimensional spacial forms are engraved as nanocavities, any physical or chemical influence that may destroy these formations will be capable of ‘deactivating’ potentized drugs. This include heat, strong radiations, chemical agents etc.

—————————————————————————————————-

Avogadro number is used to calculate the number of molecules or atoms in a given quantity of any substance. It is defined that 1 gram mol of any substance will contain 6.022×10^23 numbers of its molecules. 1 gram mol is the molecular mass of a substance expressed in grams. Since molecular mass of hydrogen is 2, 2 grams of hydrogen constitutes 1 gram mol of hydrogen, and it will contrain 6.022×10^23 number of hydrogen nolecules. Molecular mass of oxygen is 32, and hence 32 gms of oxygen will contain 6.022×10^23 oxygen molecules. Molecular mass of water is 18, and hence 18 gms of water will contain 6.022×10^23 h2o molecules. Molecular mass of carbon is 12, and hence 12 gms of carbon will contain 6.022×10^23 carbon molecules. In other words, 2 gms of hydrogen, 32 gms of oxygen, 18 gms of water and 12 gams of carbon will contain EQUAL NUMBER of molecules, which is a fixed number 6.022×10^23. It is obvious that number of molecules in equal quantities of different substances will be different depending upon their molecular mass. Larger the molecular mass, the lesser will be the number of molecules in a given quantity.

————————————————————————————————-

Unless you can answer the question where from the unending supply of “drug particles” come to be distributed in each and every drops of ‘ultra’ dilutions that are millions of times above Avogadro limit, all your ‘theories’ of ‘nanoparticles’ and ‘drug molecules entrapped in vehicle molecules” are simply absurd.

————————————————————————————————-

One homeopath from kerala messaged me: “Stop this nonsense. You are not qualified to discuss homeopathy. Do you think you are a new hahnemann?”

What is the “qualification” to “discuss” homeopathy?

If everything you read or hear simply fly over your head, or if you are ignorant about the topics being discussed, you are not “qualified” to discuss any topic!

————————————————————————————————-

If you believe NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH has “proved” homeopathy, kindly answer this question:

Molecular mass of CARBON is 12. According to AVOGADRO, 12 grams of CARBON will contain 6.022 x 10^23 molecules of carbon. Since one molecule of carbon contains 2 atoms, the number of total atoms in 12 gms will be double this number. Means, 12 gms will contain 2 x 6.022 x 10^23 atoms of carbon. (1204400000000000000000000)

If we are starting potentization by triturating 1 gm of carbon with 99 gms of sugar of milk, first potency will contain 100360000000000000000000 carbon atoms in 100 gms of CARBON 1C potency.

————————————————————————————————–

I know very well that I am a ‘pebble’, where as George Vithoulkas is a mighty ‘mountain’. But to be intellectually truthful, I cannot conceal my disagreements with his views about homeopathy. I cannot follow anybody blindly- even master Hahnemann.

I wanted to know, whether Vithoulkas ever express his views regarding what happens during potentization, by which medicinal properties of drug substances are transferred to potentizing medium?

I wanted to know, whether Vithoulkas ever try to answer the question what are the active principles of potentized drugs?

I wanted to know, whether Vithoulkas ever tried answer the question what is the biological mechanism of action of potentized drugs?

I think nobody serious about homeopathy can evade these three fundamental questions, answers of which will ultimately define his approach to homeopathy.

According to the NEW MODEL of Vithoulkas:

“1. Unless we understand the functioning of the human organism in its subtle levels we cannot hope to unravel the laws and principles governing human intelligence, human emotionality and the human physical body as well as their interconnection and interdependence.

2. Such universal laws should be searched for in an area far beyond the physico-chemical structure of the human body – this area, this realm that can be called a substratum of subtle formulative energies.”

He is trying to explain the ” human intelligence, human emotionality and the human physical body as well as their interconnection and interdependence” using a concept of “subtle formulative energies”! He has all rights to do that, if he stop claiming he is talking SCIENCE! There is nothing scientific in his “subtle energy”. We have been hearing about this “subtle energy” from all sorts of occult practitioners and spiritual healers. Nobody can make homeopathy ‘scientific’, by talking theories of “subtle energy”.

The specific statement “Epigrammatically I could say that the time for an Energy Medicine has arrived”, very clearly shows that George Vithoulkas is least interested in making homeopathy a SCIENTIFIC MEDICINE.

See how the NEW MODEL of Vithoulkas defines DISEASE:

“A disease (process of degeneration) will only take place if the vibrational frequencies of the stimulus (disease producing agent) and the organism (predispositions) coincide. Diseases are nothing else but the activation of the existing predispositions.”

Did you notice? Disease happens only when “vibrational frequency” of “disease producing agent” COINCIDES with the “vibrational frequency” of “predispositions of organism”. For him, DISEASE is all about COINCIDING of “vibrational frequencies”!

In his NEW MODEL, there is no role for biochemistry, molecular biology, immunology, genetics or any such knowledge- only “subtle energy” that is “communicated principally through the smallest particle-energy bodies that have not been defined yet”!

His views about the active principles of potentized drugs as ‘subtle energy’, and his ‘new model’ for disease and cure based on ‘resonance’ are basically contradicting all the modern scientific knowledge system.

It is very frustrating to see that he drags “prana, bioplasma, orgon, etc., etc.” into his NEW MODEL as a “substratum” for the activities of “subtle energy”, thereby alienating homeopathy completely away from the framework and paradigms of modern scientific knowledge system.

Due to his obsession with the ‘resonace model’, he is totally incapable of even thinking about a scientific model for the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure. Biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, molecular pathology and such modern scientific knowledge have no place in his ‘energy medicine’ theories.

Whatever sophisticated scientific vocabulary he uses, George Vithoulkas, the ‘living legend of homeopathy’, is basically a staunch proponent of the most unscientific ‘energy medicine’ theories about homeopathy, as demonstrated by his writings.

I strongly disagree with his ‘energy medicine’ approach to homeopathy, even though personally I have great respects for his comparatively rational approach towards most of the nonsense concepts and methods propagated by modern day ‘gurus’.

————————————————————————————————–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PREDICTIONS formulated for proving MIT HYPOTHESIS are:

1. If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, there will not any single ‘molecule’ of original drug substance remaining in potencies above avogadro limit, if they are genuinely potentized.

2. If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, chemical analysis of high potency drugs and plain water-alcohol mixture will prove they have same chemical constitution.

3. If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, potentized drugs have therapeutic effects if used as per indications, but plain water-alcohol mixture will not exhibit any therapeutic effect.

4. If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, spectrometric studies will show that high potency drugs and plain water-alcohol mixtures are entirely different in their supra-molecular organizations.

5. If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, in vitro and in vivo studies will prove that high potency drugs have biological properties that are reverse to those of their molecular forms (below 12c)

6. If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, high potency drugs should be capable of antidoting or neutralizing the biological effects of molecular forms of same drugs.

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

————————————————————————————————–

How can I convince you something, if you persistently hesitate to read anything I write? I regularly post at least one article everyday explaining my concepts of ‘molecular imprints’ and their implication in homeopathy. Without reading what I write, you are asking 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?

————————————————————————————————-

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.

———————————————————————————————–

Only ‘molecular imprints’ can rationally explain following phenomena:

1. There is no chance for any single ‘molecule’ of original drug substance remaining in potencies above avogadro limit, if they are genuinely potentized.

2. Chemical analysis of high potency drugs and plain water-alcohol mixture proves they have same chemical constitution.

———————————————————————————-

When ‘scientific research’ is done by those who have no any idea of basics of science and scientific methods, it will end up only as a funny joke! That is what now happens to our ‘nanoparticle researchers’ of homeopathy!

———————————————————————————–

Anybody have the right to do any ‘research’ they like, and make any theory they could ‘derive’. But they should not expect everybody to blindly believe everything they say, but be prepared to face hard questions from those who think rationally, and answer them to establish the theories. That is an inevitable part of scientific method. Our ‘nanoparticle researchers’ of homeopathy have pathetically failed in this regard. They conveniently ignore all inconvenient questions! According to our fiery GHF head Dr. Sreevals menon, asking questions is “destructive” to scientific research, and will not be “permitted”!

———————————————————————————-

Our respected ‘nanoparticle researchers’ say they detected QUANTUM DOTS in potentized drugs, and make BIG theories about their action on genetic substance. Why they fail to realize that these QUANTUM DOTS are nothing but simple SILICA particles leaching into our medicine from glass and ceramic utensils?

——————————————————————————–

Before making ‘nanoparticle theories about homeopathy’, at least try to get an answer to the question “where from this unending supply of nanoparticles comes in ultra dilutions”.

If it is by “carry over the whole nanoparticles from one step of dilution into next step” as IIT-B team say, what about the remaining part from which the “1% top layer” is carried to next level of dilution? Is it discarded?

We have to get an answer from some body!

———————————————————————————

This is a sentence from Business Standard, which quotes a prominent mumbai-based ‘GHF leader’ who conducted recent ‘global summit’ saying as follows:

“For years, homeopathy is stated to have been using the process of converting snake venom and poison from scorpions, spiders and wild bees into medicinal substances by transforming them into nano-particles that have proved safe and effective for patients.”

Can anybody “transform snake venom and poison from scorpions, spiders and wild bees” into NANO-PARTICLES? Did any ‘researcher’ ever detect ‘nanoparticles of snake venom’ in potentized homeopathic drugs?

————————————————————————————

I wonder why majority of our homeopathic community are behaving this much irrational.

When somebody say they could detect some ‘quantum dots’ in potentized medicines while observed with nanoscience equipment, and ‘explain’ homeopathy with this ‘quantum dots model’, nobody asks a single question about it.

What exactly are these things called ‘quantum dots’?

——————————————————————————–

The ‘nanoparticle researchers’ of homeopathy say they detected “QUANTUM DOTS” in potentized drugs, and try to theorize that homeopathic drugs act by the power of these ‘quantum dots’. I would suggest they should consult with some real scientists about this ‘quantum dots’ before publishing this type of ‘theories’.

‘Quantum dots’ are tiny particles or nanocrystals of a semiconducting material with diameters in the range of 2-10 nanometers (10-50 atoms). That means, quantum dots are nothing but ‘very small’ nanoparticles. (size of nanoparticles is 10-100 nanometers, and that of quantum dots is 2-10 nanometers). Quantum dots were discovered by Alexey Ekimov at first in 1981 in a glass matrix.

————————————————————————————–

It is true that mother tinctures and crude drugs also can act as ‘similimum’ in certain conditions. But the molecular mechanisms of their therapeutic actions and ultimate outcome are fundamentally different from that of high potency drugs.

Drug molecules contained in mother tinctures and crude drugs may ‘compete’ with pathogenic molecules having similar molecular configuration in binding to biological molecules and displace them, thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions. By this ‘competitive’ relationship to pathogenic molecules, mother tinctures and crude drugs can act as similimum and produce therapeutic results.

‘Molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs act by an entirely different molecular mechanism. Molecular imprints binds directly to the pathogenic molecules having configurational affinity and deactivate them, thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions. This is the molecular mechanism involved in the therapeutic action of potentized drugs.

Most notable difference is, drug molecules act as similimum by ‘competitive’ relationship toward pathogenic molecules, whereas ‘molecular imprints’ act by ‘complementary’ relationship.

Since crude drugs and mother tinctures contain drug molecules that can act upon biological molecules, they can also bind to various biological targets in the organism. Obviously, there is always chance for creation of new molecular inhibitions and drug-induced pathologies when we use crude drugs and mother tinctures. That is the draw back of using mother tinctures even if they are similimum.

Advantage of potentized drugs is that they do not contain any drug molecules, but only molecular imprints, which are only supra-molecular clusters of water and alcohol molecules. They can act upon pathogenic molecules only, not upon biological molecules. As such, potentized drugs cannot do any further harm to organism.

What will happen when SIMILIMUM is used in CRUDE forms or MOLECULAR forms? How their action will be different from that of potentized forms?

A drug is said to be similimum to a case when the SYMPTOMS produced by the disease in the patient is similar to the symptoms that drug could produce in a person without any disease. That means, the drug and the ‘disease-causing agents’ contain some ‘chemical molecules’ or ‘functional groups’ that are SIMILAR in conformations so that they could bind to SIMILAR molecular targets in the organism and produce SIMILAR molecular inhibitions that are expressed through SIMILAR subjective and objective symptoms.

When we apply MOLECULAR FORMS of similimum in the patient, drug molecules COMPETE with pathogenic molecules for binding to the SAME biological target molecules. According to the dynamics of biochemistry, such a competitive relationship of drug molecules and pathogenic molecules may result in the removal of inhibitions, if the affinity of drug molecules toward biological targets is higher than the affinity of pathogenic molecules. That means, CRUDE forms of SIMILIMUM may in certain instances CURE the disease by COMPETITIVE molecular mechanism.

It should be noted that the DRUG molecules cannot remove the molecular inhibitions if the they are overpowered by pathogenic molecules regarding their AFFINITY towards biological targets so that the COMPETITION is not effective. This fact explains why CRUDE forms of SIMILIMUM fail in curing the disease in most occasions.

Another point to be noted that the CRUDE drug substance contain diverse types of chemical molecules that can bind to various unexpected molecular targets in the organism and produce new molecular inhibitions in them. This fact explains the phenomena known as SIDE EFFECTS and BAD EFFECTS of drugs commonly experienced when using MOLECULAR FORMS of drug substances. That is why I keep on saying that using of mother tinctures and low potencies are undesirable and dangerous.

SIMILIMUM potentized above 12c contain no drug molecules, but only MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug molecules. When used as similimum, these molecular imprints act as ARTIFICIAL BINDING SITES or ARTIFICIAL LOCKS for the pathogenic molecules having similar functional groups. Due to this CONFORMATIONAL AFFINITY, they can selectively bind to the specific pathogenic molecules, and relieve the biological molecules from pathological inhibitions. This is the molecular mechanism involved in the therapeutic action of SIMILIMUM in potentized forms. Since they do not contain any chemical molecules other than water and ethyl alcohol, they cannot produce any unwanted molecular inhibitions or SIDE EFFECTS. That is why potentized drugs are said to be SAFE.

That is why we say only potentized drugs are GENUINE HOMEOPATHY, and safer than mother tinctures and other molecular forms of drugs.

———————————————————————————

April 15th issue of malayalam journal HOMEO SHASTHRAM has reported that Dr Rajashekharan pillai, the great scientist and former ugc chairman, said in a homeopathy seminar in kerala that “each higher potency is a NEW MOLECULE, and hence it is wrong to say homeopathic potencies do not contain any drug molecule”. I would request anybody who witnessed that speech may kindly post the details of the new ideas he presented about homeopathy.

If he has actually said so, it is totally against the ‘nanoparticle theory’! Nanopartcles are not MOLECULES!

Now, our respected ‘leaders’ will have a hard choice between ‘nanoparticles’ of IIT-B scientists and ‘new molecules’ of Dr Rajashekharan pillai!

———————————————————————————–

Scientific advancement of homeopathy is impossible unless we could free homeopathy from the malignant influences of unscientific and superstitious concepts such as ‘vital force’ and ‘dynamic drug energy’. We should also relentlessly struggle to free homeopathy from pseudo-scientific theories such as ‘nanoparticle theory or ‘energy medicine theory.

———————————————————————————–

Our ‘homeopathic researchers’ always use ‘elemental’ or ‘mineral’ drugs such as ferrum, zincum, cuprum, carbon etc for their ‘nanoparticle studies’. They never use complex vegetable drugs, animal drugs or nosodes for their ‘nanoparticle’ research..

You know why? The answer will expose the hollowness of ‘nanoparticle theory of homeopathy’.

————————————————————————————

Our new ‘nanoparticle researchers’ say they detected nanoparticles of ‘vegetable charcoal’ in all samples of ‘vegetable and organic’ drugs they tested in ultra-dilutions.’ ‘Vegetable charcoal’ means CARBON.

And they came to the queer conclusion that these nanoparticles are the active principles of potentized drugs.

If all ‘vegetable and organic’ drugs act by CARBON NANOPARTICLES, why should we use different drugs? Is it not enough to use potentized carbon or CARBO VEG only?

————————————————————————————

Study the supra-molecular re-arrangement happening in water and ethyl alcohol mixture during potentization. Key to the scientific understanding of homeopathy lies there. Your search for ‘nanoparticles’ of original drug substances in ultra-dilutions is actually leading you to a wrong direction. You may detect some particles of ‘metallic elements’ remaining either due to contamination or improper potentization, but you can never explain the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure on that basis. Earlier you realize this truth, the better it will be for the future advancement of homeopathy.

———————————————————————————-

I fear those homeopaths who are over- enthused over the ‘nanoparticle discovery’ in homeopathic potencies, and sincerely believe that the ‘discovery’ has finally settled all questions of ‘scientific proof’ for homeopathy, have not carefully read the paper published by IIT-B team.

READ THIS PARAGRAPH FROM IIT-B PAPER:

“Another question that arises from our observations is how in spite of such huge dilutions the particles of the starting materials are retained even at 200c potency?

The answer to this question could lie in the manufacturing process itself. We perceive that during the succussion process, the pounding of solutions against a rubber stop generates numerous nanobubbles as a result of entrapment of air and cavitation due to generation of ultra-sound waves.

The particles of the starting material instantaneously get adsorbed on the surface of these bubbles and cavitations. This phenomenon could be similar to the mechanism of formation of Pickering emulsions, wherein the emulsified phase viz. air bubbles or liquid droplets are stabilized by a layer of particles.

This nanoparticle-nanobubble complex rises to the surface and can be within a monolayer once the total metal concentrations are well below 1 ppm. It is this 1% of the top layer of the solution which is collected and added to the next vessel, into 99 parts of fresh solvent and the succussion process is repeated. This transfer of the top 1% layer in each step will ensure that once we reach below a certain concentration i.e. well within a monolayer, the entire starting material continues to go from one dilution to the next, resulting in an asymptote beyond 6c.”

BEING SCIENTISTS, THEY CANNOT SHY AWAY FROM THE QUESTION “how in spite of such huge dilutions the particles of the starting materials are retained even at 200c potency”. Being scientists, they cannot say Avogadro number is not applicable to homeopathic dilutions, as our ‘homeopathic scientists’ conveniently do.

If ‘nanoparticles of starting materials’ are detected in a sample of material diluted to 200C which is much above avogadro limit, the first question naturally arising in the mind of a ‘scientist’ or a even a science-conscious person is “how in spite of such huge dilutions the particles of the starting materials are retained”. Being scientists, IIT-B team were bound to answer that question. They did it in the statement quoted above:

According to their view, during succussion, “the pounding of solutions against a rubber stop generates numerous nanobubbles as a result of entrapment of air and cavitation due to generation of ultra-sound waves”, and the “particles of the starting material instantaneously get adsorbed on the surface of these bubbles and cavitations”.

Then what happens? “This nanoparticle-nanobubble complex rises to the surface and can be within a monolayer”. “It is this 1% of the top layer of the solution which is collected and added to the next vessel, into 99 parts of fresh solvent and the succussion process is repeated.” “This transfer of the top 1% layer in each step will ensure that once we reach below a certain concentration i.e. well within a monolayer, the entire starting material continues to go from one dilution to the next,”

DID YOU UNDERSTAND THE EXPLANATION PROVIDED BY THE SCIENTISTS?

They said, nanoparticles of starting materials will be present only in the “1% of the top layer of the solution”.

They said, it is this top layer that is used for preparing the next higher dilution.

They said, “the entire starting material continues to go from one dilution to the next” during each stage of potentization.

Dear homeopaths, as per your knowledge are the IIT-B scientists right in saying only the “top mono-layer of the solution” is used to prepare higher dilution?

Dear homeopaths, Do you think the IIT-B scientists are right in saying “entire starting material continues to go from one dilution to the next”?

If they are right, the 99% solution remaining after transfer of “1% top layer” will not contain any nanoparticles.

Do you think the 99% solution remaining after transfer of “1% top layer” are discarded by the manufacturers?

——————————————————————————–

IGNORING DIFFICULT QUESTIONS BY FEIGNING DEAF AND DUMB IS THE MOST CONVENIENT STRATEGY TO COVER UP YOUR IGNORANCE AND PRETEND TO KNOW EVERYTHING!

MOST OF OUR ‘LEADERS’ OF HOMEOPATHIC COMMUNITY ARE MASTERS OF THIS ‘FIRE ESCAPE’ ART! EXCUSE ME, BUT I CANNOT AVOID TELLING THIS PAINFUL TRUTH!

———————————————————————————-

Following paragraph is quoted from the concluding part of original IIT-B study that detected ‘nanoparticles’ in homeopathic ultra-dilutions.

If you are not a person blinded by the euphoria of the nanoparticle ‘discovery, kindly read it carefully:

“Another question that arises from our observations is how in spite of such huge dilutions the particles of the starting materials are retained even at 200c potency?

———————————————————————————-

One needs a reasonable level of knowledge in basics of modern biochemistry and pharmacodynamics to understand the scientific explanations of homeopathy provided by MIT. That is why the number of homeopaths who do not understand MIT is so high. Only very few people, especially if they hold high ‘qualifications’ and decorate some ‘leadership’ titles, will have the humility and magnanimity to admit their inability to understand something. Such people blindly oppose MIT and personally abuse its author only to satisfy their own inflated ego. I can understand.

———————————————————————————-

BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM INVOLVED IN ‘SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR’, AS ENVISAGED BY THE CONCEPTS OF MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS COULD BE SCHEMATICALLY EXPLAINED AS FOLLOWS:

Let BIOLOGICAL MOLECULES be represented by ‘M’, and PATHOGENIC MOLECULES by D.

Pathogenic molecule D bind to biological molecule M to form a pathological molecular complex MD. MD represents a pathological molecular error or DISEASE.

———————————————————————————–

What is MIT?

MIT or Molecular Imprints Therapeutics refers to a scientific hypothesis that proposes a rational model for biological mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics.

According to MIT hypothesis, potentization involves a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, where in the conformational details of individual drug molecules are ‘imprinted’ or engraved as hydrogen-bonded three dimensional nano-cavities into a supra-molecular matrix of water and ethyl alcohol, through a process of molecular level ‘host-guest’ interactions. These ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’ are the active principles of post-avogadro dilutions used as homeopathic drugs.

—————————————————————————————

I seriously suspect a skeptic-big pharma conspiracy and ulterior game plan working behind the recent flare up of interest in ‘nanoparticle research’ in homeopathy. and the media hype around it.

Enemies of homeopathy know better than anybody else that ‘proving’ the presence of ‘nanoparticles’ of ‘metallic elements’ in potentized homeopathic drugs is the best way to ‘finish’ homeopathy for ever, since it will automatically raise the issue of ‘nanotoxicity’ and prove homeopathy is not safe, on the basis of which stringent regulations could be initiated.

———————————————————————————-

Here I am posting two slides presented at GHF summit regarding ‘nanoparticles study’ of AURUM METALLICUM.

Watch both slides carefully. It is said that potentized aurum met contains ‘nanoparticles’ containing Aurum, Aluminium, Silica, Pottassium, Ferrum, Cuprum, Indium, Hafnium, Sodium, Chlorine, Boron, Cobalt and Carbon, along with ‘Quantum Dots’.

Nanoparticles detected in Aurum Met contains Aurum in following ratios:

————————————————————————————

Most of those who support ‘nanoparticle theory of homeopathy’ think nanoparticles are formed by division of atoms during potentization.

Nanoparticles are particles between 1 and 100 nanometers in size. Although the size of most molecules would fit into the above outline, individual molecules are usually not referred to as nanoparticles. Nanoparticles are a bridge between bulk materials and atomic or molecular structures. Peculiar properties of nanoparticles arise from the fact that most of the atoms or molecules lie ‘exposed’ with free bonds.

‘NANO-PARTICLES ARE NOT SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES. THEY ARE NOT FORMED BY DIVISION OF ATOMS AS SOME HOMEOPATHS THINK, BUT BY A PECULIAR UNION AND ARRANGEMENT OF LARGE NUMBER OF SIMILAR ATOMS OR MOLECULES. NANOPARTICLES ARE ‘POLY-ATOMIC’ or ‘POLY-MOLECULAR’ STRUCTURES.

———————————————————————————

IIT-B scientists said they detected ‘traces of nanoparticles floating in the top layers’ of ultra-high dilutions. Present IISc study says the ultra dilutions are “filled with nanoparticles”.

Two questions have to be answered here:

If nanoparticles are present only in the ‘top layers’ only, how would you explain the fact that homeopaths use not the “top layers” only, but even the last fractions of drops, and they get curative effect? If nanoparticles floating the ‘top layers’ are the active principles, the bottom layers have to be ineffective!

———————————————————————————

If you cannot explain the molecular level biological mechanism by which the ‘nanoparticles’ act as the therapeutic factors of homeopathic medicines, your claims regarding detection of nanoparticles does not contribute anything positive in the scientific understanding of homeopathy.

———————————————————————————-

If you cannot explain the molecular level biological mechanism by which the ‘nanoparticles’ act as the therapeutic factors of homeopathic medicines, your claims regarding detection of nanoparticles does not contribute anything positive in the scientific understanding of homeopathy.

———————————————————————————

If anybody had discussed my points threadbare, and convinced me MIT is wrong, I would have accepted their views. This is not an issue of ego. I have been trying to evolve a scientific explanation for homeopathy. Whether it comes through myself or anybody else is not a serious question. Truth should be our first concern. The moment anybody convince me MIT is not correct, I am ready to leave it. Why should I stick on to a wrong idea? Please tell me, what is wrong about MIT, and why you are so much apathetic towards it.

———————————————————————————-

Those who have been reading my articles and posts regularly, and trying sincerely to understand the scientific explanation of homeopathy proposed by MIT, are very much convinced this is the right approach. Of course, their number is increasing day by day. But majority of homeopaths, especially the leaders of professional bodies, academicians and ‘spokespersons’ are persistently ignoring it, or showing a conscious apathy towards it. They prefer to write off me as an ‘alien’ and an irrelevant person. WHY SO?

———————————————————————————-

Supporters of homeopathy deny or fail to see the truth that the theortical system of homeopathy is mostly irrational and unscientific. Opponents of homeopathy deny or fail to see the real and objective truth involved in the phenomenon of homeopathic cure. According to my view, both approaches are wrong. We need a comprehensive and dialectical approach to this issue.

Homeopathic cure is a real and objective phenomenon, which has been so far explained by most unscientific theories.

———————————————————————————-

If a drug substance can produce in healthy individuals certain group of symptoms similar to that of a particular disease, that means, the drug substance as well as the disease-causing substance contain some chemical molecules having similar functional groups or moieties, so that they could bind to similar biological targets and produce similar biomolecular inhibitions. In homeopathy, such a relationship between drug and disease is called ‘similimum’.

In potentized form, such a ‘similimum’ drug will contain only ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent molecules. Molecular imprints can act as artifical binding sites for disease-causing molecules having conformational affinity. They selectively bind to the pathogenic molecules, thereby relieving the biological molecules from pathological inhibitions. This is the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure.

———————————————————————————–

‘Similia similibus curentur’ is an expression hahnemann framed to describe a real, objctive phenomenon of nature he observed regarding disease-drug relationship.

‘Similia similibus curentur’ means, potentized forms of a drug can cure a disease, if it can produce symptoms similar to the disease in healthy individuals when applied in crude forms.

In modern scientific terms, ‘Similia similibus curentur’ means, ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules can bind to pathogenic molecules and remove the bio-molecular inhibitions caused by them, if the original drug molecules used for preparing those molecular imprints have functional groups or moeities similar to those of the particular pathogenic molecules.

——————————————————————————–

According to my view, homeopathy is a very much real, objective phenomenon so far not properly explained in scientific terms, and which has been gravely damaged by diverse types of unscientific theories. This concept is the basis of my approach to homeopathy.

————————————————————————————

Purchase some samples of ‘ultra dilutions’from the market, pay Rs 5000 to a ‘nanotechmology lab’, get the samples tested for presence of ‘nanoparticles’! Go to the press and declare that you have proved ‘homeopathy is scientific’! Then go to a ‘global seminar’ and present a paper on your ‘research’.

Nothing done to ensure the samples you purchased were genuine ultra dilutions.

Nothing done to rule out contaminations.

——————————————————————————–

One of the most quoted and most violated ‘cardinal principles’ of homeopathy is ‘single drug-single dose’.

Most homeopaths use multiple drugs in private, and publicly pose as ‘single drug’ prescribers, cleverly masking their ‘multiple prescriptions’ using phrases such as ‘intercurrent’, ‘complementary’, ‘antidote’, ‘anti-miasmatic’, or ‘layer prescriptions’.

Some ‘single drug’ prescribers would give a ‘single’ dose of say sulphur cm, and give plenty of biochemic salts or even biochemic combinations, and claim in public that they ‘cured’ the patient with ‘single’ dose of sulphur.

————————————————————————————

I think many excellent homeopathic prescriptions are spoiled only due to our ‘theoretical’ hesitation to repeat the doses in adequate intervals, and these failures are wrongly attributed to ‘wrong similimum’ or ‘wrong potency’ selection.

We could have avoided such failures by repeating the doses frequently so as to maintain the drug action at optimum levels to effect a complete cure.

Molecular Imprints are the active principles of potentized drugs. These ‘molecular imprints’ bind to the pathological molecules having ‘complementary’ configuration, there by relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions and effect Cure.

———————————————————————————–

Some science-starved homeopaths believe potentized drugs act by ‘atomic power’. Even a high school level science student can realize the folly involved in this argument.

Atomic power is the energy released by the division of atoms into subatomic particles. You mean atomic division happens during potentization?

Do you know how much energy is required for atomic division? Do you think grinding with a mortar and pestle, or shaking a bottle will induce atomic division?

———————————————————————————-

I seriously suspect a skeptic-big pharma conspiracy and ulterior game plan working behind the recent flare up of interest in ‘nanoparticle research’ in homeopathy. and the media hype around it.

Enemies of homeopathy know better than anybody else that ‘proving’ the presence of ‘nanoparticles’ of ‘metallic elements’ in potentized homeopathic drugs is the best way to ‘finish’ homeopathy for ever, since it will automatically raise the issue of ‘nanotoxicity’ and prove homeopathy is not safe, on the basis of which stringent regulations could be initiated.

———————————————————————————–

Before declaring that homeopathic ‘ultra-dilutions’ are ‘filled with’ NANO-PARTICLES of starting materials, first you have to scientifically disprove Avogadro law regarding the number of molecules contained in one gram mol of any substance.

You will have to explain where from this unending supply of these nanoparticles come even after diluting millions of times! Can potentization duplicate particles, or generate new ones?

To a rationally thinking person, it is obvious that the starting material will exhaust once the dilution crosses avogadro limit, and if ‘nanoparticles’ are still ‘filled’ in higher dilutions, either the dilutions were not genuine, or it has nothing to do with ‘starting materials’.

————————————————————————————

I am inviting your attention to an article published in Times Of India regarding a recent ‘nanotechnology study’ of homeopathic ultra-dilutions.

See how the study was done as explained in the article:

“The medicines prepared by plant sources and organic substances were studied in the lab, and nano particles of vegetable charcoal were found in the tested homeopathy medicines.”

“The highly diluted form of homeopathy medicine used as pain relief was put on silicon vapour and left for drying for a day”.

“nano particles of vegetable charcoal were found in the medicines we tested,”

When ethyl alcohol (as potentized drugs) is put on silicone vapor and left in the open air, ethyl alcohol molecules get adsorbed into the silicone matrix. When this silicone vapor is subjected to spectrometric studies, we can detect the presence of carbon atoms being part of alcohol meolecules entrapped in it. Observation of presence of ‘carbon particles’ or ‘vegetable charcoal’ is a natural outcome of this process. It has nothing to do with any ‘scientific proving’ of homeopathy.

The carbon particles our ‘researchers’ detected by this experiment actually belong to the ethyl alcohol, not the ‘starting materials’ of potentized drugs.

This ‘study’ is a classical example of what happens when people ignorant in basics of scientific processes and methods engage in ‘researches’, which lead to strange interpretations and conclusions.

SEE THE TIMES OF INDIA REPORT:

“BENGALURU: For all those who think homeopathy is just placebo, here is new research that debunks that and upholds the effectiveness of the branch of medicine. The study reveals that homeopathy medicine contains nano particles of the resource medicine even in its highest diluted form. The two-year research was done by homeopathy practitioner Dr ES Rajendran, director of Vinayaka Mission Homoeopathic Medical College at the nanotechnology lab in IISc, Bengaluru. The medicines prepared by plant sources and organic substances were studied in the lab, and nano particles of vegetable charcoal were found in the tested homeopathy medicines. “This is a breakthrough and may open up vistas for advanced research in homeopathy. The study will be presented at the upcoming world homeopathy summit in Mumbai,” said Rajendran at an event organized by the Global Homoeopathy Foundation on Thursday.

How was the study done?

The highly diluted form of homeopathy medicine used as pain relief was put on silicon vapour and left for drying for a day. “I began the study in 2013. It has been a thrilling journey, especially when nano particles of vegetable charcoal were found in the medicines we tested,” Rajendran said. QUOTE It’s nanomedicine

Though homeopathy has cured innumerable patients around the world, the mode of action of the drug and the question about the content in high dilutions sealed its growth and development all along. This was one of the most difficult questions that homeopaths around the world faced. This study will settle controversies about the nature of drug material used in homeopathy drugs. Homeopathy may as well be considered a nanomedicine.

(Dr Sreevals G Menon, managing trustee of Global Homeopathy Foundation.)”

————————————————————————————

Detection of nanoparticles in homeopathic drugs is of any value as a ‘scientific proof’ for homeopathy, only if you could explain the biological mechanism by which those ‘nanoparticles’ act as therapeutic agents, and such an explanation should be fitting to the existing modern scientific concepts as well as ‘similia similibus curentur’.

————————————————————————————-

Detection of nanoparticles in homeopathic drugs is of any value as a ‘scientific proof’ for homeopathy, only if you could filter out and remove those ‘nanoparticles’ from your samples and prove that the remaining ’empty’ liquid is devoid of therapeutic properties when used as similimum.

———————————————————————————–

You take some plain water and ethyl alcohol (similar to the vehicles used for preparing potentized drugs) and repeat the same ‘nanotechnology’ experiments. You can detect some ‘nanoparticles’ in those samples also.

————————————————————————————

Detection of nanoparticles in homeopathic drugs is of any value for scientific interpretation, only if you could scientifically first disprove avogadro law regarding the number of molecules contained in one gram mol of any substance, since you claim that the ultra dilutions are ‘filled with’ nanoparticles of starting materials. You will have to explain where from this unending supply of these nanoparticles come even after diluting millions of times! To a rationally thinking person, starting material will exhaust once the dilution crosses avogadro limit, and if ‘nanoparticles’ are still ‘filled’ in higher dilutions, it will be due to contamination of the solvents, or due to the claimed dilutions not being done genuinely.

———————————————————————————–

Yes, I am “frustrated”. I am frustrated to see the homeopathic community getting fooled by fame-seeking and business-motivated ‘researchers’ who claim to have detected ‘nanoparticles’ of silica, carbon and metallic elements in samples of potentized homeopathic drugs. I am frustrated because, this ‘detection of nanoparticles’ is going to be utilized for framing an undefendable ‘nanotoxicity case’ against homeopathy in very near future, and enemies of homeopathy are going to celebrate it. I am frustrated with the dangerous inertia, shortsightedness and lack of scientific outlook of a major section of homeopathic community, especially its ‘leaders’ and ‘spokespersons’.

————————————————————————————

Some homeopaths say my ‘criticisms’ about ‘nanoparticle research’ arises from my ‘jealousy’ and ‘frustration’. They never address the real points and hard questions I raise, but conveniently ignore them.

I am ‘criticizing’ any ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ that I think are unscientific and irrational. I do it by logically discussing the specific points involved the subjects. I cannot avoid doing it, as I am involved in evolving a scientific understanding of homeopathy. I consider it as my duty. Whether it be ‘nanoparticle’, ‘hair transmission’, ‘dynamic energy’, ‘vital force’, ‘digital biology’, ‘radionics’, ‘reflexology’ or any other pseudoscientific theory, I will consistently expose them by raising rational questions from a scientific angle. If anybody think I am wrong, answer the QUESTIONS I raise and discuss the specific POINTS. If you cannot do it, kindly keep away from me, without researching about my ‘miasms’, ‘frustrations’, ‘jealousy’ and ‘psychology’.

———————————————————————————–

One ‘homeopathic researcher’ claims “medicines prepared by plant sources and organic substances were studied in the lab, and nanoparticles of vegetable charcoal were found in the tested homeopathy medicines.”

According to him, his research has proved the ‘scientific basis of homeopathy”! We have to believe “nanoparticles of vegetable charcoal” are the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of “Medicines prepared by plant sources and organic substances “. Does detection of some “particles” in a drug sample prove it is the active principle of that drug? Can anybody say, a few traces of ‘nanoparticles of vegetable charcoal’ can represent the medicinal properties of ‘vegetable and organic drugs’, which are actually due to the structural and chemical properties of highly complex molecules contained in those drugs? What does it mean? Does they mean, all ‘vegetable and organic drugs’ are equivalent to CARBO VEG?

————————————————————————————–

A post by Dr Shanthakumar on my page:

The following words on MIT are from a allopath who is interestingly studying Homoeopathy from eastern Europe there are many more with this view.

‘Well, Shantha, I think all, that you have sent me is quite deep, reasonable and is accompanied by a good base of medical data. It is all about the shift of Homeopathy – it needs to be transformed into a Medical Evidence-based science, which deserves its place among the other branches of Medicine. Certainly, all the prominent and clever classical homeopaths around the world are going to stick to gather and give all, that they can afford for this transformation.”

————————————————————————————

I would like to invite the attention of homeopathic community to following two separate reports now being widely circulated on various homeopathic groups. Both reports are about a research conducted by Dr E S Rajendran, in which he could detect “nanoparticles” in ‘ultra high’ homeopathic dilutions. According to both reports, he is going to present his invention in Global Homeopathic Summit to be conducted in Mumbai on April 10.

Kindly watch both reports carefully. In first report, it is claimed that the study was done by Dr Rajendran at IISC lab in Bangaluru. In the second report in malayalam, it is claimed that Dr Rajendran conducted the study at NanoScience Lab of MG University in Kerala. Both press conferences were presided over by Dr Sreevals Menon of GHF.

————————————————————————————

The question whether potentized drugs interact with biological molecules in a way different from their parent drugs is very important in the scientific understanding of molecular processes involved in homeopathic potentization and therapeutics.

There are many homeopaths who believe that during potentization, the medicinal properties of drugs are some way or other transferred to the potentizing medium, and hence potentized medicines can interact with human organism in the SAME way as the original drugs.

On the contrary, MIT proposes that potentization involves a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, in which the spacial configuration of drug molecules are imprinted into the medium as 3-D nano cavities, which can act as recognition sites towards original drug molecules or other molecules similar in configuration.

As per this view, potentized medicines contain only ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules, which are complementary in configuration to the drug molecules. When applied for therapeutic purpose, these molecular imprints bind to the pathogenic molecules, and not to the biological targets.

In order to prove this concept, we have to experimentally prove that potentized medicines can not interact with biological molecules in the same way as original drug molecules used for potentization.

Here I am reproducing a previously published report regarding such an experiment already conducted by a team of eminent scientists in Germany five years back. It is published in “The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. May 2006, 12(4): 359-365. doi:10.1089/acm.2006.12.359”

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2006.12.359

The team conducted this experiment to verify whether potentized HgCl2 (Mercurius corrosivus) affect the activity of Diastase and α-Amylase in a way similar to crude form of HgCl2.

Research team consisted of: 1. Claudia M. Witt, M.D. Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany. 2. Michael Bluth, M.D. Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany. 3. Stephan Hinderlich, Ph.D. Institute for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany. 4. Henning Albrecht, Ph.D. Karl and Veronica Carstens-Foundation, Essen, Germany. 5. Rainer Lüdtke, M.Sc. Karl and Veronica Carstens-Foundation, Essen, Germany. 6. Thorolf E.R. Weisshuhn Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany. 7. Stefan N. Willich, M.D., M.P.H. Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany.

Their objective was to test for a stimulating or inhibiting effect of high potencies of the homeopathic remedy HgCl2 (Mercurius corrosivus) on two sugar hydrolases- (α-amylase from hog pancreas and diastase extract from winter barley)

High potencies of HgCl2 were produced using stepwise dilution plus shaking. Controls included potentized solvent (aqua bidestillata), equimolar dilutions without shaking, and enzyme-free references. Tested were potencies with dilution factors 1:200 (CC) on diastase extract from winter barley, and 1:100 (C) on α-amylase from hog pancreas. Enzyme activity was colorimetrically determined by Lugol’s iodine-starch reaction.

An inhibiting effect of HgCl2 on enzyme activities was observed only in low potencies and dilutions (which contained molecules of HgCl2). Statistically significant differences between potencies and controls were not found in randomized and blinded experiments.

This experimental design provided independent reproducible results of cell-free in vitro assays.However, it did not indicate an effect of potentized HgCl2 on hydrolases. The researchers conclusion was that demonstrating potency effects may require additional experimental features.

MY INTERPRETATIONS:

Reported experiments and the results they obtained may help us in designing and conducting further in vitro experiments to prove the hypothesis put forward by MIT regarding potentization.

HgCl2 is known in homeopathy as Merc Cor.

Crude HgCl2 is a known inhibitor of glucose hydrolases such as diastase and α-amylase.

Reported experiments show that similar to crude forms, lower dilutions of this compound also inhibits the hydrolyzing activity of those sugar hydrolase enzymes. Obviously, these lower dilutions contain molecules of HgCl2, and hence the inhibitory action on enzymes.

Same time, these experiments clearly showed that higher potencies of HgCl2 have no inhibitory action on those enzymes. That means, highly potentized HgCl2 cannot ‘mimic’ the original compound as expected by some theoreticians.

This finding, though considered by the researchers as a set back to their expectations, has serious implications in proving the concepts of MIT regarding potentization.

This experiment proves that through the potentization process, the properties of original drugs are not transferred to the potenizing medium in such a way so as to enable it to ‘mimic’ the original drugs.

We homeopaths know beyond any doubt that potentized HgCl2 or Merc Cor produces expected therapeutic effects when administered on the basis of principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’. That means, potentized HgCl2 contains some active principles having specific biochemical properties. Since the present experiments have shown that potentized HgCl2 cannot ‘mimic’ the biochemical properties of original compound, a logical and scientific explanation regarding the real molecular mechanism involved in potentization as well as therapeutic action becomes very much necessary.

Only possibility is ‘molecular imprinting’, as proposed by MIT. Only ‘molecular imprints’ can act in accordance with ‘similia similibus curentur’, which means, potentized forms of drugs can cure diseases which are similar to the conditions produced by their crude forms.

Now, we have to repeat these in vitro experiment to verify whether higher potencies of HgCl2 can reactivate the enzymes already inhibited by lower potencies or crude forms of the same compound.

————————————————————————————-

Explanations of potentization in terms of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING as proposed by MIT implies a supramolecular rearrangement of potentizing medium, resulting in the formation of nanostrutures called as molecular imprints. Obviously, any study that indicates such a supramolecular rearrangement of potentizing medium could be considered as a strong evidence to endorse MIT concepts.

Tanmoy Maity (Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, Jharkhand 826004, India), D. Ghosh & C.R. Mahata (Department of Electrical Engineering, Bengal Engineering and Science University, Shibpur, Howrah 711103, West Bengal, India) has published a research paper regarding Effect of dielectric dispersion on potentised homeopathic medicines, which I think is of immense implications in our understanding of active principles of our drugs as ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’.

This report is available on http://www.sciencedirect.com/…/article/pii/S1475491609001258

This paper reports dielectric dispersion occurring in potentised homeopathic medicines subjected to variable frequency electric field using an instrumentation method developed by the authors. Oscillations occur in the direction of electric field, and are usually termed longitudinal/acoustic-mode vibrations.

The test material was lactose soaked with homeopathic medicine. Multiple resonance frequencies, forming a frequency-set, were observed repeatedly for each medicine.

The team reports experimental results for three potencies of Cuprum metallicum (Cuprum met) in the frequency range of 100 kHz–1 MHz. Each exhibits a set of resonance frequencies, which may be termed as its characteristic set. As the frequency-set of each medicine is different from those of others, each medicine may, therefore, be identified by its characteristic frequency-set. This suggests that potentised homeopathic medicines, which are chemically identical with the vehicle, differ from one another in the arrangement of vehicle molecules.

According to them, these “experiments show that potentised homeopathic medicines, which are chemically identical with the vehicle, differ from one another in the arrangement of vehicle molecules”.

“Difference in arrangement of vehicle molecules” strongly indicates the presence of “supra-molecular clusters of water and ethyl alcohol, into which the three-dimensional configuration of drug molecules are imprinted as nanocavities” as proposed by the hypotheses proposed by MIT.

The observation that “the resonance frequencies frequency-set of each medicine is different from those of others” strongly indicates clusters of water-ethyl alcohol molecules specifically rearranged in accordance with the shapes of constituent molecules of drug substance used for potentization.

Such a re-arrangement of vehicle molecules strongly indicates the process of ‘molecular imprinting’ happening during homeopathic potentization. Present work discussed above is a decisive step in the scientific understanding of homeopathy.

———————————————————————————–

One of the questions listed to be proved as part of scientific validation of MIT concepts was, whether potentized drugs, devoid of any original drug molecules, differ from untreated diluent medium in its molecular level structure. If MIT is right, they should differ, since ‘molecular imprinting’ is envisaged as formation of hydrogen-bonded supra-molecular nano-structures of water-ethyl alcohol molecules.

An elaborate study conducted by a research group, even though without any idea of molecular imprinting involved in potentization, rightly observes that the homeopathic potencies and their original diluent medium differ from each other with respect to the number of H-bonded water species and their H-bonding strengths. I think this study contributes much in proving MIT concepts right.

Even though the authors could not understand the real process of “MOLECULAR IMPRINTING” involved in the phenomenon, their observation amply proves that the supra-molecular structure of potentized medicines differs from ethyl alcohol/water mixture, even though their chemical composition remained the same. That means, through the process of potentization, supra-molecular structure of ethyl alcohol/water mixture has undergone fundamental changes. Obviously, it is through these structural changes that the medicinal properties of drug molecules are transferred to the diluent medium.

This difference in the structure of potentized medicines from their original medium, the specificity of medicinal properties exhibited by potentized medicines, and the fact that potentized medicines exhibit medicinal properties just opposite to that of parent drugs can be satisfactorily explained only on the basis of “molecular imprinting’ as proposed by MIT.

This remarkable study regarding the variation in Fourier Transform Infrared Spectra of some homeopathic potencies and their diluent media, conducted by N.C.SUKUL, Ph.D., SUDESHNA GHOSH, M.Sc., A. SUKUL, Ph.D., and S.P. SINHABABU, Ph.D. It is published in THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, Volume 11, Number 5, 2005, pp. 807–812. The report is available at this link:http://www.homeopathy.org/research/basic/acm-2005-11_11.pdf

Published report reads as follows: “The aim of this study was to determine whether potentized homeopathic drugs and their diluent media differ from each other with respect to their Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectra. FTIR spectra of Nux vomica 30C, Lycopodium 30C, Santonin 30C, Cina 30C, Cina 206C, Cina 1006C, and their diluent media (90% ethanol and Ethanol) 30C were obtained in the wave number range of 2000–1000 cm_1 at 20°C. Potassium bromide powder soaked with the potencies, pressed into pellets, and air dried were used to measure the spectra. Because water structures in homeopathic potencies are thought to carry specific information on drug molecules and because O-H bending vibrational band (v2) exclusively belongs to water, the study was restricted to the bands in that wave number region. Alcohol has no absorption in the O-H bending region.

The potencies were found to differ from each other and their diluent media in the number of v2 bands, their wave number (cm_1), shape, and half-width (cm_1) of the bands.

The number and other characteristics of the v2 band represent the number of hydrogen-bonded water species and their hydrogen-bonding strength, respectively. The potencies and their diluent media therefore differ from each other in the number of hydrogen-bonded water species and their hydrogen-bonding strength. The observation that KBr pellets soaked with a potentized drug retains its specific spectral absorption properties simply confirms that medicated sucrose globules, used in homeopathic dispensing, are capable of retaining the therapeutic properties of the drug.

Drugs are prepared and stored in aqueous ethanol. Sucrose globules soaked with liquid potencies retain therapeutic properties of the drugs for a long time. Water also serves as a good medium but it does not keep the properties of a potency for long. It has been suggested that water structures in a potentized drug are responsible for carrying the information of drug molecules or particles present in the mother tincture. Ethanol molecules are thought to promote or to preserve water structures characteristic of a potentized drug.1A basic quality of a hydrogen-bonded solvent such as water is the hydrogen bond strength.

Physicochemical properties of the water in aqueous alcohol mixtures have been studied widely by such techniques as X-ray or light scattering, dielectric relaxation, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging et cetera. Among these methods, infrared (IR) spectroscopy is one of the most promising for the study of the distribution of hydrogen- bonding strengths of the water molecules in the mixtures because of the short time scale of measurements. There are two kinds of fundamental vibrations for molecules: (1) stretching, in which the distance between two atoms increase or decrease but the atom remains in the same bond axis; and (2) bending, in which the position of the atom changes relative to the original bond axis. Infrared radiation causes vibrational excitation of the molecular framework of a compound. In aqueous alcohol O-H stretching vibrational bands of water (v1 and v3) overlap the alcoholic O-H band. For this the IR spectra in the stretching region are of no use for studying hydrogen bonds of the water molecules in water/alcohol mixtures. In the region of bending vibrational band of water (v2), alcohols have no absorption bands. The purpose of the present work is to study v2 bands through Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy in 90% ethanol, Ethanol 30C, and some potentized drugs such as Nux vomica 30C, Lycopodium 30C, Santonin 30C, Cina 30C, Cina 206C, and Cina 1006C prepared in 90% ethanol. Conventionally vibrations are labeled in decreasing frequency within their symmetry type. The symmetric vibrations of H2O are labeled v1 for the highest fully symmetric frequency (3651.7 cm_1) and v2 for the next highest (1595.0 cm_1).7 FTIR spectroscopy provides simultaneous and almost instantaneous recording of the whole spectrum in the infrared region while minimizing background noise.

Nux vomica 30C, Lycopodium 30C, Santonin 30C, and Cina 30C were prepared by successive dilution (1:100 v/v) with 90% ethanol followed by succussion in 30 steps from the respective mother tinctures in this laboratory.8 Cina 200C and Cina 1000C, purchased from M. Bhattacharyya and Co. (Calcutta, India), were further diluted (1:100) and succussed with 90% ethanol in 6 more steps to prepare Cina206C and Cina 1006C. All of these potencies have the same absorbance (3.135) at 255 nm, showing similar concentrations of ethanol (90%). The purpose was to replace the manufacturer’s aqueous ethanol in Cina 200C and Cina 1000C with the ethanol in this laboratory so that the diluent medium (90% ethanol) of all the test potencies would be of the same quality. Ethanol was obtained from Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Calcutta, India). Sterile deionized and double-distilled water was added to absolute ethanol to prepare 90% ethanol, which served as the diluent medium of all potenties as well as the control.

FTIR spectra were measured at 20°C by a Jasco FTIR spectrometer (Jasco, model 420, Japan). The wave number resolution was 4 cm_1. Spectra were obtained in the wave number range of 2000–1000 cm_1. Potassium bromide powder (_150 mg) was soaked with 90% ethanol (_0.15 mL) or any of the six potencies tested. The drug-soaked powder was mixed thoroughly with a mortar and pestle, spread in thin film (1 mm deep) in a petri dish, and allowed to dry at 30°C (50% humidity). The powder was then pressed into small equal-sized pellets. The KBr pellets, which simulate sucrose globules soaked with a potency, were exposed to IR radiation in the spectrometer. Five pellets were prepared for each drug or the diluent medium, and the IR spectra measured.

Data were analyzed by one way analysis of variance. Different potencies and their diluent media (90% ethanol, Ethanol 30C) differ significantly (p _ 0.01) from each other with respect to the positions of bands in the wave number regions, their half-widths, and their absorption intensities except the wave numbers. ……..

Because all KBr pellets were prepared under similar conditions, it is quite unlikely that they have different amounts of water in them. In earlier work the present authors observed a marked variation in O-H bending vibration among 90% ethanol, Nux vom 30C (unsuccussed), and Nux vom 30C succussed.5 The results of the present study show that potentized drugs differ from each other and also from their diluent medium, 90% ethanol, in the number of v2 bands. The number of observed v2 bands should provide the number of water species with different hydrogen-bonding strengths.6 There may be a few more water species than those actually observed by v2 bands in the spectra. According to Mizuno (personal communication, June 2003), IR spectroscopy has superior power in that different water species are distinctive from each other, but it is very difficult to resolve the curve into components. Mizuno further observed that there was no linearity in the absorption intensities of different bands. Thus different potentized drugs have different water species with different hydrogen-bonding strengths. The v2 bands have different half-widths in different potencies. The broadening of v2 bands has been attributed to the distribution of hydrogen-bonding strengths and vibrational coupling.6 The v2 band of pure water has an unusually broad width of 82 cm_1 at half-maximum. The v2 band is found to be narrower with an increase in the alcohol concentration. The narrowing of the v2 band is considered to be caused by the weakening of the vibrational coupling as a result of dilution by the alcohol. The concentration of ethanol was the same (90%) in all the potencies tested. The variation in the half-width of the v2 band may thus be caused by influence of original molecules at the start of the dilution process and also by succussion. Previously the present authors observed that succussion caused blue shift of the v2 in Nux vomica 30C.In each column of Table 1 the band of different drugs showed either a blue or red shift. Blue shifts represent the formation of stronger hydrogen bonds among water molecules. This has also been confirmed by 1H-NMR studies. It has long been known in clinical practice that sucrose globules soaked with a liquid potentized drug retain all the therapeutic properties of the drugs. FTIR spectra of KBr pellets soaked with potentized drugs simply confirm the long-standing clinical observation.

Cowan et al. demonstrated that the three-dimensional structure of liquid water loses its memory of molecular arrangement through the H-bond network in about 50 fs. The work was based on O-H stretching vibrations of pure H2O. Pure water is not comparable to a homeopathic potency that is prepared by successive dilution and succession from a mother tincture and preserved in 90% ethanol. Ethanol molecules with large nonpolar parts can preserve or promote water structures specific to a homeopathic potency. The efficacy of a homeopathic potency prepared in pure water is very short-lived. An electrostatic component is usually the dominant force contributing to H-bonding. Succussion or any mechanical agitation would therefore make the H-bonding stronger in a homeopathic potency. In ethanol solution the sequential H-bond dissociation and reassociation occur between the same OH groups. In water the broken bonds probably reform to give the same H-bond. Dissociation is a rare event occurring only twice a day, that is, once for every 1016 times the H-bond breaks. Thus clusters can persist for much longer times. The relative proportions of different polymers of water preserved by ethanol are at dynamic equilibria of specific geometric configurations. It is assumed that this dynamic geometric configuration of water clusters in a collective way confers specificity on a potentized homeopathic drug. The homeopathic potencies used in the present study were prepared in 90% ethanol and soaked in KBr pellets. Here water structures were preserved by ethanol and their random.

Based on the study findings several conclusions can be drawn. First, in the FTIR spectra of aqueous alcohol mixtures O-H bending vibrational bands (v2) exclusively belong to water. Nux vomica 30C, Lycopodium 30C, Santonin 30C, Cina 30C, Cina 206C, and Cina 1006C differ from each other and also from their diluent medium, 90% ethanol, in the number of v2 bands, their wave-number (cm_1), their shape, and half-width (cm_1) in the FTIR spectra. Second, the number of v2 bands and other parameters of the same represent, respectively, the number of hydrogen-bonded species of water and their hydrogen bonding strengths. Thus the potencies and their diluent medium differ from each other with respect to the number of H-bonded water species and their H-bonding strengths. Third, KBr pellets soaked with potentized drug, such as medicated sucrose globules used in homeopathic dispensing, retain specific spectral properties of the drugs concerned. Finally, homeopathic potencies can be differentiated from each other by FTIR spectra with respect to the O-H bending vibrational band.”

————————————————————————————

Actually, the essence of Similia Similibus Curentur is all about the peculiar OPPOSITE relationship between crude drugs and their potentized forms- former ‘produces’ disease, and latter ‘cures’ the disease.

Only MIT has scientifically explained this OPPOSITE actions of crude drugs and their potentized forms.

Most of the current ‘theories’ homeopaths maintain that medicinal properties of crude drugs are just ‘transferred’ to the medium during potentization. What ever they call it, – ‘vibrations’, ‘electromagnetic signals’, ‘medicinal memory’, ‘dynamic power’, NANOPARTICLES’ or anything else, the basic idea is that potentized drugs can MIMIC the properties of original drugs. Everybody- from Benveniste and Montaigner to IIT-B scientists were trying to explain homeopathy with this “mimic” theory. Only MIT says potentized drugs act not as ‘mimics’, but as ‘antidotes’ or ‘artificial binding sites’ for original drugs as well as pathogenic molecules SIMILAR to them.

If potentized medicines were really ‘mimicking’ the medicinal properties of parent drugs, they should be able to produce biological effects exactly similar to original drugs. On the other hand, if potentized drugs are experimentally proved to be ANTIDOTES to original drugs, it will strongly vindicate MIT concept of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING involved in homeopathic potentization. If the concept of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING is right, potentized drug should act not as MIMICS of original drugs, but as OPPOSITES of original drugs.

It is obvious that the question whether potentized medicines can antidote the biological effects of parent drugs is of paramount importance in validating MOLECULAR IMPRINTS concept. According to the hypothesis put forward by MIT, potentized medicines contains ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent molecules of parent drugs. As such, these molecular imprints can act as artificial recognition sites for parent molecules, and bind to them, thereby preventing them from interacting with biological targets.

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

STUDY I:

Here I am reproducing research report regarding such a successful experiment published in 2001.

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

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

Through these experiments, the team could prove that both Cad Sulph-30 and 200 were able to combat cadmium induced genotoxic effects in mice. From the results of the reported investigation it is revealed that both Cad Sulph-30 and Cad Sulph-200 showed remarkable potential to reduce genotoxic effects produced by CdCl2. In the study the homeopathic drug apparently enhanced/activated the process of maintaining the structural integrity of chromosomes and sperm either protecting them from the destructive ability of CdCl2 in causing DNA damage or else, by enhancing the process of repair of DNA already damaged by activating specific enzyme systems to repair the damage. Even in the absence of a single original drug molecule both Cad Sulph-30 and 200 elicited spectacular ability of protection/repair to damaged chromosomes and sperm, a fact which would lead one to speculate that the drugs must have acted through the genetic regulatory mechanisms.

STUDY II:

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

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

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

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

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

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

INDIRECTLY, THESE STUDIES STRONGLY SUPPORT IN PROVING THE “MOLECULAR IMPRINTING” HYPOTHESIS PROPOSED BY MIT REGARDING MOLECULAR MECHANISM OF POTENTIZATION AND HOMEOPATHIC THERAPEUTICS.

—————————————————————————————

One homeopath posted on my wall:

“I support “NANO particle theory”…..i cant understand your “molecular imprint theory”….

I liked that statement, as it is a genuine and humble admission of his failure in understanding MIT. He represents a major section of homeopaths who earnestly try to update their knowledge. I am sure, he will surely change his “support” once he understands “molecular imprint theory”.

———————————————————————————

If any body could detect nanoparticles of metallic elements in samples of high potency homeopathic drugs, it only proves either the samples used for experiments were not genuine ‘ultra dilutions’ as mentioned on the labels, or, the water and alcohol used for potentization were contaminated. NOTHING ELSE.

————————————————————————————-

Some friends believe “homeopathy has become scientific” by the “detection of traces of nanoparticles of metallic elements” in the upper layers of ultra dilutions”.

In order to prove homeopathy is scientific, we have to prove what are the ‘active principles’ of potentized drugs. If anybody ‘detected’ nanoparticles, they have to PROVE those nanoparticles are the active principles. That could be done by filtering out and removing the nanoparticles from homeopathic drugs, and experimentally proving that the remaining liquid ‘devoid’ of nanoparticles are therapeutically ineffective. Further more, they have to prove that these nanoparticles are present not only in “upper layers”, but in each and every minute fraction of our drugs, as we use not only the “upper layers”, but even the last drop as medicines.

————————————————————————————

We were using ARS ALB 30 in high dilutions even in infants, with the conviction that dilutions above avogadro limit will not contain any remains of original drug substance. That is why homeopathy was accepted as a SAFE medicine. Now, in their eagerness to become famous as ‘scientists’, our ‘homeopathic researchers’ are making theories to prove that potentized ARS ALB will contain ARSENIC NANOPARTICLES! And our ‘science-starved’ homeopath friends are celebrating these ‘researches’ as great achievements for homeopathy, saying that ‘detection of nanoparticles’ has ‘debunked’ the ‘placebo’ allegations against homeopathy! Actually, the ‘nanoparticle theory’ is debunking our claims about the ‘safety’ of homeopathy.

Are they working FOR homeopathy, or AGAINST homeopathy?

If potentized ARS ALB contains nanoparticles in quantities sufficient to produce a curative biological action, how can you say it will not initiate harmful processes also?

SEE HOW EVEN TRACES OF ARSENIC DAMAGES LIVING ORGANISM:

“Arsenic interferes with cellular longevity by allosteric inhibition of an essential metabolic enzyme pyruvate dehydrogenase (PDH) complex, which catalyzes the oxidation of pyruvate to acetyl-CoA by NAD+. With the enzyme inhibited, the energy system of the cell is disrupted resulting in a cellular apoptosis episode. Biochemically, arsenic prevents use of thiamine resulting in a clinical picture resembling thiamine deficiency. Poisoning with arsenic can raise lactate levels and lead to lactic acidosis. Low potassium levels in the cells increases the risk of experiencing a life-threatening heart rhythm problem from arsenic trioxide.[citation needed] Arsenic in cells clearly stimulates the production of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). When the H2O2 reacts with certain metals such as iron or manganese it produces a highly reactive hydroxyl radical. Inorganic arsenic trioxide found in ground water particularly affects voltage-gated potassium channels, disrupting cellular electrolytic function resulting in neurological disturbances, cardiovascular episodes such as prolonged QT interval, neutropenia, high blood pressure, central nervous system dysfunction, anemia, and death.

Arsenic exposure plays a key role in the pathogenesis of vascular endothelial dysfunction as it inactivates endothelial nitric oxide synthase, leading to reduction in the generation and bioavailability of nitric oxide. In addition, the chronic arsenic exposure induces high oxidative stress, which may affect the structure and function of cardiovascular system. Further, the arsenic exposure has been noted to induce atherosclerosis by increasing the platelet aggregation and reducing fibrinolysis. Moreover, arsenic exposure may cause arrhythmia by increasing the QT interval and accelerating the cellular calcium overload. The chronic exposure to arsenic upregulates the expression of tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-1, vascular cell adhesion molecule and vascular endothelial growth factor to induce cardiovascular pathogenesis.

Tissue culture studies have shown that arsenic compounds block both IKr and Iks channels and, at the same time, activates IK-ATP channels. Arsenic compounds also disrupt ATP production through several mechanisms. At the level of the citric acid cycle, arsenic inhibits pyruvate dehydrogenase and by competing with phosphate it uncouples oxidative phosphorylation, thus inhibiting energy-linked reduction of NAD+, mitochondrial respiration, and ATP synthesis. Hydrogen peroxide production is also increased, which might form reactive oxygen species and oxidative stress. These metabolic interferences lead to death from multi-system organ failure, probably from necrotic cell death, not apoptosis.”

I mean to say potencies above 12c will not contain any particles of original substance. I mean to say, active principles of drugs potentized above avogadro limit are ‘molecular imprints’, which act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules. Molecular Imprints cannot interfere in the interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands, and hence they cannot produce any harmful effect in our body. Homeopathic drugs above 12c are hundred percent safe, if potentization is genuinely done.

Dear homeopaths, are you aware, by arguing that you have ‘proved’ that potentized drugs contain nanoparticles of starting materials, you are actually framing a case against homeopathy, since it raises the serious questions of nanotoxicity?
If potentized ars alb contains nanoparticles of arsenic, potentized plumbum met contains nanoparticles of lead, or potentized uranium and radium contains nanoparticles of uranium and radium, it becomes a defenseless case against homeopathy, which will obviously prompt law makers to initiate stringent regulations.
Do you remember, we were so far vouching about the ‘safety’ of potentized drugs, arguing that they do not contain even a single particle of starting material?

I mean to say ‘nanoparticle theory’ is wrong. I mean to say ‘nanoparticle theory’ is harmful for homeopathy. It will give new weapons to the enemies to attack homeopathy.

————————————————————————————-

Dear homeopaths, are you aware, by arguing that you have ‘proved’ that potentized drugs contain nanoparticles of starting materials, you are actually framing a case against homeopathy, since it raises the serious questions of nanotoxicity?

If potentized ars alb contains nanoparticles of arsenic, potentized plumbum met contains nanoparticles of lead, or potentized uranium and radium contains nanoparticles of uranium and radium, it becomes a defenseless case against homeopathy, which will obviously prompt law makers to initiate stringent regulations.

Do you remember, we were so far vouching about the ‘safety’ of potentized drugs, arguing that they do not contain even a single particle of starting material?

————————————————————————————-

Even if you could detect some ‘traces of nanoparticles’ in the samples of ‘homeopathic ultra dilutions’, you have to answer the following questions before declaring that you have ‘proved homeopathy’ and ‘debunked the allegations against homeopathy’:

1. Did you prepare the ‘ultra-dilutions’ under your direct personal supervision, in order to ensure that the samples you used were genuinely ‘ultra’?

2. Are you aware of the fact that the ‘market samples’ of ‘high potencies’ are not reliable for research purposes, as most manufacturers sell very low potencies with the label of ‘ultra high’ potencies due to their profit motives?

3. Did you use plain mixtures of water ethyl alcohol as controls, as it is common knowledge that any sample of water and alcohol may contain ‘nanoparticles’ of elements and other natural contaminants? Are you aware, you can detect some ‘traces’ of nanoparticles in any sample of alcohol or water when examined under ‘Field Emission Scanning Microscope’ or ‘Energy Dispersive Spectrometry’, even without any potentization?

4. Did you filter out and remove the detected nanoparticles from the samples after your experiments, and verify whether the remaining ’empty’ water-alcohol mixtures have no any therapeutic properties when applied as similimum?

5. Did you filter out the detected ‘nanoparticles’ from your samples after experiments, and use those ‘nanoparticles’ as similimum in the patients to ensure that those ‘nanoparticles’ are the real active principles of ‘ultra high dilutions’? It is very important to prove that those ‘nanoparticles’ are the real active principles of potentized drugs.

6. Did you think about the molecular level biological mechanism by which these nanoparticles said to be present actually act up on the human organism and produce a therapeutic effect? Did you explain anything regarding the BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM by which the ‘nanoparticles’ produce the therapeutic effects according to ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’?

7. Are you aware of the fact that ‘nanoparticles’ of ‘metallic elements’ cannot represent the biological and therapeutic properties of complex drug substances used as drugs, as such properties arise from the complex structures and chemical properties of constituent drug molecules?

8. Did you ever think how the ‘traces of nanoparticles floating in upper layers’ of ultra dilutions could be present in each and drops of our drugs, as we know from experiences that not only the ‘upper layers’ but even the last drop is therapeutically effective?

9. Are you aware, by arguing that you have ‘proved’ potentized drugs contain nanoparticles of starting materials, you are actually framing a case against homeopathy, since it raises the serious questions of nanotoxicity? If potentized ars alb contains nanoparticles of arsenic, potentized plumbum met contains nanoparticles of lead, or potentized uranium and radium contains nanoparticles of uranium and radium, it becomes a case against homeopathy. Do you remember, we were so far vouching about the ‘safety’ of potentized drugs, arguing that they do not contain even a single particle of starting material?

Kindly consider these questions with a rational and scientific mindset. Please understand, if you cannot provide a scientifically viable explanation for the BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM of homeopathic cure in a way fitting to the concept of Similia Similibus Curentur, your ‘detection’ of some ‘traces of nanoparticles’ in the ‘market samples’ of homeopathic drugs does not contribute anything in the scientific validation or ‘prooving’ of homeopathy.

————————————————————————————–

Once you understand and accept the scientific approach towards homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, instantly you start experiencing the self-confidence it provides, the great empowerment and transformation it brings to your over-all outlook and practice as a homeopath.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, and practice it accordingly, you will realize that your whole erstwhile perceptions of homeopathy is undergoing a wonderful change- your methods, targets and approaches changing radically. You will realize that you are no more a ‘healer’ practicing a ‘belief healing system’, but a proud scientific medical professional, capable of understanding and scientifically explaining your tools and principles to anybody. Your language becomes scientific, your thoughts become rational and your explanations becomes logical and convincing. You will no more have to talk about miracles, wonders, riddles and mysteries of homeopathy. Experience this change yourselves!

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you would realize that any individual patient coming to you will have diverse types of molecular errors in him, caused by diverse types of endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules, and as such, diverse types of molecular imprints will be required to remove all these multitudes of molecular inhibitions to effect a complete cure. In most cases, all these diverse molecular imprints required for the patient will not be available in a ‘single’ drug, and hence, we will have to select more than one drug according to similarity of symptom groups, and apply them simultaneously, alternatingly or serially as decided by the physician. In my opinion, there is no harm even if they are applied together.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, all your confusions over ‘miasms’ could be resolved by perceiving miasms as chronic disease dispositions caused by the off-target actions of antibodies generated against exogenous or endogenous proteins including infectious agents. It would help you in scientifically understanding and treating various types of chronic diseases including auto immune diseases

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that concepts such as ‘internal essence of drug substance’, ‘dynamic drug energy’, ‘drug personality’ etc are all scientifically baseless, and that the medicinal property of drug substance is decided by the structure and properties of constituent molecules, where as the medicinal properties of potentized drugs are decided by the 3-d configuration of molecular imprints they contain.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that when applied as similimum, potentized drug does not act as a ‘whole’ unit, but it is the individual constituent ‘molecular imprints’ that independently bind to the pathogenic molecules having configurational affinity, remove pathological molecular inhibitions and cure the disease. You will realize that you need not worry over single/multiple drugs issue any more.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that during ‘drug proving’, drug substance does not act as a ‘whole’ unit, but it is the individual constituent drug molecules that independently act up on the biological molecules, cause molecular inhibitions and produce symptoms.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that since molecular imprints do not interact each other, and since they act as individual units when applied as therapeutic agents, there cannot by any harm even if we mix two or more potentized drugs together, or prescribe them simultaneously- they will work.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that even so-called ‘single drugs’ are not really single, but combinations of diverse types of independent ‘molecular imprints’, representing diverse types of drug molecules, acting as independent units upon pathogenic molecules having configurational affinity and removing molecular inhibitions

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that ‘molecular imprints’ forms of drugs cannot interact each other, and as such, one cannot antidote another, or act inimical to each other.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that there is no chance of so-called aggravations, suppressions, provings or any other harm even if ‘wrong’ drug, ‘wrong’ potency or ‘untimely repetitions are used, if you are using only ‘molecular imprints’ forms of drugs.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you realize that selecting drug, potency, dose and follow up and getting cure are not a so much complex thing as we are made to believe.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics,you realize no more ‘riddles and mysteries’ remain in homeopathy that could not be explained.

Only Molecular Imprints Therapeutics provides a sound explanation of homeopathy, fitting well to modern science and our every day experiences.

———————————————————————————-

Responding to one of my facebook posts, one senior homeopath says that I am an “arrogant” and “haughty” person with “little knowledge”.

I am aware of the “littleness” of my knowledge. I am not a ‘learned’ person. I am not an academician, scientist or scholar. Not even a professional homeopath. I am only a lay man with very “little knowledge”.

I am of course proud of what ever ‘little’ knowledge I have, since I am very much sure that my knowledge is in the right direction.. I am proud that I have a rational and scientific world outlook that enables me to approach any subject with a scientific perspective. I am proud that I am persistently trying to update and enhance my knowledge. I never compromise with ‘theories’ and ‘practices’ that are obviously unscientific and superstitious, and hence some people will think that I am ‘arrogant’ and ‘haughty’.

————————————————————————————

I know homeopaths “are giving relief/curing to numerous sick souls with this science called homeopathy”. I have no any doubt on that. I have been witnessing thousands of such cures for the last 40+ years. But I do not think such cures are ‘proofs’ for the correctness of the unscientific theories of vital force and dynamic energy I call “garbage” and ask to discard. Such cures are the proofs for only the correctness of the concept of potentization and similia similibus curentur, which I call the “kernel” of homeopathy, and try to explain scientifically using MIT concepts..

————————————————————————————

Now it is an easy job for any fame-seeking homeopath to come into the limelight as a ‘scientist’ or ‘researcher’, and ‘publish a paper’ for ‘debunking the allegations against homeopathy’, by merely spending Rs 5000! IIT-Bombay and IISc Bangalore is leasing out their research facilities to anybody who want to use their ‘nanotechnology’ research lab.

Do as follows: Go to IISC with some samples of homeopathic ‘ultra dilution’ purchased from the ‘market’. Pay Rs 5000 to the lab. The scientists and technicians in the lab will do the rest for you. They will find out the presence of some ‘traces of nanoparticles’ in the samples of ‘ultra dilutions’ you provided. They will explain you how it was done using modern technologies such as ‘Field Emission Scanning Microscope’ or ‘Energy Dispersive Spectrometry’. Finished!

———————————————————————————-

Almost 90% of all the homeopathic ‘philosophical’ literature available to us is ridiculously unscientific and irrational.

Only things that are scientifically valid and worthy of serious consideration in homeopathy are ‘molecular imprinting’ involved in potentization, and ‘biological mechanism of cure’ involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’. These two ‘principles’ constitute the most valuable inner kernel of homeopathy.

Everything else are relevant only as mere historical pieces.

————————————————————————————-

Through MIT, I am actually trying to retrieve the ‘scientific essence’ of homeopathy lying hidden in its voluminous unscientific theoretical ‘system’. It is a very difficult and tiresome task, exactly similar to retrieving a GOLD COIN lying hidden under a large heap of nasty garbage that is furiously ‘protected’ by battalions of poisonous flies roaming around!

————————————————————————————-

Some homeopaths use the term “unprejudiced’ as a convenient way of defending their unscientific theories and practices they believe to be homeopathy..

Whenever anybody questions any of the the unscientific things taught as homeopathy, they will say, our master has advised us to be “unprejudiced”, and hence there is nothing wrong in “investigating” and “experimenting” with hair transmission, radionics machines, reflexology, phototransmission, mp3 remedies and all such nonsenses.

“BE UNPREJUDICED” is the greatest self-defense of all occult practitioners.

DID HAHNEMANN ACTUALLY ADVICE HOMEOPATHS TO BE ‘UNPREJUDICED’ TO EVERY NONSENSE?

See Organon : Aphorism 6 : Sixth Edition, in which he uses the term “unprejudiced observer”:

“The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease”.

What does it mean? Does it mean a homeopath should be unprejudiced about allopathy? Does it mean he should be unprejudiced about similia principle? Does it mean he should be unprjudiced about proven principles of science? Does it mean he should unprejudiced about each and every nonsense ideas? Does it mean homeopaths should be OPEN-MINDED to every unscientific ideas people propagate?

If you read that aphorism carefully, you will realize that hahnemann was actually advising the homeopaths “not to make speculations about diseases” based on previous experiences of similar cases, but to “notice only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician”, that “these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease”. By this advice, hahnemann oonly wanted to say, homeopaths should not make prescriptions on the basis of conclusions drawn from “previous experience of similar cases”, but only by selecting a similimum using the “totality of symptoms” presented by each individual patient.

Hahnemann actually asks homeopaths to be UNPREJUDICED in their approach to diseases. He ONLY means, symptoms or “perceptible signs that represent the disease in its whole extent” should be used as the sole guide in selecting the similimum.

HOW CAN YOU USE THE TERM ‘UNPREJUDICED’ ALIENATED FROM THE ACTUAL CONTEXT IN WHICH HAHNEMANN USED IT? YOU ARE MISINTERPRETING AND MISREPRESENTING OUR MASTER’S ADVICE FOR YOUR ULTERIOR MOTIVES.

——————————————————————————–

I do not think all ‘prejudices’ are wrong, if they are arising from knowledge of a well-informed person. Only an empty-headed idiot can be 100% “unprejudiced”.

We observe and interpret anything new in the light of our previously acquired knowledge and life experience, and hence, all of us are bound to be more or less “prejudiced”.

We have to differentiate between rational prejudices and irrational prejudices- scientific prejudices and superstitious prejudices.

————————————————————————————–

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 alien pathogenic proteins acting as ‘guest’ molecules.

———————————————————————————–

I don’t think anybody can explain “every aspect” of homeopathy without “distorting” its “fundamentals.” We should not expect that ‘every’ aspect of homeopathic theory and practice could be ‘explained’ in terms of modern science.

Fear of ‘distorting fundamental laws’ arises from the fact that homeopathy is taught as a closed system of eternally immutable ‘laws’, ‘rules’, ‘principles’ and ‘methods’ every ‘true’ homeopath is bound to ‘obey’. We hear ‘seven cardinal principles of hahnemann’, ‘hering laws’, ‘kents observations’ and many other ‘theories’ that rule the practice of homeopathy. Anybody violating or thinking beyond these ‘fundamental laws’ are considered to be ‘wrong homeopaths’. And they ask science to explain “every aspect” of homeopathy without “distorting” its “fundamentals”!

We should remember, no ‘masters’ so far knew what really happens during potentization. Nobody so far knew what are the exact active principles of potentized drugs. Nobody so far knew the exact molecular level mechanism by which the active principles of potentized drugs interact with the biological organism and produce a therapeutic effect. Only things our masters actually knew was the objective natural phenomena of ‘likes curing likes’ and ‘high dilution effects’.

Everything else were mere speculations. Speculations based on unscientific philosophy of ‘dynamism’ and ‘vitalism’. All ‘laws’, ‘rules’, ‘methods’ and ‘doctrines’ we consider as ‘cardinal principles of homeopathy evolved from these speculative theories. All ‘directions’ regarding ‘doses’, repetitions’, ‘single drugs’, ‘follow ups’ and everything else were formulated without clearly knowing the substances we are actually dealing with or how they actually work. They were based on misinterpreted ‘experiences’ of ‘stalwarts’ with historically limited scientific knowledge.

Once we acquire scientific knowledge regarding the exact processes involved in potentization, active principles of potentized drugs and the molecular mechanism of their therapeutic action, all the existing ‘methods’, ‘laws’, ‘rules’ and ‘principles’ are bound to change. New ‘principles’ and ‘methods’ will evolve. That means, we will have to discard, change or ‘distort’ many things so far considered as ‘fundamentals’ of homeopathy.

I am talking about ‘principles’ and ‘methods’ of homeopathic practice such as ‘dose’ and ‘repetitions’ on the basis of my scientific understanding of potentization as ‘molecular imprinting’, active principles of potentized drugs as ‘molecular imprints’, and homeopathic therapeutics as removal of biochemical inhibitions. My explanations cannot be expected to be strictly in accordance with what you consider inevitable ‘laws’ of homeopathy.

Acquiring a scientific understanding of the phenomena involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’, and applying that knowledge judiciously for curing the sick- that should be the only ‘fundamental rule’ that guide a homeopath.

‘Likes cures likes’ and ‘high dilution effects’ represent the objective part of homepathy, which are concerned with truthful observations of natural phenomena involved in the process of ‘cure’. This is the strong and rational aspect of homeopathy that have to be preserved, explored and advanced into more and more perfection.

The theoretical explanatory part of homeopathy, which is based on totally unscientific and irrational philosophy of ‘dynamism’ and ‘vitalism’ of eighteenth century europe, as well as the ‘rules’, ‘laws’ and ‘methods’ formulated accordingly, is the real stumbling block that prevents this wonderful therapeutic art from advancing into a scientific medical system.

We have to preserve and strengthen the rational objective aspect of homeopathy, and explain it in terms of modern scientific knowledge. We should show the audacity to discard its irrational and unscientific theoretical parts. Once we understand the real science involved in the phenomena of ‘likes cure likes’ and ‘potentization’, a whole new set of practical ‘rules’ and ‘laws’ would spontaneously evolve.

In the PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION of ORGANON, Dr Hahnemann made the following statement:

“In this third edition I have not refrained from making any alterations and emendations suggested by increased knowledge and necessitated by further experience.”

This statement is a fitting answer to those ‘dogmatic’ homeopaths who argue nothing could be changed or updated in homeopathy.

Hahenemann advises us not to “refrain” from making “alterations and emendations”, if “suggested by increased knowledge and necessitated by further experience.”

Can anybody explain vital force’ in scientific terms? Can anybody explain ‘dynamic force’ and ‘drug energy’ in terms of modern science? NO. Because they have no SCIENCE in it! They are totally unscientific concepts being part of philosophy of DYNAMISM

Any substance use as DRUGS are composed of one or more types of simple or complex molecules having their own individual structures and chemical properties. When the drugs enter the living bodies, it is those INDIVIDUAL chemical molecules that act up on different biological target molecules according to their specific affinities, producing conformational changes in them that affect the biochemical processes they are involved. Different chemical molecules contained in same drug substance act up on different biological molecules and produce different types of biochemical effects that are expressed through different trains and GROUPS OF SYMPTOMS depending up on the biochemical pathways affected.

—————————————————————————————————

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.

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!

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

How can I ‘modify’ or distort logical and obvious scientific truths to satisfy 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.

—————————————————————————————————

Normally, a drug is said to be ‘similimum’ to a given case if the symptomatology expressed by the patient is matching to the recorded symptomatology of that drug. In other words, if the drug picture is similar to a disease picture, the drug is said to be ‘similimum’ to that disease. This ‘matching’ of drug symptoms and disease symptoms are the basis of homeopathic prescriptions guided by the principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’

Since ‘life’ consist of complex chains of inter-related biochemical pathways involving interactions of diverse biological molecules, pathology also should be understood at molecular level. Every state of pathology has an underlying ‘molecular error’ created by an endogenous or exogenous factor that inhibits the normal functioning of a biological molecule. These molecular errors lead to deviations in related biochemical pathways which amount to a state of pathology. Such molecular errors are expressed in the living organism through subjective and objective ‘symptoms’.

Molecular processes being inter related and inter dependant, a particular ‘molecular error’ happening in a particular biochemical pathway may inevitably lead to cascading of molecular errors and biochemical deviations. This is expressed as ‘trains’ of symptoms called ‘symptom complexes’. Observing the ‘symptom complexes’ carefully, we can infer the type and character of molecular errors underlying them. This is the basis of homeopathic methodology of therapeutics.

When crude drugs are introduced into the healthy organism as part of homeopathic drug proving, the constituent drug molecules binds to various biological molecules resulting in diverse types of ‘molecular errors’ expressed in the form of different groups of subjective and objective symptoms. These symptoms are called ‘drug symptoms’ representing molecular level states of ‘drug pathology’.

If the ‘symptom complexes’ expressed by a particular state of pathology happens to be ‘similar’ to certain ‘symptom complexes’ produced by a particular drug, that means, the ‘molecular errors’ underlying that state of pathology was same as the ‘molecular errors’ that could be created by the constituent molecules of that drug in a healthy organism. Obviously, the drug substance contains some molecules that could bind to the biological molecules in the same way as the particular pathogenic molecules did. It further means that the drug contained some molecules that have molecular configurations exactly similar to the particular pathogenic molecules.

Potentized drugs contains ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent molecules contained in the drug used for potentization. These ‘molecular imprints’ are nothing but ‘supra-molecular’ clusters of water/ethyl alcohol molecules, into which the three dimensional special configuration of individual drug molecules are imprinted in the form of ‘nanocavities’. Due to their complementary configuration, these nanocavities can specifically bind to the drug molecules or pathogenic molecules having similar configuration. This is the molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics explained as the fundamental principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’.

Exactly, a ‘similimum’ is a drug that contains some molecules that can produce ‘molecular errors’ in a living organism similar to the ‘molecular errors’ underlying a given state of pathology, attacking same biological molecules.

Since ‘symptoms’ are the only indicators available to identify the exact molecular errors underlying a state of pathology, homeopaths collects these symptoms and try to find out a drug that could produce similar ‘symptoms’ in a healthy organism.

If we could identify the exact molecular errors involved in a state of pathology by any way other than observation of symptoms, we can select a ‘similimum’ that way also. That means, ‘matching disease symptoms and drugs symptoms’ is not the only way to decide a similimum. If we know the exact pathogenic molecules that caused a given pathologic condition, we can select the molecular imprints of that pathogenic molecule as the homeopathic therapeutic agent without matching the symptomatology.

This is what happens when we prescribe various specifics, nosodes and sarcodeswhich are not selected by ‘matching of symptoms’. Autopathic and tautopathic prescriptions are also not based on similarity of symptoms. When we prescribe PEPSINUM 30 for gastritis, it is not based on ‘similarity of symptoms’, but the knowledge that PEPSIN can cause gastritis. Many wonderful homeopathic prescriptions are made without any ‘matching of disease symptoms and drug symptoms’.

This deliberations show that similimum does not necessarily mean only a drug selected on the basis of similarity of symptoms. ‘Similimum’ exactly means ‘similiarity of drug-induced molecular errors and pathological molecular errors’, or ‘similarity of configurations of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules’.

If I am asked what is similimum, I would say similimum is the drug that contains ALL the diverse molecules that could produce ALL the diverse molecular inhibitions and symptoms in healthy organism EXACTLY SIMILAR to the molecular inhibitions and symptoms existing in the patient before us, by binding to same biological target molecules. Potentized forms of the similimum would contain molecular imprints of constituent molecules of the drug substance, which can bind to the pathogenic molecules due to complementary configurational affinity and remove the pathological molecular inhibitions.

To be a PERFECT SIMILIMUM, our drug should contain ALL the diverse molecules that could produce ALL the diverse molecular inhibitions and symptoms, so that in potentized form it would contain ALL the diverse molecular imprints required to remove ALL the diverse molecular inhibitions in the patient. If the selected drug does not contain ALL the diverse molecular imprints required for the patient, it will be PARTIAL SIMILIMUM. In such cases, we can make a PERFECT SIMILIMUM by combining two or more PARTIAL SIMILIMUMS indicated by the symptoms.

——————————————————————————————————–

If a homeopath is convinced that a particular case seen by him is beyond the scope of homeopathy, he should refer the case immediately to a modern physician. He has no legal or moral right to prescribe allopathic medicines, for which he is not qualified, trained or authorized. A homeopath is only a homeopath.

————————————————————————————————–

Converting symptoms into rubrics and selecting similimum using a repertorization software is very simple if you have collected the right symptoms.

Young homeopaths should understand, a symptom is of no use if it is not qualified with its peculiar accessory details such as causations, presentations, locations, sensations, concomitants, modalities, extensions, alternations etc. Always concentrate in hunting for accessory symptoms associated with each basic symptom, instead of making an elaborate list of unqualified basic symptoms which are useful only for diagnosis- not for making homeopathic prescriptions

——————————————————————————————————-

When a modern physician uses homeopathic drugs, I feel proud and delighted as I see it as a recognition of the efficacy and superiority of homeopathy even by a practitioner of other system. When a homeopath uses allopathic drugs in his practice, I feel shame and indignation, as it is an indication that the homeopath is recognizing his failure to utilize the full potentials of homeopathy.

——————————————————————————————————

There are a lot of people suffering from diseases any where around us. If a homeopath can attract minimum ten patients to him per day, he can earn a decent living without any allopathic quackery. Only thing is, you have to know how to find similimum, and how to give relief to your patients using homeopathic drugs. All these talks about ‘jobs’ arise from lack of knowledge in homeopathy.

—————————————————————————————————

As an old layman without any professional opportunities or ambitions, personally I have nothing to gain or lose whether MIT get recognized or not. But for the young and coming generations of homeopaths, such a recognition and acceptance of MIT will surely open up great avenues of professional status and opportunities, since it will inevitably lead into the recognition of homeopathy as an advanced branch of modern molecular medicine by the scientific community. I am dedicating my remaining life span to make it happen at the earliest

————————————————————————————————–

A young lady homeopath, daughter of a friend of mine, was very energetic, ambitious and a topper in her studies. After getting her degree, she started a clinic in nearby place. Since patients did not turn up in high numbers as she expected by three months, she shifted her clinic to a new place, ignoring my advice to hold on. She was very impatient and in a hurry to become a busy practitioner. After six months, she shifted her clinic again. With in four years, she shifted to seven places, and desperately failed in her practice. She became very despondent, began to curse homeopathy and her fate, and quarrelled with her father for making her a homeopath and decided to stop practicing.

——————————————————————————————————

A 2nd year BHMS student asked:

“I know what we are taught in our colleges as homeopathy are unscientific, whereas you are showing us light by teaching us scientific homeopathy through your posts. My present dilemma is, what should I learn as a student, as what you teach and what is taught in our colleges contradict each other”.

ANSWER: “I have addressed this question earlier. As a student, your primary concern at this stage is to earn your degree, for which you have to pass your exams. Learn your lessons as prescribed in your syllabus and taught in your class rooms, even though they are obviously unscientific. I call it ‘official’ learning.

———————————————————————————————————

A BHMS student from Assam asks:

“Sir, I am a student of BHMS 1st year . I am studying in Assam. In Assam there is no good scope for BHMS. Sir, it seems that my future is very dark. Sir should i try for MBBS, or should I continue with this system?”

MY ANSWER: “As far as there are people suffering from diseases, homeopathy has scope in any place where human beings live. Only thing is, you should know HOW to apply homeopathy and give relief from diseases. Scope of homeopathy depends upon the efficiency and dedication of homeopaths who practice it. Learn homeopathy with full involvement and confidence, and try to become a skilled ‘scientific’ homeopath. Be sure, your future will be very bright”.

———————————————————————————————————

Dear homeopaths, hold your heads high with pride and self-confidence and tell the world aloud: “Homeopathy is Molecular Imprints Therapeutics- science of curing diseases using ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules; it is an advanced specialized branch of modern molecular medicine”!

——————————————————————————————————-

‘TEMPERAMENTAL SYMPTOMS’ OF INDIVIDUALS PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THEIR ‘TOTALITY OF SYMPTOMS’.

The term TEMPERAMENT indicates the ‘psychological constitution’ of an individual, or the way he responds to various sensory stimuli. From homeopathic point of view, TEMPERAMENT is nothing but the ‘totality of mental symptoms’.

It basically refers to those aspects of an individual’s psychological personality, such as introversion or extroversion. Extroversion tends to be manifested in outgoing, talkative, energetic behavior, whereas introversion is manifested in more reserved and solitary behavior. Every individual has both an extroverted side and an introverted side, with one being more dominant than the other. Karl Jung defined introversion as an “attitude-type characterized by orientation in life through subjective psychic contents or focusing on one’s inner psychic activity”; and extroversion as “an attitude type characterized by concentration of interest on the external object or the outside world”. In any case, people fluctuate in their behavior all the time, and even extreme introverts and extroverts do not always act according to their type. Although many people view being introverted or extroverted as a question with only two possible answers, most contemporary trait theories measure levels of extroversion-introversion as part of a single, continuous dimension of personality, with some scores near one end, and others near the half-way mark.

Temperament has been defined as individual differences in reactivity and self-regulation that manifest in the domains of emotion, activity and attention.

Temperament of an individual is determined through specific behavioral profiles, usually focusing on those that are both easily measurable and testable early in childhood. Commonly tested factors include irritability, activity, frequency of smiling, and an approach or avoidant posture to unfamiliar events. The specific behaviors are: activity level, regularity of sleeping and eating patterns, initial reaction, adaptability, intensity of emotion, mood, distractibility, persistence and attention span, and sensory sensitivity.

Following nine traits have been identified by researchers as the basis of evaluating one’s temperament:

1. Activity: Activity refers to the person’s physical energy. Is he constantly moving, or does the has a relaxing approach? A high-energy person may have difficulty sitting still at work, where as the low-energy type will remain calm.

2. Regularity: Regularity refers to the level of predictability in a person’s biological functions, such as waking, becoming tired, hunger, and bowel movements. Does the he has a routine in eating and sleeping habits, or are these events more random? For example, a person with a high regularity rating may want to eat at 2 p.m. every day, whereas one lower on the regularity scale may eat at sporadic times throughout the day.

3. Initial reaction: Initial reaction is also known as Approach or Withdrawal. This refers to how the person responds (whether positively or negatively) to new people or environments. Does he approach people or things in the environment without hesitation, or does he shy away? A bold person tends to approach things quickly, as if without thinking, whereas a cautious one typically prefers to watch for a while before engaging in new experiences.

4. Adaptability: Adaptability refers to how long it takes the person to adjust to change over time (as opposed to an initial reaction). Does he adjust to the changes in their environment easily, or is he slow to adapt? One who adjusts easily may be quick to settle into a new routine, whereas a resistant person may take a long time to adjust to the situation.

5. Intensity: Intensity refers to the energy level of a positive or negative response. Does the person react intensely to a situation, or does the respond in a calm and quiet manner? A more intense person may burst screaming with excitement, whereas a mild-mannered person may smile or show no emotion.

6. Mood: Mood refers to the person’s general tendency towards a happy or unhappy demeanor. All persons have a variety of emotions and reactions, such as cheerful and stormy, happy and unhappy. Yet each person biologically tends to have a generally positive or negative outlook. A person who frequently smiles could be considered a cheerful one, whereas one who frequently fusses might be considered the opposite.

7. Distractibility: Distractibility refers to the individual’s tendency to be sidetracked by other things going on around them. Does he get easily distracted by what is happening in the environment, or can he concentrate despite the interruptions? An easily distracted person is engaged by external events and has difficulty returning to the task at hand, whereas a rarely distracted person stays focused and completes the task at hand.

8. Persistence and attention span: Persistence and attention span refer to the individual’s length of time on a task and ability to stay with the task through frustrations—whether he stays with an activity for a long period of time or loses interest quickly.

9. Sensitivity: Sensitivity refers to how easily an individual is disturbed by changes in the environment. This is also called sensory threshold or threshold of responsiveness. Is the person bothered by external stimuli like noises, textures, or lights, or does he seem to ignore them? A sensitive person may lose focus when a door slams, whereas one less sensitive to external noises will be able to maintain focus.

Factors determining the temperament of a person also includes anticipation, impulsiveness, increased or decreased levels of activity, desire for sensation seeking, shyness, self-esteem or lack of it, fear, frustration, sadness, discomfort, anger, fearfulness, aggression, attention, sensitivity, pleasure threshold, irritability, alertness, etc etc.

Psychologists have developed a theory of FIVE TEMPERAMENTS, which classifies individuals into five distinct categories. Five temperaments is a theory that expands upon the Four Temperaments proposed in ancient medical theory based on the concept of ‘body humors’. It is a measure of interpersonal relations orientations that calculates a person’s behavior patterns based on the scoring of a questionnaire. This system of analysis graded questionnaires on two scales in three dimensions of interpersonal relations. When paired with temperament theory, a measurement of five temperaments resulted.

These FIVE temperamental categories are SANGUINE (quick, impulsive, and relatively short-lived reactions), PHLEGMATIC (a longer response-delay, but short-lived response), CHOLERIC (short response time-delay, but response sustained for a relatively long time), MELANCHOLIC (long response time-delay, response sustained at length, if not, seemingly, permanently) and SUPINE (more needy for acceptance from people, yet less able to initiate and express this need, frustrated)

TEMPERAMENTS of individuals are identified by their DRIVING NEEDS. For the Melancholic, the motivation is fear of rejection and/or the unknown. They have a low self-esteem and, figuring that others do not like them, they reject others first. The Supine also has low self-esteem, but is driven to try to gain acceptance by liking and serving others. The Sanguine is driven by the need for attention, and tries to sell themselves through their charm, and accepts others before those others can reject them. Their self-esteem crashes if they are nevertheless rejected. Yet, they will regain the confidence to keep trying to impress others. The Choleric is motivated by their goals, in which other people are tools to be used. The Phlegmatic’s lack of a motivation becomes their driving need: to protect their low energy reserve.

TEMPERAMENTS is determined by the complex bio-molecular processes happening in the central nervous system. Most experts agree that temperament has a GENETIC, EPIGENETIC and biological basis, although environmental factors, nutrition and maturation modify the ways an individual’s personality is expressed. For scientific understanding of the bio-molecular processes involved in ‘temperaments’, we need the help of Behavioral genetics, Behavioral epigenetics and Behavioral neuroscience.

The Human Genome Project has allowed scientists to understand the coding sequence of human DNA nucleotides. Once candidate genes for behaviors are discovered, scientists may be able to genetically screen individuals to determine their likelihood of developing certain pathologies.

Behavioral neuroscience, also known as biological psychology, is the application of the principles of biology, in particular neurobiology , to the study of physiological, genetic, and developmental mechanisms of behavior in humans and non-human animals. It typically investigates at the level of neurons, neurotransmitters, brain circuitry and the basic biological processes that underlie normal and abnormal behavior.

Behavioral epigenetics is the field of study examining the role of epigenetics in shaping human behaviour. It is an experimental science that seeks to explain how nurture shapes nature, where nature refers to biological heredity and nurture refers to virtually everything that occurs during the life-span such as social-experience, diet and nutrition, and exposure to toxins). Behavioral epigenetics attempts to provide a framework for understanding how the expression of genes is influenced by experiences and the environment to produce individual differences in behavior, cognition, personality, and mental health. Epigenetic gene regulation involves changes other than to the sequence of DNA and includes changes to histones (proteins around which DNA is wrapped) and DNA methylation. These epigenetic changes can influence the growth of neurons in the developing brain as well as modify activity of the neurons in the adult brain. Together, these epigenetic changes on neuron structure and function can have a marked influence on an organism’s behavior.

Endogenous or exogenous chemical molecules such as bacterial and viral toxins, food articles, antibodies, hormones, metabolic byproducts, drugs, environmental pollutants etc, that can produce modifications in the actions of enzymes involved in histone mythylation and acetylization can thereby epigenetically influence the genetic expression and protein synthesis. When this happens in the cells of central nervous system, it may bring behavioral and temperamental changes.

If a drug substance could produce ‘temperamental’ changes in healthy individuals when applied in crude form as part of drug proving, that means the drug substance contains some chemical molecules that could act upon certain epigenetic factors in the neurons in a way influencing genetic expression of ‘temperamental’ genes. In molecular imprints forms, such drug substances can rectify such molecular errors and cure those ‘temperamental, behavioral or mood-related disorders.

—————————————————————————————————

My advice to young homeopaths is, try to set up your OWN clinics as far as possible, instead of getting lucratively employed in a private institution owned by individuals or corporates, especially if you are not permitted to do at least a part-time private practice there.

Most precious and long-standing ‘property’ of a homeopath is the good will and publicity propagated by his dedicated patients, and the ever-growing chains of new patients gradually forming around every successful cases. It is on this foundation one’s career should grow. When you work in an institution owned by another individual or corporate, you lose that precious property. Once you are compelled to leave the job or thrown out by the management on any reason, you will have to rebuild your career from a big zero!

———————————————————————————————————-

Success in homeopathic practice depends up on physician’s skills to collect ‘complete symptoms’ that would indicate most appropriate similimum.

First of all, we should be capable of differentiating between ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ symptoms.

‘Normal’ symptoms are those which represent ‘normal’ physiological processes in organism, which have no role in determining a similimum. Normal thirst, normal perspiration, normal bowel movements, normal appetite, normal sleep, normal emotions, normal body temperature, normal thermal responses etc etc.

——————————————————————————————————-

I would suggest CCH for ‘hair transmission’ experts from ‘sahni institute’ to be appointed as faculty members in all all homeopathic colleges in India. Teaching and learning process will be very simple- teacher will collect strands of hair from every student, and send aphorisms and other homeopathy lessons to their brains ‘dynamically’ by hair transmission mode! LOL!!!

———————————————————————————————————

I am a perennial ‘free’ learner. I learn not by ‘following’ the ‘teachings of masters’, but by observing and experimenting objective reality myself, and by making my own interpretations and evolving my own conclusions. In this learning process, I would rationally ‘utilize’ any available piece of knowledge imparted by anybody. I accept nothing blindly without questioning and analyzing, until it satisfies my rational thinking.

——————————————————————————————————–

Homeopathic mother tinctures act the same way as Herbal medicines, Ayurveda or Allopathy.

They do not work on similia principle, and hence, is not homeopathic.

Can we say all those drugs do not play any role in therapeutics? NO. They act as ‘molecular forms’ of drugs, which act antipathically, due to the molecular level structure and properties of those drugs. Mother tinctures also may be also helpful in providing relief by the action of their ‘molecular’ contents. But that cannot be considered ‘homeopathic’ drug action.

—————————————————————————————————–

Have you heard the good old proverbial story of five blind ‘scholars’ who ‘saw’ the elephant by touching the different parts of its body? Each of them narrated their ‘experience’ with the elephant in entirely different ways. Even though all of them ‘saw’ the same elephant, their explanations were not at all the same!

Objective truth of homeopathy, involved in the therapeutic law of ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’, is like that proverbial ‘elephant’, which was ‘seen’ by different ‘blind’ theoreticians through generations, who explained it using entirely different ‘theories’ according to their fancies and fantacies. Nobody so far succeeded in seeing this great ‘elephant’ in its real form, and explained it in a rational, logical and scientific way.

——————————————————————————————————-

World Health Organization has declared an ‘international health emergency’, due to the spread of EBOLA virus disease around the world in pandemic proportions.

In modern medicine, there is no specific treatment for EVD; efforts to help persons who are infected include giving either oral rehydration therapy (slightly sweet and salty water to drink) or intravenous fluids. The disease has high mortality rate: often killing between 50% and 90% of those infected with the virus. Efforts are ongoing to develop a vaccine; however, none yet exists.

—————————————————————————————————–

Molecular imprints of ‘Ebola Glycoprotein’, a chemical molecule secreted by ebola virus, could be probably used to effectively prevent the dreaded infection without any harmful effects. Molecular imprints could be be prepared by procuring a sample of ‘ebola glycoprotein’ and potentizing it upto 12c or above avogadro limit. Hope somebody in responsible positions may note this suggestion seriously.

Homeopathically, CROTALUS HORRIDUS 30 seems to the ideal similimum for EBOLA VIRUS DISEASE. Use it frequently until cure, even along with other treatments or medications.

——————————————————————————————————

An allopath asks: “Say me what is the treatment u give for a myocardial infraction, how u will save the dying patient, say what u can pluck in homeopathy ? Huh ?”

My question to that allopath: “What is your treatment for EBOLA VIRUS infection? How will you treat MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS? How will you treat DOWNS SYNDROME? Can you cure HIV/AIDS? Can you cure PARKINSONISM?”

Actually, no allopathic doctor can save the life of a person “dying with myocardial infarction” with his DRUGS only, better than a homeopath can do it with his drugs.

——————————————————————————————————–

AN ALLOPATH CONVERTING TO HOMEOPATHY INDICATES STRENGTH OF ‘HOMEOPATHY’, WHERE AS A HOMEOPATH WANTING TO PRACTICE ALLOPATHY FOR HIS SURVIVAL INDICATES ‘HIS’ FAILURE.AS A HOMEOPATH.

———————————————————————————————————-

SURGERY is not ‘allopathy’. It is true that allopathy utilizes surgery more frequently and effectively than other medical systems do- that does not make surgery a ‘sole property’ of allopathy.

SURGERY is ‘mechanical intervention’ into the human body using some tools, equipment and other technological gadgets. Actually, surgery belongs to the realm of ‘medical technology’- not ‘medicine’.

ALLOPATHY is the art and science of treating diseases using ‘chemical molecules’ called drugs.

——————————————————————————————————

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

Every manufacturer claim that they use back potencies, and hence no wastage of alcohol happens. But somebody in the line has to do the job of raising 30c into 199c, 200c into 999c, 1m into 9999c and so on. To raise 10m to 50m, 40000 stages of potentization have to be done in betwee, and all those discarded, except the product obtained at last stage. Better you calculate the wastege in between 50m and cm! If those people do it genuinely as per Hahnemannian method, they will have to bear all these wastage, and the cost of back potencies will be unimaginably high!

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

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

Teachers and seniors make young homeopaths believe that administration of incorrect remedies especially in high potencies would do grave harm to the patients, and may cause even death. It is warned that our drugs should be handled with great care, and many young homeopaths are scared to prescribe, lest it may be a wrong prescription. If potentized drugs were dangerous, homeopaths would have been the greatest criminals in human history, each of us would have so far killed many innocent people! We would have already harmed a big section of human race by the time being through our wrong prescriptions. Even you and me make many many wrong prescriptions everyday, believing that we are making correct prescriptions. Can anybody deny it with a sincere heart? Living proofs of safety of homeopathic medicines are the people we treated with wrong prescriptions and stay undamaged!

——————————————————————————————————

SCIENCE cannot be ‘limited’ to any particular book, author, inventor or time. It grows infinitely through generations, by imbibing new knowledge evolving through human experience and thinking. If you think HOMEOPATHY is some thing limited and confined to ‘organon’ and the ‘master’, that means your perspective of homeopathy is unscientific and dogmatic.

———————————————————————————————————

‘MIT’ IS ONLY AN ATTEMPT TO UPDATE HOMEOPATHY BY PROVIDING RATIONAL AND LOGICAL ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, IN A WAY EXACTLY FITTING TO MODERN SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE:

1. WHAT IS LIFE?
2. WHAT IS DISEASE?
3. WHAT IS A DRUG AND HOW IT ACTS ON LIVING ORGANISM?
4. WHAT ARE SYMPTOMS?
5. WHAT IS CURE?
6. WHAT IS THE MOLECULAR PROCESS INVOLVED IN POTENTIZATION?
7. WHAT IS THE BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM OF HOMEOPATHIC CURE?
8. WHAT IS MIASM?

——————————————————————————————————

I ‘believe’ only what I ‘know’, and what could be explained rationally. There are many things and phenomena around me remaining to be explained, about which I am still undecided, and probably in confusion. I am continuing my efforts to understand them using the knowledge and its tools already available to me. There is no meaning in jumping into conclusions about them. I will not ‘believe’ anything blindly.

I do not ‘believe’ in god, due to the simple reason that I do not ‘know’ whether god exists or not. That does not mean I am ‘against’ god. We cannot be ‘against’ something, without knowing about it clearly. As per my present state of knowledge about this universe and the phenomena around me, I could not see any rational justification for ‘believing’ in god. Abscence of knowledge about something cannot be a justification for believing that it exists or does not exist. Obviously, my ‘beliefs’ will undergo changes in course of time, as my knowledge constantly advances to more and more perfection.

————————————————————————————————-

Once you fall into a deep sea where land is not seen anywhere within your reach, only thing you can do is to to keep on swimming and swimming, if you want to stay alive without drowning!

I keep on talking about MIT day in and day out, even though I do not see any chance of its recognition within my reach during my life time, hoping at least to keep my ideas alive for the future generation.

—————————————————————————————————

It is a clinically experienced and experimentally verified fact that potentized drugs act upon organism in a way exactly opposite to the parent drugs. Actually, this observation is the basis of the concept of homeopathic ‘drug proving’ as well as ‘similia similibus curentur’.

Why a drug substance in ‘potentized’ form act upon living organism in a reverse direction to its action in crude or ‘molecular’ form? What may be the molecular mechanism involved in this ‘reverse’ action?

————————————————————————————————-

What is my ‘reccomendation’ regarding vaccinations? My “reccomendation” will depend up on situations- rather practical than theoretical. I will prefer to chose ‘lesser evil’ than ‘bigger evil’. ‘Later evils’ than ‘immediate evils’. Evils that give us time to rectify, than evils that give us no chance to rectify. There is no point in being “against” vaccines when a mad dog bites me.

I am sure vaccination can cause chronic ‘miasms’ in our body, which may result in diverse types of chronic disease dispositions and ‘autoimmune’ diseases. Knowing this evil effects very well, I have to accept vaccinations in situations where life is in serious irreversible danger.

————————————————————————————————-

Vaccines are ‘protein’ substances ‘alien’ to the genetic blueprint of the individual. Alien proteins induce the production of antibodies in a similar way as infectious agents, which remain in the body for long petiods, in many instances for the whole life. Even though we understand antibodies as ‘defense’ molecules, they can play a ‘pathogenic’ role also, since they can bind to off-target biological targets, resulting in chronic disease dispositions. Hahnemann called this chronic residual effects of antibodies as ‘miasms’. Vaccinations, similar to infectious diseases, results in chronic miasms, known as vaccinosis, producing various chronic diseases including those which are so far considered as ‘autoimmune’ diseases.

————————————————————————————————–

In order to explain homeopathic cure in scientific terms, first of all you should explain DISEASE and CURE in scientific terms, in a way fitting to existing scientific knowledge system.

If you keep on talking about ‘deranged vital force’ and ‘dynamic drug energy’, nobody belonging to science-minded community is going to listen what you are talking about, or take homeopathy seriously. Talk science, please!

————————————————————————————————–

Please remember, homeopathy so far lacks something that could at least be legitimately called ‘a scientific working hypothesis’. We are learning, teaching, practicing and boasting about some ‘theories’ that are not even ‘hypotheses’ in the scientific sense of that term.

For the first time in the history of homeopathy, MIT proposes some concepts that could be presented as a legitimate candidate to be called a ‘scientific working hypothesis’ that could be proved according to scientific methods.

—————————————————————————————————-

From scientific point of view of pharmaceutical chemistry, a DRUG is a biologically active unit contained in a substance used as therapeutic agent. IT is the structure and properties of that chemical molecule that decides its medicinal properties and therapeutic actions. If such as substance contains only ONE type of biologically active unit, it is a SINGLE drug. If it contains different types of biologically active units, it is a COMPOUND drug. It is obvious that most of the drugs we use in homeopathy – especially drugs of biological origin and complex minerals- contain diverse types of biologically active units, and hence they cannot be considered SINGLE drugs.

————————————————————————————————–

What is MIT?

MIT or Molecular Imprints Therapeutics refers to a scientific hypothesis that proposes a rational model for biological mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics.

According to MIT hypothesis, potentization involves a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, where in the conformational details of individual drug molecules are ‘imprinted’ or engraved as hydrogen-bonded three dimensional nano-cavities into a supra-molecular matrix of water and ethyl alcohol, through a process of molecular level ‘host-guest’ interactions. These ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’ are the active principles of post-avogadro dilutions used as homeopathic drugs.

—————————————————————————————————

Homeopathy is taught as a closed system of eternally immutable ‘laws’, ‘rules’, ‘principles’ and ‘methods’ every ‘true’ homeopath is bound to ‘obey’. We hear ‘seven cardinal principles of hahnemann’, ‘hering laws’, ‘kents observations’ and many other ‘theories’ that rule the practice of homeopathy. Anybody violating or thinking beyond these ‘fundamental laws’ are considered to be ‘wrong homeopaths’.

We should remember, no ‘masters’ who made these ‘rules’ so far knew what really happens during potentization. Nobody so far knew what are the exact active principles of potentized drugs. Nobody so far knew the exact molecular level mechanism by which the active principles of potentized drugs interact with the biological organism and produce a therapeutic effect. Only things our masters actually knew was the objective natural phenomena of ‘likes curing likes’ and ‘high dilution effects’.

Everything else were mere speculations. Speculations based on unscientific philosophy of ‘dynamism’ and ‘vitalism’. All ‘laws’, ‘rules’, ‘methods’ and ‘doctrines’ we consider as ‘cardinal principles of homeopathy evolved from these speculative theories. All ‘directions’ regarding ‘doses’, repetitions’, ‘single drugs’, ‘follow ups’ and everything else were formulated without clearly knowing the substances we are actually dealing with or how they actually work. They were based on misinterpreted ‘experiences’ of ‘stalwarts’ with historically limited scientific knowledge.

Once we acquire scientific knowledge regarding the exact processes involved in potentization, active principles of potentized drugs and the molecular mechanism of their therapeutic action, all the existing ‘methods’, ‘laws’, ‘rules’ and ‘principles’ are bound to change. New ‘principles’ and ‘methods’will evolve.

What ever I talk about ‘principles’ and ‘methods’ of homeopathic practice such as ‘dose’ and ‘repetitions’ are based on my scientific understanding of potentization as ‘molecular imprinting’, active principles of potentized drugs as ‘molecular imprints’, and homeopathic therapeutics as removal of biochemical inhibitions. Unless you understand the concept ‘molecular imprinting’ of potentization and biochemistry of therapeutics, you are bound to fail to understand everything I say.

Acquiring a scientific understanding of the phenomena involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’, and applying that knowledge judiciously for curing the sick- that should be the only ‘fundamental rule’ that guide a homeopath.

‘Likes cures likes’ and ‘high dilution effects’ represent the objective part of homepathy, which are concerned with truthful observations of natural phenomena involved in the process of ‘cure’. This is the strong and rational aspect of homeopathy that have to be preserved, explored and advanced into more and more perfection.

The theoretical explanatory part of homeopathy, which is based on totally unscientific and irrational philosophy of ‘dynamism’ and ‘vitalism’ of eighteenth century europe, as well as the ‘rules’, ‘laws’ and ‘methods’ formulated accordingly, is the real stumbling block that prevents this wonderful therapeutic art from advancing into a scientific medical system.

We have to preserve and strengthen the rational objective aspect of homeopathy, and explain it in terms of modern scientific knowledge. We should show the audacity to discard its irrational and unscientific theoretical parts. Once we understand the real science involved in the phenomena of ‘likes cure likes’ and ‘potentization’, a whole new set of practical ‘rules’ and ‘laws’ would spontaneously evolve.

In the PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION of ORGANON, Dr Hahnemann made the following statement:

“In this third edition I have not refrained from making any alterations and emendations suggested by increased knowledge and necessitated by further experience.”

This statement is a fitting answer to those ‘dogmatic’ homeopaths who argue nothing could be changed or updated in homeopathy.

Hahenemann advises us not to “refrain” from making “alterations and emendations”, if “suggested by increased knowledge and necessitated by further experience.”

————————————————————————————————–

How to repertorize cases as ‘Symptom Groups’ using Similimum Ultra Software to generate ‘total cure’ prescriptions:

For making ‘multiple drug prescriptions’, we have to repertorize symptoms as different symptom groups. Logic of method is simple. A patient coming to us may be suffering from entirely different disease entities at the same time, related with entirely different molecular errors. If you believe the ‘constitutional similimum’ will correct all molecular errors and cure the patient ‘holistically’, you may go that way. But practically, we may need entirely different drugs for his different complaints, where ‘multiple drug’ approach may give the patient immediate relief for his complaints, as well as ‘total cure’. Whether you call it multiple drugs, polypharmacy, layer method, complementary drugs, intercurrent or any thing, you are actually doing the same. Only difference is, some people ‘mix’ drugs inside the body by giving one drug at a time, where as others ‘mix’ them outside the body. Multiple drugs are multiple drugs- whatever name you call it, or whatever way you use it.

Apart from constitutional and miasmatic drugs, a particular patient may need different drugs for his different ailments such as headache, hypertension, haemorrhoids, gastric ulcer, joint pains, ringworm etc, disturbing him at the same time. Each ailment will have different locations, expressions, sensations, modalities, concomitants- which are collectively called ‘qualifications’- requiring different similimum. Hoping a ‘single’ ‘constitution drug’ to ‘cure’ all these complaints by a ‘single’ dose may be the ‘classical’ approach, but I am not so much optimistic about such a hope in all cases. Different co entirely different complaints will have totally unrelated molecular inhibitions underlying them, caused by entirely different pathogenic molecules, which would require entirely different ‘molecular imprints’ to remove those inhibitions.

Each molecular error, caused by a particular molecular inhibition due to a specific pathogenic molecular factor, will be expressed through a specific group of symptoms and their ‘qualifications’. Hence, we have to select ‘molecular imprints’ on the basis of those ‘symptom groups’. Since the individual’s constitutional background also plays a role in disease process, his ‘constitutional remedy’ also will have to be used over and above the ‘particular remedies’.

Diseases in a person at a given point of time are never ‘single’ at molecular level, but comprising of ‘multiple’ molecular inhibitions and molecular errors arising from diverse types of genetic and acquired factors.

Even those drug substance we call ‘single’ are not really ‘single’, but contains diverse types of chemical molecules molecules having entirely different chemical and medicinal properties.

Potentized drugs, which we consider ‘single’, are actually combinations of diverse types of independent ‘molecular imprints’ representing different types of constituent molecules of drug substance used for potentization.

When used as therapeutic agents, all those potentized drugs we consider ‘single’, really act as ‘combinations’ of independent ‘molecular imprints’ they contain, each individual ‘molecular imprint’ acting upon specific pathogenic molecules having complementary configurational affinity, thereby removing the ‘molecular inhibitions created by them.

Once you understand these fundamental scientific factors, you can realize the futility of worrying about ‘single’ disease, ‘single’ drug and ‘single’ dose!!

Constitutional remedy of the patient could be determined using physical generals and mentals. To decide the ‘particular remedies’ for different complaints, we have repertorize each ‘symptom group’ separately. Each ‘symptom group’ will consist of the ‘basic symptom’ of particular complaint, along with its ‘qualifications’ such as ‘locations, expressions, sensations, modalities, alternations, concomittants and extensions’.

Repertorizing in ‘symptom groups’ is very simple using ‘Similimum Ultra Software. Select all basic symptoms and their qualifications first. Then collect all physical generals and mentals. Add all these symptoms to ‘worksheet’ of software, and grade them using ‘grade rubric’ tool. Then, go to ‘repertorize’. Select ‘totality method’, with ‘selected symptoms’ protocol’.

Repertorization window appears, with all rubrics listed, with check boxes. Select check boxes of physical generals and mentals only, and repertorize. Result will appear in chart for. Click ‘add to reference tray’. Save reference tray, marking the result as ‘constitution’. Then remove all selected check boxes, and select all check boxes of rubrics related with a particular complaint. Add the result to reference tray, mark it. In this way, select rubrics of all ‘symptom groups’ separately and repertorize. Results of repertorizations done for each group will be saved separately in ‘reference tray’, from where we can select the final prescription. In some cases, we may get same drug for different ‘symptoms groups’, which is most welcome from a homeopathic perspective. Since ‘antimiasmatic’ drugs such as nosodes are not well represented in our repertories, we will have to consider them separately, after repertorization is completed. If necessary, they should be included in our prescription.

This method of ‘total cure prescriptions’ is a deviation from what is taught in classical homeopathy. I would not advise any body to follow this method. This is my method- that is all.

Anybody can think about the logic behind this method, and reach their own conclusions. I do not want to ‘misguide’ anybody.

‘MULTIPLE DRUG’ PRESCRIPTION CASE- I:

A 75 year old man, with complaints of asthma, haemorrhoids, constipation, fistula and itching all over. Symptoms were collected in detail, and following rubrics selected using Similimum Ultra Software:

1. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC
2. [Kent]Expectoration : TASTE : Salty
3. [Kent]Expectoration : GRAYISH
4. [Kent]Expectoration : VISCID
5. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC
6. [Kent]Respiration : WHISTLING
7. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC : Eating : amel
8. [Kent]Rectum : URGING, desire : Eating, after
9. [Kent]Rectum : CONSTIPATION
10. [Kent]Rectum : MOISTURE
11. [Kent]Rectum : HAEMORRHOIDS : External
12. [Kent]Rectum : LUMP, sensation of
13. [Kent]Rectum : ITCHING
14. [Kent]Rectum : CONSTIPATION : Old people
15. [Kent]Rectum : FISTULA
16. [Kent]Rectum : FLATUS : Loud
17. [Kent]Rectum : HAEMORRHOIDS : Cold amel.
18. [Kent]Generalities : HOT REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s)
19. [Kent]Generalities : LEAN people
21. [Kent]Mind : ANGER, irascibility
22. [Kent]Mind : CENSORIOUS, critical
23. [Kent]Mind : HURRY
24. [Kent]Mind : IMPATIENCE
25. [Kent]Mind : SUSPICIOUS
26. [Kent]Mind : QUARRELSOME
27. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Night
28. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Eruption, without
29. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Scratching : Agg
30. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Warm : In bed, on becoming

When repertorized by classical totality method, outcome was as follows: Sulph.(61/26), Ars.(45/19), Lyc.(44/20), Lach.(41/22), Sep.(41/19), Caust.(39/18), Phos.(39/20), Nux-v.(38/19), Puls.(36/16),

Then I decided to go for ‘Group Repertorization’ method. Symptoms were grouped into CONSTITUTION, RESPIRATORY, RECTUM and SKIN, and repertorized separately using Similimum Ultra

A. CONSTITUTION:
1. [Kent]Generalities : HOT REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s)
2. [Kent]Generalities : LEAN people
3. [Kent]Mind : ANGER, irascibility
4. [Kent]Mind : CENSORIOUS, critical
5. [Kent]Mind : HURRY
6. [Kent]Mind : IMPATIENCE
7. [Kent]Mind : SUSPICIOUS
8. [Kent]Mind : QUARRELSOME

Sulph.(24/9), Lyc.(20/9), Ars.(17/7), Nux-v.(17/7), Bry. (16/8), Nat-m.(16/7), Lach.(15/8), Acon.(14/7), Aur.(14/7),

B.RESPIRATORY:
1. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC
2. [Kent]Expectoration : TASTE : Salty
3. [Kent]Expectoration : GRAYISH
4. [Kent]Expectoration : VISCID
5. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC
6. [Kent]Respiration : WHISTLING
7. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC : Eating : Amel

Ambr.(15/7), Ars.(15/6), Lyc.(11/5), Phos.(11/5), Stann. (11/5), Carb-v.(10/5), Calc.(9/5), Chin.(9/5), Puls.(9/3),

C. RECTUM:
1. [Kent]Rectum : URGING, desire : Eating, after
2. [Kent]Rectum : CONSTIPATION
3. [Kent]Rectum : MOISTURE
4. [Kent]Rectum : HAEMORRHOIDS : External
5. [Kent]Rectum : LUMP, sensation of
6. [Kent]Rectum : ITCHING
7. [Kent]Rectum : CONSTIPATION : Old people
8. [Kent]Rectum : FISTULA
9. [Kent]Rectum : FLATUS : Loud
10. [Kent]Rectum : HAEMORRHOIDS : Cold amel.

Aloe.(21/10), Caust.(19/7), Lach.(18/8), Sulph.(18/8), Phos.(16/8), Sep.(15/6), Sil.(15/6), Nit-ac.(14/5), Calc. (13/5),

D. SKIN:
1. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Night
2. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Eruption, without
3. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Scratching : Agg
4. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Warm : In bed, on becoming

Sulph.(11/4), Mez.(9/4), Alum.(7/3), Ars.(6/2), Dol.(6/3), Led.(6/3), Merc.(6/4), Puls.(6/3), Anac.(5/2).

SULPH, ALOES and AMBRA were prescribed. In 30 potency, one dose each daily for three months.
Occasional doses of ARS 30 also was used during aggravated states of asthmatic attacks. Cure was total.

‘MULTIPLE-DRUG PRESCRIPTION’ CASE- II:

A 48 yr old obese woman with chronic headache, pain in joints, and warts on various parts. Symptoms were collected and following rubrics selected using Similimum Ultra Software:1.

[Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Menses : During
2. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Sleep : After : Amel.
3. [Kent]Stomach : NAUSEA : Headache, during:
4. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Cold applications amel.
5. [Kent]Mind : IRRITABILITY : Headache, during
6. [Kent]Genitalia – Female : MENOPAUSE
7. [Kent]Generalities : HOT REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s)
8. [Kent]Mind : ANXIETY
9. [Kent]Generalities : OBESITY
10. [Kent]Extremities-II(PAIN) : PAIN : Joints
11. [Kent]Extremities-II(PAIN) : PAIN : Cold : Applied amel.
12. [Kent]Extremities-II(PAIN) : PAIN : Joints : Walking : After
13. [Kent]Skin : WARTS
14. [Kent]Skin : WARTS : Smooth
15. [Kent]Skin : WARTS : Soft
16. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general
17. [Kent]Extremities-II(PAIN) : PAIN

I decided to use multiple repertorization method in this case. Rubrics were divided into four groups: CONSTITUTION, HEADACHE, JOINT PAINS and WARTS, and repertorized separately:

A. Constitution:
1. [Kent]Genitalia – Female : MENOPAUSE
2. [Kent]Generalities : HOT REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s)
3. [Kent]Mind : ANXIETY
4. [Kent]Generalities : OBESITY
5. Stomach : DESIRES : Salt things

Arg-n.(10/4), Sulph.(12/5), Puls.(9/4), Calc.(9/4), Verat. (9/4), Con.(8/4), Graph.(8/3), Lach.(8/4), Nat-m.(8/3),

B. Headache:
1. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Menses : During
2. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Sleep : After : Amel.
3. [Kent]Stomach : NAUSEA : Headache, during:
4. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Cold applications amel.
5. [Kent]Mind : IRRITABILITY : Headache, during
6. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general

Phos.(14/6), Glon.(12/5), Nat-m.(11/5), Ars.(10/5), Bell. (10/5), Bry.(10/5), Lach.(10/5), Puls.(10/5), Sep.(10/4)

C. Joint pains:
1. [Kent]Extremities : PAIN
2.. [Kent]Extremities : PAIN : Joints
3.. [Kent]Extremities : PAIN : Cold : Applied amel.
4.. [Kent]Extremities : PAIN : Joints : Walking : After

Led.(10/4), Bry.(9/3), Puls.(9/3), Colch.(8/3), Guai.(8/4), Arn.(7/3), Kalm.(7/3), Nux-v.(7/3), Phyt.(7/3),

D. Warts:
1. [Kent]Skin : WARTS
2. [Kent]Skin : WARTS : Smooth
3. [Kent]Skin : WARTS : Soft

Dulc.(9/3), Ant-c.(5/2), Calc.(5/2), Caust.(5/2), Thuj.(5/2), Sep.(4/2), Bar-c.(3/1), Bell.(3/1), Calc-s.(3/1).

SULPHUR, PHOS, LEDUM and DULCAMERA were given in 30c potencies. one dose each daily. Headache cured first, then joint pains relieved, and warts disappeared by three months. Cure was complete.

—————————————————————————————————

Homeopathy cannot advance further as a medical science without accepting MIT concepts as an integral part of its theoretical and practical framework, because it is the most perfect, rational and scientific explanation for homeopathy.

MIT is not ‘just another’ brand or school, competing for appropriating a share in the homeopathic market, already saturated with and spoiled by various commercial brands and schools. MIT is only a scientific explanation of homeopathy. An advanced phase in the historical evolution of homeopathy. A new approach. A new perspective. Nothing else.

Vested interests and prejudices of influential people may create hurdles and delay its universal acceptance for some time, but it is inevitable that it should be accepted. MIT will decide the future course of homeopathy. Wait and see.

————————————————————————————————-

CASE TAKING and PRESCRIBING become very simple, fast and perfect if you are doing it by ‘Simultaneous Case taking and Repertorization’ (SCR METHOD), using Similimum Ultra- Homeopathic Software:

CASE TAKING is the most important step that decides the final outcome of a homeopath’s clinical work. It is said: “a well taken case is half way to cure”. Classical methods of case taking are much time consuming, and involves much writing or typing. Similimum Ultra Software introduces novel tools and methods of case taking, over and above classical methods.

‘Search-and-add Rubric While You Talk’ is a very simple and efficient way of case recording, especially for busy practitioners, who have no time and inclination to type down complete case history, but desires a full case taking. Typing work is very nominal in this method. Symptoms are recorded not in patients own words, but as exact repertorial rubrics. Much time and labor is saved, without compromising quality and accuracy of outcome.

To record cases using this method, open ‘Search Repertory’ tool from ‘Case Record’ window. Select the preferred Repertory from drop-down list. Simultaneous with interrogation of the patient, type down one or more key words that are expected to be part of the repertorial rubric appropriate for the symptom the patient is elaborating. Click ‘Go’ or press ‘Enter’. A list of all rubrics from all chapters of the selected repertory, containing the selected key words will be displayed instantly. Scrolling through this rubric list, select the appropriate rubric for your symptom and click ‘Add to Basket’. Repeat this process for all the important symptoms described by the patient. After case taking is over, click “Rubric Basket’ icon above the ‘symptoms’ field to open the ‘Rubric Basket’. A complete list of rubrics already added, along with their drug lists are displayed in the ‘rubric basket’. You can ‘delete’ unwanted rubrics from here. Then click “ Add to Case record’ . All the rubrics are instantly transferred to ‘symptoms’ panel of Case Record.

Case Taking is now complete! You have not even bothered about opening your Repertories, and looking for chapters and Rubrics!

Now you can open the RUBRIC BASKET, and find a remedy using QUICKPICK tool provided there.

QUICK PICK is a very innovative expert tool to find similimum instantly by elimination method, during busy clinical practice

After selecting and adding all the relevant rubrics from the REPERTORY into the RUBRIC BASKET simultaneous with talking to the patient, click ‘QUICKPICK’ button from ‘rubric basket’ or ‘case record’ window. A small QUICK PICK window pops-up.

All the rubrics we had added to the rubric basket are appear listed in the upper panel with of the new window, with a check box against each rubric. Tick the most important or ELIMINATING rubric first. List of drugs covered by that particular rubric is now seen displayed in the lower panel of the QUICK PICK window. Then select the second eliminating symptom. Now, only the drugs covered by both SELECTED rubrics are displayed. In this way, eliminate systematically, until we reach a single drug , covered by all the rubrics used for ELIMINATION. This drug will be the similimum for the case. Utmost care should be employed in the selection of eliminating rubrics and their sequences, to ensure correct output. Never do it mechanically.

When elimination has given a satisfactory output, click ‘add to reference tray’ button. The result of quick pick method will be saved into the reference tray attached to the CASE RECORD of the particular patient.

Once you master this QUICK PICK technique of repertorization, you will realize what a nice experience it is to work up on cases using SIMILIMUM ULTRA SOFTWARE

———————————————————————————————–

‘Simultaneous Case Taking and Repertorizing’- A Simple Method Of Finding Perfect Similimum (SCR METHOD):

By performing CASE TAKING and REPERTORIZATION simultaneously, we can save much time, same time aking very accurate prescriptions. Innovative tools and
platforms provided in my SIMILIMUM ULTRA SOFTWARE is very helpful in this regard.

————————————————————————————————-

Most simple and perfect method of case taking is ‘Simultaneous Case taking and Repertorization’ (SCR METHOD) proposed by SImilimum Ultra Software. It saves much time, and produces best results. By the time case taking is over, your prescription will be ready. You can work out even a very complex case within a few minutes by this method.

—————————————————————————————

Homeopathic CASE FOLLOW UP consists of watching for RESIDUAL SYMPTOMS and EMERGING SYMPTOMS, and re-adjusting prescriptions as indicated by them.

After making a homeopathic prescription, whether it be ‘single’ or ‘multiple’, and ensuring that the doses are repeated in optimum frequencies, the physician should see the patient at reasonable intervals and carefully watch how the case is progressing.

Periodically watch for ‘residual’ symptoms that do not subside, as well as newly ’emerging’ symptoms.

—————————————————————————————

Why our homeopathic ‘theoreticians’ do not realize how irrational and ridiculous it is to claim that homeopathic medicines contain a ‘spirit-like force’, independent of any material existence and properties?

An ‘immaterial dynamic force’ that could be ‘carried’ in glass vials, transferred from bottles to bottles, dissolved in water and alcohol, adsorbed on to sugar pills, and acting ‘dynamically’ upon the ‘vital force’ when applied on tongue? If it is ‘immaterial’ and ‘spirit-like’, how it is preserved in glass vials, without escaping through the ‘material’ glass walls of the bottles?

——————————————————————————–

Not a single day passes for me without posting at least one article explaining my concept of ‘Molecular Imprints Therapeutics (MIT)’ and exploring its implications upon homeopathy.

Without even reading what I have laboriously written about homeopathy, or trying to understand anything about the ideas I am talking about, some friends jump in and challenge me to “prove” MIT, and attack me as if I had done something very bad to homeopathy!

While asking me to prove MIT, at least you have to ensure that you have understood what is MIT, so that you can know what are the exact points to be ‘proved’ in it.

————————————————————————————

In ‘Chronic Diseases : Para 139′ Hahnemann says:

“Sucklings never receive medicine; the mother or wet-nurse receives the remedy instead, and through their milk it acts on the child very quickly, mildly and beneficially”.

There are many homeopaths who use this method for treating infants, and they say it works.

———————————————————————————

Kindly read carefully what hahnemann said in Organon : Aphorism 204(Sixth Edition):

“If we deduct all chronic affections, ailments and diseases that depend on a persistent unhealthy mode of living, as also those innumerable medicinal maladies caused by …the irrational,… persistent, harassing and pernicious treatment of diseases often only of trivial character by physicians of the old school, most the remainder of chronic diseases result from the development of these three chronic miasms, internal syphilis, internal sycosis, but chiefly and in infinitely greater proportion, internal psora”.

———————————————————————————

Homeopathy has been consistently attacked 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.

Men of science, who are 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 a scientist speak out, and as such, he is expected to keep up that responsibility when declaring “homeopathy is fake”. He should have experimented himself, and done a little more home work about homeopathy, before echoing the malicious propaganda of ‘anti-homeopathy skeptics’.

I am sure, most scientists have nothing personally against homeopathy or homeopaths as such. They are talking their perceptions as a truthful scientist. As an individual respecting science, scientists and scientific methods, I would not blame them for making such a statements. I know they are not homeopaths- but only scientists. I understand, as a truthful scientists, as things stand now, they 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 do.

Homeopaths as well as millions of patients visiting them know homeopathy works. That is their personal experience. Scientists should think more than twice before saying it is ‘mere belief’ and ‘fake’. If they had visited a few homeopathic clinics in the city around them, they would realize that all people visiting homeopaths are not much less knowledgeable or more ‘superstitious’ than them. Many respected members of scientific community 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 one had ever consulted a homeopath or taken a course of homeopathic medicine yourselves, he would not have made 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 in India are ‘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?

———————————————————————————–

If you are a BHMS holder, if you love homeopathy, if you really want to be a good homeopath, if you have no hesitation in accepting advice and guidance from me, if your ego is not concerned about my ‘credentials’ and ‘qualifications’, CONTACT ME. I will teach you how to become a successful homeopath within a very short time. I will help you to master the practical skills and produce results. I will help you in repertorizing your difficult cases and deciding prescriptions, if you want. I am ready to share my 44+years experience with you. We can do it through Facebook, WhatsApp, Phone Calls and various other means. Not for money, be sure. Already there are a lot of young homeopaths utilizing this service from me.

———————————————————————————-

If you have a BHMS degree, you can earn a decent living with homeopathy any where in this country. Be confident in yourself and in homeopathy. Set up a clinic at your home or a rented place nearby. Get a laptop, installed with a good homeopathic software. Learn how to use the software effectively. Learn how to take case effectively.

When the first patient comes, collect his symptoms caerefully, repertorize and prescribe similimum. Use only 30C potency. Do not hesitate to repeat frequently until the cure is complete. Patient will be cured. New patients will follow, even if slowly.

———————————————————————————

Even if you got ‘bad quality’ education from your colleges, turning to allopathy is not the solution for that problem. At least, you have got a ‘bhms’ degree from your colleges. It is by itself a very valuable asset in your life. Standing firmly on that foundation, why cant you start learning homeopathy seriously at least NOW? You can learn homeopathy yourselves and become successful homeopaths in a very short period, if you decide to do so. Homeopathy is very simple to learn and practice, if you understand the MIT approach.

———————————————————————————

I have nothing personally against those homeopaths who practice allopathy or want to practice allopathy. I can understand the ground realities well. I have great sympathies for those young men whose lives have been spoiled by those who ‘rule’ our educational system. But I am worried more about the future of homeopathy. I cannot agree with anything that is ultimately going to ruin homeopathy. I love homeopathy more than any thing else. Sorry, my friends.

———————————————————————————————

I persistently try to expose all those ‘big’ people who are propagating homeopathy as a branch of ‘energy medicine’ or ‘spiritual healing’, not due to any personal vendetta. Actually, I do not know these people personally. I do this campaign as part of my mission of advancing homeopathy as a full-fledged ‘medical science’, which I think, cannot be achieved without freeing it from malignant influence of diverse shades of ‘energy medicine’ theories and their highly influential international propagators.

———————————————————————————————

Using the scientific knowledge already available now, I have been trying to explore the exact molecular mechanism by which ANTIBODIES produce chronic diseases. Since ANTIBODIES are native globulin PROTEINS that have undergone misfolding by interacting with alien proteins, they can themselves behave as aliens in the organism and produce pathological inhibitions by binding to various biological molecules. Such molecular inhibitions caused by ANTIBODIES are the real molecular level villains playing behind various chronic diseases such as AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES, PROTEINOPATHIES, AMYLOID DISEASES AND PRION DISEASES. Hahnemann called these chronic residual effects of ANTIBODIES as MIASMS.

See, how Hahnemann’s concept of CHRONIC DISEASES relating it with INFECTIOUS MIASMS, paves the way for a SCIENTIFIC understanding of a whole class of grave diseases, and developing of a whole new range of therapeutic agents and techniques to combat them.

——————————————————————————————-

Hahnemann’s observations of CHRONIC DISEASES, relating it with INFECTIOUS DISEASES, would have been a revolutionary event in medical history, had anybody- be it hahnemann himself, his followers or scientists- taken up the task of explaining it in scientific terms.

Had anybody asked the question how an infectious disease can cause life-long RESIDUAL EFFECTS in the organism even after the infection is over, everything would have been clear. It would have been obvious that infectious agents can produce life-long RESIDUAL EFFECTS in the form of CHRONIC DISEASES only through ANTIBODIES generated in the body against infectious agents.

Such a realization would have helped medical as well as scientific community to view ANTIBODIES from a different perspective- as CAUSATIVE AGENTS of diverse types of CHRONIC DISEASES- over and above their role as DEFENSE molecules

———————————————————————————————–

It was hahnemann, who for the first time proposed that diverse types of CHRONIC DISEASES could be produced in the long run by INFECTIOUS agents, which he called MIASMS.

I have been trying to explain in scientific terms, how CHRONIC DISEASES could be produced by infectious agents, even after the infections are over. This led me into the realization that INFECTIOUS AGENTS can produce life-long chronic disease dispositions only through OFF TARGET actions of ANTIBODIES generated in the body against them.

I came to the conclusion that ANTIBODIES generated against ALIEN PROTEINS such as infectious agents and vaccines could be the real carriers of MIASMS hahnemann considered to be the fundamental cause of CHRONIC DISEASES.

———————————————————————————————–

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. How can you ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ with me without reading and understanding them? 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?

Kindly update your basic knowledge in the topics I discuss. Then only you can follow the concepts I talk about. 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 science, and only very little remains to be ‘proved’ about homeopathy.

————————————————————————————————-

I am not “trying to change fundamental laws of homeopathy” as some friends are worried about. I am trying only to explain the fundamentals of homeopathy in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge system. If you lend some time to go through my articles on my pages, you would realize that I have already explained ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’ scientifically and rationally.

———————————————————————————————-

Many homeopaths talk about ‘seven cardinal principles of hahnemann’, and believe that without following these ‘cardinal’ principles one cannot be a ‘true’ homeopath.

Did hahnemann ever say there are ‘seven’ cardinal principles in homeopathy? Kindly verify for references from hahnemann’s original works. When we say homeopaths should ‘follow’ certain ‘cardinal principles of hahnemann’, we should inquire about the original reference where hahnemann said these are the cardinal principles.

Actually hahnemann did not make a ‘list’ of principles. He made some objective observations regarding the phenomenon of ‘cure’, and inferred that an objective ‘law’ is working under this phenomenon. He called it ‘similia similibus curentur’.

While experimenting with smaller and smaller doses of drug substances to avoid the bad effects of crude drugging prevalent in conventional medicine during that period, he noticed that even highly diluted drugs have medicinal effects, even though there existed least chance for medicinal substance to be present in them

Then he took up the task of explaining these two phenomena ( similia similibus curentur and high dilution effects) using the existing scientific knowledge available to him, thereby trying to build up a simple, safe and effective therapeutic system.

Since the scientific knowledge system was in its primitive stage of evolution during that time, it was difficult to explain these observed phenomena using existing tool-kit of science. In the absence of necessary scientific knowledge available for accomplishing this task, he was compelled to speculate using philosophical concepts such as ‘dynamism’ or ‘vitalism’. Actually, ORGANON represents his highly intellectual attempts to explain his fundamental observations regarding phenomena of cure.

In organon, he discussed many things, from ‘vital force theory’ to ‘mesmerism’. That does not mean everything he discussed are ‘cardinal’ principles of homeopathy. If you want to identify such ‘cardinal’ or ‘basic’ things of homeopathy, they are ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’. They are the ‘fundamental objective observations’ of natural phenomena. Everything else is philosophical speculations, which are bound to change as our scientific knowledge advances.

Actually, the ‘seven cardinal principles’ were the invention of some later interpreters- not of hahnemann. Somebody understood homeopathy that way- that is all. You can ‘filter’ any number of ‘cardinal’ principles from hahnemann’s works, according to your perspectives and understandings. If you want to see ‘vital force’ as cardinal principle of homeopathy, somebody else could say ‘mesmerism’ is also a cardinal principle of homeopathy. You can list ‘seven’ or ‘seventy’.

Somebody involved in the making of homeopathic curriculum for Indian universities happened to be influenced by this ‘seven cardinal principles’ and included it in the syllabus. Indian students were taught that to be a ‘true’ homeopath, they should ‘follow’ these ‘seven’ principles. If it was part of your syllabus, somebody should have asked the teachers for original references from hahnemann and verify whether hahnemann did say these ‘seven’ are ‘cardinal principles’ of homeopathy. That is the way inquisitive minds should work and learn more and more deep.

According to my analysis, the only ‘cardinal’ or ‘basic’ things in homeopathy are ‘two’ fundamental observations hahnemann made regarding the objective phenomena of ‘cure’. They are ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’. Everything else is totally unscientific speculations and theorizations made in an attempt to explain these ‘basic’ observations. There is nothing ‘cardinal’ in those observations. It is our duty to explain hahnemann’s ‘fundamental observations’ in terms of modern scientific knowledge system.

I would like to call ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ and ‘Potentization’ as FUNDAMENTAL OBSERVATIONS OF HOMEOPATHY, rather than using the term ‘fundamental principles’. That would be more close to truth.

Hahnemann made two important observations regarding therapeutics 250 years ago:

1. Diseases with specific symptoms can be cured by drugs that can produce similar symptoms in healthy individuals. He called it ‘similia similibus curentur’.

2. When used according to ‘similia similibus curentur’, dug substances can act as powerful therapeutic agents even in high dilutions through a process of serial ‘dilution and succussion’. He called this process as ‘potentization’.

These TWO are the main OBSERVATIONS made by Hahnemann, which are known as fundamental principles of Homeopathy.

Hahnemann tried to explain these OBSERVATIONS in terms of scientific and philosophical knowledge available to him in that POINT OF TIME. Organon consists of these theoretical explanations and speculations. Since scientific knowledge was in its primitive stage at that time, Hahnemann’s explanations were bound to bear that limitations. ORGANON contains a lot of theorizations and speculations that do not agree with, or go against modern scientific understanding.

Equipped with modern scientific knowledge and its tools, we are now in a far better position than Samuel Hahnemann to explain the phenomena he observed 250 years ago. Now we can explain ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’ more scientifically, rationally and logically. With full respect the great genius of our master, we should be truthful and bold enough to discard those evidently unscientific theoretical speculations of ORGANON.

These two FUNDAMENTAL OBSERVATIONS were based on experiences, experiments and logical evaluations of OBJECTIVE PHENOMENA OF NATURE done by a great intellectual person. But the ‘principles’ he used to explain these objective phenomena were unscientific, obviously due to the limitations of scientific knowledge available to him at that time. We should accept his OBSERVATIONS, but judiciously discard or modify his unscientific PRINCIPLES.

Some people consider each and every word uttered by our ‘master’ as ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy. Some others would even include the words of other ‘stalwarts’ like Kent, Herring and the like also in the category of ‘fundamental’ principles.

All these ‘theories’ are only philosophical explanations, conjectures, interpretations, opinions and empirical conclusion based on personal experiences of ‘stalwarts’ and ‘masters’. They are not ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy.

If you understand the scientific meaning of ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’, and judiciously apply them for curing the patients, you are a ‘true homeopath’, even if you do not ‘follow’ the ‘seven cardinal principles’ invented by unscientific interpreters of hahnemann.

A ‘true’ homeopath is one who understands and applies homeopathy ‘scientifically- not one who learns homeopathy dogmatically and applies it blindly.

The main point I raise in this article is whether the concept of “seven cardinal principles” originally belongs to hahnemann or his later interpreters. Hahnemann said many things in his books, from ‘similia’ to ‘mesmerism’. Who decided only these ‘seven’ are ‘cardinal’ and others are not? What is the logic behind such a selection? Who did it?

———————————————————————————————

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 matrix, 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, since molecular imprints can act as selective artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules.

My contention is, this phenomenon of molecular imprinting is involved in homeopathic potentization, and the active principles of potentized drugs are ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules.

————————————————————————————————–

I know, it will be difficult for homeopaths as well as allopaths to accept my statement “homeopathy should be considered as an advanced branch of modern molecular medicine”.

Even my most optimistic homeopath friends would think my statement as an over-exaggerated 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 branch of modern medical science.

Homeopathy is considered by the scientific community as a nonsense theory and superstitious practice based on unscientific philosophy of vitalism, where as homeopaths still prefer 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.

I would request both sections to study the phenomenon of ‘high dilution therapeutics’ in terms of molecular imprinting.

————————————————————————————————

Kent said in Lesser Writings: “You cannot divorce medicine and theology. Man exists all the way down from his innermost spiritual to his outermost natural”.

Remember, this is not the words of a religious preacher. These words were spoken by a great physician while explaining the philosophy of homeopathy to his students. This statement clearly exposes the world outlook of Kent, which he used abundantly while explaining homeopathic philosophy.

By saying “you cannot divorce medicine from theology”,Kent actually ‘divorced homeopathy from scientific thought’ for ever.Kent remains to be the most quoted and most followed ‘homeopathic philosopher’ for that class of ‘spiritual homeopaths’, who want homeopathy to remain ‘divorced’ from modern scientific knowledge and scientific methods.

Kent can be rightfully called the ‘father’ of ‘spiritual’ homeopathy.

James Tylor Kent is considered to be next only to Samulel Hahnemann in the history of homeopathy. The repertory he complied still continues to be the most widely used repertory among homeopathic community. What a neophyte understands as homeopathic philosophy is actually ‘Kentian philosophy’. Kent’s ‘Philosophical Lectures’ is used as the basic text book to teach ‘homeopathic philosophy’ in colleges. No wonder the majority of homeopathic community vehemently resist any scientific thought or approach evolving in homeopathy. To be known as a ‘kentian homeopath’ is considered to be most respectable position among homeopaths.

I am quoting following statements of J T KENT from his two famous works, which amply demonstrate the ‘theological’ and ‘spiritualistic’ approach he consciously implanted into the body of homeopathic philosophy.

LESSER WRITINGS:

1. ‘You cannot divorce medicine and theology. Man exists all the way down from his innermost spiritual to his outermost natural.’ [Lesser Writings, p.641]

2. ‘A man who cannot believe in God cannot become a homeopath.” [p.671]

3. ‘The body became corrupt because man’s interior will became corrupt.’ [ibid, p.681]

4. ‘Man…becomes disposed to sickness by doing evil, through thinking wrong…’ [ibid, p.664]

5. ‘Psora is the evolution of the state of man’s will, the ultimates of sin.’ [ibid, p.654]

6. ‘This outgrowth, which has come upon man from living a life of evil willing, is Psora.’ [ibid, p.654]

7. ‘Thinking, willing and doing are the 3 things in life from which finally proceed the chronic miasms.’ [ibid, p.654]

PHILOSOPHICL LECTURES:

1. ‘…had Psora never been established as a miasm upon the human race… susceptibility to acute diseases would have been impossible… it is the foundation of all sickness.’ [Lectures, p.126]

2. ‘Psora…is a state of susceptibility to disease from willing evils.’ [ibid, p.135]

3. ‘The human race today walking the face of the earth, is but little better than a moral leper. Such is the state of the human mind at the present day. To put it another way everyone is Psoric.’ [ibid, p.135]

4. ‘Psora…would not exist in a perfectly healthy race.’ [ibid, p.133]

5. ‘As long as man continued to think that which was true and held that which was good to the neighbour, that which was uprightness and justice, so long man remained free from disease, because that was the state in which he was created.’ [ibid, p.134]

6. ‘The internal state of man is prior to that which surrounds him; therefore, the environment is not the cause…’ [ibid, p.136]

7. ‘Diseases correspond to man’s affections, and the diseases upon the human race today are but the outward expression of man’s interiors… man hates his neighbour, he is willing to violate every commandment; such is the state os man today. This state is represented in man’s diseases.’ [ibid, p.136]

8. ‘The Itch is looked upon as a disgraceful affair; so is everything that has a similar correspondence; because the Itch in itself has a correspondence with adultery…’ [ibid, p.137]

9. ‘How long can this thing go on before the human race is swept from the earth with the results of the suppression of Psora?’ [ibid, pp.137-8]

10. ‘Psora is the beginning of all physical sickness… is the underlying cause and is the primitive or primary disorder of the human race.’ [ibid, p.126]

11. ‘…for it goes to the very primitive wrong of the human race, the very first sickness of the human race that is the spiritual sickness…which in turn laid the foundation for other diseases. [ibid, p.126]

It is obvious from these quotes that Kent took a very puritanical and moral approach towards the origins of disease within the human race and he apparently felt that Psora was equivalent to ‘Original Sin’ or the ‘Fall of Man’. That is why he says ‘homeopathy cannot be divorced from theology.

Hahnemann only said that Psora was the most ancient and insidious miasm, and that it was derived from skin eruptions of various types in the past, such as scabies (Itch), leprosy and psoriasis. These had been contracted by ancestors or in one’s own early childhood. The suppression of these conditions especially through the use of ointments he held to be the primary cause of Psora.

“Psora is that most ancient, most universal, most destructive, and yet most misapprehended chronic miasmatic disease which for many thousands of years has disfigured and tortured mankind… and become the mother of all the thousands of incredibly various chronic diseases… [Chronic Diseases, p9]”

But Kent, in his Lectures, greatly enlarged upon the theory of miasms, proposing that Psora was the foundation of all other illness, without which mankind would be pure and healthy both in mind and body, as in the Garden of Eden. He thus regarded Psora as being equated with the ‘Fall of Man’ and with original sinfulness. He portrayed Psora in this highly moralistic light as also being the foundation of the sexual miasms that came later.

Beyond any doubt,Kent here deviated a lot from original concepts of Hahnemann regarding miasms, there by making homeopathy more of theology than medical science.

The theory of miasms originates in Hahnemann’s book The Chronic Diseases which was published in 1828. Around the same time that hahnemann decided to fix 30c as the standard potency for all homoeopaths. He declared that the theory was the result of 12 years of the most painstaking work on difficult cases of a chronic character combined with his own historical research into the diseases of man. But it was kent, who made homeopathy an art of ‘ultra high’ dilutions.

From the quotes above, it is clear thatKentemphasized the moral aspect of origin of miasms, connecting it with ‘sexual sins’. Hahnemann unlike Kent, attached no moral dimension whatsoever to the sexual nature of the two latter miasms.

See Kent saying: ‘You cannot divorce medicine and theology”. And, ‘A man who cannot believe in God cannot become a homeopath.”

Being spiritual does not necessarily make one a ‘good’ homeopath or ‘bad’ homeopath. If one know how to apply simila similibus curentur correctly, and have enough knowledge of materia medica, anybody can be a ‘good’ homeopath. It was Kent, who unnecessarily introduced the issue of being spiritualist or not as a condition to be a ‘good’ homeopath. His statement that “one who does not believe in god cannot be a homeopath” is totally irrelevant. Hahnemann never placed that condition. It was kent who ‘married’ homeopathy with theology- not hahnemann. I was discussing that aspect of kent’s contribution in my article. In my opinion, without freeing homeopathy from this ‘theological’ and ‘spiritualistic’ philosophy of kent, we cannot study and practice homeopathy as a ‘medical science’. Homeopathy will remain a ‘theological’ or ‘spiritualistic’ healing art as kent wanted it to be.
————————————————————————————————

All those ‘SPOKESPERSONS’, ‘LEADERS’, ‘MASTERS’, ‘EINSTEINS’, ‘LIONS’, ‘GURUS’ and ‘AUTHORITIES’ of homeopathy should realize the simple fact that High Dilution Therapeutics involved in homeopathy could be rationally explained ONLY in terms of Molecular Imprinting. Until you realize and accept this truth, and reconstitute your ideas and ‘methods’, accordingly, all your intellectual exercises about building ‘theories’ will lead homeopathy to no where but into a total pseudo-scientific and superstitious mess.

Homeopathy is Molecular Imprints Therapeutics (MIT)- An advanced branch of modern molecular medicine. Fundamental difference between modern molecular medicine and homeopathy is that where as molecular medicine uses ‘drug molecules’ as therapeutic agents, homeopathy uses ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules.

———————————————————————————————-

A scientist can be a spiritualist also. But a man with ‘scientific world outlook’ cannot be a spiritualist. You can give any number of great scientists who were spiritualists. Being a spiritualist, a scientist cannot utilize full potentials of scientific knowledge. To follow a ‘scientific world out look’ is is entirely different from ‘knowledge in science’. Homeopathy cannot be a ‘scientific medicine’, if you understand and practice it as ‘spiritual medicine’ or ‘theological medicine’. I know the influence of spiritualism and kentian philosophy is very deep rooted among homeopaths, and my statement in this regard will not be easily accepted by the profession. But I am sure, homeopaths having ‘scientific world outlook’ will accept my statement.

Kent said “one who do not believe in god cannot be a homeopath. No man with a scientific world outlook can agree to this statement. Homeopathy as a medical science has nothing to do with ‘believing in god’. You can believe or not believe in god, and be a good homeopath.

I am fully convinced that without freeing homeopathic philosophy and homeopathic community from the spiritualistic or theological influence of ‘kentian philosophy’, we cannot hope homeopathy to become a scientific medical system.

Studying homeopathic philosophy directly from the original works of hahnemann such as organon and chronic diseases, using scientific and logical mindset is essential first step to free oneself from the influence of ‘spiritualistic’ philosophy ofKent. Only then can we realize the importance of scientific understanding of homeopathy.

———————————————————————————————–

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-ctivate 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 sensitisation 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.

———————————————————————————————–

Similia Similibus Curentur means, a drug in potentized or ‘molecular imprints’ form can cure diseases having symptoms similar to those produced by that drug in crude or ‘molecular’ forms.

If symptoms of a disease and symptoms produced by a drug appear ‘similar’, that means the natural disease as well as drug disease have ‘similar’ molecular errors behind them, happened in similar biological molecules.

That means, molecules contained in drug as well as molecules contained in pathogenic agents were capable of attacking similar biological targets and producing similar molecular errors.

That means, drug molecules and pathogenic molecules have similar spacial conformations and similar gunctional groups, so that they could attack similar biological molecules and produce similar molecular errors

As such, ‘similia similibus curentur’ means, ‘molecular inhibitions’ caused by pathogenic molecules can be removed by using molecular imprints of drug molecules having spacial conformations and functional groups similar to the pathogenic molecules.

Molecular imprints are three supramolecular formations of water-ethyl alcohol molecules, into which the conformations of drug molecules are imprinted as three dimensional nano cavities. These nanocavities can act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules similar to the molecules used for imprinting.

———————————————————————————————–

Homeopaths consider ‘susceptibility’ of the individual as the fundamental ‘cause’ of disease. According to them, ‘susceptibility’ is a property of ‘vital force’, which is a ‘dynamic’,‘non-material’, ‘non-corporeal’, ‘conceptual’ and spiritual entity that enlivens and governs the organism from the ‘interior’. As such, ‘susceptibility’ to diseases is also ‘dynamic’.

As per this concept, ‘classical’ homeopaths would persistently argue that even so-called ‘infectious diseases’ are not caused by bacteria or viruses, but the ‘internal susceptibility’, dynamic in nature. They say: “Small pox virus is not the cause of smallpox, vibrio cholerae is not the cause of cholera”. According to this theory, homeopathy is not involved with ‘treating infections’, but ‘correcting’ the susceptibility.

‘Constitutional susceptibility’ and ‘miasmatic susceptibility’ are terms frequently encountered in homeopathic discussions.

Similar to ‘vital force’ theory regarding diseases, and ‘dynamization’ theory of potentized drugs, this ‘dynamic’ theory of ‘susceptibility’ is another stumbling block that prevents homeopathy from becoming a scientific medical system. With such a totally unscientific theory homeopathy cannot effectively communicate with scientific community.

‘Susceptibility’ in medical terms means the ‘state or character of being susceptible to disease’.

In epidemiology “a susceptible individual is a member of a population who is at risk of becoming infected by a disease, or can not take a certain medicine, antibiotic, etc if he or she is exposed to the infectious agent.”

From the viewpoint of immunology, ‘susceptible’ individuals have been exposed to neither the wild strain of the disease nor a vaccination against it, and thus have not developed immunity. Those individuals who have antibodies against an antigen associated with a particular infectious disease will not be susceptible, even if they did not produce the antibody themselves (for example, infants younger than six months who still have maternal antibodies passed through the placenta and from the colostrum, and adults who have had a recent injection of antibodies). However, these individuals soon return to the susceptible state as the antibodies are broken down.

Some individuals may have a genetically determined natural resistance to a particular infectious disease. However, except in some special cases, these individuals make up such a small proportion of the total population

In Virology, ‘susceptibility’ is an important factor that decides the possibility of viral infections. Viruses are only able to cause disease or pathologies if they meet several criteria: 1. The virus is able to enter the cell (called a susceptible state). 2. There is a sufficient number of viruses within the cell. 3. The virus is able to replicate within the cell (called a permissive state). Hence ‘susceptibility’ only refers to the fact that the virus is able to get into the cell, via having the proper receptor(s), and as a result, despite the fact that a host may be susceptible, the virus may still not be able to cause any pathologies within the host. Reasons for this are varied and may include suppression by the host immune system, or abortive measures taken by intrinsic cell defenses.” All these factors belong purely to biochemistry- nothing ‘dynamic’

There is no doubt, ‘susceptibility’ plays a major role in disease processes. When we sow same seeds on different fields, their rate of germination and growth will be different. The environmental conditions of soil, atmosphere and climate play a decisive role in this process. Availability of nutrients, water, sunlight, and various other micro-level factors influence the germination of seeds and growth of seedlings. If we sow same seeds on a barren rock, it will not germinate. This shows the role of environmental factors.

In a similar way, the internal biochemical environment of the organism, which is also more or less influenced by external environment, plays a role in deciding the ‘susceptibility’ of the individual to diseases including infections. ‘Causative’ agents of diseases are expressed in a biochemical background of ‘susceptibility’.

Internal biochemical environment that decide ‘susceptibility’ consist of diverse factors belonging to following categories:

Genetic factors

Nutritional factors

Miasmatic factor

Immunological factors

Metabolic factors

Emotional factors

Drug-induced factors

Environmental factors

In order to promote a scientific perspective in homeopathy, we should understand and explain ‘susceptibility’ as the ‘state of internal biochemical environment of the organism that facilitates diseases’.

‘Susceptibility’ can be changed for the better using potentized homeopathic drugs selected as similimum considering the totality of physical generals, mentals and miasmatic molecular errors of the individual.

———————————————————————————————-

Since homeopathy is practiced on the basis of therapeutic principle of ‘Similia Similibus Curentu’, many homeopaths think that clinical diagnosis has no place in homeopathic practice.They consider these factors only of lesser value, helpful only for ‘patient satisfaction’ or ‘prognosis’.

I think we should perceive the information provided by modern technological advancements and laboratory investigations as part of collecting ‘objective’ symptoms, and learn to utilize them in the search for similimum.

All diagnostic tools provided by ‘modern technology’ are only extensions of physician’s sense organs, which help in making ‘enhanced’ observation of his patient’s symptoms. Similar to the ordinary spectacle that enhances the vision or stethoscope enhances the sounds, laboratory tests and sophisticated equipments ‘enhances’ our observation. As such, information provided by these tests and tools should be considered as ‘Objective Symptoms’ similar to any other objective symptoms, and can be utilized in finding similimum. Only problem is, since our drug provings were not conducted insuch a technologically advanced environment, they do not provide these types of ‘enhanced symptoms’. Due to ill-equipped drug- provings so far conducted, we have no a systematic knowledge of such symptoms now available in our materia medica. But, we can collect such clinical observations from daily practice, and enrich our materia medica.

I hope future drug proving protocols will incorporate modern technology, and collect these ‘enhanced observations’ also and add them to future materia medica compilations. Then, homeopathy will be in a position to utilize these information also in finding appropriate similimum.

I am saying lab investigations should be made part of drug proving protocol, and such information included in materia medica as ‘symptoms’, so that they could be used for finding similimum. That is why I said lab investigations should be part of ‘homeopathic case taking’, not part of ‘homeopathic practice’. I wanted to highlight that difference.

Information obtained from such investigations could be utilized as ‘Objective Symptoms’, I mean. That means, we can make ‘homeopathic prescriptions’ based on lab investigations also, along with other symptoms

I persistently try to expose all those ‘big’ people who are propagating homeopathy as a branch of ‘energy medicine’ or ‘spiritual healing’, not due to any personal vendetta. Actually, I do not know these people personally. I do this campaign as part of my mission of advancing homeopathy as a full-fledged ‘medical science’, which I think, cannot be achieved without freeing it from malignant influence of diverse shades of ‘energy medicine’ theories and their highly influential international propagators.

————————————————–

Using the scientific knowledge already available now, I have been trying to explore the exact molecular mechanism by which ANTIBODIES produce chronic diseases. Since ANTIBODIES are native globulin PROTEINS that have undergone misfolding by interacting with alien proteins, they can themselves behave as aliens in the organism and produce pathological inhibitions by binding to various biological molecules. Such molecular inhibitions caused by ANTIBODIES are the real molecular level villains playing behind various chronic diseases such as AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES, PROTEINOPATHIES, AMYLOID DISEASES AND PRION DISEASES. Hahnemann called these chronic residual effects of ANTIBODIES as MIASMS.

See, how Hahnemann’s concept of CHRONIC DISEASES relating it with INFECTIOUS MIASMS, paves the way for a SCIENTIFIC understanding of a whole class of grave diseases, and developing of a whole new range of therapeutic agents and techniques to combat them.

————————————————————-

Hahnemann’s observations of CHRONIC DISEASES, relating it with INFECTIOUS DISEASES, would have been a revolutionary event in medical history, had anybody- be it hahnemann himself, his followers or scientists- taken up the task of explaining it in scientific terms.

Had anybody asked the question how an infectious disease can cause life-long RESIDUAL EFFECTS in the organism even after the infection is over, everything would have been clear. It would have been obvious that infectious agents can produce life-long RESIDUAL EFFECTS in the form of CHRONIC DISEASES only through ANTIBODIES generated in the body against infectious agents.

Such a realization would have helped medical as well as scientific community to view ANTIBODIES from a different perspective- as CAUSATIVE AGENTS of diverse types of CHRONIC DISEASES- over and above their role as DEFENSE molecules

———————————————————————————————–

It was hahnemann, who for the first time proposed that diverse types of CHRONIC DISEASES could be produced in the long run by INFECTIOUS agents, which he called MIASMS.

I have been trying to explain in scientific terms, how CHRONIC DISEASES could be produced by infectious agents, even after the infections are over. This led me into the realization that INFECTIOUS AGENTS can produce life-long chronic disease dispositions only through OFF TARGET actions of ANTIBODIES generated in the body against them.

I came to the conclusion that ANTIBODIES generated against ALIEN PROTEINS such as infectious agents and vaccines could be the real carriers of MIASMS hahnemann considered to be the fundamental cause of CHRONIC DISEASES.

———————————————————————————————–

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. How can you ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ with me without reading and understanding them? 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?

Kindly update your basic knowledge in the topics I discuss. Then only you can follow the concepts I talk about. 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 science, and only very little remains to be ‘proved’ about homeopathy.

————————————————————————————————-

I am not “trying to change fundamental laws of homeopathy” as some friends are worried about. I am trying only to explain the fundamentals of homeopathy in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge system. If you lend some time to go through my articles on my pages, you would realize that I have already explained ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’ scientifically and rationally.

———————————————————————————————-

Many homeopaths talk about ‘seven cardinal principles of hahnemann’, and believe that without following these ‘cardinal’ principles one cannot be a ‘true’ homeopath.

Did hahnemann ever say there are ‘seven’ cardinal principles in homeopathy? Kindly verify for references from hahnemann’s original works. When we say homeopaths should ‘follow’ certain ‘cardinal principles of hahnemann’, we should inquire about the original reference where hahnemann said these are the cardinal principles.

Actually hahnemann did not make a ‘list’ of principles. He made some objective observations regarding the phenomenon of ‘cure’, and inferred that an objective ‘law’ is working under this phenomenon. He called it ‘similia similibus curentur’.

While experimenting with smaller and smaller doses of drug substances to avoid the bad effects of crude drugging prevalent in conventional medicine during that period, he noticed that even highly diluted drugs have medicinal effects, even though there existed least chance for medicinal substance to be present in them

Then he took up the task of explaining these two phenomena ( similia similibus curentur and high dilution effects) using the existing scientific knowledge available to him, thereby trying to build up a simple, safe and effective therapeutic system.

Since the scientific knowledge system was in its primitive stage of evolution during that time, it was difficult to explain these observed phenomena using existing tool-kit of science. In the absence of necessary scientific knowledge available for accomplishing this task, he was compelled to speculate using philosophical concepts such as ‘dynamism’ or ‘vitalism’. Actually, ORGANON represents his highly intellectual attempts to explain his fundamental observations regarding phenomena of cure.

In organon, he discussed many things, from ‘vital force theory’ to ‘mesmerism’. That does not mean everything he discussed are ‘cardinal’ principles of homeopathy. If you want to identify such ‘cardinal’ or ‘basic’ things of homeopathy, they are ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’. They are the ‘fundamental objective observations’ of natural phenomena. Everything else is philosophical speculations, which are bound to change as our scientific knowledge advances.

Actually, the ‘seven cardinal principles’ were the invention of some later interpreters- not of hahnemann. Somebody understood homeopathy that way- that is all. You can ‘filter’ any number of ‘cardinal’ principles from hahnemann’s works, according to your perspectives and understandings. If you want to see ‘vital force’ as cardinal principle of homeopathy, somebody else could say ‘mesmerism’ is also a cardinal principle of homeopathy. You can list ‘seven’ or ‘seventy’.

Somebody involved in the making of homeopathic curriculum for Indian universities happened to be influenced by this ‘seven cardinal principles’ and included it in the syllabus. Indian students were taught that to be a ‘true’ homeopath, they should ‘follow’ these ‘seven’ principles. If it was part of your syllabus, somebody should have asked the teachers for original references from hahnemann and verify whether hahnemann did say these ‘seven’ are ‘cardinal principles’ of homeopathy. That is the way inquisitive minds should work and learn more and more deep.

According to my analysis, the only ‘cardinal’ or ‘basic’ things in homeopathy are ‘two’ fundamental observations hahnemann made regarding the objective phenomena of ‘cure’. They are ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’. Everything else is totally unscientific speculations and theorizations made in an attempt to explain these ‘basic’ observations. There is nothing ‘cardinal’ in those observations. It is our duty to explain hahnemann’s ‘fundamental observations’ in terms of modern scientific knowledge system.

I would like to call ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ and ‘Potentization’ as FUNDAMENTAL OBSERVATIONS OF HOMEOPATHY, rather than using the term ‘fundamental principles’. That would be more close to truth.

Hahnemann made two important observations regarding therapeutics 250 years ago:

1. Diseases with specific symptoms can be cured by drugs that can produce similar symptoms in healthy individuals. He called it ‘similia similibus curentur’.

2. When used according to ‘similia similibus curentur’, dug substances can act as powerful therapeutic agents even in high dilutions through a process of serial ‘dilution and succussion’. He called this process as ‘potentization’.

These TWO are the main OBSERVATIONS made by Hahnemann, which are known as fundamental principles of Homeopathy.

Hahnemann tried to explain these OBSERVATIONS in terms of scientific and philosophical knowledge available to him in that POINT OF TIME. Organon consists of these theoretical explanations and speculations. Since scientific knowledge was in its primitive stage at that time, Hahnemann’s explanations were bound to bear that limitations. ORGANON contains a lot of theorizations and speculations that do not agree with, or go against modern scientific understanding.

Equipped with modern scientific knowledge and its tools, we are now in a far better position than Samuel Hahnemann to explain the phenomena he observed 250 years ago. Now we can explain ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’ more scientifically, rationally and logically. With full respect the great genius of our master, we should be truthful and bold enough to discard those evidently unscientific theoretical speculations of ORGANON.

These two FUNDAMENTAL OBSERVATIONS were based on experiences, experiments and logical evaluations of OBJECTIVE PHENOMENA OF NATURE done by a great intellectual person. But the ‘principles’ he used to explain these objective phenomena were unscientific, obviously due to the limitations of scientific knowledge available to him at that time. We should accept his OBSERVATIONS, but judiciously discard or modify his unscientific PRINCIPLES.

Some people consider each and every word uttered by our ‘master’ as ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy. Some others would even include the words of other ‘stalwarts’ like Kent, Herring and the like also in the category of ‘fundamental’ principles.

All these ‘theories’ are only philosophical explanations, conjectures, interpretations, opinions and empirical conclusion based on personal experiences of ‘stalwarts’ and ‘masters’. They are not ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy.

If you understand the scientific meaning of ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’, and judiciously apply them for curing the patients, you are a ‘true homeopath’, even if you do not ‘follow’ the ‘seven cardinal principles’ invented by unscientific interpreters of hahnemann.

A ‘true’ homeopath is one who understands and applies homeopathy ‘scientifically- not one who learns homeopathy dogmatically and applies it blindly.

The main point I raise in this article is whether the concept of “seven cardinal principles” originally belongs to hahnemann or his later interpreters. Hahnemann said many things in his books, from ‘similia’ to ‘mesmerism’. Who decided only these ‘seven’ are ‘cardinal’ and others are not? What is the logic behind such a selection? Who did it?

———————————————————————————————

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 matrix, 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, since molecular imprints can act as selective artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules.

My contention is, this phenomenon of molecular imprinting is involved in homeopathic potentization, and the active principles of potentized drugs are ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules.

————————————————————————————————–

I know, it will be difficult for homeopaths as well as allopaths to accept my statement “homeopathy should be considered as an advanced branch of modern molecular medicine”.

Even my most optimistic homeopath friends would think my statement as an over-exaggerated 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 branch of modern medical science.

Homeopathy is considered by the scientific community as a nonsense theory and superstitious practice based on unscientific philosophy of vitalism, where as homeopaths still prefer 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.

I would request both sections to study the phenomenon of ‘high dilution therapeutics’ in terms of molecular imprinting.

————————————————————————————————

Kent said in Lesser Writings: “You cannot divorce medicine and theology. Man exists all the way down from his innermost spiritual to his outermost natural”.

Remember, this is not the words of a religious preacher. These words were spoken by a great physician while explaining the philosophy of homeopathy to his students. This statement clearly exposes the world outlook of Kent, which he used abundantly while explaining homeopathic philosophy.

By saying “you cannot divorce medicine from theology”,Kent actually ‘divorced homeopathy from scientific thought’ for ever.Kent remains to be the most quoted and most followed ‘homeopathic philosopher’ for that class of ‘spiritual homeopaths’, who want homeopathy to remain ‘divorced’ from modern scientific knowledge and scientific methods.

Kent can be rightfully called the ‘father’ of ‘spiritual’ homeopathy.

James Tylor Kent is considered to be next only to Samulel Hahnemann in the history of homeopathy. The repertory he complied still continues to be the most widely used repertory among homeopathic community. What a neophyte understands as homeopathic philosophy is actually ‘Kentian philosophy’. Kent’s ‘Philosophical Lectures’ is used as the basic text book to teach ‘homeopathic philosophy’ in colleges. No wonder the majority of homeopathic community vehemently resist any scientific thought or approach evolving in homeopathy. To be known as a ‘kentian homeopath’ is considered to be most respectable position among homeopaths.

I am quoting following statements of J T KENT from his two famous works, which amply demonstrate the ‘theological’ and ‘spiritualistic’ approach he consciously implanted into the body of homeopathic philosophy.

LESSER WRITINGS:

1. ‘You cannot divorce medicine and theology. Man exists all the way down from his innermost spiritual to his outermost natural.’ [Lesser Writings, p.641]

2. ‘A man who cannot believe in God cannot become a homeopath.” [p.671]

3. ‘The body became corrupt because man’s interior will became corrupt.’ [ibid, p.681]

4. ‘Man…becomes disposed to sickness by doing evil, through thinking wrong…’ [ibid, p.664]

5. ‘Psora is the evolution of the state of man’s will, the ultimates of sin.’ [ibid, p.654]

6. ‘This outgrowth, which has come upon man from living a life of evil willing, is Psora.’ [ibid, p.654]

7. ‘Thinking, willing and doing are the 3 things in life from which finally proceed the chronic miasms.’ [ibid, p.654]

PHILOSOPHICL LECTURES:

1. ‘…had Psora never been established as a miasm upon the human race… susceptibility to acute diseases would have been impossible… it is the foundation of all sickness.’ [Lectures, p.126]

2. ‘Psora…is a state of susceptibility to disease from willing evils.’ [ibid, p.135]

3. ‘The human race today walking the face of the earth, is but little better than a moral leper. Such is the state of the human mind at the present day. To put it another way everyone is Psoric.’ [ibid, p.135]

4. ‘Psora…would not exist in a perfectly healthy race.’ [ibid, p.133]

5. ‘As long as man continued to think that which was true and held that which was good to the neighbour, that which was uprightness and justice, so long man remained free from disease, because that was the state in which he was created.’ [ibid, p.134]

6. ‘The internal state of man is prior to that which surrounds him; therefore, the environment is not the cause…’ [ibid, p.136]

7. ‘Diseases correspond to man’s affections, and the diseases upon the human race today are but the outward expression of man’s interiors… man hates his neighbour, he is willing to violate every commandment; such is the state os man today. This state is represented in man’s diseases.’ [ibid, p.136]

8. ‘The Itch is looked upon as a disgraceful affair; so is everything that has a similar correspondence; because the Itch in itself has a correspondence with adultery…’ [ibid, p.137]

9. ‘How long can this thing go on before the human race is swept from the earth with the results of the suppression of Psora?’ [ibid, pp.137-8]

10. ‘Psora is the beginning of all physical sickness… is the underlying cause and is the primitive or primary disorder of the human race.’ [ibid, p.126]

11. ‘…for it goes to the very primitive wrong of the human race, the very first sickness of the human race that is the spiritual sickness…which in turn laid the foundation for other diseases. [ibid, p.126]

It is obvious from these quotes that Kent took a very puritanical and moral approach towards the origins of disease within the human race and he apparently felt that Psora was equivalent to ‘Original Sin’ or the ‘Fall of Man’. That is why he says ‘homeopathy cannot be divorced from theology.

Hahnemann only said that Psora was the most ancient and insidious miasm, and that it was derived from skin eruptions of various types in the past, such as scabies (Itch), leprosy and psoriasis. These had been contracted by ancestors or in one’s own early childhood. The suppression of these conditions especially through the use of ointments he held to be the primary cause of Psora.

“Psora is that most ancient, most universal, most destructive, and yet most misapprehended chronic miasmatic disease which for many thousands of years has disfigured and tortured mankind… and become the mother of all the thousands of incredibly various chronic diseases… [Chronic Diseases, p9]”

But Kent, in his Lectures, greatly enlarged upon the theory of miasms, proposing that Psora was the foundation of all other illness, without which mankind would be pure and healthy both in mind and body, as in the Garden of Eden. He thus regarded Psora as being equated with the ‘Fall of Man’ and with original sinfulness. He portrayed Psora in this highly moralistic light as also being the foundation of the sexual miasms that came later.

Beyond any doubt,Kent here deviated a lot from original concepts of Hahnemann regarding miasms, there by making homeopathy more of theology than medical science.

The theory of miasms originates in Hahnemann’s book The Chronic Diseases which was published in 1828. Around the same time that hahnemann decided to fix 30c as the standard potency for all homoeopaths. He declared that the theory was the result of 12 years of the most painstaking work on difficult cases of a chronic character combined with his own historical research into the diseases of man. But it was kent, who made homeopathy an art of ‘ultra high’ dilutions.

From the quotes above, it is clear thatKentemphasized the moral aspect of origin of miasms, connecting it with ‘sexual sins’. Hahnemann unlike Kent, attached no moral dimension whatsoever to the sexual nature of the two latter miasms.

See Kent saying: ‘You cannot divorce medicine and theology”. And, ‘A man who cannot believe in God cannot become a homeopath.”

Being spiritual does not necessarily make one a ‘good’ homeopath or ‘bad’ homeopath. If one know how to apply simila similibus curentur correctly, and have enough knowledge of materia medica, anybody can be a ‘good’ homeopath. It was Kent, who unnecessarily introduced the issue of being spiritualist or not as a condition to be a ‘good’ homeopath. His statement that “one who does not believe in god cannot be a homeopath” is totally irrelevant. Hahnemann never placed that condition. It was kent who ‘married’ homeopathy with theology- not hahnemann. I was discussing that aspect of kent’s contribution in my article. In my opinion, without freeing homeopathy from this ‘theological’ and ‘spiritualistic’ philosophy of kent, we cannot study and practice homeopathy as a ‘medical science’. Homeopathy will remain a ‘theological’ or ‘spiritualistic’ healing art as kent wanted it to be.
————————————————————————————————

All those ‘SPOKESPERSONS’, ‘LEADERS’, ‘MASTERS’, ‘EINSTEINS’, ‘LIONS’, ‘GURUS’ and ‘AUTHORITIES’ of homeopathy should realize the simple fact that High Dilution Therapeutics involved in homeopathy could be rationally explained ONLY in terms of Molecular Imprinting. Until you realize and accept this truth, and reconstitute your ideas and ‘methods’, accordingly, all your intellectual exercises about building ‘theories’ will lead homeopathy to no where but into a total pseudo-scientific and superstitious mess.

Homeopathy is Molecular Imprints Therapeutics (MIT)- An advanced branch of modern molecular medicine. Fundamental difference between modern molecular medicine and homeopathy is that where as molecular medicine uses ‘drug molecules’ as therapeutic agents, homeopathy uses ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules.

———————————————————————————————-

A scientist can be a spiritualist also. But a man with ‘scientific world outlook’ cannot be a spiritualist. You can give any number of great scientists who were spiritualists. Being a spiritualist, a scientist cannot utilize full potentials of scientific knowledge. To follow a ‘scientific world out look’ is is entirely different from ‘knowledge in science’. Homeopathy cannot be a ‘scientific medicine’, if you understand and practice it as ‘spiritual medicine’ or ‘theological medicine’. I know the influence of spiritualism and kentian philosophy is very deep rooted among homeopaths, and my statement in this regard will not be easily accepted by the profession. But I am sure, homeopaths having ‘scientific world outlook’ will accept my statement.

Kent said “one who do not believe in god cannot be a homeopath. No man with a scientific world outlook can agree to this statement. Homeopathy as a medical science has nothing to do with ‘believing in god’. You can believe or not believe in god, and be a good homeopath.

I am fully convinced that without freeing homeopathic philosophy and homeopathic community from the spiritualistic or theological influence of ‘kentian philosophy’, we cannot hope homeopathy to become a scientific medical system.

Studying homeopathic philosophy directly from the original works of hahnemann such as organon and chronic diseases, using scientific and logical mindset is essential first step to free oneself from the influence of ‘spiritualistic’ philosophy ofKent. Only then can we realize the importance of scientific understanding of homeopathy.

———————————————————————————————–

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-ctivate 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 sensitisation 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.

———————————————————————————————–

Similia Similibus Curentur means, a drug in potentized or ‘molecular imprints’ form can cure diseases having symptoms similar to those produced by that drug in crude or ‘molecular’ forms.

If symptoms of a disease and symptoms produced by a drug appear ‘similar’, that means the natural disease as well as drug disease have ‘similar’ molecular errors behind them, happened in similar biological molecules.

That means, molecules contained in drug as well as molecules contained in pathogenic agents were capable of attacking similar biological targets and producing similar molecular errors.

That means, drug molecules and pathogenic molecules have similar spacial conformations and similar gunctional groups, so that they could attack similar biological molecules and produce similar molecular errors

As such, ‘similia similibus curentur’ means, ‘molecular inhibitions’ caused by pathogenic molecules can be removed by using molecular imprints of drug molecules having spacial conformations and functional groups similar to the pathogenic molecules.

Molecular imprints are three supramolecular formations of water-ethyl alcohol molecules, into which the conformations of drug molecules are imprinted as three dimensional nano cavities. These nanocavities can act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules similar to the molecules used for imprinting.

———————————————————————————————–

Homeopaths consider ‘susceptibility’ of the individual as the fundamental ‘cause’ of disease. According to them, ‘susceptibility’ is a property of ‘vital force’, which is a ‘dynamic’,‘non-material’, ‘non-corporeal’, ‘conceptual’ and spiritual entity that enlivens and governs the organism from the ‘interior’. As such, ‘susceptibility’ to diseases is also ‘dynamic’.

As per this concept, ‘classical’ homeopaths would persistently argue that even so-called ‘infectious diseases’ are not caused by bacteria or viruses, but the ‘internal susceptibility’, dynamic in nature. They say: “Small pox virus is not the cause of smallpox, vibrio cholerae is not the cause of cholera”. According to this theory, homeopathy is not involved with ‘treating infections’, but ‘correcting’ the susceptibility.

‘Constitutional susceptibility’ and ‘miasmatic susceptibility’ are terms frequently encountered in homeopathic discussions.

Similar to ‘vital force’ theory regarding diseases, and ‘dynamization’ theory of potentized drugs, this ‘dynamic’ theory of ‘susceptibility’ is another stumbling block that prevents homeopathy from becoming a scientific medical system. With such a totally unscientific theory homeopathy cannot effectively communicate with scientific community.

‘Susceptibility’ in medical terms means the ‘state or character of being susceptible to disease’.

In epidemiology “a susceptible individual is a member of a population who is at risk of becoming infected by a disease, or can not take a certain medicine, antibiotic, etc if he or she is exposed to the infectious agent.”

From the viewpoint of immunology, ‘susceptible’ individuals have been exposed to neither the wild strain of the disease nor a vaccination against it, and thus have not developed immunity. Those individuals who have antibodies against an antigen associated with a particular infectious disease will not be susceptible, even if they did not produce the antibody themselves (for example, infants younger than six months who still have maternal antibodies passed through the placenta and from the colostrum, and adults who have had a recent injection of antibodies). However, these individuals soon return to the susceptible state as the antibodies are broken down.

Some individuals may have a genetically determined natural resistance to a particular infectious disease. However, except in some special cases, these individuals make up such a small proportion of the total population

In Virology, ‘susceptibility’ is an important factor that decides the possibility of viral infections. Viruses are only able to cause disease or pathologies if they meet several criteria: 1. The virus is able to enter the cell (called a susceptible state). 2. There is a sufficient number of viruses within the cell. 3. The virus is able to replicate within the cell (called a permissive state). Hence ‘susceptibility’ only refers to the fact that the virus is able to get into the cell, via having the proper receptor(s), and as a result, despite the fact that a host may be susceptible, the virus may still not be able to cause any pathologies within the host. Reasons for this are varied and may include suppression by the host immune system, or abortive measures taken by intrinsic cell defenses.” All these factors belong purely to biochemistry- nothing ‘dynamic’

There is no doubt, ‘susceptibility’ plays a major role in disease processes. When we sow same seeds on different fields, their rate of germination and growth will be different. The environmental conditions of soil, atmosphere and climate play a decisive role in this process. Availability of nutrients, water, sunlight, and various other micro-level factors influence the germination of seeds and growth of seedlings. If we sow same seeds on a barren rock, it will not germinate. This shows the role of environmental factors.

In a similar way, the internal biochemical environment of the organism, which is also more or less influenced by external environment, plays a role in deciding the ‘susceptibility’ of the individual to diseases including infections. ‘Causative’ agents of diseases are expressed in a biochemical background of ‘susceptibility’.

Internal biochemical environment that decide ‘susceptibility’ consist of diverse factors belonging to following categories:

Genetic factors

Nutritional factors

Miasmatic factor

Immunological factors

Metabolic factors

Emotional factors

Drug-induced factors

Environmental factors

In order to promote a scientific perspective in homeopathy, we should understand and explain ‘susceptibility’ as the ‘state of internal biochemical environment of the organism that facilitates diseases’.

‘Susceptibility’ can be changed for the better using potentized homeopathic drugs selected as similimum considering the totality of physical generals, mentals and miasmatic molecular errors of the individual.

———————————————————————————————-

Since homeopathy is practiced on the basis of therapeutic principle of ‘Similia Similibus Curentu’, many homeopaths think that clinical diagnosis has no place in homeopathic practice.They consider these factors only of lesser value, helpful only for ‘patient satisfaction’ or ‘prognosis’.

I think we should perceive the information provided by modern technological advancements and laboratory investigations as part of collecting ‘objective’ symptoms, and learn to utilize them in the search for similimum.

All diagnostic tools provided by ‘modern technology’ are only extensions of physician’s sense organs, which help in making ‘enhanced’ observation of his patient’s symptoms. Similar to the ordinary spectacle that enhances the vision or stethoscope enhances the sounds, laboratory tests and sophisticated equipments ‘enhances’ our observation. As such, information provided by these tests and tools should be considered as ‘Objective Symptoms’ similar to any other objective symptoms, and can be utilized in finding similimum. Only problem is, since our drug provings were not conducted insuch a technologically advanced environment, they do not provide these types of ‘enhanced symptoms’. Due to ill-equipped drug- provings so far conducted, we have no a systematic knowledge of such symptoms now available in our materia medica. But, we can collect such clinical observations from daily practice, and enrich our materia medica.

I hope future drug proving protocols will incorporate modern technology, and collect these ‘enhanced observations’ also and add them to future materia medica compilations. Then, homeopathy will be in a position to utilize these information also in finding appropriate similimum.

I am saying lab investigations should be made part of drug proving protocol, and such information included in materia medica as ‘symptoms’, so that they could be used for finding similimum. That is why I said lab investigations should be part of ‘homeopathic case taking’, not part of ‘homeopathic practice’. I wanted to highlight that difference.

Information obtained from such investigations could be utilized as ‘Objective Symptoms’, I mean. That means, we can make ‘homeopathic prescriptions’ based on lab investigations also, along with other symptoms

—————————————————————————————————————

Molecular Imprinting is not my original idea or invention. My contribution in this concept is actually very limited, by way of trying to explain homeopathic potentization as a bio-friendly version of already existing technique of Molecular Imprinting In Polymers

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

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

Since ‘molecular imprinted polymers’ prepared by this process are synthetic polymers, they cannot be used as drugs. Homeopathy uses water-ethyl alcohol mixture as ‘host’ in place of polymers, and drug molecules as ‘templates’ or ‘guests’ for preparing molecular imprints that could be used as drugs. Since molecular imprints prepared by this process consist of only water and ethyl alcohol molecules, they could be safely used as therapeutic agents.

——————————————————————————————————–

‘SIMILIMUM’ actually means a drug substance that contains chemical molecules having ‘conformations similar to that of the of pathogenic molecules that caused the disease’.

Molecules with SIMILAR conformations can bind to SIMILAR biological targets and produce SIMILAR molecular errors that will be expressed through SIMILAR subjective and objective SYMPTOMS.

MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of SIMILAR drug molecules can act as ARTIFICIAL BINDING SITES for SIMILAR pathogenic molecules, and remove the molecular inhibitions that were produced by their action upon biological molecules during disease processes. That amounts to HOMEOPATHIC CURE.

SIMILARITY OF SYMPTOMS is only ONE of the many ways of identifying the drug substance that contains constituent molecules having conformations similar to pathogenic molecules, so that they can act as curative agents when applied in MOLECULAR IMPRINTS form.

What ever way you identify the SIMILIMUM, it will act by a ‘homeopathic’ biological mechanism, if it contains the appropriate molecular imprints required for the patient you are dealing with.

————————————————————————————————————–

1. What IS homeopathy?

Homeopathy is a therapeutic system that treats diseases using MOLECULAR IMPRINTS.

2. What is NOT homeopathy?

Any therapeutic system that treats diseases using any medicinal agent other than MOLECULAR IMPRINTS is NOT homeopathy.

ONLY ‘MOLECULAR IMPRINTS’ CAN ACT BY A BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM THAT IS REALLY ‘HOMEOPATHIC’.

Whether you are practicing homeopathy or not IS decided by the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of drugs you use, and the BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM by which they act in the body. It is NOT decided by HOW YOU SELECT your remedy or what PRINCIPLES you talk about. What ever way you selected the remedy, if you use it in MOLECULAR IMPRINTS form, and if your remedy acted curatively, IT IS HOMEOPATHY

———————————————————————————————————

When defining “what IS homeopathy” and “what IS NOT homeopathy”, we will expect you to answer some fundamental questions:

1. According to you, what happens during potentization, by which the medicinal properties of drug substances are transferred to the medium, without a single drug molecule existing it?

2. What are the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of potentized drugs?

3. What is the exact molecular level BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM by which potentized drugs act upon the body, and produce a therapeutic effect?

If you cannot provide RATIONAL and SCIENTIFICALLY VIABLE answers for these fundamental questions, you are not the appropriate person to define “what is homeopathy” and “what is not homeopathy” in this era of scientific enlightenment.

———————————————————————————————————–

I think the use of DISEASE-SPECIFIC combinations prepared by combining various specific drugs in 30C potency can be very helpful in successful day-to-day practice of ordinary homeopaths. They are certainly not harmful AT ALL. It will be better if the SIMILIMUM of the patient also is prescribed along with that combination, if it is not already included in the STOCK combination. That will make the combination more PATIENT-SPECIFIC.

Any homeopath can make such STOCK PREPARATIONS of ‘disease-specific’ combinations of 30c at his own clinic. It will cost lesser than patented commercial combinations, and formula will be very much flexible.

During dispensing, the similimum of particular patient also could be added to it to make it more perfect. I have been using that method for years very successfully.

For example, we can make a combination for CORNS by adding acid nit 30, ant crud 30, ferrum pic 30 and thuja 30. During dispensing, if the siilimum of the individual patient is lyco, we can add that also into it. This method is very easy, and will give excellent and persistent results.

We can make such specific combinations for ANY disease such as fever, diarrhoea, asthma, cough, warts, hypertension, diabetes etc etc.

———————————————————————————————————-

I prefer SINGLE MEDICINE if I succeed in finding one. If I could not find a single medicine that contains ALL the diverse types of molecular imprints required by the particular patient, I will opt for a PATIENT-SPECIFIC combination of drugs in 30C potency, prepared by incorporating all the different drugs that are indicated by different SYMPTOM GROUPS expressed by the patient.

I am not against the use of DISEASE-SPECIFIC combinations, if they are prepared by combining various specific drugs in 30C potency ONLY. They may be helpful to a certain extend, and certainly not harmful AT ALL. It will be better if the SIMILIMUM of the patient also is prescribed along with that combination, if it is not already included in it.

I totally disagree with the use of MOTHER TINCTURES and potencies BELOW 12c, whether they are single, or combinations.