How Homeopathy Works?



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

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

A knowledge could be considered SCIENTIFIC if it is in the form of explanations and predictions about any phenomenon of the universe that is testable using SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Scientific method involves making hypothetical explanations about phenomena using existing knowledge, deriving predictions from the hypotheses as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions, so as to prove or disprove the hypotheses.

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


‘Molecular Imprinting in Water’ For Target-Specific Drug Designing- Science Behind Homeopathic Potentization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Molecular Imprinting in Polymers:

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

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

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

Molecular Imprinted Proteins:

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

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

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

Molecular Imprinting in Water:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water-Ethyl Alcohol Mixture :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drugs designed through molecular imprinting in water will be the safest of all therapeutic agents so far used in the history medical science. Though there is a chance for these molecular imprints affecting “off-target” molecules or ‘antitargets’ having similarity to the target molecules, such interactions will be of very transient nature, since these molecular imprints will be easily degraded into constituent water-ethyl alcohol molecules. Such temporary interactions with off-target molecules may not lead to any dangerous consequences. Factors such as bioavailability, metabolic half life, and lack of side effects also will be obviously remain in favorable range.

Using various ligands and pathological molecules involved in each disease process as ‘guest’  molecules, we can develop most appropriate specifc designer drugs against almost any disease. Instead of original pathological molecules or ligands, drug molecules having configurational similarity to them also can be used as “guest” molecules in the molecular imprinting protocol. Homeopathic potentization utilizes this strategy, which is the real essence of “similia similibus curentur”. I  hereby appeal to the government and scientific community to take up this task with urgent priority, so that a whole new range of safe and effective designer drugs could be developed though this novel process of molecular imprinting in water.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.



When you say NANOPARTICLES of elemental atoms contained in original drug substances are the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of homeopathic potentized drugs, first of all you are bound to explain where from this unending supply of original substances come in even in minutest doses of preparations diluted much above avogadro limit or 12c, whereas it is well known to everybody that number of molecules in a sample of substance will be limited by avogadro number.

Remember, what the scientists of IIT-B said was only that they could “detect nanoparticles of elemental particles floating randomly in the 1% top layer of the solution”!

You are bound to explain how these “random particles” found to be floating on “top 1% layer” of solution could be the active principles of each and every drops and split drops of even the “bottom most layer” of drugs used by homeopaths!

Will you theorize using your “quantum science” that unlimited number of elemental particles are generated by the process of serial dilution and shaking involved in potentization?

When you say NANOPARTICLES of elemental atoms contained in original drug substances are the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of homeopathic potentized drugs, you are bound to explain by what mechanism the complex chemical molecules contained in drug substances are converted into nanoparticles or “clusters of elemental atoms” by the simple process of serial dilution involved in the process of homeopathic potentization.

Do you think the strong co-valent bonds that hold atoms together in complex chemical molecules could be broken and atoms liberated by the simple mechanical energy applied during shaking or succussion? If so, can anybody be so ridiculous to imagine to split the simple water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen by shaking water taken in a bottle?

When you say NANOPARTICLES of elemental atoms you claim to have detected in some highly diluted samples subjected to spectroscopic studies are the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of homeopathic potentized drugs, you are bound to explain how these simple elemental particles or their clusters can represent or reproduce the biological and medicinal properties of highly complex biological molecules such as proteins, enzymes, alkaloids, glycosides, cytokines, hormones, biological ligands, metabolites etc etc contained in the drug substances used to prepare potentized homeopathic drugs.

For example, the highly neurotoxic alkaloid STRYCHNINE contained in nux vomica is a chemical molecule with formula C21H22N2O2. BRUCINE is another alkaloid with chemical formula C23H26N2O4, and with different set of chemical and biological properties . Both of them contain only carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen, but in different numbers. Do you think these individual elemental atoms generated by division of strychnine can produce the neurotoxic biological effects of strychnine?

Do you think the individual hydrogen and oxygen atoms produced by division of water molecule can produce the chemical or biological properties of water?

Please understand, it is not merely the individual constituent elemental atoms that produce the biological properties of a chemical molecule, but their peculiar organization, spacial placement of atoms, energy levels, molecular conformation and a lot of other factors are involved in it.

It is utter foolishness to think that individual elemental particles or their clusters isolated from complex chemical molecules can represent or produce their highly complex biological or medicinal effects.

Please be careful not to forget these simple basic things while theorizing that nanoparticles of elemental atoms are the active principles of potentized homeopathic drugs.

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


From scientific point of view of pharmaceutical chemistry, a DRUG is a biologically active chemical unit contained in a substance used as therapeutic agent. IT is the structure and properties of that chemical molecule that decides its medicinal properties and therapeutic actions.

If such a medicinal substance contains only ONE type of biologically active unit, it is a SINGLE drug. If it contains different types of biologically active units, it is a COMPOUND drug. It is obvious that most of the drugs we use in homeopathy – especially drugs of biological origin and complex minerals- contain diverse types of biologically active units, and hence they cannot be considered SINGLE drugs.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Please read the quoted statements:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


In order to get homeopathy recognised as a scientific medical system, it is essential that we have to address some fundamental questions involved in homeopathy. Most important one among them is, what really happens during the process of 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 are thereby converted to individual molecules or colloidal particles that are soluble in the water-alcohol medium. Triturations and lower dilutions are biologically more active than crude drugs and mother tinctures, due to this conversion into free molecules and colloidal particles.

Potentization is done using water-ethanol mixtures in AZEOTROPIC ratios, which are known to have peculiar supramolecular properties due to extraordinarily strong and stable hydrogen bonds in them. It is now well known that water exists as a “dynamic branched polymer” constituted by minimum 150 molecules at 24 degrees Celsius temperature. These polymer structures are highly stable in water-ethanol mixtures at azeotropic ratio. Drug molecules are subjected to a process of ‘hydration’ when they are dissolved in such a 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 and transient , but presence of comparatively heavy ethyl alcohol molecules attached to them in azeotropic ratios used for this process make the hydration shells more stable, due to the peculiar properties of hydrogen bonds in azeotropic mixtures. 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, due to cavitation and nano bubbles formation, ‘guest’ molecules happen to be adsorbed to the walls of nano bubbles, and 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. This phenomenon is similar to what is known as molecular imprinting in polymers, and the empty hydration shells remaining after the process could be considered as molecular imprints formed in water-alcohol polymer medium.

It has been reported to have observed that supra-molecular formations of water and alcohol at azeotropic ratio, being part of ‘host-guest’ complexes can maintain their network structures even after the ‘guest’ molecules are removed from them. More over, these empty hydration shells are found to behave some what like nanocrystals, and existing ‘crystals ’ 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 conformations. This ‘conformational 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 conformational affinity. Obviously, low potencies and high potencies act therapeutically by exactly opposite molecular mechanisms.

This explanation still remains a hypothesis, and has to be proved in accordance with scientific method. We are already into that work.

Homeopathy Should Answer the Fundamental Questions!

Anybody with basic scientific awareness knows well that not a single molecule of a drug substance will remain in a sample of solution once it is diluted above Avogadro number.

But homeopathy uses dilutions that are much above this limit, and claims it is working. Moreover, homeopaths talk a lot of unscientific, superstitious and nonsense metaphysical theories such as immaterial vital force and dynamic energy, hoping to provide explanations. This is the main reason why scientific-minded people say homeopathy contradicts existing scientific knowledge, and it is totally unacceptable. This stand is understandable.

In order to establish homeopathy as a genuine scientific medical system, first of all, we should be capable of providing a scientifically viable explanation for the fundamental principle “similia similibus curentur”, in a way fitting to the advanced knowledge provided by modern life sciences, including biochemistry, molecular level pathology as well as pharmacodynamics.

Secondly, we should be capable of providing a rational and scientific answer to the question how the specific medicinal properties of chemical molecules contained in drug substances could be transmitted to and preserved a medium of water and ethanol in its ‘reverse order’, even after removing all the drug molecules from the medium.

Thirdly, it is highly essential that homeopathy should be capable of answering the question, what are “material” active principles contained in post-avogadro diluted preparations that could carry the medicinal properties of drug substances and work as therapeutic agents, whereas it is very much obvious that it will not contain even a single molecule of original drug molecules.

Lastly and most importantly, homeopathy should explain what is the exact biological mechanism by which the active principles of post-avogadro diluted drugs, whatever it be, act upon the biological molecules and produce a therapeutic effect, in a way fitting to the advanced scientific knowledge regarding the kinetics of modern pharmacodynamics.

Homeopathy could be established and accepted as a medical science only when we succeed in providing answers and proofs for these basic scientific questions. Until that happens, it is natural that people with scientific temper will go on asking such rational questions.