How Homeopathy Works?


‘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.


How and why silicea acts as ‘homeopathic scalpel’? To provide a scientific explanation to this phenomenon, we have to inquire deeply into the molecular properties of silica and it’s exact role 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.

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.

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.


CONVENTIONAL HOMEOPATHS approach modern 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.

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.

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 should 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.

Exactly, what is the ‘fundamental principle’of homeopathy? A principle that forms the essential basis of homeopathic therapeutic system? I think there is a lot of confusion over the subject of ‘fundamental principles of homeopathy’, not only among homeopaths, but even our ‘theoreticians’.

In my opinion, the therapeutic principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’ is the only ‘essential’ fundamental principle of homeopathy. ‘Potentization’ is not a fundamental principle, but a practical way of preparing homeopathic drugs. Other ‘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.

Some people consider each and every word uttered by our ‘master’ as ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy. They would profusely quote his words from ORGANON whenever some body raises any hard questions. Some others would even include the words of other ‘stalwarts’ like Kent, Herring and the like also in the category of ‘fundamental’ principles. They would declare that whatever ‘master’ and other ‘stalwarts’ said 200 years ago were “most scientific” and should not be changed. They would not tolerate any attempt of re-reading those ‘theories’ in the light of scientific knowledge humanity has amassed during last two centuries after Hahnemann lived on this earth.

Even though Hanemann was indeed a great genius and visionary, it is impossible for anybody to proceed with his intellectual quest without drawing resources from the treasures of knowledge amassed by previous generations. Obviously, no genius can totally overcome the objective limitations imposed upon him by the space-time context of his life and activities.

We should never forget the objective historical context of 18th century Germany, where Samuel Hahnemann lived and developed his novel therapeutic system. Hahnemann had developed his ideas depending upon the existing knowledge about the universe available to him. It is not to be seen as a sin to say that his thoughts and words were more or less confined by the limitations imposed by the infantile level of science and technology then existed there. Even though the essence of the therapeutic principle he developed is capable of transcending the boundaries of centuries to come, it would be unfair to try to evaluate his achievements and contributions detached from his objective time-space framework.

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

Whenever we try to learn the teachings of Hahnemann, we should be on the look out to understand what he would have said about those subjects, if he were elaborating them in the modern context. We should not take his written words as if they were ultimate immutable truth, unquestionable and beyond any scope of further revisions and improvements. We should honor the great master by following his teachings as valuable guide to tread forward, and not as lifeless dogmas.

If Samuel Hahnemann happened to live among us now, he would have mastered all the latest scientific knowledge available. He would be the greatest scientist of our era. He would explain “similia similibus curentur” on the basis of quantum theory, modern biochemistry and the latest understanding of molecular dynamics of disease and therapeutics. He would have explained “potentization” on the basis of modern ‘molecular imprinting’, and would have devised a more sophisticated and scientific method of molecular imprinting to replace the present process of potentization.


Homeopaths use to talk all sorts of totally absurd and irrational theories and baseless claims about homeopathy, and when asked for scientific proof, they will declare that it is the duty of scientists to prove all those things.
Scientists can prove and explain only what is really scientific in homeopathy. Do not expect science to justify all those nonsense beliefs of homeopaths regarding vital force, dynamic drug energy, dynamic miasms, healing energy, potencies, mesmerism and other innumerable fanciful ideas propagated as ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy. Nobody can prove them!

High dilution homeopathic cure involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’ is an objective natural phenomenon, and science has to explain it in terms of modern scientific paradigms and methods of biological sciences and pharmacology. That means, science has to find out what are the active principles drugs diluted above avogadro limit, and explain its therapeutic actions using a biological model that fits to modern scientific knowledge system. 

Only when modern scientists succeeds in that job, homeopathy will get recognized as a branch of modern scientific medicine. In that process, homeopathy will have to discard all its unscientific beliefs and notions from its theoretical system, and mercilessly throw away most of its most revered innumerable volumes of ‘literature’ into the archives of medical history.
Most homeopaths are deeply obsessed with ideas such as ‘vital force’, ‘dynamic energy’, and many other superstitious beliefs. They cannot imagine a homeopathy devoid of such ideas, principles and laws, which are according to them ‘immutable’! They fear the whole system of homeopathy would fall down if these ‘basic principles’ are not safeguarded, as they are deemed to be the foundation of homeopathy. They fight tooth and nail to defend their absurd and unscientific ‘theories’ which challenge the common sense of even a common man.
They cannot tolerate anybody criticizing the ‘master’ or pointing out any mistakes in any of his aphorisms. According to them, if anything is found in aphorisms that disagree with modern scientific knowledge, it is due to the ‘limitations’of science, as the master is ‘beyond’ any mistakes or limitations! It is the duty of scientists to change their methods and update their knowledge so as to fit to the ‘ultimate’ science of homeopathy created by Hahnemann! 

These faithful ‘hahnemannians’ hope that a day will come when all their ‘beliefs’ and fancies are ‘proved’ scientifically. They believe that modern science is presently lagging much behind homeopathy, and they wait for science to advance so that scientists can understand and accept the theoretical blunders promoted by modern gurus as homeopathy!

The concept of ‘vital force’, on which the whole philosophical system of homeopathy is built up on, stands as a formidable stumbling block in its way of harmony with modern science and its methodology. The theoretical system of Hahnemannian homeopathy is based on the spiritual oncept that there is an abstract ‘vital force’ alien to the physical body, existing as a part of ‘universal force’ which enters the body and possess to enliven it, and leaves it with the advent of death. Homeopaths perceive diseases as disordered states of this ‘vital force’, and believe that it is only on this “immaterial, conceptual level of ‘vital force’ that the cure of diseases might take place.

Whatever be one’s philosophical world out look,  at least when dealing with a science of therapeutics, we have to be capable of replacing the concept of ‘vital force’ with a more rational expression, ‘vital process’, if we could discuss homeopathy as a system of scientific medicine. ‘Vital  processes’ exist through complex chains of interconnected molecular interactions known as biochemical pathways. A state of disease is created through some or other deviations in these normal biochemical processes. Hence, according to our scientific perspective, every pathology starts as an error at the molecular level. We cannot proceed further with our scientific discourse on homeopathy, without recognising at this fundamental position of modern science. Scientists belonging to various disciplines, engaged in the study of various natural phenomena, adopt such a practical stand even if ideologically they happen to be absolute spiritualists. It is impossible even for a most ‘spiritualist’ nuclear physicist to engage himself in his particular research activities, viewing the atoms, sub-atomic particles or forces as mere ‘spiritual entities’. The homeopathic theoreticians also should at least follow this example. They should be able to deal with phenomena of life, disease, therapeutics, and medicinal substances primarily as material substances and processes. It would be better for homeopathy at large, if these ‘masters’ and ‘gurus’ of homeopathy could confine themselves to a scientific vocabulary, refraining from mixing it up with unnecessary spiritualistic and philosophical jugglery of words such as ‘vital force’ and ‘non-corporeal’ ‘dynamic power’, while talking about a scientific theory of therapeutics.

 Using medicinal agents having specific material qualities, we can deal with these ‘vital processes’ only at the material level. It is an absurdity to think that physicians are dealing with an ‘immaterial’, ‘spirit-like’ ‘vital force’, that too, using instruments and medicinal agents of purely material nature. If homeopathic physicians were dealing with ‘immeterial dynamic forces’, instead of using ‘material medicines’, they could have done it better through prayers, ‘pujas’ and other occult practices!

The argument that homeopathic drugs act not by their ‘material qualities’, but by an ‘immaterial’ medicinal force, called ‘dynamic force’ is nothing but absurdity. Would these theoreticians agree that this so-called ‘dynamic power’ of individual drugs’ are determined by the specific ‘material’ properties of their constituent molecules? It is undeniable fact that this so-called ‘dynamic power’ varies from drug to drug, depending up on their molecular level structure and composition. If we were dealing with an immaterial ‘vital force’ and ‘dynamic power’, why should we use all those different types of drugs existing in homeopathy? While talking about ‘immaterial’ ‘spirit-like’ ‘dynamic healing power’, ‘liberated’ through potenization, which can be carried in corked bottles and swallowed as sugar pellets, we should be aware, how much homeopathy would become a laughing stock in the eyes of scientific community. If we still continue to claim that there is a ‘spirit-like’ force in homeopathic medicines, independant of their material qualities, a ‘force’ that is soluble in water and alcohol, that could be transferred from bottles to bottles, acts on the ‘vital force’ when applied on tongue, lost when subjected to physical forces such as heat or electricity, how can we engage in a scientific dialogue? What type of ‘liberated’ ‘non-corporeal ‘dynamic force’ is we talking about?

We have to be well aware that the theory of ‘vital force’ was adopted by Hahnemann from the vitalistic philosophy then existed in Europe. Since modern material science was only in its rudimentary stage, he was not able to explain the phenomena he observed, in scientific terms. Due to inescapable historical limitations, he was naturally compelled to accept some sort of vitalistic explanations for his new inventions.

Now, we live in a new era of enlightenment, totally different from that of Hahnemann. Modern science has unravelled the molecular processes of life and diseases to such a level that we can logically explain the fundamental principles of homeopathy on a new scientific basis. It is an unpardonable injustice done to the great genius of Hahnemann, if we still continue to stick on to his obsolete unscientific explanations. We should exhibit the intellectual courage to mercilessly discard the evidently irrational parts of Hahnemannian homeopathy. Same time, we should safeguard its inner kernel of the great natural therapeutic law of ‘similia similibus curentur’ and therapeutic application of ‘molecular imprints’, which our master called ‘potentized’ drugs. We should bravely replace the concept ‘vital force’ with scientific understanding of ‘vital process’.

As long as ‘classical’ homeopaths continue to cling to their unyielding stand that homoeopathy is a ‘complete-in-itself’ philosophical and therapeutic system, beyond any scope for change and development, I find no chance for a meaningful scientific dialogue to happen. Claiming homeopathy to be a ‘science beyond science’, or ‘post-modern science’ may help somebody to appear fashionable, but they should realize that all these exercises contribute a lot in enstranging this great therapeutic system from main stream science.

Main challenge we face when attempting to offer a scientific explanation for homeopathy is that these homeopathic theoreticians make the situation more and more complicated by mixing up the basic concepts regarding life, disease, drugs and therapeutics, with their idealistic philosophical speculations and unscientific spiritualistic world outlook.

From the very onset, we have to adopt following fundamental factors as the basis of our intellectual inquiry:

Therapeutics is a totally materialistic activity. If we do not agree upon at least this much of fundamental propositions, no meaningful discussion will be possible regarding scientific understanding homeopathy.

Since we are now competent to offer a scientific molecualar interpretation of ‘similia similibus curentur’, and ‘potentization’, the main fundamental principles of homeopathy, there is no need for relying upon the obsolete vitalistic explanations and speculations of Hahnemann, based on the concept of ‘vital force’ and ‘non-cprporeal’ ‘spirit-like’ ‘dynamic medicinal force’. Instead of repeating the unscientific concept of ‘dynamic medicinal force’, we can now logically explain the homeopathic potencies on the basis of ‘molecular imprinting in water’.
The concept of vital force belongs to the pre-scientific era of medical philosophy. During that period, nothing was known about the material basis of vital processes. Modern biochemistry and knowledge of complex biological molecules and biochemical processes were unknown. The wonderful phenomena of life were considered to be due to an immaterial, spirit-like vital force that ‘animates’ the body during life, and leaves the body during death. Vital force was believed to exist even without a body, and disease was considered to be due to some deviations in this ‘dynamic’ vital force. This idea was the basis of all sorts of ‘spiritual helaing’ practices of the primitive society.

Hahnemann also used this ‘vital force’ philosophy in building his homeopathic theortical system, since he could not explain the phenomenon of high dilution therapeutics by any other way. 

The idea of ‘vital force’ has no any role in modern biological sciences or pharmacology. We cannot even reasonably communicate with scientific community unless we discard this unscientific concept from the paradigms of homeopathic therapeutics.


Homeopaths should build up a habit of exploring deeper into the knowledge regarding drug substances than what we get from our material medica books. It is essential to understand about the constituent chemical molecules contained in the drug substances, as well as the biological targets to which they bind in our body when applied as a medicinal agent. Then only we can scientifically know how the drug substances produce “drug symptoms” during proving, and how they remove diseases according to the principle “similia similibus curentur “.
To begin with such a study, let us take up SEPIA as an example first. 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..

We have to study all drugs of homeopathy in this way, if we want to make theory and practice of homeopathy really scientific and rational.


Dear skeptic, if you are not biased and blindly prejudiced against homeopathy, and is a genuine seeker of truth, instead of “killing ” homeopathy on clubhouse and other social media platforms, kindly look around with your eyes open to reality.

Please find some time to visit a few homeopathic clinics in your city and see the patients waiting there, ask them about their experiences with homeopathy. Do not be under the notion that all those people are misguided uneducated ignorant folks- you will of course meet a lot of very rational, science-conscious, highly educated and socially well-placed people there. You can get first-hand information about hundreds of genuine homeopathic cures from them, if you are genuinely interested to know.

You are talking a lot about ‘dangers and deaths caused by homeopathy’. Do you know how many people allopathy kill or make chronically ill everyday around the world? Do you know, high dilution drugs used in homeopathy do not contain any drug molecule, and hence cannot produce any harmful effects upon living body? 

You are saying that all beneficial effects attributed to homeopathy are only placebo effects. Dear sir, if placebo effects are real, will you agree, most of the beneficial effects attributed to allopathy medicines are also due to placebo effects? If not, will you scientifically explain, why placebo theory is applicable to homeopathy only, and not to allopathy medicines? Using your placebo theory, how will you explain those thousands of homeopathy cures produced in small children, livestock and even plants?
If you are ‘not aware’, of ‘evidences for homeopathy’, where from you got ‘evidences against’ homeopathy? How can you utilise your “lack of your knowledge” regarding homeopathy as an evidence against homeopathy?

How can you say homeopathy is a ‘superstitious health belief’? From my 50 years of observations, I am fully ‘aware’ that homeopathy really works. Give me 15 genuine patients with different acute and chronic diseases, to get treated by our homeopathic medical team. I will convince you by 15 days that homeopathy is not placebo or fake.

You always start your arguments from the blind ‘belief’ that homeopathy is ‘placebo’ and ‘quackery’, and you don’t want to know the truth through experiments. Do you think your ‘lack of awareness’ is enough evidence to disprove homeopathy?

You cannot declare homeopathic cure is scientifically implausible, only on the reason that homeopaths are talking a lot of implausible theories about homeopathy. We can change the wrong theories. Scientific theories about homeopathy are gradually evolving. Learn to differentiate between objective homeopathic cures and unscientific subjective theories currently going around about homeopathy.

It is true that theoretical system of homeopathy contains a lot of unscientific ideas, since they were evolved during a period when modern scientific knowledge was in a very primitive state. Due to this historical limitations, Hahnemann could not obviously explain all his truthful observations regarding disease and cure in scientific terms. But wrong explanation does not make a true observation of a natural objective phenomenon untrue. If an existing explanation of a phenomenon is wrong and unfitting to our scientific knowledge, scientific temper demands us to formulate new explanations that are fitting to advance knowledge environment. As per scientific method, limitations of a theory cannot be considered as an evidence to disprove the existence of a phenomenon as such. If theoretical system of homeopathy is wrong, what scientific community has to do is formulate a new theoretical system for explaining homeopathy, in a way fitting to advanced scientific knowledge.

Skeptics have every rights to criticise homeopathy. It is quite natural that anybody equipped with minimum basics of modern scientific knowledge will say ‘homeopathy is scientifically implausible’, if he happens to get introduced to only ‘theoretical\” part of homeopathy, which consistis of a lot of unscientific and ridiculously superstitious ideas.

Same time, skeptics should know, in spite of the ‘scientifically implausible’ theoretical system, the phenomenon of high dilution therapeutics and ‘similia similibus curentur’ involved in homeopathy observed by Hahnemann remains an objective truth proven by thousands of wonderful cures happening every day, which the master failed to explain scientifically due to the historical limitations of knowledge available to him. 

My request to scientific community is, please do not fail to differentiate between the unscientific ‘theoretical system’ of homeopathy, and the objective natural phenomenon involved in homeopathic cure.

Homeopathy could be made acceptable to scientific community, only if homeopaths succeeded in explaining and proving the objective truth involved in it using advanced scientific knowledge and methods, discarding all those unscientific ideas such as “vital force” and “dynamic energy”.

QUICKPICK- An Innovative Repertorization Tool of Similimum Ultra Software

One of my favorite and most frequently used tool in Similimum Ultra Software is QUICK PICK REPERTORIZATION. In most of the occasions it leads me to the right SIMILIMUM with in a split-second once the case taking is over.

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


We cannot make homeopathy established as a scientific medicine without discarding the concept of vital force from its theoretical system.

Vitalism is an unscientific philosophical stream that is based on the belief that “living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things”.

Where vitalism explicitly invokes a vital principle, that element is often referred to as the “vital spark”, vital force, “energy” or “élan vital”, which some equate with the soul.

In the 18th and 19th centuries vitalism was discussed among biologists, between those who felt that the known mechanics of physics would eventually explain the difference between life and non-life and vitalists who argued that the processes of life could not be reduced to a mechanistic process.

Some vitalist biologists proposed testable hypotheses meant to show inadequacies with mechanistic explanations, but these experiments failed to provide support for vitalism.

Biologists now consider vitalism in this sense to have been refuted by empirical evidence, and hence regard it either as a superseded scientific theory, or, since the mid-20th century, as a pseudoscience.

Vitalism has a long history in medical philosophies: many traditional healing practices posited that disease results from some imbalance in vital forces.

The notion that bodily functions are due to a vitalistic principle existing in all living creatures has roots going back at least to ancient Egypt. In Greek philosophy, the Milesian school proposed natural explanations deduced from materialism and mechanism.

However, by the time of Lucretius, this account was supplemented, and in Stoic physics, the pneuma assumed the role of logos. Galen believed the lungs draw pneuma from the air, which the blood communicates throughout the body

Vitalism has a long history in medical philosophies: many traditional healing practices posited that disease results from some imbalance in vital forces.

In the Western tradition founded by Hippocrates, these vital forces were associated with the four temperaments and humours; Eastern traditions posited an imbalance or blocking of qi or prana. One example of a similar notion in Africa is the Yoruba concept of ase. Today forms of vitalism continue to exist as philosophical positions or as tenets in some religious traditions.

Complementary and alternative medicine therapies include energy therapies, associated with vitalism, especially biofield therapies such as therapeutic touch, Reiki, external qi, chakra healing and SHEN therapy. In these therapies, the “subtle energy” field of a patient is manipulated by a practitioner. The subtle energy is held to exist beyond the electromagnetic energy produced by the heart and brain. Beverly Rubik describes the biofield as a “complex, dynamic, extremely weak EM field within and around the human body….”

The founder of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann, promoted an immaterial, vitalistic view of disease: “…they are solely spirit-like (dynamic) derangements of the spirit-like power (the vital principle) that animates the human body.” The view of disease as a dynamic disturbance of the immaterial and dynamic vital force is taught in many homeopathic colleges and constitutes a fundamental principle for many contemporary practising homeopaths.

Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, stated “And so to those of you who may be vitalists I would make this prophecy: what everyone believed yesterday, and you believe today, only cranks will believe tomorrow.”

While many vitalistic theories have in fact been falsified, notably Mesmerism, the pseudoscientific retention of untested and untestable theories continues to this day. Nearly all the pseudoscientific systems are based philosophically on vitalism, and mainstream science has rejected vitalism since at least the 1930s, for a plethora of good reasons that have only become stronger with time.


One of the monumental mistakes happened to Hahnemann due to the primitive state of scientific knowledge available during his time was that potentized medicines act upon the body through “sentient” or sensory nerves.

In aphorism 16 of Sixth Edition of organon, he says:

“all such morbid derangements (diseases) cannot be removed from it by the physician in any other way than by the spirit-like (dynamically #your new , 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”.
Here Hahnemann says that vital force “perceives” the “powers” of medicines through “sentient faculty of nerves”. According to this view, vital force is an intelligent conscious immaterial entity governing the living body and constantly “perceiving” through “faculty of sentient nerves” everything happening around. From modern scientific view, this idea is totally absurd and unscientific. Various in vivo studies have already proved that potentized homeopathic medicines can chemically interact with biological molecules even in the absence of vital force, sentient nerves or a brain to which the information are carried by “sensory nerves”.  Actually, there does not exist any particular “power” in medicinal substances that could be “perceived by vital force”, but the medicinal properties of drug substances are nothing but their capacity to interact with specific targets in biological molecules in our body due to the peculiar structure and conformations of individual chemical molecules they contain. Chemical molecules cannot travel through sensory nerves to brain, but only sensory information is transmitted as electric impulses. 

In aphorism 272 of Sixth Edition:

“placed dry upon the tongue, is one of the smallest doses for a moderate recent case of illness. Here but few nerves are touched by the medicine. A similar globule, crushed with some sugar of milk and dissolved in a good deal of water and stirred well before every administration will produce a far more powerful medicine for the use of several days. Every dose, no matter how minute, touches, on the contrary, many nerves.”
Here also, Hahnemann talks about the importance of medicinal substances direct “touching” the nerves as a pre-condition for eliciting a therapeutic action. 

Again in aphorism 285 of Fifth Edition:

“nerves of the living organism can be touched, whereby the power of the medicine is certainly also communicated to the whole organism”
See aphorism 286 of Fifth Edition:

“when the medicine is taken, it comes in contact with a much larger surface of sensitive nerves responsive to the medicinal action. “

Aphorism 288 Fifth Edition:
The action of medicines in the liquid from upon the living human body takes place in such a penetrating manner, spreads out from the point of the sensitive fibers provided with nerves whereto the medicine is first applied with such inconceivable rapidity and so universally through all parts of the living body, that this action of the medicine must be denominated a spirit-like (a dynamic, virtual) action.
By this statement, Hahnemann has clearly demonstrated how much ignorant he is regarding the structure and functioning of nervous system. He seems to think that information can “spread out” to all parts of body “from the point of the sensitive fibers provided with nerves whereto the medicine is first applied”! Actually, each sensory nerve in any part of the body is connected only to brain, and information collected by nerve endings are transmitted directly to brain through system of  electric impulses and neurotransmitters, where it initiates some bio molecular interactions . Sensory information is never “spread out” ‘‘from the point of the sensitive fibers provided with nerves whereto the medicine is first applied”.

Hahnemann continues in same aphorism as follows:
“In little children it may be applied close to their nostrils whilst they are asleep with the certainty of producing an effect. The medicinal aura thus inhaled comes in contact with the nerves in the walls of the spacious cavities it traverses without obstruction, and thus produces a salutary influence on the vital force”. 
Everybody knows well how inhalation of toxic gases produce toxic effects upon the body. Molecules of toxic substances thus inhaled are always detectable in the blood samples of the individual, which clearly demonstrates that they enter the body through blood capillaries in the mucous membranes of upper and lower respiratory tract, and not through “sensory nerves”. 
Hahnemann’s advice on another occasion regarding application of potentized medicines to infants through nursing mothers or wet nurses actually contradicts his theory that drugs act through “sentient nerves”. Medicines taken by nursing mother could be transferred to infant only though breast milk, which does not contain any “nerve fibre”! 
From scientific point of view, molecular imprints contained in potentized drugs applied in mouth are absorbed into blood stream through capillaries in buccal mucosa. 

Substances absorbed through the buccal mucosa will bypass gastrointestinal enzymatic degradation and the hepatic first-pass effect, since they are directly drained into systemic circulation through superior vena cava. The mouth has a relatively large area for drug application and good accessibility compared to the nose, rectum, and vagina. In particular, the sublingual and buccal mucosal regions are highly vascularized and, therefore, are useful for systemic drug delivery. Sublingual administration involves placing a drug under the tongue and buccal administration involves placing a drug between the gums and cheek. The sublingual and buccal routes are considered by modern medicine also as promising alternatives to the traditional oral and parenteral routes for drug delivery.

The oral cavity has a relatively neutral pH of approximately 6.2 to 7.4, and has limited enzymatic activity. The surface area of the oral mucosa is relatively small (100–200 cm2), with the sublingual and buccal regions having an estimated surface area of 26.5 ± 4.2 cm2 and 50.2 ± 2.9 cm2, respectively. These regions in the oral cavity are lined by non-keratinized, stratified squamous epithelium that is 100–200 µm and 8–12 cells thick in the sublingual region, and 500–800 µm and 40–50 cells thick in the buccal region. Components from the saliva also binds to the surface of the buccal and sublingual epithelium to create a mucus layer with an average thickness of 70–100 µm. Underneath the epithelium is the lamina propria and submucosa that consists of connective tissue with a network of blood vessels, lymphatic vessels and smooth muscles. Molecular imprints contained in potentized can be rapidly and directly absorbed into the systemic circulation via venous drainage to the superior vena cava.

The sublingual and buccal routes of administration have a number of advantages, for systemic drug delivery of modern medicines. In general, they produce faster onset of action compared to orally ingested drug formulations. Drug absorption is relatively faster across the sublingual mucosa compared to the buccal mucosa due to the thinner epithelium. In addition to rapid absorption, the portion of drug that is absorbed through the blood vessels directly enters the systemic circulation and bypasses hepatic first-pass metabolic processes. Therefore, this route is particularly useful for highly soluble drugs that undergo high hepatic clearance or decomposition in the gastrointestinal tract. The non-adherent saliva in the buccal and sublingual regions also contains less mucin and limited enzymes such as salivary amylase. Drugs may also be more stable owing to the pH in the mouth being relatively neutral compared to other parts of the gastrointestinal tract.

Absorption of potentized drugs from mouth cavity is highly dependent on the residence time of the drug in the sublingual and buccal area. This may vary considerably depending on the dispensing vehicle we use. The dispensing vehicle should be ideal for providing enough residence time to ensure optimal disintegration and drug absorption. In addition, the dispensing vehicle  should increase the residence time of the formulation in the sublingual or buccal region to optimize drug permeability and systemic absorption. In addition, patients should avoid eating, drinking, chewing, or swallowing until the medication has been absorbed. Swallowing the medication will decrease the drug’s effectiveness.Holding the medicines in mouth without swallowing for some time will surely facilitate better absorption and drug action.
Potentized drugs are absorbed from baccal cavity very easily, since they have  a good balance between hydrophilic and lipophilic properties, being constituted by water and alcohol molecules. That is, they are easily soluble in aqueous buccal fluids and also have high lipid solubility to be able to cross the epithelial membrane in these regions, which is usually by passive diffusion. Habit of smoking can decrease the sublingual or buccal absorption of medications due to vasoconstriction of the blood vessels.

The pH of the saliva is ideal for perfect absorption of potentized homeopathic drugs. Molecular imprints may undergo passive absorption pathways via transcellular diffusion or paracellular diffusion, depending on the size of molecular imprints. It should be noted that the pH of the saliva can be temporarily altered by environmental factors such as foods and drinks, or personal factors such as oral diseases, which can affect the sublingual and buccal absorption of drugs.
Saliva flow can influence buccal and sublingual drug delivery by altering the rate of disintegration of the formulation and dissolution of the drug. For example, if the mouth is dry, this can negatively affect drug absorption. Conversely, if saliva flow is considerable, this can lead to the drug being swallowed before absorption.


We should study aphorisms of organon in the light of advanced knowledge provided by modern science.

What Dr Samuel Hahnemann taught us regarding “similarity of symptoms” two centuries ago should be understood in modern advanced scientific knowledge environment as “similarity of chemical molecules” that “compete” each other for binding to “similar” biological targets, that lead to “similar” molecular inhibitions or similar “displacements” and “similar” deviations in biochemical pathways, that are naturally expressed through “similar symptoms”.

Once you understand the real meaning and relevance of above explanation provided by MIT, you can realise how much scientific is “Similia Similibus Curentur” and HOMEOPATHY!


“This Spirit like Power to alter mans state of health which lie hidden in the inner of medicines can in itself never be discovered by us by a mere effort of reason , it is only by experience of the phenomena it displays when acting on the state of health of man that we can become clearly Cognizant of it._”


According to MIT view, it is not any “spirit like power”. The capacity of a medicinal substance to produce biological effects in living bodies lies in the structure and conformations of individual chemical molecules contained in it, by which they bind to various molecular targets inside the body and produce biomolecular inhibitions and cascading deviations in associated biochemical pathways, which are expressed through diverse trains of mental and physical symptoms.


“How as it is deniable that the curative principle in medicines is not in itself perceptible , and as in pure experiments with medicines conducted by the mOst accurate observers, nothing can be observed that can constitute them medicines or remedies except that power of causing distinct alterations in the state of health of the human body, and particularly in that of healthy individual, and of exciting in him various definite morbid symptoms so it follows that when medicines act as remedies , they can only bring their curative property into play by means of this their power of altering mans state of health by the production of peculiar Symptoms and that therefore , We have only to rely on the Morbid phenomena which the medicines produces in the healthy body as the sole possible revelation of their in-dwelling curative power in order to learn what disease-producing power, and at the same time what disease-curing power, each individual medicines possess”.


As per MIT VIEW based on modern scientific knowledge, therapeutic properties of a substance is determined by the chemical and conformations of individual constituent molecules contained in that particular substance. When applied on healthy individuals for drug proving, these chemical molecules bind to various biological molecules and produce molecular inhibitions in related biochemical pathways, which are expressed through diverse groups of mental and physical symptoms. When drug symptoms and disease symptoms are similar, it means the drug substance as well as disease substance contain similar chemical molecules with similar functional groups, by which they can compete each other to bind to similar molecular targets. It is this competitive relationship with disease substance that produce a therapeutic effect when drug substance is used as a medicinal agent in a disease condition. This is the biological mechanism of cure involved in similia Simmilibus Curentur
©Chandran Nambiar KCRedefining homeopathy


“But as nothing is to be observed in disease that must be removed in order to change them into health besides the totaity of their signs and Symptoms, and likewise medicines can show nothing curative besides their tendency to produce morbid symptoms in healthy persons and to remove them in diseased persons , it follows, on the one hand, that medicines only become remedies and capable of annihilating disease, because the medicinal substances, by exciting certain artificial mOrbid state, removes and abrogates the symptoms alredy present, to wit the natural mOrbid state we Wish to Cure. On the Other hand, it follows that for the totality of the Symptoms of the disease to be cured, that Medicine must be sought  which (according as experience shall prove whether the mOrbid Symptoms are mOst readily , certainly and permenently removed and changed into helath by similar or opposite medicinal symptoms ) proved to have the greatest tendency to produce similar or opposite symptoms.”

This aphorism contains FOUR important statements.

Statement 1 in aphorism 22:

“Nothing is to be observed in disease that must be removed in order to change them into health besides the totality of their signs and symptoms”.


In modern scientific perspective, hahnemann’s phrase  “totality of signs and symptoms” includes not only the “physical and mental symptoms” that we learn from our drug provings and read in our materia medica books, but a wider  whole of SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE symptoms expressed by the patient. All the laboratory reports regarding pathophysiological biochemical changes  in the patient, all the radiological and endoscopic investigations, and every information collected by the physician with the help of advanced technological extensions of his sense organs belong to the class of OBJECTIVE symptoms. As such, what Hahnemann said in the statement quoted above is scientifically true and relevant even today.

Statement 2 in aphorism 22:

“Medicines can show nothing curative besides their tendecy to produce morbid symptoms in healthy persions and to remove them in diseased persons.”


Actually, “morbid symptoms in healthy persions” produced by a drug substance represent the biomolecular inhibitions produced in various biochemical pathways by the individual chemical molecules contained in the particular drug substance. Since disease-causing and disease-curing properties of drug substance is determined by the chemical properties of those constituent molecules. If the symptoms produced by a drug substance is SIMILAR to the symptoms expressed in a particular disease condition, it means the drug molecules and disease-causing molecules have a COMPETITIVE relationship, which could be ustilzed for its therapeutic application as per the homeopathic law of SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR.

Statement 3 in aphorism 22:

“Medicines become remedies and capable of annihilating disease, only because the medicinal substances, by exciting certain artificial morbid state, removes and abrogates the symptoms already present, to wit the natural morbid state we wish to cure.”


“Medicines become remedies and capable of annihilating disease” only because the chemical molecules contained in it can compete with the disease-causing molecules having SIMILAR functional groups in binding to SIMILAR biological target molecules, which could be identified by comparing the drug symptoms and the symptoms of “natural morbid state we wish to cure.”

Statement 4 in aphorism 22:

“For the totality of the symptoms of the disease to be cured, that medicine must be sought  which is proved to have the greatest tendency to produce similar or opposite symptoms.”


For the totality of the symptoms of the disease to be cured, that medicine must be sought  which is proved to have the greatest tendency to produce symptoms SIMILAR to the symptoms of disease we are dealing with, which means our drug substance contains some chemical molecules that are having a COMPETITIVE relationship with the disease-causing molecules in binding to similar biomolecular targets.


When I talk about “combinations of post-avogadro diluted drugs”, some “classical” friends come with the quesion whether these combinations are “proved”? One of them declared: “If the the symptoms of combination drugs are same as single drug in provings, then only we can accept this theory.. Without clinical proving of combination drugs how we can accept this theory sir.”

First of all, I am not bothered whether anybody “accepts” my suggestions or not. No compulsions at all. I have already explained my rationale regarding “combinations of post-avogadro diluted drugs”. If you are capable of understanding my rationale, and convinced about the the scientific wisdom underlying it, you can accept.

Asking for “proving” of “combinations of post-avogadro diluted drugs” by itself shows that they have not seen or understood my explanations regarding drug proving.

A drug substance could be “proved” only if it can act upon biological molecules and inhibit their normal interactions. Only then it can produce a state of “drug pathology” as well as “drug symptoms”. Inorder to act upon biological molecules and change their actions, drug substance should contain some “chemical” molecules. Most of the drug substances contain diverse types of chemical molecules having their own individual chemical properties. During drug proving, a drug substance interact with our biological molecules not as a singular entity, but the individual drug molecules contained in the drug substance act upon various biological targets by their individual chemical properties, and produce molecular inhibitions that are expressed through diverse groups of symptoms that we compile in our materia medica.

Dear friends, please understand, durg substances potentized above avogadro limit or 12c will not contain even a single drug molecule, if they were genuinely potentized.

Your idea of “proving” post avogadro diluted drugs actually originated from this lack of scientific understanding regarding how drug substances act upon the body and produce symptoms. If you are talking about some mysterious “dynamic energy” that works upon a spiritual “vital force”, sorry sir, I am not interested in discussing that nonsense again and again. I have already done it more than enough earlier.

According to my view, potentization involves a process of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING. Spacial conformations of drug molecules are imprinted as three dimensional nanocavities in the water-alcohol supramolecular matrices. Each individual chemical molecule contained in the drug substance undergoes molecular imprinting as an individual unit. As such, drugs potentized above 12c or avogadro limit will contain diverse types of molecular imprints representing the diverse types of chemical molecules contained in the original drug substance. These individual molecular Imprints are the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of post avogadro diluted drugs we use in homeopathy. Molecular Imprints act as ARTIFICIAL BINDING POCKETS for pathogenic molecules by their conformtional affinities, deactivate them, and remove the Molecular inhibitions they have produced in the biological molecules. This is the biological mechanism of Homeopathic cure. Molecular imprints cannot interfere in the normal interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands, and hence, cannot produce any molecular errors in normal vital processes. That is why I say post avogadro diluted drugs cannot produce any pathological conditions or produce any drug symptom. Obviously, idea of conducting drug proving using drugs potentized above post avogadro limit is simply RIDICULOUS!

When we combine post avogadro diluted drugs, we are actually adding more MOLECULAR IMPRINTS together. Since Molecular Imprints cannot interact each other, there is no harm in combining any number of potentized drugs. Individual Molecular Imprints will remain as such, and act only upon specific pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity when introduced into the body as therapeutic agents.

My scientific explanations of Homeopathy may not agree with your “classical” beliefs that evolved in the 200 year old primitive knowledge environment. Sorry for that. Either you update yourselves, or reject my ideas and remain eternally blind! It is your choice!