For the last few days, homeopaths have been enthusiastically sharing a picture of a newspaper report that appeared in Times of India titled as “new study sheds light on effectiveness of homeopathic medicines”. Newspaper report covers a research paper titled “unravelling the low-frequency triggered electromagnetic signatures in potentized homeopathic medicine” published in the journal “Material Science and Engineering 2023” ” by Hari N Bhargava and co-workers belonging to Advanced Materials and Processes Research Institute, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462026, India, and Government Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462003, India.

I just downloaded the research paper and went through the whole article eagerly, to know what is this wonderful “new study shedding light on effectiveness of homeopathic medicines”, but was utterly disappointed to see that the work was nothing about “effectiveness of homeopathic medicines” as the journalist depicted in his report. According to researchers themselves, their work was actually about a “novel experimental tool” or device they developed to detect the responses of certain low potency METALLIC elemental and compound drugs when subjected to low-frequency generated electromagnetic fields. According to them, “the work presents a novel experimental tool for classifying various homeopathic medicines under a low-frequency generated electromagnetic (EM) fields”.

Study was conducted using various metallic elemental and compound drugs in very low homeopathic potencies ranging from 1x to 6x. Obviously due to their failure in scientifically differentiating pre-avogadro or molecular forms of drugs and post-avogadro or non-molecular forms of drugs, our researchers jumped into the conclusion that the result they got by studying very low potencies of simple metallic elemental and compound drugs could be applicable to ultra-high diluted drugs as well, and to all vegetable, animal and mineral drugs having highly complex molecular structures and properties, using the blanket term ‘homeopathic drugs”.

See what the researchers say what their work actually was: “In the present work, a simplified custom-built primary copper wire-based excitation coil was designed and developed to generate electromagnetic fields by the controlled input excitation current and voltage. The electromagnetic fields were generated at 300 Hz and 4.8 kHz excitation frequencies. Homeopathic medicines of various potencies were investigated under generated electromagnetic fields, and secondary sensing coil was used to capture induced electromagnetic fields from the test samples. The captured response signal from the sensing coil was analysed and processed by the spectrum analyser to characterize homeopathic test medicines. Significant changes in the response signal were detected to classify the lower and higher potencies of the same medicine.”

Please note, by “higher potencies”, they mean 6x potency only, as they are much “higher” than 1x potency! Anybody having minimum scientific understanding can easily realise that these “response signals” they could produce in the samples they used were actually due to the metallic particles naturally remaining in those low potency preparations, and it has nothing to do with “homeopathy” at all! It is a common basic knowledge of physics that any metallic substance will respond to electromagnetic fields!

“The potentized test samples were prepared at decimal dilution scale of Ferrum with α lactose monohydrate and exhibited significant and distinct induced EM responses in the second sensing coil. The measured responses decrease logarithmically due to reducing Ferrum concentration.”

Observation that “measured responses decrease logarithmatically due to reducing FERRUM concentration” obviously means that the “responses” was actually due to the presence of elemental ‘ferrum’ in the sample, and not due to any ‘dynamic energy’ produced by potentization.

Researchers say, “quite substantial changes were also measured from the different homeopathic medicines (Plumbum, Zincum, Argentum, etc.) of 3X potency, as in the case of Ferrum 3X.” “Homeopathic test medicines were prepared using insoluble original metallic substances such as calcium sulphate, potassium hydroxide, and metals like Ferrum Metallicum (Fe), Zincum Metallicum (ZM), Argentum Metallicum (AM), Alumina, Antim-Tart, and Plumbum Metallicum (PM).”

Kindly note, all samples they used were low potencies of metallic elemental and compound drugs, which will surely contain those particles, that will respond to electromagnetic fields. They did not use post-avogadro diluted drugs, complex vegetable or animal drugs, since they obviously knew their “new tool” will work only if metallic particles are present in the test samples!

Author’s claim that “present work proposes a system developed in-house capable of characterizing different potencies of homeopathic medicines” has to be rightfully modified as “present work proposes a system developed in-house capable of detecting the presence of elemental particles in different low potencies of homeopathic metallic medicines below avogadro limit”.

Do not miss to read this very truthful statement by researchers: “due to the highly diluted nature of homeopathic potency, the probability of finding even a single molecule of the starting source material in the final homeopathic solution (dilution ratio ~ 10-30) tends to zero, so it isn’t easy to detect electromagnetic wave or magnetic photon in such solutions. Therefore, the transfer phenomena of the medicinal information to the solution and the living organism are still unclear.”

Here the researchers agree that it is not possible to “detect electromagnetic wave or magnetic photons” in high dilution drugs which do not contain original drug particles. More over, they confess that in the case of highly diluted drugs, “transfer phenomena of the medicinal information to the solution and the living organism are still unclear!”

My greatest wonder is, how a homeopathy research team of such a respectable academic stature could claim their study has “shed light on effectiveness of homeopathic medicines” by studying the “induced responses” of “metallic elements and compounds” in 1x to 6x potencies in generated electromagnetic fields!

What I have to say humbly to the respected authors of this research is, you may be successful in fooling the science-starved homeopathy community with this kind of gimmicks and media-sponsored hypes, but it will not take homeopathy a single step forward in making it scientific, whereas, it will make homeopathy a little more vulnerable to humiliation and alienation from scientific community! Kindly try to avoid this kind of situations!

Chandran Nambiar KC
REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY

Molecular imprinting is a technique for the preparation of synthetic polymers with specific binding sites for a target molecule. This can be achieved if the target is present during the polymerization process, thus acting as a molecular template. Monomers carrying certain functional groups are arranged around the template through noncovalent or covalent interactions. Following polymerization with a high degree of cross-linking, the functional groups become fixed in defined positions by the polymer network. Subsequent removal of the template by solvent extraction or chemical cleavage leaves cavities that are complementary to the template in terms of size, shape and arrangement of the functional groups. These highly specific receptor sites are capable of rebinding the target molecule with high specificity, sometimes comparable to that of antibodies. Molecularly imprinted polymers have therefore been named “antibody mimics”. It has been shown that they can be substituted for biological receptors in certain formats of immunoassays and biosensors. They are characterized by high stability.

Target molecules for which we want to prepare ‘artificial binding sites’ or ‘molecular imprints’, which are normally large complex protein molecules, are identified and selected as ‘template molecules. These template molecules are added to a mixture of ‘monomers’ and ‘activators’ and thoroughly mixed. This mixture is allowed to undergo a process of ‘self assembling’ and ‘polymerization’, which is actually a ‘guest-host’ molecular complex, in which the template molecules are trapped in a hardened polymer matrix which act as ‘host’. This ‘host-guest’ complex is pulverized, and subjected to a process of ‘solvent extraction’, by which soluble template molecules are removed from insoluble polymer matrix. The resultant preparation consists of polymer matrix carrying empty spaces or ‘cavities’ where the template molecules were originally trapped. These cavities are called ‘molecular imprints’, which actually mimic a negative spacial conformation of template molecules. Due to this complementary conformation, these ‘molecular imprints’ exhibit a special affinity towards original template molecules, and act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for them.

Due to this special affinity, they could be used as substitutes for biological receptors in certain formats of immunoassays and bio-sensors. Even though molecular imprinting concept is subjected to studies related with modern drug designing, ‘molecular imprinted polymers’ prepared by this process is difficult to be used as drugs in living organisms, as they are synthetic polymers,

Drug potentization in homeopathy has to be studied from molecular imprinting. Since it is totally improbable for even a single drug molecule to remain in a dilution above avogadro limit, only way the medicinal properties of drug substances could be transferred to and preserved in such a medium is by molecular imprinting. Homeopathy uses water-ethyl alcohol azeotropic mixture as ‘host’ in place of polymers, and drug molecules as ‘templates’ or ‘guests’ for preparing molecular imprints that could be used as drugs. Since molecular imprints prepared by this process consist of only water and ethyl alcohol molecules, imprinted with three dimensional properties of drug molecules, they could be safely used as therapeutic agents. According to my view, homeopathic potentization is actually a biofriendly adaptation of molecular imprinting technology, originally done in polymers.

Most important objection raised against this concept is, how water can work as a medium for molecular imprinting, whereas water is not a polymer in its classical understanding. But all of us know, water has a lot of anomalous behaviors related with its physical properties such anomalous expansion, viscosity, diffusion, surface tension, melting and boiling points, crystallization, and role in solvation of molecules, ions, membranes, and proteins, which demonstrate water has some polymer-like properties, which were not so far sufficiently explained. A recently published research article throws some light into explaing this polymer-like properties of water.

This article, titled “Liquid water is a dynamic polydisperse branched polymer” is written by Saber Naserifar , William A. Goddard III , two scientists working at Materials and Process Simulation Center, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125. (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1817383116).

Authors developed a RexPoN force field for water based entirely on quantum mechanics. It predicts the properties of water extremely accurately. They observed that strong hydrogen bonds in water connect to form multibranched polymer chains of 151 H2O per chain at 24.85 celsius, where branch points have 3 strong hydrogen bonds and termination points have 1 strong hydrogen bond. This dynamic fluctuating branched polymer view of water provides a dramatically modified paradigm for understanding the properties of water. It may explain the angular correlation lengths at 24.85 celsius, and the critical point at 227 K in supercooled water. This new paradigm for water could have a significant impact on the properties for protein, DNA, and other materials in aqueous media.

In supramolecular chemistry, hyperbranched polymers represent highly branched, polydisperse macromolecules with a treelike topology and a large number of functional groups. During the last ten years, the rapidly growing interdisciplinary interest in the globular, highly uniform, and monodisperse dendrimers promoted the rediscovery of hyperbranched polymers. The tedious and complex multistep synthesis of dendrimers results in expensive products with limited use for large- scale industrial applications.
In contrast to ice, in which each water makes strong hydrogen bonds to four neighbors, researchers showed that upon melting the ice, the number of strong hydrogen bonds drops quickly to two in liquid water.

These two strong hydrogen bonds couple into chains containing around 150 H2O molecules resembling a branched polymer. Authors expect this dynamics-branched polymer paradigm may explain many long-standing puzzles of water.

Since each H2O on the average makes 2 strong hydrogen bonds, authors next traced out the connections between the strong hydrogen bonds.. They found that connecting just the strong hydrogen bonds leads to branched polymer chains with a largest cluster of 151 H2O molecules at 24.85 celsius containing a main chain of 39 H2O and 15 side chains ranging from 1 to 22 H2Os long. For lower temperatures the largest cluster size increases to 168 at 3.85 celsius, 177 at 0.35 celsius, and to 216 at -123.15 celsius. At a temperature of 24.85 celsius and below, these clusters may bond to their images in adjacent cells, leading to infinite sizes according to simulations.

According to the authors, they have proved that liquid water is a polydisperse dynamic multibranched polymer in which most H2Os form strong hydrogen bonds to just two others, with occasional branch points at waters bonded to 3 H2Os terminating at H2Os. The molecules that are not part of the largest cluster are mainly in small clusters with sizes ranging from 1 to 10 H2Os. At 76.85 celsius the big polymer chains split into smaller ones, with the number of H2Os bonded to two other molecules decreasing. At temperature -123.5 celsius the connected polymer includes all water molecules, which forms a highly branched polymer. This revelation concerning the polymeric nature of liquid water may have a dramatic impact on our perceptions about water, with possible implications on such physical properties as viscosity, diffusion, and solvation of molecules, ions, membranes, and proteins.

To prove that RexPoN fully explains the critical-point behavior of water requires far more extensive simulations, but these results suggests the potential impact of the paradigm that water is a dynamic polydisperse branched polymer might have on physical and chemical phenomena involving water.

We have to explore the dynamics of homeopathic potentization keeping this new paradigm of water in mind. It is not pure water that is used for homeopathic potentization, but an azeotropic mixture of ethanol and water. An azeotropic mixture is a mixture of substances that has the same concentration of vapour and fluid phases. It is basically a mixture that contains two or more liquids. A zeotropic mixture basically has constant or the same boiling points and the mixtures’ vapor will also have the same composition as the liquid. The azeotrope or constant boiling point mixture is a mixture of two or more liquids whose proportions cannot be altered or changed by simple distillation. This happens because when an azeotrope is boiled, the vapor has same portion of constituents as un-boiled mixture. The azeotropic composition of ethanol and water is 95.635 of ethanol and 4.375 of water by volume. Ethanol boils at 78.4°C and water boils at 100°C, but the azeotrope boils at 78.2°C which is lower than either of its constituents.

Perhaps the most important benefit of an azeotrope is the unexpected ability to mix flammable and nonflammable ingredients to produce a stable nonflammable mixture. This is an amazing chemical phenomenon. Azeotropes occur when fraction of the liquids cannot be altered by distillation. Typically when dealing with mixtures, components can be extracted out of solutions by means of Fractional Distillation, or essentially repeated distillation in stages. Ethanol and water form an azeotropic mixture at an ethanol molecular percentage of 91% by weight or 96% by volume, which prohibits ethanol from being further purified via distillation.

Aqueous solutions at different concentrations in ethanol have been studied both experimentally and theoretically. Azeotropic behaviour results from an unexpected concentration-dependence of the surface composition. While ethanol strongly dominates the surface and water is almost completely depleted from the surface for most mixing ratios, the different intermolecular bonding patterns of the two components cause water to penetrate to the surface region at high ethanol concentrations in azeotropic ratio. The addition of surface water increases its relative vapour pressure, giving rise to the azeotropic behaviour.

In water-ethanol azeotrope, the water is able to increase the amount of hydrogen bonding between ethanol molecules by increasing the density of hydrogen bond donors and acceptors per unit volume. At a low water concentration, the water also does not interfere greatly with the hydrophobic interactions between the ethyl ends of the molecules. As a result, the average intermolecular interaction for the ethanol molecules is stronger than in pure ethanol, and we have the necessary decrease in the vapor pressure of ethanol. For the water, when it is at low concentration in mixture, each water molecule is surrounded by ethanol molecules, so it has fewer hydrogen bonding interactions than in pure water. As a result, its average intermolecular interactions are weaker than in pure water. When the water concentration gets below what is required for the azeotrope, enough of the alcohol molecules interact only with other alcohol molecules that the deviation from ideality decreases. Considering the polydisperse branched polymer structure of water as well as the peculiar properties of water-ethanol azeotropic mixture, it is not at all irrational or unrealistic to approach the dynamics of homeopathic potentization in terms of molecular imprinting. A lot of studies remain to be conducted on these lines in future. At least, scientific community has to consider homeopathic potentization as a subject of serious further explorations in the field of modern drug designing.

Most important primary observation that initiated my logical thought process regarding molecular imprinting involvef in homeopathic potentization was that potentized drugs works therapeutically! And the obviously unscientific and spiritualistic explanations given in homeopathy texts for this phenomenon, such as vital force and dynamic energy was not acceptable for me at all. I wanted a rational explanation for homeopathy that is fitting to the modern scientific knowledge system and its methods.

My second observation was that potentized drugs do not work therapeutically, if they are not ‘similimum’ to the given case. More over, there are a lot of scientific studies which prove unpotentized ethanol-water mixture in the same ratio of potentized drugs do not have any therapeutic actions. There are scientific studies of eminent researchers showing that potentized forms of a drug can antidote or reverse the biological effects of same drug in their molecular forms, which could be possible only if the potentized forms contained some entities that can act as artificial binding pockets for their molecular forms, which clearly pointed to the possibility of molecular imprints. In vitro and in vivo experiments proved that potentized drugs can antidote the biological effects of their crude forms. This convinced me that the potentized drugs contained some active principles that can act upon biological molecules in a way just opposite to the action of crude drug molecules, which is posssible only if molecular imprinting happens during potentization.

Then I observed through calculations based on Avogadro constant that there is no chance for any drug molecule to be present in a drug potentized above 12c. Many studies have already proved that potentized drugs and unpotentized ethanol-water mixture have similar chemical constitution and chemical properties. This observation indicates that no chemical changes of any sorts happen to ethyl ethanol-water mixture due to the process of potentization. It is a common knowledge that potentized drugs when heated, or subjected to strong electrical or magnetic fields lose their therapeutic properties. This observation indicates that potentization may be involved with some physical changes happening in the ethanol-water mixture, that are liable to be reversed by physical forces such as heat, magnetism and electricity.

Evaporation rates and Freezing points of potentized drugs and control solutions have been found to differ, indicating a change in hydrogen bond patterns and supra-molecular rearrangements. A lot of published spectroscopic studies using different technologies are available, indicating supramolecular rearrangement happening during the process of potentization. Spectra were found to be different in potentized drugs and ethanol-water control solutions, which shows ethanol-water mixture have undergone some sort of supra-molecular clustering and re-organization during potentization.

Study of supra-molecular structure of water, hydrogen bonding, hydration shells, and supra-molecular clusters will convince us that water can exhibit some polymer-like properties at supra-molecular level. Scientific studies discussed in the first part of this presentation has proved water to be a dynamic polydisperse branched polymer, which provides a new paradigm of water entirely different from classical perspective. Ethanol- water mixture used in homeopathic potentization is in azeotropic ratios, which leads us into a deeper study of azeotropism, and its role in enhancing the polymer- like properties of water. Study of supramolecular properties of ethyl alcohol/water azeotropic mixtures shows that the hydrogen bond strength of water can be enhanced by the presence of ethyl alcohol molecules in azeotropic proportions, and can restrict the free movements of water molecules, thereby helping in the stabilization of hydration shells. New advancements in the field of the technology of ‘molecular imprinted polymers’ achieved by polymer scientists points to the possibility of using of ‘molecular imprints’ as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules in biological systems. This requires a deeper study of molecular imprinting, in search of a scientific solution for the riddles involved in homeopathic potentization.

A critical study of works done by Benveniste as well as Luc Montaigner regarding what they called ‘memory of water’ indicated some structural changes happening in water during successive dilution and succussion. Benveniste and Montaigner might have failed to comprehend the real mechanism involved in the phenomenon of so-called ‘water memory’ they observed, which led them to irrational and wrong conclusions. Some Russian scientists have earlier observed a phenomenon they called ‘shape memory property of water’, which they could not explain scientifically, since they also did not understand the real process of ‘molecular imprinting’ involved in it. Study of the phenomenon known as ‘hormesis’, which remains still eluding and unexplained scientifically, also led me to relate it with some sort of ‘supra-molecular’ re-arrangements happening in water in ultra dilutions.

Observation that potentized drugs act upon biological systems in a way exactly opposite to the original drugs indicated a process of generating three-dimensional nanocavities or intermolecular voids that can act as artificial binding sites for drug molecules and similar pathogenic molecules, which can happen only though ‘molecular imprinting’.

Then I took up a serious re-study of biochemistry and molecular biology. Study of ‘key-lock mechanism’ involved in the dynamics of enzyme inhibitions, ‘ligand-receptor’ interactions and ‘antibody-antigen’ interactions were found to be fitting well to the concept of ‘molecular imprints’ in potentized drugs. Through these studies, it became more and more clear to me that ‘similia similibus curentur’ could be explained in terms of competitive relationships between similar molecules and also phenomenon of molecular mimicry well explained by modern biochemistry.

While introducing the concept of MIASMS of ‘infectious diseases’ as the causative factor of CHRONIC DISEASES, HAHNEMANN was actually thinking far ahead of his contemporary science. Both the scientific community, as well as his own followers failed in understanding the real meaning and implications of this epoch making revelation.

Modern science has only just started to realize the role of ANTIBODIES as a major class of disease-producing molecules, which were so far considered only as ‘defense molecules’ of our body.

Recent studies of ‘off target’ inhibitions produced by antibodies as a major causative factor in chronic diseases so far called as ‘auto-immune’ diseases shows that hahnemann was thinking 200 years ahead of his time while introducing the concept of miasms.

Let us bow our heads in memory of that great genius, whose observational and reasoning skills transcended the limitations of not only his time and knowledge available to him, but even coming centuries.

Fundamental error ‘classical miasmatic analysts’ make is, they have turned hahnemann’s concept of miasms upside down. According to those people, ‘gonorrhoea is CAUSED BY sycosis’, itch infection is CAUSED BY psora’, and ‘syphilis disease is CAUSED BY miasm of syphilis’. And these ‘miasms are caused by original sins of humanity’!

They interpret hahnemann in a very wrong way. Kindly read CHRONIC DISEASES once again carefully, avoiding ‘interpreters’. Hahnemann actually said, these three miasms were CAUSED BY these infectious diseases. And, these three miasms in turn CAUSE other diverse types of CHRONIC DISEASES.

According to hahnemann, PSORA is never acquired unless the person is ONCE infected by itch disease, SYCOSIS is never acquired unless the person is ONCE infected by gonoorhoea, SYPHILIS is never acquired unless the the person is ONCE infected with syphilis disease.

All confusions regarding miasms could be resolved only by first resolving the confusion whether hahnemann considered PSORA, SYPHILIS and SYCOSIS are CAUSED by infectious diseases, or those infectious diseases are CAUSED by already existing miasms of ORIGINAL SINS OF HUMANITY.

If anybody has least doubt whether or not hahnemann was talking about the ‘miasm of psora’ as originating from ‘infection of itch disease’, kindly read this part from ‘Chronic Diseases’-Para 37:

“Psora (itch disease), like syphilis, is a miasmatic chronic disease, and its original development is similar. The itch disease is, however, also the most contagious of all chronic miasmata, far more infectious than the other two chronic miasmata, the venereal chancre disease and the figwart disease”.

“But the miasma of the itch needs only to touch the general skin, especially with tender children”.

“No other chronic miasma infects more generally, more surely, more easily and more absolutely than the miasma of itch; as already stated, it is the most contagious of all. It is communicated so easily, that even the physician, hurrying from one patient to another, in feeling the pulse has unconsciously inoculated other patients with it; wash which is washed with wash infected with the itch; new gloves which had been tried on by an itch patient, a strange lodging place, a strange towel used for drying oneself have communicated this tinder of contagion; yea, often a babe, when being born, is infected while passing through the organs of the mother, who may be infected (as is not infrequently the case) with this disease; or the babe receives this unlucky infection through the hand of the midwife, which has been infected by another parturient woman (or previously); or, again, a suckling may be infected by its nurse, or, while on her arm, by her caresses or the caresses of a strange person with unclean hands; not to mention the thousands of other possible ways in which things polluted with this invisible miasma may touch a man in the course of his life, and which often can in no way be anticipated or guarded against, so that men who have never been infected by the psora are the exception. We need not to hunt for the causes of infection in crowded hospitals, factories, prisons, or in orphan houses, or in the filthy huts of paupers; even in active life, in retirement, and in the rich classes, the itch creeps in”.

It is obvious that hahnemann considered human beings aquiring ‘miasm of psora’ only by getting ‘infected’ with ‘itch’ disease.

But our ‘miasmatic experts’ make theories about even ‘genetic inheritance’ of ‘psora’! I would request young homeopaths to carefully read the original works of hahnemann with a logical and scientific mindset, instead of ‘learning miasms’ from modern interpreters.

Listen to hahnemann saying: “not to mention the thousands of other possible ways in which things polluted with this invisible miasma may touch a man in the course of his life, and which often can in no way be anticipated or guarded against, so that men who have never been infected by the psora are the exception”.

Hahnemann explains the diverse ways of getting infected by itch to show why “men who have never been infected by psora are the exception”. But our miasmatic experts would say that it is due to ‘genetic inheritance’!

Kindly read CHRONIC DISEASES carefully once again. You will realize, while introducing the concepts of MIASMS, hahnemann was actually talking about the life long ‘chronic disease dispositions’ resulting from infectious diseases.

He limited his discussions to ‘three’ miasms, since according to him, itch-leprosy, syphilis and figwart-gonorrhoea disease were the most widely distributed infectious diseases during his time.

How an ‘infectious agent’ can produce a ‘chronic disposition’ even after the infectious disease is cured, is the subject of my inquiries. According to me, it can happen only through the antibodies generated in the organism against those infectious substances, which contain protein molecules alien to the organism. These antibodies remain lifelong, and can bind to ‘off-target’ biological molecules, thereby producing diverse types of chronic diseases.

ANTIBODIES are the carriers of miasms- this is what I try to make out. Antibodies and misformed proteins generated in the body against diverse types of infectious agents and other ‘alien’ proteins constitute a major class of pathogenic agents that cause diverse types of CHRONIC DISEASES, including even auto-immune diseases and proteinopathies.

Hahnemann called this pathogenic factors as ‘miasms’, as he was not much aware of antibodies and immunology during his period.

Samuel Hahnemann was such a wonderful genius that he could introduce a set of ideas and therapeutic tools that were naturally unimaginable and inconceivable to anybody belonging to the scientific community in the contemporary primitive knowlege context he lived in 200+ years ago!

As per modern scientific pardigms, hahnemann’s revolutionary ideas included ‘studying drug pathology’ by observing symptoms drug substances produced when applied in healthy individuals (DRUG PROVING), ‘studying disease pathology’ by observing symptoms produced in disease conditions (TOTALITY OF SYMPTOMS), removal of molecular inhibitions utilizing ‘molecular mimicry’ and ‘molecular competitions’ (SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR), ‘molecular imprinted drug designing’ using azeotropic water-ethanol mixtures (HOMEOPATHIC POTENTIZATION) etc.

Is it not really amazing that during a period when modern biochemistry did not even emerge, hahnemann could observe the phenomenon of “competitive relationship of similar chemical molecules in binding to the biological targets”, and develop it into the foundation of a therapeutic principle he called SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR?

Is it not equally amazing that Hahnemann could utilize the natural phenomenon of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING and develop it into a technology of preparing a new class of therapeutic agents, during a period when modern polymer technology or supra-molecular chemistry did not even emerge?

Did we actually do justice to Samuel Hahnemann?

Did we, his “followers” and “disciples”, actually do anything all these two hundred years to take forward and update his contributions?

Did we do anything seriously to study and scientifically explain his ideas, and present them to the modern scientific community so as to get the due recognition and place he deserved in the human knowledge history?

What his “blind” followers did all these years was to make him an idol of worship, without recognizing the great scientist in him. They converted his words into mere dogmas, to be learned and recited just like religious preachings!

Hahnemann failed to get the due respect and recognition in the history of medical science, only due to his unscientific and shortsighted followers and disciples who made his ideas and its practices more and more superstitious, spiritualistic and irrational.

MIT concepts explains MIASMS in terms of chronic disease dispositions caused by ANTIBODIES or DEFORMED PROTEINS. This explanation helps us to approach those so-called AUTO IMMUNE DISEASES from a new angle.

Let us look into the exhaustive list of diseases included in the class of AUTO-IMMUNE DISEASES, which are actually ‘chronic diseases caused by off-target actions of antibodies’. Kindly go through this list to realize the real magnitude of ‘anti-body’ mediated diseases or ‘miasmatic’ diseases in our day today medical practice:

” Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, Acute hemorrhagic leukoencephalitis, Addison’s Disease, Agammaglobulinemia, Alopecia areata, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Ankylosing Spondylitis, Anti-GBM/TBM Nephritis, Antiphospholipid syndrome, Antisynthetase syndrome, Atopic allergy, Atopic allergy, Atopic dermatitis, Autoimmune aplastic anemia, Autoimmune cardiomyopathy, Autoimmune enteropathy, Autoimmune hemolytic anemia, Autoimmune hepatitis, Autoimmune inner ear disease, Autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome, Autoimmune peripheral neuropathy, Autoimmune pancreatitis, Autoimmune polyendocrine syndrome, Autoimmune thrombocytopenic purpura, Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis, Autoimmune urticaria, Autoimmune uveitis, Balo disease/Balo concentric sclerosis, Bechets Syndrome, Berger’s disease, Bickerstaff’s encephalitis, Blau syndrome, Bullous pemphigoid, Cancer, Celiac disease, Castleman’s disease, Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, Chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis, Churg-Strauss syndrome, Cicatricial pemphigoid, Cogan syndrome, Cold agglutinin disease, Complement component 2 deficiency, Cranial arteritis, CREST syndrome, Crohns Disease, Cushing’s Syndrome, Cutaneous leukocytoclastic angiitis, Dego’s disease, Dercum’s disease, Dermatitis herpetiformis, Dermatomyositis, Diabetes mellitus type 1, Discoid lupus erythematosus, Eczema, Erythema nodosum, Diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis, Enthesitis-related arthritis, Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, Eosinophilic gastroenteritis, Eosinophilic fasciitis, Dressler’s syndrome, Diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis, Essential mixed cryoglobulinemia, Evan’s syndrome, Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressive, Fibrosing aveolitis, Gastritis, Gastrointestinal pemphigoid, Giant cell arteritis, Glomerulonephritis, Goodpasture’s syndrome, Graves’ disease, Henoch-Schonlein purpura, Guillain-Barré syndrome, Hashimoto’s encephalitis, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, Haemolytic anaemia, Herpes gestationis, Hypogammaglobulinemia, Idiopathic Inflammatory Demyelinating Diseases, Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, IgA nephropathy, Inclusion body myositis, Inflammatory demyelinating polyneuopathy, Interstitial cystitis, Juvenile idiopathic arthritis, Juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, Kawasaki’s Disease, Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome, Leukocytoclastic vasculitis, Lichen planus, Linear IgA disease, Lichen sclerosus, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Lupoid hepatitis, Lupus erythematosus, Majeed syndrome, Ménière’s disease, Microscopic polyangiitis, Miller-Fisher syndrome, Mixed Connective Tissue Disease, Morphea, Mucha-Habermann disease, Multiple sclerosis, Myasthenia gravis, Myositis, Neuromyelitis optica, Neuromyotonia, Occular cicatricial pemphigoid, Opsoclonus myoclonus syndrome, Ord thyroiditis, Palindromic rheumatism, pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcus, Paraneoplastic cerebellar degeneration, Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, Parry Romberg syndrome, Parsonnage-Turner syndrome, Pars planitis, Pemphigus vulgaris, Pernicious anaemia, Perivenous encephalomyelitis, POEMS syndrome, Polyarteritis nodosa, Rheumatoid fever, Psoriasis, Polymyalgia rheumatica, Polymyositis, Primary biliary cirrhosis, Primary sclerosing cholangitis, Progressive inflammatory neuropathy, Psoriatic arthritis, Pyoderma gangrenosum, Pure red cell aplasia, Rasmussen’s encephalitis, Raynaud phenomenon, Relapsing polychondritis, Reiter’s syndrome, Restless leg syndrome, Retroperitoneal fibrosis, Rheumatoid arthritis, Sarcoidosis, Schmidt syndrome, Schnitzler syndrome, Scleritis, Scleroderma, Sjögren’s syndrome, Spondyloarthropathy, Still’s disease, Undifferentiated spondyloarthropathy, Stiff person syndrome, Subacute bacterial endocarditis, Susac’s syndrome, Sweet’s syndrome, Sydenham chorea, Sympathetic ophthalmia, Takayasu’s arteritis, Temporal arteritis, Tolosa-Hunt syndrome, Transverse myelitis, Ulcerative colitis, Undifferentiated connective tissue disease, Vasculitis, Vitiligo, Wegener’s granulomatosis”

I have been trying to explain concept of ‘miasms’ as ‘chronic disease dispositions’ due to the ‘off-target’ molecular inhibitions caused by ‘antibodies’ formed against ‘infectious agents’ and ‘exogenous’ proteins. As per this view, antibodies are the causative agents of ‘miasms’.MI

All of us know, so-called ‘autoimmune diseases’ are caused by ‘antibodies’. But, those ‘antibodies’ are considered to be formed not against ‘exogenous antigens’, but ‘endogenous or host antigens’. If we explain ‘miasms’ as ‘antibodies’ formed against ‘exogenous’ proteins, should we exclude ‘autoimmune diseases’ from ‘miasms’, since they are considered to be formed against ‘endogenous antigens’, not ‘exogenous proteins’?

Here, we have to undertake a serious study of the phenomena of ‘autoimmunity’ and ‘autoimmune diseases.

According to immunologists, ‘autoimmune diseases’ arise from an overactive immune response of the body against substances and tissues normally present in the body. In other words, the body actually attacks its own cells. The immune system mistakes some part of the body as a pathogen and attacks it. This may be restricted to certain organs (e.g. in autoimmune thyroiditis) or involve a particular tissue in different places (e.g. Goodpasture’s disease which may affect the basement membrane in both the lung and the kidney).

Hundreds of chronic systemic diseases are now classified as ‘autoimmune diseases’. This group include Coeliac disease, diabetes mellitus type 1, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), Sjögren’s syndrome, Churg-Strauss Syndrome, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, Graves’ disease, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), lupus and allergies. This group is expanding every day.

Autoimmune diseases are broadly divided into systemic and organ-specific or localised autoimmune disorders, depending on the principal clinico-pathologic features of each disease.

Systemic autoimmune diseases- include SLE, Sjögren’s syndrome, scleroderma, rheumatoid arthritis, and dermatomyositis. These conditions tend to be associated with antibodies to antigens which are not tissue specific. Thus although polymyositis is more or less tissue specific in presentation, it may be included in this group because the autoantigens are often ubiquitous t-RNA synthetases.

Local syndromes which affect a specific organ or tissue:

Endocrinologic: Diabetes mellitus type 1, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, Addison’s diseaseGastrointestinal: Coeliac disease, Crohn’s Disease, Pernicious anaemia

Dermatologic: Pemphigus vulgaris, Vitiligo

Haematologic: Autoimmune haemolytic anaemia, Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura

Neurological: Myasthenia gravis

Autoimmunity is defined as “the failure of an organism to recognize its own constituent parts as self, which allows an immune response against its own cells and tissues. Any disease that results from such an aberrant immune response is termed an autoimmune disease”.

This definition does not answer the question we are interested. Are the antibodies ‘formed against’ native targets, or ‘antibodies formed against’ exogenous antigens mistaking native targets as the ‘exogenous antigens’?

Actually, are the antibodies considered to be the causative agents of ‘autoimmune diseases’ really formed against ‘host antigens’? Or, are they ‘antibodies’ formed against ‘exogenous proteins’ attacking ‘off-target’ sites in the organism?

This topic is still a controversial subject in immunology. We should remember that ‘immune’ mechanism is basically a defense mechanism of our organism to identify and destroy ‘exogenous proteins’ which are alien to our genetic blueprint. Several mechanisms are thought to be operative in the pathogenesis of autoimmune diseases, against a backdrop of genetic predisposition and environmental modulation. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss each of these mechanisms exhaustively, but a summary of some of the important mechanisms suggested by various hypotheses may be examined.

1. T-Cell Bypass – A normal immune system requires the activation of B-cells by T-cells before the former can produce antibodies in large quantities. This requirement of a T-cell can be bypassed in rare instances, such as infection by organisms producing super-antigens, which are capable of initiating polyclonal activation of B-cells, or even of T-cells, by directly binding to the β-subunit of T-cell receptors in a non-specific fashion.
2. Molecular Mimicry – An exogenous antigen may share structural similarities with certain host antigens; thus, any antibody produced against this antigen (which mimics the self-antigens) can also, in theory, bind to the host antigens, and amplify the immune response. The idea of molecular mimicry arose in the context of Rheumatic Fever, which follows infection with Group A beta-haemolytic streptococci. Although rheumatic fever has been attributed to molecular mimicry for half a century no antigen has been formally identified (if anything too many have been proposed). Moreover, the complex tissue distribution of the disease (heart, joint, skin, basal ganglia) argues against a cardiac specific antigen. It remains entirely possible that the disease is due to e.g. an unusual interaction between immune complexes, complement components and endothelium.
3. Idiotype Cross-Reaction – Idiotypes are antigenic epitopes found in the antigen-binding portion (Fab) of the immunoglobulin molecule. Plotz and Oldstone presented evidence that autoimmunity can arise as a result of a cross-reaction between the idiotype on an antiviral antibody and a host cell receptor for the virus in question. In this case, the host-cell receptor is envisioned as an internal image of the virus, and the anti-idiotype antibodies can react with the host cells.
4. Epitope spreading or epitope drift – when the immune reaction changes from targeting the primary epitope to also targeting other epitopes. In contrast to molecular mimicry, the other epitopes need not be structurally similar to the primary one.

If we carefully study the above hypotheses proposed by modern immunology, you will find that all these hypotheses indirectly agree with our contention that so called autoimmune diseases are actually caused by ‘off-target’ inhibitions created by ‘antibodies’ formed against ‘exogenous antigens’

A recent observation regarding relationship of autoimmune diseases and infectious diseases is found to be very important from our ‘miasmatic’ angle. Studies revealed strong association of certain microbial organisms with autoimmune diseases. For example, Klebsiella pneumoniae and coxsackievirus B have been strongly correlated with ankylosing spondylitis and diabetes mellitus type 1, respectively. This has been explained by the tendency of the infecting organism to produce ‘super-antigens’ that are capable of polyclonal activation of B-lymphocytes, and production of large amounts of antibodies of varying specificities, some of which may be self-reactive.

This ‘polyclonal’ ‘super-antigen’ theory goes very close to our explanation of ‘miasms’ as antibody-mediated.

There is a recent proposal among immunologist that the spectrum of autoimmunity should be viewed along an “immunological disease continuum,” with classical autoimmune diseases at one extreme and diseases driven by the innate immune system at the other extreme. Within this scheme, the full spectrum of autoimmunity can be included. Many common human autoimmune diseases can be seen to have a substantial innate immune mediated immunopathology using this new scheme.

Thanks to the compulsions of corona epidemic, the term Homeopathic PROPHYLAXIS is now displaced by a new term IMMUNE BOOSTER in the vocabulary of of homeopaths. Homeopaths themselves have already accepted the new term very enthusiastically, as if they consider it gives to a new higher STATUS to homeopathy! They are not much bothered about the meaning of “immune boosting”, what is the biological mechanism of immune boosting, or HOW homeopathic medicines boost immunity. It is a nice and appealing term, that is enough for them to rejoice!

Now comes another term and another STATUS for homeopathy – ANCILLARY MEDICINE. Homeopathy is now raised to a NEW status of ANCILLARY MEDICINE, instead of the erstwhile status of ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE! This new status is the contribution of OUR HOMEOPATHIC CORONA RESEARCHERS.

The title given to a “homeopathic drug trial” conducted by a team of leading homeopaths was
“Effectiveness of Homeopathy as an ancillary mode of treatment and management in combating corona virus infection”.

Going to the details of that “RESEARCH” it is found that homeopathic medicines were used along with “drugs of modern medicine according to standard treatment protocol”!

In modern medicine, the word ANCILLARY is clearly defined.

Ancillary services in modern medicine is classified into three categories:
diagnostic
therapeutic
custodial
Diagnostic services include laboratory tests, radiology, genetic testing, diagnostic imaging, and more.

Therapeutic services range from rehabilitation to physical and occupational therapy, as well as massage, chiropractic services, and speech therapy.

Custodial services include everything from hospice care and long-term acute care to nursing facilities and urgent care.

Ancillary services are medical services or supplies that are not provided by acute care hospitals, doctors or health care professionals. Examples of ancillary services include:
Ambulance services
Ambulatory surgery center (ASC) services
Audiology services
Behavioral health services (inpatient and outpatient)
Cardiac monitoring
Dialysis services
Durable medical equipment (DME)
Hearing services
Home health care services
Home infusion therapy services
Hospice care services
Laboratory services
Medical day care (adult and pediatric)
Mobile diagnostic services
Orthotics and prosthetics
Personal care assistant services
Private duty nursing
Radiology/diagnostic imaging
Rehabilitation services (inpatient and outpatient)
Skilled nursing services
Sleep laboratory services
Speech services
Substance-abuse services (inpatient and outpatient)
Ventilator services
Wound-care services

By earning a status that is ANCILLARY to modern medicine, what advancement we have to expect for homeopathy? By REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, we were trying to establish that homeopathy is actually a scientifically more advanced stage of modern medicine. Using the corona researchers, modern medicine has very successfully pulled down homeopathy to the status of their ANCILLARY system, even from the current status of ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE ! Do homeopaths think ANCILLARY status is more desirable and prestigious that ALTERNATIVE status? Why do you fail to think about at least a PARALLEL status?

Why should homeopaths do research to establish homeopathy as an ANCILLARY of modern medicine? What you are actually trying to prove by giving homeopathy medicines along with “drugs of modern medicine according to standard treatment protocol”! Is it not the real MIXOPATHY or MIXING OF MEDICAL SYSTEMS you are so MUCH abhorrent about? Even if our medicines acted in such cases, do you expect scientific will accept your research as a proof for effectiveness of homeopathy?

Homeopaths are averse to give TWO medicines together in potentized form, as it is against the “words of maser”! But they have no aversion to give homeopathic medicines ALONG WITH allopathic medicines to same patient, if it is given by another doctor! Is it not ridiculous? Where did master permit you to use potentized homeopathic medicines to a patient along with allopathic medicines?

One of the accusations we hear against homeopathy from its critics is that homeopathy treat only symptoms, without diagnosing the disease. This criticism comes from the idea that diagnosis means fitting the sufferings of the patient into a ‘disease name’ given in the textbooks.

It is wrong to say “homeopathy treats symptoms”.

Actually, homeopathy uses “totality of symptoms” as an indirect means for identifying the biomolecular errors underlyning the disease conditions, as symptoms are nothing but subjective and objective expressions of underlying molecular level pathology.

Homeopathy uses ‘similarity of disease symptoms and drug symptoms’ as a means to identify the appropriate therapeutic agent, based on the knowledge of biochemistry that molecules with ‘similar’ functional groups can bind to ‘similar’ biological targets and produce ‘similar’ molecular inhibitions that are expressed through ‘similar’ trains of symptoms, and that ‘similar’ molecules will compete each other for binding to same biological targets, leading to the removal of molecular inhibitions. This is the basis of therapeutic principle ‘similia similibus curentur’.

If we could identify the drug molecules that are ‘similar’ to particular disease-causing molecules, molecular imprints of those drug molecules can act as artificial binding pockets for those disease-causing molecules by their conformational affinity and deactivate them, thereby removing the pathological molecular inhibitions they had produced in the organism. This is the molecular mechanism of high dilution therapeutics involved in homeopathy.

When a homeopath selects a particular drug or a combination of drugs as ‘similimum’ for a particular patient on the basis of ‘totality’ of subjective and objective symptoms, he is actually making a ‘diagnosis’- a diagnosis that is more comprehensive, more minute, more deep, more subtle and more specific than what is commonly known as ‘diagnosis’ according to the paradigms of modern medicine.

Homeopathic diagnosis of identifying a ‘similimum’ actually goes much deeper level into the identification of exact ‘molecular level’ errors existing in the individual. These molecular level errors could not be accurately identified with any modern sophisticated techniques or bio-chemical studies with such a perfection, other than by the observation of subjective and objective symptoms expressed by the individual. Disease diagnosis of modern medicine is only a very superfluous part of this molecular level ‘total diagnosis’ done by homeopathy. That is why modern medicine find it difficult to treat without proper ‘disease diagnosis’, where as homeopathy can treat any complex case by it ‘symptom diagnosis’ methodology.

Derangement in a particular biochemical pathway resulting from a molecular level inhibition produces a specific train of subjective and objective symptoms in the organism. In other words, each specific group of symptoms exhibited by the organism indicates a particular error occurred in the molecular level.

Homeopathy actually chases these trains of symptoms to their minutest level, from periphery to interior, in order to identify the exact molecular errors underlying any particular state of pathology.Then, those pathological molecular inhibitions are removed by applying appropriate therapeutic agents, selected on the basis of ‘law of similars’ or ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’.

The subjective and objective symptoms presented by the organism are the only reliable indicators to help us correctly understand the minute molecular deviations underlying a state of pathology. Each group or trains of symptoms represent a specific molecular error that had occurred in a particular biochemical pathway. These symptoms invariably indicate the specific type and character of the endogenous or exogenous foreign molecules or ions responsible for the causation of particular molecular inhibition. By studying the train of symptoms carefully and systematically, homeopaths are actually observing these exact molecular inhibitions.

This symptom-based analytical method of diagnosing done in homeopathy is far more exact and superior to the multitude of expensive complex laboratory chemical tests and imaging technologies we consider to be ‘scientific’. Identifying the exact molecular errors in the organism of the patient by observing the expressed symptoms, and identifying the most appropriate therapeutic agents from the similarity of symptoms those drugs could produce in healthy organism- this is the scientific essence of “similia similibus curentur”.

This fundamental strategy underlying the homeopathic system of therapeutics evidently surpasses even the most ‘scientific’ methods of modern molecular medicine. It is high time that the modern medicine realize and recognize this great truth, and incorporate this wonderful tool of homeopathy into their armamentarium. Obviously, “similia similibus curentur” is the most effective technique of identifying and removing the pathological molecular inhibitions in the organism.

Homeopathy or Similia Similibus Curentur is actually a therapeutic method that utilise the mutually OPPOSITE actions of crude forms and potentized forms of drug substances. It is the fundamental of homeopathy. If a drug substance can produce a group of symptoms in a healthy individual that are similar to the symptoms of a disease, that disease can be cured by applying the potentized forms of that drug substance. Producing symptoms actually means producing certain molecular errors in the body. Similarity of symptoms indicates similarity of molecular errors. If a drug substance in its crude forms can produce certain molecular errors in the body, its potentized forms can remove that molecular errors.

In our everyday clinical practice, we have a lot of experiences with this OPPOSITE actions of crude drugs and their potentized forms. Many times we apply this knowledge also. Using APIS MEL 30 for bee stings, anacardium 30 for antidoting anacardium poisoning, tabaccum 30 for removing bad effects of tobacco, cannabis 30 for cannabis addiction – there are actually hundreds of such empirical uses which very successful.

Tautopathy is the use of potentized forms of allopathic drugs to remove the short-term or long-term bad effects of allopathic drugging. Potentized forms of almost all allopathic drugs are available in market. Many nosodes are successfully used by homeopaths on the basis of this knowledge of OPPOSITE actions of crude forms and potentized forms. The researches referred above regarding the use of Arsenic Alb 30 in arsenic toxicity, cadmium sulph 30 in cadmium toxicity etc also ratify the correctness of this observation.

When trying to find an answer to the question “what are the active principles of post-avogadro potentized drugs, it is very important that these ACTIVE PRINCIPLES should be something that can remove the molecular inhibitions caused by the molecular forms of that drug.

We have already found in earlier discussions that post-avogadro dilutions do not contain any molecule of original drug substance, and that they contain nothing but alcohol and water, along with some particles coming through contaminations. We have also found that chemical properties of post-avogadro dilutions and unpotentized water-alcohol mixture are similar. But all of us know, and it is well established that these post-avogadro dilutions without any drug molecule contained in them have specific biological actions and disease curing properties. It was also observed and proved through spectroscopic studies mentioned earlier that post-avogadro dilutions have some supra-molecular arrangements that make them different from the plain water-alcohol mixture. It is now obvious that the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES should be some supra-molecular water-ethyl alcohol structures formed during the process of potentization. And it is very much evident that these supra-molecular structures are not MIMICS of drug molecules, but something that can produce biological effects that are exactly OPPOSITE to those produced by original drug molecules.

Our inquiry for ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of post-avogadro diluted homeopathic drugs has now arrived at a very decisive point. Now we are very much sure that these active principles are some sort of supramolecular structures formed by water and alcohol, and these structures have retained the medicinal properties of original drug molecules in a REVERSE order.

It is already known to us that chemical molecules produce errors in biological processes by binding to and inhibiting biological molecules such as enzymes, receptors, transport molecules etc. Chemical molecules having some functional groups or moieties SIMILAR to those of natural ligands can compete with the natural ligands in binding to the biological targets. When a chemical molecule succeed in this competition, the biological molecules get inhibited, and the interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands are blocked. This is the molecular mechanism involved in disease processes. Drug molecules as well as various pathogenic molecules can inhibit the actions of biological molecules by this mechanism, which result in diverse kinds of pathological conditions.

CURE involves removal of pathological inhibitions happened in biological molecules. If the post-avogadro diluted drugs can cure disease conditions produced by their molecular forms , it means, they contain some supra-molecular structures that can bind to those molecules, deactivate them, and remove the molecular inhibitions they produced. In order to bind to the chemical molecules, these supra-molecular structures should have some conformational properties that are just opposite to the concerned chemical molecules.

Now our answer for the question “what are ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of post-avogadro potentized drugs” is very much near to us. We can say, the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES are some “supra-molecular structures formed in water-ethyl alcohol medium during the process of potentization, which can act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules having some sort of opposite conformations”.

Next question we have to answer is, HOW these “supra-molecular structures” are formed during the process of potentization. This question could be answered only if we study the supramolecular properties of water-ethyl alcohol mixture, phenomena of hydrogen bonding, formation of host-guest complexes, cavitation and a lot of such things, and also the molecular processes involved in the technology of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING.

I am not “trying to change fundamental laws of homeopathy” as some of our homeopath friends accuse. I am only trying to “explain fundamentals” of homeopathy in terms of modern science , and to prove them using scientific method. If you take some time to go through my articles on this topic, you would realize that I have “explained” ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’ “as per ‘already proved’ modern science”. I am not proposing any “new theory” or trying to “change fundamental laws”.

Please note, so far there is no any ‘fundamental law’ or any hypothesis in homeopathy which anybody proved or could be proved “as per modern science”. Not even “explained” as per modern science”. But we teach, learn and practice those “unproved” ideas as “fundamental  laws” without any hesitation. You never asked anybody to “prove” those theories before accepting them. 

One friend even asked me to “show molecular imprints present in potentized drugs”, as if he understands molecular imprints as something that could be picked by a forceps and shown to him! Can anybody ‘show’ him supra-molecular formations of water? It should be by indirect methods and ‘understood’, not ‘seen’. Either they did not read what I have written, or failed to follow the concepts due to poor back ground knowledge in the scientific topics I have discussed to ‘prove’ molecular imprints concept. Or, it may be that they do not want to understand on reasons known only to them!

How can I convince you something, if you hesitate to read anything? I regularly post at least one article everyday explaining my concept of ‘molecular imprints’ and their implication in homeopathy. Without reading what I write, you ask me to “prove”! I once again request you to take some time to read at least some of those articles.

How can I prove my scientific concepts of homeopathy to somebody who does not know or is not willing to learn supra-molecular properties of water? How can I prove my concepts to somebody who does not know or is not willing to learn the subject matter of molecular imprinting technology? How can I prove my concepts to somebody who does not know or is not willing to learn the modern biochemistry and molecular biology? How can I prove my concepts to somebody who does not know or is not willing to learn advanced concepts of enzyme kinetics and molecular level pathology?

My request to those who ask for ‘proof for my concepts’ is, kindly update your basic knowledge in the topics I discuss. Then only you can follow these concepts. Then only I can ‘prove’ molecular imprints concepts to you. Once you acquire the background knowledge and then read my articles, you will see that everything I say is simple ‘proved’ science, and only very little remains to be ‘proved’.

If you go through my articles and try to understand the ideas I am proposing, you will realize that I have successfully explained   SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR and POTENTIZATION in a way fitting very well to modern biochemistry, molecular pathology,  pharmacodynamics and supramolecular chemistry. Nobody even from scientific community can question my explanation of SIMILIA concept in terms of competitive relationship between similar molecules in binding to biological targets, and the phenomenon of “molecular mimicry” well explained in modern biochemistry. You should understand, my studies of POTENTIZATION as a tecnique of preparing molecular imprints has paved the way for hectic research activities in modern medicine to produce a whole range of target-specific MOLECULAR IMPRINTED DRUGS. It is undeniable that my explanations of MIASMS as “chronic disease dispositions produced by off-target inhibitions of biological molecules caused by antibodies generated against alien proteins and infectious agents” has raised the status of homeopathy to a new level. 

I would like to make it clear that I did not produce any ‘theories’ artificially. All my proposals on various aspects homeopathic practice are logical extensions evolved naturally from the fundamental concept of ‘molecular imprinting’ as the process involved in potentization. Once we accept ‘molecular imprints’ as the active principles of potentizaed drugs, and that they act therapeutically upon the organism by selectively binding to the pathogenic molecules, we cannot perceive or resolve these practical issues from another angle.

How can I ‘modify’ or distort logical and obvious scientific truths to satisfy your erstwhile habits, deep-rooted beliefs and long continued comfortable ways of practicing?

I can understand the discomfort brewing among ‘settled’ homeopaths when hearing my concepts that they fear would ‘change their ‘fundamentals’. “Coming out of comfort zones” is not an easy task, especially for ‘seniors’. It is very difficult to get exposed to a new knowledge environment, which would demand a fundamental re-thinking and modifying of many things they ‘believed’, learned, taught and practiced in their whole life. That would be a very uneasy situation, very hard to cope with.

Metabolic Syndrome has become a major lifestyle related health issue of modern man, probably due to stressful life, lack of exercise and changed food habits. 

Metabolic syndrome or MetS is a cluster of common abnormalities arising from persistent high levels of cortisol in the blood. This Syndrome includes hyperglycemia, abdominal obesity, reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and elevated triglyceride and blood pressure. The common characteristics of MetS and hypercortisolemic conditions such as Cushing’s syndrome suggest that the pathogenesis of MetS and central obesity might involve prolonged and excessive exposure to cortisol.

Metabolic Syndrome was originally described as “insulin resistance syndrome”.

 The components of Metabolic Syndrome are associated with endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis and increase the risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus as well as vascular morbidity and mortality. It is estimated that about one fourth of the world’s adult population has Metabolic Syndrome.

Metabolic Syndrome is diagnosed when three or more of the following parameters are present: waist circumference greater than 102 cm in men and greater than 88 cm in women, triglycerides of at least 150 mg/dl, HDL cholesterol less than 40 mg/dl in men and less than 50 mg/dl in women, blood pressure of at least 130/85 mm Hg, and fasting glucose of at least 110 mg/dL.

It is unclear whether a single primary abnormality triggers a cascade of diverse events that lead to the manifestation of the components of MetS. Because the diagnostic features of MetS are shared by Cushing’s syndrome (CS), which results from endogenous or exogenous hypercortisolism, it was proposed that cortisol contributes to the pathogenesis of both states although only mild hypercortisolism occurs in MetS in contrast with CS. It was also suggested that inhibiting cortisol action could provide a novel therapeutic approach for MetS. 

Indeed, preliminary data suggest that circulating cortisol concentrations are higher in patients with MetS compared with healthy subjects, both in basal conditions and during dynamic stimulation. This difference is more evident in patients with MetS and hypertension or impaired glucose tolerance. Furthermore, weight loss normalizes cortisol levels and improves insulin resistance. Despite the fact that cortisol levels are within the normal range, there is evidence of increased activity of cortisol in the periphery and dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. 

Differences between CS and MetS also need to be emphasized; in CS, once the tumor is removed, symptoms improve; in the MetS, weight loss reverses both hypercortisolism and phenotypic abnormalities.

Cortisol appears to play a role in adiposity in Metabolic Syndrome. Elevated serum uric acid levels are shared by MetS and CS Syndome. Increased exposure to cortisol contributes to increased fat accumulation in visceral deposits of fat. Increased cortisol serum overnight levels are also associated with insulin resistance.

Some studies showed elevated cortisol levels in situations such as work stress and unemployment. Others reported that chronic life stress results in subtle hyperactivity of HPA axis leading to intraabdominal adiposity and development of Metabolic Syndrome. Patients with Metabolic Syndrome appear to have higher urinary excretion of cortisol metabolites compared with healthy subjects. In vitro, cortisol appears to increase lipoprotein lipase or fat-storing enzyme levels in adipose tissue and particularly in visceral fat.

Cortisol, also known as “stress hormone”, is a very important hormone produced mainly by the zona fasciculata of the adrenal cortex in the adrenal gland. It is produced in other tissues also in smaller quantities. It is released with a diurnal cycle and its release is increased in response to stress and low blood-glucose concentration. It functions to increase blood sugar through gluconeogenesis, to suppress the immune system, and to aid in the metabolism of fat, protein, and carbohydrates. It also decreases bone formation.

In general, cortisol stimulates the synthesis of ‘new’ glucose from non-carbohydrate sources. This is known as gluconeogenesis, mainly in the liver, and also in the kidneys and small intestine under certain circumstances. The net effect of cortisol is an increase in the concentration of glucose in the blood, further complemented by a decrease in the sensitivity of peripheral tissue to insulin, thus preventing this tissue from taking the glucose from the blood. Moreover, cortisol has a permissive effect on the actions of hormones that increase glucose production, such as glucagon and adrenaline.

Cortisol also plays an important, but indirect, role in liver and muscle glycogenolysis, the breaking down of glycogen to glucose.

Elevated levels of cortisol, if prolonged, can lead to proteolysis or breakdown of proteins, and muscle wasting. The reason for proteolysis is to provide the relevant tissue with ‘building blocks’ for gluconeogenesis. The effects of cortisol on lipid metabolism are more complicated since lipogenesis is observed in patients with chronic, raised circulating cortisol levels, although an acute increase in circulating cortisol promotes lipolysis. The usual explanation to account for this apparent discrepancy is that the raised blood glucose concentration through the action of cortisol will stimulate insulin release. Insulin stimulates lipogenesis, so this is an indirect consequence of the raised cortisol concentration in the blood but it will only occur over a longer time scale.

Experimental studies with cortisol inhibitors further support the role cortisol in the pathogenesis of Metabolic Syndrome, and might provide novel therapeutic approaches in patients with metabolic syndrome or obesity.

The components of Metabolic Syndrome are associated with endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis, and increase the risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus as well as vascular morbidity and mortality.

It was also suggested that inhibiting cortisol action could provide a novel therapeutic approach for Metabolic Syndrome. Indeed, preliminary data suggest that circulating cortisol concentrations are higher in patients with Metabolic Syndrome compared with healthy subjects, both in basal conditions and during dynamic stimulation. It was also proved that
reduction of body weight normalizes cortisol levels and improves insulin resistance.

Emerging data suggest that patients with MetS show hyperactivity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, which leads to a state of “functional hypercortisolism”. The cause for this activation of the HPA axis remains uncertain but may be associated with chronic stress, which is associated with increased circulating cortisol levels and greater responsiveness of the HPA axis. Increased exposure to cortisol contributes to increased fat accumulation in visceral depots. Increased enzyme activity in adipose tissue and liver might contribute to the development of several features of the MetS.

Central abdominal obesity is one of the main components of the MetS. Cortisol appears to play a role in adiposity in MetS. Increased urinary cortisone/cortisol ratio in women with increased abdominal fat compared with those with peripheral fat distribution was observed by researchers, suggesting an increase in the peripheral metabolism of cortisol. Interestingly, cortisol clearance seems to be inversely correlated with insulin sensitivity, and this correlation is independent of body fat. It is also well documented that glucocorticoids promote the differentiation and proliferation of human adipocytes and that their receptors are more abundant in visceral than in subcutaneous adipose tissue. They also redistribute adiposity from peripheral to central depots, increase the size and number of fat cells, and activate lipolysis and the release of free fatty acids into the circulation.

Increased cortisol levels are also associated with insulin resistance. Higher cortisol concentrations were related to a reduced insulin secretion.

Hypertension is one of the most distinguishing features of Metabolic Syndrome as well as hypercortisolism. Many studies reported an association between cortisol and systolic and diastolic BP levels. This correlation might be attributed to the effect of stress, which is associated with the activation of the HPA axis and sympathetic nervous system. Indeed, patients with Metabolic Syndrome and hypertension appear to have higher urine levels of both cortisol and catecholamine metabolites than healthy individuals. A possible mechanism by which cortisol elevate BP seems to be an increased responsiveness to vasoconstrictors along with a decreased vasodilator production.

Obesity , a common finding in both CS and MetS, is also associated with hypertension. The possible underlying mechanisms include volume expansion, increased cardiac output and systemic vascular resistance, increased sodium reabsorption, increased activity of the sympathetic nervous system and the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, high leptin levels and concurrent leptin resistance.

Patients with Metabolic Syndrome as well as hypercortisolism frequently have elevated blood glucose levels. In patients with MetS, serum cortisol levels are significantly associated with fasting glucose concentration. The relationship between fasting hyperglycemia and cortisol is due to the glucocorticoid effects on hepatic gluconeogenesis and insulin secretion.

Metabolic Syndrome is associated with endothelial dysfunction that significantly predisposes to an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases. Endothelial dysfunction is also observed in patients with hypercortisolism. Hypercoagulability of blood is also present in MetS. Indeed, elevated fibrinogen and homocysteine concentrations have been observed in MetS patients compared with healthy controls. Hyperfibrinogenemia and homocysteinemia seem to be independent risk factors for cardiovascular diseases and venous thrombosis.

Elevated serum uric acid levels are seen both in Metabolic Syndrome and Hypercortisolism. High uric acid levels are regarded as a predictor of cardiac and overall mortality in patients with cardiovascular diseases or stroke. Elevated uric acid is also associated with higher risk of stroke in patients with or without cardiovascular disease. It was demonstrated that statin atorvastatin therapy is associated with a reduction in uric acid levels, along with an increase in estimated glomerular filtration rate in CKD patients with MetS. This effect on renal function is perhaps due to an amelioration of endothelial function and renal blood flow. 

Adipose tissue is recognized as an important endocrine organ that secretes a variety of bioactive peptides, termed adipokines. These adipokines exert multiple effects and play a key role in glucose and lipid metabolism, insulin sensitivity, BP, and angiogenesis. The major components of this family of adipokines are adiponectin and leptin, which are mainly produced by adipose tissue. Both these proteins exert an insulin-sensitizing effect through fatty-acid oxidation and, in addition, adiponectin is associated with antiatherogenic, antidiabetic, and antiinflammatory properties. In obesity, insulin resistance has been linked to leptin resistance, elevated leptin, and low adiponectin levels, which are associated with higher cardiovascular risk. Resistin is expressed in abdominal fat and is also associated with increased risk of central obesity-related diabetes. However, resistin may not be an “adipokine” because in humans it is mainly produced by monocytes, and its link with central obesity is debated. Excess adiposity leads to dysregulation of adipokine production, which in turn promotes a state of low-level systemic chronic inflammation predisposing to atherosclerosis.

According to MIT approach, since molecular imprints of cortisol can act as artificial binding pockets for cortisol, it can antidote the adverse biological effects of excess cortisol circulated in the body. 

Homeopathic drug CORTISOL 30 contains Molecular imprints of the hormone cortisol. CORTISOL 30 is a great remedy for many ailments that are associated with Metabolic Syndrome. As such, cortisol 30 will be a powerful ingredient of Homeopathic Prescriptions in the management of all complaints associated with Metabolic Syndrome. Incorporation of PITUTRINUM 30 as well as common anti-stress homeopathy remedies such as Arg Nit 30, Gesls 30, Adrenalin 30 also produces beneficial effects in reducing the bad effects of stress and increased cortisol levels, and thereby preventing and curing Metabolic Syndrome and the health risks arising from its complications.

According to MIT explanations of homeopathy. SIMILIMUM means a drug substance that can provide all the molecular imprints required to remove all the pathological molecular inhibitions underlying a disease existing in a patient. SIMILIA SIMILIBUS is only a practical way of identifying such a drug substance by observing the symptoms in a patient, and comparing them with the symptoms drug substances are known to have produced earlier in healthy idividuals. This therapeutic technique is actually based on the knowledge that chemical molecules having similar conformations can bind to similar molecular targets, produce similar molecular inhibitions, that are expressed through similar symptoms.

This scientific understanding will obviously lead homeopathy to a shift from symptom based prescriptions to molecular pathology based prescritions. The more we understand the molecular pathology of disease conditions as well as the details of ligands and targets involved in each pathological molecular inhibitions, and the more we study the molecular constitution of drug substances we use, the more we will be able to make perfect homeopathy prescriptions on the basis of that knowledge, and the more we can avoid symptom based approach.

The more we know about the molecular pathology of each disease, and the more we know the molecular constitutions of drug substances, the more homeopathy will shift away from “similarity of symptoms” to “conformational similarity of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules”.

Let us try to demonstrate this idea using the knowledge regarding molecular pathology of HYPERTENSION. Renin or angiotensinogenase, is the key enzyme produced in kidneys that modulates body’s renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) that mediates volume of extracellular fluids such as blood plasma, lymph and interstitial fluid, as well as arterial vasoconstriction. Thus, RENIN regulates the body’s mean arterial blood pressure.

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

The renin enzyme produced in kidneys circulates in the blood stream and breaks down angiotensinogen secreted from the liver into angiotensin I.

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

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

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

In normal physiological conditions, once the reduced blood pressure is raised to the adequate level, production of RENIN in kidneys is stopped by a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK mechanism, where angiotensin II act upon the special ‘angiotensin II receptors’ on the cell membranes of juxtaglomerular apparatus of kidneys. By this process, level of RENIN in blood stream is maintained with in limits, thereby preventing hypertension. 

Same way, production of catecholamines such as adrenalin which also plays a role in inducing production of RENIN and maintaining blood pressure high, is stopped by negative feedback action of adrenalin upon adrenogenic receptors on cells of adrenal cortex.

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

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

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

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

One of the most difficult questions related with scientific understanding of homeopathy was , how the medicinal properties of a drug substance could be transmitted and preserved into a medium without any drug molecule remaining in it. This cardinal question could be rationally answered once it was realised that homeopathic potentization involves a process of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING in water-ethanol azeotropic supramolecular matrix, and that MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug molecules are the active principles of post-avogadro diluted homeopathic drugs.

As per this scientific explanation, conformational details of drug molecules or template molecules are imprinted into the water-alcohol medium in the form of three dimensional nanocavities during the pricess of serial dilution and agitation involved in homeopathic potentization. By their conformational properties, these molecular imprints can act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules that are similar to the template molecules, thereby deactivating pathogenic molecules and removing the molecular inhibitions they produced in the living system. Similia Similibus Curentur, the fundamental principle of homeopathy , could be satisfactorily explained by this biological mechanism, which fits very well to the advanced knowledge of biochemistry and pharmacodynamics.

In order to evolve this scientific explanation for potentization as well as similia similibus curentur, we had to delve deep into diverse areas of knowledge such as supramolecular chemistry of water and ethyl alcohol, polymer structure of water, hydrogen bonding, azeotropism, host-guest molecular interactions, cavitation, molecular imprinting in polymers, etc etc.

A mixture of water and ethyl alcohol in an approximate ratio of 10:90 is used as the medium for homeopathic potentization. According to some references, “pure distilled spirit” could also be used for this purpose, but all of us know, what is called “pure distilled spirit” actually contains 5% water and 95% ethanol, since it is impossible to separate water and ethanol beyond that level by fractional distillation, due to a peculiar phenomenon known as AZEOTROPISM. Studying the molecular level mechanism underlying the phenomenon of azeotropism is essential for understanding how molecular imprinting happens during homeopathic potentization.

In chemistry, AZEOTROPE is a mixture of liquids that has a constant boiling point, because the vapour has the same composition as the liquid mixture. The boiling point of an azeotropic mixture may be higher or lower than that of any of its components. The components of azeotropic mixtures of liquids cannot be separated by simple distillation.

An azeotropic mixture is a mixture of substances that has the same concentration at vapour and fluid phases. It is basically a mixture that contains two or more liquids. Azeotropic mixture basically has constant or the same boiling points and the mixtures’ vapour will also have the same composition as the liquid. Normally, we use distillation to isolate materials as the ideal solutions with one part normally more volatile than the other. However, in an azeotropic mixture, since the vapour and fluid concentrations will be the same this approach will prevent their separation.

Boiling a 95% solution of ethanol in water will produce a 95% ethanol vapour. It is not possible to obtain higher ethanol concentrations even by repeated distillations. Alcohol and water are miscible in any ratio, making it possible to combine any quantity of ethanol with any quantity of water to produce a homogeneous solution that could be separated by fractional distillation, but there will finally remain an azeotrope part in it containing 95% ethanol and 5% water that could not be separated by distllation.

I have been searching for a more biofriendly as well as stable substance that could be used as an ideal imprinting medium for preparing molecular imprinted drugs.

In an azeotropic mixture of two liquids, concentration of molecules will be such that each molecule of both compound will be strongly bound to each molecule of other compound, thereby restricting their freedom of movements. This mutual binding of molecules is retained even when they go to vapour phase. This is the reason why two liquids with different boiling points evaporate at a constant boiling point in azeotropic ratio. This unbreakable binding between molecules of constituent liquids in azeotropic mixture imparts peculiar physical and chemical properties to it.

Actually, it is this peculiar AZEOTROPIC properties that make water-ethanol mixture an ideal medium for homeopathic potentization and molecular imprinting. Even though pure water is a dynamic branched polymer, molecular imprints formed in it will be very transient and unstable due to the free movements of water molecules and the protonation-deprotonation process constantly taking place. But when ethanol is added to water in an azeotropic ratio, due to their mutual molecular binding, movements of molecules get restricted and protonation-deprotonation process reduced. Due to this mechanism, molecular imprints formed in an azeotropic mixture of alcohol and water remain stable and long standing. This phenomenon explains the importance of using water-ethanol mixture in a particular ratio as the medium for homeopathic potentization.

It is obvious that molecular imprints are actually formed by formation of hydrogen bonded networks of water molecules aroung drug molecules used as templates. It means, only the 5% water contained in the medium actually undergoes molecular imprining, and the remaining 90% alcohol plays only a preservative effects by stabilizing the molecular imprints formed in water. It means, potentized homeopathic drugs contain only 5% as their active principles. When we take 100 ml of potentized drug, only 5 ml of it actually carries molecular imprints. This is an important draw back of using water-ethanol mixture as potentizing medium, which also indicates the need for developing better alternatives.

Water-ethanol azeotropic mixture boils at 78.2 °C, even though boiling point of water is 100 degrees and that of ethanol is 78.4 degrees. It means potentized homeopathic drugs will evaporate in atmospheric temperature much easier than water or ethanol. It is a major problem encountered in homeopathy pharmacy.

I have been searching for long to find out an alternative imprinting medium for preparing molecular imprinted drugs and homeopathic potentization, that is more stable and more biofriendly than water-ethanol mixture.

After a lot of studies and research on this topic, an AZEOTROPIC mixture of water and propionic acid in the ratio 82.3: 17.7 is finally found to be a comparatively much better candidate as an ideal imprinting medium for preparing MOLECULAR IMPRINTED DRUGS, instead of water-ethanol azeotropic mixture conventionally used in homeopathic POTENTIZATION.

Propionic acid can hold much water than ethanol in an azeotropic mixture, it is a simple native fatty acid being a universal part of metabolic processes in living systems, it is hundred percent non toxic, and far much safer than ethanol.

PROPIONIC ACID is a simple fatty acid with chemical formula CH3CH2CO2H, belonging to the chemical group known as carboxylic acids. It is also known by different names, such as propanoic acid, ethylformic acid, methyacetic acid, carboxyethane, ethanecarboxylic acid, pseudoacetic acid, metacetonic acid etc.

Molecular mass of propionic acid is 74.079. It forms azeotropic mixture with water at a ratio 82.3 % water and 17.7% propionic acid. Boiling point of water-propionic acid azeotrope is 99.98 degree celsius, whereas boiling point of propionic acid is 141.1 degree celsius and boiling point of water is 100 degrees. As such, water-propionic acid azeotropic mixture cannot be separated by fractional distillation. Propionic acid consists of hydrogen bonded pairs of molecules in both the liquid and the vapor.

Propionic acid is a naturally occurring carboxylic acid with chemical formula CH3CH2CO2H. It is a liquid with a pungent and unpleasant smell somewhat resembling body odor.

Propionic acid has physical properties intermediate between those of the smaller carboxylic acids, formic and acetic acids, and the larger fatty acids. It is fairly miscible with water. As with acetic and formic acids, it consists of hydrogen bonded pairs of molecules in both the liquid and the vapor forms.

Propionic acid is a natural part of various biological processes and pathways. Propionic acid is produced biologically as its coenzyme A ester, propionyl-CoA, from the metabolicbreakdown of fatty acids containing odd numbers of carbonatoms, and also from the breakdown of some amino acids. The metabolism of propionic acid begins with its conversion to propionyl coenzyme A, the usual first step in the metabolism of carboxylic acids. Since propionic acid has three carbons, propionyl-CoA cannot directly enter either beta oxidationor the citric acid cycles. In most vertebrates, propionyl-CoA is carboxylated to D-methylmalonyl-CoA, which is isomerisedto L-methylmalonyl-CoA. A vitamin B12-dependent enzyme catalyzes rearrangement of L-methylmalonyl-CoA to succinyl-CoA, which is an intermediate of the citric acid cycle and can be readily incorporated there.
Propionic acid serves as a substrate for hepaticgluconeogenesis via conversion to succinyl-CoA.

Some propionic acid is used widely as a preservative for both animal feed and food for human consumption. Another major application is as a preservative in baked goods. As a food additive, it is approved for use in the EU, USA, Australia and New Zealand.

Designated as generally regarded as safe by the US Food and Drug Administration, propionic acid has shown little toxicity in humans and other organisms.

In the human body, however, propionic acid is generally metabolized with little ill effect and ultimately becomes a chemical intermediate in the citric acid cycle.

Some propionic acid is oxidized to lactic acid during absorption, but most passes to the liver, which removes nearly all of it from the portal blood. Propionic acid represents 20-25% of absorbed volatile fatty acids. Propionic acid is rapidly absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract.

Most absorbed propionic acid is passed to the liver, which removes nearly all of it from the portal blood.

As a compound that is typically found naturally in the body, little to no adverse cumulative health effects have been associated with exposure to propionic acid.

Designated as generally regarded as safe by the US Food and Drug Administration, propionic acid has shown little toxicity in humans and other organisms.

There are no known birth defects associated with the use of propionic acid in animals or humans.

ABOVE ALL, SINCE THE RATIO OF WATER IS VERY HIGH, A GIVEN DOSE OF POTENTIZED DRUG PREPARED USING PROPIONIC ACID-WATER AZEOTROPE WILL PROVIDE SIXTEEN TIMES MORE MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THAN WHAT WE GET FROM SAME MEASURE OF DRUG PREPARED USING WATER-ETHANOL MIXTURE. IT MEANS SIXTEEN TIMES MORE EFFECTIVENESS!

I would request the authorities at CCRH to conduct studies regarding my proposal to use 18% azeotropic solution of propionic acid in water as a better alternative to alcohol water mixture as homeopathic imprinting medium. Since water-propionic acid azeotropic mixture contain 82% water, the resulting homeopathic products will contain very high percentage of active principles or molecular imprints, which is a big advantage over water-ethanol mixture which contain only 5% molecular imprints.

Chandran Nambiar KC
Sci-Homeopathy

Homeopathy practice will become more simple, effective and predictable, and homeopaths will become capable of producing better cure rates and gaining more popular acceptance, once the use of disease-specific combinations of post avogadro diluted drugs becomes the norm of applied homeopathy, and taught to students as such. It should be understood and accepted by the homeopathic community as a most scientific and rational method of practice, rather than an unprincipled shortcut of convenience or unwelcome aberration arising from lack of theoretical knowledge as it is presently considered.

Theoretical basis of combining potentized drugs evolves from the understanding that potentization involves a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, and individual constituent molecules of drugs are ‘imprinted’ in their individual capacities during this process.

According to this understanding, even a drug we consider ‘single’ is in fact a mixture of different types of ‘molecular imprints’ of diverse constituent drug molecules, and they exist without interacting with each other. As per this view, even if we mix two or more potentized drugs together, the constituent ‘molecular imprints’ will not interact each other, and will act up on the appropriate molecular targets in their individual capacities.

For the last few years I was experimenting on this idea , and I have found it totally harmless and very effective to combine potentized drugs above 30c, selected on the basis of constitutional as well as particular ‘symptom complexes’.

Hahnemann was talking about SINGLE drug on the basis of scientific knowledge available to him during his period 250 years ago. He had no idea about the molecular level structure of drug substances, or their molecular level interactions with biological molecules. He had no idea about the molecular level pathology and molecular inhibitions undelying diseases. He considered drugs as ‘single’ substance, and diseases as ‘singular’ entities. For him, NUX was a ‘single’ substance, whereas we now know NUX tincture is a mixture of hundreds of types of alkaloids, gycosides and other phytochemicals, which act upon our body on the basis of their molecular structure and chemical properties.

All those noises made by CLASSICAL homeopaths over SINGLE DRUG/ MULTIPLE DRUGS issue actually come from their lack scientific understanding of homeopathy. When a drug substance containing different types of chemical molecules is subjected to potentization, each chemical molecule undergoes molecular imprinting as individual units. As such, any potentized drug will be a combination of diverse types of molecular imprints representing diverse types of constituent chemical molecules, which can act upon the pathogenic molecules as individual units, in capacity of their individual conformational properties.

When we combine two or more potentized drugs together, all the diverse types of individual molecular imprints contained in those different drugs will exist in that combination as individual units, and act up on pathogenic molecules by their individual conformational properties. Obviously, a combination of of different potentized drugs will be no way different from a potentized single drug that contains diverse types of chemical molecules.

Molecular imprints act upon pathogenic molecules as individual units, whether they come from single drug substance or multiple drug substances. All controversies over single drug/ multiple drugs issue become totally irrelevant once you realise this scientific truth. But you can understand this truth only if you have a scientific temper, and you are capable of thinking beyond the lessons you learned from organon and your unscientific teachers!

Once you understand MIT explanations of scientific homeopathy, and start perceiving potentized drugs in terms of diverse types of ‘molecular imprints’ as the ‘active principles’ they contain, you will realize that all controversies over ‘single/multiple’ drug issue become totally irrelevant.

According to MIT view, ‘similimum’ essentially means a drug substance that can provide the specific molecular imprints required to remove the particular molecular errors that caused the particular disease condition in the particular patient. Whatever be the ‘method’ by which the drug is selected, similimum is a similimum if it serves the purpose of curing the patient when administered in potentized form. Since ‘multiple’ molecular errors exist in any patient in a particular point of time, expressed through ‘multiple’ groups of symptoms, he will inevitably need ‘multiple’ molecular imprints to remove them. If potentized form of a ‘single’ medicinal substance can provide all those ‘multiple’ molecular imprints, that ‘single’ drug substance will be enough. If we could not find a ‘single’ drug substance that contain ‘all’ the ‘multiple’ molecular imprints required by the patient as indicated by the ‘symptom groups’, we will have to include ‘multiple’ drug substances in our prescription. It is the constituent molecular imprints contained in our particular prescription that matter.

Important point is, we have to ensure that our prescription supplies all the diverse types of molecular imprints required for deactivating all the diverse types of pathogenic molecules existing in the patient, as indicated by the diverse groups of subjective and objective symptoms expressed by him. If we could find a single drug preparation that could supply all the molecular imprints required by the patient we are dealing with, we can use that single drug preparation only. If we do not find such a single drug, we have to include as many number of drug preparations as required, in order to provide all the molecular imprints needed to remove all the molecular errors in the patient.

‘Single/multiple’ drug controversy never bothers one who understands this scientific approach proposed by MIT, as we start thinking in terms of molecular imprints- not in terms of drug names. Actually, a drug could be called ‘single’, if it contains ‘single’ type of molecular imprints only. IF a drug contains more than one type of molecular imprints, it is a compound drug, even if it is known by a ‘single’ drug name, prepared from a ‘single’ source material, kept in a ‘single’ bottle, consumed as a ‘single’ unit for ‘drug proving’, or considered by ‘masters’ as ‘single’ drug.

When we consume a complex drug substance in crude form, it is absorbed into the blood as various individual chemical molecules contained in it. It is these individual chemical molecules that interact with various biological molecules. Different molecules act up on different biological targets according to the molecular affinities of their functional groups. Biological molecules are inhibited, resulting in errors in the biochemical pathways mediated by those biological molecules. Such molecular level errors in biological processes cascades into a series of molecular errors, which are expressed through various groups of subjective and objective symptoms.

It is obvious that what we consider as the symptoms of that drug substance are actually the sum total of different symptom groups, representing entirely different molecular errors produced in entirely different biological molecules, by the actions of entirely different chemical molecules contained in the crude drug.

We have to remember, there is no such a thing called nux vomica molecule or pulsatilla molecule- only individual chemical molecules contained in nux vomica or pulsatilla tinctures. Each constituent molecule has its own specific chemical structure and properties. They act on different biological targets by their chemical properties. Each individual chemical molecule contained in a complex crude drug substance acts as an individual drug. That means, nux vomica or pulsatilla are not single drugs as we are taught, but compound drugs.

Classical homeopaths may find it difficult to accept this fact, as it contradicts with their beliefs as well as the lessons they are taught. But it is the scientific fact. From scientific point of view of pharmaceutical chemistry, a drug is a biologically active unit contained in a substance used as therapeutic agent. It is the structure and properties of that chemical molecule that decides its medicinal properties and therapeutic actions. if such as substance contains only one type of biologically active unit, it is a single drug. If it contains different types of biologically active units, it is a compound drug. It is obvious that most of the drugs we use in homeopathy – especially drugs of biological origin and complex minerals- contain diverse types of biologically active units, and hence they cannot be considered single drugs.

Molecular imprinting happens as individual molecules, and as such, potentized drugs prepared from a single drug substance will contain diverse types of molecular imprints representing the diverse types of individual constituent molecules contained in the substance. Those molecular imprints also act as individual units when applied in the organism. Hence, potentized drugs prepared by using a complex, seemingly single drug substance is actually a compound drug, containing diverse types of biologically active units, or ‘molecular imprints’.

Once homeopathic community could realize and accept the great truth that disease-specific COMBINATIONS of homeopathic drugs in 30c potencies are many many times more effective and safer than so-called SINGLE drugs, homeopathy will be on the top of all medical systems in this world! There will not be any disease that could not be practically cured by using rationally formulated appropriate combinations.

All homeopaths should be taught the art and science of preparing and using their own formulations. Whether for prophylactic or curative purpose, you cannot expect a so-called SINGLE homeopathic post-avogadro diluted drug to work as a specific for a DISEASE in a community as a whole. To be successful, you need to use a well-formulated disease-specific combination of MULTIPLE drugs in post-avogadro dilutions for that purpose. It is based on this rational idea that I have formulated more than 300 disease-specific post-avogadro MIT FORMULATIONS which are used by homeopaths around the world successfully.

It is a great “scientific blunder” happening to energy medicine homeopaths to think that if some “electromagnetic radiations” or “photons” are observed to come out a medicinal substance when it is irradiated and excited, those discharged “photons” are the active principles of those medicinal substances. Then they start constructing all sorts of nonsense psuedoscientific theories about curative process using these “photons”, such as “resonance”, “dynamic energy”, “quantum entanglement”, “biofield vibrations”, “vital force”, etc etc!

They should know, it is natural for any substance to discharge photons when its molecules or atoms are excited by applying external energy and then allowed to return to base level. This happens when the absorbed extra energy is discharged when returning to rest level. By analyzing the patterns of photon emissions, scientists study the structure and arrangement of molecules and atoms in a substance. Various techniques of spectroscopic studies have been developed by scientists for this purpose.

When drugs potentized below 12c or avogadro limit are excited using electromagnetic irradiation and then allowed to return back to rest, the extra photons absorbed by the elemental particles will be naturally emitted. We can study the molecular structure and arrangement of these substances by analyzing the spectra of emitted photons. It is totally absurd to theorize that the medicinal properties of drug substances could be reproduced by these photons, whereas medicinal properties of drug molecues come from the structure and properties of chemical molecules contained in them.

For example, color of a substance is actually the pattern of photons emitting or reflected from the substance once its molecules are excited by electromagnetic irradiations such as sunlight. These colors or emitted photons cannot be utilized to reproduce the chemical or biological properties of the molecules contained in the substance.

Drugs potentized above avogadro limit or 12c will not contain any molecule of original drug substance, but only water and ethanol, along with some natural contaminant particles. When these high dilution drugs are studied using spectroscopic techniques, the patterns of resultant spectra will obviously represent the structure and arrangement of alcohol and water molecules contained in them. We can also utilize these spectra to study the changes happening in their supramolecular arrangements happening during process of potentization. It means, by conducting spectroscopic studies of potentized drugs, and then comparing their spectra with those of unpotentized water-alcohol solutions, we can understand the processes the supramolecular rearrangements happening during potentization. This supramolecular rearrangement actually indicates MOLECULAR IMPRINTING.

A prominent section of homeopaths consider Avogadro as the greatest enemy of homeopathy. They seem to think that it is their duty to ‘prove’ Avogadro number ‘wrong’, in order to prove that ‘homeopathy is not placebo’! They seem to fear that whole homeopathy would collapse if Avogadro is allowed to exist!

Their question is, have you got ‘scientific evidence’ of avogadro’s constant?

The Avogadro constant is named after the early nineteenth-century Italian scientist Amedeo Avogadro, who, in 1811, first proposed that the volume of a gas (at a given pressure and temperature) is proportional to the number of atoms or molecules regardless of the nature of the gas.

Jean Perrin got nobel prize in physics in 1926 for his exhaustive work on avogadro constant. It was this French Physicist who in 1909 proposed naming the constant in honor of Avogadro. Perrin won the Nobel Prize for his monumental works in determining the Avogadro constant by several different methods.

In chemistry and physics, the Avogadro constant is defined as the ratio of the number of constituent particles (usually atoms or molecules) in a sample to the amount of substance n (unit mole) .Thus, it is the proportionality factor that relates the molar mass of an entity, i.e., the mass per amount of substance, to the mass of said entity. The Avogadro constant expresses the number of elementary entities per mole of substance and it has the value 6.02214129(27)×10^23 mol. Changes in the SI units are proposed that will change Avogadro’s constant to to exactly 6.02214X×10^23 when it is expressed in the unit mol. Whole scientific world utilizes this Avogadro constant in all calculations in physics and chemistry, and it is found correct.

But our ‘classical homeopaths’ will not believe in avogadro constant without ‘scientific evidence’! They think the swedish academy was mistaken by wrongly awarding nobel prize to Jean Perrin without enough ‘scientific evidence’ for his works on avogadro constant! I can only pity for these people calling themselves ‘classical homeopaths’, for their ignorance or closed mindedness, whatever it may be.

Most funny thing is, these people are never bothered about the ‘scientific evidences’ for those aphorisms in organon! They never ask for ‘scientific evidence’ for ‘miasms’ or ‘vital force’ or ‘similia similibus curentur’. They never ask for ‘scientific evidence’ for all those nonsense theories preached as part of homeopathy. They never ask for ‘scientific evidence’ for all those occult practices done by so-called homeopaths in the name of CAM!

But they want ‘scientific evidence’ for Avogadro’s Theory! They want ‘scientific evidence’ only when somebody talks about some scientific ideas. They instantly will jump in to prove ‘science is unscientific’, and that ‘homeopathy is ultimate science’! They want ‘scientific evidence’ only to establish the ‘unscientificness of science’!

According to these ‘classical homeopaths’, If something is said in ‘organon’, or uttered by the ‘master’ or ‘stalwarts’, it should be accepted by all homeopaths as ‘ultimate science’- no ‘evidence’ needed! These are the people who represent homeopathy before the world. Most of the influential sections of homeopathy try to propagate homeopathy that way. That is the reason why the scientific community perceive homeopathy as quackery and placebo.

There is another section of homeopaths who claim to be “scientific”, same time trying to disprove avogadro number. They talk about “nanoparticles” of drug substances as active principles of potentized homeopathic drugs. They argue that even minutest fractions or “doses” of potentized drugs diluted thousands of times above avogadro limit will be saturated with nanoparticles of original substances, enough to produce biological effects. Their argument is that avogadro number is not applicable to homeopathic drugs.

These “nanoparticle homeopaths” misuse the statement of IIT mumbai scientists that they could detect some “random particles of original substance floating in the 1% top layer of high dilution drug”. Please note, it was detected only in 1% top layer! Since nanoparticles are conglomerations of stoms or molecules, they are bound to explain wherefrom this unlimited number of nanoparticles are generated in not only “top layer”, but each and every drops of ultra high dilutions used as doses by homeopaths, where as avogadro number is crossed by 12c of dilution. They conveniently ignore this question!

It is a sheer waste of time to discuss science with this class of people. Nobody can convince them anything. But the sad thing is, we cannot ignore these intellectual morons, since they represent homeopathy before the general community and making it a subject of unending mockery.

High dilution biological effects utilized by homeopathy should be explained not by trying to disprove avogadro number, but by proving how the biological properties of drug molecules could be preserved in a medium even without a single drug molecule remaining in it. To understand this phenomenon, we have to study what is “Molecular Imprinting”, a modern technique developed by polymer technology for preserving and applying “conformational properties” of chemical molecules even in the absence of those molecules. To understand the relevance of molecular imprinting in homeopathy, we should also study some supramolecular chemistry as well as modern biochemistry, so that we could understand the decisive role of “conformational properties” of chemical molecules in biomolecular interactions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EVEN THOUGH INDIRECTLY, THESE STUDIES HAVE SUPPLIED ENOUGH DATA WHICH STRONGLY SUPPORT IN PROVING THE “MOLECULAR IMPRINTING” HYPOTHESIS PROPOSED BY MIT REGARDING MOLECULAR MECHANISM OF POTENTIZATION AND HOMEOPATHIC THERAPEUTICS.

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

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

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

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

SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR

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

DISEASE AND CURE

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

MOLECULAR IMPRINTING INVOLVED IN HOMEOPATHIC POTENTIZATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

The author is Chandran Nambiar KC from Fedarin Mialbs Private Limited, Kannur, Kerala.

Abstract

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a critical threat to global health, necessitating novel strategies to combat pathogenic microbes. Traditional antibiotics are losing efficacy due to the emergence of drug-resistant strains. In this research article, we propose an innovative approach: the use of molecular imprints of microbial glycoproteins (MIMGs) as an alternative to antibiotics. MIMGs exploit the unique surface features of pathogens, offering targeted and sustainable solutions to AMR,

Introduction

Antibiotics have been the cornerstone of infection management for decades. However, their widespread use has led to the rise of drug-resistant microbes, challenging our ability to treat infections effectively. Superbugs, armed with resistance mechanisms, threaten public health. Uncontrolled antibiotic availability and inappropriate usage exacerbate this crisis. To address AMR, we need alternatives that circumvent the limitations of traditional antibiotics.

The research article proposes an innovative strategy using Molecular Imprints of Microbial Glycoproteins (MIMGs) as an alternative to antibiotics to address antimicrobial resistance (AMR). MIMGs, synthetic biofriendly polymers mimicking microbial glycoprotein surfaces, offer targeted solutions by selectively binding to pathogenic glycoproteins. Advantages include targeted specificity, sustainability, and reduced toxicity compared to traditional antibiotics. Challenges include understanding glycoprotein diversity, assessing safety, and achieving clinical translation. Collaboration across disciplines is crucial for combating AMR.

Definition and Concept

MIMGs are synthetic biofriendly polymers designed to mimic the surface features of microbial glycoproteins. The molecular imprinting technique creates cavities within the polymer matrix, specifically shaped to interact with glycoprotein epitopes. These imprints serve as recognition sites for pathogenic glycoproteins.

Molecular Imprinting Technique

The process of creating MIMGs involves several meticulous steps to ensure specificity and functionality:

1. Template Selection: Researchers select microbial glycoproteins as templates based on their importance in pathogenesis.

2. Polymerization: Monomers are polymerized into biofriendly polymers in the presence of the template glycoprotein, resulting in complementary cavities.

3. Template Extraction: The template is removed, leaving behind MIMGs with glycoprotein-specific imprints.

4. Targeted Binding: When exposed to pathogenic glycoproteins, MIMGs selectively bind to their epitopes, disrupting essential functions.

Mechanism of Action

The mechanism of action of MIMGs relies on their ability to specifically recognize and bind to microbial glycoproteins. This specificity is achieved through the following steps:

Template Selection

The selection of an appropriate template glycoprotein is critical. Researchers focus on glycoproteins that play significant roles in the pathogenicity of microbes. These glycoproteins often serve as virulence factors or are involved in critical processes like adhesion, invasion, and immune evasion.

Polymerization Process

The polymerization process involves the assembly of monomers around the template glycoprotein. The choice of monomers or imprinting medium and the conditions of polymerization are optimized to create a matrix that closely matches the shape and chemical characteristics of the glycoprotein.

Template Extraction

After polymerization, the template glycoprotein is carefully removed, leaving behind a polymer matrix with cavities that are complementary in shape and functionality to the glycoprotein epitopes. This step is crucial for ensuring that the imprints can effectively recognize and bind to the target glycoproteins.

Targeted Binding and Disruption

Once the MIMGs are exposed to a microbial environment, they selectively bind to the target glycoproteins on the surface of pathogens. This binding can interfere with the normal function of the glycoproteins, potentially inhibiting processes essential for the pathogen’s survival and virulence.

Advantages of MIMGs

Targeted Specificity

MIMGs are designed to recognize and bind to specific glycoproteins, minimizing collateral damage to beneficial microbes. This specificity reduces the likelihood of disrupting the host’s natural microbiota, a common issue with broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Sustainability

Unlike traditional antibiotics, which often become ineffective due to the development of resistance, MIMGs offer a sustainable solution. The specificity of MIMGs makes it difficult for pathogens to develop resistance, as any mutation in the glycoprotein may compromise its functionality.

Reduced Toxicity

MIMGs avoid systemic toxicity associated with broad-spectrum antibiotics. Their targeted action minimizes adverse effects on the host, leading to a better safety profile and improved patient outcomes.

Challenges and Future Directions

While MIMGs hold great promise, several challenges must be addressed to realize their full potential.

Glycoprotein Diversity

The success of MIMGs relies on understanding the diverse glycoprotein landscape across pathogens. Research must identify common epitopes and optimize imprint design. The variability in glycoprotein structures among different pathogens and even among strains of the same pathogen presents a significant challenge.

Safety and Immunogenicity

Assessing MIMG safety and potential immunogenicity is crucial. Long-term effects and host responses require thorough investigation. It is essential to ensure that MIMGs do not elicit unintended immune reactions or toxicity.

Clinical Translation

Clinical trials are essential to validate MIMG efficacy, dosing, and safety profiles. Regulatory approvals will pave the way for clinical adoption. Developing standardized protocols for the production and application of MIMGs is necessary to facilitate their transition from the laboratory to clinical settings.

Future Research Directions

Future research should focus on several key areas to advance the development and application of MIMGs:

Comprehensive Glycoprotein Mapping

To design effective MIMGs, a comprehensive mapping of glycoproteins across various pathogens is required. This includes identifying conserved epitopes that can serve as universal targets for MIMG development. Advanced techniques in proteomics and glycomics can facilitate this mapping process.

Optimization of Polymerization Techniques

The polymerization process for MIMGs must be optimized to enhance the efficiency and specificity of imprint formation. This involves experimenting with different biofriendly substances that could be used as molecular imprinting medium.

In Vivo Efficacy Studies

Preclinical studies involving animal models are necessary to evaluate the in vivo efficacy and safety of MIMGs. These studies should assess the ability of MIMGs to prevent or treat infections caused by drug-resistant pathogens and determine the optimal dosing regimens.

Immunogenicity Assessment

Understanding the potential immunogenicity of MIMGs is crucial for their safe application in humans. Research should focus on identifying any immunogenic components of the imprints and developing strategies to mitigate immune responses.

Regulatory Pathways

Navigating the regulatory pathways for the approval of MIMGs is a complex but essential step. Collaboration with regulatory agencies to establish guidelines and standards for MIMG development, testing, and approval will be crucial for their successful clinical translation.

Case Studies and Applications

Case Study 1: MIMGs in Hospital-Acquired Infections

Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) are a significant concern, often involving multidrug-resistant organisms. MIMGs can be tailored to target glycoproteins of common HAI pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. By incorporating MIMGs into surface coatings or medical devices, the incidence of HAIs can be reduced.

Case Study 2: MIMGs in Agricultural Settings

The use of antibiotics in agriculture contributes to the development of resistant strains that can affect human health. MIMGs can be developed to target glycoproteins of agricultural pathogens, providing an alternative to antibiotics in livestock and crop protection. This approach can help mitigate the spread of resistance from agricultural to clinical settings.

Case Study 3: MIMGs in Personalized Medicine

MIMGs offer potential in personalized medicine by tailoring treatments to target specific pathogens present in individual patients. By analyzing the glycoprotein profiles of pathogens isolated from patients, customized MIMGs can be developed to provide targeted and effective treatment.

Collaborative Efforts and Interdisciplinary Research

The development and application of MIMGs require interdisciplinary collaboration among polymer chemists, microbiologists, clinicians, and regulatory experts. These collaborative efforts can drive innovation and ensure the successful translation of MIMG technology from the laboratory to real-world applications.

Polymer Chemists

Polymer chemists play a crucial role in designing and optimizing the polymers used for molecular imprinting. Their expertise in polymer science is essential for creating stable, biocompatible, and efficient MIMGs.

Microbiologists

Microbiologists provide insights into the pathogenic mechanisms of microbes and the role of glycoproteins in infection. Their knowledge is vital for selecting appropriate templates and understanding the interactions between MIMGs and pathogens.

Clinicians

Clinicians contribute to the development of MIMGs by providing clinical perspectives on the treatment of infections. Their input is crucial for designing effective and safe MIMG-based therapies and for conducting clinical trials.

Regulatory Experts

Regulatory experts help navigate the complex landscape of drug and medical device approvals. Their guidance is essential for ensuring that MIMGs meet regulatory standards and can be safely used in clinical practice.

Ethical Considerations

The development and application of MIMGs also raise important ethical considerations. It is essential to ensure that the use of MIMGs does not inadvertently contribute to the development of new resistance mechanisms or negatively impact the environment. Ethical guidelines should be established to govern the research, development, and application of MIMGs, ensuring that they are developed and used responsibly.

Ensuring Equitable Access

One of the ethical challenges in the development of MIMGs is ensuring equitable access to these innovative treatments. Efforts should be made to make MIMGs affordable and accessible to populations in low- and middle-income countries, where the burden of AMR is often greatest. International collaboration and funding can help achieve this goal.

Environmental Impact

The production and disposal of MIMGs must be carefully managed to minimize environmental impact. Research should focus on developing biodegradable MIMGs and sustainable production methods. Additionally, monitoring the environmental effects of widespread MIMG use will be important to prevent unintended consequences.

Transparency and Public Engagement

Transparency in the research and development process is essential to build public trust in MIMG technology. Engaging with the public and stakeholders through education and communication can help address concerns and foster acceptance of MIMGs as a viable alternative to antibiotics.

Conclusion

Molecular Imprints of Microbial Glycoproteins (MIMGs) represent a groundbreaking approach to addressing antimicrobial resistance. By harnessing the specificity of glycoprotein interactions, MIMGs offer a targeted, sustainable, and less toxic alternative to traditional antibiotics. However, the successful implementation of MIMGs requires a multifaceted effort involving comprehensive research, interdisciplinary collaboration, rigorous clinical testing, and ethical considerations.

As we move forward, the integration of MIMGs into clinical practice holds the promise of transforming the way we combat drug-resistant infections. The continued exploration and development of this innovative technology could play a crucial role in safeguarding global health against the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance.

References

1. Ventola, C. L. (2015). The antibiotic resistance crisis: part 1: causes and threats. P & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management, 40(4), 277–283.
2. World Health Organization. (2020). Antimicrobial resistance. Retrieved from [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance)
3. Davis, B. M., et al. (2020). Microbial glycoproteins: biological roles and applications. Annual Review of Biochemistry, 89, 413-437.
4. Haupt, K., & Mosbach, K. (2000). Molecularly imprinted polymers and their use in biomimetic sensors. Chemical Reviews, 100(7), 2495-2504.
5. Liu, B., & Liu, J. (2016). Comprehensive glycoproteomics based on site-specific glycan remodeling and sequential enrichment. Analytical Chemistry, 88(16), 8752-8759.
6. Davies, J., & Davies, D. (2010). Origins and evolution of antibiotic resistance. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 74(3), 417-433.
7. Byrne, M. E., & Park, K. (2014). Peppas, N. A. (2002). Molecular imprinting within hydrogels. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 54(1), 149-161.
8. McHugh, M. L., & Hovde, C. J. (2016). The role of Shiga toxin in STEC infection: overview and update. Epidemiology and Infection, 144(8), 1666-1677.
9. Peppas, N. A., & Huang, Y. (2002). Nanoscale technology of mucoadhesive interactions. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 56(11), 1675-1684.
10. Singh, R., & Lillard, J. W. (2009). Nanoparticle-based targeted drug delivery. Experimental and Molecular Pathology, 86(3), 215-223.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the contributions of Fedarin Mialbs Private Limited, Kannur, Kerala, for their support in this research. Special thanks to the interdisciplinary team of polymer chemists, microbiologists, and clinicians who provided invaluable insights and expertise.

Author Contributions

Chandran Nambiar KC conceptualized the study, designed the experiments, and wrote the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

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.

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.

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”.

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.