REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY

REDEFINING HOMOEOPATHY

  • A Scientific Study That Validates The MIT Explanation Of ‘Similimum’ In Terms Of ‘Functional Groups’

    While explaining homeopathy on the basis of scientific perspective of MIT, I have been proposing the idea that it is the ‘functional groups’ of drug molecules and pathogenic molecules that interact with biological molecules, and as such, any drug having similar functional groups or moieties can act as similimum in their potentized form. Now we have a a wonderful meta-analysis of research works that validates this idea by scientific methods.

    You can read this meta-analysis ‘A Review of Use of Enantiomers in Homeopathy’ by R. M. Kuzeff, National Institute of Integrative Medicine, 759 Burwood Road, Hawthorn East, Melbourne, VIC 3123, Australia at this link: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/575292/

    Actually, the article is not a “paper on activity of 30c dilutions” as the title say. It is a work to show that potentized forms of ENANTIOMERS of drug molecules can work as SIMILIMUM. It discusses nothing about ‘what are the active principles of potentized drugs’, or ‘what is the biological mechanism by which potentized drugs act’.

    “This paper reviews publications of laboratory experiments using pairs of enantiomers in homeopathy. Many molecules in nature have geometry which enables them to exist as nonsuperimposable mirror images or enantiomers. Modulation of toxicity of such molecules provides possibility for therapeutics, since they target multiple points in biochemical pathways. It was hypothesized that toxicity of a chemical agent could be counteracted by a homeopathic preparation of the enantiomer of the chemical agent.”

    “A diverse body of data, including controlled laboratory studies, supports the conclusion that toxicity of optical isomers may be inhibited by homeopathic enantiomer preparations. These data were obtained with minimal or no pretesting to determine optimal test solutions. Inhibition of the excitotoxic neurotransmitter L-glutamic acid with homeopathic preparations of D-glutamic acid indicates the latter may be of use for amelioration of symptoms of disturbances of mood. Similarly, homeopathic preparation of (+)-nicotine may be of use for inhibition of effects of nicotine in tobacco.”

    An ‘enantiomer ‘ is one of two stereoisomers that are mirror images of each other that are non-superimposable (not identical), much as one’s left and right hands are the same except for being reversed along one axis (the hands cannot be made to appear identical simply by reorientation).

    Organic compounds that contain a chiral carbon usually have two non-superimposable structures. These two structures are mirror images of each other and are, thus, commonly called enantiomers, hence this structural property is now commonly referred to as enantiomerism.

    Enantiopure compounds refer to samples having, within the limits of detection, molecules of only one chirality.

    Enantiomers have, when present in a symmetric environment, identical chemical and physical properties except for their ability to rotate plane-polarized light (+/−) by equal amounts but in opposite directions (although the polarized light can be considered an asymmetric medium). A mixture of equal parts of an optically active isomer and its enantiomer is termed racemic and has zero net rotation of plane-polarized light because the positive rotation of each (+) form is exactly counteracted by the negative rotation of a (−) one.

    Enantiomers of each other often show different chemical reactions with other substances that are also enantiomers. Since many biological molecules are enantiomers themselves, there is sometimes a marked difference in the effects of two enantiomers on biological organisms. In drugs, for example, often only one of a drug’s enantiomers is responsible for the desired physiologic effects, while the other enantiomer is less active, inactive, or sometimes even responsible for adverse effects.

    Enantiomers have similar FUNCTIONAL GROUPS, and hence they can act as homeopathic similimum. MIT has explained this phenomenon. See the links provided below.

    Homeopathic potentization involves a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, where in the spacial conformation FUNCTIONAL GROUPS of individual drug molecules are ‘imprinted’ or engraved as hydrogen-bonded three dimensional nano-cavities into a supra-molecular matrix of water and ethyl alcohol, through a process of molecular level ‘host-guest’ interactions. These ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’ are the active principles of post-avogadro dilutions used as homeopathic drugs

    Potentized drugs contain molecular imprints of FUNCTIONAL GROUPS. Due to ‘conformational affinity’, molecular imprints can act as ‘artificial key holes’ or ‘ligand binds’ for the original drug molecules used for imprinting, and for all pathogenic molecules having functional groups ‘similar’ to those drug molecules. When used as therapeutic agents, molecular imprints selectively bind to the pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity and deactivate them, thereby relieving the biological molecules from the inhibitions or blocks caused by pathogenic molecules.

    Molecular imprints of drug molecules can act as similimum if the drug molecules and pathogenic molecules have similar functional groups. The present observation by the researchers that enantiomers of chemical molecules having isomeric properties can act as similimum could be scientifically explained only on the basis of similar functional groups on enantiomers.

    ACTUALLY, WHAT THIS STUDY EXACTLY PROVES IS THAT THE MIT OBSERVATION THAT ‘SIMILIMUM IS IS DECIDED BY SIMILARITY OF FUNCTIONAL GROUPS’ IS SCIENTIFICALLY VALIDATED.

     

  • George Vithoulkas- Another Staunch Proponent Of Unscientific ‘Energy Medicine’ Theories About Homeopathy

    I know very well that I am a ‘pebble’, where as George Vithoulkas is a mighty ‘mountain’. But to be intellectually truthful, I cannot conceal my disagreements with his views about homeopathy. I cannot follow anybody blindly- even master Hahnemann.

    I wanted to know, whether Vithoulkas ever express his views regarding what happens during potentization, by which medicinal properties of drug substances are transferred to potentizing medium?

    I wanted to know, whether Vithoulkas ever try to answer the question what are the active principles of potentized drugs?

    I wanted to know, whether Vithoulkas ever tried answer the question what is the biological mechanism of action of potentized drugs?

    I think nobody serious about homeopathy can evade these three fundamental questions, answers of which will ultimately define his approach to homeopathy.

    According to the ‘new model’ of Vithoulkas:

    “1. Unless we understand the functioning of the human organism in its subtle levels we cannot hope to unravel the laws and principles governing human intelligence, human emotionality and the human physical body as well as their interconnection and interdependence.

    1. Such universal laws should be searched for in an area far beyond the physico-chemical structure of the human body – this area, this realm that can be called a substratum of subtle formulative energies.”

    He is trying to explain the ” human intelligence, human emotionality and the human physical body as well as their interconnection and interdependence” using a concept of “subtle formulative energies”! He has all rights to do that, if he stop claiming he is talking science! There is nothing scientific in his “subtle energy”. We have been hearing about this “subtle energy” from all sorts of occult practitioners and spiritual healers. Nobody can make homeopathy ‘scientific’, by talking theories of “subtle energy”.

    The specific statement “Epigrammatically I could say that the time for an Energy Medicine has arrived”, very clearly shows that George Vithoulkas is least interested in making homeopathy a scientific medicine.

    See how the ‘new model’ of Vithoulkas defines ‘disease’:

    “A disease (process of degeneration) will only take place if the vibrational frequencies of the stimulus (disease producing agent) and the organism (predispositions) coincide. Diseases are nothing else but the activation of the existing predispositions.”

    Did you notice? Disease happens only when “vibrational frequency” of “disease producing agent” coincides with the “vibrational frequency” of “predispositions of organism”. For him, disease is all about coinciding of “vibrational frequencies”!

    In his ‘new model’, there is no role for biochemistry, molecular biology, immunology, genetics or any such knowledge- only “subtle energy” that is “communicated principally through the smallest particle-energy bodies that have not been defined yet”!

    His views about the active principles of potentized drugs as ‘subtle energy’, and his ‘new model’ for disease and cure based on ‘resonance’ are basically contradicting all the modern scientific knowledge system.

    It is very frustrating to see that he drags “prana, bioplasma, orgon, etc., etc.” into his ‘new model’ as a “substratum” for the activities of “subtle energy”, thereby alienating homeopathy completely away from the framework and paradigms of modern scientific knowledge system.

    Due to his obsession with the ‘resonace model’, he is totally incapable of even thinking about a scientific model for the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure. Biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, molecular pathology and such modern scientific knowledge have no place in his ‘energy medicine’ theories.

    Whatever sophisticated scientific vocabulary he uses, George Vithoulkas, the ‘living legend of homeopathy’, is basically a staunch proponent of the most unscientific ‘energy medicine’ theories about homeopathy, as demonstrated by his writings.

    I strongly disagree with his ‘energy medicine’ approach to homeopathy, even though personally I have great respects for his comparatively rational approach towards most of the nonsense concepts and methods propagated by modern day ‘gurus’.

  • Homeopathic Potentization- A Bio-friendly Adaptation Of Molecular Imprinting In Polymers

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

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

    Since ‘molecular imprinted polymers’ prepared by this process are synthetic polymers, they cannot be used as drugs.

    Homeopathy uses water-ethyl alcohol mixture as ‘host’ in place of polymers, and drug molecules as ‘templates’ or ‘guests’ for preparing molecular imprints that could be used as drugs. Since molecular imprints prepared by this process consist of only water and ethyl alcohol molecules, they could be safely used as therapeutic agents.

    According to my view, homeopathic potentization is actually a biofriendly adaptation of molecular imprinting technology, originally done in polymers.

  • A Scientific Model For Biological Mechanism Of ‘High Dilution Therapeutics’ Involved In Homeopathy

    High Dilution Therapeutics involved in homeopathy is a subject of much controversy. Homeopaths know such a phenomenon really exists, but fail to explain it in scientific terms. But conventional scientific community considers it only as pseudoscience.

    High Dilution Therapeutics can be rationally explained only in terms of Molecular Imprinting. It is Molecular Imprints Therapeutics (MIT)- An advanced branch of  modern molecular medicine. Only difference between molecular medicine and MIT is that where as molecular medicine uses ‘drug molecules’ as therapeutic agents, MIT uses ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Though in a slightly lesser level, ethyl alcohol, lactose and various simple sugars are also capable of forming polymer-like supra-molecular formations through hydrogen bonding, and hence may be considered as candidates for molecular imprinting experiments. Possibilities of these substances in combination with water also have to be explored.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ideal medium

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

    Water/Ethyl alcohol mixture in rectified spirit ratio is an azeotropic mixture. in An azeotrope is a mixture of two or more liquids in such a way that its components cannot be altered by simple distillation or evaporation. This happens because, when an azeotrope is boiled, the vapor has the same proportions of constituents as the unboiled mixture.  In azeotropic mixtures, hydrogen bonds are highly stable

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

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

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

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

    Water molecules are normally considered to be in a state of random movement in their liquid form. But recent studies have shown that water molecules move not as individual molecules, but as supramolecular clusters. We all know that water exists as ice crystals in its solid form. But it has been recently observed that in its short range structure, water exist as nanocrystals  even in its liquid form. We know, water formed by melting of ice behaves exactly as if in a state of liquid crystals. The lattice structure which is formed through hydration bonds is responsible for this phenomenon. Molecular imprinting in water is much interested in this area of research pertaining to this peculiar crystalline nature of water. It is believed that in the process of molecular imprinting of water using ‘guest’ molecules,  this crystalline structure of water plays a crucial role. It is likely that more advanced studies about dynamics of crystallization of water may help us to evolve a perfect technology for molecular imprinting in water.

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Homeopathy identifies the exact ‘molecular pathology’ underlying the disease states of an individual by monitoring and recording all the perceivable symptoms caused by such molecular level deviations.

    Derangement in any particular biochemical pathway resulting from molecular inhibitions produced by pathogenic molecules are expressed through specific trains of subjective and objective symptoms in the organism. Each specific group of symptoms exhibited by the organism indicates a particular error occurred in the molecular level.

    Homeopathy chases these trains of symptoms to their minutest level, in order to identify the exact molecular errors underlying the particular state of pathology, and to determine the exactly matching ‘molecular imprints’ required to remove those molecular inhibitions. Not even the most sophisticated tools of ultra-modern technologies can monitor biological molecular errors with such a level of perfection as homeopathy does.

    Once identified, those pathological molecular inhibitions are removed by applying appropriate ‘molecular imprints’, selected on the basis of ‘law of similars’ or ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’. This fundamental strategy underlying the homeopathic system of therapeutics evidently surpasses even the most scientific methods of modern molecular medicine.

    It is high time that the scientific community realize and recognize this truth, and incorporate this wonderful tool into their armamentarium. Obviously, “similia similibus curentur” is the most effective technique of identifying and removing the pathological molecular inhibitions in the organism, far superior to currently available modern therapeutic technologies.

    The subjective and objective symptoms presented by the organism are the only reliable indicators to help us correctly understand the minute molecular deviations underlying a state of pathology. Each group or trains of symptoms represent a specific molecular error that had occurred in a particular biochemical pathway. These symptoms invariably indicate the specific type and character of the endogenic or exogenic foreign molecules or ions responsible for the particular molecular inhibition. By studying the train of symptoms carefully and systematically, homoeopaths are really observing these exact molecular inhibitions. This symptomatology-based analytical method of homoeopathy is far more exact and superior to the multitude of expensive complex laboratory chemical tests and imaging technologies we consider to be scientific. Identifying the exact molecular errors in the organism of the patient by observing the expressed symptoms, and identifying the most appropriate therapeutic agents from the similarity of symptoms the drugs could produce in healthy organism- this is the scientific essence of “similia similibus  curentur”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • What is MIT? Essence Of MIT Hypothesis In A Nutshell

    MIT or Molecular Imprints Therapeutics refers to a scientific hypothesis that proposes a rational model for biological mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics.

    According to MIT hypothesis, potentization involves a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, where in the conformational details of individual drug molecules are ‘imprinted’ or engraved as hydrogen-bonded three dimensional nano-cavities into a supra-molecular matrix of water and ethyl alcohol, through a process of molecular level ‘host-guest’ interactions. These ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’ are the active principles of post-avogadro dilutions used as homeopathic drugs.

    Due to ‘conformational affinity’, molecular imprints can act as ‘artificial key holes’ or ‘ligand binds’ for the specific drug molecules used for imprinting, and for all pathogenic molecules having functional groups ‘similar’ to those drug molecules. When used as therapeutic agents, molecular imprints selectively bind to the pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity and deactivate them, thereby relieving the biological molecules from the inhibitions or blocks caused by pathogenic molecules. According to MIT hypothesis, this is the biological mechanism of high dilution therapeutics involved in homeopathic cure.

    According to MIT hypothesis, ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ means, diseases expressed through a particular group of symptoms could be cured by ‘molecular imprints’ forms of drug substances, which in ‘molecular’ or crude forms could produce ‘similar’ groups of symptoms in healthy individuals. ‘Similarity’ of drug symptoms and diseaes indicates ‘similarity’ of pathological molecular inhibitions caused by drug molecules and pathogenic molecules, which in turn indicates conformational ‘similarity’ of functional groups of drug molecules and pathogenic molecules. Since molecular imprints of ‘similar’ molecules can bind to ‘similar’ ligand molecules by conformational affinity, they can act as therapeutic agents when applied as indicated by ‘similarity of symptoms’.

    No body in the whole history could so far propose a hypothesis about homeopathy as scientific, rational and perfect as MIT, explaining the molecular process involed in potentization, and the biological mechanism involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’, in a way fitting well to modern scientific knowledge system.

  • What Is The ‘Fundamental Principle’ Of Homeopathy, That Forms The Essential Basis Of This Therapeutic System?

    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.

  • ‘Drug Transmission Through Hair’- A Facebook Discussion

    This is the full text of a facebook conversation happened on “Homeopathy For Total Cure” Group and my wall:

    Chandran Nambiar K C:

    A well known, internationally respected “classical” homeopath, while participating in a recent discussion on an internet group regarding “Drug Transmission at a Distance”, posted the following comments:

    “Well, I use it all the time with great results. People live in areas where they have no access to remedies or in an emergency i can dose anyone as long as i have a photo. I dose the eyes and i get brilliant results. Lately i have done about 7 clients like that and they are happy”.

    “I am a classical homoeopath. I work according to Hahnemann’s laws and principles. And i am moreover very critical of anything that goes against these laws. However, this is not about whether we have a new method of finding the remedy, but about the means of delivery of the dose.”

    “Since Hahnemann was also a promotor of mesmerism – which is equally non-material – the criticism you voice is somewhat redundant, unless we accuse the founder of unscientific gobbled egook and of going against his own laws.”

    “If scientific investigation means we look for results – which is really the goal – then we shall judge things accordingly. We must not be so naieve as to believe that homoeopathy was finished by the time the Grand Master left this earthly plane and reject all development a priori.”

    “Since it are the results that count – Hahnemann being incapable of explaining how the cure takes place – we shall have to adopt this as the criterion on which to judge the fallacy or the confirmation of any method to administer the remedy. Olfactory administration is also accepted as genuine.”

    “My personal experience since 1982 is that this method works and therefore deserves to be used. The means to arrive at the remedy selection still needs to be the classical Hahnemannian way. It is solely a discussion about the means of delivery here, so how does it go against homeopathic fundamental philosophy?”

    “this is about a delivery system not about proving new remedies. The remedies have been proven – i do not use anything like Falcon or Butterfly. And when the delivery system works there is nothing wrong with it. There is no experiment going on after 27 years. Rather it is experience.”

    “let us do that proving – i’ll be your guinea pig. Take any remedy you like and apply to my photograph, which you can copy and paste or download from my page. Print it out and apply remedy in liquid form to the eyes. I shall see what symptoms come up”

    HELLO, DEAR FRIENDS. HOW DO YOU FEEL? ANY OPINIONS?

    Dipen Gorani :

    Transmission of Homoeopathic Drug Energy from a distance – through Hair

    ”There are more things in Heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in your Philosophy¡¨ ¡KShakespeare

    Introduction

    …During his life time Dr Heinemann had introduced 3 modes of Drug administration of Homoeopathic medicine i.e.

    i) Medicine can be given orally.

    ii) By touch.

    iii) By olfaction.

    A 4th way of Drug administration i e Transmission of Homoeo Drug Energy from a distance through the Native Hair of a Person – introduced by Late Dr. B. Sahni of Patna.

    This method is wholly based on the Principle Similia Simibus curentur of the Father of Homoeopathy . Dr.S. Hahnemann.

    It is never a deviation it differs only in method of application of Drug to the Patient Transmission may be called as Indirect method as there is no visual connection between the organ & the drug . It is just like Radiobroadcast system or wireless.

    Mechanism : Let us Ponder at Basic idea of the Drug Transmission to a Patient through his hair from a far off distance . According to Plank’s law .

    E= h„© or E/V =h

    This means Smaller the Wavelength of Radiation higher will be the frequency and energy of Photon & so higher Will be the Velocity.

    To understand how this high energy photon is emitted from the surface of the hair & is reabsorbed by the native hair, we have to understand the structure of the hair.

    Hair are Filamentous, keratinized structures present on the surface of the Body These are derivative of epidermis which assist in thermoregulation, have sensory functions & subserve various roles in Social Communication they differ in color depending on the degrees & type of pigmentation. Such qualities differ with individuals of different ages, sex & genetic constitution. the hair of any other individual just as the fingerprint of other individual does not resemble the fingerprint of other invidiuals in this world.

    since the Surface of the hair has a typical minute design & array of contours, coasts, ditches & dips, the light energy of very short wavelength is reflected & diffracted from the surface of the hair. The wavelength of such waves is extremely short, since it is being emitted from the similar minutely designed surface. As the wavelength is extremely short, it has tremendous velocity even more than that leaser rays, the hair acting as reflection grating.

    When same portion of the uprooted hair of an invidious is immersed in a Homoeopathic, drug; the emitted wave is immediately affected by the Drug Energy, Now, this Wave or Photon Contaminated by the drug energy is received by the native of the Hair to whichever distance he is seated.

    No other individual, accept the native can absorb this emitted drug energy, because the resonant absorption can occur only on the surface of the natives hair only disregard of the distance to which he is seated or moving.

    All of you might be know what Resonance means. If a tuning fork is struck hard, it starts vibrating and if another fork of the similar design is kept at some distance apart to it, the stationary fork starts vibrating automatically. This phenomenon of emission and absorption by the similar bodes is known as Resonance.

    Such a Phenomenon of the “Drug energy” emission from the surface of the detached hair of the patient and the resonant absorption of the same drug energy by the similar and detached hair of the native, seated at far off distance is known as “Sahni’s Effect” of drug energy transmission.

    This Sahni’s Effect is a continuous process and the patient receives the drug energy continuously all the twenty-four hour till the patient uprooted hair is not detached from the drug and till the patient vital force needs it.

    Thus the distance is no bar for the reception of the drug energy.

    One important fact more to mention is that the patient is not overdosed by the transmitted drug, because the Homeopathic drug is not assimilated by the person whose vital force and the system does not require it, that is why wrongly selected drug for the transmission to a patient has no effect whatsoever to that patient. The patient never assimilated the wrong drug transmitted to affect his vital force.

    Further experiments resembling Mossbaar Spectroscopy may further prove the efficacy of the Sahni’s Effect.

    It will be matter of further research how far Dispeller’s Effect will retard the absorption of the drug energy by an individual moving with fast velocity in an Aero plane, that is to an individual who is receding away from the place of transmission of the drug energy. Theory of Transmission of Homoeopathic Drug Energy can be explained on the theory of DR.C.V Raman i.e.RAMAN EFFECT.

    EFFECT OF TRANSMISSION: The effect of Transmission of Homeopathic drug energy on the patient kept at distance in indicated in various ways.

    1 Change in feeling and Sensation.

    2 Change in temperature of patient just of the transmission.

    3 Change in pulse rate of heart beating.

    4 Sweat on any part of the body may appear or vanish.

    5 Change in Blood pressure.

    6 Aggravation or Amelioration in pain if there be any.

    Institute:

    Research Institute of sahni Drug Transmission and Homoeopathic, Behind A.N. College, Shivpuri, patna (Bihar) )(Registered under society Registration act 1860) has been established to Guide the Practioner’s and students about Drug Transmission and Classical Homeopathic. Institute is well-equipped eighth Latest Radar and Homeopath Software with Computer. The Institute is under the Supervision of D.R.M.K. Sahni- member central Council of Homeopathy New Delhi.

    Reference and courtesy: 1- The Journal of HomoeoTransmission. Volume I no.8 Aug 1995.

    2- Transmission of Homoeodrug Energy From a distance- by DR. B.Sahni,B.Jain Publisher P.V.T l.t.d. New Delhi

     Chandran Nambiar K C:

    USING SCIENTIFIC TERMS AND CONCEPTS TO RATIONALIZE TOTALLY UNSCIENTIFIC THEORIES- THAT IS THE ACTION PLAN OF PSEUDO-SCIENCE.

    Chandran Nambiar K C :

    What we call EXPERIENCE is exactly our OBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE + SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION. And, our “interpretations’ are always influenced by our world outlook, philosophy and level of understanding. As such, that is purely individual-specif…ic. Different people EXPERIENCE same phenomenon in different ways. When somebody says “it is my experience”, remember, it is “his interpretation of his experience”.

    In most cases people confuse between OBJECTIVE REALITY they have EXPERIENCED, with their SUBJECTIVE INTERPREATIONS of the objective reality. When some body says ‘it is my experience’, do not forget that it is ‘his interpretation of objective reality he has experienced’. This is true even if it be the ‘experience of our masters and stalwarts’. We have to accept the ‘objective’ side of their ‘experience’, but should be cautious about the errors related with the ‘subjective factors’.

    Ashish Kr Jha:

    Dear Dr Chandran, We all are practicing homeopathy as per our knowledge, intellect and experience. We believe in Homeopathy as we are getting results (during personal practice or during clinical cases seen at our seniors clinic) and not because we are taught during BHMS course.

    Ashish Kr Jh:

    a In the same way, unless until we see a cured case by Drug Energy Transmission, we could not believe on this.

    Ashish Kr Jha:

    Dr Bandhu Sahani who was the discoverer of Drug Energy Transmission through a distance worked a lot and tried his best to give the world a new way of practicing Homeopathy. And many doctors in different parts of world are now practicing this mode.

    Ashish Kr Jha:

    They (practitioners of Drug Energy Transmission) have several cured cases (in thousands) in their clinics, research centres, hospitals etc etc. And they are working on this to give the explanation of their practice.

    Ashish Kr Jha:

    Don’t you think that we should give them a moral support (if we can not give anything else) at least, to boost their effort. We should. And still if you want to see the results in their clinic, hospitals and research centres, you are most welcome.

    Ashish Kr Jha:

    And don’t forget to mention POSITIVE MESMERISM, while explaining NEGATIVE MESMERISM. In the same way the medicine has both the aspects.

    Ashish Kr Jha:

    I am asking one question to you all, What do you want to become, ‘A Prejudiced Observer or an Unprejudiced Observer’. Don’t believe or fix your ideas on what other say. If you are curious to know what is the reality, keep on searching by your own. Believe in yourself first, you will get the answer.

    Ashish Kr Jha:

    Some fake doctors (who are not qualified) are practicing Drug Energy Transmission without proper knowledge and experience. This is not so much important. The important thing is that we (the qualified one) are looking their way of practice and blaming Drug Energy Transmission a wrong mean.

    Ashish Kr Jha:

    Somehow if you get an opportunity to ask about Homeopathy, whom would you like to listen – The Great Dr Hahnemann or a Homeopathic Physician practicing allopathy. The answer is obvious if you are a true homeopath. Similarly If you have a living legend who can give better explanation of Drug Energy transmission why are you looking for here and there.

    Chandran Nambiar K C

    ‎@Amit Sahani & Ashish Kr Jha : The “experience” you are talking about regarding “drug transmission through hair and photographs” is nothing new to us. The are a lot of black magicians doing “occult” practices in Indian villages, especiall…y tribal areas, who uses hair, blood, nails, foot prints, and even “shadows’ of enemies to ‘send’ evil forces’ to harm them. Only difference is that you claim to send “medicinal forces” of potentized homeopathic drugs instead of “evil forces”. All those ancient occult practices existed here in the name of “experience” the same way as you also do. They also do good ‘business’ even now, and could produce many ‘genuine’ witnesses to authenticate their claims.

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

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

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

    No radionic device has been found efficacious in the diagnosis or treatment of any disease, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not recognize any legitimate medical uses of any such device. According to David Helwig in The Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine, “most physicians dismiss radionics as quackery.”

    Similar to you, proponents of Radionics also uses terms such as “frequency”, “energy”, and “vibrations’ not in its standard meaning but to describe an imputed energy type, which does not correspond to any property of energy in the scientific sense. Radionics is not based on any scientific evidence, and contradicts the principles of physics and biology and as a result it has been classed as pseudoscience and quackery by men of scientific mind set all over the world. The United States Food and Drug Administration do not recognize any legitimate medical uses for such devices.

    Ashish Kr Jha:

    Dear Dr Chandran I am again repeating these lines. Please read this carefully.

    Ashish Kr Jha:

    Why do you need a mirror to see the bangle.

    Ashish Kr Jha:

    I am asking one question to you all, What do you want to become, ‘A Prejudiced Observer or an Unprejudiced Observer’. Don’t believe or fix your ideas on what other say. If you are curious to know what is the reality, keep on searching by your own. Believe in yourself first, you will get the answer.

    Chandran Nambiar K C:

    ‎@Ashish Kr Jha :Sir, If any body want to ‘practice’ ‘drug transmission’ or any other such occult practices, it is their choice. But when you link those unscientific practices with homeopathy, and to conduct ‘courses’ and seminars for attra…cting homeopaths into it, it is a different matter. Homeopathy is a system of therapeutics. Any ‘therapeutic’ system uses one or other drug substance into the body of the patient. Nobody can practice ‘drug transmission’ in the name of homeopathy. Sir, did you ever think about the harm you are doing to our attempts to make homeopathy accepted as part of modern scientific medical practice? Adding something that goes completely against accepted scientific knowledge system into homeopathy will create a lot of difficulties to the homeopathic profession who try it it to establish as a scientific therapeutics. You are making homeopathy a subject of constant mockery before the scientific community.I feel very much disgusted to see eminent respected homeopaths like you being part of these unscientific practices. I can only pray your goodness to return back to your rational senses.

    Ashish Kr Jha:

    Dear Dr Chandran, you need not to worry about those who are practicing Drug Energy Transmission. They are working continously and doing research to get the explanation and result.

    Ashish Kr Jha:

    And you are not the authority to stop those who are practicing Homeopathic drug energy transmission through hair. As you do not have any right to do so. Right to Information Act is available in our country, if you need any explanation from them or the Government you may send an application.

    Chandran Nambiar K C:

    Ashish Kr Jha: Sir, I know, I am not an authority

    Ashish Kr Jha:

    Dr Chandran, Sir you are a very senior homeopathic practitioner. I request you to visit their research centre in Patna, you will definitely get all the answer.

    Chandran Nambiar K C:

    ‎@ Ashish Kr Jha: Thank you sir. But I have a very clear understanding about what I say. I know how to differentiate between scientiific and unscientific. I know I am “not the authority to stop those who are practicing Homeopathic drug energy transmission through hair”. But as an Indian citizen, it is my inalienable constitutional right to openly express my opinions- right for freedom of expression.

    Chandran Nambiar K C:

    Until and unless homeopaths study the process of ‘molecular imprinting’ involved in homeopathic potentization, and accept the modern scientific concepts of ‘molecular processes’ involved in ‘diseases’ and ‘therapeutics’, and re-explain fundamental principles of homeopathy accordingly, we will continue groping in the dark. Riddles will remain, and every cures will be ‘miracles’ and ‘marvels’ for us!

    Chandran Nambiar K C:

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

    Anukant Goyal:

    you are very right sir. nowadays only this is happening in india especially in our punjab. AUDE SAPERE.

    Chandran Nambiar K C:

    ‎@Anukant Goyal : Sir, but we have to find a way out, to save homeopathy.

    Anukant Goyal:

    you can not go and fight with these business men. some where they are also serving homeopathy by making students dedicated to homeopathy(though through them only). moreover the person who has inquisitive mind leave them and go on the genuin…e path and those who have to go in line of sheeps only keep going. donot worry nothing is going bad with homeopathy you yourself must go on right path with full enthusiasm and energy whatever may be circumstances.

    Chandran Nambiar K C:

    ‎@Anukant Goyal : Sir, last day I happened to see a report regarding a seminar conducted in bangladesh on ‘hair transmission of drug energy’. 500 homeopaths were reported to have participated. Obviously, the teachers were from India. Can yo…u still say “do not worry nothing is going bad with homeopathy “? Sir, should we ignore the heavy damage these people are inflicting upon the young generation of homeopaths, by propagating these ‘occult’ practices in the name of homeopathy? I think we have to “go and fight with these business men” for the future of homeopathy.

    Chandran Nambiar K C:

    And, it should not be a personal fight. I expect CCH to come forward with a clear guidelines regarding dispensing of homeopathic drugs, and strictly enforce it.

    Amit Sahani:

    Hering (an allopathic doctor then) was once asked to write an article ridiculing Homoeopathy. The scientist in him made him experience Homoeopathy before writing against it. And the rest is a history. Similarly, in India, Dr M L Sircar (an …allopathic doctor) wrote an article “On the Supposed Uncertainity in Medical Science and the Relationship between Diseases and Medicine” condemning Homoeopathy. But he experienced the hidden science and went on to become one of the founding pillars of Homoeopathy in India. So whats wrong if somebody practices in a unique way. The seminar at Bangladesh was about “transmission of homoeo drug energy from a distance.” Exploring possibilities is in no way wrong. Hahnemann himself kept updating the system, till last where we see him exploring the principles of Franz Anton Mesmer. If an experience is not supported by science, it cannot be ruled unscientific. Had this been the case, Homoeopathy would never have seen the light of day.

    Chandran Nambiar K C

    ‎@Amit Sahani : Sir, “if an experience is not supported by science, it cannot be ruled unscientific”. But if a claim is totally “against” the existing scientific knowledge and human logic, we have to call it “unscientific”. If somebody clai…ms to cure a patient by applying homeopathic drugs in the eyes of print out of a photograph from 1000 km away, There is nothing to experiment for a scientific person to call it “absurd”. We cannot rationalize any occult practices with a question “so whats wrong if somebody practices in a unique way”.We know every occult practices can be rationalized with such a question. We cannot “experiment” each and every such things to call it “unscientific”. More ove, it is totally illegal and unethical for a qualified registered homeopath to “practice in such a unique way” and claim it is homeopathy. Homeopathy is a “therapeutic system”, which means homeopath should treat patient by “administering drug” on the “body of the patient” directly. Practicing some “unique” methods not being part of homeopathic syllabus and curriculum is obviously unhomeopathic, and amounts to quackery.

     Chandran Nambiar K C:

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

    Chandran Nambiar K C:

    ‎@Amit Sahani: Sir, I agree with your statement “exploring possibilities is in no way wrong”. As such you can rightfully “explore possibilities” of “transmission of homeo drug energy from a distance”. But until your concept is proved using… “scientific methods” such “exploring” has to be done on “experimental basis”, and not as a “regular practice”. It is obviously wrong, unethical and illegal to conduct seminars and course to propagate such a “system” until it is scientifically verified by an authentic scientific body, especially claiming it is part of homeopathy. According to my scientific knowledge and rational thinking, I need not wait for any experiments to call these “photo transmissions” and “drug transmissions” as unscientific absurdity.

    Chandran Nambiar K C:

    @Amit Sahani : Sir, The “experience” you are talking about regarding “drug transmission through hair and photographs” is nothing new to us. The are a lot of  black magicians doing “occult” practices in Indian villages, especially tribal areas, who uses hair, blood, nails, foot prints,  and even “shadows’ of enemies to ‘send’ evil forces’ to harm them. Only difference is that you claim to send “medicinal forces” of potentized homeopathic drugs instead of “evil forces”. All those ancient occult practices existed here in the name of “experience” the same way as you also do. They also do good ‘business’ even now, and could produce many ‘genuine’ witnesses to authenticate their claims.

     

  • ‘Predictive Homeopathy’- Is It ‘Scientific Homeopathy’ Ot ‘Mystic Homeopathy’

    Let me quote from PREDICTIVE HOMOEOPATHY – PART II – THEORY OF ACUTES by Dr. Prafull Vijayakar:

    “The mixture prescribers and single remedy similimum prescribers both may disagree with the pattern forwarded by me of Activity-Thermal-Thirst-Mental Axis. But then I have found this axis covering the holistic concept. The remedy thus evolved is a representative of one of  each of the constituents that man is made up of. Man as we all know is a part of the Universe and is made up of five essential elements or the ‘Panchatatva’ which is accepted by Hindus, Chinese, Buddhists, Judaists and Mohammedans alike.

    These five elements are: Fire, Water, Air, Earth and Ether.

    Ether represents the cosmic energy which is all-pervading and which controls the activities of this universe as well as the activities of man. The Activity-Thermal-Thirst Axis based similimum is a true representative of the holistic man since the Activity represents Ether, the Thermals i.e. the heat regulatory mechanism of the body represents Fire, and Thirst which controls the osmolality i.e. water content of the body represents Water.

    This covers three of the five essential elements which each human being is made up of. To this we add either a symptom from air (mind) or earth (body). This covers the man as a whole. So, the drug prescribed has a representative from each of the elements and hence works holistically to give miraculous cures in incurable or advanced or serious cases with minimum effort. Above all, Hering’s Law of Cure can also be observed in such cures. We will discuss more about it in my forthcoming book-The Theory of Chronic Diseases”

    I have quoted this passage from the concludind part of a book by a person known to be a “scientific trend-setter” in modern homeopathy. (PREDICTIVE HOMOEOPATHY – PART II – THEORY OF ACUTES by Dr. Prafull Vijayakar)

    This is a monumental example of presenting homeopathy in the most confusing and unscientific way, in the guise of SCIENTIFIC HOMEOPATHY. We should realize that this type of pseudo-scientific metaphysical theorizations contribute a lot in making homeopathy a subject of un-ending mockery before the scientific community.

     

    Dr. Vijaykar  claims: “The remedy thus evolved is a representative of one of each of the constituents that man is made up of. Man as we all know is a part of the Universe and is made up of five essential elements or the ‘Panchatatva’ which is accepted by Hindus, Chinese, Buddhists, Judaists and Mohammedans alike.”

     

    I wonder whether Dr. Vijaykar is talking about medical science or religion! These theorizations may be “accepted by Hindus, Chinese, Buddhists, Judaists and Mohammedans alike”.

     

    But is it accepted by scientific community?

     

    Where did Dr. Samuel Hahnemann indicate that “similimum” should “cover all the five essential elements which each human being is made up of”, such as “Fire, Water, Air, Earth and Ether” in order it to be a “holistic” prescription?

     

    How can my learned friend claim all these to be “CARDINAL PRINCIPLES” of homeopathy”?

     

    DR. VIJAYKAR, ARE WE DISCUSSING “SCIENTIFIC  HOMEOPATHY” OR “MYSTIC HOMEOPATHY”?

  • Molecular Medicine Will Provide A Converging Point For Homeopathy And Modern Medicine

    In a far distant historical perspective, I foresee the possibility of converging of modern medicine and homeopathy into a universal molecular medical science of ‘drug-less therapy’, where only molecular imprints will be used as therapeutic agents.

    Modern Medicine is gradually evolving into ‘Molecular Medicine’. Molecular Medicine studies vital processes and diseases at molecular level, and deals therapeutics as an art and science of molecular level repairing.

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

    ‘Molecular Medicine’ emphasizes disease and cure in terms of cellular and molecular phenomena and interventions rather than the conceptual and observational focus on patients and their organs common to conventional medicine.

    Molecular Medicine studies drug substances in terms of their molecular level structure and organization, and is more and more relying upon target-specific Designer Drugs synthesized by drug designing technology, supported by computer aided designing protocols.

    Drug Designing Technology has recently started exploring the possibilities of Molecular Imprinting in the development of target-specific designer drugs. They are now experimenting for developing bio-friendly imprinting matrices and imprinting protocols, so as to prepare artificial binding surfaces for pathogenic molecules that could be utilized as therapeutic agents.

    Even though not yet recognized as such, homeopathic potentization is a process of molecular imprinting, where artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules are produced by imprinting drug molecules into water-ethyl alcohol supra-molecular matrices. Homeopathy identifies pathological molecular errors and selects the appropriate molecular imprints through a peculiar technique of ‘comparing symptoms’, which is expressed as the therapeutic principle, ‘simila similibus curentur’

    Most probably, modern molecular medicine and drug designing technology is in the new future going to explore the possibilities of water as a molecular imprinting medium as part of their search for novel substances to be utilized as imprinting matrix.

    It means, Modern Molecular Medicine is slowly advancing towards the realization of a drug designing technology that homeopathy invented as ‘potentization’ and utilized for preparing therapeutic agents 250 years ago. It is based on this understanding that I try to propagate the concept that ‘Homeopathy is Molecular Imprinting Therapeutics- An Advanced Branch of Molecular Medicine.

    In a far distant historical perspective, I foresee the possibility of converging of modern medicine and homeopathy into a universal molecular medical science of ‘drug-less therapy’, where only molecular imprints will be used as therapeutic agents. Instead of our present ‘potentization’, modern science may develop more sophisticated ways of molecular imprinting, that would enable us to produce therapeutic agents more specific and perfect than our present day ‘potentized drugs’.

    May be be distant dream. But it is a dream based on scientific knowledge.

  • Learn The Phenomenon Of Similimum In Terms Of ‘Functional Groups’ Of Constituent Drug Molecules

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • How Silicea Works as ‘Homeopathic Scalpel’- An Exploration into the Biochemistry Involved

    Materia Medica of Silicea says: “Silica can stimulate the organism to re-absorb fibrotic conditions and scar-tissue. Ripens abscess since it promotes suppuration. Promotes expulsion of foreign bodies from tissues. In phthisis, it must be used with care, for here it may cause the absorption of scar-tissue, liberate the disease, walled in, to new activities.”

    “Re-absorbing of fibrotic scar tissues, ripening, opening up and healing of abscesses by promoting suppuration, expulsion of foreign bodies from tissues”- these clinically well established homeopathic properties of  SILICEA have assigned it a honorable title- “homeopathic scalpel”.  Exactly, in homeopathic doses silicea causes absorption of scar tissue being part of abscess walls, and ‘liberates the contents, walled in’.

    Some homeopaths prefer to use silicea as ‘homeopathic scalpel’ in ‘high potencies’- in 30c or above, where as there are others who use it as triturations- 3x, 6x etc. All of them vouch excellent results, but molecular mechanism of ‘scalpel’ actions of silicea in  ‘molecular forms’ and ‘molecular imprints’ forms are entirely different, as explained later in this article.

    How and why silicea acts as ‘homeopathic scalpel’? To provide a scientific explanation to this phenomenon, we have to inquire deeply into the exact role of silicea in biological systems.

    Silicea is known as a polycrest remedy in homeopathy. Silica, which is also known as silicea in homeopathic pharmacy, is the chemical compound silicon dioxide. It is an oxide of chemical element silicon, with the chemical formula SiO2.

    Silica is most commonly found in nature as sand or quartz. Measured by mass, silicon makes up 27.7% of the earth’s crust and is the second most abundant element in the crust, with only oxygen having a greater abundance.Silicon is usually found in the form of complex silicate minerals, and less often as silicon dioxide or silica, a major component of common sand. Pure silicon crystals are very rarely found in nature. The silicate minerals—various minerals containing silicon, oxygen and reactive metals—account for 90% of the mass of the earth’s crust.

    Ocean bed is covered by diatoms, cells of which contain large quantities of silica. Silica is the primary compound in rice husk and coconut shells. Stems of various plants, such as rice, bamboo etc also contain silica in large amounts.

    Silicon is an essential element in biology, although only tiny traces of it appear to be required by animals,however various sea sponges need silicon in order to have structure. It is much more important to the metabolism of plants, particularly many grasses, and silica in the form of silicic acid act as the basis of the striking array of protective shells of the microscopic diatoms.

    Diatoms, radiolaria and siliceous sponges use biogenic silica as a structural material to construct skeletons. In more advanced plants, the silica phytoliths (opal phytoliths) are rigid microscopic bodies occurring in the cell; some plants, for example rice, need silicon for their growth.Although silicon was proposed to be an ultra trace nutrient, its exact function in the biology of animals is still under discussion. Higher organisms are only known to use it in very limited amounts in the form of silicic acid and soluble silicates.

    Silicon is currently considered as a “plant beneficial substance by the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials (AAPFCO). Silicon has been shown in university and field studies to improve plant cell wall strength and structural integrity,improve drought and frost resistance, decrease lodging potential and boost the plant’s natural pest and disease fighting systems.Silicon has also been shown to improve plant vigor and physiology by improving root mass and density, and increasing above ground plant biomass and crop yields.

    It has been proved that Silica can bind to DNA and RNA in certain situations. Silicification in and by cells has been common in the biological world for well over a billion years. In the modern world it occurs in bacteria, single-celled organisms, plants, and animals (invertebrates and vertebrates). Examples include: ‘frustules’ of ‘diatoms’, Silica ‘phytoliths’ in the cells of many plants, practically all grasses. The spicules which form the skeleton of many primitive creatures are also rich in silica.

    Crystalline silica formed in the physiological environment often show exceptional physical properties- e.g. strength, hardness, fracture toughness. Formation of the mineral may occur either within the cell wall of an organism (such as with phytoliths), or outside the cell wall, as typically happens with ‘tests’ and ‘diatoms’. Specific biochemical reactions exist for mineral deposition. Such reactions include those that involve lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates.

    It is yet unclear in what ways silica is important in the nutrition of developed animal species.This remains a challenging field of research, due to its ubiquitous presence in the environment and in most circumstances it dissolves in trace quantities into the animal bodies. It certainly does occur in the living body, leaving us with the problem that it is hard to create proper silica-free controls for purposes of research. This makes it difficult for researchers to be sure when the silica present has had operative beneficial effects, and when its presence is coincidental, or even harmful.

    As per latest studies, silica is recognized to play many important roles in the growth, strength, and management of many connective tissues. This is true not only for hard connective tissues such as bone and tooth.

    Inhaling finely divided crystalline silica dust in very small quantities over time can lead to silicosis, bronchitis, or cancer, as the dust becomes lodged in the lungs and continuously irritates them, reducing lung capacities by inducing synthesis and accumulation of Type 1 collagen fibrils around the silica deposits. In the body, crystalline silica particles do not dissolve over clinically relevant periods of time. This effect can create an occupational hazard for people working with sandblasting equipment, products that contain powdered crystalline silica and so on. Children, asthmatics of any age, allergy sufferers, and the elderly can be affected in much less time. Even though amorphous silica, such as fumed silica is not associated with development of silicosis,but it may cause irreversible lung damage in some cases.

    Continuing research of the correlation of aluminium and Alzheimer’s disease has in the last few years included the use of silicic acid in beverages, due to its abilities to both reduce aluminium uptake in the digestive system as well as cause renal excretion of aluminium.

    A study which followed subjects for 15 years found that higher levels of silica in water appeared to decrease the risk of dementia. The study found that with an increase of 10 milligram-per-day of the intake of silica in drinking water, the risk of dementia dropped by 11%.

    Choline stabilized silica in the form of orthosilicic acid is now used as bioavailable nutritional supplement. It has been shown to prevent the loss of hair tensile strength,have positive effect on skin surface and skin mechanical properties, and on brittleness of hair and nails, abate brittle nail syndrome,partially prevent femoral bone loss, increase collagen concentration in calves, and have potential beneficial effect on bone collagen formation in osteopenic females.

    Study has shown that physiological concentration of Silica in the form of orthosilicic acid stimulates Type 1 Collagen synthesis and osteoblastic differentiation in human osteoblast-like cells in vitro. Collagen is a group of naturally occurring proteins found in animals, especially in the flesh and connective tissues of mammals. It is the main component of connective tissue, and is the most abundant protein in mammals,making up about 25% to 35% of the whole-body protein content. Collagen, in the form of elongated fibrils, is mostly found in fibrous tissues such as tendon, ligament and skin, and is also abundant in cornea, cartilage, bone, blood vessels, the gut, and intervertebral disc. The fibroblast is the most common cell which creates collagen. In muscle tissue, it serves as a major component of the endomysium. Collagen constitutes one to two percent of muscle tissue, and accounts for 6% of the weight of strong, tendinous muscles.

    Collagen, a key component of the animal extracellular matrix, is made through cleavage of pro-collagen by the enzyme collagenase once it has been secreted from the cell. This stops large structures from forming inside the cell itself. Collagenase production can be induced during an immune response, by cytokines that stimulate cells such as fibroblasts and osteoblast, and cause indirect tissue damage. Silica is considered to play a key role in the activation of collagenase enzyme, when induced by the action of immune related signaling molecules known as cytokines.

    Formation of abscesses involves a complex chain of biochemic processes induced by cytokines produced in response to immune reactions against foreign substance entering the tissues, such as foreign bodies and infectious agents. Cytokines induces chemotaxis of various immune bodies and white blood cells into the site of foreign body to fight against the intruder. A membrane is formed around the intruder by producing type 1 collagens fibrils embedded with in a layer formed of lipids, proteins and carbohydrates, which encapsulates the foreign body. This capsule ripens into an abscess by accumulation of dead white cells. Finally, once the fight is over and infection is controlled, the collagen disintegrates and the capsule breaks open to discharge the contents.

    It is well understood that silica plays a role in the process of membrane formation and encapsulation by promoting the production of type 1 collagen fibrils. Exact molecular mechanism of this role is not well understood yet. May be by acting as co-factors in activating collagenase enzyme to cleavage pro-collagen into collagen, which is the basic building material of capsular membrane of abscesses and cysts. Silicon is also considered to act as a hardening and stabilizing agent of collagen fibrils. During stage of ripening of abscesses, as concentration of inflammatory cytokines decrease, silicea also gradually decreases in collagen fibrils, thereby helping the disintegration of capsular membrane and opening up of abscesses.

    Bilologically available crude silica particles help the process of formation of cysts and indurations around foreign bodies, presumably by supplying silicon ions to activate collagenase enzyme in the build up of type 1 collagen and capsular membranes. Silicon also infiltrates into cyst walls, and act as a structural ingredient. That is why silicosis develops in lungs due to accumulation of silica particles.

    Triturated forms of silica below 12c contain ionized silica particles, which are highly activated by breaking of intermolecular bonds during process of trituration. These activated particles can compete with biological silica molecules in binding to collagen fibrils, there by resulting in removal of silica and inducing ripening of abscesses. But we should remember, using of these molecular forms of activated silica may pose dangerous to the organism, as they will create off-target molecular inhibitions and unexpected pathologies in various biochemical pathways in the organism.

    Silica potentized above Avogadro limit contains only ‘molecular imprints’ of silica, without any silica molecules present. Due to complementary configuration, these molecular imprints can bind only to off target excess biological silica molecules , there by removing them from the collagen matrix, and helping in their disintegration, leading to easy maturation and opening up of abscess walls.

    Potententized silica contains only ‘molecular imprints’, which cannot bind to any biological targets except off target silica. As such, they are safe to be used as ‘homeopathic scalpels’ without any fear of unwanted side effects.

    It is the biological role of silicea as a cofactor in the synthesis of type 1 collagen, and its property of getting embedded in collagen fibrils  that makes it an effective homeopathic therapeutic agent in potentized forms in many pathological conditions such as abscesses, indurations, cysts, skin problems, nail problems, joint problems, keloids etc etc.

    This is only a humble introductory study on silica biochemistry in relation with its role in abscess formations. There remains a lot to be researched, explored and explained on this topic. A lot of questions yet remain to be answered.

  • Talking ‘Energy’ Medicine’ – An Attempt To Cover Up Lack Of Essential Knowledge In Basic Sciences

    Without a baseline knowledge of biochemistry- especially the mechanism of ‘ligand-target’ interactions of biological molecules, molecular basics of pathology, molecular inhibitions and dynamics of ‘cure’ as removal of molecular inhibitions, you cannot follow the scientific explanation of similia similibus curentur.

    Without a scientific perspective of molecular composition of drug substances, and the molecular mechanism by which the drug substances interact with biological organism to produce pathological inhibitions and symptoms, you cannot follow the scientific explanations of drug proving.

    Without getting yourselves introduced to the latest information regarding supra-molecular properties of water and ethyl alcohol, hydrogen bonding, hydration shells, supra-molecular nano-structures, guest-host complexes, molecular imprinting in polymers and related subjects, you cannot follow the scientific explanations of potentization in terms of ‘molecular imprinting’.

    Scientific understanding of homeopathy, similar to any rational science of medicine, should be primarily based on the realization of ‘life’ as a ‘material’ phenomenon. Living world represents a higher level of organization of same elemental factors existing in the non-living world, an advanced stage of its evolution that happened through millions of years.

    ‘Living organism’ is a highly complex and self-regulated material system that exists through ‘vital processes’ or metabolic processes, consisting of systematic chains of inter-dependant biochemical pathways of complex molecular interactions, enabling an unhindered flow and conversion of matter and energy between organism and its environment that ensures the existence of life.

    Phenomena of ‘mind’ and ‘mental faculties’ are the ‘functional’ products of complex biochemical molecular processes happening in the central nervous system, which is an integral part of ‘body’, and as such, mind has no existence free from the material body.

    If you cannot understand this basic scientific perspective of ‘life’, ‘vital processes’ and ‘mind’, you cannot follow the scientific explanations of homeopathy.

    In the absence of these essential basic scientific knowledge, you will go on talking about ‘energy medicine’, vital force, dynamic drug energy, spiritual healing, vibrations, resonance, distance healing and such diverse unscientific and pseudo-scientific things, and continue to make homeopathy and homeopaths a subject of unending mockery and ridicule before the scientific community. And of course, you will go on declaring homeopathy is the ultimate science, hahnemann is the greatest scientist, and modern science is lagging far behind homeopathy!

  • Testimonials From Prominent Homeopaths: ‘Similimum Ultra’- A Perfect And Reliable Clinical Software

    A FEW TESTIMONIALS FROM USERS OF

    SIMILIMUM ULTRA SOFTWARE:

    Dr SIVARAMAN SUBRAMANIAN, PALANI, TAMILNADU:

    “Similimum Ultra Software is very user-friendly compared to other softwares in the market. Also very cost effective while comparing the content and qualities. A MUST HAVE SOFTWARE for all homeopaths. Thank you.

    DR. BABURAJ, MEPPAYUR, KERALA (Mobile: 919400696240) :

    “The software SimilimumUltra is economic in its class, with all these features. It is a very helpful tool for a physician to his/her daily practice”.

    DR. V GANESAN,  Govt Hospital, Arakonam, Vellore (Mobile: 919443283763): 

    “Similimum Ultra is one of the best accurate softwares. It is very simple, and easy to repertorize the case. I am getting good results with this one. I recommend every doctors to give a try”.

    DR. MOHAMAD IQBAL VALIYATT, Valiyatt, Vengara, Malappuram (Mobile:919847254955):

    “Most simple and user-friendly Patient Management System. Safe, simple and small back-up”

    DR MUHAMED BILAL (Mobile- 918793800759):

    Initially I was thinking that four basic repertories will not be sufficient, but after using it, I got to know that flexible methods of repertorization is more important than huge repertories.

    Basically it is an excellent software especially for beginners, it is simple, and cost effective software. I can say it has all essential materials for a homeopath, with very less price.

    DR. DEEPA, BANGALORE (Mobile: 919886120969):

    Similimum Ultra Software is a cost-effective package which helps in all sorts of day-to-day clinical practice. It is hassle-free and easy to use.  After I started using this software, my confidence in prescription has increased.

    DNYANESHWAR PATIL (Email- gramin.sawali@gmail.com) :

    “I use similimum ultra software from last 3 year it’s wonderful software who save my time to find me remedy as well as clinical values and repertory and much more…..”

    DR. ROZARIO D’SOUZA:

    “I have this in my college , purchased recently for Repertory department. Its beneficial !!!!”

    DR. A SHANTHAKUMAR, SRI LANKA:

    “I have been using this software for last three years and it helped me to save time in my busy practice. It is easy to handle no complications. It has all components to handle a clinic . When compare with the expensive software it is much more worth than the price. I have recommended to many of my friends. The price of it is affordable by any homoeopath.”

    VYDYANATH SUBRAHMANIAM:

    “A Value For Money (VFM) homeopathic software indeed. Kudos to you for the great efforts and also keeping the price low enough for the Aam Homoeompaths and practitioners like me who render free services to poor in remote villages.”

    DR. SAJESH A NAIR, KERALA:

    “I recomend Similimum Ultra Software, it is definetly helping me in my practice and also clinical utility. So guys just spend Rs 6000/-, the changes in your clinic will be self evident.”

    DR. HARISHKUMAR SHINDE:

    (President, The Association for Scientific Enrichment and Applied Research in clinical Homoeopathy (A-SEARCH):

    “Nice sir, your software is priceless gift for our profession. Similimum Ultra A Best Homoeopathic Repertory Tool.

    Since 2008 I was tried well known software’s and lost my money, as they have lot of errors hence i started manual working with repertory books. Lastly i decided to buy SIMILIMUM.

    After going through SIMILIMUM i found it very very useful tool. I am very much Thankful to Chandran Nambiar sir for developing such a wonderful software for the serious practitioners of homoeopathy.

    Similimum has the basic repertories. the worksheet is very innovative. grading the rubric before repertorization is also innovative. the repertorization methods are also innovative. card repertorization methood also use wonderfully. i am using it since 4 days and found very useful. i am 100% satisfied by Buying SIMILIMIM Ultra. so don’t get confuse, get it, and use it. Best of Luck.

    BOERICK’S REPERTORY VERY MUCH USEFUL. Dear Sir, I am very much thankful to you, because of you I am started using Boericke’s repertory in my practice. I am feeling very sad as I ignored such a beautiful repertory which has clinical data, I am using this repertory with great results in my practice. In SIMILIMUM ULTRA repertories are arranged beautifully as it is very much convenient to use. Thanks again.”

    DR. ANDREAS MAIER, GERMANY:

    “Dear Chandran, after using your software for a few weeks I want to tell you that I am really excited about the varieties which it offers in working out the cases. Even though I read the users manual before ordering there are so many things in it to discover that I am really amazed about the possibilities. It gives new impulses to my work and I am really thankful for this.

    Similimum Ultra is my very first approach to Boericke’s repertory, and I am excited about its use in daily practice.”

    DR. RAVI JAIN, RAJASTAN:

    “Hello sir, i have been using this software since past one and half yr or more.This is really a good software, easy to use and very user friendly also very effective in finding the similimum. There are lot of options which can be used for repertorisation. various repertories available makes it really useful. The patient database is also very good which allows fast access to the previous patients and their follow ups .I thank Chandran Nambiar sir for making such a wonderful software. Thank you sir.”

    DR. JAMSHEENA PANDIKASHALA, CHENNAI:

    “Hi dr, thank you so much for ur beautiful software. Even though i’m started using this only a few days back,really impressed with it esp.the repertorisation. The combine n grading rubric and work sheet are all among my favorite tools. And, of course, still discovering its possibilities.”

    DR. RAJESHKUMAR, KASARAGODE, KERALA:

    “First of all let me Thank Dr Chandran Nambiar for Making this user friendly SIMILIMUM Software for us ( Homoeopaths) .

    For the last 7 yrs I am using this software, mainly the patient management data base Comfortably.Once or twice I had problem with my Operating sysytem,but tell you that i diidnot loose any data because the back up is very easy & comfortable.I strongly recommend my fellow doctors to use this software. Keep going. Congrats & thanks to Similimum team”

    DR. C P ABID, MALAPPURAM, KERALA:

    “I have been using similimum ultra for last 1 year..its very easy to use.everything is simplified.i have recommended the same to my friends and now nearly 10 of them are using the software with great satisfaction…thanks to chandran nambiyar sir..”

    DR. DILEEPKUMAR KB, TRISSUR, KERALA:

    “For more than last three years, I am successfully using SIMILIMUM ULTRA HOMEOPATHIC SOFTWARE for my regular clinical practice. The Repertorization Methods, Protocols and Rubric Grading Tools are excellent and well-principled, and offer much flexibility and scope for user’s logical involvement, same time ensuring perfect results. Over and above the classical methods of repertorization, this software also provides innovative and imaginative methods such as COMBINED METHOD, COMPARTMENTAL METHOD and RE-COMBINAT METHOD based on Boenninghaussen’s principles. Various Clinical Utilities are all very helpful, and add much to the utility of this software. I am very much satisfied with the performance and contribution of this product in enhancing my practice and good will among public. Especially I would like to mention the simple, elaborate and user-friendly Patient Management System. I find it very useful in maintaining my clinical records up-to-date, with safe and easily retrievable data back-up system. No fear of loss of data even if our system completely crashes. QUICK PICK tool helps to make instant prescriptions during busy practic I fully and whole-heartedly endorse the author’s claim that SIMILIMUM ULTRA is visibly outstanding by its simplicity and comprehensiveness among those currently available in the market. Congratulations!”

    DR. DEVENDRA SATHE, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA:

    “A few words about software Similimum ultra. A year back I have purchased software Similimum ultra fro Dr Chandran. At first sight I got impressed that there were no extra additions by anybody in this software as repertories concern. We get here original rep. in original form. Way of search is not only good but fast even on slow computers. In addition there is extended search can be done . A facility of quick repertorization is very helpful”

    DR. RENJEEV PUNNAKKARA, TALIPARAMBA, KERALA:

    “I have been publishing the internationally circulated journal QHQ and during that time I had the opportunity to come across five different homoeopathic soft wares. Until 2003 I used five software and I dumped each of them within a short time. From 2003 onwards I began using Similimum and still I am using the same. I don’t know why I couldn’t change from this to any other. May be because I realized that Similimum Ultra is apt for my mode of practice. Even though I don’t repertorise all cases, I had done 18000 until now with Similimum Ultra. Even in acute case it can be done without saving or registering a patient. I think that Similimum Ultra is a perfect one for a busy practitioner and it can be handled very easily with many search options. This stands premier among the other homoeopathic software because each and every homoeopath can repertorise according to their own methods”.

    MICHAEL LAW, UNITED STATES:

    “Hi, Chandran, We have been using the Similimum Ultra software for a few weeks now. It is still new, and there is a lot to learn about the program. We are pleased with the purchase. Thank you for the sweet deal. Not difficult to use. The grading of symptoms in this manner is a new thing but seems to be quite accurate. Materia Medica search seems amazing . Still to new to give you a complete opinion, or tell you if there is anything not agreeable. Best to you , Sir”. It is a great deal! Even at the full price!”

    DR. PARTHASARATHI RAY, KOLKOTTA:

    “I used RADAR,CARA and many more.But when I installed SIMILIMUM,I was astonished! It’s wonderful and I promise if you once install it,you will surely be rewarded.Its simple user interface lets you to complete your task very efficiently.It contains many repertories and Materia Medicas.The utility tools like Certificate,Stock register,Pathological values etc are all useful.To the profession,I’ll surely recommend to use it…you will win,no doubt.”

    DR. THOMAS CHERIAN, KERALA:

    “It is seven years (from 2004 February onwords)Iamusing the homeopathic software SIMILIMUM developed by K.C.Chandran Nambyar.It is very useful to workout cases and find the appropriate remedy for the patient In the magazine Homoeopathic HERITAGE published by B.JAIN publishers there had been a column ‘crack the case’ a contest conducted by a panel of experts to find the most similar remedy for the given case.I used to participate and most of my answers were correct.For example:-2006 February issue out of 2659 entry only 38 were correct,March issue out of1378 entry only 6 correct April issue 2791 entry 62 correct June issue 2553 entry 83 correct.In all the above cases Icould find the correct remedy by the aid of this software .So my request to all homoeopaths is to be familiar with this easy to handle software SIMILIMUM ULTRA which is the latest and upgraded version.Thanks to Chandran nambyar. I congratulate you.”

    DR. SAJJAD AKRAM, LAHORE, PAKISTAN:

    “I am using similimum homeopathic software in my daily clinical practice with success. I found it user friendly, simple and accurate. It is loaded with number of reliable repertories like Kent.Boenninghausen,Boerick e,Boger and many customized repertories. They cover almost all the symptoms of every disease. I am very much impressed by its fast search system. You can locate simultaneously any rubric, in any repertory and all the popular materia Medicas. Once the symptoms are recorded, repertorization can be done by various methods with accuracy and you can also prepare combinations with the help of its unique facility, not available in any other software. Beside this it has many other facilities which I could not find In others. It is complete in every respect and not less than any good homeopathic software available, with comparatively less cost. Undoubtedly, for a busy practitioner “Quick Pick” repertorization is a grand facility.”

    DR. MUHAMMED AKBAR, MALAPPURAM, KERALA:
    (Medical Officer, Department of Homoeopathy, Kerala)

    “I am using the similimum ultra soft ware. It has the best patient management system. I enjoy using the software.”

    DR. UMADATHA KUMAR, KERALA:

    “From 21/5/2009, i am using this “SIMILIMUM ULTRA” developed by MR.CHANDRAN NAMBIAR. In my experience it is a very useful soft ware for homeopathic repertorization.Now I can can repertorize cases in an easy way using similimum ultra. I mostly use the Kent’s repertory, but Boenninghausen’s ,Boger and Boerike are also available in this software, which is helpful to to find out simlimum as per the physician’s interest. 21 materia medica works are also available in this for an easy reference. We can also make Purchase lists and stock register. Patient management system, pathological and clinical values, and preparation of som medicines are also included. I hope that this work is used by all homeopaths. Its price is affordable to everybody. It is valuable software for all homeopaths”.

    DR. AMOL WANI:

    “Started using similimum ultra nice piece of work done which shows clarity of mind and clarity of thoughts of NAMBIAR sir the software shows that it is the outcome of love towards HOMOEOPATHY

    DR KHANAJ V R, HOD(Repertory), JJ Magdum Homeopathic Medical College, Jaysingpur, wrote to me about Similimum Ultra Software as follows:

    “I, undersigned Dr Khanaj V R, MD, HOD, Repertory Department, Dr JJ Magdum Homeopathic Medical College, Jaysingpur, have gone through your demo of Similimum Ultra Software. After accessing the software, I have found many unique features available in your software.

    Unique features of the software and positive points:-

    Original books of Materia Medica.
    Simple Display and user friendly
    Easy search options
    List of genuine reference books

    Practically helpful requirements:-

    For e.g: Clinical Values, Lab Tests, Height-Weight Tables, Drug Relationships, Constitutions, Diagnostic Information, Specifics, Prophylactics, External applications, Modalities etc. Knowledge of these specifications is needed in daily clinical practice.

    Modules:-

    Patient Management System is elaborate and user friendly.
    Patient Registers, Appointment Systems helps for physician for record keeping.
    Case Taking performance is easy to access.

    List of Repertories:-

    Important Repertories are included.
    Innovative Repertorization Tools are new.
    Different aspects of Repertorization which can be used when ever necessary.

    S/d
    Prof. Dr Khanaj VR MD (Hom)
    HOD Repertory
    ROTP Resources Govt Of India.”

  • How To Repertorize As ‘Symptom Groups’ To Generate ‘Total Cure’ Prescriptions Using Similimum Ultra

    How to repertorize cases as ‘Symptom Groups’ using Similimum Ultra Software to generate ‘total cure’ prescriptions:

    For making ‘multiple drug prescriptions’, we have to repertorize symptoms as different symptom groups. Logic of method is simple. A patient coming to us may be suffering from entirely different disease entities at the same time, related with entirely different molecular errors. If you believe the ‘constitutional similimum’ will correct all molecular errors and cure the patient ‘holistically’, you may go that way. But practically, we may need entirely different drugs for his different complaints, where ‘multiple drug’ approach may give the patient immediate relief for his complaints, as well as ‘total cure’. Whether you call it multiple drugs, polypharmacy, layer method, complementary drugs, intercurrent or any thing, you are actually doing the same. Only difference is, some people ‘mix’ drugs inside the body, where as others ‘mix’ them inside the body. Multiple drugs are multiple drugs- whatever name you call it, or whatever way you use it.

    Apart from constitutional and miasmatic drugs, a particular patient may need different drugs for his different ailments such as headache, hypertension, haemorrhoids, gastric ulcer, joint pains, ringworm etc, disturbing him at the same time. Each ailment will have different locations, expressions, sensations, modalities, concomitants- which are collectively called ‘qualifications’- requiring different similimum. Hoping a ‘single’ ‘constitution drug’ to ‘cure’ all these complaints by a ‘single’ dose may be the ‘classical’ approach, but I am not so much optimistic about such a hope in all cases. Different co entirely different complaints will have totally unrelated molecular inhibitions underlying them, caused by entirely different pathogenic molecules, which would require entirely different ‘molecular imprints’ to remove those inhibitions.

    Each molecular error, caused by a particular molecular inhibition due to a specific pathogenic molecular factor, will be expressed through a specific group of symptoms and their ‘qualifications’. Hence, we have to select ‘molecular imprints’ on the basis of those ‘symptom groups’. Since the individual’s constitutional background also plays a role in disease process, his ‘constitutional remedy’ also will have to be used over and above the ‘particular remedies’.

    Diseases in a person at a given point of time are never ‘single’ at molecular level, but comprising of ‘multiple’ molecular inhibitions and molecular errors arising from diverse types of genetic and acquired factors.

    Even those drug substance we call ‘single’ are not really ‘single’, but contains diverse types of chemical molecules molecules having entirely different chemical and medicinal properties.

    Potentized drugs, which we consider ‘single’, are actually combinations of diverse types of independent ‘molecular imprints’ representing different types of constituent molecules of drug substance used for potentization.

    When used as therapeutic agents, all those potentized drugs we consider ‘single’, really act as ‘combinations’ of independent ‘molecular imprints’ they contain, each individual ‘molecular imprint’ acting upon specific pathogenic molecules having complementary configurational affinity, thereby removing the ‘molecular inhibitions created by them.

    Once you understand these fundamental scientific factors, you can realize the futility of worrying about ‘single’ disease, ‘single’ drug and ‘single’ dose!!

    Constitutional remedy of the patient could be determined using physical generals and mentals.

    To decide the ‘particular remedies’ for different complaints, we have repertorize each ‘symptom group’ separately. Each ‘symptom group’ will consist of the ‘basic symptom’ of particular complaint, along with its ‘qualifications’ such as ‘locations, expressions, sensations, modalities, alternations, concomittants and extensions’.

    Repertorizing in ‘symptom groups’ is very simple using ‘Similimum Ultra Software. Select all basic symptoms and their qualifications first. Then collect all physical generals and mentals. Add all these symptoms to ‘worksheet’ of software, and grade them using ‘grade rubric’ tool. Then, go to ‘repertorize’. Select ‘totality method’, with ‘selected symptoms’ protocol’.

    Repertorization window appears, with all rubrics listed, with check boxes. Select check boxes of physical generals and mentals only, and repertorize. Result will appear in chart for. Click ‘add to reference tray’. Save reference tray, marking the result as ‘constitution’. Then remove all selected check boxes, and select all check boxes of rubrics related with a particular complaint. Add the result to reference tray, mark it. In this way, select rubrics of all ‘symptom groups’ separately and repertorize. Results of repertorizations done for each group will be saved separately in ‘reference tray’, from where we can select the final prescription. In some cases, we may get same drug for different ‘symptoms groups’, which is most welcome from a homeopathic perspective. Since ‘antimiasmatic’ drugs such as nosodes are not well represented in our repertories, we will have to consider them separately, after repertorization is completed. If necessary, they should be included in our prescription.

    This method of ‘total cure prescriptions’ is a deviation from what is taught in classical homeopathy. I would not advise any body to follow this method. This is my method- that is all. Anybody can think about the logic behind this method, and reach their own conclusions. I do not want to ‘misguide’ anybody.

    ‘MULTIPLE DRUG’ PRESCRIPTION CASE- I:

    A 75 year old man, with complaints of asthma, haemorrhoids, constipation, fistula and itching all over. Symptoms were collected in detail, and following rubrics selected using Similimum Ultra Software:

    1. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC
    2. [Kent]Expectoration : TASTE : Salty
    3. [Kent]Expectoration : GRAYISH
    4. [Kent]Expectoration : VISCID
    5. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC
    6. [Kent]Respiration : WHISTLING
    7. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC : Eating : amel
    8. [Kent]Rectum : URGING, desire : Eating, after
    9. [Kent]Rectum : CONSTIPATION
    10. [Kent]Rectum : MOISTURE
    11. [Kent]Rectum : HAEMORRHOIDS : External
    12. [Kent]Rectum : LUMP, sensation of
    13. [Kent]Rectum : ITCHING
    14. [Kent]Rectum : CONSTIPATION : Old people
    15. [Kent]Rectum : FISTULA
    16. [Kent]Rectum : FLATUS : Loud
    17. [Kent]Rectum : HAEMORRHOIDS : Cold amel.
    18. [Kent]Generalities : HOT REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s)
    19. [Kent]Generalities : LEAN people
    21. [Kent]Mind : ANGER, irascibility
    22. [Kent]Mind : CENSORIOUS, critical
    23. [Kent]Mind : HURRY
    24. [Kent]Mind : IMPATIENCE
    25. [Kent]Mind : SUSPICIOUS
    26. [Kent]Mind : QUARRELSOME
    27. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Night
    28. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Eruption, without
    29. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Scratching : Agg
    30. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Warm : In bed, on becoming

    When repertorized by classical totality method, outcome was as follows:

    Sulph.(61/26), Ars.(45/19), Lyc.(44/20), Lach.(41/22), Sep.(41/19), Caust.(39/18), Phos.(39/20), Nux-v.(38/19), Puls.(36/16),

    Then I decided to go for ‘Group Repertorization’ method. Symptoms were grouped into CONSTITUTION, RESPIRATORY, RECTUM and SKIN, and repertorized separately using Similimum Ultra

    A. CONSTITUTION:

    1. [Kent]Generalities : HOT REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s)
    2. [Kent]Generalities : LEAN people
    3. [Kent]Mind : ANGER, irascibility
    4. [Kent]Mind : CENSORIOUS, critical
    5. [Kent]Mind : HURRY
    6. [Kent]Mind : IMPATIENCE
    7. [Kent]Mind : SUSPICIOUS
    8. [Kent]Mind : QUARRELSOME

    Sulph.(24/9), Lyc.(20/9), Ars.(17/7), Nux-v.(17/7), Bry.(16/8), Nat-m.(16/7), Lach.(15/8), Acon.(14/7), Aur.(14/7),

    B.RESPIRATORY:

    1. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC
    2. [Kent]Expectoration : TASTE : Salty
    3. [Kent]Expectoration : GRAYISH
    4. [Kent]Expectoration : VISCID
    5. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC
    6. [Kent]Respiration : WHISTLING
    7. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC : Eating : Amel

    Ambr.(15/7), Ars.(15/6), Lyc.(11/5), Phos.(11/5), Stann.(11/5), Carb-v.(10/5), Calc.(9/5), Chin.(9/5), Puls.(9/3),

    C. RECTUM:

    1. [Kent]Rectum : URGING, desire : Eating, after
    2. [Kent]Rectum : CONSTIPATION
    3. [Kent]Rectum : MOISTURE
    4. [Kent]Rectum : HAEMORRHOIDS : External
    5. [Kent]Rectum : LUMP, sensation of
    6. [Kent]Rectum : ITCHING
    7. [Kent]Rectum : CONSTIPATION : Old people
    8. [Kent]Rectum : FISTULA
    9. [Kent]Rectum : FLATUS : Loud
    10. [Kent]Rectum : HAEMORRHOIDS : Cold amel.

    Aloe.(21/10), Caust.(19/7), Lach.(18/8), Sulph.(18/8), Phos.(16/8), Sep.(15/6), Sil.(15/6), Nit-ac.(14/5), Calc.(13/5),

    D. SKIN:

    1. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Night
    2. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Eruption, without
    3. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Scratching : Agg
    4. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Warm : In bed, on becoming

    Sulph.(11/4), Mez.(9/4), Alum.(7/3), Ars.(6/2), Dol.(6/3), Led.(6/3), Merc.(6/4), Puls.(6/3), Anac.(5/2),

    SULPH, ALOES and AMBRA were prescribed. In 30 potency, one dose each daily for three months. Occasional doses of ARS 30 also was used during aggravated states of asthmatic attacks. Cure was total.

     ‘MULTIPLE-DRUG PRESCRIPTION’ CASE- II:

    A 48 yr old obese woman with chronic headache, pain in joints, and warts on various parts. Symptoms were collected and following rubrics selected using Similimum Ultra Software:

    1. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Menses : During
    2. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Sleep : After : Amel.
    3. [Kent]Stomach : NAUSEA : Headache, during:
    4. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Cold applications amel.
    5. [Kent]Mind : IRRITABILITY : Headache, during
    6. [Kent]Genitalia – Female : MENOPAUSE
    7. [Kent]Generalities : HOT REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s)
    8. [Kent]Mind : ANXIETY
    9. [Kent]Generalities : OBESITY
    10. [Kent]Extremities-II(PAIN) : PAIN : Joints
    11. [Kent]Extremities-II(PAIN) : PAIN : Cold : Applied amel.
    12. [Kent]Extremities-II(PAIN) : PAIN : Joints : Walking : After
    13. [Kent]Skin : WARTS
    14. [Kent]Skin : WARTS : Smooth
    15. [Kent]Skin : WARTS : Soft
    16. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general
    17. [Kent]Extremities-II(PAIN) : PAIN

    I decided to use multiple repertorization method in this case. Rubrics were divided into four groups: CONSTITUTION, HEADACHE, JOINT PAINS and WARTS, and repertorized separately:

    A. Constitution:

    1. [Kent]Genitalia – Female : MENOPAUSE
    2. [Kent]Generalities : HOT REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s)
    3. [Kent]Mind : ANXIETY
    4. [Kent]Generalities : OBESITY
    5. Stomach : DESIRES : Salt things

    Arg-n.(10/4), Sulph.(12/5), Puls.(9/4), Calc.(9/4), Verat.(9/4), Con.(8/4), Graph.(8/3), Lach.(8/4), Nat-m.(8/3),

    B. Headache:

    1. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Menses : During
    2. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Sleep : After : Amel.
    3. [Kent]Stomach : NAUSEA : Headache, during:
    4. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Cold applications amel.
    5. [Kent]Mind : IRRITABILITY : Headache, during
    6. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general

    Phos.(14/6), Glon.(12/5), Nat-m.(11/5), Ars.(10/5), Bell.(10/5), Bry.(10/5), Lach.(10/5), Puls.(10/5), Sep.(10/4)

    C. Joint pains:

    1. [Kent]Extremities : PAIN
    2.. [Kent]Extremities : PAIN : Joints
    3.. [Kent]Extremities : PAIN : Cold : Applied amel.
    4.. [Kent]Extremities : PAIN : Joints : Walking : After

    Led.(10/4), Bry.(9/3), Puls.(9/3), Colch.(8/3), Guai.(8/4), Arn.(7/3), Kalm.(7/3), Nux-v.(7/3), Phyt.(7/3),

    D. Warts:

    1. [Kent]Skin : WARTS
    2. [Kent]Skin : WARTS : Smooth
    3. [Kent]Skin : WARTS : Soft

    Dulc.(9/3), Ant-c.(5/2), Calc.(5/2), Caust.(5/2), Thuj.(5/2), Sep.(4/2), Bar-c.(3/1), Bell.(3/1), Calc-s.(3/1),

    SULPHUR, PHOS, LEDUM and DULCAMERA were given in 30c potencies. one dose each daily. Headache cured first, then joint pains relieved, and warts disappeared by three months. Cure was complete.

  • Master Your Repertories If You Want To Master ‘Case Taking’, And Become A Successful Homeopath

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

    Key to the art of successful homeopathic case taking lies in the skill of homeopath in converting ‘basic symptoms’ into ‘qualified symptoms’ through intelligent interrogation, keen observation and logical correlations. Without genuine ‘qualified symptoms’, you cannot hope to work out a case homeopathically to a reasonable similimum. This skill has to be cultivated in students and budding homeopaths by their teachers and senior colleagues.

    Patients normally give ‘basic symptoms’ only while narrating their complaints. They would say, ‘I have a headache’, ‘I have a pain in stomach’, ‘I have pain in joints’ and like that. Such ‘basic symptoms’, even though provide us valuable diagnostic hints, are of no use in making a homeopathic prescription. We need ‘homeopathic symptoms’ or ‘qualified symptoms’. A ‘basic symptom’ becomes a ‘qualified symptom’ when it is associated with its diverse ‘qualifications’ such as location, expression, sensation, modalities, concomitants, extensions, alternations etc. Hunting these qualifications for each and every ‘basic symptom’ is the real art involved in ‘homeopathic case taking’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    For example, let us study Rubrics under ‘Headache’ or ‘Head : PAIN, in general’ in KENT REPERTORY:

    MODALITIES OF HEADACHE RELATED WITH ‘TIME’:

    Daytime/ Morning/ Forenoon/ Noon/ Afternoon/ Evening/ Night/ Morning agg/ Morning amel/

    Morning : Bed, in/

    Morning : Bed, in : First motion, on /

    Morning : Bed, in : Nausea, with/

    Morning : Breakfast is delayed, if/

    Morning : Ceases toward evening/

    Morning : Comes and goes with the sun/

    Morning : Increases and decreases with the sun/

    Morning : Increases until noon, or a little later, then gradually decreases/

    Morning : Increasing during day/

    Morning : Rising, on/ Morning : Rising, on : Amel./

    Morning : Same hour, at/

    Morning : Until noon/

    Morning : Waking, on/

    Morning : Waking, on : First opening the eyes, on/

    Morning : Waking, on : Preceded by disagreeable dreams/

    Morning : Waking, on : Until 10 a.m./

    Morning : Waking, on : 5 a.m./

    Morning : 6 a.m. until evening/

    Morning : Until : 10 a.m./

    Morning : Until : 3 p.m./

    Morning : Until : 10 p.m./

    Forenoon/ Forenoon : 8 a.m/

    Forenoon : 9 a.m. to 12/

    Forenoon : 9 a.m. to 1 p.m./

    Forenoon : 9 a.m. to 4 p.m./

    Forenoon : 10 a.m./

    Forenoon : 10 a.m. to 2 p.m/

    Forenoon : 10 a.m. to 3 p.m./

    Forenoon : 10 a.m. to 4 p.m./

    Forenoon : 10 a.m. to 6 p.m./

    Forenoon : 11 a.m./

    In this way, we have many many possible time-related modalities for headache under NOON/ AFTERNOON/ EVENING/ NIGHT as well.

    QUALIFICATIONS OF HEADACHE THAT BELONG TO ‘ALTERNATING SYMPTOMS’:

    Alternating with : Abdominal and uterine symptoms/

    Alternating with : Asthma/

    Alternating with : Diarrhoea/

    Alternating with : Lumbago/

    Alternating with : Lumbo-sacral region/

    Alternating with : Nausea/

    Alternating with : Oppression of chest/

    Alternating with : Pain in : Abdomen/

    Alternating with : Pain in : Back/

    Alternating with : Pain in : Chest/

    Alternating with : Pain in : Joints/

    Alternating with : Pain in : Loins/

    Alternating with : Pain in : Neck/

    Alternating with : Pain in : Pelvis/

    Alternating with : Pain in : Stomach/

    Alternating with : Pain in : Teeth/

    Alternating with : Prolapsus ani/

    Alternating with : Red sand in urine/

    Alternating with : Stitches in hypochondrium/

    QUALIFICATIONS OF HEADACHE BELONGING TO ‘EXTENSIONS’:

    Extending : To back/

    Extending : Around the head/

    Extending : Cheek/

    Extending : Chest:/

    Extending : Ears/

    Extending : Eyes/

    Extending : Face/

    Extending : Finger tips/

    Extending : Forehead/

    Extending : Jaws/

    Extending : Left side/

    Extending : Limbs, through/

    Extending : Neck/

    Extending : Nose/

    Extending : Nose : Root of nose:/

    Extending : Occiput/

    Extending : Occiput : Right side/

    Extending : Occiput : Left side/

    Extending : Right side:/

    Extending : Scapula/

    Extending : Shoulder/

    Extending : Spine, down/

    Extending : Teeth/

    Extending : Temples/

    Extending : Throat/

    Extending : Tongue/

    Extending : Vertex/

    Extending : Zygoma

    QUALIFICATIONS OF HEADACHE IN RELATION WITH ‘LOCATIONS’:

    Bones/

    Brain, aching deep in/

    Forehead, in/

    Occiput/

    Occiput and Forehead/

    Sides /

    Temples/

    Temples and Forehead/

    Temples and Occiput/

    Vertex/

    Vertex and Forehead/

    QUALIFICATIONS OF HEADACHE IN RELATION WITH ‘PERIODICITY’:

    Periodic headache : Morning : Every/

    Periodic headache : Morning : Every : Every other, on awaking/

    Periodic headache : Morning : On awaking, with vertigo and nausea, also in evening, often amel. by pressure, in open air or by eating/ Periodic headache : Morning : 7 a.m./

    Periodic headache : Morning : 9 a.m. to 1 p.m./

    Periodic headache : Noon to 10 p.m./

    Periodic headache : Afternoon, increasing until midnight; every third attack alternately more or less violent/

    Periodic headache : Afternoon, increasing until midnight; every third attack alternately more or less violent : 2 p.m. to bed time/

    Periodic headache : Afternoon, increasing until midnight; every third attack alternately more or less violent : 4 p.m. to 3 a.m./

    Periodic headache : Day and night/

    Periodic headache : Certain hours, at/

    Periodic headache : Every day/

    Periodic headache : Every day : At same hour/

    Periodic headache : Every day : Continues two or three days/

    Periodic headache : Every day : Earlier each day/

    Periodic headache : Every other day/

    Periodic headache : Every : Seven days/

    Periodic headache : Every : Ten days/

    Periodic headache : Every : Fourteen days/

    Periodic headache : Every : Fourteen days : Lasting two or three days/

    Periodic headache : Every : Six weeks

    QUALIFICATIONS OF HEADACHE IN RELATION WITH ‘MENSES’:

    Menses : Before/

    Menses : Commencement of, at/

    Menses : Commencement of, at : Amel., when flow begins/

    Menses : During/ Menses : During : Amel./

    Menses : Suppressed/

    Menses : After/

    Menses : After : Morning, on awaking, after sudden cessation of/

    Menses : After : Cessation, on/

    Menses : After : Top would fly off, as if/

    QUALIFICATIONS OF HEADACHE IN RELATION WITH ‘SLEEP’:

    Sleep : Before going to/

    Sleep : During/

    Sleep : Morning, second sleep, agg/

    Sleep : Amel./

    Sleep : Falling asleep, on, amel./

    Sleep : After/

    Sleep : After : Amel./

    Sleep : After : Amel./

    Sleep : After : Restless sleep/

    Sleep : Loss of : From late hours/

    Sleep : Loss of : From night watching/

    Sleep : Roused, on being, from/

    Sleep : Siesta, after a:

    QUALIFICATIONS OF HEADACHE RELATED WITH ‘TYPE OF PAINS’:

    Biting/

    Blows, as from/

    Boring, digging, screwing/

    Burning/ Burrowing/ Bursting/

    Come off, pain as if top of head would:/

    Cramping/ Crushed, as if shattered, beaten to pieces/

    Cutting, darting, stabbing/

    Drawing, tightening/

    Dull pain/

    Foreign body, as if/

    Gnawing/ Grasping/

    Grinding/ Griping/ Grumbling/

    Hacking/

    jerking/

    Lancinating/

    Nail, as from a/

    Open, as if/

    Opening and shutting/ Pecking/

    Pinching/

    Plug, peg or wedge, as from a/

    Pressing/

    Pulled, sensation as if hair were/

    Pulling, like/

    Scraped feel amel. on motion, while lying the pain shifts to side lain on/

    Shooting/

    Smarting (compare Soreness)/

    Sore bruised, sensitive to pressure/

    Sprained sensation, back of head/

    Stitching/

    Stunning, stupefying/

    Tearing, rending/ Torn, as if:/

    Twanging, as from breaking a piano string/

    Ulcerative/

    QUALIFICATIONS OF HEADACHE RELATED WITH CONCOMITANTS:

    Confusion mental : With/

    Delirium, with/

    Pains : In back, with//

    Pains : In small of/ Pain in : Neck, with/

    Pain in : Nape of:/ Paroxysmal pains/

    Perspiration : With/

    Unconsciousness, with/

    Unconsciousness, with : And after/

    Unconsciousness, with : On moving/ Uncovering body, from/

    OTHER IMPORTANT QUALIFICATIONS OF HEADACHE:

    Acids, from/

    Air, cold /

    Air, cold : From : Amel./

    Air, cold : From /

    Air, cold : Draft of, from/

    Air, open/

    Air, open : Amel./ Anger, from/

    Animal fluids, from loss of/

    Animal fluids, from loss of : Profuse uterine haemorrhages, after/

    Attention, from too eager/

    Back, pressing up against something hard, amel./

    Ball were beating against the skull on beginning to walk, as if:/

    Bathing : After/

    Bathing : Amel/

    Bathing : Cold/

    Bathing : Sea/ Bed : On going to/

    Bed : Amel./

    Bed : Must leave the/ Beer : From/

    Beer : And bread, agg./

    Bending head : Backward : While/

    Bending head : Backward : Amel./

    Bending head : Backward : Walks with head bent backwards/

    Bending head : Forward/

    Bending head : To painful side, while/

    Bending head : To one side/

    Bending head : To one side : Amel./

    Binding head : From/

    Binding head : From : Amel./

    Binding head : Up the hair/

    Blinding/

    Blindness, followed by violent headache, sight returns as headache becomes worse/

    Blowing nose agg/

    Blows, from/

    Boat, from riding in a/

    Bread : From eating/

    Bread : And beer agg./

    Breakfast : Before/

    Breakfast : Amel./

    Breathing deeply, on : Holding the breath, when/

    Catarrhal/ Chewing, while/

    Chill : Before the/

    Chill : During/

    Chill : After/

    Chilliness, with/

    Choreic persons, in/

    Chronic:/

    Chronic : Old people, of/

    Close eyes, compelled to/

    Closed eyes, as if something/

    Closing eyes : On/

    Clothing about the neck agg./

    Coffee : From/

    Coition/

    Cold applications amel/

    Cold, becoming : From/

    Cold, becoming : From : Feet/

    Cold, becoming : From : Head getting cold, on/

    Cold, from taking/ Combing the hair/

    Company or crowd, while in/

    Concussion, from/

    Confusion mental : Lose senses or go mad, as if would/

    Constant, continued/

    Constant, continued : Fixed, lasts for weeks, months, years, even years, with rare intermission/ Constipated, while/

    Contradiction, after:/ Copper, abuse of/

    Coryza : With/ Coryza : Dry, with/ Coryza : Suppressed, from having a/

    Coughing, on/

    Coughing, on : Amel./

    Cry out, pains compel one to/

    Cutting hair, after/

    Damp houses, living in, from/

    Dancing/ Darkness : Agg/

    Darkness : Amel/

    Dentition, during/

    Descending, on/

    Diarrhoea : With/

    Diarrhoea : Amel./

    Dinner : Before/

    Dinner : After/

    Dinner : Amel., after/

    Dinner : Delayed, from/

    Dreams, after unpleasant/

    Drinking : From/

    Drinking : Cold drinks : From/

    Drinking : Cold drinks : Amel/

    Drinking : Quickly, after/ Drugs, after abuse of/

    Eating : Before/

    Eating : During/

    Eating : During : Amel./

    Eating : After/

    Eating : After : Overeating, after/

    Eating : After : Amel/

    Epileptic attacks, after/

    Epistaxis : After/

    Epistaxis : Amel./

    Eructations amel./

    Excitement of the emotions : After/

    Excitement of the emotions : Depressing or sad news, after Exertion : Of body, etc/

    Exertion : Amel./

    Eyebrows, as if pressing down/

    Face, on moving the/

    Fainting, after/

    Fall, after a/

    Fasting : From:/

    Fasting : If hunger is not appeared at once/

    Fat food, from/

    Flatulency, as if from/

    Flatus, emission of, amel./

    Foot steps/

    Fright, after/

    Frowning : From/

    Frowning : Amel/

    Gastric/

    Grief, from/

    Hammering/

    Hammering : Morning/

    Hammering : Evening, while lying/ Hang down, letting feet:- Puls./

    Hat, from pressure of:/

    Heat : Before the/

    Heat : During the/

    Heat : After the/

    Heat : Amel./

    Heat : Of hand/

    Heated : From becoming/

    Heated : By a fire or stove/

    Heated : Walking, agg. head, but amel. pain of limbs/

    High altitudes, in/

    Hold head and eyes down, must/

    Holding head erect, while/

    Hot drinks agg./

    Hot soup amel./ Hysterical headache/

    Ice cream, after:- Ars., Puls. 39. [Kent]Head /

    Increasing : And decreasing gradually/

    Increasing : And decreasing rapidly/

    Increasing : Gradually, but ceasing suddenly/

    Injuries, mechanical, after/

    Inspiration : During an/

    Inspiration : Deep:/

    Intermittent pains/

    Intoxication, after/

    Iron, from abuse of:/

    Ironing, from:/

    Jar, from any/

    Joy, from excessive/

    Laughing, from/

    Leaning against something : While/

    Leaning against something : Amel./

    Lemonade, from/

    Lie down, must:/

    Lies : With head high/

    Lies : With head low/

    Lies : Prone with head hanging over side of bed/

    Lifting, from/

    Light : In general, from/

    Light : Amel/

    Light : Artificial, from/ Light : Daylight/

    Listening to reading and talking/

    Looking : Fixedly at anything /

    Looking : Fixedly at anything : Amel./

    Looking : Downward : From/

    Looking : Downward : Out of window causes vertigo, anxiety headache and sweat/

    Looking : Sideways : From/

    Looking : Sideways : Amel./

    Looking : Upward : From/

    Looking : Upward : Amel./

    Lying : While/

    Lying : In a dark room /

    Lying : In a dark room : Amel./

    Lying : Abdomen, on, amel., occipital pain/

    Lying : Back, on : While:/

    Lying : Back, on : Amel/

    Lying : Side, on : While/

    Lying : Side, on : Amel./

    Lying : Side, on : Right/

    Lying : Side, on : Right /

    Lying : Side, on /

    Lying : Side, on : Left : Amel./

    Lying : Side, on : Painful side, on:/

    Lying : Side, on : Painful side, on : Amel./

    Lying : Side, on : Painless side, amel./

    Maddening pains/

    Maddening pains : Feeling in brain/

    Measles, after/

    Meat, after/

    Mental exertion : From:/

    Mental exertion : Amel./

    Mercury, from/

    Metallic substances, from abuse of/

    Milk, after drinking/

    Mortification, from/ Motion : From/

    Motion : Amel./

    Motion : Up and down amel./

    Motion : Quick, from/

    Motion : Violent : From:/

    Motion : Violent : Amel./

    Move : On beginning to/

    Move : On beginning to : Amel/

    Move : Pains compel one to/

    Moving : Arms, on/ Moving : Head, on/

    Moving : Head, on : Amel./

    Moving : Eyes/

    Moving : Eyelids/

    Music, from/

    Narcotics, after abuse of:/

    Nervous/

    Nodding the head, on/

    Noise : From/

    Noise : Distant talking, of/

    Noise : Falling water, of/

    Noise : Footsteps/ Noise : Hammer on anvil, of/

    Noise : Rattling of vehicles/

    Noise : Voices especially/ Nursing infant, after/

    Odors : From strong/

    Odors : Alcohol, of/

    Odors : Coffee, of/

    Odors : Dirty clothes, of/

    Odors : Strong and agreeable/

    Old people, of/

    Opening : Mouth/

    Opium, from abuse of/

    Perspiration : During/ Perspiration : After/

    Perspiration : Amel./

    Perspiration : Preceded by headache/

    Perspiration : Suppressed, from/

    Pregnancy, during/ Pressure : External, agg/

    Pressure : Back of neck agg.:- Sec. 181. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Pressure : Cannot bear pressure though it does not agg./

    Pressure : Amel./

    Pressure : Cold hand amel./

    Pressure : Hard, amel./

    Pulsating/ Rain amel./

    Raising : Head:/ Raising : Head : Amel./

    Raising : Arms to head/ Reading : Agg./

    Resting head quietly : On a cushion amel./

    Resting head quietly : On arm : While/

    Resting head quietly : On arm : Amel./

    Resting head quietly /

    Rheumatic/ Riding in a carriage/ Riding in a carriage : Amel./

    Riding in a carriage : Noise and jarring of, agg/

    Riding on : The cars:/

    Riding on : The cars : Amel./

    Rising : Amel./ Rising : After/

    Rising : From lying/

    Rising : From siting/

    Rising : From stooping/

    Rising : From stooping : Amel./

    Rising : Standing position, to amel./

    Rising : Upright, erect/

    Rising : Upright, erect : Amel./

    Room in crowded:/

    Room in crowded /

    Room in crowded : Entering a, on/

    Room in crowded : Pains coming on in room are amel. outdoors and vice versa/

    Rubbing/ Rubbing : Amel/

    Running, from/ Scarlatina, after/

    School girls/

    Scratching amel./

    Sewing/

    Sexual desire : Repression of, after/

    Sexual desire : Excesses, after/

    Sexual desire : After excessive pollutions/

    Shaking head/

    Shaking head : Amel./

    Shopping, from/ Singing, from/

    Sitting/ Sitting : Amel./

    Sitting : Up or erect, amel./

    Sneezing/ Sneezing : Amel./

    Spinning, from/ Spirituous liquors, from/

    Spot, pain in small/ Standing : While/ Standing : Amel./

    Stepping : False step/

    Stepping : Heavily agg./ Stool : From pressing, at/

    Stool : Before/ Stool : After/

    Stool : After : Amel./

    Stooping, from/

    Stooping, from : Amel./

    Straining eyes, from/

    Sudden pains : And go suddenly/

    Sudden pains : Decreasing gradually/

    Sudden pains : During micturition/

    Summer/

    Sun, from exposure to/

    Supper amel./ Suppressed eruptions/ S

    wallowing, when/ Syphilitic/

    Talking : While/ Talking : Amel./

    Talking : Distant/

    Talking : Others, of:/

    Tapping on spine/

    Tea, from/

    Tea, from : Amel./

    Tea, from : Amel./

    Thinking of pain : Amel./

    Thunderstorms : During/ Tobacco, smoking, from/

    Tobacco, smoking, from : Amel./

    Touch/ Touch : On vertex, from/

    Touch : Amel./

    Touching the hair, from/

    Turning : Body/ Turning : In bed/

    Turning head/ Turning head : Quickly/

    Twitching/ Twitching : 1 p.m/

    Twitching : Stooping/

    Twitching : Walking/

    Uncovering body, from/

    Urination : Before, if the call be not attended to/

    Urination : During/ Urination : After/

    Urination : After : Amel./

    Urination : Profuse, amel./

    Vaults, cellars, etc./

    Vertigo, after/ Vexation, after/

    Vinegar : Agg/ Vinegar : Applying, amel./

    Violent pains/

    Violent pains : During the climacteric/

    Violent pains/

    Voice, male, affects brain/

    Vomiting, Amel/

    Vomiting : After/

    Walking : While/ Walking : Compelled to stand or walk/

    Walking in open air : While/

    Walking in open air : Amel./

    Walking in open air : Head erect, with, amel./

    Walking : Rapidly, while/

    Walking : Rapidly, while : In the wind, from/

    Walking : Slowly, while/

    Walking : Slowly, while : Amel./

    Wandering : Pains:/

    Wandering /

    Warm bed/

    Warm room/

    Warm room : Amel./

    Washing : Head, from/

    Washing : Cold water, amel/

    Washing : Feet, amel./

    Water, on hearing running/ Waves of pain/

    Weather : From changes of/

    Weather : Cold/

    Weather : Damp, cold/

    Weather : Dry, cold/

    Weather : Warm : Amel./

    Weather : Windy, stormy, from/

    Weight on the shoulders, from carrying/

    Wet : From getting/

    Wet : From getting : While sweating/

    Wet : Feet, from wetting/

    Wet : Head, from wetting/

    Wind : From exposure to/

    Wind : Cold/

    Wine, from/

    Wine, from : Amel./

    Wine, from /

    Winking/

    Winter headaches/

    Work /

    Work : Amel./

    Work : While doing some disagreeable/

    Worm complaints/ Wrapping up head:/

    Wrapping up head /

    Wrinkling forehead agg./

    Writing, from/

    Yawning : When/

    Yawning : Amel.:- Mur-ac., Nat-m., Staph.

    It is now obvious how much deep we have to explore during case taking for collecting ‘qualifications’ to make a ‘basic symptom’ such as headache a ‘valuable’ ‘complete’ ‘homeopathic symptom’

  • Selecting Similimum Is Very Simple If You Know How To Use Repertory And Materia Medica Judiciously

    ‎”Jealousy a Hyoscyamus patient feels at emotional level is all togather different than a jealousy a snake remedy like Lachesis evokes, which a repertory will not be able to differentiate and there understanding of the kingdom helps.” Says a follower of sankaran.

    According to sankaran, ‘jealousy’ of hyos is only a ‘superficial emotion’, where as in ‘snake poisons’, ‘jealousy’ is a ‘level 5’ vital sensation!

    Actually, A homeopath never prescribes hyos or lach on the basis of ‘jealousy’ only. He can differentiate between these two drugs very easily by comparing other mental, general and particular symptoms expressed by the particular patient. It is very simple for a homeopath who knows how to use repertory and materia medica. Differentiating between hyos and lach becomes an issue only for sankaran’s followers, who try to find similimum on the basis of singular ‘vital sensations’.

    Why should a homeopath worry about ‘differentiating jealousy of hyos and lachesis’, if he knows how to use repertories and materia medica rationally and select a similimum?

    My approach of individualization and deciding similimum is as follows:

    I would use the rubric ‘jealousy’ for this symptom, if it is very prominent/

    [Kent]Mind : JEALOUSY:- Anan., Apis., Calc-p., Calc-s., Camph., Cench., Coff., Gall-ac., Hyos., Ign., Lach., Nux-v., Op., Ph-ac., Puls., Raph., Staph., Stram.

    Then I can ‘eliminate’ drugs from this group, using two or more prominent mentals, generals and particulars expressed by the patient. For example, if patient is aggravated after sleep, I would use the following rubric:

    [Kent]Generalities : SLEEP : After : Agg.:- Acon., Aesc., Ambr., Am-m., Anac., Apis., Arn., Ars., Asaf., Bell., Bor., Bov., Bry., Cadm., Calc., Camph., Carb-s., Carb-v., Caust., Cham., Chel., Chin., Cina., Cocc., Coff., Con., Crot-c., Dig., Euphr., Ferr., Ferr-ar., Graph., Hep., Hyos., Ign., Kali-ar., Kali-c., Kali-p., Kreos., Lac-c., Lach., Lyc., Mag-c., Mur-ac., Naja., Nat-a., Nux-m., Nux-v., Olnd., Op., Paeon., Ph-ac., Phos., Phyt., Puls., Rheum., Rhus-t., Sabad., Samb., Sel., Sep., Spig., Spong., Stann., Staph., Stram., Sulph., Thuj., Verat.

    If the patient is prominently hot generally, I would use this rubric:

    [Kent]Generalities : HOT REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s):- Aesc., All-c., Aloe., Ambr., Apis., Arg-n., Asaf., Aur-i., Aur-m., Bar-i., Bry., Calad., Calc-i., Calc-s., Coc-c., Com., Croc., Dros., Ferr-i., Fl-ac., Grat., Ham., Iod., Kali-i., Kali-s., Lach., Led., Lil-t., Lyc., Nat-m., Nat-s., Nicc., Op., Pic-ac., Plat., Ptel., Puls., Sabin., Sec., Spong., Sul-i., Sulph., Thuj., Tub., Ust., Vesp., Vib.

    After eliminating with these three rubrics, only Lach.(8), Apis.(7), Puls.(7), Op.(4) remain.

    If the patient is very talkative, I will use this rubric:

    [Kent]Mind : LOQUACITY:- Abrot., Acon., Aeth., Agar., Agn., Aloe., Ambr., Anac., Ant-t., Apis., Arg-m., Arn., Ars., Ars-h., Ars-i., Aur., Bapt., Bar-c., Bell., Bor., Bov., Calad., Calc., Camph., Cann-i., Canth., Carb-s., Carl., Caust., Chel., Cimic., Coc-c., Cocc., Coff., Croc., Crot-c., Crot-h., Cupr., Dulc., Eug., Eup-pur., Ferr-m., Ferr-p., Gamb., Gels., Glon., Grat., Guare., Hydrc., Hyos., Iod., Ip., Kali-i., Lach., Lachn., Lil-t., Lyss., Mag-c., Meph., Merc-i-f., Mur-ac., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nicc., Nux-m., Nux-v., Oena., Onos., Op., Par., Petr., Phos., Plb., Podo., Psor., Pyrog., Rhus-t., Sec., Sel., Stann., Staph., Stict., Stram., Sulph., Tab., Tarax., Tarent., Teucr., Thea., Ther., Thuj., Trom., Verat., Viol-o., Zinc.

    Now, the choice is between Apis.(8), Op.(6), Lach.(11)

    If there is underlying grief as causative factor, I can use this rubric:

    [Kent]Mind : GRIEF : Ailments, from:- Am-m., Anac., Ant-c., Apis., Ars., Aur., Calc-p., Caust., Clem., Cocc., Colch., Coloc., Con., Cycl., Gels., Graph., Hyos., Ign., Kali-p., Lach., Lob-c., Lyc., Naja., Nat-m., Nit-ac., Nux-v., Ph-ac., Plat., Puls., Staph., Tarent., Verat.

    Now, only Lach.(14), Apis.(10) remain.

    If the patient dislikes company, I can use this rubric:

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

    Now, Only LACHESIS (16) remains.

    I will then go through the materia medica of LACHESIS and verify whether it agrees with all other important symptoms given by the patient.

    This is the most ideal, simple, homeopathic way of differentiating between drugs to reach a similimum. We need not worry about ‘kingdoms’, or ‘levels of sensations’. Why should sankaran and his followers make this process a complex exercise and confuse young homeopaths?

  • How Homeopathy Works? A ‘Working Hypothesis’ That Could Be Verified Using Scientific Methods

      DIALECTICAL HOMOEOPATHY

    The Simple Science of Homeopathic Therapeutics

    In this article, I do not endeavor to answer the most commonly asked question whether homeopathy works. It is an already well answered question, even though skeptics go on asking it again and again only to discredit homeopathy. According to my long years of experience with homeopathy, I am fully convinced it works beyond any doubt. However, all those millions of  ‘clinical evidences’ we provide will be ‘acceptable’ to scientific community, only when we succeed in explaining and proving ‘how it worked’. Here I am trying to address the question ‘how homeopathy works’, since I consider it as the most vital point to be resolved first. To be recognized as a branch of medical science, I think we have to be successful in explaining the molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics in a way fitting to the existing modern scientific knowledge system, and proving our explanations according to scientific methods.

    I know, whatever be the experiences, claims and explanations of homeopathic community, scientific community still considers homeopathy as ‘pseudo-science’. Wikipedia says: “Homeopathy is a system of alternative medicine based on the belief in giving a patient with symptoms of an illness extremely dilute remedies that are thought to produce those same symptoms in healthy people. These preparations are often diluted beyond the point where any treatment molecule is likely to remain. Studies of homeopathic practice have been largely negative or inconclusive. No scientific basis for homeopathic principles has been substantiated”.

    For the last 250 years since its inception, homeopathic theoreticians were trying to explain the ‘modus operandi’ of potentized homeopathic medicines using one or other hypotheses available or evolved by them. They go on spinning diverse types of fanciful ‘theories’ using ‘ultra-scientific’ jargons, that make homeopathy a piece of unending mockery before the scientific community. Actually, nobody could so far even propose a scientifically viable ‘working hypothesis’ about homeopathy, that could be presented as a reasonable candidate for verifications according to scientific methods.

    Homeopaths falsely claim all their fanciful ideas and explanations to be ‘theories’ and ‘hypotheses’. Scientifically, the term ‘hypothesis’ means a ‘proposed explanation’ or “educated guess” for a phenomenon that we observe around us. Every ‘proposed explanation’ cannot be considered a ‘scientific hypothesis’. To be a ‘scientific hypothesis’, the scientific method requires that one can test the hypothesis using available scientific tools and methodology. Every new scientific hypotheses are generally based on previous observations that could not be satisfactorily be explained with the existing scientific theories. The words “hypothesis” and “theory” are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, even though a ‘scientific hypothesis’ is not exactly the same as ‘a scientific theory’. A hypothesis should be proved ‘using scientific tools’ in order to become a scientific theory.

    A ‘working hypothesis’ is a provisionally accepted hypothesis that is ready to be proved. Experimenters will have to test and reject several hypotheses before solving the given problem ultimately. Testability (using existing scientific tools), Simplicity (avoiding excessive numbers of entities), Scope (apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena), Fruitfulness (hypothesis may help to explain further phenomena in the future), and Conservatism (fitting with existing recognized knowledge-systems) are considered to be the essential qualities of a good scientific ‘working’ hypothesis.

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

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

    Such a ‘working hypothesis’, over and above the aforesaid qualifications, should also be immediately useful to the practitioner, because homeopathy is a therapeutic art of practical implications. Besides lending the essential scientific credibility to the homeopathic paradigm, any hypothesis we propose should try to meet some practical utility criteria as a minimum requirement.

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

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

    Any working hypothesis about homeopathy should clearly identify a ‘biological mechanism’ that represents the action-reaction homeostasis of ‘vital processes’, and explain the molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics on that basis, instead of the unscientific  ‘vital force’ theory in homeopathy. Such an explanation  should be fitting to the verified scientific paradigm of modern biochemistry and molecular biology.

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

    I think it would be helpful at this point, if I provide a abstract of the ‘working hypothesis regarding how homeopathy works’ proposed by Dialectical Homeopathy:

    As per the concepts proposed by Dialectical Homeopathy, homeopathic potentization involves a process of ‘molecular imprinting’. This is exactly similar to modern technology of ‘molecular imprinting in polymers’ done in polymer chemistry. Essentially, ‘molecular imprinting’ is a way of creating recognition sites in polymeric materials. Only difference is that instead of polymers, homeopathy utilizes water/ethyl alcohol mixture as the imprinting matrix.

    Our concept of ‘molecular imprinting in water’ is based on the available knowledge regarding supra-molecular properties of water, hydrogen bonding, water clusters, clathrate phenomenon etc. Water exhibits some ‘polymer-like’ properties at supra-molecular level, which make it an ideal medium for molecular imprinting. Individual constituent drug molecules act as ‘guest’ molecules and water/ethyl alcohol molecules act as the ‘host molecules’ in this imprinting protocol. Through the process of serial dilution and succussion, water/ethyl alcohol molecules forms supra-molecular clusters, into which the configuration of individual ‘guest’ molecules are imprinted as 3D nanocavities, which are exactly complementary in shape to the ‘guest’ molecules.

    Dialectical Homeopathy tries to explain homeopathic therapeutics utilizing the modern scientific understanding of molecular kinetics of bio-molecular interactions. According to this view the phenomenon of ‘life’ consists of complex chains of inter-dependant biochemical pathways called ‘vital processes’ which are mediated by diverse types of protein molecules. There is no ‘life’ with out these bio-molecular interactions and conversions. According to the role they play, molecules participating in these chemical processes are called either ‘ligands’ or ‘targets’. Any bio-molecular interaction takes place in two distinct stages. In the first stage, ‘functional group’ of a ‘ligand’ molecule identifies an appropriate  ‘target’ molecule having a configuration complementary to it, and binds to it. Second stage involves the real chemical interaction, which is determined by the specific charges carried by ‘ligand’ and ‘target’. Foreign molecules having ‘functional groups’ having configuration identical to ‘ligands’, with out appropriate charge affinity, can ‘mimic’ as the real ligands and bind to the targets, with out any chemical interaction or molecular conversion taking place. This phenomenon of incomplete molecular interactions plays a great role in pathological molecular blocks.

    Homeopathic therapeutics utilizes this ‘key-lock’ mechanism involved in ‘ligand-target’ interactions. ‘Molecular imprints’ prepared in water/alcohol matrix  with configuration complementary to the pathogenic molecules are used to bind them and inactivate them, thereby effecting a therapeutic action. ‘Molecular imprints’ of drug molecules are the real active factors of potentized drugs. When introduced into the organism, due to the complementary relationship, these ‘imprints’ can bind to ‘pathogenic’ molecules having configuration similar to the original drug molecules used for imprinting. By this process, the biological molecules are relieved from the molecular blocks created by pathogenic molecules, thereby rectifying the pathologic molecular deviations happened in the biochemical pathways.

    Let biological molecules be represented by ‘M’, and pathogenic molecules or xenobiotics by D.

    Xenobiotics and pathological molecules bind to biological molecule M to form a pathological molecular complex MD. MD represents a pathological molecular error.

    Therapeutic process involves with relieving of M from D.

    Let crude drug molecules be represented by ‘D1’, If  D1 can produce symptoms similar to pathological symptoms produced by D, that means D and D1 has similar molecular configuration, and they could attack same biological molecules and create similar  molecular errors in the organism. We say D1 is similimum to MD which is caused by D.

    Molecular imprints of D1 may be represented by ‘d’, with a 3D configuration complementary to D1.

    If D1 is siimilimum to D, molecular imprints ‘d’ will be having complementary relationship to D also.

    When applied as a therapeutic agent, ‘d’ can specifically bind to D of the MD (pathological complex) to form Dd (xenobiotic-imprint complex) , thereby  relieving M from pathologic molecular blocks.

    M+D > MD = Pathology

    If D1 is similimum to D, and ‘d’ is ‘molecular imprint’ of D1,

    ‘d’ will be complementary to D1 and D.

    Then,

    MD+d> M+Dd

    M is free now (Cured)

    Dd  is now bio-degraded or eliminated from the system.)

    This is the proposed molecular mechanism involved in homeopathic therapeutics. This concept is logically and scientifically explained in this article in detail.

     Re-Building Homeopathy- A Historical Mission

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

    I would like to entitle this emerging scientific version as DIALECTICAL HOMEOPAHY, since this reclaiming is essentially achieved utilizing the theoretical tools of dialectical methodology. DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY is basically an innovative and positive enhancement of classical Hahnemanian Homeopathy, and as such, may be considered as its ‘dialectical negation’ at large. Historically, it represents a qualitatively higher stage in the natural evolutionary growth and maturation of Homeopathy. ‘Dialectical’ also indicates its readiness to open up to new ideas, and engage in creative dialogue with other scientific disciplines. It advocates to discard all forms of dogmatism existing in homeopathy. Whereas ‘Homeopathy’ is the ‘seed’, ‘Dialectical Homeopathy’ is the emerging ‘seedling’- that much similar, that much different.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    On the other side of the matter, certain unscientific and dogmatic concepts and notions still  dominate the mindset of many who work in the field of Homeopathy today. Many of them proudly claim that they are strict  followers of  Hahnemann,  and Hahnemann alone. We can meet ‘Classical Homeopaths’ who hesitate even to refer to any book other than those written by Dr. Hahnemann.  They raise questions about the ‘scientificness’ of modern science, and engage in ‘scholarly’ discourses regarding the futility of science and scientific method! They declare themselves to be practitioners of what they call ‘True Homeopathy’. They are not real followers, but only worshippers of Samuel Hahnemann. For them, Hahnemann is omnipotent and omniscient like a God! They will not tolerate any attempt of additions or deletions to what the master has said regarding homeopathy two hundred years back. According to them, homeopathy is the only ‘ultimate’  ‘scientific’ therapeutic system, and all other medical systems are absolutely ‘unscientific’. We also meet certain clever guys who try to sell homeopathy maximum through their own private outlets, by assigning attractive trade labels such as ‘predictive’, ‘true’, ‘pure’, ‘classical’, ‘expert’, ‘elite’ and so on.  Still another set of people ‘strive’ in vain to make homeopathy ‘competent’ to vie with modern medicine, by establishing commercial corporate networks of high-tech ‘super speciality  clinics’, pretending themselves to be Homeo Pediatricians,  Homeo Psychologists, Homeo Gynecologists and many other specialities. Are not those people trying to fool the public and themselves by enacting such absurd drama, whereas it is well known that, being a holistic system of therapeutics, there is very limited scope for such specialities in Homeopathy.  Recently, I have even had a chance to interact with an ‘elite class’ young homeopath, declaring himself to be a follower of a new ‘predictive’ school in homeopathy, exclaiming that the theory of ‘similia similibus curentur’ is outdated, and he no longer requires any Repertory or Materia Medica to practice his ‘scientific’ brand of homeopathy! Making the scenario still worse and hopeless, all sorts of unscientific and unethical commercial patented formulations are flooding the market, in the guise of “Scientific Homeopathy”. The  irony is that all these people of various colors and clowns are claiming themselves to be the  only ‘true’ disciples of a great Genius, who displayed the intellectual courage to  reform and re-write  his own ‘Organon of Medicine’  six times in his life time, as part of his unrelenting quest for truth and perfection. As this undeniable historical truth remains, it is a pity to note that people who claim themselves to be the ardent followers of the great Master, are shutting their doors on the face of all new knowledge and  scientific enlightenment with such hideous tenacity.

     The Parallel Road Pursued by Hahnemann

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

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

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

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

    Material Basis of Vital Processes

    Modern Science has already unraveled many fundamental facts regarding the ‘chemistry of life’, crucial in exploring the secrets of the biological phenomena of life, health, illness, cure and death. To take up the task of providing scientific explanations to the theory of ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’, it is imperative that we should be well equipped with a clear understanding about these  fundamental facts.

    By the term ‘living organism’, we indicate a material system with a specific  quantity, quality, structure and functions of its own, which is capable of self-controlled growth and reproduction of its progeny, by accepting matter and energy from its environment. The phenomenon of life exists through a continuous chain of highly complex biochemical interactions which control each other, depend up on each other and are determined by each other. A ‘living organism’ represents a much higher and advanced level of existence of the same elements of matter we meet in the inorganic world,  different only in its structural organization and functional complexity. The universal phenomenon of material motion we find as part of primary existence of matter itself, attains the wonderful qualities of life, due to this complex structural organization. In fact, ‘life’ is the result of a continuous evolutionary process of primary matter in this universe through millions of years, attaining different levels of organizational and functional forms. Primary forces, sub-atomic particles, elementary atoms, simple chemical  molecules, complex inorganic molecules, carbon containing organic molecules, bio-molecules, complex bio-polymers, RNA-DNA-Protein structures, organelles, unicellular organisms, multi-cellular organisms, diverse species of plants and animals, and ultimately Homo Sapiens- these are the prominent milestones in the known evolutionary ladder on earth, panning through millions and millions of years. Human beings represents the highest form of this material evolutionary history on earth, as far as it is known to us. Parallel to this biological evolution, we can perceive a systematic evolution and perfection of the nervous system also. Simple forms of conditioned reflexes that existed in primitive organisms, gradually evolved into nerve cells, neural networks and ultimately into a well organized nervous system in higher animals. In higher forms of life such as humans, this nervous system has attained such a structural and functional perfection that human brain and its diverse faculties have begun playing a decisive role even in the existence and development of that species and even life on earth itself. Of course, collective labor, language and social relations also played a major role in this evolutionary process.

    A living organism can exist only through a continuous interaction with its environment. There is an unceasing flow of matter and energy in both directions,  between internal and external environments of the organism. Metabolism, or ‘life process’ is the term used to describe the sum total of this flow. The moment this bi-directional flow of matter and energy ceases, the organism can no longer exist.

     Chemistry of Life

     A living organism is distinguished from other non-living forms of matter by certain fundamental features such as: high level of structural organization, the ability to convert and utilize energy, continuous material exchange with environment, self regulation of chemical transformations, and,  reproduction or transfer of hereditary information. A state of disease may ensue when any of the bio-chemic channels governing these fundamental factors of life are disturbed.  Obviously, it is impossible to make a scientific study of pathology and therapeutics without an understanding of these subjects.

    Complex bio-molecules which participate in the diverse chemical processes of life are broadly classified into four major groups: Proteins, Carbohydrates, Lipids and Nucleic Acids. These are polymers of simple chemical components or sub units, called monomers. The monomers of proteins are amino acids, and those of carbohydrates are  monosaccharides. Lipids are polymers of fatty  acids. The monomers of Nucleic acids are known as nulcleotides. These bio-molecules are considered to be the building blocks of life on earth, and are never seen in the non-living world. These bio-molecules, with their highly complex structure and organization, interact each other in the organism through hundreds of bio-chemic pathways, collectively called ‘vital processes’.

    Importance of Proteins and Enzymes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Homeopathy has devised its own method of closely following even the minutest deviations in the biochemical processes in the organism, through a special strategy of monitoring and recording the perceivable symptoms caused by such deviations. Obviously, deviations in a particular biochemical pathway resulting from such a nano-level molecular inhibition produces a specific train of subjective and objective symptoms in the organism. In other words, each specific group of symptoms exhibited by the organism indicates a particular error occurred in the molecular level. Homoeopathy chases these train of symptoms to their minutest level, from periphery to interior, in order to study the exact molecular errors underlying any particular state of pathology. Not even the sophisticated tools of ultra-modern technologies can monitor those molecular errors with such perfection. Then, those pathological molecular inhibitions are removed by applying appropriate therapeutic agents, selected on the basis of ‘law of similars’ or ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’. This fundamental strategy underlying the homeopathic system of therapeutics evidently surpasses even the most scientific methods of modern molecular medicine. It is high time that the scientific world had realized and recognized this  truth, and incorporated this wonderful tool into their armamentarium. Obviously, “similia similibus curentur” is the most effective technique of  identifying and removing the pathological molecular inhibitions in the organism.

     Symptoms – Indicators of Biochemical Processes

     We time and again hear our critics sarcastically declaring that homeopaths indulge in a totally unscientific way of medical practice, considering the external symptoms alone, and accuse that the basic causes of diseases are not dealt with in homoeopathic treatment. ‘Homoeopaths treat only the symptoms, not the disease’- they say. Even now these learned friends utterly fail to understand the logic of homoeopathy, and the fact that it is a highly scientific method of therapeutics.  The subjective and objective symptoms presented by the organism are the only reliable indicators to help us correctly understand the minute molecular deviations underlying a state of pathology. Each group or train of symptoms represent a specific molecular error that had occurred in a particular biochemical pathway. These symptoms invariably indicates the specific type and character of the endogenic or exogenic foreign molecules  or ions responsible for the particular molecular inhibition. By studying the train of symptoms carefully and systematically, homoeopaths are  really observing  these exact molecular inhibitions. This symptomatology-based analytical method of homoeopathy  is far more exact and superior to the multitude of expensive complex laboratory chemical tests and imaging technologies we consider to be scientific. Identifying the exact molecular errors in the organism of the patient by observing the expressed symptoms, and identifying the most appropriate therapeutic agents from the similarity of symptoms the drugs  could produce in healthy organism- this is the scientific essence of “similia similibus curentur”.

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

     Logic of Drug proving

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

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

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

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

    Potentizaton

     All the major controversies related with homeopathy are essentially concerned with its theory and method of potentization of drugs. Homeopathic potencies or dilutions are made by adding crude drugs with sugar of milk or a mixture of ethyl alcohol and water,  and subjecting to  a peculiar serial mechanical process involving so-called Trituration, Dilution and Succussion. These homeopathic potencies are prepared mainly in three series known as Decimal, Centesimal and Millecimal. These are dilutions in the multiples of ten, hundred and million respectively. Homoeopathy claims that even objects which are comparatively inert chemically, turn into very potent  medicines through this some what simple mechanical process. As per homeopathic theoreticians, “inherent dynamic medicinal energy” of drug substances are “released” by this process of potentization. The modern scientific world not only  refuses to accept this concept, but they are very much reluctant even to consider this theory worth serious discussions. Most of the scientific personalities always prefer to make it a mockery when talking about this concept of homeopathic potentization. The biggest intellectual challenge homeopathy face today is to explain and demonstrate this process of potentization in such a rational and convincing way that modern science could understand and experiment it using their tools and methodology.

    We should realize that there is no much scope for our habitual empty pseudo-philosophical theorizations any more, trying ever to keep homeopathy as a “mystical science”. We cannot save homeopathy merely hiding behind centuries-old hypothetical explanations and hollow verbal exercises. We have no other go but to demonstrate and explain our fundamental principles scientifically, and answer the following questions: What really happens at ‘material’ level during the process of potentisation?  What are the active principles in the potentized medicines? How these potentized medicines exactly influence the biochemical processes and relieve the pathological molecular inhibitions? Only when these fundamental questions are answered satisfactorily, will homoeopathy be accepted and crowned as part of a rational scientific system of mainstream medical art.

    Several attempts had been  made so far by many, to explain the phenomenon of potentization and similimum. Almost all of those  theoretical experts of homeopathy so far claim that some mysterious ‘dynamic power’ contained in the medicinal substance is liberated through the process of potentization,  and that this dynamic power which remains in some sort of ‘non-material’, ‘non-corporeal’, ‘spirit-like’ form acts up on the  dynamic ‘vital force’ of the patient in some ‘mysterious’ way and  effects a cure. According to them, both disease and cure takes place not in the material level, but in a mysterious ‘dynamic’ level. They try to introduce a concept of a medicinal power and a vital force which are beyond any scope of analysis and explanation  through the known tools and methodologies of material sciences. They talk about a medicinal force and a vital force which exist and interact on some unknown super-material level. At least, we have to understand that it will never be possible for us to convincingly present homoeopathy as a branch of scientific medicine with the help of such ‘supernatural’ and ‘dynamic’ explanations,  which is far from a rational and scientific world outlook.

    Yet another class of ‘experts’ shock us with their ‘scientific’ explanation of homoeopathy, declaring that some mysterious sub atomic particles are released during the process of potentization. They confuse people by using all the complex vocabulary of “quantum physics” to establish the most unscientific concepts in the guise of homeopathy. It is really an absurdity not even a primary school student can tolerate, to hear that atomic division is possible through such a very simple mechanical process like potenlization. Further, it is very unlikely that those people who talk about atomic energy in homoeopathic medicines had ever thought about how the simple sub-atomic particles  could preserve and exhibit the specific medicinal properties of highly complex drug molecules subjected to potentization.

    It is only a primary knowledge of any student of physics that an object loses its gross molecular level properties when it is divided into atoms, and loses even the atomic level properties when atoms are divided in to sub-atomic particles. It is beyond any comprehension and common sense how the individual medicinal properties of complex drug molecules can be preserved and exhibited by simple sub-atomic particles they contain, as our ‘scientific’ interpreters of homoeopathic potentization try to ‘prove’.  All the similar particles at sub-atomic level are same, whether they come from nux vomica or sulphur or gold. Such irrational ‘pseudo scientific’ arguments only help in making Homoeopathy a subject of unending mockery. We   should always  bear in mind the fact that such a simple mechanical process involved in homoeopathic  potentization can never effect any atomic division at all. Only division we can imagine is ionization of atoms and molecules during this mechanical process. In a knowledge-based society having clear understanding about  various forms of energy and forces, our slippery talk about  mysterious ‘dynamic medicinal energy’ and ‘dynamic vital force’ has no any relevance in a scientific dialogue. Let us hope that common sense will prevail on all the concerned.

    According to proven laws of chemistry, the number of molecules contained in one gram mol quantity of any substance is 6.0221367 x1023. This number is known as  Avogadro’s constant. Since the molecular weight of oxygen is 32, 32gms of oxygen will contain 6.0221367 x1023 molecules of oxygen. That means, number of molecules contained in one gram of oxygen will be (6.0221367 x 1023)/32.  It is evident that,  as the structure of individual molecules become more complex, and their molecular weight increase,  the number of molecules contained in one gram of that substance gets proportionally reduced.

    If the drug substances contain large complex molecules with high molecular weight, the limits of Avogadro’s  number will be crossed  even before the process of potentization  reaches 10th dilution in the centesimal scale.  If the drug molecules are simple and small in size, this may happen above 20th dilution or so. As hydrogen is the smallest molecule, with least molecular weight, it will be the last to cross the Avogadro limit during dilution process. It is evident from calculations that in a homeopathic potency above 23C,  which is very much diluted than the Avogadro limit, not even a single molecule of the original drug is likely to remain. It will contain only the molecules of water and alcohol used as the medium of potentization, along with some probable contaminants.  30C potency means the drug is diluted in a ratio of 1:1000000000000000000000000000000. In the case of 200C,  this is 1: 1X1200. Even though we name those highly diluted preparations using labels such as sulphur, mercury etc, which were used to start the process of dilution, the undeniable truth remains that they contain not a single atom of those substances. Same time, the fact remains that we successfully utilize those ultra dilutions to cure diseases, according to our therapeutic law: ‘similia similibus curentur’. We are obliged to prove how it works, and provide a reasonable  explanation for this mysterious riddle, if we hope homeopathy has to be finally acceptable to the modern scientific world.

    Whatever the critics of  homeopathy may say, we are fully confident of the fact that these highly diluted homeopathic preparations exhibit specific medicinal properties. These preparations can be effectively used as therapeutic agents on the basis of the principle of ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’. These facts are regularly being proved beyond doubt in everyday experience by thousands of homeopaths all over the world. It has been also proved in various controlled in vitro tests in the laboratories. The sarcastic comments of our opponents  that ‘homeo medicines act only as placebos’ may be dismissed as expressions of their arrogance resulting from ‘scientific ignorance’ regarding matters happening outside the dominion of their comprehension. Actually, these off-hand sarcastic comments about homeopathy points to certain limitations of existing scientific thought and the methodology they follow. Even in such a case, we are bound to convince the scientific community, how these highly diluted preparations preserve and exhibit the ‘reverse’ therapeutic properties of original drugs, even in the complete  absence  of  their molecules.  We should realize that it is of no particular use, trying to evade from this obligation by labeling this phenomenon with non-specific phrases such as ‘dynamic force’ or the like, which even the die-hard homeopaths fail to fully comprehend.

    It is obvious that during the initial process of ‘trituration’, the complex molecules contained in the drug substances probably get liberated themselves from their inter-molecular bonds and get ionized, when they are mixed with crystals of ‘sugar of milk’ and subjected to strong molecular friction. These ionized drug molecules thus attains a full expression of their chemical and biological properties, and become more virulent than the tightly packed original molecules. The secret of even those substances which seem to be chemically inert,  turning into potent  medicinal agents through the process of  homeopathic trituration may be  due to the liberation and ionization of individual molecules contained in those drugs.

    But, apart from low potencies, we cannot explain the medicinal properties of the highly diluted homeopathic potencies even on the  basis of ionization. Or liberation of individual drug molecules. There is least chances of even a single molecule of the drug substance  still  remaining in those preparations. More over, the medicinal properties exhibited by these high potency dilutions are exactly reverse to the medicinal properties of  the same drug substances in crude forms. Homeopathic potencies are capable of removing disease symptoms that are ‘similar’ to those produced by the original drugs  substance during drug proving. It means that homeopathic potenices act not exactly as original drugs, but in an exactly reverse direction. Any theory we put forward regarding potentization should also be capable of explaining this peculiar phenomenon. The fact that the higher potencies behave somewhat like antidotes towards their original drug substances obviously indicates that properties of drug substances are somehow transferred into the medium in a some what reverse order during the process of potentization. This important observation gives us certain vital clues in solving the whole mystery.

    Homeopathic potencies are prepared using a special medium of water and ethyl alcohol, mixed in in a particular ratio. (60 power rectified spirit- density 0.8298). This mixture contains is 87% w/w of ethyl alcohol, and the remaining part is water. The wonder is that, it has been proven through minute chemical analysis, that even after  the process of potentisation is completed, the mixture still remained simply water and alcohol in the same initial proportion. In other words, The medium used for potentization, and the product of potentization are similar in chemical structure. The hardest challenge we face is, how to explain the diverse specific medicinal properties and therapeutic effects exhibited by these potentized preparations, having  only a chemical structure of simple alcohol-water mixture. It is imperative that a satisfactory answer to this question should given at least to the people who do not have any doubts regarding the therapeutic capabilities  of homeopathic potencies.

    Another important factor we have to note is that the therapeutic properties of  potentized homeopathic preparations are found to be lost by the influence of certain physical forces such as violent motion, strong magnetic fields, powerful light, excessive heat, electricity, and other electro-magnetic radiations. Every homeopath  would have observed this phenomenon during his clinical experience. It means that the medicinal properties of homeopathic  potencies are preserved in such a particular form that can be adversely affected by above said physical influences. It is evident from this observation that through the process of potentization, the water-alcohol mixture attains some sort of  physical transformations that can be reversed by certain physical influences described above. Obviously, it is through this transformations  of purely physical nature, without any chemical changes happening, that the therapeutic properties of the original drug substance are transferred into the alcohol-water mixture in a reverse order. With the help of modern material sciences, we have to inquire into the exact mechanism of this physical transformations, so that we can solve the riddle of homeopathic potentization once and for ever.

    It should be especially noted that the therapeutic properties of homeopathic potencies are exactly reverse to the medicinal properties of original drug molecules used for potentization. Diseases with symptoms similar to those produced by a drug substance during proving are cured by the potentized form of the same drug. Since no chemical changes take place in the alcohol-water mixture during potentization, we can conjecture that changes happens only at the level of the physical formations. More over, these physical transformations occurring in the nanoscopic level  are liable to be reversed by the influence of above-said physical forces.  As a result of this nanoscopic physical transformations happened  through potentization, the alcohol-water mixture attains the capacity to interfere in the biochemical processes in the living organism, resulting in desired therapeutic effects.  It can be proven by simple experiments that the rate of evaporation, solubility, surface tension, spectrosopic analysis  etc, of alcohol-water mixture before and after potentization are different. It indicates that, though the chemical structure of water-alcohol mixture remains the same, some changes have occurred in the supra-molecular level as a result of potentization. Key to the mystery of homeopathy may be available by pursuing these primary observations in scientific directions.

    What is the exact character and dynamics of this physical transformations occurring in the alcohol-water mixture during potentization?  How is the information regarding the medicinal properties of drug molecules encoded into these physical formations, and preserved even without the presence of a single original drug molecule?  What is the exact molecular dynamics of therapeutic action of these highly diluted preparations? How they interfere in the bio-chemic interactions of an organism, thereby removing the specific pathologic molecular inhibitions? The future of homeopathy and medical sciences at large, depends on the answers we provide for these fundamental questions. With apology, the author dares to delve into the depth of these vital issues, equipped with his very limited resources.

    This search into the mysteries of homeopathic potentization inevitably leads us to the study of the wonderful physical  and chemical properties of water and alcohol, which constitute the medium used to prepare the ultra dilute preparations.  Water is the the most common and abundant mineral on earth. We may begin our discussion by looking into the wealth  of information already collected by modern material sciences on this subject.

     Water- its Role in Potentization

     Until recently, we knew precious little about various miraculous properties of water, though we find it in plenty around us, and utilize freely in our everyday life. Even the highly equipped scientific community has begun to turn its serious attention to the minute level study of water only in recent times. The secrets being revealed in these studies are really amazing, and may help us in solving the mysteries haunting homeopathic potentization.

    Around seventy percent of the surface of earth is covered with water. 45-70% of human body mass consist of water. This ratio slightly changes with age, and it may be said that human body becomes more and more dry with aging. 30-40 %  of  water contained in our body is seen in the intra-cellular fluid,12-16% as extra-cellular , and 5 % in blood plasma. 2% of water is in lymph,  and 1-3% in different body cavities. This wide spread presence of water in the living body indicates the paramount  importance of its role in various  biological processes. About 2 litters of water enters our body  from outside, along with food every day. A small quantity of water is produced in the body itself as a by-product of  metabolism.

    As far as we know, life cannot exist without water. It is considered that the phenomenon of life originated on this earth only because of the presence of water. All the biochemical processes  in the organism take place with the involvement of water. In the absence of water, essential biological molecules such as proteins and DNA undergo structural changes, and become inactivated. Water is the essential condition of existence of life. Liquid water has importance as a solvent, a solute, a reactant and a biomolecule, structuring proteins, nucleic acids and cells and controlling our consciousness. The complex three dimensional formations of protein molecules, which are much important in their biological functioning, is due to the hydration properties of water.

    Why this simple hydrogen oxide(H2O), which is formed by the union of two hydrogen atoms and a single oxygen atom happen to play such a crucial role in the origin and existence of life? What are the factors that make water distinct from other similar chemical compounds such as hydrogen sulphide?

    The answers to this question lies in the wonderful physico–chemical properties of water, arising from its peculiar super-molecular structure. Water is a solvent with higher polarity than similar liquids. H–O–H have  bond angle of 105 degrees. That means, water molecule is a dipole. Because of this peculiarity, water molecules can exist like a super-molecular network by forming hydrogen bonds between themselves. A minimum number of five water molecules will be contained in this network. Such five-molecule formations are called ‘pentamers’. Most of the wonderful properties of water arise from this capacity of peculiar hydrogen bonding and supra-molecular formations.

    A lot of research work is recently undertaken all over the world regarding the phenomenon of peculiar supra-molecular formations of water. The uncommon physico– chemical properties of water are the result of this  poly-molecular structure at supra-molecular level. Water becomes an essential material for the existence of life on earth, by its strange properties such as high polarity, anomalous expansion,  anomalous boiling and melting points, high viscosity, surface tension, thermal storage capacity, high specific heat, hydration properties etc.

    Water molecules(H2O) are symmetric (point group C2ν), with two mirror planes of symmetry and a 2-fold rotation axis. The hydrogen atoms in this molecule may possess parallel or anti-parallel nuclear spin. The water molecule consists of two light hydrogen atoms(H) and a relatively heavy oxygen atom(O). The approximately 16-fold difference in mass between hydrogen and oxygen gives ease of rotation, and the significant relative movements of the hydrogen nuclei, which are in constant and significant relative movement.

    Although not often perceived as such, water is a very reactive molecule at a high concentration. This reactivity of water molecules, however, is greatly moderated at ambient temperatures due to the extensive hydrogen bonding between them. Water molecule possess a strongly nucleophilic oxygen atom that enables it for many of its biological functions, as well as ionizing to produce reactive hydrogen and hydroxide ions. Reduction of the hydrogen bonding at high temperatures, or due to electromagnetic fields, results in greater reactivity of the water molecules. ‘Magnetized’ water will be more reactive, with strange properties. Much experienced phenomenon of loss of medicinal properties of homeopathic potencies, when subjected to influence of magnetic fields and electrical fields could be well explained now. This also gives an indication to the role of hydrogen bonding in potentization.

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

     Hydrogen Bonding

     Essentially, ‘hydrogen bonding’ is a special type of dipole force. It is a force of attraction formed between partially charged atoms being  part of different molecules. The reason for this bonding is the partial positive charge attained by hydrogen. Hydrogen is capable of establishing similar bonds with the atoms of nitrogen, fluorine and oxygen. That is to say that the basis of hydrogen bonding is the attraction between one hydrogen atom which is part of a molecule which is attached to oxygen or nitrogen and  oxygen or nitrogen which remains part of another molecule. This force is less powerful than the covalent bonds which keeps the atoms inside molecule bound together. But it may be strange that these less powerful bonds are responsible for the wonderful physico–chemical properties and biological relevance of water.

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

    The presence of ethyl alcohol in water is considered as a factor reducing the rate of protonation/deprotonation processes, thereby enhancing the stability of hydration shells. Importance of using water-ethanol mixture for homeopathic potentization is self-explained here.

    It has been already stated that hydrogen bond strength can also be affected by electromagnetic and magnetic effects.

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

    It has to be verified whether the violent succussion and rotatory motion done during potentization procedure any how plays a role in polarization of molecules, thereby reducing the hydrogen bond lengths, and  increasing the stability of hydration shells formed.

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

    Role of Ethyl Alcohol in Potentization

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

    Medium used for homoeopathic potentization is  a mixture  containing 87% w/w of alcohol and 13% w/w of water.  In this ratio, the number of alcohol molecules will be about more than that of of water molecules.  Rectified spirit is an azeotrope containing 95% alcohol and 5%water.  Such a ratio will be very suitable for the production of stable hydration shells. More over, the presence of ethyl alcohol in water is considered as a factor reducing the rate of protonation/deprotonation processes, thereby enhancing the stability of hydration shells. This may further explain the importance of water-ethyl alcohol mixture being used as the medium of homoeopathic potentization.

    Role of Silica (Silicon Dioxide) in Potentization?

    It should be specially noted that the vessels and utensils used for potentization are made of high quality glass or porcelain, which contains large quantities of Silica (Silicon Dioxide). Chances of silica particles liberated into the medium during the process of trituration, succussion and potentization of drugs have to be seriously considered. Studies have proved that potentized homeopathic preparations contain trace quantities of silica. Silica is hence considered to be an unavoidable contaminant we have to cope with.

    Certain recent studies regarding the properties of silica indicates that this factor has to be considered from another angle. Chances of silica particles playing a role in the molecular imprinting process during potentization cannot be ruled out at present. The peculiar molecular structure and physico chemical properties of silica proposes such a role. It has been noted that homeopathic potencies prepared using utensils made of material other than silica glass are of low quality. Anyhow, more research is required on these lines.

    Molecular Memory Of  Water

    ‘Molecular memory of water’ is a rarely understood phenomenon, and is a subject of much controversies and speculations in the world of science. Even now, scientists differ much in their opinion regarding this phenomenon. Final outcome of these controversies will have great concern and significance in the realm of homoeopathy. Let us examine some details of  the nature and essence of this controversial phenomenon.

    Jacques Benveniste(1935–2004), who was a famous French immunologist, published a research paper in Nature magazine in the year 1988. This paper and the subsequent controversies which shook the world of science, were incidents which roused great interest as far as homeopathy was concerned. It was through this article that the idea of ‘molecular memory of water’ became a subject of discussion in the world of science. But an infuential section of scientists took a stand that ideas put forward by Benveniste were nothing but nonsense. Heated controversies followed, which have not subsided  yet, even after 22 years.  The accusation raised by his enemies was that Benveniste could not prove his arguments in the controlled experiments overseen by experts appointed by Nature.  Benvenistse  had later put on record that he was a made a scapegoat, and subjected to inhuman revenge and character assassination from the part of representatives of official science.

    In his original paper, Beneveniste claimed that he could observe in his experiments that  human basophil degranulation can be triggered by very dilute aqueous solutions of anti- IgE antiserum. Using the molecular weight of   immunoglobulins and  Avogadro’s number, he calculated that less than one molecule of antibody is present in the assay when anti-IgE antiserum is diluted to 1 x 1014 (corresponding to 2.2 x 10-20 M). But in the experiments he reported, he could detect significant basophil degranulation down to the     1x l0120 dilution. Specific effects have also been triggered by highly diluted agents in other in vitro and in vivo biological systems, but he conceded that it still remained unexplained. He pointed to the possibility of biological effects in the physical absence of molecules. He argued that the entities supporting this ‘metamolecular’ biology can only be explored by physical investigation of agitation causing interaction between the original molecules and water, thus yielding activity capable of specifically imitating the native molecules, though any such hypothesis is unsubstantiated at present.

    He suspected that the molecular memory of the antibodies which was imprinted in water during dilution  is responsible for this peculiar phenomenon. But  the sad part of this story is that he failed to prove his arguments in the repeated experiments which were conducted in an atmosphere of absolute hostility, under the supervision of experts who were inimical to him, whose sole aim was to disprove him.

    If we carefully examine the history of Benevenite’s failure, we would  understand that it was not his basic propositions that failed, but the experiments he was subjected to in order to to prove his arguments. Firstly, his argument that the drugs so diluted to the extend of making it impossible to contain a single molecule, can interfere in biological processes exactly mimicking the basic drug substance was a little inaccurate interpretation of results of his original experiments. This inaccurate interpretation of the phenomenon he observed, led him to agree to subject himself to inappropriate and hostile experiments, that were obviously designed to defeat him. He failed to realize  that the molecular memory of the drug substances is imprinted into water not as exact ‘mimics’, but in a ‘reverse’ direction, in a complementary configuration. Put in another way, drug molecules will be imprinted in water not as exact configurational duplicates, but as negative complements, and hence, they cannot ‘mimic’ the original drug molecules in biological processes. Failure to understand this phenomenon correctly was a grave mistake, that cost heavy to him.  His conclusion that the molecular imprinted water interferes in biochemical processes exactly like the original drug molecules proved to be immature, and obviously he failed. He failed to comprehend the exact mechanism of molecular imprinting in water, and plan the experiments accordingly. Had he understood the real mechanism of molecular imprinting in its correct perspective, he would have been aware of the unsteady behavior of hydration shells in water, and taken necessary precautions, before subjecting himself to a controlled experiment.  He could have devised some techniques to ensure the stability of hydration shells, such as using alcohol-water mixture instead of pure water, as done in homeopathic potentization.

    We know that water is a good solvent. Let us see what happens when foreign molecules are made to dissolve in water. If a foreign molecule, ion,  or colloidal particle happens to enter the matrix of 3-dimensional dynamic network of water molecules, they are entrapped inside this network. Water molecules arrange themselves around the intruder or ‘guest’ in a peculiar way by the formation hydrogen bonds. These formations of water molecules around the ‘guest’ molecules are known as hydration shells. These hydration shells exist in a dynamic state, and are more or less unstable. The foreign molecules dissolved in water exist in a state of being entrapped inside these hydration shells as ‘guests’. This phenomenon can be seen both in ionic solutions and colloidal solutions. Obviously, hydration shells assume an internal spacial arrangement exactly fitting to the 3-dimensional spacial configuration of the foreign molecule entrapped in them. If we could devise some technique to remove the entrapped ‘guest’ molecules from these hydration shells, without disturbing the hydrogen bonds between the constituent water molecules, these hydration shells can still retain the molecular memory of the molecular configurations of the removed ‘guest’ molecules. This rarely studied phenomenon is known as ‘molecular memory of water’. Actual mechanism and forces underlying this phenomenon has to be investigated minutely by physical scientists. Minute changes occurring in the electron clouds of atoms of water molecules during the formation of hydration shells may be one factor responsible for this phenomenon. It has been well proven that these hydration shells later show a peculiar capability to differentially recognize the original ‘guest’ molecules which were  responsible for their formation. This may be due to the existence of some imprinted memory of those ‘guest’ molecules retained in the hydration shells. This imprinting of memory may be compared to formation of finger prints. As in the case of finger prints, configuration of these molecular imprints also will be a complementary negative of ‘guest’ molecules.  These empty hydration shells, or supra-molecular formations of water subjected to molecular imprinting, may be called ‘hydrosomes’, which means, minute ‘nano-cavities of water’. Homeopathic process of potentization is essentially a crude method of preparing hydrosomes, prepared by using various drug molecules as ‘guests’. It should be specifically noted that the medium used for homeopathic potentisation is not pure water, but it is mixed with ethyl alcohol in a particular ratio. It may be  inferred that the presence of comparatively heavy ethyl alcohol molecules in this mixture may be contributing to stabilization of ‘hydrosomes’, preventing their easy dissociation.  The convergent forces of rotational movements to which the mixture is subjected as part of potentization, may also be a contributing factor in stabilizing the empty hydration shells by polarization and subsequent reduction of hydrogen bond lengths..

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

     Supra-Molecular Sciences

     Information we recently receive from various research institutions, regarding the wonderful  supra-molecular  structures of materials and their hitherto unknown peculiar properties, may greatly contribute in our  efforts to unravel the secrets of homeopathic potentization. Studies on  ‘water clusters’, ‘crystalline structure of water’, ‘shape memory property’, ‘molecular imprinting’,  ‘nano-technology’,  ‘clathrate formations’ and other diverse phenomena are offering promising indications in this direction. We have to utilize all these new revelations in our scientific study of homeopathy. Generally speaking, we have to deal with homeopathic potentization as a branch of modern nano-technology.

    Crystal Structure of Water.

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

      Clathrate Compounds

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

     Shape Memory Property Materials

     A lot of studies has been published regarding ‘shape memory materials’.  Several alloys having  crystalline structure have been observed to possess shape memory property. Such materials are known as SMART materials. This phenomenon also has to be understood well while trying to explain homeopathic potentization in a scientific language. Perhaps, water may also would have to be a considered as a ‘smart’ material.

    Molecular Imprinting

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

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

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

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

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

    Miasms, considered by homeopaths to be the cause of chronic diseases,  are in reality deformed native proteins, subjected to natural molecular imprinting and subsequent structural deviation. This subject will be dealt in detail elsewhere in this article while discussing ‘miasms’.

    It is in the phenomenon of ‘molecular memory of water’ itself that we naturally land on when we attempt to scientifically explain the homeopathic potentisation of drugs. We have already seen that the alcohol–water molecules contained in the medium used for potentization,  arrange themselves around the drug molecules, and form hydration shells. The drug molecules entrapped in the hydration shells are systematically removed as a result of serial dilutions and shaking, done as part of potentization. Empty   hydration shells or ‘hydrosomes’ remain. These ‘hydrosomes’ are nano-cavities, imprinted with the three-dimensional ‘finger print’ of drug molecules used as ‘guest’ molecules.  This phenomenon may be called as ‘molecular imprinting in water’. These ‘hydrosomes’ are the real active principles of homeopathic medicines, potentized above 30C.

    The genius of Hahnemann accidentally invented the process of homeopathic potentization more than two hundred years ago. During his period, modern material sciences were in their infantile stage, and obviously, he was not in a position to explain the dynamics of this process in scientific terms. He tried to explain his new invention in the light of knowledge available to him, which was not acceptable to the leading men of science of those days. There is no point in blaming them, for failing to understand and acknowledge the importance of his findings. Let us hope that scientific community will do justice to Hahnemann at least in this new era of enlightenment and rational awareness.

     Potentization- Mysteries Solved?

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

    Evidently, potentization has two distinct phases, providing totally different outputs.

    Phase 1: First stage of potentization involves division of complex drug molecules into simpler constituents. When a medicinal substance is subjected to homeopathic potentization, if it is not soluble in water or alcohol, it is first mixed with sugar of milk and subjected to repeated trituration. Then the substance is  potentized using alcohol–water mixture as medium. If the medicinal substance is by itself soluble in water or alcohol, potentisation is done directly in that medium. During the initial stages of  this process individual molecules contained in the medicinal substance are liberated from their inter-molecular bonds, or ionized. Crude drug substance undergoes this division into individual molecules and ions, due to the mechanism of violent trituration and shaking. Inter-molecular bonds are broken, and the constituent molecules and ions are liberated. As a result, these ions and molecules become more virulent, capable of exhibiting their interaction potentials to their full extent, and become ready to undergo hydration in water-alcohol medium. Since the individual properties of drug molecules come out in their totality, it is observed that even seemingly inert substances become powerful drugs due to the division during first phase of potentization. Insoluble substances thus become soluble in water. The difference between crude Lyco and Lyco 6x, crude Silica and silicea 6x, crude table salt and Natrum Mur 6x etc are examples for this phenomenon. This first phase may be called ‘liberation phase’.

    Phase II: Second stage of potentization involves actual hydration and molecular imprinting of individual drug molecules and ions. This phase may be called ‘imprinting phase’.

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

    Potentization can now be explained as a process in which molecular imprints of drug molecules are formed and stabilized. At a particular stage of potentization all the drug molecules are completely removed from the potentizing medium. This stage depends up on the exact size of individual drug molecules subjected to imprinting. Large molecules disappear much earlier, and smaller ones at higher stage. Anyhow, when the potentization crosses 23C, even the smallest drug molecules will be completely removed. We can understand this stage by calculating on the basis of Avagado’s number and molecular weight. At potentazation some where above 12C, we may reach a state in which all the original drug  molecules become totally absent. If  the potentization is carried still higher, there will be no drug molecules for imprinting. Advisability of potentization after this stage have to be considered on the basis of studies regarding the possibility of duplication of existing molecular imprints, as in the case of duplicating of crystals and clathrates. More research studies are required in this matter.

    As of now, there are no ample scientific data available, helpful to explain the admissibility of homeopathic medicines being potentized above 30C. May be that, even after the removal of all drug molecules from the medium, copies of existing molecular imprints are serially generated in higher and higher potencies, thereby saturating the medium with more and more molecular imprints. Until that could be proved, I would suggest 23-30c as the most appropriate homeopathic potency for therapeutic purpose.

    Potentized homeo medicines are presently available in different series like decimal, centesimal, 50-millecimal etc. There never exist any consensus among masters or practitioners regarding the use of potencies, as it is the case with many other concepts of homeopathy. When some use potencies like 30c and 200c in plenty, others use Q, 3x, 1x, 6x and 12x. Yet another set of people prefer 1m, cm, dm, 0/5, 0/6 etc. While some prescribe medicine every  hour,  others give medicines at intervals of days or even  months. When some practitioners strictly stick to ‘single drug’ theory, some others give more than one medicine simultaneously, alternately or even by mixing them together.

    Different masters have given differing guidelines with regard to the use of homeopathic potencies and dosages. But in reality, each practitioner evolves his own method and way of dispensing through experience. Unless we reach a consensus up regarding the actual mechanism of  disease, cure and potentization, confusions and differences of opinion with regarding homeopathic application are bound to exist.

    If it is finally accepted that molecular imprinting is the real mechanism of potentization,  we may reach a consensus that there is no likelihood of any special benefit by higher and higher potentisations above 12C. Logically, potentization need be continued  only just beyond the limit of Avagadro number. By that stage the molecular imprinted water–alcohol mixture will have  attained sufficient medicinal properties, to be used on the basis of ‘similia similibus curentur’. The three-dimensional structure of drug molecules used as ‘guests’ will have already got sufficiently imprinted into the hydration shells or hydrosomes by that time. I find no point in continuing potentization even after that stage.

    As per my observation, the medicinal property of any homeopathic drug beyond 12c will be the same. It is only a very rare possibility that there could be any significant difference between various higher potencies used by us,  with regard to their content or medicinal qualities.  Many master prescribers  have already put on record that if the selection of similimum is correct,  any potency would render the expected therapeutic result.

    Though still remaining a subject of great controversy, on the basis of above explanations, homeopathic  potencies can broadly be divided into two major groups:

    1.     The low potencies which contain original drug molecules(below 12c)

    2.     High potencies which do not contain drug molecules(above 12c)

    Low potencies contain original drug molecules acting as Competitive Molecular Factors(CMF) towards pathologic molecules, and can be labeled as CMF.

    High potencies contain molecular imprints acting as Counteractive Complementary Factors(CCF) towards pathologic molecules , and hence can be labeled as CCF.

    Eg: Nux vom. CMF and Nux Vom. CCF. The numbers ordinarily used to indicate potencies can be here avoided.

    In certain situations, where there is real scarcity of certain molecules necessary for metabolism, crude substances and low potencies or mother tinctures will have to be used by their supplementary or nutritional value. This belongs to Nutritional Therapy, and should not be confused with homeopathy. Various minerals, vitamins, co-factors, micro-nutrients and amino-acid supplements belong to this category

    I am well aware that these revolutionary concepts may not be so easily welcomed by the mainstream homeopathic profession, conditioned  by education and experience of long years into dogmatic concepts and fixed mindsets on these issues. I may be running into a major controversy due to my theoretical interventions and revisionist concepts. But somebody has to come forward and ‘bell the cat’, and open up a discussion on scientific re-building of homeopathy, at any point of time. Once my assumption that the secret of potentization lies in the phenomenon of ‘molecular imprinting’ is experimentally proved to be correct,  my suggestions  may become more relevant and acceptable. More over, instead of the existing primitive method of potentization in homeopathy, modern science and nano-technology may definitely develop a more perfect and scientific way of molecular imprinted drug designing in water. Homeopaths should whole heartedly welcome such a positive development when it happens. Until such a perfect scientific technology of molecular imprinting  in water evolves, the existing system of homeopathic potentization is bound to prevail with all its limitations.

    During the period of Samuel Hahnemann, even the very idea of molecular imprinting was impossible to develop, due to historical limitations of the then existing material sciences. When Hahnemann started diluting of drug substances, his only aim was to find a way prevent unwanted side effects and medicinal aggravations. When he found that there is no loss of medicinal quality due to diluting, he started to higher and higher levels. He observed that medicinal properties of drugs progressionally increased by the process of trituration and serial dilution. He also found that inert substances become potent therapeutic agents through this process. Encouraged by these results, he proceeded ahead with higher and higher dilutions. Obviously, it was quite accidentally that Hahnemann discovered the technique of potentization. When the medicinal properties were found to increase by this procedure of serial dilution and succussion, he was compelled to provide an explanation to this wonderful phenomenon.  Since there was no chance of drug molecules remaining in those highly diluted states, he developed the concept of ‘dynamic force’. The scientific tools necessary to understand ‘molecular imprinting’ as the real mechanism underlying potentization were not available in those days. Historical limitations compelled Hahnemann to explain the wonderful therapeutic properties unraveled before him with the mysterious concepts such as ‘dynamic power’ and ‘vital force’.

     Molecular Dynamics of Cure

     We are now in a comparatively favorable position to provide  a rational and scientific explanation to the molecular kinetics of homeopathic cure. We should remember that low potency and high potency medicines contain different class of active principles, and hence, their mode of actions are also entirely different.

    A drug means, a sample of substance containing chemical molecules, that can interact with biological molecules, effecting deviations in biological processes. Normally, when a drug substance is introduced into an organism, the constituent drug molecules exhibit their action in any of the following ways:

    1.  Acting on various structural membranes, deranging their permeability.

    2.  Engaging in chemical reactions with various molecular substrates and metabolites inside the body.

    3. Interacting with enzyme proteins, and other complex bio-molecules, thereby inactivating or  incapacitating them for biochemical processes.

    4.   Interaction with various structural proteins.

    5.  Interacting  with carrier proteins.

    6. Interaction with ion channels.

    7. Binding to Hormone receptors, and Neuro-transmitter receptors.

    But the  therapeutic properties of highly potentized homeopathic preparations that do not contain drug molecules cannot be explained by any of  these models. We will have to seek some other models of drug action entirely different from those described  above.

    Attempts to explain the properties of higher homeopathic potencies basing on the phenomenon of ‘hormesis’ had been done by some people earlier. This phenomenon was proposed by Southam and Ehrlich and Stebbing. They proposed that a substance which acts as a toxin in high concentrations, acts as a stimulant in low concentrations. This phenomenon is known as ‘hormesis’. There is a theory known as Arndt-Schulz rule or Schulz’ law to  explain  this phenomenon. The essence of this theory is “For every substance, small doses stimulate, moderate doses inhibit, and large doses kill”.  Hugo Paul Friedrich Schulz and Rudolf Arndt  are the exponents of this theory. Toxins in their highly diluted form stimulates biological processes. In their concentrated forms the toxins inhibit or kills the biological processes. But even today it has not been possible to explain this phenomenon scientifically.

    The scientific experiments conducted at Utrecht University, undertaken by a team under the leadership of Roeland van Wijk and   Fred A.C. Wiegant tried to explain homeopathy on the basis of  theory of ‘hormesis’. Even though these experiments succeeded in proving the therapeutic properties of potentized  drugs to a certain extent,  they failed to correlate it with the phenomenon of ‘hormesis’, and to uncover the molecular kinetics of ‘hormesis’. In my opinion, the phenomenon of ‘hormesis’ could have been better explained on the basis of ‘hydrosomes’ or ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules, which are likely to be formed in the highly diluted solution of a toxic substance.

    Obviously,  molecular tracking employed in modern medical research protocols are not at all applicable in the study of transportation and targeting of potentized drugs inside the organism, since there is no single drug molecule present in our medicinal preparations. As for now, there is no scientific technology available to help us track the ‘molecular imprints’ inside the organism. Until such a sophisticated technology is evolved, rational analysis and logical deductions based on available scientific information alone are possible in this respect.

    Some homeopathic theoreticians argue that potentezed medicines act through nervous system, being transported through nervous system as nerve impulses, and the mind and “vital force” in turn induces the curative process. The fact that we can demonstrate the medicinal properties of potentized drugs through ‘in vitro’ experiments, such as clotting of blood, or antibody-antigen interactions, where nervous system or ‘vital force’ is not present, clearly negates this theory of drug action.

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

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

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

     Re-defining “Similia Similibus Curentur”

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

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

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

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

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

    To get an answer to the question how ‘hormesis’ works or ‘small doses’ work, we have to understand the process of ‘dilution’ in terms of ‘size’ of drug molecules. Any drug substance of animal or vegetable origin contain diverse types of drug molecules. Some complex molecules will be very ‘big’ in size, and their number in a given quantity of solution will be comparatively very small as per avogadro theory. Smaller molecules will be present in larger quantities. When we start diluting serially, larger molecules will be ‘imprinted’ into the medium, and molecules get removed from the solution in very early stages of dilution process. Smaller molecules undergo imprinting and removal at later stages only. By reaching 12 c, even the smallest molecules get imprinted and removed. That is why I say potencies above 12c contain molecular imprints only.

    Obviously, lower potencies below 12c will be a mixture of small molecules as well as molecular imprints of larger molecules. We can explain hormesis, hippocrates phenomenon and low potency therapeutics from this point of view.

     Modern Technology of “Drug Designing”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The first important  example of the application of structure-based drug design leading to an approved drug is the carbonic anhydrase inhibitor ‘dorzolamide’ which was approved in 1995. Cimetidine (the prototypical H2-receptor antagonist from which the later members of the class were developed), selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAIDs, Dorzolamide (a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor used to treat glaucoma), Enfuvirtide (a peptide HIV entry inhibitor), Nonbenzodiazepines, Probenecid, SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors belonging to a class of antidepressants), Zanamivir (an antiviral drug) and many of the atypical antipsychotic drugs belong to the class of designer drugs.

    Modern drug designing protocols have been already developed for 5-HT3 antagonists, Angiotensin receptor blockers, Cannabinoid receptor antagonists, Cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors, Acetylcholine receptor agonists, Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, CCR5 receptor antagonists, HIV protease inhibitors, TRPV1 antagonists, NK1 receptor antagonists, Triptans etc.

    It is high time that we should concieve and explain “Homeopathic Dug Potentization” as a specialized technology of “Drug Designing” by “Molecular Imprinting in Water”.

    In this wonderful homeopathic technology, ‘water-ethyl alcohol’ mixtures or oligo-sacharides such as ‘lactose’ are subjected to ‘molecular imprinting’, using various drug molecules. We already saw that water, ethyl alcohol and lactose are capable of forming polymer-like supra-molecular structures through hydrogen bonding. Put in another way, potentized homeopathic medicines contain nanocavities, formed by hydrogen-bonded supra-molecular structures of water-ethyl alcohol molecules, into which the 3-dimensional spacial configurations of drug molecules are imprinted.

    Obviously, potentized homeopathic preparations belong to a special class of ‘designer drugs’, and should be presented to scientific community as such.

    More over, this understanding may help us to evolve more sophisticated techniques of “homeopathic drug designing”, than the presently available method of ‘potentization’ now employed.

    Vital Force

    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 basis of  Hahnemannian homeopathy is based on the  some what  spiritual concept that there is an abstract ‘vital force’ alien to the physical body, existing as a part of ‘universal force’  which enters the body and possesses to enliven it, and leaves it with the advent of death. Homeopaths percieve diseases as disordered states of this ‘vital force’,  and believe that it is only on the level of this ‘vital force’ that the cure of diseases might take place.

    It is not here intended to convert the ongoing scientific discourse of therapeutics into a dialogue between the divergent philosophical world outlooks of spiritualism and materialism, and hence, I do not here endeavor to question somebody’s right to believe in the existence of  a ‘universal’ ‘vital force’ as such. But, at least when dealing with a science of therapeutics, we have to reach a consensus to replace the concept of ‘vital force’ with a more rational expression, ‘vital process’, if we could discuss homeopathy as a system of scientific medicine. ‘Vital force’, what ever it may be, expresses itself in a living organism only through ‘vital processes’, the complex chains of interconnected molecular interactions known as biochemical pathways. It has been already explained that 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 a consensus at least about 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.

    Even if we subscribe to the concept of ‘vital force’ at the ideological level, we have to answer the question: “How that vital force expresses in a living organism?” Only as molecular level ‘vital processes’. Using medicinal agents of material qualities, we can deal with these ‘vital processes’ only at the material level. It is an absurdity to think that as physicians, we 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 ‘immaterial 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, independent of  their material qualities, a ‘force’ that is soluble in water and alcohol, can 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 unraveled 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.

    The 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:-

    1. ‘Vital force’ exists only through ‘vital processes’, which are complex chains of molecular level biochemical interactions purely material in nature.

    2. A state of pathology  is created by some or other deviations happening in these biochemical processes due to molecular errors of pure material nature.

    3. Therapeutics is possible only through materialistic intervention in these biochemical processes.

    4. Medicines are the material means for such an intervention.

    5. It is due to the peculiar material properties of medicines that they are able to intervene in biochemical processes.

    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-corporeal’ ‘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’.

     Miasms and Chronic Diseases.

     Concept of ‘miasm’ is the corner-stone of homeopathic theories about ‘Chronic Diseases’. Hahnemann has provided detailed descriptions regarding three types of ‘miasms’ such as ‘psora’, ‘syphills’ and ‘sycosis’. Theory of  ‘miasms’ and chronic diseases were developed during his later part of his life. He was compelled to devolop these concepts, when he learned from his clinical experience that medicines selected on the basis of similarity of symptoms as he advocated earlier offered only temporary relief to the patients. According to his theory of ‘chronic diseases’, ‘psora’, the ‘miasm’ of suppressed ‘itch’, is the underlying primary cause of all chronic diseases other than those of venereal origin. ‘Psora’ is the greatest obstruction to cure. Other two miasms, ‘Syphilis’ and ‘sycosis’ are considered to be miasms of venereal diseases, ‘syphilis’ and ‘gonorrhoea’ respectively. Hahnemann considered ‘psora’ to be the most important and universal ‘miasm’. Unless this ‘miasm’ or ‘disease poison’ is eradicated with appropriate ‘anti-psoric’ drugs, permanent and lasting cure cannot be attained.

    The primary forms of expression of ‘psora’ is considered to be the itching eruptions on skin, that of ‘syphilis’ un-healing malignant ulcers,  and that of ‘sycosis’ warts and condylomata.  Symptoms of primary ‘psora’ include the different types of itches and eruptions that appear on the skin. Hahnemann considered the ‘miasm of psora’ to be inherited through generations of human kind.

    Here, we have to analyze the concept of miasms and chronic diseases in the light of previous deliberations on ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’.

    Human organism is constantly exposed to the attacks of various types of exogenous and endogenous pathologic foreign molecules and ions, which may bind to the complex biological molecules, thereby deforming their configuration and making them incapable of participating in the normal bio-chemical interactions. We have already understood this phenomenon as the molecular basis of pathology.

    If the pathological foreign molecules are of protein nature, a different type of molecular interaction takes place. Native biological defense proteins having certain configurational affinity to these foreign proteins attaches to them and removes them from the organism as part of body’ defense mechanism.  During this defense process, some of the involved native proteins get configurationally deformed by the interaction with foreign molecules. These deformed native protein molecules will be carrying the spacial imprints of the interacted foreign molecules on their periphery. Three dimensional pockets, having a configuration complementary to that of foreign proteins stay imprinted into the native proteins. These imprinted native proteins become incapable of participating in any normal biological processes, and remains in the organism. Antibodies actually belong to this class of such deformed native proteins, subjected to ‘molecular imprinting’  by foreign proteins.

    Certain endogenic molecules and ions such as hormones, neuro-chemicals, and other metabolic byproducts such as super-oxides, when circulated in excess, may   also attach to various bio-molecules other than their normal targets sites, and induce configurational changes in them.

    These deformed native proteins may circulate in the system, and accidentally attach to various macro-bio-molecules showing some sort of  configurational affinity, thereby creating various molecular errors and pathological deviations.

    Configurational changes happening in enzymes of protein nature associated with genetic expressions and DNA synthesis may ultimately lead to various types of proteinopathies, or may result in mutations happening in genetic substance itself, with subsequent hereditary diseases. If the enzymes associated with genetic expressions get deformed by molecular imprinting, it may affect the process of normal protein synthesis, and produce related pathological conditions. It may be noted that heavy metal ions and certain poisonous substances such as alkaloids and  organophos chemicals also can inhibit the enzymes associated with DNA synthesis, and create genetic errors.

    Obviously, modern scientific knowledge regarding subjects such as antibodies, proteinopathies, genetic expressions, molecular imprinted proteins, etc., were not available during the era of Hahnemann, when he undertook the study of chronic diseases. Had he understood the exact bio–molecular basis of these phenomena, he would have provided a theory of chronic diseases entirely different from that he had formulated.  At that time, it was the wonderful insight of the  great genius of Hahnemann that enabled him to observe the deep-seated factors playing behind the  chronic diseases that he called ‘miasms’. During that period, even before the appearance of antibiotics modern microscope, most dreaded diseases such as eczema, leprosy, syphilis and gonorrhoea were rampant in europe. He observed that in spite of the various crude forms of treatments available then, these diseases continued their manifestations during the whole life span of patients. Naturally, his study of chronic diseases were more involved with the long term effects of these diseases. He used the term ‘miasm’ to describe these chronic disease factors. By the term ‘miasm’, he really meant ‘disease toxins’. The miasm of ‘itch’(and leprosy) was called as ‘psora’, the ‘miasm of syphilis as ‘syphilis’, and that of gonorrhoea as ‘sycosis’. Now, based on modern scientific knowledge, we can say that ‘miasms’ are the antibodies or ‘molecular imprinted proteins’ created in the organism due to the interaction of native proteins with various bacterial, viral or fungal toxins of  protein nature. Various environmental allergens, and ceratain endogenous molecules and metabolic bye-products may also imprint up on native defense proteins and convert them into chronic ‘miasms’.

    Antibodies produced in the organism against scabies(itch), leprosy, and tuberculosis  belong to same class, and give positive reaction to ‘tuberculin’ antigen tests. This indicates that toxins released by these bacteria have certain similar molecular groups in them, and the molecular imprints or antibodies against those groups also have certain configurational similarities. Actually, these ‘molecular imprints’ belong to the ‘miasm’ of ‘psora’ described by Hahnemann. Homeopaths already know that potentized ‘tuberculinum’ , ‘bacillinum’, and ‘psorinum’ play a wonderful role in the treatment of scabies and other skin eruptions, and the chronic conditions related with them.

    I was pointing to the pathogenic role of antibodies. We already know a lot about the havoc antibodies create by their off-target actions up on biological molecules. Most of the chronic effects of infectious diseases are understood to be caused by the antibodies generated. And also those hundreds of serious auto immune diseases, where antibodies are the real pathogenic agents. Hahnemann defined miasms as ‘chronic disease dispositions’ created by ‘infectious diseases. Only way by which acute infectious diseases can cause life-long chronic disease dispositions are through the existence of antibodies. That is why I say ‘miasms’ are ‘chronic disease dispositions’ caused by ‘antibodies’ formed against infectious diseases. The belief that antibodies have only a ‘protective’ role is not right. For example, the chronic crippling pains remaining life long after chikunguniya is caused by antibodies. Can we say antibodies have only protective role here? We know various chronic diseases dispositions caused by vaccinations, which we call vaccinosis, which are actually pathogenic actions of antibodies. I have also pointed earlier to streptococcus antibodies causing cardiac problems and kidney problems. There are already studies regarding the role of antibodies in causing diabetes. Still would anybody say antibodies have “only protective role”?

    Now coming to the question “how antibodies can they produce diseases”. Exactly, antibodies are globulin proteins subjected to molecular imprinting by bacterial/viral toxins, which are called antigens. The antibody has a unique part known as “paratope” (a structure analogous to a lock) on it, that is specific for one particular “epitope” (similarly analogous to a key) on an antigen, allowing these two structures to bind together with precision. These “paratopes” of antibodies are the result of molecular imprinting. Using this binding mechanism, an antibody can tag a microbe or an infected cell for attack by other parts of the immune system, or can neutralize its target directly (for example, by blocking a part of a microbe that is essential for its invasion and survival). Apart from that, these antibodies can bind to native biological molecules having structural groups similar in configuration to the “epitope” of its antigens. This can be compared to the damaging of a lock by inserting a wrong key with some similarity to original key. Such bindings cause molecular errors, which cause various pathological conditions. This is the real molecular mechanism by which antibodies act as “disease causing agents”. You can learn this phenomenon better if you update your immunology and biochemistry. I am saying pure scientific facts, not my inventions.

    It may be interesting to observe that toxins released by bacteria belonging to mycobacterium group, are molecules containing ‘sulphur’ in their active groups.  The presence of  sulphur-containing amino acid called cysteine is responsible for this factor. During infection, bacterial toxins bind to the biological molecules of organism using this sulphide group. Naturally, the ‘molecular imprints’ or antibodies of these bacterial toxins carry complementary negative configurations of this ‘sulphide’ group. These ‘molecular imprints’ may be capable of attacking various bio-molecules in diverse bio-chemic pathways, resulting in different types of constitutional diseases of ‘psoric’ nature. We already know that the antibodies produced against bacterial skin infections may attack heart,  kidney, brain, and other vital organs causing different types of diseases. Streptococcal and staphylococcal antibodies formed against acute throat and teeth infections may attack synovial membranes of joints,  endocardial linings, and valvular structures of heart. During drug proving, sulphur also binds to the same molecular targets as the sulphur-containing bacterial toxins. The similarity between certain symptom groups expressed by these bacterial infections and the homeopathic provings of sulphur may be specifically noted. Here we get the scientific explanation for the observation of Hahnemann that potentized sulphur is the most important ‘antipsoric’ medicine, or ‘The King of Antipsorics’. It is already known that the amino acid called ‘cysteine’,  which contains ‘sulphide’ groups, play an important role in almost all molecular interactions in the organism, involving protein molecules. It may be the reason for the appearance of so many symptom groups, involving almost every organ of the body, in the homoeopathic proving of sulphur. Potentized sulphur can compete with the molecular imprints or antibodies, in their interactions with biological molecules, and act as a most powerful ‘anti psoric’ drug.

    Equipped with the knowledge accumulated by modern science in recent years, we are now in a position to provide satisfactory answer to the centuries old riddle of ‘miasm’ and ‘chronic diseases’.  There is no further scope or space for metaphysical speculations any more.

    In recent years, we have heard a lot about researches on a certain class of disease causing agents, called ‘prions’. Prions are deformed complex protein molecules acting as pathogens. Prions were invented during the research on ‘scrapie’ or ‘mad cow disease’. The actual mechanism of normal protein molecules turning into ‘prions’ have not been well understood yet. Recent studies on the molecular basis of Alzhiemer’s disease, also indicates to the role of deformed proteins in its pathology.  Molecular changes associated with normal aging process also have to be examined from this stand point. In my opinion, these issue can be solved from the viewpoint of ‘molecular imprinting in proteins’. More studies are required in this direction.

    This is an era of vaccinations. Every human being is subjected to a series of vaccination protocols from the moment of birth, to protect from various diseases. We have to worry about the unknown long term after effects of these vaccinations. Live or attenuated viruses are introduced into the organism to produce antibodies against pathological infections. Actually, this process induces ‘molecular imprinting’ of native proteins, with the foreign proteins contained in the vaccines. Obviously, the molecular imprints or antibodies thus formed, shall act as ‘miasms’ in the organism. If this type of molecular deformity happens in proteins associated with DNA synthesis or genetic expression, it may result in serious genetic abnormalities.  It is high time that we realized this dangerous possibilities associated with vaccinations. All these deformed proteins created by vaccinations, act as ‘miasms’, and throw humanity into a sea of complicated chronic diseases much beyond the level observed even by Hahnemann.

    Presumably, sulphur potentized above 12C, shall contain molecular imprints of sulphur. Antibodies against sulphur-containing bacterial toxins being molecular imprinted proteins, may contain some groups on their molecular periphery, imprinted with similar spacial configuration as potentized sulphur. Hence, potentized sulphur can compete with these antibodies in binding with bio-molecular targets. At the same time, we should not forget that these antibodies or deformed proteins may contain various other active sites not similar to sulphur. Hence, potentized sulphur may not be capable to antidote all the pathological properties of antibodies.

    At the same time, if we could prepare potencies of antibodies themselves, those molecular imprints shall be exact negative complements of those antibodies. They can completely antidote the appropriate antibodies, due to their exact configurational affinity. Homoeopathic Nosodes such as psorinum, tuberculinum, syphilinum, medorrhinum etc., belong to this class. Appropriate nosodes may  antidote the ‘miasms’ perfectly.

     Constitution

     ‘Constitution’ is an important concept in  homeopathic theory and practice. It may be concieved as the general essence of the personality of an individual. It represnents the qualities which make a particular individual different from another. Constitution may be defined as the sum total of physical and mental make up  of a person. Constituion is determined by the comprehensive unity of genetic, miasmatic and acquired factors.

    Constitution of an individual is determined by the totality of  diverse biological processes occurring in the organism, outwardly expressed by  subjective and objective symptoms called ‘constitutional symptoms’.

    There are two main  aspects fundamental to constitution. They are :

    (1) Genetic and (2) Acquired.

    Genetic factors may be inherited or mutational.

    General characteristics common to all members of the species are purely genetic. Genetic mutations happened through  generations also add  up to this fundamental genetic constitution. An individual inherits these traits through genes obtained from his parents. Genetic abnormalities lead to faulty protein synthesis,  and may result in deep rooted constitutional pathologies. Genetic mutations due environmental or metabolic causes also may affect the constitution of an individual. These belong to the class of mutational genetic errors.

    Acquired factors that may contribute to the constitutional make up are many. The locality, climate, soil conditions, water resources etc., are very important in this category. Exposure to sunlight, exercise, environmental radiations, etc. are also very decisive.

    The food we eat and the method of cooking will also play their role. We homoeopaths are aware of the phenomenon of ‘calcarea’ constitution developing in persons who regularly consume excess calcium. Same way, Natrum Mur constitution is implanted upon a person who regularly consume excessive sea salt. Those who take in plenty of vegetables acquire vegetable nature similar to Nux. Meat eating and fish eating also influence constitutions. Excessive vegetarian diet, especially raw vegetables contribute in developing Nux Vomica constitution. Most of individuals consuming alcholic beverages containing various phytochemicals regularly, end up with Nux constitutions. The staple food like rice, wheat, potato etc., also contribute in deciding constitutions. Childern consuming large quantity of milk or egg may end up in certain constitutional groups. Chemicals, alkaloids, glycosides , enzymes, phyto-chemicals  and hormones contained in various food articles also contribute their share.  The antibodies which formed as a result of vaccinations or infections, production of excess hormones in the body etc., are also important. Emotional states, occupations, and history of diseases etc., are also deciding factors.

    Various endocrine secretions, neuromediators, and neurotransmitters  are capable of influencing the constitutions of individuals. We know, chronic grief developing constitutions of Natrum mur, disappointments that of Aurum, indignation that of stafysagria, anxity situations that of Argentum nit,  jealousy that of Lachesis, excessive sexual emotions that of Hyoscyamus,  suppressed sexual instinct that of Conium, certain uterine complaints that of Sepia, female sex hormones that of pulsatilla, etc, etc. Excess of certain thyroid hormones may make an individual of ‘hot’ thermal constitution.

    The term ‘constitution’ indicates the sum total of the deviations gradually happening in the complex  molecular processes which are fundamental to the existence of the organism.

    Molecular processes that determine the constitution are expressed as subjective and objective constitutional symptoms. ‘Totality of constitutional symptoms’ reveals the total personality of an individual. We cannot expect a perfect cure without considering the constitutional background of the individual.

    Since diverse biochemical factors determine the ‘constitution’, it is irrational to expect a single drug to be a homeopathic similimum covering all the constitutional level molecular errors of an individual. The real constitutional nature of an individual is revealed to us through different ‘groups of symptoms’ representing diverse constitutional bio-chemic deviations belonging to genetic and acquired molecular errors. One drug may cover one aspect of the personality, where as another drug cover another aspect. Yet another drug may be required to cover a third aspect. We can observe different ‘train of symptoms’ representing each aspect of the constitution. For example, an individual may show separate ‘train of symptoms’ indicating lycopodium, calc carb and sulphur, and if so, all these drugs are required to cover the totality of his constitution.

    As far as scientific homeopathic treatment is concerned, collecting all the constitutional symptoms, and grouping them into appropriate ‘symptom complexes’ is very important to determine the constitutional drugs to be included in the total treatment package.

    Homeopathic Constitutions explained in terms of genotype-phenotype interactions studied by modern genetics:

    ‘Constitutions’, ‘constitutional symptoms’ and ‘consitutional drugs’ are concepts which play a very important role in homeopathic theory and practice. Concepts such as ‘genetic constitution’ and ‘miasmatic constitution’ are frequently heard in homeopathic discussions. There have been a lot of attempts to explain constitution in terms of ‘miasms’, genetics, embryology and many other concepts.

    I am trying to evolve a scientifically viable understanding of our concept of ‘constitution’. I think it would be more logical and scientific if we understand ‘constitution’ in terms of ‘phenotypes’ of individuals. To understand and explain ‘constitutions’ in scientific terms, we have to understand the concepts of ‘genotypes’ and ‘phenotypes’ in modern genetics.

    According to modern genetics, the ‘genotype’ is the ‘genetic substance or ‘DNA’ inherited by the organism from its previous generation. It is called the ‘genetic blue print’.

    The ‘genotype’ contained the organism gives rise to individual ‘phenotypes through ‘gene expressions’. The ‘genetic code’ stored in DNA is interpreted by ‘gene expression’, and the properties of these expressions five rise to the ‘phenotype’ of the organism.

    A ‘phenotype’ is the observable characteristics or traits of an organism, such as morphology, development, biological and physiological properties, behavior, and products of behavior.  ‘Phenotype’ is the result of ‘gene expressions’, which is decided by the interaction between genetic blue print and environmental factors.

    ‘Genotype’ of an organism is the inherited instructions it carries within its genetic code. Organisms with same ‘genotype’ do not appear or act the same way, because its ‘phenotype’ is decided by the interaction with  environmental and developmental conditions. Similarly, not all organisms that look alike necessarily have the same genotype.

    This understanding of ‘genotype-phenotype distinction’, proposed by Wilhelm Johannsen in 1911 to make clear the difference between an organism’s heredity and what that heredity produces,  is very important in providing a scientific explanation for the homeopathic concept of ‘constitutions’.

    Despite its seemingly straightforward definition, the concept of the phenotype has some hidden subtleties. Some would argue that anything dependent on the genotype is a phenotype, including molecules such as RNA and proteins. Most of the molecules and structures coded by the genetic material are not visible in the appearance of an organism, yet they are observable and are thus part of the phenotype. Human blood groups are an example. Others would say that this goes beyond the original intentions of the concept with its focus on the (living) organism in itself, meaning that the lowest level of biological organization compatible with the phenotype concept is at the cellular level. Either way, the term phenotype includes traits or characteristics that can be made visible by some technical procedure. Another extension adds behavior to the phenotype since behaviors are also observable characteristics. Indeed there is research into the clinical relevance of behavioral phenotypes as they pertain to a range of syndromes.

    Phenotypic variation (due to underlying heritable genetic variation) is a fundamental prerequisite for evolution by natural selection. It is the living organism as a whole that contributes (or not) to the next generation, so natural selection affects the genetic structure of a population indirectly via the contribution of phenotypes. Without phenotypic variation, there would be no evolution by natural selection.

    The relationship between ‘genotype’ and ‘phenotype’ has often been conceptualized by the following relationship: “genotype (G) + environment (E) + genotype & environment interactions (GE) → phenotype (P)”

    ‘Genotypes’ often have much flexibility in the modification and expression of phenotypes; in many organisms these phenotypes are very different under varying environmental conditions. The concept of phenotype can be extended to variations below the level of the gene that affect an organism’s fitness. For example, silent mutations that do not change the corresponding amino acid sequence of a gene may change the frequency of guanine-cytosine base pairs (GC content). These base pairs have a higher thermal stability than adenine-thymine, a property that might convey, among organisms living in high-temperature environments, a selective advantage on variants enriched in GC content.

    A phenotype is the ensemble of observable characteristics displayed by an organism. The idea of the phenotype expresses all the effects a gene has on the outside world that may influence its chances of being replicated. These can be effects on the organism in which the gene resides, the environment, or other organisms.

    Gene expression is the process by which information from a gene is used in the synthesis of a functional gene product. These products are often proteins, but in non-protein coding genes such as ribosomal RNA (rRNA), transfer RNA (tRNA) or Small nuclear RNA (snRNA) genes, the product is a functional RNA. The process of gene expression is used by all known life to generate the macromolecular machinery for life.

    Several steps in the gene expression process may be modulated, including the transcription, RNA splicing, translation, and post-translational modification of a protein. Gene regulation gives the cell control over structure and function, and is the basis for cellular differentiation, morphogenesis and the versatility and adaptability of any organism. Gene regulation may also serve as a substrate for evolutionary change, since control of the timing, location, and amount of gene expression can have a profound effect on the functions (actions) of the gene in a cell or in a multicellular organism.

    Factors, such as such as miasmatic, environmental, nutritional, occupational, infectious, emotional, ontogenic, metabolic and xenobiotic influence the process of ‘gene regulation’ at various stages of ‘gene expression’, through which the particular ‘phenotype’ or ‘constitution’ of the individual organism is determined. As such, ‘constitution’ of an individual is the ‘phenotype’ determined by the ‘protein constitution’ developing through ‘genetic expression’’. Constitution’ is expressed in the form of totality of general physical symptoms, morphology, mental symptoms and behavioral peculiarities.

    Constitution of a person is decided by the ‘genotype-phenotype’ interactions taking place. Genotype is the ‘genetic substance’ obtained from parents. Phenotype is produced by the ‘expression’ of these genotype. Many factors influence the ‘genetic expression’. They include nutritional factors, environmental factors, infectious fatcors, miasmatic factors or antibodies, metabolic factors, emotional factors, drug factors and many such things. What we call ‘constitution’ is actually the ‘phenotype’ produced by the expression of genotype, influenced by all these diverse factors. Symptoms representing this phenotype is what we call ‘constitutional symptoms’. Drugs selected as similimum on the basis of ‘constitutional symptoms’ can modify the ‘phenotype’ of the individual, but it cannot modify genotype. While talking about ‘consitutional similimum’, we should be aware of these scientific facts.

    ‎’Genetic expression’ is the chains of biochemical processes by which diverse types of protein molecules are manufactured utilizing the genetic blue print inherited from previous generation. As such, the ‘phenotype’ or ‘constitution’ of an individual is actually the ‘protein constitution’ evolving through genetic expression. What we call ‘constitutional symptoms’ are exactly those symptoms that represent this overall ‘protein chemistry’. Phenotype or protein constitution can be influenced by potentized drugs selected on the basis of ‘constitutional symptoms’, but ‘genotype’ cannot be changed by that. While considering the concept of ‘constitutional treatment’, we should be aware of these scientific facts.

     Can Potentized Medicines Act As Pathological Agents?

     Ligands bind to their authentic biological target molecules in capacity of their appropriate spacial configurations and charge affinities. But the molecular imprints contained in the potentized homeopathic preparations bind to ligands or biological molecules merely due to their similarity in cofigurations without any charge affinity. So, the bindings of molecular imprints with biological molecules or their ligands will be very temporary and cannot stay long. Such bindings can be replaced by natural ligands very easily. Molecular imprints can not compete with natural ligands in binding to the biological targets. Hence it is obvious that potentized homeopathic preparations cannot interfere the interactions between biological molecules or substrates with their authentic targets. As such, chances of potentized homeopathic medicines acting as pathological agents are very rare even if used indiscriminately.  Molecular imprints can interfere only in off-target bindings of ligands with biological molecules, where only configurational similarity is involved, such as molecular blocks created by exogenic or endogenic foreign pathological molecules. We are well aware that when highly diluted preparations are used for proving in certain instances, the symptoms produced are very transient in nature, and do not produce serious pathological conditions in the prover.

     Genetics and Homeopathy

     Interactions of potentized homeopathic medicines with genetic substance in the organism is a subject of much concern, speculation and controversy among homeopaths. Such controversies arise from the lack of sufficient understanding regarding the active principles contained in potentized medicines, and their exact mechanism of action in the living system. With our new scientific understanding of potentization as a process of molecular imprinting, we are now in a better position to answer these  questions satisfactorily. Since, molecular imprints contained in the potentized homeopathic preparations cannot successfully compete with natural ligands in binding with their target molecules, we need not be concerned about the possibility of potentized homeopatic medicines dangerously interacting with genetic material in any way. At the same time, these molecular imprints can effectively compete with the deformed proteins that may result from genetic errors, thereby preventing them from creating pathological molecular blocks at various targets. As such, homeopathic medicines can play a great role even in the treatment of certain diseases of genetic origin, at least as palliatives. More over, potentized homeopathic medicines can safeguard genetic material from dangerous mutations that may be caused the by action of endogenous or exogenous pathological agents such as toxic drugs, heavy metals, super-oxides etc., on enzymes related with nucleic acid synthesis and genetic expressions.

     Mental Symptoms and Peculiar Sensations

     Peculiar mental symptoms and special sensations are given primary importance in homeopathic therapeutic applications. It is particularly insisted by some masters that selection of medicine should be done only after specifically considering the peculiar mental symptoms and special sensations exhibited by the patient. This special importance to mental symptoms were given on the theoretical reasoning that disease primarily originates in the level of vital force, and mental symptoms are the real language of deranged vital force.

    During our earlier discussions, we have already found that diseases originate in the vital molecular processes, as deviations caused by some or other molecular errors. Obviously, mental and physical symptoms, whether subjective or objective,  are the expressions of these molecular errors. Mind, consciousness, feelings, emotions, understandings, thought, sensations, mental symptoms etc., are the functions of a complex material system, consisting of brain, and neuro-endocrine systems. There is no mental symptom without brain and nerve tissue. Brain is the material substratum of all the mental symptoms. When some molecular errors occur in any biochemical channels in the organism, the information will be passed to the central nervous system, through concerted actions of bio-molecules belonging to the class of neuro-transmitters and neuro-mediators. This initiates complex bio-chemical processes in different regions of the central nervous system, and expresses as mental symptoms and sensations. Each group of special sensations and abnormal mental symptoms indicates associated particular deviations in one or other molecular processes in the material organism.

    Any pathologic deviation in the biochemical processes instantly create certain reverberations in the neuro-endocrine  systems. These reverberations  are the real basis of diverse mental symptoms and special sensations. These processes are mediated by complex molecules known as hormones, neuromediaters and neurotransmitters. Limbic system, being part of central nervous system plays a major role.  Hypothalamus, pineal body, pituitary gland, thyroid gland, parathyroid gland, heart , skin, adipose tissues, stomach,  liver, pancreas,  kidneys, adrenal gland, tests,  ovary,  placenta , uterus- all thsese organs function as part of this complex neuro-endocrine,   system, synthesizing different types of hormones. Aspartate, N-Acetylaspartylglutamate, Glutamate, Gamma-aminobutyric acid, Glycine, Acetylcholine, Dopamine, Norepinephrine, Epinephrine, Octopamine,   Tyramine, Serotonin, Melatonin,  Histamine,  Gastrin, Cholecystokinin,  Vasopressin,  Oxytocin, Neuropeptide Y, Pancreatic polypeptide, Peptide YY, Corticotropin, Dynorphin, Endorphin, Enkephaline, Secretin, Motilin, Glucagon, Vasoactive intestinal peptide, Growth hormone-releasing factor, Somatostatin, Neurokinin A, Neurokinin B, Substance P, Bombesin, Gastrin releasing peptide, Nitric oxide,  guanylyl cyclase, Carbon monoxide, Anandamide, Adenosine triphosphate etc., are the important neuromediators and neurotransmitters.

    All the fantastic sensations and peculiar mental and physical symptoms  are the result of inter-related chemical processes involving limbic system and central nervous system mediated by above said chemical substances.

    Hence, homeopathy utilizes these peculiar sensations and mental symptoms to identify and locate the exact picture of total pathology and underlying molecular blocks. Thus, homeopathy enables us to select and apply an exact therapeutic agent to relieve these molecular blocks on the basis of the principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’. Certain molecular errors happening in certain bio-chemic pathways reflect themselves in the form of peculiar sensations and mental symptoms, much earlier than other observable objective symptoms are produced. Hence, we erroneously think that such diseases begin in the ‘mental plane’, and later move to ‘material plane’. All diseases begin in the plane of material vital processes as molecular errors, and the mental symptomsrepresents their extensions into the bio-chemical processes of central nervous system. Since the mental symptoms and special sensations appear much before the appearance of observable material changes in the organism,  homoeopathy is able to intervene in the bio-chemical deviations much earlier than other medical systems by analyzing mental symptoms.

    Obviously, disease and cure happens in the material molecular level, and hence science of therapeutics also should essentially be understood as a purely material science.

     ‘Totality of Symptoms’

     Hahnemann says in Organon – Aphorism 7:-  “…the totality of these symptoms, of this outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease, that is, of the affection of the vital force, must be the principal, or the sole means, whereby the disease can make known what remedy it requires – the only thing that can determine the choice of the most ppropriate remedy – and thus, in a word, the totalityof the symptoms must be the principal, indeed the only thing the physician has to take note of in every case of disease and to remove by means of his art, in order that it shall be cured and transformed into health”.

    Aphorism 18(Sixth Edition): – “From this indubitable truth, that besides the totality of the symptoms with consideration of the accompanying modalities nothing can by any means be discovered in disease wherewith they could express their need of aid, it follows undeniably that the sum of all the symptoms and conditions in each individual case of disease must be the sole indication, the sole guide to direct us in the choice of a remedy”.

    “Totality of Symptoms” is one of the much controversial concepts in homeopathy. Although all of them use this phrase frequently, homeopaths differ from each other on the interpretation and application of the real meaning of concept.  We may hesitate to admit the truth, but most homeopaths are very much confused when asked to answer the question: “what you mean by ‘totality of symptoms’, and how you would apply it in the art of selecting the similimum?”

    Based on the scientific concepts of molecular fundamentals of life and disease discussed in previous chapters of this article, now we have to examine the concept of ‘totality of symptoms’ from a different rational perspective.

    First, we have to be very clear regarding the difference between the “total symptom” and ‘totality of symptoms’. These phrases represent entirely different concepts according to ‘Dialectical Homeopathy”.

    A ‘total symptom’ is an individual ‘symptom complex’, considered in its entire ‘totality’ of all the available ‘qualifications’ and ‘associations’. Any pathologic deviation in a particular bio-chemic pathway, representing a particular molecular error in the organism, is expressed as a particular ‘train of symptoms’ or ‘symptom complex’, consisting of various associated symptoms and  qualifying symptoms such as causations, locations, sensations, aggravations, ameliorations, concomitants and extensions. Such a ‘symptom complex’ may be called a ‘total symptom’. A “total symptom’ may be explained as ‘a symptom considered in its totality’. A ‘total symptom’ may be repertorized in its own capacity, and appropriate similimum determined. It was Boenninghaussen who developed this concept of ‘total symptoms’, though not well understood by the profession. Unfortunately, his ‘total symptom’ was misunderstood to be equivalent to the ‘totality of symptoms’ concept of Kent and others, based on mentals, physical generals and particulars. Whereas Boenninghaussen was talking about totality of each ‘pathological deviations’, Kent was talking about the totality of the individual ‘personality’.

    A particular pathologic deviation in a bio-chemical pathway, caused by a particular molecular error  is expressed as a specific ‘symptom complex’. It is most probable that any individual patient may  same time be presenting more than one separate ‘symptom complexes’ representing entirely different molecular errors in his organism. Each individual ‘symptom complex’, representing a particular pathological deviation, will consist of a prominent clinical presentation, with its associations and qualifications such as causation, location, sensation, aggravation, amelioration, concomitants, alternations, extensions etc. When all such available details are considered, this ‘symptom complex’ becomes a ‘total symptom’ by itself. Concomitants, alternations and extensions have special importance, as they are links to associated symptoms, and indicates the exact train of the underlying disordered bio-chemical pathway . When analyzing a case, we should group each subjective or objective symptom expressed by the patient in the appropriate ‘symptom complex’ it belongs.

    According to my concept, ‘totality of symptoms’ of a patient consists of the sum total of all the individual ‘total symptoms’ or ‘symptom complexes’ representing all the different molecular errors and pathological deviations in the individual. ‘Totality of symptoms’ will represent the ‘totality’ of the pathological and constitutional constitutional picture of the whole individual. Whereas the drug selected as a similimum for a particular ‘symptom complex’ may relieve that particular group of complaints, a perfect and total cure of the individual would be possible only through the systematic application of all  the ‘similimums’ obtained by repertorizing all the ‘symptom complexes’ separately.

     ‘Multi-Similimum’ or Integrated Similimum’

     Dr. Samuel Hahnemann says in his Organon of Medicine:

    Aphorism 2: “The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible principles”.

    Aphorism 3: “If the physician clearly perceives what is to be cured in diseases, that is to say, in every individual case of disease (knowledge of disease, indication), if he clearly perceives what is curative in medicines, that is to say, in each individual medicine (knowledge of medical powers), and if he knows how to adapt, according to clearly defined principles, what is curative in medicines to what he has discovered to be undoubtedly morbid in the patient, so that the recovery must ensue- to adapt it, as well in respect to the suitability of the medicine most appropriate according to its mode of action to the case before him (choice of the remedy, the medicine indicated), as also in respect to the exact mode of preparation and quantity of it required (proper dose), and the proper period for repeating the dose; – if, finally, he knows the obstacles to recovery in each case and is aware how to remove them, so that the restoration may be permanent, then he understands how to treat judiciously and rationally, and he is a true practitioner of the healing art”

     Aphorism 7: “Now, as in a disease, from which no manifest exciting or maintaining cause (causa occasionalis) has to be removed1, we can perceive nothing but the morbid symptoms, it must (regard being had to the possibility of a miasm, and attention paid to the accessory circumstances,) be the symptoms alone by which the disease demands and points to the remedy suited to relieve it – and, moreover, the totality of these its symptoms, of this outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease, that is, of the affection of the vital force, must be the principal, or the sole means, whereby the disease can make known what remedy it requires – the only thing that can determine the choice of the most appropriate remedy – and thus, in a word, the totality of the symptoms must be the principal, indeed the only thing the physician has to take note of in every case of disease and to remove by means of his art, in order that it shall be cured and transformed into health”.

    According to Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, the highest ideal of a physician is to get a “rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of health”of his patient “on easily comprehensible principles”. To be “a true practitioner of the healing art”, the physician should “clearly perceive what is to be cured in diseases”, “what is curative in medicines”, and how to adapt, the “curative” to the “to be cured”. He should also know the “exact mode of preparation and quantity”, “proper period for repeating the dose” and how to remove “obstacles to recovery”. Except the possibility of any “exciting or maintaining cause”, “a miasm”, and “accessory circumstances”, nothing but the “morbid symptoms”, should be considered by the physician,  and “totality of symptoms”, should be the sole means to “determine the choice of the most appropriate remedy”.

      “Multi-Similimum” method of repertorization or “Integrated Similimum”, a well-principled  improvisation in modern homeopathic practice, is the most effective and rational way of attaining “total cure” of the patient.  It is an enirely new concept, evolving as a logical outcome of the scientific understanding of homeopathy, similia similibus curentur, potentization, life, disease and cure, as proposed in my article on DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY. It clearly perceives “what is to be cured in diseases”, “what is curative in medicines”, and how to adapt, the “curative” to the “to be cured”. In order to determine the choice of the “most appropriate remedy”, it solely relies up on “totality of symptoms”, with due considerations given to any “exciting or maintaining cause”, “a miasm”, and “accessory circumstances”.

    “Multi-Similimum” method is not at all a shortcut to bye-pass systematic case taking, anamnesis  and repertorization that  require much intellectual input and hard work. The concept of “multi-similimum” is the integral part of a scientific understanding of “total personality” of an individual patient. In this method, symptoms collected through elaborate and systematic case taking are “compartmentalized” into various  individual symptom groups, called “symptom complexes”, and separate similimum determined for each “symptom complex”. Drugs thus selected are combined to prepare a  “integrated similimum” applicable for the particular patient. If perfectly worked out, this “integrated similimum”  will act as a holistic “single drug”, containing all the diverse types of “molecular imprints” capable of removing each and every molecular blocks, and rectifying all the pathological bio-chemical deviations of the vital processes in the particular organism.

    What is “to be cured” in diseases? Instead of vainly repeating the vitalistic explanations provided by our old masters, we should be ready to accept the scientific perception of diseases as specific molecular errors in the vital processes. In most instances of pathology, these molecular errors happen due to the binding of some endogenic or exogenic foreign molecules up on complex biological molecules, thereby resulting in deviations in biochemical pathways. Cure consists of removal of these molecular errors in the organism. Therapeutics is the art of removing these molecular errors by using appropriate medicinal substances.

    What is “curative” in homeopathic potentized medicines? Potentized homeopathic medicines  contain different types of 3-d nano-cavities or “molecular imprints” formed in water-alcohol matrix, by imprinting with the individual constituent molecules of drug substances used for potentization. These “molecular imprints” are capable of binding to the pathological molecules having a configurational similarity to the original drug molecules used for “imprinting”. Such a binding will result in the removal of molecular blocks, thereby relieving the biological molecules from pathological inhibitions.

    How to adapt the “curative” to the “to be cured? The “curative” factors are selected and applied to the “to be cured” according to the homeopathic principle of “similia similibus curentur”.

    How to determine the choice of “most appropriate” remedy? According to my interpretation,  “most appropriate” remedy should contain all the diverse types of “molecular imprints” required to remove all the molecular errors in the particular organism. As per the proposed method, “molecular imprints” appropriate for each individual molecular error should be separately determined and “integrated” into making of a most appropriate “single remedy”.

    How the concept of “totality of symptoms” is perceived? Each specific molecular error in the organism expresses as a particular train of subjective and objective symptoms called “symptom complexes”, with peculiar locations, sensations, modalities and concomitants of their own. Totality of all these separate “symptom complexes” constitute the “totality of symptoms” of an individual. Such a totality  comprises of all the diverse “symptom complexes” representing all the genetic, constitutional, miasmatic and acquired molecular errors in that individual.

     “Multi-Similimum” method and “Multiple-Drug Prescriptions

     A word of caution. When I talk about  “Multi-Similimum” method of repertorization  or “Integrated Similimum” as a powerful clinical strategy that should be adapted in homeopathy, many homeopaths may at first glance think that I am arguing in favor of unprincipled random mixing of drugs for each and every particular disease entities, as done by the manufacturers of patent combinations now flooding the homeopathic market and blindly prescribed by many homeopaths. I am not at all for such generalized combinations of homeopathic drugs. I am proposing a systematic method of preparing a “Integrated Similimum” for the particular patient we are dealing with, and such a “drug” will never be appropriate for another individual. More over, “Multi-similimum method of repertorization”  or “Integrated Similimum” should not also be confused with  “multiple drug prescriptions”. “Multiple drug prescriptions”  are commonly employed when the prescriber  is not much confident regarding the selection of similimum in a given case. For most people engaged in this method, it almost develops in time into a habit of prescribing  multiple drugs even in very simple cases. Perhaps  he may not be able to take a final decision between two seemingly similar drugs. This may also be due to paucity of well marked reliable symptoms, non-co-operation of patient, inappropriate case taking, wrong repertorization, deficiency in materia medica knowledge, or aversion to work hard to find a similimum. Perhaps the case may be so acute and severe that it demands instant palliation. In such cases, the doctor may be compelled to use more than one drug, which seems to be equally indicated. Of course, if the real similimum is included  in such a multiple drug prescription, it will definitely act and patient will get relief. If you are using potencies above 23c, since they contain only ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules, according to my perception, there will be no any chance for interaction  between drugs. Hence, there is no any particular harm in using this method, other than the fact that the patient get only partial cure, and it may also be difficult to ascertain which drug actually worked, so that we will have to repeat same combination of drugs if follow up is required. This method of “multiple drug prescription” is used by many homeopaths at least in certain clinical contingencies.

    My propositions  regarding “Multi-Similimum” naturally evolve as the logical extension of my scientific concepts regarding “potentization” as a technology of “molecular imprinted drug designing”. I usually recommend only potencies around 30c, and consider it unhomeopathic to use drugs in low potencies(below 23C) that may contain drug molecules.  I am talking only about the desirability of combining of drugs selected as similimum through correct case taking, strict individualization and scientific “compartmentalized” repertorization for each individual patient. More over, this idea is very much in conformity with the modern understanding of diseases as deviations of vital processes arising from some or other molecular errors in the organism. According to my perspective, an individual may be having different types of molecular errors in different biochemical pathways caused by entirely different molecular blocks, and represented in the form of different groups of subjective and objective symptoms. A particular ‘symptom group’ may be the expression of a particular molecular error in a particular bio-chemic pathway, where as another “symptom group” may be representing an entirely different molecular error. Expecting a ‘single’ drug to cover all these diverse and unrelated “symptom groups” representing entirely different types of molecular errors in an organism is obviously utopian wishful thinking. Since different molecular errors may be caused by the binding of different types of exogenic or endogenic foreign molecules upon different biological molecules and pathways, we have to find appropriate ‘similimum’ for each “symptom group” to effect a complete cure. Otherwise we get only partial cures.

    “Multi-similimum” method is based on the scientific understanding that “symptoms”, whether subjective or objective, are the expression of certain pathological deviations in some biochemical pathways in the organism, caused by some or other molecular errors. Deviations in a particular biochemical pathway produces a given group of symptoms consisting of peculiar locations, sensations, modalities and concomitants(LSMC). Deviations in different biochemical pathways produce different groups of symptoms, which we call “symptom complexes”. Each “symptom complex” represents a particular biochemic deviation, caused by a particular molecular error. This is applicable also to symptoms that we call “constitutional” and “miasmatic”. Constitution and “miasms” of an individual is determined by different kinds of diverse genetic or acquired molecular errors.

    Different pathological deviations in vital processes happening at molecular level  are expressed in the form of different  subjective and objective “symptom complexes”. No body with a rational mindset can deny the fact that we  cannot find a “single drug’ that covers all those diverse “symptom complexes”  in their “totality” expressed by an individual. It is obvious that a “single drug” of our materia medica cannot contain all the ‘molecular imprints’ required for correcting all these diverse molecular errors existing in the  organnism. Hence, a single drug, how much “similimum” we think it to be, can never cure a patient completely. A drug selected as “similimum” through our existing methods may rectify only a few molecular errors expressed as some of the prominent “symptom complexes”. To effect a complete cure, we should administer a drug that contain all the different types of ‘molecular imprints’ that can rectify all the pathological molecular deviations in that person. Since it is obviously impossible to get such a single drug from nature, we have to prepare a “single drug” that contains all the required molecular imprints for our particular patient. This process is called “integrating similimum”. In this process, we select separate drugs for different “symptom complexes” and mix them together to prepare a single “similimum” that holistically covers all the “symptom complexes”, or “totality of symptoms”. This is the essence of “multi-similimum” concept.

     How to apply “Multi-Similimum Method

     I would suggest to attempt “multi-similimum” method only if the physician has enough time to spare on a case. To work out a case as per this method, a detailed and systematic case taking is mandatory. No symptom should be ignored or omitted. Each symptom should be explored in its every details such as locations, sensation, modalities and concomittants(LSMC). For instance, if our patient complains headache, record that with all associated details of LSMC. If same patient complains about some skin eruptions, that also should be recorded with its LSMC. Then there may be abdominal symptoms, mental symptoms, physical generals and the like. Record everything in detail with LSMC.

    Once the case taking is completed, next important step is to arrange those symptoms into appropriate “symptom complexes” or “compartments”. This should be done with utmost diligence. Each major symptom, with its qualifying details of locations, sensations, modalities and concomitants  may be grouped under a particular “symptom complex”. Theoretically, “a symptom complex” represents a whole train of symptoms representing a specific pathological deviation in a particular bio-chemical pathway in the organism. Hence, scientific knowledge of pathology and molecular biochemistry would help the physician a lot in undertaking this task effectively. You may need a second interview with the patient to get some more details during this “compartmentalization” process. When such systematic “compartmentalization” of symptoms is done perfectly, we can go for  the actual repertorization.

    Now we have to find appropriate repertorial rubrics for the symptoms. Repertorize each “symptom complex” separately and find its similimum. Ideal similimum will be the drug that covers all individual rubrics being part of the “symptom complex”. Most probably, for each “symptom complex”, we will get a separate similimum. If same drug happens to be similimum for more than one “symptom complex”, that should be welcomed as a positive indication. Prepare a “similimum list” of all the drugs selected through repertorization of different “symptom complexes”.

    If there are any uncommon, peculiar, characteristic symptoms in the case, not part of any particular “symptom complex”, consider such symptoms as separate individual “symptom complex”, and add their similimum  also to the “similimum list”.

    Then consider indications for any nosodes, sarcodes  and other “miasmatic” drugs. They may not come from repertorization, as our reprtories do not represent symptoms of such drugs sufficiently. Tuberculinum, medorrhinum, Thyroidinum, Adrenalin, Pitutrin, and such other drugs will never come top in repertorization. Hence if they come under any of symptom groups, even though not at the top level, they should be added to the similimum list. Perhaps we will have to consider such drugs merely on the basis logical thinking based on our knowledge of biochemistry and molecular pathology. “Causation” also will have to be considered in this way. Causative drugs never come top in repertorization. So they also should be given special consideration.

    Now our final “similimum list” is ready. Do not bother much  about the number of drugs. On the other hand, it is very important that any drug which may have a role to play should not be omitted. Procure the drugs from most trusted sources only. Mix them in equal quantities in 30c potency to prepare the “Integrated Similimum” for that particular patient.  If we have done the work perfectly, such a preparation presumably will contain all the “molecular imprints” that may be required to remove all molecular blocks in that patient. By administering this “single drug” for appropriate period, we can ensure a “total” cure for the patient.

    Dose, repetition and mode of administration are for the physician to decide. I give three times a day in acute conditions, and once daily in chronic cases, until complete cure is reported. Dose is decided on the basis of number drugs contained in our preparation. A ‘drop for a drug” is my law. If the “integrated-similimum” is prepared by adding five drugs, I use 5 drops for a dose.  There is no harm if you increase or decrease the quantity. It will work curatively.

    “Multiple Drugs” Vs “Single Drug”

    I am well aware that homeopaths generally consider prescribing of more than one medicine at a time, simultaneously, alternating or mixing with each other is totally unscientific, un-principled and un-homeopathic practice. Of course, they may quote extensively from our great masters as supporting evidences for their opposition to multiple drugs. If one is any way constrained to prescribe multiple drugs in certain compulsory practical contingencies, it is done with a conscience of guilt as if he is committing a grave sin to the “sacred” system. They shy to admit it openly, and try to cover up what have been done. The theory of ‘one medicine, one dose’ is considered to be the golden homeopathic rule, and everybody strive to convince others that he is an ardent follower of this rule. People who claim to follow the ‘one medicine, one dose’ rule are held in high esteem by the profession, as true “classical homeopaths”.

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

    Is it acceptable in homeopathy to prescribe more than one medicine at a time? Is it against the fundamental logic of homeopathy to do so? Whatever our great masters have said earlier within the limitations of their space-time context, we will have to make a rational assessment of certain factors while trying to answer this important question on the basis of updated knowledge.

    In homeopathic terminology, any form of drug substance used as a sample for “proving” is considered to be a single entity. It is called a ‘single drug’, even though it may be a complex mixture of several substances. For example, an alcoholic tincture extracted from the Nux Vomica plant is evidently a mixture of many types of enzymes, alkaloids, glycosides, phytochemicals, and other organic and inorganic molecules. Over and above the natural organic contents, various elements and chemical molecules absorbed from the environment will also be part of that tincture. It may also contain various accidental contaminants and pollutants also. In spite of all these possibilities, we consider Nux Vomica tincture is a “single” medicinal substance, and we often talk about a “Nux Vomica personality” as such!

    When we introduce a sample of Nux Vomica tincture into the living organism for ‘proving’, its constituent molecules are instantly subjected to various processes such as disintegration, ionization, hydration and certain chemical transformations. Individual constituent molecules are carried and conveyed through blood and other internal transport systems into the cells in different parts of the body. They interact with various enzymes, receptors, metabolites and other biological molecules inside the organism. These interactions are decided and directed by the specific properties such as configuration and charge  of active groups of individual drug molecules, and their specific affinity towards biological target molecules. It is very important to note that Nux Vomica interact with different biological molecules, not as a singular entity, but as individual constituent molecules and ions. These individual drug molecules and ions are capable of binding to some or other biological molecules, effecting configurational changes in them, and thereby inhibiting the essential bio-chemical processes which can take place only with their presence and mediation. Such molecular inhibitions in various bio-chemical pathways result in a condition of pathology, expressed as a train of subjective and objective symptoms, due to the involvement of various neuro-mediator and neuro-transmitter systems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    During our clinical practice, we would have experienced instances of removal of totally unexpected symptoms and diseases from the patient. Those symptoms might not be included in any text book of Materia Medica of the given drug. I suspect it may be the potencies of those unknown molecules entering the sample during potentization that is playing this trick.

    The above facts more than expose the hollowness of our belief and often-repeated claim that we give a ‘single medicine’ to our patient. It is undeniable that we are using medicines selected on the basis of similarity of symptoms, mixing it with potencies of some or other different types of molecules  as well. This is an unpleasant situation which we cannot neglect. We should understand that we are giving the patient a mixture of potencies of different types of molecules, about some of which we have no idea at all. Same time, our medicines provide expected results when applied on the basis of ‘similia similibus curentur’. It shows that the presence of potencies of any unproved and unknown foreign molecules in the potentized drug in no way negatively affect the its effectiveness as a therapeutic agent.

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

    There is least possibility of any constituent molecules of drug substance remaining in their potentized forms above 23c. Only molecular imprints will remain. Hence, when higher potencies of two drugs are mixed together, there will be no chemical interaction taking place between them. In such a mixture, the molecular imprints of constituents of both samples will remain independent, without influencing each other, and with out losing their own individual qualities whatsoever.

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

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

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

    Issue of “Drug-Relationships:

    “Drug relationship” is a subject about which most homeo practitioners are very much worried and confused when talking about combining of potentized drugs. Some practitioners very much rely upon ‘drug relationships’ even in deciding their treatment protocols. Concepts such as ‘complementary’, ‘inimical’, ‘antidotal’ etc., are frequently utilized in everyday practice. Some doctors even deviate from the theory of similimum, due to their over indulgence with ‘drug relationship’ protocols. When prescribing a drug based on its so-called complementary relationship to the earlier prescriptions, we forget to consider whether it is a similimum by totality of symptoms. Yet, we call it ‘classical’ homeopathy. When searching through the literature and authorities regarding drug relationships, it will be seen that no reliable scientific studies have been done on this subject. Most of the drug relationships are proposed by empirical clinical observations of practitioners, and not corroborated by scientific studies or evidences. More over, practitioners who are not much bothered over this relationships between drugs swear that their experiences prove otherwise. Some homeopaths prescribe even so-called inimical drugs simultaneously or alternatingly, and get expected positive clinical results.

    We have already seen during our previous deliberations that in homeopathic potencies above 23C, there is no chance of drug molecules to exist. These preparations contain only molecular imprints of constituent molecules of the drug substance subjected to potentization. Molecular imprints are only supramolecular formations or hydrosomes. Chemically, they contain only water and ethyl alcohol molecules. Any sample of potentized homeopathic drug contains hundreds of types of individual “imprints”, representing the diverse types of molecules contained in the original drug substance. It is clear that they co-exist without disturbing or influencing each other in anyway, same time preserving their individual properties as “molecular imprints” of specific drug molecules.

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

    2.     Same time, the case of mother tinctures and preparations below 23c potencies may be totally different. They contain crude drug molecules, which can interact with each other due to their chemical properties. The concept of ‘drug relationships’ may be valid in the case of these low potencies. Low potencies may be more active than crude drugs, since they contain free molecules and ions.

    3.     Low potencies and mother tincture of a drug may antidote higher potencies of same drug, due to the interaction with the counteractive complementary factors(CCF) contained in the higher potencies.

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

    5.     Higher potencies of a drug may antidote the physiological effects of low potencies and mother tinctures of same drug, due to the interaction with the counteractive complementary factors(CCF) contained in the higher potencies.

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

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

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

     Mother Tinctures

     We know that many homeopathic practitioners prescribe plenty of mother tinctures and  low potency preparations. They do very successful practice also. But, I am a bit suspicious regarding the desirability of inordinate use of mother tinctures, low potencies and crude drugs, especially in a routine way for long terms.

    It may relieve some of the symptoms, of course. But danger of emerging ever new off-target molecular errors and resultant pathological conditions really exist in such a treatment protocol. We must not forget that the symptoms listed in our materia medica reprsent the result of pathologic conditions that can be generated in healthy persons by the use of these drugs in crude form.  Indiscriminate long-term use of mother tinctures containing plant enzymes, poisonous alkaloids, glycosides and various other phyto-chemical ingredients is an   unpardonable  crime even if it is done in the name of homeopathy. The drug molecules and ions contained in these tinctures might perhaps give temporary relief  by acting as nutritional supplementations, or by a competitive relationship to pathological molecules due to configurational similarity. But it is evident from their recorded symptomatologies  that the constituent molecules and ions of those drugs  were  capable of creating various pathological molecular inhibitions in diverse bio-chemic pathways in the organism. We should never forget that the subjective and objective symptoms provided in our material medica were created by the molecular deviations happened in healthy individuals by the use of drugs during drug proving. Hence in my opinion, it is ideal to treat patients using potencies above  23c, which do not contain any trace of the drug molecules of the original drug. If our case taking, repertorization and selection of drug is correct, there is no chance of failure in such a protocol. Use of mother tinctures and low potencies will have to be considered as identical to Ayurveda, Allopathy or Herbal treatment, even though we use the label of homeopathy. Those who indulge in excessive use of mother tinctures, without bothering  about the constituent drug  molecules and their adverse long term impacts on the organism, are more hazardous to human health than our allopathic counterparts. I humbly request them to think over.

    From our materia medica works, it may be understood that most of  those people who had participated in proving of  Hydrastis Canadensis developed symptoms of gastric ulcer and hyperacidity along with many other deep seated pathological conditions. Doctors who administer large doses of Hydrastis Tincture to relive gastric symptoms as part of homeopathic treatment should note this point . Of course, we may get temporary relief, by the way of competitive relationships with pathological molecules, due to configurational similarity of drug molecules and pathological molecules. The prolonged use of Hydrasts Tincture not only produce the symptoms mentioned in its materia medica,  but may even induce very serious genetic errors to happen.  If  hydrastis is the similimum for the patient, it will be effective in high potencies. This is real homeopathy.

    Please do not be provoked when I say that who give Passiflora for inducing sleep, Rauwolfia  for lowering blood pressure and Syzijium for high blood sugar in their tincture form, are not practicing ideal homeopathy even if they may be well known homeopaths, producing results.  No homeopath with some common sense, who had carefully read the materia medica of Alfalfa will dare to prescribe it as tonics to improve the appetite and general health of innocent children. It is evident from its symptomatology that Alfalfa is capable of producing diabetes, bulimia, and upsetting the normal functioning of kidneys.

    We should remember that there was no exact knowledge regarding the long term evil effects of many drugs, when many of them were proved and their materia medica prepared. There was least knowledge about the probable hazardous genetic disorders they were likely to produce. It is found in Boecricke Materia medica that Arsenic Bromide mother tincture is indicated for diabetes. No physician with scientific awareness will even think of prescribing that drug today in low potencies. Who will now dare to prescribe Ars iod 3x, Iodum 3x, Sulphur Q, or various compounds of Mercury and Lead only because they are given in our text books of Materia Medica?

     We know of homeopaths who make their patients consume for prolonged periods, the mother tinctures of several drugs, including various patented combinations flooding the market in the name of Homeopathy. How can Homeopaths prescribe them without any prick of conscience? Those who love homoeopathy should take urgent initiative to prevent such tendencies either through awareness programs and campaigns, or through stringent legislational procedures.

    External Applications

     A homeopathic medicine, as any other drug substance, works internally, at molecular level, irrespective of the route through which it is introduced into the body. Even if a drug is applied externally, intended as a local medication, it will be absorbed into the body fluids through capillary systems, conveyed through blood, lymph or other internal transport systems, undergo bio-chemical changes, and act on various target molecules, according to the configuration of their constituent molecules. This is true whether it is applied on the tongue or on the skin. Hence the term ‘external application’ is a misnomer.

    Even if we decide to use a homeopathic medicine externally, it would be ideal to use a smilimum, in potentized form, selected on the basis of symptomatology. In the case of mother tinctures and low potencies, their usage should be considered only if one intend to administer the mdicine in its crude form itself. In that case, even though we may get some palliations, it will not be much different from allopathy or ayurveda, and cannot be considered a legitimate homeopathic practice. We should bear in mind the fact that when we apply homeopathic drugs as external applications, they act on the basis of therapeutic principle of  ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’.

    It is an absolute blunder to consider that medicines used externally on the skin act only on the skin. The homeopathic ointments, hair tonics, creams and toilet soaps flooding the market are to be seen as the growing trend of  unethical commercialization of homeopathy. Homeopaths should fight this trend with all their might.

     Need for Concerted Research

     The whole stream of ideas presented in this article contains a lot of hypothetical deductions developed using known facts and  dialectical logical method, which need to be corroborated by a series of well organized scientific experiments. Author is himself well conscious of his own inescapable intellectual and material limitations in taking up a work of such a magnitude. Admittedly, this article is only a very inexpert and incomplete attempt to provide a scientific explanation to the theoretical and practical riddles involved in Homeopathy. Kindly take it merely as an initial step in that direction. But I would dare to declare aloud my great conviction that, primitive forms of nano-technology and modern molecular medicine lay hidden encapsulated in the two century old theory of ‘similia similibus curentur’, and the wonderful art of homeopathic ‘potentization’.

    When we delve deeper and deeper in to scientific re-reading of homeopathy, we cannot help ourselves from bowing again and again with wonder and respect on the feet of the glowing memory of the great master, who invented such a great therapeutic system, which transcends the limitations  of centuries. Let us hope that the modern scientific community which had failed to recognize and respect that great genius, would show their grandeur, by rectifying themselves at least here after.

    I think the issues elaborated in this article certainly deserve further concerted research and serious scientific studies. We have to visualize a mega research project involving investment of huge financial and human resources, with participation of experts in homeopathy, along with scientists having expertise in different related fields. This project will have to incorporate various subjects such as nano-technology, molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics, pharmacodynamics, neuro-endocrinology, supra-molecular chemistry, water clusters, liquid crystals, clatharate compounds, molecular imprinting, shape memory property etc. This humble attempt of mine may be seen only as an expression of intense desire on my part to draw attention of the leading lights in the field of homeopathy to the imperative of taking up of such a serious research project. Author will be more than satisfied, even if this article could induce an inner spark of creative desire in the mind of at least one individual having authority and capability to take up this historic mission to fruition.

    In order to prove this hypothesis we should be capable of finding answer to the following 14 questions:

    1. Whether chemical structure of water/ethyl alcohol mixture(control) and potentized medicine are same
    2. Whether potentized medicines do not contain original drug molecules.
    3. Whether potentized medicines act up on biological molecules in a different from control solutions.
    4. Whether potentized medicines react with biological molecules in exactly opposite way from that of original drug molecules.
    5. Whether by the influence of forces such as heat, electricity or other EMRs, potentized medicines lose their power to interact with biological molecules.
    6. Whether potentized medicines can prevent their original drug molecules from interacting with biological molecules.
    7. Whether potentized medicines can antidote the biochemical actions of their original drug molecules.
    8. Whether potentized medicines have any physical properties different from control solutions.
    9. Whether potentized medicines contain supra-molecular clusters of water/ethyl alcohol, and controls do not contain such clusters.
    10. Whether those clusters disappear once the potentized medicines are subjected to heat or electric current or strong EMRs.
    11. Whether potentized medicines can absorb more UV light than controls, during spectrometric studies
    12. Whether scattering of light in potentized medicines and controls are different.
    13. Whether defraction of light beam are different in potentized medicines and control solutions.
    14. Whether the hydrogen bonds in potentized medicines are more strong and stable than that of control solutions.

    As revised on 20-01-2011, Kannur, Kerala

     K. C. Chandran Nambiar

    Email: similimum@gmail.com. Mobile: 91 9446520252.

    (Developer of: SIMILIMUM ULTRA- Homeopathic Software)


     

  • Old ‘Laws’, ‘Rules’ And ‘Methods’ Would Go And New Ones Emerge, As Our Knowledge Advances

    Homeopathy is taught as a closed system of eternally immutable ‘laws’, ‘rules’, ‘principles’ and ‘methods’ every ‘true’ homeopath is bound to ‘obey’. We hear ‘seven cardinal principles of hahnemann’, ‘hering laws’, ‘kents observations’ and many other ‘theories’ that rule the practice of homeopathy. Anybody violating or thinking beyond these ‘fundamental laws’ are considered to be ‘wrong homeopaths’.

    We should remember, no ‘masters’ so far knew what really happens during potentization. Nobody so far knew what are the exact active principles of potentized drugs. Nobody so far knew the exact molecular level mechanism by which the active principles of potentized drugs interact with the biological organism and produce a therapeutic effect. Only things our masters actually knew was the objective natural phenomena of ‘likes curing likes’ and ‘high dilution effects’.

    Everything else were mere speculations. Speculations based on unscientific philosophy of ‘dynamism’ and ‘vitalism’. All ‘laws’, ‘rules’, ‘methods’ and ‘doctrines’ we consider as ‘cardinal principles of homeopathy evolved from these speculative theories. All ‘directions’ regarding ‘doses’, repetitions’, ‘single drugs’, ‘follow ups’ and everything else were formulated without clearly knowing the substances we are actually dealing with or how they actually work. They were based on misinterpreted ‘experiences’ of ‘stalwarts’ with historically limited scientific knowledge.

    Once we acquire scientific knowledge regarding the exact processes involved in potentization, active principles of potentized drugs and the molecular mechanism of their therapeutic action, all the existing ‘methods’, ‘laws’, ‘rules’ and ‘principles’ are bound to change. New ‘principles’ and ‘methods’will evolve.

    What ever I talk about ‘principles’ and ‘methods’ of homeopathic practice such as ‘dose’ and ‘repetitions’ are based on my scientific understanding of potentization as ‘molecular imprinting’, active principles of potentized drugs as ‘molecular imprints’, and homeopathic therapeutics as removal of biochemical inhibitions. Unless you understand the concept ‘molecular imprinting’ of potentization and biochemistry of therapeutics, you are bound to fail to understand everything I say.

    Acquiring a scientific understanding of the phenomena involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’, and applying that knowledge judiciously for curing the sick- that should be the only ‘fundamental rule’ that guide a homeopath.

    ‘Likes cures likes’ and ‘high dilution effects’ represent the objective part of homepathy, which are concerned with truthful observations of natural phenomena involved in the process of ‘cure’. This is the strong and rational aspect of homeopathy that have to be preserved, explored and advanced into more and more perfection.

    The theoretical explanatory part of homeopathy, which is based on totally unscientific and irrational philosophy of ‘dynamism’ and ‘vitalism’ of eighteenth century europe, as well as the ‘rules’, ‘laws’ and ‘methods’ formulated accordingly, is the real stumbling block that prevents this wonderful therapeutic art from advancing into a scientific medical system.

    We have to preserve and strengthen the rational objective aspect of homeopathy, and explain it in terms of modern scientific knowledge. We should show the audacity to discard its irrational and unscientific theoretical parts. Once we understand the real science involved in the phenomena of ‘likes cure likes’ and ‘potentization’, a whole new set of practical ‘rules’ and ‘laws’ would spontaneously evolve.

  • Is It Mandatory To Follow ‘Seven Cardinal Principles’ To Be A ‘True’ Homeopath, As We Are Made To Believe?

    Many homeopaths talk about ‘seven cardinal principles of hahnemann’, and believe that without following these ‘cardinal’ principles one cannot be a ‘true’ homeopath.

    Did hahnemann ever say there are ‘seven’ cardinal principles in homeopathy? Kindly verify for references from hahnemann’s original works. When we say homeopaths should ‘follow’ certain ‘cardinal principles of hahnemann’, we should inquire about the original reference where hahnemann said these are the cardinal principles.

    Actually hahnemann did not make a ‘list’ of principles. He made some objective observations regarding the phenomenon of ‘cure’, and inferred that an objective ‘law’ is working under this phenomenon. He called it ‘similia similibus curentur’.

    While experimenting with smaller and smaller doses of drug substances to avoid the bad effects of crude drugging prevalent in conventional medicine during that period, he noticed that even highly diluted drugs have medicinal effects, even though there existed least chance for medicinal substance to be present in them

    Then he took up the task of explaining these two phenomena ( similia similibus curentur and high dilution effects) using the existing scientific knowledge available to him, thereby trying to build up a simple, safe and effective therapeutic system.

    Since the scientific knowledge system was in its primitive stage of evolution during that time, it was difficult to explain these observed phenomena using existing tool-kit of science. In the absence of necessary scientific knowledge available for accomplishing this task, he was compelled to speculate using philosophical concepts such as ‘dynamism’ or ‘vitalism’. Actually, ORGANON represents his highly intellectual attempts to explain his fundamental observations regarding phenomena of cure.

    In organon, he discussed many things, from ‘vital force theory’ to ‘mesmerism’. That does not mean everything he discussed are ‘cardinal’ principles of homeopathy. If you want to identify such ‘cardinal’ or ‘basic’ things of homeopathy, they are ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’. They are the ‘fundamental objective observations’ of natural phenomena. Everything else is philosophical speculations, which are bound to change as our scientific knowledge advances.

    Actually, the ‘seven cardinal principles’ were the invention of some later interpreters- not of hahnemann. Somebody understood homeopathy that way- that is all. You can ‘filter’ any number of ‘cardinal’ principles from hahnemann’s works, according to your perspectives and understandings. If you want to see ‘vital force’ as cardinal principle of homeopathy, somebody else could say ‘mesmerism’ is also a cardinal principle of homeopathy. You can list ‘seven’ or ‘seventy’.

    Somebody involved in the making of homeopathic curriculum for Indian universities happened to be influenced by this ‘seven cardinal principles’ and included it in the syllabus. Indian students were taught that to be a ‘true’ homeopath, they should ‘follow’ these ‘seven’ principles. If it was part of your syllabus, somebody should have asked the teachers for original references from hahnemann and verify whether hahnemann did say these ‘seven’ are ‘cardinal principles’ of homeopathy. That is the way inquisitive minds should work and learn more and more deep.

    According to my analysis, the only ‘cardinal’ or ‘basic’ things in homeopathy are ‘two’ fundamental observations hahnemann made regarding the objective phenomena of ‘cure’. They are ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’. Everything else is totally unscientific speculations and theorizations made in an attempt to explain these ‘basic’ observations. There is nothing ‘cardinal’ in those observations. It is our duty to explain hahnemann’s ‘fundamental observations’ in terms of modern scientific knowledge system.

    I would like to call ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ and ‘Potentization’ as FUNDAMENTAL OBSERVATIONS OF HOMEOPATHY, rather than using the term ‘fundamental principles’. That would be more close to truth.

    Hahnemann made two important observations regarding therapeutics 250 years ago:

    1. Diseases with specific symptoms can be cured by drugs that can produce similar symptoms in healthy individuals. He called it ‘similia similibus curentur’.

    2. When used according to ‘similia similibus curentur’, dug substances can act as powerful therapeutic agents even in high dilutions through a process of serial ‘dilution and succussion’. He called this process as ‘potentization’.

    These TWO are the main OBSERVATIONS made by Hahnemann, which are known as fundamental principles of Homeopathy.

    Hahnemann tried to explain these OBSERVATIONS in terms of scientific and philosophical knowledge available to him in that POINT OF TIME. Organon consists of these theoretical explanations and speculations. Since scientific knowledge was in its primitive stage at that time, Hahnemann’s explanations were bound to bear that limitations. ORGANON contains a lot of theorizations and speculations that do not agree with, or go against modern scientific understanding.

    Equipped with modern scientific knowledge and its tools, we are now in a far better position than Samuel Hahnemann to explain the phenomena he observed 250 years ago. Now we can explain ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’ more scientifically, rationally and logically. With full respect the great genius of our master, we should be truthful and bold enough to discard those evidently unscientific theoretical speculations of ORGANON.

    These two FUNDAMENTAL OBSERVATIONS were based on experiences, experiments and logical evaluations of OBJECTIVE PHENOMENA OF NATURE done by a great intellectual person. But the ‘principles’ he used to explain these objective phenomena were unscientific, obviously due to the limitations of scientific knowledge available to him at that time. We should accept his OBSERVATIONS, but judiciously discard or modify his unscientific PRINCIPLES.

    Some people consider each and every word uttered by our ‘master’ as ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy. Some others would even include the words of other ‘stalwarts’ like Kent, Herring and the like also in the category of ‘fundamental’ principles.

    All these ‘theories’ are only philosophical explanations, conjectures, interpretations, opinions and empirical conclusion based on personal experiences of ‘stalwarts’ and ‘masters’. They are not ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy.

    If you understand the scientific meaning of ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’, and judiciously apply them for curing the patients, you are a ‘true homeopath’, even if you do not ‘follow’ the ‘seven cardinal principles’ invented by unscientific interpreters of hahnemann.

    A ‘true’ homeopath is one who understands and applies homeopathy ‘scientifically- not one who learns homeopathy dogmatically and applies it blindly.

    The main point I raise in this article is whether the concept of “seven cardinal principles” originally belongs to hahnemann or his later interpreters. Hahnemann said many things in his books, from ‘similia’ to ‘mesmerism’. Who decided only these ‘seven’ are ‘cardinal’ and others are not? What is the logic behind such a slection? Who did it?

  • Sankaran’s ‘Sensations-Kingdoms’ Method- Homeopathy Crippled By Lack Of Basic Scientific Awareness

    Corner stone of ‘Sankaran Method’ is classifying drugs into ‘animal’, ‘plant’, and ‘mineral’ kingdoms. Then each kingdom is related with particular group of ‘vital sensations’. Plant remedies are used for individuals having ‘vital sensations’ belonging to the group of ‘sensitivity’, animal remedies are used for those having ‘viatal sensations’ belonging to the class of ‘survival instincts’, and mineral remedies for ‘structural consciousness’.

    First, we have to analyze the concept of ‘remedy kingdoms’. Medicinal properties of any remedy is determined by the chemical structure and properties of the individual chemical molecules they contain. Because, it is individual drug molecules that act upon biological molecules, produce inhibitions, molecular pathology and associated symptoms. During potentization, it is the individual drug molecules that undergo molecular imprinting, and as such, it is the individual molecular imprints that act as therapeutic agents. In the absence of this molecular perspective of our medicinal substances, we fall prey to all sorts of unscientific theories that misguide us gravely.

    Let us consider a particular remedy belonging to plant kingdom. The molecular composition as well as chemical and medicinal properties of the particular drug sample will be decided by various factors. It will contain kingdom-specific, family-specific, species-specific, variety specific, plant-specific and environmental-specific chemical molecules. Part of plant from which the drug substance is extracted is also a decisive factor. Nux vomica tinctures prepared from seeds, fruits, flowers, leaves, bark or root of nux vomica plant will have different molecular composition and medicinal properties. Some molecules will be common to all samples from a particular plant. Certain other molecules will be common to all samples from a particular species. There will be some molecules common to family, as well as some common to plant kingdom as a whole.  Plants belonging to same family will have some common genes, which would produce some similar proteins and enzymes, that would lead to similar molecular processes and synthesis of similar molecules. There would be kingdom-specific, family specific, species specific, variety specific and individual specific and tissue specific chemicals in a plant drug.

    As per this perspective, medicinal properties of a given drug substance of ‘plant kingdom’ will be decided by the collective properties of organ specific, plant specific, variety specific, species specific, family specific and kingdom specific chemical molecules contained in them. It is obvious that it is wrong to think that medicinal properties of a drug substance could be assumed by the ‘kingdom’ to which it belongs.

    This is applicable to all drugs belonging to mineral as well as animal kingdoms.

    When animal or plant substances are disintegrated or divided into individual molecules, they become similar to mineral drugs at molecular level. There are many drugs which could not be included in any particular kingdom. Petroleum is a mineral, but it is the product of disintegration of animal and vegetable matter under ocean beds. Acetic acid is a mineral, but it is prepared from vegetable products. How can we say lactic acid, prepared from milk is plant remedy or mineral remedy? All of us consider calc carb as mineral drug, but exactly it is the ‘middle layer of oyster shells’, and as such, is an animal drug. Kreasote is combination of phenols prepared from wood, and how can we say it is ‘plant’ or ‘mineral’?

    At molecular level, the dividing line between ‘plant, animal and mineral’ kingdoms is irrelevant. It is the molecular structure and chemical properties that decide the medicinal properties. To be more specific, it is the functional groups or moieties that act as decisive factor. Classifying drugs on the basis of ‘kingdoms’ and assigning certain ‘mental level sensations’ to them is totally unscientific and illogical. It illustrates the pathetic level of scientific awareness that rules the propagators of ‘sankaran method’.

    Rajan Sankaran’s ‘sensation’ method is based on the concepts of ‘deeper level vital sensations’ and corresponding ‘remedy kingdoms’. This method has nothing in common with classical homeopathy, where symptoms belonging to mentals, physical generals and particulars, with their qualifications such as causations, sensations, locations, modalities and concomitants decide the selection of similimum.

    According to this theory, ‘structure’ is the basic sensation of ‘minerals’, ‘sensitivity’ is the basic sensation of ‘plants’ and ‘survival’ is the basic sensation of ‘animals’.

    According to this methods, case taking involves an inquiry into ‘deeper levels of consciousness’, by prompting the patient to introspect from ‘symptoms’ into ‘deeper, deeper and still deeper’ levels so that his basic ‘vital sensation’ is explored. Then this ‘vital sensation’ is used to decide the ‘kingdom’ to which the patient belong. Remedies are selected from these ‘remedy kingdoms’.

    The most dogmatic part of this theory is the relating of ‘vital sensation’ with ‘remedy kingdoms’. On what basis sankaran says ‘sensitivity’ is the ‘vital sensation’ of ‘plants’? Any logical or scientific explanation for this relationship? If we go through materia medica of various drugs, we can see many ‘animal’ and ‘minerals drugs’ having sensitivity of high order. How can anybody claiming to be a homeopath ignore the whole drug provings and materia medica to declare that ‘sensitivity’ is the ‘vital sensation’ of ‘plants’ only?

    When a homeopath says ‘sensitivity’ is the ‘vital sensation of plants, it means all plant remedies have produced such a characteristic sensation in healthy individuals during drug proving. To say ‘animal drugs’ have ‘vital sensation’ of ‘survival instinct’, a homeopath should be capable of showing examples from materia medica to justify that statement. Same with ‘vital sensations’ of mineral drugs. Our materia medica does not show that only ‘plant drugs’ produced ‘sensitivity’ in provers.  We can see many ‘animal’ and ‘mineral’ drugs with high order of ‘sensitivity’.  If not from materia medica, where from Dr Sankaran ‘invented’ that ‘vital sensation’ of ‘sensitivity’ is the basic characteristic of ‘plant kingdom’?

    See the rubric ‘sensitive’ in ‘mind’ of kent repertory:

    [Kent]Mind : SENSITIVE, oversensitive:- Acon., Aesc., Aeth., Alum., Am-c., Anac., Ang., Ant-c., Apis., Arg-n., Arn., Ars., Ars-i., Asaf., Asar., Aur., Bar-c., Bell., Bor., Bov., Bry., Calc., Calc-p., Calc-s., Camph., Cann-s., Canth., Carb-an., Carb-s., Carb-v., Cast., Caust., Cham., Chin., Chin-a., Chin-s., Cic., Cina., Clem., Cocc., Coff., Colch., Coloc., Con., Crot-h., Cupr., Daph., Dig., Dros., Ferr., Ferr-ar., Ferr-p., Fl-ac., Gels., Gran., Hep., Hyos., Ign., Iod., Kali-ar., Kali-c., Kali-i., Kali-n., Kali-p., Kali-s., Kreos., Lac-c., Lach., Laur., Lyc., Lyss., Mag-m., Med., Meph., Merc., Mez., Mosch., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nat-p., Nat-s., Nit-ac., Nux-v., Ph-ac., Phos., Plat., Plb., Psor., Puls., Ran-b., Sabad., Sabin., Samb., Sanic., Sars., Seneg., Sep., Sil., Spig., Stann., Staph., Sulph., Tab., Teucr., Ther., Thuj., Valer., Verat., Viol-t., Zinc.

    In this list, 46 remedies belong to ‘mineral kingdom’: alumina, ammo carb, antim crud, arg nit, ars, ars iod, aur, baryta, borax, calc, calc phos, calc sulph, carb sulph, causticum, cupr, ferr, ferr ars, ferr ph, fl acid, hep, iod, kali group, mag mur, mercury, natrum group, nit acid, phos acid, phos, platinum, plumbum, sanicula, silicea, stannum, suplh, zinc

    12 remedies are from ‘animal kingdom’: Apis, cantharis, carb an, crot h, lac can, lach, med, moschus, psorinum, sep, theri.

    Remaining 56 remedies are of ‘plant kingdom’.

    On what basis sankaran says ‘sensitivity’ is the ‘vital sensation’ of plant kingdom? How can anybody say persons who are ‘sensitive’ at the deeper’ level need ‘plant remedies only? How can this theory be called homeopathy?

    Similarly, if we examine various rubrics belonging to ‘survival’ instinct, or ‘structural’ sensations, we can see they are not limited to animal or mineral remedies only. Many ‘plant remedies’ have such symptoms.

    According to Rajan Sankaran, FEAR is the indication of VITAL SENSATION of ‘survival instincts’ which need an ANIMAL KINGDOM drug. Based on which materia medica rajan sankaran says ‘vital sensation’ of ‘fear’ indicates only ‘animal kingdom remedy’?

    Please see the MIND rubric FEAR in Kent Repertory:

    [Kent]Mind : FEAR:- Absin., Acet-ac., Acon., Aeth., Agar., Agn., Aloe., Alum., Am-c., Anac., Ang., Ant-c., Ant-t., Arg-n., Ars., Ars-i., Asaf., Aur., Bapt., Bar-c., Bar-m., Bell., Bor., Bry., Bufo., Cact., Calad., Calc., Calc-p., Calc-s., Camph., Cann-i., Cann-s., Caps., Carb-an., Carb-s., Carb-v., Cast., Caust., Cham., Chin., Chin-a., Chlor., Cic., Cimic., Coca., Coc-c., Cocc., Coff., Coloc., Con., Croc., Crot-h., Cupr., Daph., Dig., Dros., Dulc., Echi., Elaps., Eupho., Ferr., Ferr-ar., Ferr-p., Form., Gels., Gent-c., Glon., Graph., Hell., Hep., Hydr-ac., Hyos., Hyper., Ign., Iod., Ip., Kali-ar., Kali-br., Kali-c., Kali-i., Kali-n., Kali-p., Kali-s., Lach., Lil-t., Lob., Lyc., Lyss., Mag-c., Mag-m., Manc., Meli., Merc., Merc-i-r., Mez., Mosch., Mur-ac., Murx., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nat-p., Nat-s., Nicc., Nit-ac., Nux-v., Onos., Op., Petr., Phos., Phyt., Pip-m., Plat., Psor., Puls., Ran-b., Raph., Rheum., Rhod., Rhus-t., Rhus-v., Ruta., Sec., Sep., Sil., Spig., Spong., Squil., Stann., Staph., Stram., Stront., Stry., Sul-ac., Sulph., Tab., Tarent., Thuj., Til., Valer., Verat., Zinc.

    See. 75 drugs belong to PLANT KINGDOM! 54 are MINERAL drugs! Only 9 ANIMAL drugs! How Rajan Sankaran say only ANIMAL drugs are indicated for ‘vital sensation’ of ‘survival instincts’? By this approach, the practitioner who looks only ‘animal’ drugs is actually deprived of a large number of drugs belonging to other ‘kingdoms’, one of which may be the real similimum.

    There may be many patients ‘sensitive at deeper levels’ who may require ‘animal’ or ‘mineral’ drugs if we select drugs using homeopathic method of totality of symptoms. Limiting all ‘sensitive’ patients to ‘plant kingdom’ remedies may be detrimental in such cases.

    Rajan Sankaran says FEAR is the expression if ‘vital sensation of survival instincts’ which the ‘theme’ or quality of ‘animals’. As such, sankaran method uses only ‘animal remedies’ for people exhibiting ‘deep seated’ fear.

    Homeopathic understanding of medicinal properties of drug substances are based on symptoms produced in healthy individuals during drug provings. Those symptoms are listed in our materia medica and repertories. We similimum by comparing symptoms of patients with symptoms of drugs, which is the basis of our therapeutic principle ‘similia similibus curentur’.

    Please go to KENT REPERTORY> MIND > FEAR: Aconite, Argentum Nit, Aurum, Bell, Borax, Calc Phos, Calc, Carb sulph, Cicuta, Digitalis, Graphites, Ignatia, Kali Ars, Lyco, Lyssin, Nat Carb, Phos, Platina, Psor, Sepia and Stram are the drugs listed with THREE MARKS under FEAR.

    As per homeopathic method of similimum being selected on the basis of our materia medica, these are the prominent drugs to be considered in patients with characeristic sensation of FEAR.

    But, according to sankaran, FEAR indicates ‘vital sensation’ of ‘survival instincts’, which needs ‘animal remedies’ only. Only animal remeies found in above list are Lyssin, Psorinum and Sepia. Homeopaths practicing sankaran method will obviously ignore all other drugs in this list, since they are not ‘animal remedies’. Does this approach strengthen homeopaths, or debilitate them?

    I want to know, from where sankaran got the idea that only ‘plant remedies’ have ‘fear’ and ‘survival instincts’? Which drug proving? Which materia medica? A person cannot claim to be homeopath by ignoring all available homeopathic literature on materia medica, and producing materia medica and symptoms from his fancies.

    Some people claim, sankaran’s concepts are based on his ‘observations’. Did he conducted drug provings of all drugs and ‘observe’ their symptoms? Did he prove the symptoms given in our materia medica are not reliable? Which proving showed him sepia, lyssin and psorinum has more ‘fear’ than phos, bell, stram or arg nit?

    Would Sankaran say a homeopath cannot cure a patient having ‘survival insticts’ and ‘fear’ using phosporous or stramonium, if they turn out to be similimum on the basis of totality of symptoms. Should we avoid phos, since it is not an ‘animal drug’?

    Please see following rubrics:

    [Kent]Mind : FIGHT, wants to:- Bell., Bov., Hipp., Hyos., Merc., Sec.

    [Kent]Mind : QUARRELSOME:- Acon., Agar., Alum., Ambr., Am-c., Anac., Anan., Ant-t., Arn., Ars., Aster., Aur., Bar-c., Bell., Bor., Bov., Brom., Bry., Calc., Calc-s., Camph., Canth., Caps., Caust., Cench., Cham., Chel., Chin., Con., Cor-r., Croc., Crot-h., Cupr., Dig., Dulc., Elaps., Ferr., Ferr-ar., Fl-ac., Hipp., Hyos., Ign., Ip., Kali-ar., Kali-c., Kali-i., Lach., Lepi., Lyc., Lyss., Merc., Merl., Mez., Mosch., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nat-s., Nicc., Nit-ac., Nux-v., Olnd., Pall., Petr., Ph-ac., Phos., Plat., Plb., Psor., Ran-b., Rat., Rheum., Ruta., Seneg., Sep., Spong., Stann., Staph., Stram., Stront., Sul-ac., Sulph., Tarent., Thea., Thuj., Til., Verat., Verat-v., Viol-t., Zinc.

    According to sankaran, ‘quarelling’ and ‘fighting’ indicates ‘survival instincts’, which require ‘animal remedies’.

    Under the rubric “Mind : FIGHT, wants to”, not a single ‘animal remedy’ is seen, except hipp.

    Under ‘quarrelsome’, ambra, asterias,cantharis, cenchris, corralium, crotalus, elaps, hipp, lach, lyssin, psor, sep, spong, and tarent are the animal remedies.

    Would you say, all remedies other than these ‘animal remedies’ should be eliminated while selecting a similimum for this patient?

    According to sankaran, JEALOUSY is a ‘vital sensation’ of ‘ANIMAL KINGDOM’.

    See this rubric:

    [Kent]Mind : JEALOUSY:- Anan., Apis., Calc-p., Calc-s., Camph., Cench., Coff., Gall-ac., Hyos., Ign., Lach., Nux-v., Op., Ph-ac., Puls., Raph., Staph., Stram.

    LACHESIS and HYOS are 3 marks drugs for this symptom. Only APIS, CENCHRIS, and LACHESIS are ‘animal’ drugs’. Anan, Camph, Coff, Hyos, Ign, Nux, Opium, Puls, Raph, Staph and Stram are ‘plant remedies’. Calc P, Calc S, Gall ac and Phos ac are mineral drugs.

    We will have to eliminate HYOS when searching a similimum for a person with jealousy as a prominent symptom, if we follow sankaran method!

    Homeopathic materia medica or repertory does not support sankaran’s theory that persons with ‘vital sensation’ of ‘jealousy’ would require ‘animal drugs’ only.

    Sankaran says LACK OF SELF CONFIDENCE indicates a vital sensation of ‘structural consciousness’, which is a MINERAL quality. Only ‘mineral drugs’ have to be considered for patients exhibiting ‘vital sensation of LACK OF SELF CONFIDENCE.

    See this rubric in kent repertory:

    [Kent]Mind : CONFIDENCE, want of self:- Agn., Alum., Anac., Anan., Ang., Arg-n., Aur., Bar-c., Bell., Bry., Calc., Canth., Carb-an., Carb-v., Caust., Chin., Chlor., Dros., Gels., Hyos., Ign., Iod., Kali-c., Kali-n., Kali-s., Lac-c., Lach., Lyc., Merc., Mur-ac., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nit-ac., Nux-v., Olnd., Op., Pall., Phos., Plb., Puls., Ran-b., Rhus-t., Ruta., Sil., Stram., Sul-ac., Sulph., Tab., Ther., Verb., Viol-t., Zinc.

    Only ANACARDIUM is 3 marks drug for this symptom. It is a PLANT REMEDY!

    24 drugs- Agnus, Anac, Anan, Ang, Bell, Bry, Carb v, China, Dros, Gels, Hyos, Ign, Lyc, Nux V, Oleand, Opium, Puls, Ran b, Rhus t, Ruta, Stram, Tab, Verb and Viol t are PLANT REMEDIES.

    5 drugs- Canth, Carb an, Lac can, Lach and Ther are ANIMAL DRUGS.

    23 drugs- Alum, Arg Nit, Aur, Bar c, Calc, Caust, Chlor, Iod, Kali c, Kali n, Kali s, Merc, Mur ac, Nat c, Nat m, Nit ac, Pall, Phos, Plumb, Sil, Sul ac, Sul and Zinc are MINERAL DRUGS.

    Materia medica or repertories no way justify sankaran’s theory that LACK OF SELF CONFIDENCE would require only MINERAL REMEDIES. How can a person claiming to be homeopath make a theory and method of practice totally ignoring our whole materia medica and drug proving?

    Sankaran’s reputation, experience or vast followings should not prevent us from asking genuine questions. We need answers for these questions, since sankaran claims to be a homeopath.

    Sankaran’s method will result in gravely disabled in incapacitated homeopathic practice, preventing homeopaths from utilizing the unlimited potentials of our materia medica.

    Obviously, the basic dogma of ‘sensations-kingdom’ relationship on which ‘sankaran method’ is built up, lacks the support of logic or materia medica.

    Anybody can make any theories. But it is wrong to say it is homeopathy.

    Rajan Sankaran gives a case of ‘tumor in eye ball’ cured by ‘argentum nit’ as an example of successful employment of his ‘sensation method’:

    “I had a case of a man with a tumor in his eyeball, and he described it thus; that this tumour caused a certain “imbalance” in his eyes. Then he described this imbalance as a sense of inco-ordination, and further, how co-ordination was the most important thing in his life; how everything needed to be co-ordinated. Going further along this line, he said it’s the kind of co-ordination that a pilot needs when piloting his plane, or a rocket scientist needs when he makes a rocket. It’s the kind of co-ordination that an actor needs when he is performing live on stage, and several such examples.”

    “At some point, he described a situation where his mother-in-law did something behind his back, and when I asked him what he had felt about it, he replied that he felt very disappointed, and betrayed. Now, these emotions of disappointment and betrayal are present in his case, and one might be tempted to use rubrics like “ailments from disappointment, or betrayal”. But if you ask further, “Describe the disappointment”, then you bring out the true individuality of the person in the circumstance. When somebody does something behind your back, which is not expected, the feeling of disappointment is common, not individual. Hahnemann always emphasized the individualizing phenomena, the characteristic symptoms.”

    “Here, when we look at disappointment, it’s not individual enough, not characteristic enough. Go further. When I asked him, “Describe the disappointment”, he said, “It’s as if somebody had punched me in my stomach.” This now gets more characteristic. Take it one step further. I asked him, “Describe the experience of being punched” and he said, “I feel completely suffocated.” “Describe suffocation.” And it opens out and you find that there is the suffocation sensation in many areas in his life, like when swimming, or in claustrophobic situations, etc. That suffocation sensation, along with the sense of importance of co-ordination and control, like a stage artist, or a plane pilot, gives us the remedy Argentum nitricum, which has the control, co-ordination as well as the suffocation. That remedy cured the tumour in his eye.”

    “So the “ailments from disappointment” or “delusion that somebody had punched his stomach”, is a more superficial expression. The deeper expression is the tremendous sense of suffocation that he felt, not only in the situation with his mother-in-law, but in every area of his life. A sensation that is so individual, and so completely unconnected with the external reality that it becomes the most individualizing symptom of the person, both physical and mental. It is at the Sensation level.”

    MY COMMENTS ON THIS CASE:

    When we analyze, this case, we would realize that sankaran did not utilize his ‘kingdom approach’ in this case. He does not say ‘argentum nitricum’ was selected as a ‘mineral drug’, as he normally does. Instead, he says “suffocation sensation, along with the sense of importance of co-ordination and control, like a stage artist, or a plane pilot, gives us the remedy Argentum nitricum, which has the control, co-ordination as well as the suffocation. That remedy cured the tumour in his eye.

    Rajan Sankaran, being a very experienced physician having mastered the materia medica and successfully treated thousands of cases in his practice, could rightly select ‘arg nit’ as the correct similimum from symptoms such as ‘general sensation of suffocation’, ‘sensation of incordination’, and of course, from other numerous symptoms and observations he would have collected during case taking but opted to give in his case report.

    Can any less experienced follower of sanakaran, with lesser materia medica knowledge, ever select ‘arg nit’ as the similimum of this patient, on the basis of ‘suffocation’ and ‘incoordination’ only, and a knowledge that patient needs a ‘mineral drug’ as per sankaran’s theory? Please note, Sankaran does not mention ‘kingdom’ while explaining this case.

    Any homeopath who knows how to take case, repertorize and decide a similimum using materia medica, could have very easily selected ‘arg nit’ in this case by classical method in a very simple way.

    Since the patient is coming with ‘tumor in eye’, an ordinary homeopath would start case taking by collecting symptoms with ‘eye’ and ‘vision’, trying to collect all modalities, sensations and concomitants associated with ‘eye’ and ‘vision’.

    The ‘incoordination’ in eyes sankaran talks about will have to be probed in detail, to know whether it is problems of accommodation(accommodation defective), dimness of vision, diplopia, moving vision, alternate vanishing of vision or anything like that. Remember, all these problems of vision could be seen in materia medica of ‘arg nit’ in high order. Observe whether there is any chemosis, echymosis, lachrymation, pain, swelling, or any other peculiar sensations in eyes, with their modalities. Sensation of fullness in eyes, strbismus, cold-heat modalities also have to be ascertained. Itching, discoloration, frequent wiping, and many such features could be observed.

    After completing ‘particulars’, physician would inquire mentals and physical generals. What sankaran interprets as ‘suffocation’ would be described by the patient as aggravation in closed room, desire for open air, aggravation in crowded rooms, general physical anxiety, sensation of balls internally, intolerance of clothing, sensation of being constricted by a band around body, and such symptoms. See, most of these symptoms strongly indicate argentum nitricum.

    Regarding his mentals, from what sankaran explained, we can understand there would be symptoms such as persistent anxiety, despair, feeling of betrayed, sadness, anticipations, confusion of mind, being repudiated by relatives, dwelling on past bad experiences, delusions of getting punched, forsaken feelings, mortification and many such symptoms, most of which obviously points to argentum nitricm.

    For an experienced homeopath like sankaran, arg nit is the obvious prescription for this case without any special methods and techniques or even repertorization. Any homeopath who could collect these symptoms would reach argentum nit through simple repertorization. As for me, I would have reached arg nit by the time I complete my case taking.

    Why should Rajan sankaran pretend to be finding similimum in this type of obvious cases through his ‘sensation-kingdom’ method, only to confuse youg homeopaths?

    That is the game plan of all modern gurus and masters. They would prescribe correctly using their materia medica knowledge and, make results. Then they would pretend the made this miraculous results using their ‘special methods’ they are marketing! Innocent follower is betrayed, and his carrier doomed to be spoiled, by keeing on trying the ‘methods’ the guru taught them.

    As part of my mission to evolve and promote scientific homeopathy, I will have to discuss and analyse various existing theories about homeopathy. I will have to point out things I think are not agreeing with modern scientific knowledge system. Such criticisms and discussions are part of work I am engaged in. It is nothing personal. I have no any personal agenda here. I analyse and expose each and every ideas, concepts and methods in homeopathy that hinder scientific transformation of homeopathy.

    Earlier, once I took up discussing Dr Vijaykar’s theories, ‘cubs’ and ‘lions’ of that group threatened me for my life. They told me ‘you will have no place to run’. Next came the attacks from marketers of ‘hair transmissionis’. Promoters of ‘energy medicine’ theories also did the same. Homeopathic World Community removed all my articles from their pages, since they could not tolerate my exposures of ‘international masters’ who promote homeopathy as ‘energy medicine’ and practice homeopathy as part of their CAM ‘healing arts’. I had to relinquish my HWC membership on that issue.

    Now, it is the turn of disciples of Rajan Sankaran and Jan Scholton. Once I just took up discussing ‘sensation method’, ‘kingdom method’ and ‘periodical table method’, a whole hornet’s nest is infuriated and out for me. I wanted to discuss their theories due to my conviction that scientific homeopathy cannot advance without exposing these highly influential but unscientific theories. My message box is daily full of messages warning me of ‘dire consequences’. Instead of discussing or explaining the points I raised, I am abused, threatened and asked to ‘stay away from our master’. I am accused of being jealous, arrogant, insane and working with hidden personal agendas. They diagnosed my problem as ‘severe skepticemia’!

    I just don’t care. I will go on with my mission of evolving homeopathy into a full-fledged medical science. I know I will have to pay a price, perhaps with my life itself. But I am not bothered. Let the dogs bark, caravan will move on!

    Without criticizing and exposing wrong ideas and wrong practices, we cannot evolve and promote right ideas and right practices in homeopathy.

    I am asked to ‘read all books of sankaran, and apply it myself’ to confirm, before commenting on his theories. I agree that we have to study before commenting or criticizing anything. But, we need not ‘apply’ everything ourselves to ‘confirm’. If that were so, nobody will have the right to comment on homeopathy without practicing it. We cannot criticize allopathy without practicing it ourselves! To criticize astrology, I will have to practice astrology. To say robbery is wrong, I will have do robbery myself! To criticize corruption, I have to be corrupt? To comment on a theory, we have to ‘study’ it well, that is all.

    I have commented on sankaran’s theories after studying it well. I need not practice it for that.

    When anybody say only ‘animal drugs’ have to be used in people characterized by ‘vital level sensation of survival instincts’, I can comment on it on the basis of my knowledge of materia medica and drug proving. I need not ‘apply’ that method. I know many homeopathic drugs belonging to plant or mineral kingdoms having that charecteristics. I have applied those drugs in my homeopathic practice very successfully. Any homeopath, who has studied and applied materia medica knows that sankaran is wrong on this point.

    Some friends have expressed their apprehension that criticizing wrong theories and practices happening in homeopathy in public will harm the good will and reputation of our community and our therapeutic system.

    I do not subscribe to that view. All these ‘wrong things’ in homeopathy are done and promoted by their propagators in public, with out any concern about the harm they are doing, through articles, books, interviews and seminars all over the world, making homeopathy a topic of unending mockery before the scientific community. All these things are already known to general public better than homeopaths themselves.

    These people have already done enough damage to homeopathy through their unscientific theories and nonsense practices. They supply arms and ammunition to skeptics to attack homeopathy. There is no meaning in covering up this dirt. Public dirt should be washed in public, to get the lost reputation and credibility of homeopathy back.

    If homeopathic community continue let these people go like this, we cannot even dream about making homeopathy a scientific medical system, and get it recognized as such even in a far distant future.

    In his Homeopathic Links interview, Vithoulkas says: “Sankaran alone has done more harm to homeopathy than all the enemies of homeopathy together.”

    Andre Saine writes on his website: “Sankaran demonstrated several basic errors of methodology and reasoning in his example of how he ‘discovers’ a remedy”

    How would the followers of Sankaran respond to these statements?

    Collect all mentals, physical generals and particular symptoms of your patient, with all qualifications such as causations, sensations, locations, modalities and concomitants. Then grade the symptoms into uncommon, common, mental, physical general and particulars. Then repertorize. Compare the materia medica of drugs coming top in repertorization, and decide a similimum. That is the simple way of homeopathic practice- and the most successful way.

    If a drug is similimum according to totality of symptoms, it does not matter whether that drug belongs to animal, mineral or plant kingdoms. It does not matter to which ‘sub kingdom’ or ‘family’ the drug belongs. Such a knowledge does not make any difference in your similimum.

    Selecting similimum is most important in homeopathy. Similarity of symptoms is our guide in selecting similimum. All these talk about ‘kingdoms’, sub kingdoms, families and such things only contribute in making homeopathy complex, and confuse the young homeopaths. It may help in creating an aura around the teacher, which would attract people to seminars. That is not a silly thing, where money matters above homeopathy!

  • Cases To Demonstrate Different Ways Of Selecting Similimum- Exploring Full Potentials Of Homeopathy

    This page will be regularly updated by adding new cases. Please visit at frequent intervals to keep in touch, or subscribe to this page.

    ‘MULTIPLE DRUG’ PRESCRIPTION CASE- I:

    A 75 year old man, with complaints of asthma, haemorrhoids, constipation, fistula and itching all over. Symptoms were collected in detail, and following rubrics selected using Similimum Ultra Software:

    1. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC
    2. [Kent]Expectoration : TASTE : Salty
    3. [Kent]Expectoration : GRAYISH
    4. [Kent]Expectoration : VISCID
    5. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC
    6. [Kent]Respiration : WHISTLING
    7. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC : Eating : amel
    8. [Kent]Rectum : URGING, desire : Eating, after
    9. [Kent]Rectum : CONSTIPATION
    10. [Kent]Rectum : MOISTURE
    11. [Kent]Rectum : HAEMORRHOIDS : External
    12. [Kent]Rectum : LUMP, sensation of
    13. [Kent]Rectum : ITCHING
    14. [Kent]Rectum : CONSTIPATION : Old people
    15. [Kent]Rectum : FISTULA
    16. [Kent]Rectum : FLATUS : Loud
    17. [Kent]Rectum : HAEMORRHOIDS : Cold amel.
    18. [Kent]Generalities : HOT REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s)
    19. [Kent]Generalities : LEAN people
    21. [Kent]Mind : ANGER, irascibility
    22. [Kent]Mind : CENSORIOUS, critical
    23. [Kent]Mind : HURRY
    24. [Kent]Mind : IMPATIENCE
    25. [Kent]Mind : SUSPICIOUS
    26. [Kent]Mind : QUARRELSOME
    27. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Night
    28. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Eruption, without
    29. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Scratching : Agg
    30. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Warm : In bed, on becoming

    When repertorized by classical totality method, outcome was as follows:

    Sulph.(61/26), Ars.(45/19), Lyc.(44/20), Lach.(41/22), Sep.(41/19), Caust.(39/18), Phos.(39/20), Nux-v.(38/19), Puls.(36/16),

    Then I decided to go for ‘Group Repertorization’ method. Symptoms were grouped into CONSTITUTION, RESPIRATORY, RECTUM and SKIN, and repertorized separately using Similimum Ultra

    A. CONSTITUTION:

    1. [Kent]Generalities : HOT REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s)
    2. [Kent]Generalities : LEAN people
    3. [Kent]Mind : ANGER, irascibility
    4. [Kent]Mind : CENSORIOUS, critical
    5. [Kent]Mind : HURRY
    6. [Kent]Mind : IMPATIENCE
    7. [Kent]Mind : SUSPICIOUS
    8. [Kent]Mind : QUARRELSOME

    Sulph.(24/9), Lyc.(20/9), Ars.(17/7), Nux-v.(17/7), Bry.(16/8), Nat-m.(16/7), Lach.(15/8), Acon.(14/7), Aur.(14/7),

    B.RESPIRATORY:

    1. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC
    2. [Kent]Expectoration : TASTE : Salty
    3. [Kent]Expectoration : GRAYISH
    4. [Kent]Expectoration : VISCID
    5. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC
    6. [Kent]Respiration : WHISTLING
    7. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC : Eating : Amel

    Ambr.(15/7), Ars.(15/6), Lyc.(11/5), Phos.(11/5), Stann.(11/5), Carb-v.(10/5), Calc.(9/5), Chin.(9/5), Puls.(9/3),

    C. RECTUM:

    1. [Kent]Rectum : URGING, desire : Eating, after
    2. [Kent]Rectum : CONSTIPATION
    3. [Kent]Rectum : MOISTURE
    4. [Kent]Rectum : HAEMORRHOIDS : External
    5. [Kent]Rectum : LUMP, sensation of
    6. [Kent]Rectum : ITCHING
    7. [Kent]Rectum : CONSTIPATION : Old people
    8. [Kent]Rectum : FISTULA
    9. [Kent]Rectum : FLATUS : Loud
    10. [Kent]Rectum : HAEMORRHOIDS : Cold amel.

    Aloe.(21/10), Caust.(19/7), Lach.(18/8), Sulph.(18/8), Phos.(16/8), Sep.(15/6), Sil.(15/6), Nit-ac.(14/5), Calc.(13/5),

    D. SKIN:

    1. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Night
    2. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Eruption, without
    3. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Scratching : Agg
    4. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Warm : In bed, on becoming

    Sulph.(11/4), Mez.(9/4), Alum.(7/3), Ars.(6/2), Dol.(6/3), Led.(6/3), Merc.(6/4), Puls.(6/3), Anac.(5/2),

    SULPH, ALOES and AMBRA were prescribed. In 30 potency, one dose each daily for three months. Occasional doses of ARS 30 also was used during aggravated states of asthmatic attacks. Cure was total.

     ‘MULTIPLE-DRUG PRESCRIPTION’ CASE- II:

    A 48 yr old obese woman with chronic headache, pain in joints, and warts on various parts. Symptoms were collected and following rubrics selected using Similimum Ultra Software:

    1. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Menses : During
    2. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Sleep : After : Amel.
    3. [Kent]Stomach : NAUSEA : Headache, during:
    4. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Cold applications amel.
    5. [Kent]Mind : IRRITABILITY : Headache, during
    6. [Kent]Genitalia – Female : MENOPAUSE
    7. [Kent]Generalities : HOT REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s)
    8. [Kent]Mind : ANXIETY
    9. [Kent]Generalities : OBESITY
    10. [Kent]Extremities-II(PAIN) : PAIN : Joints
    11. [Kent]Extremities-II(PAIN) : PAIN : Cold : Applied amel.
    12. [Kent]Extremities-II(PAIN) : PAIN : Joints : Walking : After
    13. [Kent]Skin : WARTS
    14. [Kent]Skin : WARTS : Smooth
    15. [Kent]Skin : WARTS : Soft
    16. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general
    17. [Kent]Extremities-II(PAIN) : PAIN

    I decided to use multiple repertorization method in this case. Rubrics were divided into four groups: CONSTITUTION, HEADACHE, JOINT PAINS and WARTS, and repertorized separately:

    A. Constitution:

    1. [Kent]Genitalia – Female : MENOPAUSE
    2. [Kent]Generalities : HOT REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s)
    3. [Kent]Mind : ANXIETY
    4. [Kent]Generalities : OBESITY
    5. Stomach : DESIRES : Salt things

    Arg-n.(10/4), Sulph.(12/5), Puls.(9/4), Calc.(9/4), Verat.(9/4), Con.(8/4), Graph.(8/3), Lach.(8/4), Nat-m.(8/3),

    B. Headache:

    1. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Menses : During
    2. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Sleep : After : Amel.
    3. [Kent]Stomach : NAUSEA : Headache, during:
    4. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Cold applications amel.
    5. [Kent]Mind : IRRITABILITY : Headache, during
    6. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general

    Phos.(14/6), Glon.(12/5), Nat-m.(11/5), Ars.(10/5), Bell.(10/5), Bry.(10/5), Lach.(10/5), Puls.(10/5), Sep.(10/4)

    C. Joint pains:

    1. [Kent]Extremities : PAIN
    2.. [Kent]Extremities : PAIN : Joints
    3.. [Kent]Extremities : PAIN : Cold : Applied amel.
    4.. [Kent]Extremities : PAIN : Joints : Walking : After

    Led.(10/4), Bry.(9/3), Puls.(9/3), Colch.(8/3), Guai.(8/4), Arn.(7/3), Kalm.(7/3), Nux-v.(7/3), Phyt.(7/3),

    D. Warts:

    1. [Kent]Skin : WARTS
    2. [Kent]Skin : WARTS : Smooth
    3. [Kent]Skin : WARTS : Soft

    Dulc.(9/3), Ant-c.(5/2), Calc.(5/2), Caust.(5/2), Thuj.(5/2), Sep.(4/2), Bar-c.(3/1), Bell.(3/1), Calc-s.(3/1),

    SULPHUR, PHOS, LEDUM and DULCAMERA were given in 30c potencies. one dose each daily. Headache cured first, then joint pains relieved, and warts disappeared by three months. Cure was complete.

    SEPIA:

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

    The lady first told me she is having violent headache before ever menses. Using key-words ‘headache’, ‘menses’ and ‘before’, I instantly located following rubric:

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

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

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

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

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

    Then I used ‘head ache’ and ‘dark’ and located this rubric:

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

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

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

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

    ALUMINA:

    35 year old woman. Asthmatic since 10 years. Persistent dry cough. Expectorates large quantities of white, mucous during morning only. Persistent salty taste in mouth. Cough relieved temporarily by expectoration. > by warm drinks. Aggravation by exertions. Weakness, always desires to lie down. Cold dry weather agg. Lean body. Violent paroxysms of cough starts instantly whenever anything salty or pungent such as pickles touches the tongue. Chilly patient. Dandruff, with intolerable itching of scalp-scratches until bleeding. Her husband said her asthma started after the death of 1 year old daughter of her sister due to choking while she was feeding the child. She believes the death of child was caused by her negligence, and had to undergo psychiatric treatment for suicidal dispositions after that. Asthma started after that incident. Weeping, tearful disposition. Aversion to food, she says she does not feel appetite. Habit of eating raw rice. Bouts of hiccough after eating. Nausea after eating. Constipation during menses. Copious leucorrhoea after menses. Menses late and very scanty.

    Since it was a well taken case with enough symptoms, I decided to repertorize using ‘totality method’

    Repertorisation Result – Totality Method : Sep.(54/23), Sulph.(53/25), Alum.(51/28), Phos.(51/25), Ars.(46/22), Nat-m.(46/20), Sil.(46/22), Nux-v.(44/20), Graph.(42/19),

    SEPIA came first with 54 marks and 23 out of 29 rubrics. But ALUMINA tops in rubrics, by covering all 28 rubrics with total 51 mas. SULPH has 53 marks and 25 rubrics. PHOS has 51 marks with 25 rubrics.

    Then I decided to go for COMBINE METHOD of repertorization provided in SIMILIMUM ULTRA. Elimination was done using mentals and generals.
    Repertorisation Result – Combined Method Eliminate Using – Selected Symptoms
    Totality Using – All Symptoms: Alum.(51), Ars.(46), Nux-v.(44), Rhus-t.(31)

    Now, I have to decide the similimum from SEPIA, SULPH, ALUMINA and PHOS.

    I decided to use ‘CRAVING FOR RAW RICE’ and ‘PAROXYSMS OF COUGH WHILE SALT OR PUNGENT THINGS TOUCH ON TONGUE’ as final ‘pivotal symptoms’, since these two symptoms were very peculiar. Only ALUMINA covered these two symptoms.

    ALUMINA was finally selected as the similimum. Alumina 30c was given TDS for one month, then BDS for one month, followed by daily one dose for 4 months. Whenever symptoms aggravated, ALUMINA was given 3 hly doses. It cleared the case by 6 months. To ensure complete cure, a few doses of SEPIA, SULPH and PHOS were also given at the later stages, as many of the constitutional symptoms were covered by those drugs also.

    COMPLETE RUBRICS SELECTED:

    1. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC
    2. [Kent]Cough : DRY
    3. [Kent]Expectoration : MORNING
    4. [Kent]Expectoration : WHITE
    5. [Kent]Expectoration : COPIOUS : Morning
    6. [Kent]Cough : EXPECTORATION amel.
    7.[Kent]Generalities : FOOD : Warm drinks amel.
    8. [Kent]Generalities : EXERTION, physical : Agg.
    9. [Kent]Cough : IRRITATING things, such as salt, wine, pepper, vinegar, immediately start cough
    10. [Kent]Generalities : COLD REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s)
    11. [Kent]Head : DANDRUFF
    12. [Kent]Head : ITCHING of scalp : Bleeds, must scratch until
    13. [Kent]Mind : ANXIETY : Conscience, of (as if guilty of a crime)
    14. [Kent]Mind : SUICIDAL disposition
    15. [Kent]Mind : WEEPING, tearful mood, etc
    16. [Kent]Stomach : AVERSION to : Food
    17. [Kent]Stomach : APPETITE : Diminished
    18. [Kent]Stomach : DESIRES : Rice, dry
    19. [Kent]Stomach : HICCOUGH : Eating : After
    20. [Kent]Stomach : NAUSEA : Eating : Eating, after
    21. [Kent]Rectum : CONSTIPATION : Menses during
    22. [Kent]Genitalia – Female : LEUCORRHOEA
    23. [Kent]Genitalia – Female : LEUCORRHOEA : Menses after
    24. [Kent]Genitalia – Female : MENSES : Late
    25. [Kent]Genitalia – Female : MENSES : Scanty
    26. [Kent]Generalities : WEAKNESS, enervation
    27. [Kent]Generalities : LIE down, inclination to
    28. [Kent]Generalities : LEAN people
    29. [Kent]Generalities : COLD : Dry weather agg.

    ALOE SOCOTRINA

    ALOES contains large amounts of phytochemicals containing sulphur in their functional groups. This fact is amply corroborated by the wonderful similarities of aloes and sulphur symptoms. Based on this knowledge, I use aloes in many acute and chronic cases that have constitutional symptoms of sulphur.

    Since aloes is very commonly used by me, I have hundreds of successful aloes cases in my archives. But here I am presenting a case that demonstrates how ‘rare sensations’ could be used for selecting a perfect similimum.

    A man, 68 ys old. Complaints of bleeding piles and prostatitis. Hot patient, lean, unhygeinic, very loquacious, philosophical- Typical sulphur constitution. Much case taking is not needed to prescribe sulphur once we see him and talk to him.

    But, he gave a very peculiar symptom. He says he has violent itching in umbilicus for many rears, with some moisture discharging from it. I suspected some fungal infections there.

    But he says, there is a ‘hole’ into his abdomen through his umbilicus. He says he can feel hot air coming out of this ‘hole’. He pressed around umbilicus to ‘show’ me the ‘air coming out of his abdomen through that hole’.

    I was fully convinced that he had a a strong delusion of ‘hole in umbilicus’. I hoped it could be used as a pivotol symptom that may lead to his similimum. So, I started hunting for an appropriate rubric in repertories. I could not find such a delusion any where in ‘mind’. Finally, I located the following rubric that seemed to be most near:

    [Kent]Abdomen : PERFORATION, region of navel, sensation of:- Aloe.

    Only ALOES!. That too in single mark. But, to my wonder, I noticed that all his other symptoms related with prostatitis, backache, bleeding piles etc were well fitting to aloes. More over, he was of typical sulphur constitution also.

    I decided to try ALOES only, to see how it acts. Aloes 30 bds was given, with instant relief for his rectal bleeding and prostate pains. Same prescription was given for 3 months continuously, which cured all his complaints, as well as ‘delusions’. After 3 months, fully convinced of the action of ALOES, I gave few doses of sulphur also, hoping it would help in a ‘total cure’ as ‘constitutional similimum’. It was a happy, total cure! Now it is two years, and he always keep in touch with me, occasionally escorting his grandchildren to me.

    ALLIUM CEPA

    A 76 yr old retired village officer. Was suffering from persistent barking cough since last 6 months. Tried all treatments, no relief. Cough caused by tickling in throat. Tough, viscid expectoration. Persistent hoarseness. Cough aggravated by lying down. Better open air. < warm room. < evening. Generally hot. Involuntary dribbling of urine day and night- not related with cough. Sleep was very restless, with a recurring dream of somebody pushing him into a well. Cough was so violent that it was difficult to take the case properly. He was coughing so violently in front of me. I felt him sympathy, and wanted to give some relief instantly. I noticed a peculiar behavior during his coughing. He will grasp the throat forcefully with both his hands once the cough starts, and will leave it only after the paroxysm ends. I felt it a very peculiar symptom.

    Selected the following rubrics using Similimum Ultra software, and repertorized with QUICK PICK method.

    ALLIUM CEPA was selected and given 30c tds, as well as advised to take frequently during paroxysms of cough. It relieved his persistent cough, hoarseness immediately,and involuntary dribbling of urine by 2 months . Later, sulphur was given a few doses as constitutional similimum, after repertorising using physical generals and mentals only.

    1. [Kent]Larynx and Trachea : PAIN : Larynx : Coughing, on : Grasps the larynx

    2. [Kent]Bladder : URINATION : Involuntary : Old people, in

    3. [Kent]Sleep : DREAMS : Wells, of being let down into

    4. [Kent]Sleep : RESTLESS

    5. [Kent]Cough : TICKLING : Larynx, in, from

    6. [Kent]Larynx and Trachea : VOICE : Hoarseness

    7. [Kent]Cough : LYING : Agg

    8. [Kent]Cough : AIR : Open : Amel.

    9. [Kent]Cough : WARM : Room

    10. [Kent]Cough : BARKING

    11. [Kent]Expectoration : VISCID

    12 . [Kent]Cough : EVENING

    13 . [Kent]Generalities : HOT REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s)

    ACONITUM NAPELLUS ‎

    10 years back, I had a very interesting experience with aconite. A 35 year old lady, a school teacher, with chronic polyarthritis. All joints swollen and painful. Recurrent fever. After repertorization I prescribed PULS, and when it failed, tried many drugs, all of which were of no use. I was very disappointed. One day, her husband casually happened to talk about her fear of crossing the streets. On further inquiry, I got to know of her fear and aversion to go to parties and crowded places. She confessed me that she would start to weep if she hears any music even from a distance. Considering this ‘weeping on hearing music’, ‘fear to cross streets’ and ‘aversion to crowded places’, I thought about aconite. Since aconite is considered to be effective only for acute cases, and this being a very chronic case, I was a bit reluctant to use aconite. Finally, I decided to give a try, since I was on the verge of losing the case altogether. It was a wonderful experience. She showed rapid improvement for all her complaints from the very next day onwards. Cure was complete by 3 months, with intercurrent doses of sulphur and pulsatilla also.

    This case was an eye opener for me. I understood from experience that it is wrong to say aconite is only an acute remedy. It will cure any chronic case, if it is indicated by symptoms. That was a great realization.

    ABROTANUM

    I had a 10 yr old boy brought to me for his ‘stunted growth’ behavioral problems. He had a habit of killing any pet birds, or pet animals he could get, by crushing them between doors, and enjoying their painful death. I gave him abrotanum for long time, which made him a different person- regarding health, growth, character and behavior.

    CRUEL, INHUMAN child. It is the key-note mind symptom of a child needing abrotanum. No other remedy shows such a marked degree of cruelty in a child

    AGNUS CASTUS

    I had a LEUCORRHOEA patient, 35 ys, housewife, married, mother of two children. Aversion to coition, sexual desire diminished, menses late, dimness of vision during menses, chilly patient, desires death, indifference to everything, always sad and depressed. All symptoms clearly indicated SEPIA. On repertorization also, sepia came on top. I was very confident to prescribe SEPIA, but it failed. I changed potencies, tried different samples of same potency- but it was a total disaster. I was confused what to do next.I decided to take case once again. All symptoms were same as first consultation. But during interrogation about her ‘dimness of vision during menses’, she said: “NO, it is not during menses. Dimness of vision starts 24 hours before menses appear, it is very troublesome for me. But once the flow starts, this dimness suddenly disappears”.That small difference in a particular symptom made a great turn for this case. I changed the rubric ‘dimness of vision during menses’ into ‘dimness of vision before menses’.Following rubrics were selected:1. [Kent]Genitalia – Female : COITION : Aversion to
    2. [Kent]Genitalia – Female : LEUCORRHOEA
    3. [Kent]Genitalia – Female : MENSES : Late
    4. [Kent]Vision : DIM : Menses : Before
    5. [Kent]Generalities : COLD REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s)
    6. [Kent]Genitalia – Female : DESIRE : Diminished
    7. [Kent]Mind : SADNESS, mental depression
    8. [Kent]Mind : SADNESS, mental depression
    9. [Kent]Mind : INDIFFERENCE, apathy, etc
    10.[Kent]Mind : DEATH : DesiresNow, AGNUS comes as the only drug covering all the selected rubrics. SEPIA, even though comes top in total marks, does not cover the rubric ‘Vision : DIM : Menses : Before’.[Kent]Vision : DIM : Menses : Before:- Agn., Bell., Cinnb.[Kent]Vision : DIM : Menses : During:- Cycl., Graph., Nat-m., Puls., Sep., Sil.’Dimness of vision before menses’ is the ‘pivotal symptom’ in this case, that shifted the balance from SEPIA to AGNUS.I decided to try AGNUS. And it worked magnificently. Of course, I used SEPIA also in inter-current doses. Cure was complete.

    AGARICUS MUSCARIUS

    A 40 year old police constable, married, father of two children, came to me for getting treated for a peculiar sexual complaint. He said his penis was becoming smaller and smaller since a few months. Sexual passion is now diminished, difficulty in getting erections, organs are cold, and sexual enjoyment is lost. He was very anxious about this condition. I collected all his mentals, generals and particular symptoms, and lyco was selected as similimum after repertorization. But the case did not respond to lyco. During one of follow up consultations, he told me he was afraid of engaging in coition due to a peculiar problem: immediately after coition, he will start a very troublesome perspiring, which will last for hours. Whole dress and bed will become wet as if buckets of water has been poured over him. I considered this extraordinary perspiration as a peculiar uncommon symptom, and started searching for its appropriate rubric in repertory. I could locate this rubric in kent repertory::

    1. [Kent]Perspiration : PROFUSE : Coition, after:- Agar.I could also notice that AGARICUS covered most of his sexual symptoms. AGARICUS was used, which completely cured his sexual complaints as well as the troublesome perspiration, within three months. Of course, lyco was used intercurrently, as it was his constitutional similimum.

    AETHUSA CYNAPIUM

    Here I am reporting a chronic case of backache in a 45 year old woman. A characteristic modality of her backache was that she got relief by bending backwards. She also revealed a very peculiar mental symptom: when she was on her bed for sleep, suddenly a fear creeps into her mind that if she sleeps, she will never wake up from that sleep. She spent many whole nights without closing her eyes due to this fear of falling into sleep. This delusion has made her life miserable, even though she did not reveal this fear even to her husband. All of them considers it as ‘sleeplessness’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    AESCULUS HIPPOCASTANUM.

    Once a 40 year old lady came to me with persistent burning in throat since six months, had allopathic and homeopathic treatments without relief. No other symptoms or modalities to fix a reasonable prescription. During third or fourth consultation without any improvement, she casually told me. I cannot drink tea- it causes violent nausea and retching. At that time I had no computer or software. I searched through repertories for that symptom and finally located this two mark symptom in kent:

    1. [Kent]Stomach: NAUSEA : Tea, after:- Aesc.

    A few doses of AESCULUS cured her troublesome ‘burning throat’. It was a stunning experience for me

    No other drug has this particular symptom. Now I consider it as a key-note of AESCULUS. Later I had many excellent cures even in backache and piles with aesculus, prescribed on the basis of this ‘key-note’ symptom.

    ARGENTUM NITRICUM

    A case of 8 yr old girl, diagnosed as ‘cyclical vomiting syndrome’ at Pariyaram Medical College, Kerala. Recurring attacks of vomiting and nausea since one year, under allopathic treatment without remarkable improvement. No abodominal pain or headache. Mother is a chronic migraine patient. Vomiting episodes starts in morning after breakfast, continues 1-2 hours till the girl gets exhausted. Had to be hospitalized and iv fluids given on many occasions. Episodes recurs every week, normally on mondays. Aversion to light and sounds during episodes. Drinks cold water frequently, and want to wash face with cold water. Sensitiveness to light and abnormal smells appears as a warning signal 2-3 hrs before the episode starts. During vomiting episodes, she complains about a sensation of splinter sticking in the throat.

    Always very much hurry (hurried movements, hurried talking, hurried eating), anxious about going school and studies, fear that she has serious diseases(asked me many times, ‘uncle, do I have cancer?’), Craving for sweet things(ice creams, chocolates).

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

    Attacks comes on mondays and after breakfast indicates some anticipatory factors related with going to school. Anxiety about school lessons, hurry, photophobia during attacks, desire cold water, desire cold bathing of face, craving for sweets, apprehensions of serious diseases. Above all, the peculiar sensation of ‘splinters in throat’ appearing only during attacks.Attacks comes on mondays and after breakfast indicates some anticipatory factors related with going to school. Anxiety about school lessons, hurry, photophobia during attacks, desire cold water, desire cold bathing of face, craving for sweets, apprehensions of serious diseases. Above all, the peculiar sensation of ‘splinters in throat’ appearing only during attacks.

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

    GRAPHITES+ GLONOINE

    I am reporting a case cured with Total Cure Prescriptions:

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

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

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

    Rubrics selected:

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

    Repertorisation Result – Totality Method Using – All Symptoms:

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

    ——————————————————————————–

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

    ACID FLUORICUM: 

    One of my grandsons was diagnosed to be 100 percent  congenitally hearing impaired when he was 6 months old. BERA test was done at MIMS hospital, Kozhikode, Kerala, and they advised immediate cochlear implant, and they warned that unless it is done immediately, the child will become totally deaf and dumb.

    The infant was having a complaint of infantile myoclonus since birth, which was treated by myself homeopathically and completely relieved by the time he was three months old.

    Then we went to Sree Chithra Institute in Trivandrum and the tests ensured that he was not epileptic.

    Next we went to All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore India. They also confirmed the earlier diagnosis and strongly advised immediate cochlear implanting.

    Then I decided to give homeopathy a chance. Under my treatment the hearing gradually improved, and now he is a normal baby, with almost normal speech and hearing. Treatment is still continuing. He is now 3 years old. Latest BERA test shows that hearing impairment is only 10% now.

    Most prominent symptoms I noticed in the baby were:

    Persistent bending of head backwards, especially when we bring him to open air.

    Excessive perspiration

    Very happy and playful while bathing, especially in cold water

    Frequent urination, especially daytime

    Very flabby skin and muscles.

    Will not allow to cover him

    Infantile myoclonus < while falling asleep and motion

    Electric shock like jerking of limbs while falling asleep

    Makes shrieking noises while asleep

    Frequent weeping while asleep

    While spots on various parts of body

    HOW I WORKED OUT THE CASE:

    Using SIMILIMUM ULTRA Software, I selected following 19 rubrics from KENT REPERTORY-
    1. [Kent]Hearing : IMPAIRED
    2. [Kent]Hearing : IMPAIRED : Bending head backward amel
    3.[Kent]Generalities : BATHING : Cold : Desire for
    4. [Kent]Mind : WEEPING, tearful mood, etc. : Sleep : In
    5. [Kent]Mind : LAMENTING, bemoaning, wailing etc. (compare weeping): Asleep, while
    6. [Kent]Mind : SHRIEKING : Sleep : During
    7. [Kent]Skin : FLABBINESS
    8. [Kent]Generalities : FLABBY feeling
    9. [Kent]Generalities : SHOCKS : Electric-like
    10. [Kent]Generalities : SHOCKS : Electric-like : Sleep : On going to
    11. [Kent]Extremities-I : JERKING : Upper limbs : Falling asleep, on
    12. [Kent]Generalities : MOTION
    13. [Kent]Generalities : BATHING : Cold : Amel
    14. [Kent]Generalities : HOT REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s
    15. [Kent]Perspiration : PROFUSE
    16. [Kent]Skin : DISCOLORATION : White
    17. [Kent]Skin : DISCOLORATION : White : Spots
    18. [Kent]Bladder : URINATION : Frequent
    19. [Kent]Bladder : URINATION : Frequent : Daytime

    Then, similar rubrics were combined to make single rubrics, there by only following 10 rubrics remained for repertorization:

    1. [Kent]Hearing : IMPAIRED+[Kent]Hearing : IMPAIRED : Bending head backward amel
    2. Kent]Generalities : BATHING : Cold : Desire for+ [Kent]Generalities : BATHING : Cold : Amel
    3. [Kent]Bladder : URINATION : Frequent+ [Kent]Bladder : URINATION : Frequent : Daytime
    4. [Kent]Skin : DISCOLORATION : White+ [Kent]Skin : DISCOLORATION : White : Spots
    5. [Kent]Perspiration : PROFUSE
    6. [Kent]Generalities : HOT REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s)
    7. [Kent]Mind : WEEPING, tearful mood, etc. : Sleep : In+ [Kent]Mind : LAMENTING, bemoaning, wailing etc. (compare weeping) : Asleep, while+ [Kent]Mind : SHRIEKING : Sleep : During
    8. [Kent]Generalities : SHOCKS : Electric-like+ [Kent]Generalities : SHOCKS : Electric-like : Sleep : On going to + [Kent]Extremities-I : JERKING : Upper limbs : Falling asleep, on
    9. [Kent] Skin : FLABBINESS+ [Kent]Generalities : FLABBY feeling
    10. [Kent] Generalities: MOTION

    Rubrics were then graded using GRADE RUBRICS tool.

    Repertorization was done using TOTALITY method and COMBINED METHOD. Both gave FFLUORIC ACID as the similimum beyond doubt.

    Repertorisation Result – Totality Method: Totality Using – All Symptoms: Fl-ac.(61/10), Sulph.(57/9), Apis.(55/9), Nat-m.(52/8), Ars.(50/8), Puls.(50/8), Calc.(49/8), Lyc.(48/7), Phos.(48/8),

    Repertorisation Result – Combined Method: Eliminate Using – Selected Symptoms: Totality Using – All Symptoms: Fl-ac.(61)

    A very characteristic symptom I noticed was the “bending of head backwards”. Since there was no weakness of neck or any difficulty in holding neck straight, this bending backward seemed to be very peculiar. I think the baby got some faint sound signals when bending head backward. His eye movements indicated he is listening to some sounds.

    Hence, “Hearing: IMPAIRED: Bending head backward amel” can be considered a peculiar characteristic symptom in this case, for which only ACID FLUOR is given in KENT REPERTORY

    A few doses of SYPHILINUM were given intercurrently. A few doses of SILICEA were also given, since it is considered to be the complementary of ACID FLUOR.

    I think this single case my greatest achievement in my whole life.  My long years of dedication to homeopathy is amply rewarded by the happy outcome of this case which saved my family from a grave state of misfortune.

    RHODODENDRON:

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

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

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

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

    STAPHYSAGRIA:

    CASE OF CHRONIC HEADACHE. A 65 yrs old lady, retired school teacher. Husband was her colleague who died of sudden heart attack when she was 30ys. Two children. Now both grown up, married and employed but living with her.

    A chronic headache since last 20 ys. Tried all medical systems without relief. Now on allopathic pain killers. Pressing headache. <traveling. <in crowd. <anger. <morning. < fasting. Pain appears slowly and disappear slowly. <Lying.

    Prssure >. Walking <es. Headache ends up with violent bouts of yawning and then disappears.

    General chilliness. Wants everything warm. Great weakness in morning. > after breakfast.

    Great despair of her health. Violent anger . Irritable. Very suspicious, frequently asks whether homeopathy drugs are injurious. Very haughty, with an exaggerated sense of her own importance. Never like to participate in festivals or other pleasurable events. Mood always changing to both extremes. Quarrels with daughter-in-laws. Averse to consolation and love

    In my observation, a peculiar characteristic modality in this case was “headache amelioration by yawning’. Staphysagria, which came top on repertorization, covers this also. Hence, I prescribed STAPH with confidence, which cured the case. Later, a few doses of LACH also were give, considering her constitution and mentals. She was completely cured.

    Her cure was total. Her son said: “mom has completely changed. she is very loving and caring to wards her in-laws’. She frequently comes to me escorting her in-laws and grand children. VERY HAPPY AND THANKFUL TO HOMEOPATHY!

  • Why ‘Alpha Molecular Imprints’? How It Differs From Present Potentized Drugs?

    Commenting on my ‘Alpha Molecular Imprints’, one of my homeopath friends asked:

    “We have already large stock of potencies,why to waste time on this? Do other works to make homeopathy scientific”.

    I am bound to answer this question, as it is asked by a person who genuinely believe we have to ‘work homeopathy scientific’. There may be many other friends who think that working for ‘alpha molecular imprints’ is unnecessary, and a waste of time.

    By saying ‘we should work to make homeopathy’, it is obvious that my friend believes homeopathy as it exist to day is ‘not scientific’.

    ‘Making homeopathy scientific’ means, to identify the ‘unscientific’ parts of homeopathy, and replace them with ‘scientific’ ideas and practices.

    Does my friend consider the ‘large stock of potencies’ already available to day are ‘scientific’, and there is no changes or advancements required in the potentization methods and potentizations scales while we ‘work to make homeopathy scientific’?

    I would like to bring to the notice of my friend the fact that all those ‘large stock of potencies’ now available were prepared through processes based on the concepts of ‘dynamic medicinal energy’, which we consider unscientific and want to rectify. The basis of ‘dynamic energy’ concept is that drug substances have some ‘inherent’ ‘medicinal energy’ that act on the ‘vital force’ of organism ‘dynamically’, without the involvement of any material particle and effects a cure. This ‘dynamic drug energy’ could be ‘liberated’ from the material drugs, and ‘transferred’ to sugar of milk or rectified spirit, abandoning the material drug molecules. According to this concept, potentization involves the process of ‘liberating’ the ‘dynamic medicinal energy’ from drug substances and ‘transfering’ it to the potentizing medium. More higher the potentization level, more powerful and dynamic the ‘drug energy’ becomes- that is the belief.

    All the existing potentization ‘scales’ and ‘methods’ are based on this ‘dynamization’ concept. Even the term ‘potentization’ indicates this ‘dynamization concept. All the ‘large stock of ptencies’ available to us now are the products of this ‘dynamic’ concept.

    When we perceive potentization as a process of molecular imprinting, we will have to rethink our existing ‘potentization scales’ as a whole.

    From a scientific perspective, there is no such a thing called ‘drug energy’ that can be liberated from drug substances and ‘transferred’ to another medium abandoning the drug substances. Medicinal properties of substances come from the ‘structure’ of individual constituent molecules contained in drug substances. In the absence of ‘drug molecules’, there cannot be any ‘drug energy’. During potentization, through the process of molecular imprinting, the supramolecular structure of water is changed, and it is this ‘changed water’ or molecular imprints that act as therapeutic agents. It has nothing to do with ‘liberation’ or ‘transfer’ of drug energy. Only molecular imprinting.

    When we perceive potentization in terms of molecular imprinting, and molecular imprints as the active principles of potentized drugs, we will have to inquire whether the existing potentization methods are ideal for producing perfect molecular imprints. We will have inquire whether we can modify the existing methods or evolve entirely new methods that would ensure better molecular imprinting.

    According to the concept of molecular imprinting, potentization involves two stages. Breaking of intermolecular bonds between constituent molecules and making them free molecules and ions is the first stage, which is effected through the process called ‘trituration’. Trituations will break the intermolecular bonds in the drug substances, and they would be divided maximum up to the level of constituent molecules and ions. Further division to atomic level will not happen, since the mechanical energy of triturations cannot break the very strong chemical bonds between atoms inside molecules. Medicinal properties of a substance id decided by the structure and chemical properties of constituent molecules of drug substance.

    Second stage involves actual molecular imprinting. When the drug substance is mixed with rectified spirit (water-alcohol mixture), constituent drug molecules undergoes a process of ‘hydration’, thereby forming ‘guest-host’ complexes of drug molecules and water-alcohol molecules. These ‘guest-host’ complexes are broken my the process of succussion, thereby generating free ‘hydration shells’. Through a process of serial dilution and succussion, the drug molecules are progressively removed from the medium, and increasing the number of free hydration shells. Once the dilution crosses avogadro limit, all drug molecules will be removed. Calculations show that this crossing limit is 12c in centesimal scale, and 23x in decimal scale. That means, above 12c or 23x, the will be no drug molecules present for further imprinting, and hence, continuing potentization beyond that stage is meaningless or futile act. Since presently existing potentization methods do not understand the molecular imprinting involved, they go on diluting and succussing infinitely, thinking that it will make the drugs more powerful and dynamic.

    According to scientific view of molecular imprinting, we should stop diluting and succussing once the avogadro limit is crossed. Same time, we have to ensure that the process allows maximum molecular imprinting to happen within this limit. By increasing the number of dilution steps within avogadro limit will give maximum exposure to drug molecules in the medium, thereby making imprinting more perfect.

    My method of ‘alpha molecular imprinting’ is designed based on this idea. By diluting in 1:1 ratio instead of 1:10 or 1:100 of classical methods, we get 80 dilution steps before crossing avogadro limit. This is much higher than 12 steps of C scale, or 23 steps of X scale. This by itself more effective molecular imprinting, far better than centesimal or decimal scale potentization. More over, the dilutions are given a cooling and resting stage before succussions during each step, which will allow the stabilization of ‘guest-host’ complexes. 5 minutes strong succussion for each stage will help breaking ‘guest-host’ complexes and generating free molecular imprints.

    Another point to be considered is that many of the individual drug molecules may get removed from the medium before getting properly imprinted, when we cross the avogadro limit very fast. Due to this reason, chances of some or other molecular imprints being absent in potentized drugs are more in classical potentization scales. The phenomenon of ‘perfectly simililimum does not act’ arises from this cause. Alpha Molecular Imprinting ensures perfect imprinting of all constituent molecules by giving 80 steps of dilution before crossing avogadro limit. Hence ‘alpha’ products will be therapeutically more effective, and the issue of ‘similimum not acting properly’ never happens. This is a great achievement of Alpha Molecular Imprinting.

    Another point to be noticed is that ‘alpha molecular imprinting’ resolves all confusions regarding potency selection. There will be only one ‘potency’ for one drug.

    Obviously, the concept and technique of ‘alpha’ method is more perfect and more scientific than classical methods of potentization, and hence, is expected to produce perfect molecular imprints.

    Regarding the term ‘alpha molecular imprinting’. Many friends ask why this name ‘alpha’. It only indicates that this is only the first step in the evolution of new scientific molecular imprinting techniques. We will have to work for developing novel molecular imprinting media and imprinting techniques in future. ALPHA is only a first step in this direction.

    Regarding the first question my friend asked: “why waste time for this-do other works to make homeopathy scientific”. Finding a better way of producing perfect molecular imprints is an essential part of ‘making homeopathy scientific’. We need reliable and genuine products for using in our research works.

  • ‘Dynamic Drug Energy’ And ‘Vital Force’- Concepts That Reflects Utter Ignorance Of Scientific Facts

    Retorting to a senior homeopath friend of mine, who was trying to explain potentization and homeopathic therapeutics on the basis of the concept of ‘molecular imprinting’, the moderator of ‘mintus.com’, the famous internet group of classical homeopaths, asked:

    “Have you got ‘scientific evidence’ of avogadro’s constant? What molecular science has got to do with Homeopathy? Please explain what we know? Where is your scientific evidence? Your response is NOT according to Hahnemannian Homeopathy! What has 12 C got to with it? Remedies are DYNAMIC and each reacts with the vital force! It is this reaction that is critical and not the reaction of two remedies with each other. Is there any evidence to confirm your statement?”

    Wonderful! He is asking for ‘scientific evidence’ for Avogadro Constant! A classical homeopath asking for ‘scientific evidence’ for something is a great paradox! They are people who always question the value of ‘scientific evidences’ , declaring that ‘science is unscientific’.

    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!

    They want ‘scientific evidence’ only when some body 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’!

    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.

    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.

    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)×10raised 23 mol. Changes in the SI units are proposed that will change Avogadro’s constant to to exactly 6.02214X×10 raised 23 when it is expressed in the unit mol.

    Whole scientific world utilizes this avogadros 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 alling themselves ‘classical homeopaths’, for their ignorance or closed mindedness, whatever it may be.

    It is a sheer waste 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.

    ‎”Remedies are DYNAMIC and each reacts with the vital force!” This is the learned statement of the moderator of mintus group. He is not bothered about the ‘scientific evidence’ for that ‘universal truth’, even though he cannot accept avogadro constant since it lackes ‘scientific evidence’! If something is said in ‘organon’, or uttered by the ‘master’, it could be accepted as ‘ultimate science’- no ‘evidence’ needed! These are the people who represent homeopathy before the world. Most of the influential section of homeopathy try to propagate homeopathy that way. That is the reason why the scientific community perceive homeopathy as quackery and placebo.

    I do not intend to argue with these old horses. I am sure, they cannot be convinced about the science of homeopathy. My hope is in the new generation of science-educated, academically trained and qualified young homeopaths. Only they can understand the language of science.

    ‎’Remedies are DYNAMIC’. Remedies interact with ‘dynamic’ vital force. Disease and cure are ‘dynamic’. Drugs act due to ‘dynamic drug energy’. These are very common phrases in ‘classical’ homeopathic paradigms.

    What is exactly meant by ‘dynamic’? This word comes from the metaphysical concept of ‘dynamism’. Dynamism is a metaphysical concept conceived by Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716) and developed into a full system of cosmology, totally unacceptable to modern science and scientific method. Dynamism in metaphysical cosmology explains the material world in terms of active, pointlike forces, with no extension but with action at a distance. Dynamism describes that which exists as simple elements, or for Leibniz, monads, and groups of elements which have only the essence of forces.

    According to ‘dynamic’ view, interaction between elements takes place without contact, through modes or even harmonics of motion, yielding all phenomena in the Universe.

    Various treatments of Dynamism can be found in the works of Baruch Spinoza and Henri Bergson, and also, long before them, Parmenides, the Atomists, and Plotinus. In more contemporary works, elements of Dynamism also developed into process philosophy, via Alfred North Whitehead and others, as well as systems theory via Ludwig von Bertalanffy and William Ross Ashby. Immanuel Kant was another philosopher who helped the development of the theory of dynamism.

    Hahnemann’s explanations of homeopathy were obviously influenced by the philosophy of ‘dynamism’. Modern proponents of ‘energy medicine’ theories also explain homeopathy on the basis of concepts of ‘dynamism’.

    ‘Forces’ existing free from matter, and ‘matter acting at distances without any material contact or interaction’ is an idea very dear to all practitioners of occult healing arts. The idea of a ‘medicinal force’ that can be ‘freed’ from drug substance, and ‘transferred’ to water of sugar of milk, that can act on organism in ‘dynamic way’- all these come from ‘dynamism’.

    Without freeing homeopathy from the influence of ‘dynamism’, we cannot hope it to be accepted as a scientific medical system.

    The concept of ‘dynamic force’ is entirely different from the concept of ‘force’ in modern science.

    In modern science, ‘force’ exist and act as a function of ‘matter’. There is no ‘force’ without matter. ‘Force’ acts through carrier particle. Actually, force particles are minute forms of matter itself. There are ‘four’ fundamental forces in nature- strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force and gravitational force. All these four fundamental forces exist and interact though carrier particles of specific qyantum states. Exactly, all these four fundamentel forces are different quantum states of same force, which is the ‘motion’ associated with ‘matter’. There is no ‘matter’ without ‘motion’, or motion without matter. Matter exists in motion, and motion is form of existence of matter. Motion is expressed as ‘space’, and ‘matter’ is expressed as ‘mass’. There is no ‘mass’ without ‘space’, or ‘space’ without ‘mass’.

    According to dynamism, ‘force’ exists and interacts free from matter or space. Dynamic drug energy can exist free from drug substance. Drug force can act from a distance, without any ‘material’ involvement.

    As per scientific world outlook, any object in this universe represents a dynamic equilibrium of matter particles and force particles in a particular ratio. The term ‘energy’ is used to refer to the quantity of ‘force particles’ contained in an object higher than required to maintain its ‘matter-force’ equilibrium, and hence, could be transferred to other objects, making them to ‘move’ or ‘do work’. Matter particles that carry very high ‘extra’ quantity of ‘force particles’ are known as ‘energy particles’.

    Moderator of mintus group asks: “What molecular science has got to do with Homeopathy”?

    This question reflects the gross scientific ignorance. A total lack of modern scientific understanding of physiology, pathology and therapeutics. Such a question will come only from a ‘classical homeopath’ groping in the darkness of a 250 year old knowledge environment.

    For them, life is ‘dynamic vital force, disease is ‘deranged vital force’, drug is ‘dynamic energy’, therapeutics is ‘dynamic’. Everything is ‘dynamic’, not ‘material’.

    What about the fees? Will they be satisfied by ‘dynamic’ money as fees? NO! They need material ‘money’ for his ‘dynamic healing’ work! Because, they know they cannot live with ‘dynamic forms’ of food and drink! Their cars will not run on ‘dynamic’ petrol!

    According to these people, drug substances are ‘converted’ to ‘energy’ and ‘transferred’ to rectified spirit or sugar of milk during potentization.    And this ‘dynamic drug energy’ acts upon the vital force to effect a cure.

    Mechanical energy applied during trituations may break the intermolecular bonds in the drug substances, and they would be divided maximum up to the level of constituent molecules and ions. Further division to atomic level will not happen, since nobody can generate such a high amount of energy by ‘trituration’ to break  the very strong chemical bonds between atoms inside molecules. Imagining about ‘conversion’ of matter into energy by potentization reflects utter ignorance of fundamentals of physics.

    More over, medicinal properties of a substance is  decided by the structure and chemical properties of constituent molecules of that drug substance. If those molecules were divided further into atoms or subatomic particles as some people imagine, the medicinal properties would have been lost.

    For example, the medicinal properties of nux vomica is based on the structure and properties of various chemical molecules contained in it, such as strychnine, brucine etc. Strychnine is C21H22N2O2. Brucine is C23H26N2O4. If these molecules were divided into atomic level during trituration or potentization, there will be only carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen remaining. Both strychnine and brucine contain same atoms. It is the difference in their stuctural level oranaization that give them different chemical and medicinal properties. If substances are divided into atoms during potentization, potentized brucine and strychnine will not differ in medicinal properties, since both of them contain same atoms.

    Logically, there is only a single way by which the medicinal properties of complex drug molecules could be transeferred to medium during potentization. It is ‘molecular imprinting.  Individual molecules and ions being part of the drug substance are subjected to molecular imprinting during potentization. These ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules are the exact active principles of potentized drugs, which act as therapeutic agents by binding to pathogenic molecules and thereby removing molecular inhibitions.

    There is no such a thing called ‘drug energy’ that can be liberated from drug substances and ‘transferred’ to another medium abandoning the drug substances. Medicinal properties of substances come from the ‘structure’ of individual constituent molecules contained in drug substances. In the absence of ‘drug molecules’, there cannot be any ‘drug energy’. During potentization, through the process of molecular imprinting, the supramolecular structure of water is changed, and it is this ‘changed water’ or molecular imprints that act as therapeutic agents. It has nothing to do with ‘liberation’ or ‘transfer’ of drug energy. Only molecular imprinting.

    “What molecular science has got to do with Homeopathy”? Homeopathy is all about molecular science.  Classical homeopaths will continue to grope in darkness until they realize this most vital fact about homeopathy. They will go on spinning ‘ultra-scientific’ theories, and proving the ‘unscientificness of modern science’. That is the pitiable situation, which discredits homeopathy.

  • ‘Prescribe For the Patient- Not for The Disease’. What Does It Actually Mean?

    ‎”Do not prescribe for the disease- prescribe for the patient”- this is a much quoted and much misunderstood cliche in homeopathy. What does it actually mean? I think we have to ponder over.

    This statement is is understood in different ways.

    Some homeopaths understand it as ‘forget the disease, treat the person’. According to them, whatever the complaints the person heve, his constitutional similimum selected on the basis of physical generals and mentals is enough to remove all his ailments and bring him back to total cure. They call it ‘constitutional’ approach or ‘holistic’ approach. Some people with extreme approach believe we can cure with only ‘mental’ or even ‘sensational’ similimum. According to this people, if the patient is calc constitution, we should prescribe it only, whatever be the ailments- headache, digestive upset, piles, eczema, allergy, acute cold or anything else.

    In my opinion, “prescribe not for the disease- prescribe for the patient” should be understood in a different way.

    If we try to prescribe on the basis of a disease diagnosis, it is ‘prescribing for the disease’. Same time, if we prescribe on the basis of LESMC qualifications of that ‘disease’ specifically expressed by the individual ‘patient’, it is ‘prescribing for the patient’.

    Prescribing for a ‘headache’ on the basis of diagnosis of ‘migraine’ is ‘prescribing for disease’. Exactly, the homeopath should prescribe for the specific ‘patient’. If we collect the locations, sensations, modalities and concomitants of that ‘migraine’ in that particular patient and find a similimum, it is not prescribing for disease- it is a prescription for that ‘patient’. You cannot expect that prescription to cure a ‘migraine’ of another person. He will need another similimum based on his symptoms.

    In my opinion, “prescribe not for the disease- prescribe for the patient” should be understood in this way. It doses not mean ignoring the ailments of the patient, and prescribing for his ‘constitution’.

    A young homeopath asked me to suggest a drug for his patient with ‘violent knee pain’. When I asked him to provide symptoms, he said: “patient gives no other symptoms”. I get many such requests from young homeopaths daily.

    An unqualified symptom is of no use in selecting a similimum.

    I told him, we should get detailed symptoms for making a prescription: For example, he has knee pain(expression), right knee(location), swelling and redness(expression), throbbing pain(sensatin), relieved by warm application(modality) and rest(modality), worse by motion(modality), walking(modality), pain extending to heels(concomitants), it is a clear picture. We can prescribe.

    ‘No symptoms’ only means, we failed to collect symptoms. Collecting symptoms is an art, which needs great talent, creativity and observational and communication skills.

    Once the patient reports a symptom, do not leave that symptom without collecting maximum information regarding that symptoms, such as its causations, expressions, locations, sensations, modalities and concomitants.

    Same time, we should be careful not to break the flow of narrations by interfering with frequent questions. It would be ideal to allow the patient to complete his narrations uninterrupted, and then return back to each symptom and interrogate the patient to collect the qualifications.

    Even a single symptom, if it is well qualified with all its LESMCs will by itself provide a strong foundation for a reliable prescription.

    For example, if the patient has a headache (expressions), in forehead(location), bursting pains(sensations), amelioration by cold applications and sleep(modalities), aggravated during menses(modalities), with vomiting(concomitants) and blurred vision(concomitants), we can make a prescription for her headache without considering generals or mentals. Such a prescription will relieve the headache instantly.

    If the complaints recur, we will have to find her constitutional similimum using physical generals and mentals, which will cure her permanently.

    Homeopathic prescribing is an art of individualization. But ‘individualization’ should not be understood as prescribing ‘constitutional similimum’ always. Individualization exactly means finding a similimum considering the symptoms expressed by the patient in their totality. Qualified symptoms is the key to successful individualization of a case.

    ‎”Do not prescribe for the disease- prescribe for the patient” indicates the importance of this individualization. It does not mean ‘prescribe constitutional drugs’ only.

  • Compilation Of My Selected Facebook Updates And Tweets On Scientific Homeopathy

    This page consists of a regularly updated compilation of my important facebook status updates, posts and tweets, which are related with my concepts of Scientific Homeopathy, explaining homeopathy in terms of Molecular Imprints Therapeutics. I hope this compilation will be useful for those who want to know my ideas better. This compilation will be kept regularly updated by adding new ones at the FORE PART of this document

    ————————————————————————–

    During our foetus as well as neonatal stages, we get a lot of diverse types of antibodies from mother through maternal blood and breast milk.

    Then, all through our life, ever new antibodies are produced in our body whenever any proteins alien to our genetic blue print enters our body, such as infectious agents, allergens, insect bites and the like. Cancer cells also produce proteins alien to our genetic blue print, and our body produce antibodies against them.

    Though these antibodies are generated in our body to fight the attacks of alien proteins, those antibodies remain in our system life long. They can bind to off-target biological molecules and produce divers types of diseases, which we call ‘miasmatic diseases’, ‘auto immune diseases’ or ‘immunological diseases’. Most of the chronic diseases are now known to be caused by these ‘off-target’ actions of antibodies.

    Hahnemann studied about chronic diseases caused by antibodies formed against itch, syphilis and human papiloma viruses. We cannot limit miasms to those three. I think miasms are innumerable, and trying to name them is unnecessary.

    We have to understand, all these diverse types of antibodies could act as chronic miasms, which should be treated by drugs selected as similimum as well as appropriate nosodes or ‘molecular imprints of antibodies’.

    Actually, antibodies are ‘globulin’ proteins in our body, subjected to ‘molecular imprinting’ by alien proteins. Exactly, the ‘epitopes’ of antigens are imprinted into ‘paratopes’ of antibodies.That is why each antibody showing specific affinity towards specific antigens.

    Molecular imprints or potentized forms of antigens (epitopes) as well as molecular imprints of antibodies (peritopes) can act as anti-miasmatic remedies. That is why nosodes prepared from infectious agents as well as disease products are effective

    ——————————————————————

    Due to deficiency of basic scientific knowledge in biochemistry, molecular biology, supra-molecular chemistry and such other essential subjects, some homeopaths utterly fail to comprehend my explanations of homeopathy in terms of ‘molecular imprinting’ and ‘bio-molecular inhibitions. Some of them are pathetically below even high school level in their science lessons. For them, ‘organon’ and ‘chronic diseases’ are the ultimate scientific texts, hahnemann is the greatest ever scientist, and homeopathy is the ultimate science. They prefer to live in their 250 year old knowledge environment, and hesitate to update themselves. They simply fight tooth-and-nail to safe guard ‘true homeopathy’ from the ‘malignant’ influence of my ‘un-homeopathic theories’. It is difficult to communicate with them.

    ——————————————————————

    Some homeopaths seem to be very much obsessed with ‘single/multiple’ drug issue. For them it is an issue of ‘fundamental’ or ‘cardinal’ principles in homeopathy, that decides whether one is a ‘true’ homeopath or not.

    Actually, it is a non-issue, once you perceive drugs in terms of constituent molecules and their functional groups. Obsessive discussing of ‘single-poly’ drug issue indicates deficiency of fundamental scientific knowledge.

    From scientific point of view, all ‘multi-molecular’ drugs are ‘polymedicine’, even though you imagine and use it as ‘single’ drug.

    —————————————————————-

    Identifying the molecular level pathology underlying diseases by observing subjective and objective symptoms of patients, identifying the exact molecular targets of drug substances by observing the symptoms they could produce in healthy individuals, determining medicines for particular patients by comparing their ‘symptoms’ with ‘symptoms’ of diseases, curing diseases by removing pathological molecular inhibitions in the organism using ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules having ‘functional groups’ similar to those of pathological molecules- this is the scientific meaning of ‘similia similibus curentur’.

    Once the scientific community recognize this real ‘science’ behind homeopathy, they will realize that homeopathy is an advanced branch of ‘molecular medicine’, capable of showing the way for future advancement of medical science as a whole. THEY CANNOT IGNORE THIS GREAT TRUTH FOR EVER!

    ————————————————————–

    In the process of homeopathy evolving into a full-fledged medical system of modern times, we will have to discard many things from what we have so far learned and believed to be ‘indispensable’, if they do not agree with scientific knowledge system.

    To accept the idea of a solar system with earth and other planets revolving around sun, even though after a long period of stubborn resistance, humanity had to abandon the age-old concept that sun revolves around earth. The concept of ‘flat earth’ was abandoned once it was proved that earth is a ‘globe’. Any learning involves unlearning also. That is the way human knowledge advances.

    If you are not ready to abandon certain things you studied and believed as integral part of homeopathy earlier, you cannot understand or accept the scientific explanations I am proposing. Without such an unlearning, you cannot perceive potentization as molecular imprinting. You cannot perceive disease in terms of molecular inhibitions. You cannot perceive curative process in terms of removal of molecular inhibitions. You cannot perceive drugs in terms of constituent molecules and functional groups.

    Without unlearning old lessons, you will go on resisting new ideas tooth-and-nail, to safe guard your cherished beliefs such as ‘homeopathy is ultimate science’, ‘our master is the greatest ever scientist’, ‘homeopathic drugs act by dynamic energy’, ‘vital force theory’, ‘laws and principles of homeopathy are eternally immutable’, and so on. You will go on arguing about what master said about miasms, single drug and single dose. You will go on asking people to ‘read organon and chronic diseases’ whenever hard questions are asked. You will continue to remain ridiculed as ‘intellectual morons’ in front of the scientific community.

    ———————————————————————–

    Those who claim to ‘prove’ drugs in ‘high’ potencies are requested to submit themselves to a simple experiment to convince it to the world.  We shall administer different well-known ‘polychrest’ drugs to 10 apparently ‘healthy individuals’ selected by you. You can decide the potency, number and frequency of doses to be administered, so that you can induce proving.  But, you will be kept blind regarding the names of drugs used, as well as who received which drug. You should identify the drugs given to each individual by observing the symptoms produced in them due to ‘proving’,  and comparing them with our existing materia medica. If you succeed in identifying at least 50% drugs, it will be considered as a proof for ‘high potency proving’. If you fail, you should agree to stop talking about ‘proving’ high potency drugs. ARE YOU READY?

    —————————————————————————-

    Once we administer a dose of potentized drug, Molecular Imprints contained in it permeates into the biological fluids, and scavenges the whole body. When the molecular imprints come in contact with exogenous or endogenous molecules having functional groups similar to those of constituent molecules of drug substances used for potentization, they binds to those molecules due to their complementary configurational affinity. By this binding, molecular imprints entraps pathological molecules and deactivates them, thereby removing the molecular inhibitions that caused pathological conditions. Same time, molecular imprints cannot interfere the interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands which have stronger configurational as well as charge affinities between them, which ensures that molecular imprints cannot act as pathological agents in any circumstances.

    ——————————————————————-

    Potentized drug is actually an ’empty solution’-a solution from which ‘solute’ is completely removed, without disturbing the hydration shells. An ’empty solution’ is different from a ‘virgin solvent’. It contains ‘molecular imprints’ of solute molecules, imprinted into the supra-molecular matrix of solvent molecules as three-dimensional nanocavities. These molecular imprints are the active principles of this ’empty solution’, which can bind to and deactivate pathogenic molecules similar in configuration to ‘solute’ molecules, in capacity of configurational affinity

    ———————————————————

    Once you learn to perceive diseases in terms of molecular inhibitions, drugs in terms of constituent functional groups, symptoms in terms of underlying molecular errors, potentization in terms of molecular imprinting, potentized drugs in terms of constituent molecular imprints, similimum in terms of similarity of functional groups, and cure in terms of removal of molecular inhibitions- you become a full-fledged scientific homeopath. You can see every thing in a new scientific light. You become capable of answering any questions anybody ask about homeopathy. You become theoretically strong enough to defend homeopathy from any attack from anti-homeopathic skeptics from side, as well as anti-scientific energy medicine ‘homeopaths’ from the other side.

    ————————————————————

    ‘Unlearning’ is an essential part of ‘learning’. Without going through a conscious process of self ‘unlearning’, you cannot learn or accept what I say about scientific homeopathy. If you are not willing to unlearn yourself, it means you are not willing to learn anything new. In such a mindset, I know, I cannot convince you through arguments.

    Our consciousness is the sum total of what we have learned and experienced in the past. They form our ‘beliefs’. ‘ Beliefs’ are rock like sedimentation of acquired knowledge. Beliefs act as an intellectual barricade which try to prevent us from acquiring new knowledge that may contradict existing beliefs. By ‘unlearning’, I mean breaking of this stone wall of beliefs. Without that, we cannot learn new things.

    —————————————————–

    I think there a lot of very important secondary questions to be answered, which could be accomplished only after we reach a consensus regarding certain fundamental questions. In my opinion, fundamental questions to be answered are three:

    1. What is the exact process happening during potentizatio?

    2. What are the achieve principles of potentized drugs”

    3. What is the molecular mechanism by which potentized drugs produces a therapeutic effect?

    ——————————————————

    Appearance of new symptoms after application of potentized drugs is an indication that our prescription did not supply all the diverse types of molecular imprints required to remove all the diverse types molecular inhibitions existing in the patient.

    ———————————————————

    If a drug substance contains more than ONE type of biologically active ‘functional groups’ or ‘moieties’ as part of their constituent molecules, it is not a ‘SINGLE’ drug. It is a COMPOUND drug. If you cannot comprehend this simple scientific truth, you will go on talking about what ‘master’ said about ‘single’ drug and ‘multiple’ drugs in ORGANON 250 years ago!

    ————————————————————–

    An elemental atom cannot have a ‘functional group’. An atom can be part of functional group of a complex molecule.

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

    The word moiety is often used synonymously to “functional group,” but, according to the IUPAC definition, a moiety is a part of a molecule that may include either whole functional groups or parts of functional groups as substructures. For example, an ester (RCOOR’) has an ester functional group (COOR) and is composed of an alkoxy moiety (-OR’) and an acyl moiety (RCO-), or, equivalently, it may be divided into carboxylate (RCOO-) and alkyl (-R’) moieties. Each moiety may contain additional functional groups–for example, methyl para-hydroxybenzoate contains a phenol functional group within the acyl moiety.

    ——————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————-

    A ‘TOTAL CURE PRESCRIPTION’ is a prescription that is expected to contain ALL the diverse types of ‘molecular imprints’ required to remove ALL the diverse types of molecular inhibitions existing in the patient, thereby offering a TOTAL CURE.

    You cannot follow this concept unless you could perceive potentized drugs in terms of diverse types of independent molecular imprints contained in them, representing the diverse types of constituent molecules of original drug substance used for potentization. You should also perceive ‘patient’ in terms of diverse types of molecular inhibitions caused by diverse types of pathogenic molecules, and expressed as diverse groups of ‘symptoms’.

    HOW I MAKE A ‘TOTAL CURE PRESCRIPTION’?

    Collect ALL symptoms of the patient- all mentals, physical generals and particulars, with the ‘qualifications’ of each symptom regarding its peculiar presentations, locations, sensations, modalities, and concomitants.
    Search repertorieis, and  select appropriate rubrics for all  the collected  symptoms .

    Classify  the rubrics into uncommon, common, subjective, objective,  mentals, physicals, generals and particulars. Assign grades.

    First repertorize using only mentals and physical generals and prepare a list of top-ranking drugs. Compare  their symptomatology using a good materia medica book and  determine one or more constitutional drugs that would  ‘collectively’ cover all the important mentals and general symptoms.

    Arrange the  particulars into appropriate groups on the basis of their pathological relationships, and repertorize the groups separately and determine similimum for each group.

    Select  anti-miasmatic nosodes if necessary, on the basis of history of infectious diseases, anaphylaxis  and vaccinations of the patient.

    Take all the selected constitutional and particular similimums as well as nosodes in 30 c potency, and mix them in a bottle in equal quantities. Do not bother about number of drugs, or drug relationships.

    Administer in drop doses thrice or 2-3 hourly until acute complaints are relieved. Then continue medication once or twice daily, until CURE IS COMPLETE. One drop per one drug is my dosage.

    Such a well-worked-out ‘TOTAL CURE’ prescription would CURE not only acute complaints, but the PATIENT in his TOTALITY with in a very short span of time.
    —————————————————————

    Collect all mentals, physical generals and particular symptoms of your patient, with all qualifications such as causations, sensations, locations, modalities and concomitants. Then grade the symptoms into uncommon, common, mental, physical general and particulars. Then repertorize. Compare the materia medica of drugs coming top in repertorization, and decide a similimum. That is the simple way of homeopathic practice- and the most successful way.

    If a drug is similimum according to totality of symptoms, it does not matter whether that drug belongs to animal, mineral or plant kingdoms. It does not matter to which ‘sub kingdom’ or ‘family’ the drug belongs. Such a knowledge does not make any difference in your similimum.

    Selecting similimum is most important in homeopathy. Similarity of symptoms is our guide in selecting similimum. All these talk about ‘kingdoms’, sub kingdoms, families and such things only contribute in making homeopathy complex, and confuse the young homeopaths. It may help in creating an aura around the teacher, which would attract people to seminars. That is not a silly thing, where money matters above homeopathy!

    ——————————————————————————

    Any project claiming to be ‘fundamental research in homeopathy’ should be aimed at providing scientifically acceptable answers to the following ‘fundamental’ questions in homeopathy:

    1. What is the actual process happening during potentization?

    2. What are the exact active principles of potentized drugs?

    3. What is the exact molecular level mechanism by which these active principles act upon the biological system and produce a therapeutic effect?

    Without answering these fundamental questions in a way fitting to the existing scientific knowledge system, homeopathy cannot exist and advance as a ”medical science’ in the modern knowledge environment.

    Central council for Research In Homeopathy (CCRH) should urgently take up projects to answer these fundamental questions, if they w

    ————————————————————–

    I do not think the term ‘body language’ is something different from what we actually mean by ‘symptoms’. ALL symptoms are part of ‘language’ of the BODY, by which it expresses itself- by which it expresses the phenotype constitution as well as pathological molecular errors. For me, ‘body language’ means ‘symptoms’.  Even Hahnemann said, ‘symptoms are language of the body’. All genuine homeopathic prescriptions are ‘body language prescriptions’, if you want to use that term. Those much advertised ‘body language method’, ‘facial analysis method’ and such things are only money making gimmicks of certain clever people, who are experts in the art of ‘brand building’ and commercializing homeopathy, and extracting easy money from aspiring young homeopaths by selling ‘courses’, ‘seminars’ and ‘packages’.

    ————————————————————

    We should learn different types of ‘functional groups’ and ‘moieties’ of constituent molecules of our drug substances, as well as diverse types of pathogenic molecules.

    We have to study our materia medica from this ‘functional group’ viewpoint, comparing symptoms of different drug molecules having same functional moieties.

    Then we can logically explain our concepts regarding phenomena of ‘drug relationships’ such as complementary, inimical, antidoting etc..

    We can explain the similarity of drugs belonging to different groups such as ‘calcarea’, ‘merc’, ‘kali’, ‘acid’, ‘sulph’, ‘mur’ etc. Such an approach will make our understanding of homeopathy more scientific and accurate.

    ——————————————————————

    Except those substances of simple chemical formula belonging to mineral groups, most of the pathogenic agents as well as drug substances consist of complex organic molecules.

    In the study of chemical interactions involving these complex organic molecules, understanding the concept of ‘functional groups’ is very important.

    ‘Functional groups’ are specific groups of atoms within large organic molecules that are responsible for their characteristic chemical reactions.

    Different organic molecules having same functional group will interact with the same biological targets regardless of the size of the molecule it is a part of.  However, its relative reactivity can be modified or influenced to an extent by nearby functional groups.

    In the case of smaller molecules such as minerals, we use the concept ‘moiety’ instead of ‘functional group’. Even though the word moiety is often used synonymously to “functional group”, according to precise definition,a moiety is a part of a molecule that may include either whole functional groups or a parts of functional groups as substructures.

    The atoms of functional groups are linked to each other and to the rest of the molecule by covalent bonds. When the group of covalently bound atoms bears a net charge, the group is referred to more properly as a polyatomic ion or a complex ion. Any subgroup of atoms of a compound also may be called a radical, and if a covalent bond is broken homolytically, the resulting fragment radicals are referred as free radicals.

    All chemical processes in the biological systems are facilitated and controlled by the functional groups of the reactants.

    —————————————————————-

    It is to be specifically noted that same functional group will undergo the same or similar chemical reactions regardless of the size or configuration of of the molecule it is a part of. However, its relative reactivity can be modified by nearby functional groups known as facilitating groups. That means, different types of drug molecules or pathogenic molecules having same functional groups and facilitating groups can bind to same biological molecules, and produce similar molecular inhibitions and symptoms.

    Homeopathic principle of ‘similimum’ is well explained by this understanding. If a drug molecule can produce symptoms similar to symptoms of a particular disease, it means that the drug molecules and disease-causing molecules have same functional groups on them, by which they bind to same biological molecules. Obviously, similarity of symptoms means similarity of functional groups of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules. To be similimum, the whole molecules need not be similar, but similarity of functional groups is enough.

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

    ———————————————————————–

    To understand the real science behind the phenomena of ‘similia similibus curentur’, ‘drug proving’ and ‘potntization’, we should study drug substances in terms of not only their ‘constituent molecules’, but in terms of ‘functional groups’ and ‘moieties’ of those drug molecules.

    A drug substance is composed of diverse types of drug molecules. A drug molecule interacts with ‘active groups’ of biological target molecules such as enzymes and receptors using their ‘functional groups’ or ‘moieties’. It is the ‘functional groups’ and ‘moieties’ on the individual drug molecules that decide to which biological molecules they can bind to and produce molecular inhibitions.

    Different drug molecules with different size and structures, but having same ‘functional group’ or ‘moiety’ can bind to same biological molecules and produce similar molecular errors and similar groups of symptoms.

    A drug molecule become similimum to a disease when the drug molecule and disease-producing molecule have same functional groups, so that they could bind to same biological targets producing same molecular errors and same symptom groups.

    —————————————————————————–

    All of us know, a single case could be treated and cured by different homeopaths by using entirely different drugs. There is nothing to wonder in this common experience, if you understand the role of ‘functional groups’ in causing and curing diseases. Potentized form of any drug which contain a chemical molecule bearing the required functional group can cure, whether it comes from drug A or drug B. That means, different drugs could act as ‘similimum’ for a particular case, if they can supply molecular imprints of functional groups involved in its pathology.

    —————————————————————-

    ‘Similimum’ should be scientifically understood as a drug that contains certain chemical molecules bearing ‘functional groups’ similar to the functional groups of the pathological molecules which produced the particular molecular inhibitions in that patient.

    Since similar functional groups can bind to same biological targets, produce similar molecular errors and similar symptoms, we use ‘similarity of symptoms’ to indirectly identify the exact functional groups and biological targets involved in a particular case of pathology.

    Potentized drugs contain ‘molecular imprints’ of functional groups of constituent drug molecules, and these molecular imprints can bind to similar functional groups in capacity of complementary configurational affinity, and remove the pathological molecular inhibitions caused by them in the organism.

    This is the scientific meaning of ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’.

    Once you understand this scientific explanation of fundamental principle of homeopathy, you will see all ‘riddles’ and ‘miracles’ in homeopathy getting automatically unraveled for you .

    ——————————————————————

    Exactly, homeopathy is based on two fundamental observations made by hahnemann regarding the process of cure-

    1. Similia Similibus Curentur: Hahnemann observed through his experiments that diseases could be cured by extremely diluted forms of drug substances, which could produce symptoms similar to disease when applied in large doses in healthy individuals.

    2. Potentization: Hahnemann developed a special process of preparing drugs by serial dilution and shaking, and observed that such expremely diluted drugs could act as therapeutic agents when applied according to similia similibus curentur

    Due to the limitations imposed by the infantile stage of scientific knowledge available to him during that period, hahnemann could not formulate a viable hypothesis to explain his observation in a way fitting to the scientific knowledge system then existed. In fact, science was not properly equipped to provide a reasonable explanation for the phenomena hahnemann observed.

    Instead of leaving his observations unexplained as it should have been truthfully done, hahnemann resorted to building up of a system of philosophical speculations and imaginative theorizations to explain them. May be since he found that the contemporary scientific paradigms were not sufficient for his purpose, he tried to develop a speculative philosophical system utilizing concepts such as ‘vital force’, ‘dynamic energy’ being part of spiritualistic philosophy existed then.

    Obviously, this speculative part of homeopathy does not agree with scientific knowledge or its methods. As such, scientific community adopted a skeptical approach towards homeopathy. They totally denied the existence of even the fundamental observations of hahnemaan, whereas it would have been judicious to deny the theoretical explanations of homeopathy and asking for a more viable explanation for the phenomena hahnemann observed.

    From a rational perspective, we have to logically differentiate between observational part of homeopathy from its speculative part. Observational part is objective experience, which forms the basis of practical application of similia similibus curentur and potentization. They should not be denied on the reason that hahnemann’s theoretical explanations contradict scientific knowledge.

    According to me, inorder to promote scientific homeopathy, we have to address fllowing preliminary tasks:

    1. Convince the scientific community that homeopathy works, through demonstrations and scientifically acceptable clinical studies.

    2. Convince them the importance of differentiating objective observational part of homeopathy from the unscientific theoretical or explanatory part of homeopathy.

    3. Propose a scientifically viable working hypothesis regarding how homeopathy works, in a way fitting to the existing scientific knowledge system.

    4. Prove the propositions of this hypothesis using scientific methods, in a way undisputable to the scientific community.

    While addressing this four-pointed fundamental tasks, scientific homeopathy will have to relentlessly fight against the negative-minded skeptics as well as pseudo-scientific energy medicine theoreticians of homeopathy.

    We have to consistently tell the world, real homeopathy is entirely different from those nonsense the pseudoscientific homeopathic theoreticians preach and practice.

    We have to understand and tell the homeopathic community that the negative-minded anti-homeopathic skeptics are entirely different from real scientific community.

    ———————————————————–

    Can we change ‘constitutions’ by homeopathic treatment? Thi question is a frequently asked one in homeopathic circles. Some believe they can, some believe they cannot.

    Constitution of an individual has a ‘genotype’ and ‘phenotype’ aspects. ‘Genotype’ is the genetic material inherited from previous generation. It cannot be changed by homeopathic drugs. If homeopathic drugs could have produced changes in genotype, it would have to labelled as a most dangerous medical system.

    What we call as ‘constitutions’ and ‘constitutional symptoms’ in homeopathy actually deals with ‘phenotype’ aspects of constitution. Phenotype is decided by the way genes are expressed. ‘Genetic expression’ happens through a complex chain of biochemical processes, by which proteins are synthesized using the genetic blueprint involved in genotype.

    Synthesizing of proteins in accordance with the genetic blueprints is mediated by diverse types of enzymes, and it requires diverse types of aminoacids and other biological molecules. Hence, genetic expression or ‘phenotype’ could be influenced by many factors such as nutrition, environment, emotions, drugs, and many such things that could inhibit or activate the enzyme systems involved in protein synthesis.

    Obviously, we can change or influence the ‘phenotype’ or genetic expression, but we cannot change the basic genetic material of an individual. Any ‘constitutional’ changes we produce by homeopathic treatment are confined to phenotype changes, not genotype changes.

    —————————————————————————-

    Possibilities of potentized homeopathic medicines interacting with genetic substance in the organism is a subject of much concern, speculations and controversy among homeopaths. Such controversies arise from the lack of sufficient understanding regarding the active principles contained in potentized medicines, and their exact mechanism of action in the living system.

    With our new scientific understanding of potentization as a process of molecular imprinting, we are now in a better position to answer these questions satisfactorily. Since, molecular imprints contained in the potentized homeopathic preparations cannot successfully compete with natural ligands in binding with their target molecules, we need not be concerned about the possibility of potentized homeopatic medicines dangerously interacting with genetic material in any way.

    Molecular imprints contained in the potentized homeopathic preparations bind to ligands or biological molecules merely due to their complementary cofigurations without any charge affinity, whereas natural ligands bind to their biological target molecules in capacity of their appropriate spacial configurations as well as charge affinities. So, the bindings of molecular imprints with biological molecules or their ligands will be very temporary and cannot stay long. Such bindings of molecular imprints cannot replace the natural ligand-target interactions happening as part of vital processes. Molecular imprints can not compete with natural ligands in binding to their natural biological targets. Hence it is obvious that potentized homeopathic preparations cannot interfere in biological ‘ligand-target’ processes such as ‘substrate-enzyme’, ‘antigens-antibodies’, ‘signal-receptor’ etc. As such, chances of potentized homeopathic medicines acting as pathological agents are very rare even if used indiscriminately.

    Molecular imprints can interfere only in interactions between pathogenic molecules and biological molecules, as well as off-target bindings of ligands with biological molecules, where only configurational affinity is involved. Obviously, molecular imprints can act upon only the molecular blocks created by exogenous or endogenous foreign pathological molecules.

    At the same time, these molecular imprints can effectively compete with the pathogenic actions of deformed proteins that may result from genetic errors, thereby preventing them from creating pathological molecular blocks at various targets. As such, homeopathic medicines can play a great role even in the treatment of certain diseases of genetic origin, at least as palliatives.

    More over, potentized homeopathic medicines can safeguard genetic material from dangerous mutations that may be caused the by inhibitory actions of endogenous or exogenous pathogenicl agents such as toxic drugs, heavy metals, super-oxides etc., on enzymes related with nucleic acid synthesis and genetic expressions.

    ————————————————————————

    Without a baseline knowledge of biochemistry- especially the mechanism of ‘ligand-target’ interactions of biological molecules, molecular basics of pathology, molecular inhibitions and dynamics of ‘cure’ as removal of molecular inhibitions, you cannot follow the scientific explanation of similia similibus curentur.

    Without a scientific perspective of molecular composition of drug substances, and the molecular mechanism by which the drug substances interact with biological organism to produce pathological inhibitions and symptoms, you cannot follow the scientific explanations of drug proving.

    Without getting yourselves introduced to the latest information regarding supra-molecular properties of water and ethyl alcohol, hydrogen bonding, hydration shells, supra-molecular nano-structures, guest-host complexes, molecular imprinting in polymers and related subjects, you cannot follow the scientific explanations of potentization in terms of ‘molecular imprinting’.

    Scientific understanding of homeopathy, similar to any rational science of medicine, should be primarily based on the realization of ‘life’ as a ‘material’ phenomenon. Living world represents a higher level of organization of same elemental factors existing in the non-living world, an advanced stage of its evolution that happened through millions of years.

    ‘Living organism’ is a highly complex and self-regulated material system that exists through ‘vital processes’ or metabolic processes, consisting of systematic chains of inter-dependant biochemical pathways of complex molecular interactions, enabling an unhindered flow and conversion of matter and energy between organism and its environment that ensures the existence of life.

    Phenomena of ‘mind’ and ‘mental faculties’ are the ‘functional’ products of complex biochemical molecular processes happening in the central nervous system, which is an integral part of ‘body’, and as such, mind has no existence free from the material body.

    If you cannot understand this basic scientific perspective of ‘life’, ‘vital processes’ and ‘mind’, you cannot follow the scientific explanations of homeopathy.

    In the absence of these essential basic scientific knowledge, you will go on talking about ‘energy medicine’, vital force, dynamic drug energy, spiritual healing, vibrations, resonance, distance healing and such diverse unscientific and pseudo-scientific things, and continue to make homeopathy and homeopaths a subject of unending mockery and ridicule before the scientific community. And of course, you will go on declaring homeopathy is the ultimate science, hahnemann is the greatest scientist, and modern science is lagging far behind homeopathy!

    —————————————————

    If you are using similumum, why should you use it as mother tincture? if you are using mother tincture not as similimum, how can you claim you are doing homeopatjy? most homeopaths use MT allopathically

    During earlier stages of evolution of homeopathy, before the invenrion of potentization, hahnemann used mother tinctures of similimum. After the invention of potentization, he stopped it.

    In my opinion, similimum will act in mother tincture form also, but since they contain original drug molecules, there is chances for off target molecular inhibitions which will cause un expected bad effects.

    Drugs potentized above 12c contain only molecular imprints, and cannot cause bad effects. I think only potentized drugs could be considered genuine homeopathy.

    ———————————————————————–

    My special request to Homeopathy students:

    Please be careful not to get confused and distracted by reading my articles. As a student, exam is very important for you. Study what is taught in college, face exams and get your degree. Then you can think about what I am saying about scientific homeopathy.

    ———————————————————

    What are exactly the active principles of potentized drugs? What is the molecular mechanism by which these active principles interact with organism and produce a therapeutic effect?

    I think these are the fundamental question to be addressed while trying to make homeopathy a scientific medical system. The answer we provide should be capable of explaining the time-proven experiences of homeopathic practice, same time fitting to the existing scientific knowledge system. Most importantly, it should be provable with scientific methods.

    I was trying to explain homeopathic potentization on the basis of modern technology of ’molecular imprinting’, and ‘similia similibus curentur’ on the basis scientific understanding regarding molecular mechanism of resolving pathologic molecular inhibitions involved in therapeutics.

    According to my concept, potentization involves a process of molecular imprinting in water, exactly similar to ‘molecular imprinting in polymers’. During this process, constituent drug molecules contained in drug substances are ‘imprinted’ into the supra-molecular matrix of water-ethyl alcohol mixture, generating three-dimensional nanocavities that can act as artificial ‘targets’ for pathological ligands that have configurations similar to the drug molecules used for imprinting. These ‘molecular imprints’, when introduced into the organism can selectively bid to the pathological molecules having complementary configurational affintity, thereby relieving the biological molecules from pathological molecular inhibitions. This is the most rational and logical explanation of molecular dynamics of homeopathic therapeutics.

    —————————————————————–

    ‎’Molecular Imprints’ are actually ‘hydration shells’ formed around drug molecules used as ‘guest’ molecules in imprinting protocol. Water already exists as a ‘supra-molecular net work’ by peculiar type of ‘hydrogen bonding’ between hydrogen atom being part of one water molecule and oxygen atom being part of another water molecule. As such, there are ‘nanocavities’ in between water molecules. When a foreign molecule is introduced into water, the water molecules re-arranges around the foreign molecules and forms a ‘hydration shell’ through hydrogen bonding. Even though these hydration bonds and hydration shells are very much temporary in ordinary conditions, by the process of potentization serial dilution and shaking, these hydration shells are freed from foreingn molecules and preserved as ‘Molecular Imprints’. Presence of comparatively heavier ethyl alcohol molecules in the medium play a role in strengthening the hydrogen bonds.Without understanding ‘Molecular Imprints’ in its scientific meaning of ‘nanovaities of supra-molecular clusters’, one cannot follow my explanations of homeopathy.
    —————————————————————

    Molecular Imprinted Drugs Will Provide A Converging Point For Homeopathy And Modern Molecular Medicine.

    In a far distant historical perspective, I foresee the possibility of converging of modern medicine and homeopathy into a universal molecular medical science of ‘drug-less therapy’, where only molecular imprints will be used as therapeutic agents.

    Modern Medicine is gradually evolving into ‘Molecular Medicine’. Molecular Medicine studies vital processes and diseases at molecular level, and deals therapeutics as an art and science of molecular level repairing.

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

    ‘Molecular Medicine’ emphasizes disease and cure in terms of cellular and molecular phenomena and interventions rather than the conceptual and observational focus on patients and their organs common to conventional medicine.

    Molecular Medicine studies drug substances in terms of their molecular level structure and organization, and is more and more relying upon target-specific Designer Drugs synthesized by drug designing technology, supported by computer aided designing protocols.

    Drug Designing Technology has recently started exploring the possibilities of Molecular Imprinting in the development of target-specific designer drugs. They are now experimenting for developing bio-friendly imprinting matrices and imprinting protocols, so as to prepare artificial binding surfaces for pathogenic molecules that could be utilized as therapeutic agents.

    Even though not yet recognized as such, homeopathic potentization is a process of molecular imprinting, where artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules are produced by imprinting drug molecules into water-ethyl alcohol supra-molecular matrices. Homeopathy identifies pathological molecular errors and selects the appropriate molecular imprints through a peculiar technique of ‘comparing symptoms’, which is expressed as the therapeutic principle, ‘simila similibus curentur’

    Most probably, modern molecular medicine and drug designing technology is in the new future going to explore the possibilities of water as a molecular imprinting medium as part of their search for novel substances to be utilized as imprinting matrix.

    It means, Modern Molecular Medicine is slowly advancing towards the realization of a drug designing technology that homeopathy invented as ‘potentization’ and utilized for preparing therapeutic agents 250 years ago. It is based on this understanding that I try to propagate the concept that ‘Homeopathy is Molecular Imprinting Therapeutics- An Advanced Branch of Molecular Medicine.

    In a far distant historical perspective, I foresee the possibility of converging of modern medicine and homeopathy into a universal molecular medical science of ‘drug-less therapy’, where only molecular imprints will be used as therapeutic agents. Instead of our present ‘potentization’, modern science may develop more sophisticated ways of molecular imprinting, that would enable us to produce therapeutic agents more specific and perfect than our present day ‘potentized drugs’.

    May be be distant dream. But it is a dream based on scientific knowledge.

    ———————————————————–

    During my 40+ years of experience with learning, applying and experimenting with homeopathy, I could never come across with a single individual of ‘pure’ sulphur, calc, lyco or any other drug constitutions. Everybody has ‘mixed’ constitutions, which requires multiple drugs. Some individuals are ‘prominently’ lyco or ‘prominently’ calc- that is all. He will have many symptoms that are not covered by that prominent ‘constitutional’ drug, but indicate some other ‘constitutions’ also. As such, it is a utopian dream to ‘cure’ an individual in his ‘totality’ with a ‘single’ constitutional drug. More over, even those so-called ‘single’ drugs are actually not ‘single’ is you imagine, but contains diverse types of individual drug molecules with specific chemical and biological properties, and hence, are compound drugs.

    You can understand the meaning of this statement only if you could perceive drug substances in terms of constituent molecules, and ‘symptoms’ in terms in terms of underlying bio-molecular processes.

    —————————————————————–

    Use of crataegus, cactus, digitalis and such drugs in crude form as ‘cardiac tonics’ is not the invention of homeopathy, but belongs to old school, which were later discarded by them due to bad long term effects. These drugs were subjected to homeopathic proving later, and incorporated into homeopathic materia medica. If you read the provings and materia medica of those drugs carefully, you can see they are not safe for our heart. Symptoms in our materia medica are actually the ‘diseases’ that could be produced by consuming those drugs in crude form. For applying them homeopathically, we should prescribe for those symptoms, in potentized form or ‘molecular imprints’ form. Using mother tinctures is no way different from allopathy.

    See MM of CRATAEGUS:

    “Produces giddiness, lowered pulse, and air hunger and reduction in blood-pressure. ·Myocarditis. ·Failing compensation. ·Irregularity of heart. ·Insomnia of aortic sufferers; anaemia; oedema; cutaneous chilliness.
    ·High arterial tension.

    Chronic heart disease, with extreme weakness. ·Very feeble and irregular heart action. ·General anasarca. ·Very nervous, with pain in back of head and neck. ·Haemorrhage from bowels. ·Cold extremities, pallor; irregular pulse and breathing. ·Painful sensation of pressure in left side of chest below the clavicle. ·Dyspepsia and nervous prostration, with heart failure.

    Cardiac dropsy. ·Fatty degeneration. ·Aortic disease. ·Extreme dyspnoea on least exertion, without much increase of pulse. ·Pain in region of heart and under left clavicle. ·Heart muscles seem flabby, worn out. ·Cough.

    Heart dilated; first sound weak. ·Pulse accelerated, irregular, feeble, intermittent. ·Valvular murmurs, angina pectoris. ·Cutaneous chilliness, blueness of fingers and toes; all aggravated by exertion or excitement.
    Diabetes, especially in children. ”

    These are some of the symptoms ‘produced in healthy individuals’ by using crude forms of crataegus. If we could produce such serious pathologies during proving of that drug, it could be produced in anybody when we use it in MT or low potency forms. If you are a real homeopath, you should use only potentized forms of crategus for disease conditions having such a symptom picture.

    ————————————————————–
    In a human being having average nutrition, ‘deficiency’ of minerals happens not from lack of supply, but due to some errors in biological processes involved in various stages of digestion, absorption, assimilation, transportation, conversion actual utilization of those minerals contained in food articles. Such secondary deficiencies cannot be rectified with extra ‘supply’. We have to remove the molecular errors in related biochemical pathways, not by using potentized minerals, but by using potentized similimum selected on the basis of totality of symptoms

    If you are using ‘biochemic salts’ for supplying ‘deficiecies’, do homeopaths ever examine the body fluids to confirm ‘deficiency’ of particular mineral before using them? Do you ever consider the chances of intoxication that may be caused by ‘excess’ minerals?

    It is well known that ‘excess’ minerals may result in cloging of biochemic pathways and ion gates, thereby resulting in reducing intercellular availabitlity. This phenomenon is behind the iron deficiency produced by long term iron supplements, calcium deficiency resulting from indiscriminate calcium supplementation. We are aware, people consuming sodium choride in large quantities end up in sodium deprivation. All these things show, indiscriminate supplying of ‘biochemic salts’ is not an answer to the problem of ‘deficiency’.Please remember, biochemic salts in triturated forms are chemically more active than crude forms, due to breaking of intermolecular bonds, ionization and nanonization happening during trituration. As such, we should be very careful in the use of triturated minerals.
     In a human being having average nutrition, ‘deficiency’ of minerals happens not from lack of supply, but due to some errors in biological processes involved in various stages of digestion, absorption, assimilation, transportation, conversion actual utilization of those minerals contained in food articles. Such secondary deficiencies cannot be rectified with extra ‘supply’. We have to remove the molecular errors in related biochemical pathways, not by using potentized minerals, but by using potentized similimum selected on the basis of totality of symptoms
    ——————————————————————-

    Exactly, homeopathy is based on two fundamental observations made by hahnemann regarding the process of cure-

    1. Similia Similibus Curentur: Hahnemann observed through his experiments that diseases could be cured by extremely diluted forms of drug substances, which could produce symptoms similar to disease when applied in large doses in healthy individuals.

    2. Potentization: Hahnemann developed a special process of preparing drugs by serial dilution and shaking, and observed that such expremely diluted drugs could act as therapeutic agents when applied according to similia similibus curentur

    Due to the limitations imposed by the infantile stage of scientific knowledge available to him during that period, hahnemann could not formulate a viable hypothesis to explain his observation in a way fitting to the scientific knowledge system then existed. In fact, science was not properly equipped to provide a reasonable explanation for the phenomena hahnemann observed.

    Instead of leaving his observations unexplained as it should have been truthfully done, hahnemann resorted to building up of a system of philosophical speculations and imaginative theorizations to explain them. May be since he found that the contemporary scientific paradigms were not sufficient for his purpose, he tried to develop a speculative philosophical system utilizing concepts such as ‘vital force’, ‘dynamic energy’ being part of spiritualistic philosophy existed then.

    Obviously, this speculative part of homeopathy does not agree with scientific knowledge or its methods. As such, scientific community adopted a skeptical approach towards homeopathy. They totally denied the existence of even the fundamental observations of hahnemaan, whereas it would have been judicious to deny the theoretical explanations of homeopathy and asking for a more viable explanation for the phenomena hahnemann observed.

    From a rational perspective, we have to logically differentiate between observational part of homeopathy from its speculative part. Observational part is objective experience, which forms the basis of practical application of similia similibus curentur and potentization. They should not be denied on the reason that hahnemann’s theoretical explanations contradict scientific knowledge.

    According to me, inorder to promote scientific homeopathy, we have to address fllowing preliminary tasks:

    1. Convince the scientific community that homeopathy works, through demonstrations and scientifically acceptable clinical studies.

    2. Convince them the importance of differentiating objective observational part of homeopathy from the unscientific theoretical or explanatory part of homeopathy.

    3. Propose a scientifically viable working hypothesis regarding how homeopathy works, in a way fitting to the existing scientific knowledge system.

    4. Prove the propositions of this hypothesis using scientific methods, in a way undisputable to the scientific community.

    While addressing this four-pointed fundamental tasks, scientific homeopathy will have to relentlessly fight against the negative-minded skeptics as well as pseudo-scientific energy medicine theoreticians of homeopathy.

    We have to consistently tell the world, real homeopathy is entirely different from those nonsense the pseudoscientific homeopathic theoreticians preach and practice.

    We have to understand and tell the homeopathic community that the negative-minded anti-homeopathic skeptics are entirely different from real scientific community.

    —————————————————————————

    ‎”Do not prescribe for the disease- prescribe for the patient”- this is a much quoted and much misunderstood cliche in homeopathy. What does it actually mean? I think we have to ponder over.

    This statement is is understood in different ways by different homeopaths.

    Some homeopaths understand it as ‘forget the disease, treat the person’. According to them, whatever the complaints the person heve, his constitutional similimum selected on the basis of physical generals and mentals is enough to remove all his ailments and bring him back to total cure. They call it ‘constitutional’ approach or ‘holistic’ approach. Some people with extreme approach believe we can cure with only ‘mental’ or even ‘sensational’ similimum. According to this people, if the patient is calc constitution, we should prescribe it only, whatever be the ailments- headache, digestive upset, piles, eczema, allergy, acute cold or anything else.

    In my opinion, “prescribe not for the disease- prescribe for the patient” should be understood in a different way.

    If we try to prescribe on the basis of a disease diagnosis only, it is ‘prescribing for the disease’. Same time, if we prescribe on the basis of totality of symptoms specifically expressed by the individual ‘patient’, it is ‘prescribing for the patient’.

    Prescribing for a ‘headache’ on the basis of diagnosis of ‘migraine’ is ‘prescribing for disease’. Exactly, the homeopath should prescribe for the specific ‘patient’. If we collect the locations, sensations, modalities and concomitants of that ‘migraine’ in that particular patient and find a similimum, it is not prescribing for disease- it is a prescription for that ‘patient’. You cannot expect that prescription to cure a ‘migraine’ of another person. He will need another similimum based on his symptoms.
    In my opinion, “prescribe not for the disease- prescribe for the patient” should be understood in this way. It doses not mean ignoring the ailments of the patient, and prescribing for his ‘constitution’.

    A young homeopath asked me to suggest a drug for his patient with ‘violent knee pain’. When I asked him to provide symptoms, he said: “patient gives no other symptoms”. I get many such requests from young homeopaths daily.

    An unqualified symptom is of no use in selecting a similimum.

    I told him, we should get detailed symptoms for making a prescription: For example, he has knee pain(expression), right knee(location), swelling and redness(expression), throbbing pain(sensatin), relieved by warm application(modality) and rest(modality), worse by motion(modality), walking(modality), pain extending to heels(concomitants), it is a clear picture. We can prescribe.

    ‘No symptoms’ only means, we failed to collect symptoms. Collecting symptoms is an art, which needs great talent, creativity and observational and communication skills.

    Once the patient reports a symptom, do not leave that symptom without collecting maximum information regarding that symptoms, such as its causations, expressions, locations, sensations, modalities and concomittants.

    Same time, we should be careful not to break the flow of narrations by interfering with frequent questions. It would be ideal to allow the patient to complete his narrations uninterrupted, and then return back to each symptom and interrogate the patient to collect the qualifications.

    Even a single symptom, if with all its qualifications, will by itself provide a strong foundation for a reliable prescription.

    For example, if the patient has a headache (expressions), in forehead(location), bursting pains(sensations), amelioration by cold applications and sleep(modalities), aggravated during menses(modalities), with vomiting(concomitants) and blurred vision(concomitants), we can make a prescription for her headache without considering generals or mentals. Such a prescription will relieve the headache instantly.

    If the complaints recur, we will have to find her constitutional similimum using physical generals and mentals, which will cure her permanently.
    Homeopathic prescribing is an art of individualization. But ‘individualization’ should not be understood as prescribing ‘constitutional similimum’ always. Individualization exactly means finding a similimum considering the symptoms expressed by the patient in their totality. Qualified symptoms is the key to successful individualization of a case.

    ‎”Do not prescribe for the disease- prescribe for the patient” indicates the importance of this individualization. It does not mean ‘prescribe constitutional drugs’ only.

    ———————————————————————-

    Most homeopaths understand homeopathy is a closed system of eternally immutable ‘laws’, ‘rules’, ‘principles’ and ‘methods’ every ‘true’ homeopath is bound to ‘obey’. They believe in ‘seven cardinal principles of hahnemann’, ‘hering laws’, ‘kents observations’ and many other ‘theories’ that rule the practice of homeopathy. Anybody violating or thinking beyond these ‘fundamental laws’ are considered to be ‘wrong homeopaths’. That is why they advise me not to use the term ‘homeopathy’ if I do not abide by the ‘fundamental principles.

    We should remember, no ‘masters’ so far knew what really happens during potentization. Nobody so far knew what are the exact active principles of potentized drugs. Nobody so far knew the exact molecular level mechanism by which the active principles of potentized drugs interact with the biological organism and produce a therapeutic effect. Only things our masters actually knew was the objective natural phenomena of ‘likes curing likes’ and ‘high dilution effects’.

    Everything else were mere speculations. Speculations based on unscientific philosophy of ‘dynamism’ and ‘vitalism’. All ‘laws’, ‘rules’, ‘methods’ and ‘doctrines’ we consider as ‘cardinal principles of homeopathy evolved from these speculative theories. All ‘directions’ regarding ‘doses’, repetitions’, ‘single drugs’, ‘follow ups’ and everything else were formulated without clearly knowing the substances we are actually dealing with or how they actually work. They were based on misinterpreted ‘experiences’ of ‘stalwarts’ with historically limited scientific knowledge.

    Once we acquire scientific knowledge regarding the exact processes involved in potentization, active principles of potentized drugs and the molecular mechanism of their therapeutic action, all the existing ‘methods’, ‘laws’, ‘rules’ and ‘principles’ are bound to change. New ‘principles’ and ‘methods’will evolve.

    What ever I talk about ‘principles’ and ‘methods’ of homeopathic practice such as ‘dose’ and ‘repetitions’ are based on my scientific understanding of potentization as ‘molecular imprinting’, active principles of potentized drugs as ‘molecular imprints’, and homeopathic therapeutics as removal of biochemical inhibitions. Unless you understand the concept ‘molecular imprinting’ of potentization and biochemistry of therapeutics, you are bound to fail to understand everything I say.

    Acquiring a scientific understanding of the phenomena involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’, and applying that knowledge judiciously for curing the sick- that should be the only ‘fundamental rule’ that guide a homeopath.

    ‘Likes cures likes’ and ‘high dilution effects’ represent the objective part of homepathy, which are concerned with truthful observations of natural phenomena involved in the process of ‘cure’. This is the strong and rational aspect of homeopathy that have to be preserved, explored and advanced into more and more perfection.

    The theoretical explanatory part of homeopathy, which is based on totally unscientific and irrational philosophy of ‘dynamism’ and ‘vitalism’ of eighteenth century europe, as well as the ‘rules’, ‘laws’ and ‘methods’ formulated accordingly, is the real stumbling block that prevents this wonderful therapeutic art from advancing into a scientific medical system.

    We have to preserve and strengthen the rational objective aspect of homeopathy, and explain it in terms of modern scientific knowledge. We should show the audacity to discard its irrational and unscientific theoretical parts. Once we understand the real science involved in the phenomena of ‘likes cure likes’ and ‘potentization’, a whole new set of practical ‘rules’ and ‘laws’ would spontaneously evolve.

    ————————————————————————–

    It is wrong if anybody think I have proposed ‘some theories’ about homeopathy. I have proposed only ‘viable working hypothesis that could be presented as a candidate for scientific verification’. You have to know the difference between ‘hypothesis’ and ‘theory’. My hypothesis would become a theory only when it is proved by ‘scientific methods’.

    Can anybody claim there is any ‘scientifically verified theory’ in homeopathy? What you say ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy are not even ‘scientific hypotheses’.

    Did anybody prove ‘similia similibus curentur’ by scientific methods? Did anybody prove potentization through scientific methods? Did anybody prove ‘suppressions’, hering laws or any such things by ‘scientific methods’? Did anybody prove ‘vital force’ and ‘dynamic drug energy’ with any ‘scientific trials? NEVER! They are all mere speculative theorizations, without any scientific validity.

    We have to prove similia similibus curentur and potentization with scientific methods. For that, first of all we have to propose a ‘working hypothesis’ that ‘fits well to the existing scientific knowledge system. Then we have to prove that hypothesis through ‘scientific methods’. Then only it will become a theory, and homeopathy become a science.

    MIT is the working hypothesis i propose for homeopathy. It is the FIRST ‘scientific hypothesis’ being proposed during the 250 year history of homeopathy. First try to understand it before declaing it is ‘ridiculous’.

    ——————————————————————————

    You cannot ‘save’ homeopathy with noisy slogans or mass mobilizations. You cannot ‘save’ homeopathy with facebook polls. You cannot ‘save’ homeopathy using quotes from luminaries who supported it. To ‘save’ homeopathy, homeopaths should first of al stop talking nonsense ‘spiritualistic’ ‘energy medicine’ theories about homeopathy. They should explain homeopathy in scientific terms, and prove it according to scientific methods, in a way fitting to the modern scientific knowledge system, and in a way understandable and acceptable to scientific community. You cannot ‘save’ homeopathy in this advanced modern knowledge environment, using your 250 year old pre-scientific theories and ‘anti-scientific’ intellectual gimmicks. To save homeopathy, first of all we have to save it from the hands of ‘insane’ unscientific propagators.

    ——————————————————————————–

    To understand the real science behind the phenomena of ‘similia similibus curentur’, ‘drug proving’ and ‘potntization’, we should study drug substances in terms of not only their ‘constituent molecules’, but in terms of ‘functional groups’ and ‘moieties’ of those drug molecules. A drug substance is composed of diverse types of drug molecules. A drug molecule interacts with ‘active groups’ of biological target molecules such as enzymes and receptors using their ‘functional groups’ or ‘moieties’. It is the ‘functional groups’ and ‘moieties’ on the individual drug molecules that decide to which biological molecules they can bind to and produce molecular inhibitions. Different drug molecules with different size and structures, but having same ‘functional group’ or ‘moiety’ can bind to same biological molecules and produce similar molecular errors and similar groups of symptoms. A drug molecule become similimum to a disease when the drug molecule and disease-producing molecule have same functional groups, so that they could bind to same biological targets producing same molecular errors and same symptom groups.

    Drug molecules act upon the biological molecules in the organism by binding their ‘functional groups’ to the active groups on the complex biological molecules such as receptors and enzymes. These molecular interactions are determined by the affinity between functional groups or moieties of drug molecules and active sites of biological molecules. Here, the functional groups of drug molecules are called ‘ligands’, and the biological molecules are called ‘targets’. Ligand-target interaction is determined by a peculiar ‘key-lock’ relationship due to complementary configurational affinities.

    It is to be specifically noted that same functional group will undergo the same or similar chemical reactions regardless of the size or configuration of of the molecule it is a part of. However, its relative reactivity can be modified by nearby functional groups known as facilitating groups. That means, different types of drug molecules or pathogenic molecules having same functional groups and facilitating groups can bind to same biological molecules, and produce similar molecular inhibitions and symptoms. Homeopathic principle of ‘similimum’ is well explained by this understanding. If a drug molecule can produce symptoms similar to symptoms of a particular disease, it means that the drug molecules and disease-causing molecules have same functional groups on them, by which they bind to same biological molecules.

    Obviously, similarity of symptoms means similarity of functional groups of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules. To be similimum, the whole molecules need not be similar, but similarity of functional groups is enough.

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

    According to the scientific definition proposed by Dialectical Homeopathy, ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ means:

    “If a drug substance in crude form is capable of producing certain groups of symptoms in a healthy human organism, that drug substance in potentized form can cure diseases having similar symptoms”.

    Potentization is explained in terms of molecular imprinting. As per this concept, potentized drugs contains diverse types of molecular imprints representing diverse types of constituent molecules contained in the drug substances used for potentization.

    In other words, “potentized drugs can cure diseases having symptoms similar to those produced by that drug in healthy organism if applied in crude forms”.

    Homeopathy is based on the therapeutic principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’, which scientifically means “endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules that cause diseases by binding to the biological molecules can be entrapped and removed using molecular imprints of drug molecules which in molecular form can bind to the same biological molecules, utilizing the complementary configurational affinity between molecular imprints and pathogenic molecules”.

    So far, we understood ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ as ‘similarity of symptoms produced by drugs as well as diseases’. According to modern scientific understanding, we can explain it as ‘similarity of molecular errors produced by drug molecules and pathogenic molecules’ in the organism.

    To be more exact, that means ‘similarity of molecular configurations of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules’. Potentized drugs contains ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent molecules of drug used for potentization. ‘Molecular imprints’ are three-dimensional negatives of molecules, and hence they would have a peculiar affinity towards those molecules, due to their complementary configuration. ‘Molecular imprints’ would show this complementary affinity not only towards the molecules used for imprinting, but also towards all molecules that have configurations similar to those molecules. Homeopathy utilizes this phenomenon, and uses molecular imprints of drug molecules to bind and entrap pathogenic molecules having configurations similar to them.

    Similarity of configurations of drug molecules and pathogenic molecules are identified by evaluating the ‘similarity of symptoms’ they produce in organism during drug proving and disease. This realization is the the basis of scientific understanding of homeopathy I propose.

    To be ‘similar’ does not mean pathological molecule and drug molecules should be similar in their ‘whole’ molecular structure. To bind to same targets, similarity of ‘functional groups’ or even a ‘moeity’ is enough. If the adjacent groups that facilitate binding with targets are also same, similarity becomes more perfect. If a drug molecule could produce symptoms similar to a disease, that means the drug molecules contains some functional groups simialr to those of pathogenic molecules that caused the disease. By virtue of these similar functional groups, both pathogenic molecules and drug molecules could bind to same biological targets, producing similar molecular errors and symptoms in the organism.

    Molecular imprints of similar functional groups will also be similar. As such, potentized forms of a drug substance can bind and deactivate the pathogenic molecules having similar functional groups. This is the real molecular mechanism of ‘similia similibus curentur’.

    Except those substances of simple chemical formula belonging to mineral groups, most of the pathogenic agents as well as drug substances consist of complex organic molecules. In the study of chemical interactions involving these organic molecules, understanding the concept of ‘functional groups’ is very important. ‘Functional groups’ are specific groups of atoms within large organic molecules that are responsible for their characteristic chemical reactions. Different organic molecules having same functional group will undergo the same or similar chemical reactions regardless of the size of the molecule it is a part of. However, its relative reactivity can be modified or influenced to an extent by nearby functional groups.

    Even though the word moiety is often used synonymously to “functional group”, according to the IUPAC definition,a moiety is a part of a molecule that may include either whole functional groups or a parts of functional groups as substructures.

    The atoms of functional groups are linked to each other and to the rest of the molecule by covalent bonds. When the group of covalently bound atoms bears a net charge, the group is referred to more properly as a polyatomic ion or a complex ion. Any subgroup of atoms of a compound also may be called a radical, and if a covalent bond is broken homolytically, the resulting fragment radicals are referred as free radicals.

    Organic reactions are facilitated and controlled by the functional groups of the reactants.

    A ‘moeity’ represents discrete non-bonded components. Thus, Na2SO4 would contain 3 moieties (2 Na+ and one SO42-). A “chemical formula moiety” is defined as “formula with each discrete bonded residue or ion shown as a separate moiety”.

    We should learn different types of ‘functional groups’ and ‘moieties’ of constituent molecules of our drug substances, as well as diverse types of pathogenic molecules. We have to study our materia medica from this viewpoint, comparing symptoms of different drug molecules having same functional moieties. Then we can logically explain the phenomenon of ‘drug relationships’. We can explain the similarity of drugs belonging to different groups such as ‘calcarea’, ‘merc’, ‘kali’, ‘acid’, ‘sulph’, ‘mur’ etc. Such an approach will make our understanding of homeopathy more scientific and accurate

    ——————————————————————————

    If you know how to collect symptoms, find appropriate rubrics, grade them and use repertories and materia medica judiciously, you can manage almost any case using well-defined general rubrics (dont confuse with general symptoms) of our primary repertories, and a medicine chest containing around hundred well-proven drugs. All these running after ‘rare medicines’ and ‘biggest repertories containing largest number of rubrics’ shows the confusions created by the marketing strategies of compilers of modern materia medica books and repertories.

    In my opinion, our materia medica and repertories should be updated not by additions, but by culling and elimination of unverified rubrics and un-proved drugs.

    ——————————————————————————-

    Small rubrics of peculiar symptoms some times makes wonderful prescriptions. No doubt. But, we cannot repertorize using such single drug symptoms. They are usrful only for keynote prescriptions. Finding similimum on the basis of totality byrepertorozing using mental, generals and particulars is requited for pergect, ever lasting cure.If that headache is the only problem suffered by that patient, mag mur may relieve it. But in most cases, patients come with multiple complaints. In such cases, we have to use similimum selected with totality, which is possible by general rubrics only, to offer total cure.I had reported a case of fever cured by rhododendron selected on a single particular rubric “sleeps with legs crossed”. That is possible in such singular particular complaints. My topic here was repertorization, which cannot be done with particular single drug rubrics
    ——————————————————————————-
    Once we perceive our drug substances of in terms of their diverse types of constituent molecules, and their biological actions in terms of functional groups of those molecules, we can see this issue in a more scientific light. Then we will understand why different drugs produce some similar symptoms, why we get curative effects in a case by using entirely different drugs. Then we will understand why different physicians select different drugs in same case, and produce positive results. Mag mur produced such a particular symptom during proving, probably binding magnesium ion to some biological molecules. Many chemical molecules of drug substances of plant or animal origin also contains magnesium ions in their functional group, and in potentized form, can act in similar ways.We should understand, our drug substances, especially of plant or animal origin, contains hundreds of different chemical molecules, and as such, can act on biological systems as different drugs. Nux vomica produces rectal symptoms due to the action of a particular constituent molecule, where as it produces gastric symptoms, mental symptoms or neurological symptoms by the action of different constituent molecules. That means, our so called single drugs are actually not ‘single’. That is why we can manage our cases using 100 or so well proved drugs. 100 drugs actually work as 1000s of drugs.
    ————————————————————————————
    In a bid to beat the market competitors in the number of rubrics and number of volumes, compilers of modern repertories are adding hundreds and hundreds of unverified and unreliable rubrics in their repertories in the guise of ‘clinical proving’, and our repertories swell up with bogus rubrics, which is a great threat to genuine homeopathic practice.Everybody talk about ‘biggest repertories’ and ‘largest number of rubrics’. That decides the marketability. Currently there is no any mechanism to ensure the the genuineness of repertorial rubrics. Everything is left to the subjective imaginations and fancies of ‘repertory compilers’.There should be an international authority representing professional homeopaths all over the world, entrusted with the responsibility of compiling and updating homeopathic repertories. Each rubric to be included in the repertory should be identified, verified and numbered by this authority. It should be ensured that any rubric in our repertories should bear a unique number allotted by this authority.This international authority should work in the way IUPAC functions. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) is an international federation of National Adhering Organizations that represents chemists in individual countries. IUPAC is responsible for Nomenclature and Symbols (IUPAC nomenclature), and is the recognized world authority in developing standards for the naming of the chemical elements and compounds. standardizing nomenclature in chemistry and other fields of science and standardizing nucleotide base sequence code names.I hope this suggestion would be seriously discussed by the community.
    ——————————————————————————

    Can we change ‘constitutions’ by homeopathic treatment? This question is a frequently asked one in homeopathic circles. Some believe they can, some believe they cannot.

    Constitution of an individual has a ‘genotype’ and ‘phenotype’ aspects. ‘Genotype’ is the genetic material inherited from previous generation. It cannot be changed by homeopathic drugs. If homeopathic drugs could have produced changes in genotype, it would have to labelled as a most dangerous medical system.

    What we call as ‘constitutions’ and ‘constitutional symptoms’ in homeopathy actually deals with ‘phenotype’ aspects of constitution. Phenotype is decided by the way genes are expressed. ‘Genetic expression’ happens through a complex chain of biochemical processes, by which proteins are synthesized using the genetic blueprint involved in genotype.

    Synthesizing of proteins in accordance with the genetic blueprints is mediated by diverse types of enzymes, and it requires diverse types of aminoacids and other biological molecules. Hence, genetic expression or ‘phenotype’ could be influenced by many factors such as nutrition, environment, emotions, drugs, and many such things that could inhibit or activate the enzyme systems involved in protein synthesis.

    Obviously, we can change or influence the ‘phenotype’ or genetic expression, but we cannot change the basic genetic material of an individual. Any ‘constitutional’ changes we produce by homeopathic treatment are confined to phenotype chages, not genotype changes.

    ———————————————————————–

    Dr. Dinesh N Nair, dineshnnair@hotmail.com, a veteran homeopath from Kerala, commented on my article ‘How Homeopathy Works? A Working Hypothesis That Could Be Verified Using Scientific Methods’ as follows:

    Congratulations Chandran Namibiarji, It is great and I am of the opinion you are nearing what we all waiting for. There is a body said to be for Homoeopathy known as Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy.Are they all acting sleepy. They are supposed to say some answers to your questions querries or explanations, and or cooperate with you to bring out the scientific explanation to Homoeopathy.

    Sincerly with Love,

    Dr.Dinesh N Nair

    —————————————————————–

    I am publishing a message received from Soroush Ebrahimi RSHom, administrator of Mintus group, regarding my article “How The Concept Of Potentization As ‘Molecular Imprinting’ Was Evolved?”

    Ref: http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/molecular-imprints-as-the-active-principles/

    This is a very good article – however, please could you give references to cover the statements you have made – Specifically the following:

    7. Evaporation rates of potentized drugs and control solutions have been found to differ. That indicates change in hydrogen bond patterns and supra-molecular rearrangements.
    8. Freezing point of potentized drugs and control solutions are different, which again indicates change in hydrogen bonding patterns and supra-molecular organization of medium during potentization.
    9. Intensity of Brownian motions is less in potentized drugs when compared to control solutions. This observation shows that freedom of movements of molecules are comparatively restricted in potentized drugs, which indicates a supra-molecular clustering.
    10. Solubility of salts in potentized drugs and control solutions are of different rates. This observation shows that the supra-molecular properties and hydrogen bonding patterns have changed during potentization, which also indicates some sort of supra-molecular clustering.
    11. In spectroscopic studies, the rate of absorption, and refraction of light rays were found to be different in potentized drugs and control solutions. This showed that water/ethyl alcohol mixture have undergone some sort of supra-molecular clustering and re-organization during potentization.
    12. Dielectric dispersions of potentized drugs were experimentally proved to be different from that of control solutions, which indicated a molecular re-arrangement of medium during the process of potentization.
    13. In vitro and in vivo experiments proved that potentized drugs can antidote the biological effects of theirs 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.
    14. Study of supra-molecular structure of water, hydrogen bonding, hydration shells, clathrate compounds and supra-molecular clusters convinced me that water can exhibit some polymer-like properties at supra-molecular level.
    15. Study of molecular properties of ethyl alcohol and ethyl alcohol/water mixtures convinced me that the hydrogen bond strength of water can be enhanced by the presence of ethyl alcohol molecules in an appropriate proportion. Further, the heavy alcohol molecules can restrict the free movements of water molecules, there by helping in the stabilization of hydration shells.
    16. Study of the technology of ‘molecular imprinted polymers’ done by polymer scientists convinced me of the use of ‘molecular imprints’ as artificial binding sites for biological target molecules.
    17. Study of works done by Benveniste regarding ‘memory of water’ indicated some structural changes happening in water during successive dilution and succession. Benveniste failed to comprehend the real mechanism involved in the phenomenon of ‘water memory’ he observed.
    18. 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.

    With references, such an article would be come a very powerful tool – especially against those that deny .

    Kind regards

    Soroush Ebrahimi RSHom
    Foxgloves
    The Ridge
    LITTLE BADDOW
    Essex
    UK
    CM3 4SA
    Tel: +44 1245 328 167

    ————————————————————–

    I have no idea how many people have already understood what I have proposed as the scientific explanation of homeopathy. Most probably, that would be very very small in numbers. I know, even most of those who support my concepts have no a clear idea about ‘molecular imprints therapeutics’, which is the basis of my scientific explanations of homeopathy. Regarding those who oppose and try to disprove me, I am sure, their vision of my concepts are miserably out of focus.

    I am sorry to say that homeopathy community have so far failed to realize the historical implications of ‘molecular imprints therapeutics’ up on the future advancement of hmeopathy.

    I am not much concerned about my personal disappointmemts over this non-recognitipn. But, I am very much worried about what homeopathy is losing due to this indifference towards what I am saying.

    Anyhow, I shally carry on my work, and continue talking what I think is right. It is my mission.

    —————————————————————————-

    Once you understand the scientific explanation of homeopathy on the basis of ‘Molecular Imprints Therapeitics’ (MIT) concepts, you would realize that there are no more unanswerable questions or riddles remaining in homeopathy. Nothing remains scientifically unexplainable or unverifiable. Homeopaths will become more rational in their approaches and methods, and every body will start talking about homeopathy more logically and in same language. You will see everything fitting well to the most updated scientific knowledge system on one end, and the time-proven, truthful homeopathic experiences on the other end. You will realize that through MIT explanation, homeopathy has finally evolved into the status of a perfectly scientific medical system- an advanced branch of modern molecular medicine. Homeopaths are raised to the status of modern scientific physicians. Homeopaths now become more self confident, and can hold their heads high. They can now give fitting, scientific answers to the skeptics who constantly try to malign and defame homeopathy.

    —————————————————————————-

     Prof. Rati Ram Sharma, DSc, PhD, MD(MA), MSc, MAMS, FIAMP ,

    [Professor & Head (retired), Deptt. of Biophysics (with Nuclear Medicine), Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, India], commented on my page:

    “Hearty congratulations Dr. K.C Chandran Nambiar, for a masterly presentation. Well done, keep it up.

    I completely agree that in pharmaceutical chemistry, a “single” drug is a molecule or ion that can independently interact with biological molecules. Such a molecule or ion is the active “unit” of the drug substance. If a drug substance contains more than one such active units, capable of independent biological activity, it is a compound drug, not a “single” drug.

    Let us join minds and head to suggest homoeopathic pharmaceutics as is available in Modern Scientific Medicine or Allopathy. In fact we have to have a group of like minded ascietists along with a pharmceutical company and a Homoeopathic Research Institute.

    Respectful regards from,

    Rati Ram Sharma,
    DSc, PhD, MD(MA), MSc, MAMS, FIAMP
    [Professor & Head (retired), Deptt. of Biophysics (with Nuclear Medicine), Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, India; Present Res. address: H. No. 615, Sector 10, Panchkula-134113, Haryana, India; Phone: (0091-172)-2563949, Mobile: 9317655775; email: rrjss615@gmail.com, ; web site: http://physicsrevolution.com/]

    View this comment on this page: http://totalcurehomeopathicprescriptions.webs.com/apps/blog/entries/show/5577783-are-those-single-drugs-really-single-as-we-so-far-believed–

    THANK YOU, PROF. SHARMA. I CONSIDER YOUR NICE APPRECIATION AS A GREAT HONOR CONFERRED UP ON ME, AND A VALUABLE AUTHORITATIVE RECOGNITION OF MY SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS OF HOMEOPATHY. THANKS A LOT.

    ——————————————————————

    Without a baseline knowledge of biochemistry- especially the mechanism of ‘ligand-target’ interactions of biological molecules, molecular basics of pathology, molecular inhibitions and dynamics of ‘cure’ as removal of molecular inhibitions, you cannot follow the scientific explanation of similia similibus curentur.

    Without a scientific perspective of molecular composition of drug substances, andthe molecular mechanism by which the drug substances interact with biological organism to produce pathological inhibitions and symptoms, you cannot follow the scientific explanations of drug proving.

    Without getting yourselves introduced to the latest information regarding supra-molecular properties of water and ethyl alcohol, hydrogen bonding, hydration shells, supra-molecular nano-structures, guest-host complexes, molecular imprinting in polymers and related subjects, you cannot follow the scientific explanations of potentization in terms of ‘molecular imprinting’.

    In the absence of these essential basic scientific knowledge, you will go on talking about ‘energy medicine’, vital force, dynamic drug energy, spiritual healing, vibrations, resonance, distance healing and such diverse unscientific and pseudo-scientific things, and continue to make homeopathy and homeopaths a subject of unending mockery and ridicule before the scientific community. And of course, you will go on declaring homeopathy is the ultimate science, hahnemann is the greatest scientist, and modern science is lagging far behind homeopathy!
    ———————————————————————
    Scientific understanding of homeopathy, similar to any rational science of medicine, should be primarily based on the realization of ‘life’ as a ‘material’ phenomenon. Living world represents a higher level of organization of same elemental factors existing in the non-living world, an advanced stage of its evolution that happened through millions of years.’Living organism’ is a highly complex and self-regulated material system that exists through ‘vital processes’ or metabolic processes, consisting of systematic chains of inter-dependant biochemical pathways of complex molecular interactions, enabling an unhindered flow and conversion of matter and energy between organism and its environment that ensures the existence of life.Phenomena of ‘mind’ and ‘mental faculties’ are the ‘functional’ products of complex biochemical molecular processes happening in the central nervous system, which is an integral part of ‘body’, and as such, mind has no existence free from the material body.If you cannot understand this basic scientific perspective of ‘life’, ‘vital processes’ and ‘mind’, you cannot follow the scientific explanations of homeopathy.
    ————————————————————

    To make a ‘homeopathic’ prescription, we need ‘homeopathic’ symptoms. Nobody can make a homeopathic prescription using ‘diagnostic’ symptoms alone.

    We should collect all physical generals, mentals and particular symptoms, with all associated ‘qualifications’ such as sensations, modalities and concomitants of each symptom, so that we get a ‘homeopathic’ symptom picture of the patient. Then, we can repertorize the case to find most appropriate drugs, which should be applied in potencies above 12c.

    Please do not worry much over imaginary issues such as ‘single/multiple drugs, remedy kingdoms, drug families, embryonic layers, drug relationships, selection of potencies, repetitions, medicinal aggravations, suppressions, miasmatic analysis and such things. If you selected right drugs, and administered enough doses in potencies above 12c, your patient will be CURED.

    ————————————————————————————–

    First time in the history of homeopathy, here is a rational, scientifically viable ‘working hypothesis’ proposed, that exactly bridges existing scientific knowledge system on one side, and our time-proven homeopathic experiences on the other side. I dedicate this hypothesis to our great master on his birthday. In this article, I am trying to ‘follow’ hahnemann in a creative way, by taking forward and advancing his theories to keep them abreast with latest scientific knowledge. I hope soul of our master would have been only happy to see this happening. Bless me, and show me light in my mission, MASTER!

    —————————————————————-

    To combat skeptic attacks effectively, we should make homeopathy scientific. For that, homeopaths should develop a scientific outlook first

    —————————————————————-

    If we had a scientifically viable and rational theory about homeopathy, no skeptics could have attacked us- deficiencies make us vulnerable

    ——————————————————————-

    First you stop talking unscientific theories, and make homeopaths aware of scientific homeopathy- Only then you can combat skeptic attacks

    ——————————————————————-

    Talking nonsense, irrational theories, our unscientific homeopaths do more harm to homeopathy than anti-homeopathic skeptics and scientists.

    —————————————————————

    What Homeopathy Awareness Campaign you are doing, under the leadership of these people promoting unscientific theories and occult practices?

    ———————————————————————

    If anybody says “HOMOEOPATHY is the only system of medicine which is scientific”, that only means he knows nothing about other medical systems except homeopathy, and nothing about science except ‘homeopathic science’. Only one who is blinded by ‘dedication’ to homeopathy can make such a statement. Do not forget, science has advanced through 250 years after homeopathy came into existence. Do you think during this 250 years, science could not advance a single step from the level of science homeopathy represents?

    By saying ‘homeopathy is the only science and hahnemann is the greatest scientist’, you are actually belittling homeopathy and hahnemann. Be bold enough to accept historical reality. Such statements do not by itself make you a better or ‘true’ homeopath.

    —————————————————————-

    FOUR FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED TO EXPLAIN HOMEOPATHY SCIENTIFICALLY:

    Question 1: What is the real science behind ‘similia similibus curentur’?

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

    Question 2: What really happens at ‘material’ level during the process of potentisation?

    During initial stages of drug potentization, crude drug substances undergoes division and ionization, therby individual constituent molecules getting freed from intermolecular bonds. During progressive dilution and succussion, these constituent drug molecules undergo a process of ‘molecular imprinting’. During this process, three dimensional ‘molecular imprints’ or hydrosomes of drug molecules are formed in the supra-molecular clusters of water/alcohol medium through stabilization of hydration shells. Due to serial dilution, drug molecules gradually get removed from medium, and by 12c it becomes free of drug molecules and only ‘molecular imprints’ remain.

    Question 3: What are the active principles of potentized medicines?

    ‘Molecular imprints’ of constituent drug molecules are the active principles of potentized homeopathic drugs.

    Question 4: What is the molecular mechanism by which these potentized medicines interact with biological molecules and relieve the pathological molecular inhibitions?

    ‘Diseases’ are errors in vital processes due to derangement of biochemical pathways in the organism, caused by inhibitions of biological molecules by binding of exogenous or endogenous pathogenic molecules. ‘Molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs selectively binds to the pathogenic molecules having complementary affinity due to the configurational similarity of pathogenic molecules and original drug molecules used for potentization. This configurational similarity is decided by ‘similarity of symptoms’. Pathogenic molecules are thus entrapped by the ‘molecular imprints’, thereby relieving the biological molecules from inhibitions. Disease is cured at molecular level itself.

    ——————————————————————–

    If I were viewing homeopathy as a mere outsider with a scientific outlook, and If I had not the wonderful life-long first-hand opportunity of producing and experiencing thousands of undeniable cures with homeopathy, I would have been the greatest skeptic ever, hearing all these foolish, unscientific theories promoted by international ‘leaders’ of homeopathy, and witnessing all these occult practices done under the umbrella of homeopathy. That is why I always keep a soft corner for that section of skeptics who are scientific and rational in their approach.

    ——————————————————————-

    Mark Twain said: “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to your level, and then beat you with experience!”

    Had I got this great quote a bit earlier, I would have been saved from a lot of humiliation

    Here after, I will try to stay away from arguing with stupid people. I will not say ‘you are stupid’, but would politely say ‘excuse me’, meaning the same

    I RECOGNIZE STUPID PEOPLE BY FOLLOWING POINTS:1. They never listen what you are saying
    2. They will not understand what you are saying
    3. They will not try to understand what you are saying
    4. They never answer any of your straight questions
    5. They will not discuss any specific points you raise.
    6. They always make sweeping, generalized comments
    7. They always pretend to know everything
    8. They prefer personal abusing, not discussing points
    9. They will talk things that are not part of discussions
    10. They will blindly follow and praise some ‘idols’.
    —————————————————————

    Diseases in a person at a given point of time are never ‘single’ at molecular level, but comprising of ‘multiple’ molecular inhibitions and molecular errors arising from diverse types of genetic and acquired factors.

    Even those drug substance we call ‘single’ are not really ‘single’, but contains diverse types of chemical molecules molecules having entirely different chemical and medicinal properties.

    Potentized drugs, which we consider ‘single’, are actually combinations of diverse types of independent ‘molecular imprints’ representing different types of constituent molecules of drug substance used for potentization.

    When used as therapeutic agents, all those potentized drugs we consider ‘single’, really act as ‘combinations’ of independent ‘molecular imprints’ they contain, each individual ‘molecular imprint’ acting upon specific pathogenic molecules having complementary configurational affinity, thereby removing the ‘molecular inhibitions created by them.

    Once you understand these fundamental scientific factors, you can realize the futility of worrying about ‘single’ disease, ‘single’ drug and ‘single’ dose!!

    ———————————————————————–

    In pharmaceutical chemistry, a “single” drug is a molecule or ion or ‘functional group’ that can independently interact with biological molecules. Such a molecule or functional group is the active “unit” of the drug substance. If a drug substance contains more than one such active units, capable of independent biological activity, it is a compound drug, not a “single” drug.

    It is totally unscientific to say that a drug substance that contain more than one type of biologically active molecules or functional groups is a “single” drug, only because it comes from a “single” natural source, or it is administered as a “single” drug. Question is, whether it acts on biological molecules as a “single” unit or “multiple” units. Hahnemann considered such “compound drugs” as “single” drugs, only because modern scientific knowledge regarding the exact molecular composition of drug substances, as well as molecular mechanism of pathology and therapeutics were not available to him at that period.

    It shows the totally unscientific and irrational mindset of our “classical” homeopaths that still they do not accept or try to think over this very simple scientific fact, which even a high school student is aware of. The “single drug/multiple drug” dilemma really indicates the very poor level of our scientific understanding of biochemistry and molecular processes involved in the phenomena of disease and cure. This situation is really pathetic.

    ———————————————————————–

    ‎’Classical homeopaths’ argue that the drug substances with compound molecular compositions act as ‘single’ unit when used as ‘single’ drug and produce the ‘drug picture’. That argument simply reflects their utter ignorance of dynamics of biochemical interactions. It is the individual drug molecules that act upon specific biological molecules and produce molecular inhibtions by virtue of their specific ‘ligand-receptor’ affinity, not the whole ‘drug substance’. What we call the ‘drug picture’ is actually the sum total of various symptom groups representing diverse types of molecular inhibitions produced by diverse types of constituent molecules in diverse biochemical pathways.

    ————————————————————————
    Any drug substance of plant origin contain diverse types of chemical molecules. Those chemicals would be life-specific, domain-specific, kingdom-specific, phylum-specific, class-specific, order-specific, family-specific, genus-specific, species-specific, variety-specific, individual plant-specific and tissue-specific. That means, not only common family, all these factors play a role in deciding medicinal properties and symptoms of any drug substance. Drugs belonging to common family, common genus, common order, common class, common kingdom, all would have SOME common properties. But they would differ upto TISSUE level. Nux vomica prepared from seeds will be different from that prepared from bark- with some common properties. It is the individual drug that is proved and potentized- not ‘family’ or genus. Giving undue importance to common properties of ‘families’ would undermine the principle of individualization in homeopathy. It will lead to ignoring materia medica and drug proving, and make homeopathy an art based on imaginations and fancies of some individuals.
    ——————————————————————————-
    Key to the art of successful homeopathic case taking lies in the skill of homeopath in converting ‘basic symptoms’ into ‘qualified symptoms’ through intelligent interrogation, keen observation and logical correlations. Without genuine ‘qualified symptoms’, you cannot hope to work out a case homeopathically to a reasonable similimum. This skill has to be cultivated in students and budding homeopaths by their teachers and senior colleagues.Patients normally give ‘basic symptoms’ only while narrating their complaints. They would say, ‘I have a headache’, ‘I have a pain in stomach’, ‘I have pain in joints’ and like that. Such ‘basic symptoms’, even though provide us valuable diagnostic hints, are of no use in making a homeopathic prescription. We need ‘homeopathic symptoms’ or ‘qualified symptoms’. A ‘basic symptom’ becomes a ‘qualified symptom’ when it is associated with its diverse ‘qualifications’ such as location, expression, sensation, modalities, concomitants, extensions, alternations etc. Hunting these qualifications for each and every ‘basic symptom’ is the real art involved in ‘homeopathic case taking’.For successfully hunting these ‘qualifications’ of all ‘basic symptoms’, and converting them into ‘homeopathic symptoms’, a homeopath should have a clear idea about what are the possible ‘qualification’ for any given ‘basic symptom’ presented by the patient. Without a reasonable knowledge of matera medica and especially repertorial rubrics, we cannot hope to attain that essential skill. That is why I stress the vital importance of constant study of repertories.
    —————————————————————–
    Homeopathy Is Molecular Imprints Therapeutics (MIT)- An advanced branch of modern molecular medicine. Only difference between molecular medicine and MIT is that where as molecular medicine uses ‘drug molecules’ as therapeutic agents, MIT uses ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules.Reading this title, even my most optimistic homeopath friends would accuse me of making an over-exaggerated and far extended claim about homeopathy. They would wonder how I dare to relate homeopathy with modern molecular medicine, which according to them are mutually incompatible and inimical.For scientific people it would be difficult even to imagine how a 250 year old and still unproved therapeutic system such as homeopathy could be claimed to be an advanced medical discipline. Homeopathy is considered by the scientific community as a nonsense theory based on unscientific philosophy of vitalism, where as the proponents of homeopathy still try to explain and market it as a ‘spiritualistic’ healing art.In this peculiar intellectual context, I am aware it will be extremely difficult for both scientific community as well as homeopathic community to accept my claim that homeopathy is an ‘advanced branch of modern molecular medicine’. I will have to struggle much to present the logic behind my statement in a convincing way.
    —————————————————————–
    Applying homeopathy and curing patients is very simple once you understand it in scientific terms. Please do not try to make it confusing by talking complex ‘theories’ and ‘methods’, only to show that you are more knowledgeable, learned and more ‘classical’ than others.
    ———————————————————————
    A Homeopath posted on our group: “I have NO interest in so called ‘expert scientist’ opinion. Scientific parameters are not wide enough to encompass how energy medicine works as evidenced by their belief and pursuance of allopathy and many other idiotic pursuits.”He has “no interest in so-called expert scientists opinions”! He believes “scientific parameters are not wide enough to encompass how energy medicine works”! He considers allopathy belongs to “many other idiotic pursuits” of science!This is the typical revelation of an ‘energy medicine’ classical homeopath! If our ‘brain’ is not ‘wide enough’ to understand ‘scientific parameters’, it would appear for us as if “scientific parameters are not wide enough”. Nobody can help such people convince anything about science. There is no meaning in arguing with this class of ‘anti-science’ homeopaths. I simply said ‘excuse me’, and quit.
    ——————————————————————–
    What is ‘science’ and ‘scientific method’:Science is not a mere heap of lifeless and ‘finished’ inflexible theories and dogmas. It is a live cognitive system, undergoing an endless process of self-renewal and growth.It is the readiness on its part to prove its propositions on practical level, to imbibe new ideas, and to discard obsolete ones mercilessly, that makes science distinct from other intellectual activities. That is the touch-stone of scientific method. There is no ‘ultimate truths’ in the realm of science. Our approach to human knowledge should be dialectic, not dogmatic.Human knowledge develops and unfolds itself through a never ending dialectic process of simultaneous assimilation and negation. Certainly he would know infinitely more tomorrow, than what he knows today. The knowledge of yesterdays, however great they might have been, were much incomplete than that of today. Tomorrow, human knowledge would be definitely more expansive and more comprehensive than that of today. The basis of scientific perspective of knowledge lies in realizing this fundamental truth.Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the phenomena of universe. The word ‘science’ refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained”. In modern use, “science” more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. The word “science” is associated with ‘scientific method’, a disciplined way to study the natural world.Based on observations of a phenomenon, scientists may generate a ‘model’. This is an attempt to describe or depict the phenomenon in terms of a logical, physical or mathematical representation. As empirical evidence is gathered, scientists can suggest a ‘hypothesis’ to explain the phenomenon. Hypotheses may be formulated using principles such as parsimony or ‘occam’s Razor’ and are generally expected to seek consilience—fitting well with other accepted facts related to the phenomena. This new explanation is used to make falsifiable predictions that are testable by experiment or observation. When a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory, it is either modified or discarded. Experimentation is especially important in science to help establish causational relationships. Operationalization also plays an important role in coordinating research across different fields.Once a hypothesis has survived testing, it may become adopted into the framework of a ‘scientific theory’. This is a logically reasoned, self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of certain natural phenomena. A theory typically describes the behavior of much broader sets of phenomena than a hypothesis; commonly, a large number of hypotheses can be logically bound together by a single theory. Thus a theory is a hypothesis explaining various other hypotheses. In that vein, theories are formulated according to most of the same scientific principles as hypotheses.While performing experiments, scientists may have a preference for one outcome over another, and so it is important to ensure that science as a whole can eliminate this bias. This can be achieved by careful experimental design, transparency, and a thorough ‘peer review process’ of the experimental results as well as any conclusions. After the results of an experiment are announced or published, it is normal practice for independent researchers to double-check how the research was performed, and to follow up by performing similar experiments to determine how dependable the results might be.A scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to ‘falsification’ if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism. The philosopher of science Karl Popper sharply distinguishes truth from certainty. He writes that scientific knowledge “consists in the search for truth”, but it “is not the search for certainty … All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain.”
    —————————————————————————-

    ‎I wonder why the professional and academic homeopathic community fail to realize the implications of MIT concepts, in spite of it being a most logical explanation, and my unrelenting efforts day in and day out to explain it from different angles. Is it the failure of the ways I am explaining it? It it the lack of scientific awareness of homeopaths? Is it a willful negligence? Is it prejudice? Why everybody feigning dumb and deaf towards MIT? I am totally confused.

    I am dismayed to see even such baseless and irrelevant ideas as ‘nano-particle theory’ are fervently celebrated as great ‘research’ and ‘breakthroughs’, nobody ever bothering to ponder over how it explains similia theory of homeopathy. Only reason is, it was proposed by some research students related with the a premier scientific institution!

    I know, many scientific-minded young homeopaths and students really read and try to follow what I say, while those seniors and influential sections totally ignore me. May be, the number of people who understand or accept MIT will be below hundred or so in this whole world. By this negative attitude, Homeopathy is actually losing a great opportunity to advance into a scientific medical system. I feel very sorry for that.

    BECAUSE, ‘MIT’ IS THE ONLY SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF HOMEOPATHY- BEYOND ANY DOUBT!

    ——————————————————

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

    Please note, so far there is no any ‘fundamental laws’ in homeopathy which anybody proved “as per modern science”. Not even “explained” as per modern science”. Not even a scientifically viable working hypothesis that could be verified. But we teach, learn, practice and celebrate those unproved ‘theories’ without any hesitation. Nobody ever asked any master to “prove” his ‘theories scientifically before propagating them. Why this indolence?

    ——————————————————————-

    I would like to make it clear that I did not produce any ‘theories’ artificially. All these proposals on various aspects homeopathic practice are logical extensions evolved naturally from the fundamental concept of ‘molecular imprinting’ asthe 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.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.
    —————————————————————-

    Only ‘Molecular Imprints’ proposed by dialectical homeopathy explains the molecular dynamics of Similia Similibus Curentur in a way fitting to the ‘key-lock’ mechanism involved in ‘ligand-target’ interactions of biological molecular processes as well as pathological inhibitions. Not a single other hypothesis such as ‘nano-particle theory’, ‘resonance theory’ or anything else provides such a rational explanation, fitting homeopathy exactly well into the paradigms of modern science.

    ——————————————————

    Are ‘higher potencies’ more powerful than 12c or 30c??

    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 may be the possible mechanism of processes happening in ‘high’ levels of potentization??

    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 in the the number of molecular imprints by induced assembling.

    ——————————————————————–

    ‎’OPEN’ does not mean ‘OOOOOOOPEN’ sir. Any speculations on this ‘open question’ should be based on scientific knowledge of supramolecular chemistry of water and molecular imprinting. Chances of ‘induced molecular assembly’ does not indicate any ‘enhanced therapeutics at higher potencies’. At 12c, itself, it will be saturated with molecular imprints. Even if ‘molecular imprints’ could be duplicated by ‘induced assembling’, that would not increase the concentration of molecular imprints in high potencies. More over, ‘imprints’ of imprints’ will be of lower quality and functional specificity. When imprints are imprinted hundreds of times, it will only reduce the quality. That is why I say 12c is ideal. Please do not ignore my first question also. Without answering that question, we cannot talk about ‘properties’ of higher potencies.

    ——————————————————————-

    One senior homeopath friend just messaged me: “Your ‘alpha potency’ seems to be reasonable and i am sure it will work. It will be a great revolution in homeopathy if all homeopathic drugs are made alpha and marketed. But why are you acting so foolishly by publishing all your great ideas on facebook? You could have kept your ideas secret and patented alpha potency first, and you could have earned millions by licensing this process to leading homeopathic manufacturers. You spoiled a big opportunity. I feel sorry for you”.

    Thanks dear friend, for your appreciation and advice, and for feeling sorry for my ‘foolishness’. I love to remain a ‘fool’ by sharing all my thoughts with the community.

    ——————————————————

    ‘Alpha Molecular Imprints’ scientifically resolves all confusions related with selection of potency in homeopathy

    ——————————————————

    Alpha Molecular Imprints- 80 step dilutions in 1:1 ratio, with 300 succussions and 10 minuets rest/cooling in each step. Homeopathy is MIT

    ——————————————————

    ALPHA MOLECULAR IMPRINTS is a perfect method of preparing molecular imprints of drug substances, on the basis of MIT

    ——————————————————

    ‎’Homeopaths Experimenting With Alpha Molecular Imprints’- A platform for experimenting with ALPHA MOLECULAR IMPRINTS.

    ——————————————————

    MIT hypothesis is the only way to advance homeopathy forward into a system of rational and scientific medical practice. For those who believe ‘homeopathy is ultimate science’, it will be difficult to understand the meaning of this statement

    ——————————————————

    Failing to realize the implications of MIT, homeopathy will be losing a great opportunity to become a medical science

    ——————————————————

    Do not worry about selection of potency- use just above avogadro limit. Selection of right similimum is the real issue

    ——————————————————

    Once you understand MIT, and see potentized drugs as ‘molecular imprints’, selection of potency becomes a simple task

    ——————————————————

    If biological target molecules are ‘locks’, their natural ligands are ‘keys’ and pathogenic molecules are ‘fake keys’, Molecular Imprints are ‘artificial key-holes’. This is the real biochemistry behind the therapeutic principle of homeopathy

    ——————————————————

    Molecular imprints are artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules having configuration similar to drug molecules

    ——————————————————

    Molecular imprints of similar functional groups can bind to any similar functional groups, thereby deactivating them

    ——————————————————

    Molecules with similar functional group bind similar target molecules, produce similar inhibitions and similar symptoms

    ——————————————————

    Similarity of symptoms indicates similarity of ‘functional groups’ of drug molecules and those of pathogenic molecules

    ——————————————————

    Here I am trying to address the question ‘how homeopathy works’, since I consider it as the most vital point to be resolved first. To be recognized as a branch of medical science, I think we have to be successful in explaining the molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics in a way fitting to the existing modern scientific knowledge system, and proving our explanations according to scientific methods.

    ——————————————————

    Once you understand MIT, you experience the self-confidence it provides, the great transformation it brings to your outlook as a homeopath

    ——————————————————

    Once you understand MIT, you will realize that your whole perceptions of homeopathy is undergoing a wonderful change, your approaches undergoing a change. You will realize that you are no more a ‘healer’ practicing a ‘belief healing system’ but a proud scientific medical professional, capable of understanding and scientifically explaining your tools and activities to anybody. Your language becomes scientific, your thoughts become rational and your explanations becomes logical and convincing. You will no more have to talk about miracles, wonders, riddles and mysteries of homeopathy. Experience this change yourselves!

    ——————————————————

    Once you understand MIT, you would realize that any individual will have diverse types of molecular errors in him, caused by diverse types of endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules, and as such, diverse types of molecular imprints will be required to remove all these multitudes of molecular inhibitions to effect a complete cure. In most cases, all these diverse molecular imprints required for the patient will not be available in a ‘single’ drug, and hence, we will have to select more than one drug according to similarity of symptom groups, and apply them simultaneously, alternatingly or serially as decided by the physician. In my opinion, there is no harm even if they are applied together.

    ——————————————————

    Once you understand MIT, all your confusions over ‘miasms’ could be resolved by perceiving miasms as chronic disease dispositions caused by the off-target actions of antibodies generated against exogenous or endogenous proteins including infectious agents. It would help you in scientifically understanding and treating various types of chronic diseases including auto immune diseases

    ——————————————————

    Once you understand MIT, you will realize that concepts such as ‘internal essence of drug substance’, ‘dynamic drug energy’, ‘drug personality’ etc are all scientifically baseless, and that the medicinal property of drug substance is decided by the structure and properties of constituent molecules, where as the medicinal properties of potentized drugs are decided by the 3-d configuration of molecular imprints they contain.

    ——————————————————

    Once you understand MIT, you will realize that when applied as similimum, potentized drug does not act as a ‘whole’ unit, but it is the individual constituent ‘molecular imprints’ that independently bind to the pathogenic molecules having configurational affinity, remove pathological molecular inhibitions and cure the disease.

    ——————————————————

    Once you understand MIT, you will realize that during ‘drug proving’, drug substance does not act as a ‘whole’ unit, but it is the individual constituent drug molecules that independently act up on the biological molecules, cause molecular inhibitions and produce symptoms.

    ——————————————————

    Once you understand MIT, you will realize that since molecular imprints do not interact each other, and since they act as individual units when applied as therapeutic agents, there cannot by any harm even if we mix two or more potentized drugs together, or prescribe them simultaneously- they will work.

    ——————————————————

    Once you understand MIT, you will realize that even so-called ‘single drugs’ are not really single, but combinations of diverse types of independent ‘molecular imprints’, representing diverse types of drug molecules, acting as independent units upon pathogenic molecules having configurational affinity and removing molecular inhibitions

    ——————————————————

    Once you understand MIT, you will realize that ‘molecular imprints’ forms of drugs cannot interact each other, and as such, one cannot antidote another, or act inimical to each other.

    ——————————————————

    Once you understand MIT, you will realize that there is no chance of so-called aggravations, suppressions, provings or any other harm even if ‘wrong’ drug, ‘wrong’ potency or ‘untimely repetitions are used, if you are using only ‘molecular imprints’ forms of drugs.

    ——————————————————

    Once you understand MIT, you realize that selecting drug, potency, dose and follow up and getting cure are not a so much complex thing as we are made to believe.

    ——————————————————

    Once you understand MIT, you realize no more ‘riddles and mysteries’ remain in homeopathy that could not be explained

    ——————————————————

    Only MIT provides a sound explanation of homeopathy, fitting well to modern science and our every day experiences

    ——————————————————

    If molecular imprinting is the real process involved in homeopathic potentization, continuing it after crossing Avogadro limit has no logic

    ——————————————————

    Once avogadro limit is crossed, there will not be a single drug molecule remaining, and no further molecular imprinting takes place.

    In decimal scale, this happens at 23x. In centecimal scale, the crossing point is 12c.

    In ALPHA method proposed by MIT, avogadro limit is crossed by 80th dilution. Hence the process is stopped here.

    Even though 23x and 12c are similar in dilutions to 80th step of ALPHA method, they will be much different in medicinal properties, due to difference in perfection of molecular imprinting. To prepare a 23x potency, drug and medium is added in 1:10 ratio, to prepare 12c it is added in 1:100 ratio, where as in ALPHA method, dilution is done in 1:1 ratio. To prepare 23x, dilution and succussion is done in 23 stages, to prepare 12c it is done in 12 stages, whereas to prepare an ALPHA potency it is diluted and succussed in 80 stages. ALPHA method allows drug molecules to interact with vehicle molecules in a far better way, thereby ensuring better hydration and molecular imprinting. By this way, each and every single constituent molecule of drug substance is subjected to perfect molecular imprinting by the time avogadro limit is crossed. That is why the ALPHA potence is expected to be far superior to 12c and 23x in therapeutic action.

    ——————————————————

    ‎’Experience’ has subjective as well as objective aspects. We interpret the ‘objective’ in the light of our ‘subjective’ beliefs and outlooks

    Even though the ‘objective’ is true, your interpretation, understanding and explanation of that ‘objective truth’ may be wrong. That is why I say, for an ‘experience’ of a person to be dependable, the observer should have scientific understanding of the phenomena he is observing, along with a rational outlook and approach. Otherwise, your ‘experience’ will be just like the experience of those ‘five blind men who saw the elephant’!

    When we apply homeopathy drugs, we dont know exactly what it is, how it acts. When we ‘experience’ some new symptoms appearing after a ‘dose’, we come to the conclusion that it was caused by that ‘dose’. That is a ‘blind’ interpretation based on our belief that potentized drugs can cause that. If anybody suddenly dies immediately after that single dose, we infer that the death was caused by that dose. If the patient experience a skin eruption after that dose, we infer that erruption is an indication of disease getting driven outwards by our single dose. All these are examples where experiences are interpreted according to our beliefs and subjective outlooks. When I take my car out of garage in morning, a black cat jumped into the front. On the road during that journey, I had a severe accident. If I am a believer in omens, I would interpret that the accident was caused by that jumping of black cat to my way during morning.

    Most homeopaths interpret their daily experiences in this way, on the basis of their beliefs.

    ——————————————————

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————

    Organon is a great book on medicine- not bible. Hahnemann is not prophet or god. Any great book contains mistakes also

    You are wrong if you say everything hahnemann said was wrong. You are wrong if you say everything hahnemann said was ‘ultimate truth’.

    ——————————————————

    We should understand, learn and practice homeopathy in a way Hahnemann would have done it if he happened to live today

    ——————————————————

    Had hahnemann lived 200 years later, he would not have written organon like this, or given us a homeopathy

    ——————————————————

    Asking intelligent questions is a creative work, more creative than even finding answers. Answers are sought only when hard questions are asked. I am always indebted to those young friends on facebook who asked hard questions which ignited my grey matter, and led me into new ideas. Thanks, friends

    ——————————————————

    Conducting or sponsoring seminars, and selling branded ‘methods and principles’ is a lucrative business in homeopathy

    Scaring young homeopaths about ‘dangers of wrong prescriptions’ is a tactics to draw them to ‘seminars’, hoping to learn to prescribe right

    If young homeopaths realize the truth that practicing homeopathy is very simple task, men of seminar business will have to shut down their shops.

    By well-orchestrated campaigns about possibitity of ‘ dangers’ of suppressions, aggravations, provings, genetic errors and even death, that may be caused by ‘wrong’ selection of drugs, ‘unnecessary’ repetitions, ‘inappropriate’ potencies, and such things, young homeopaths get scared to prescribe even a single dose. Then they will throng into the seminar halls of ‘masters’, who promise them to teach wonderful methods of ‘curing’- of course, big money is involved in this game plan.

    ——————————————————

    How can you say ‘how homeopathy works’, without knowing the process involved in potentization, and the active principle of potentized drugs?

    How can you decide the ‘dose’ of a drug substance, without any idea of its active principles, and the molecular mechanism of their actions up on the organism?

    How can you be sure the medicine you use as Nux Vomica is genuine Nux vomica? How can you be sure the drug you use as CM is genuinely CM? How can you be sure the manufacturer or pharmacist did not commit any error or malpractice at any of the stages before it reached your hands?

    ——————————————————

    Long ‘experience’ does no make one a better or more knowledgeable homeopath, in the absence of scientific knowledge and rational outlook.

    If you have no essential background knowledge of phenomena behind your experience, or don’t know how to rationally interpret your experiences, your ‘long experience’ will really be a disaster to the system, to the community, and to yourselves.

    ——————————————————

    Without updating their background scientific knowledge systematically, homeopaths cannot follow what I say about advancement of homeopathy

    ——————————————————

    Many homeopaths confuse ‘modern science’ and ‘modern medicine’. When I talk about modern science, they accuse me of ‘supporting allopathy’!

    ——————————————————

    To honor our master, let us take homeopathy 200+ years forward through history of human knowledge and make it compatible with modern science

    ——————————————————

    So-called ‘prominent’ homeopaths talking unscientific theories about homeopathy do more harm to this system than anti-homeopathic skeptics.

    ——————————————————

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————

    Among modern homeopaths, only Vithoulkas talks reasonably and logically- though I disagree with him on many points, he is really a relief.

    I shall mention some points one by one:

    1. Vithoulkas believes drug proving can be done using high potencies. I do not agree. I think only ‘molecular forms’ can interact with biological molecules and produce symptoms. High potencies contain molecular imprints only, which can act up on only pathogenic molecules

    ‎2. Vithoulkas says:

    The mechanism of action of both the “placebo effect” and the “homeopathic similimum” are the same.

    The placebo effect can be initiated by the autosuggestion of the patient which forces a mobilization of the defense mechanism through strong feelings of faith. That is how all spiritual healing, radionics, yoga, meditation and all the other fringe therapies are working.

    In homeopathy the cure takes place from a similar mobilization of the defense mechanism through the correct remedy, the similimum. I will say it more grossly in order to be understood more clearly. If the initial reaction of a defense mechanism mobilization is the discharge of serotonin in the blood then this reaction is similar in both cases.

    I DO NOT AGREE WITH VITHOULKAS ON THIS POINT ALSO

    According to vithoulkas, “In homeopathy the cure takes place from a similar mobilization of the defense mechanism through the correct remedy, the similimum”.

    In my view, molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics is not “mobilization of defense mechanism”, but removal of pathological inhibitions by the action of molecular imprints in our drugs up on pathogenic molecules.

    ——————————————————

    Predictive homeopaths promote totally unscientific theory and practice in homeopathy, with mask of scientific verbosity

    Vijaykar totally failed to comprehend the biochemistry involved in homeopathic therapeutics, and hence could not interpret the ‘directions of disease and cure’ in relation with the interactions of biochemical pathways. In the absence of essential scientific knowledge, he only tried to make his theories appear ‘scientific’ by utilizing some terms from embryology and genetics. Playing with scientific vocabulary, he was successful in marketing his theories well among the ‘science-starved’ sections of homeopathic community.

    ——————————————————

    Many homeopaths believe clinical diagnosis is of no use in practice, except for ‘patient satisfaction’ or ‘prognosis’.

    I think we should perceive the information provided by modern technological advancements and laboratory investigations as part of collecting ‘objective’ symptoms, and learn to utilize them in the search for similimum.

    I hope future drug proving protocols will incorporate modern technology, and collect these ‘enhanced observations’ also and add them to future materia medica compilations. Then, homeopathy will be in a position to utilize these information also in finding appropriate similimum

    ——————————————————

    Most homeopaths fail to differentiate ‘Before-After’ and ‘Cause-Effect’ Relationships. They reach queer conclusions

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

    ——————————————————

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

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

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

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

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

    If anybody intend to work upon this, I would like to request them to keep all unused samples at least above 50th or 60th dilution step. They should be kept in separate bottles with dilution numbers, so that we can use the as back potencies in future, or share with our friends. That would save much labor later. All of us can mutually share such back potencies.

    ——————————————————

    Homeopathic potencies are usually made using rectified spirit as the vehicle. But I am a bit concerned about the accuracy of this practice, since the protein molecules contained in the drugs would be denatured by the action of alcohol even before actual potentization happens. That means, the product we get will not be exact potencies of original drug substance used for drug proving, but those of denatured molecules. This possibility will have serious implications on the therapeutic properties of such potentized drugs when applied on the basis of similia principle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We have to search for an ideal potentizing medium for biological drugs of protein nature- a medium that do not contain denaturing agents such as alcohol

    I am thinking about water-glucose mixture for that purpose

    Potentizing medium should not chemically interact with drug molecules, and they should not be harmful to human organism

    If pure water is used, the hydrogen bonding will be very temporary, and molecular imprints will not stand long. It will get dissociated. Presence of comparatively heavier molecules that can be part of supra-molecular networks of water is essential to make stable hydrogen bonding and molecular imprints.

    ——————————————————

    Which is the optimum potency? As per MIT, just above Avogadro limit. Not lower, not higher. That is 23x or 12c among now available

    ——————————————————

    Don’t say homeopathy uses ‘ultra-small’ doses of ‘drugs’. The ‘doses’ are drugless. Only ‘Molecular Imprints’ of drugs

    ——————————————————

    Homeopathy identifies exact molecular inhibitions in the organism and selects remedial agents by observing and matching ‘totality of mental and physical symptoms’ of the patient. There is nothing more reliable than ‘symptoms’ to truthfully represent the specific molecular dynamics involved in pathology at molecular level. Since modern science of ‘molecular pathology’ is still in its infantile stage, this ‘symptom-based’ approach of homeopathy is far superior to the ‘biochemistry-based’ and ‘pathology-based’ approach of modern medicine, especially in combating nonspecific chronic constitutional ailments and complex life-style diseases.

    ——————————————————

    Modern Medicine identifies therapeutic targets by studying biochemistry. Homeopathy does it by observing symptoms

    ——————————————————

    Modern Medicine uses ‘drug molecules’. Homeopathy uses ‘molecular Imprints’ of drug molecules. That is the difference

    ——————————————————

    Once modern science advances to realize Molecular Imprinted Drug Designing in Water, homeopathy will be recognized

    ——————————————————

    Molecular Imprinted Drugs Will Provide A Converging Point For Homeopathy And Mode Medicine

    ——————————————————

    I am a dialectical skeptic. It is a creative approach to knowledge. Different from dogmatic, negative skepticism.

    ——————————————————

    A skeptic who once tried homeopathy for any ailments on himself will not say it is ‘placebo effect or observer bias’.

    ——————————————————

    You can never expect a ‘generalized experimental proof’ for theory of similimum. Similimum is always ‘individualized’.

    ——————————————————

    Allopathy invents new drugs and discards old ones. Homeopathy never deletes a drug from is materia medica. Know why?

    Basically, it shows the soundness of therapeutic principle of homeopathy. Modern medicine has no such a principle.

    ‎”Soundness of therapeutic principle of homeopathy” does not by itself mean it is ‘scientific’. It only means ‘it works’. In order to claim to be scientific, we should explain it scientifically, and prove the explanations using scientific methods. Until doing that, homeopathy is not ‘scientific’, but ‘it works’. we should accept the reality.

    ——————————————————

    Please try to understand the difference between ‘observational’ parts and ‘theoretical’ parts of homeopathy. Observational parts are objective and correct, but theoretical explanatory parts are totally unscientific. That is the inherent contradiction of homeopathy.

    o be a ‘fact’, and to ‘prove’ scientifically are different. Science is involved with explaining and proving of facts, which exist here. Gravitation exists here, even if we dont explain it. Electricity is a fact, even if we explain it or not. Atoms and subatomic particles exist as a ‘fact’, irrespective of our explanations. Same with the observational part of homeopathy. It is a ‘fact’, whether you explain it or not

    You are saying: ” since homeopathy is a fact, we need not bother to explain it and prove our explanations”. Your statement does not agree with the real spirit of science. Every facts should be explained and proved. Then only our knowledge becomes scientific.

    ‎’Apple falls to ground’. That is a fact everybody observed even before newton. He explained it as ‘gravitation’, and proved his theories through scientific experiments. That is why newton is a scientist. Al those who knew the fact of ‘falling apple’ did not become scientists. Hope the difference is evident

    ——————————————————

    Homeopaths should discard dogmatism, and be dialectical in approach. Science is self-critical and self-correcting.

    ——————————————————

    ‎’Does homeopathy work’ is an irrelevant question- IT DOES. The real question is how it works. It remains to be answered

    ——————————————————

    For skeptics, anything ‘unexplained’ is ‘non-existent’. Many things they accept now, were ‘unexplained’ in yesterdays

    ——————————————————

    I am not less scientific than my skeptic friends. I know homeopathy as well, which they do not. That is the difference

    ——————————————————

    I feel sympathy for those close-minded skeptics declaring ‘homeopathy is placebo’. Poor men- failing to realize truth

    ——————————————————

    Don’t confuse scientific concept of Molecular Imprinting in Water with the pseudo-scientific theory of Water Memory

    ——————————————————

    Homeopathy is molecular medicine- Potentization is ‘drug designing’ through molecular imprinting in water

    ——————————————————

    By explaining ‘every thing’, Hahenemann preempted the scope for any scientific intervention in his theories later

    ——————————————————

    Hahnemann could have left many questions about homeopathy unanswered, instead of providing unscientific answers.

    ——————————————————

    Hahnemann did the greatest harm to homeopathy by trying to explain things that could not be explained during his time.

    ——————————————————

    By explaining ‘every thing’, Hahenemann preempted the scope for any scientific intervention in his theories later

    ——————————————————

    Hahnemann could have left many questions about homeopathy unanswered, instead of providing unscientific answers.

    ——————————————————

    Hahnemann did the greatest harm to homeopathy by trying to explain things that could not be explained during his time.

    ——————————————————

    I am with homeopathy for last 40 years. I am 100% convinced it works! It is not placebo or ‘belief’!

    ——————————————————

    Lack of explanations or wrong explanations regarding how homeopathy works do not prove it does not work.

    ——————————————————

    Homeopathy can advance only by fighting pseudo-scientific homeopaths as well as negative-mined skeptics.

    ——————————————————

    Pseudo-scientific ‘energy medicine’ homeopaths provide arms and ammunition for anti-homeopathic skeptics

    If we discard unscientific speculative parts of homeopathy and practice homeopathy as a scientific medicine, and ‘energy medicine homeopaths’ stop spinning fanciful nonsense theories about homeopathy, anti-homeopathic skeptics will get disarmed and become jobless.

    ——————————————————

    We have to differentiate between objective observational part of homeopathy from its speculative part.

    Even if the speculative theoretical parts are unscientific and irrational, that does not necessarily mean the objective observational parts of homeopathy are non-existent or unreal. That only means, we have to explain the whole things in a different way.

    Similia Similibus Curentur and Potentization belong to objective observational parts of homeopathy, which are real natural phenomena related with the process of cure. We have to preserve them. This issue is related with the question ‘does homeopathy work’?

    Vital force theory, dynamic drug energy and such things belong to speculative theoretical parts of homeopathy, which are unscientific, and we have to discard them. This issue is related with the question ‘how homeopathy works’?

    We should explain the objective observational parts of homeopathy in a way fitting to scientific knowledge system, and prove it accordingly.

    By scientific homeopathy, I mean this task.

    ——————————————————

    Exactly, homeopathy is based on two fundamental observations made by hahnemann regarding the process of cure-

    1. Similia Similibus Curentur: Hahnemann observed through his experiments that diseases could be cured by extremely diluted forms of drug substances, which could produce symptoms similar to disease when applied in large doses in healthy individuals.

    2. Potentization: Hahnemann developed a special process of preparing drugs by serial dilution and shaking, and observed that such expremely diluted drugs could act as therapeutic agents when applied according to similia similibus curentur

    Due to the limitations imposed by the infantile stage of scientific knowledge available to him during that period, hahnemann could not formulate a viable hypothesis to explain his observation in a way fitting to the scientific knowledge system then existed. In fact, science was not properly equipped to provide a reasonable explanation for the phenomena hahnemann observed.

    Instead of leaving his observations unexplained as it should have been truthfully done, hahnemann resorted to building up of a system of philosophical speculations and imaginative theorizations to explain them. May be since he found that the contemporary scientific paradigms were not sufficient for his purpose, he tried to develop a speculative philosophical system utilizing concepts such as ‘vital force’, ‘dynamic energy’ being part of spiritualistic philosophy existed then.

    Obviously, this speculative part of homeopathy does not agree with scientific knowledge or its methods. As such, scientific community adopted a skeptical approach towards homeopathy. They totally denied the existence of even the fundamental observations of hahnemaan, whereas it would have been judicious to deny the theoretical explanations of homeopathy and asking for a more viable explanation for the phenomena hahnemann observed.

    From a rational perspective, we have to logically differentiate between observational part of homeopathy from its speculative part. Observational part is objective experience, which forms the basis of practical application of similia similibus curentur and potentization. They should not be denied on the reason that hahnemann’s theoretical explanations contradict scientific knowledge.

    Skeptical scientists deny homeopathy works on the reason that nobody could explain how homeopathy works. They should understand, both issues should be considered as different questions. The issue of efficacy of homeopathy should not be confused with the lack of explanations or wrong explanations regarding how homeopathy works.

    Pseudoscientific homeopathic theoreticians, starting from hahnemann himself have contributed a lot in alienating homeopathy from scientific community, through their utter nonsense vitalistic and energy medicine theories that never agree with scientific knowledge system or scientific methods.

    ——————————————————

    According to me, inorder to promote scientific homeopathy, we have to address fllowing preliminary tasks:

    1. Convince the scientific community that homeopathy works, through demonstrations and scientifically acceptable clinical studies.

    2. Convince them the importance of differentiating objective observational part of homeopathy from the unscientific theoretical or explanatory part of homeopathy.

    3. Propose a scientifically viable working hypothesis regarding how homeopathy works, in a way fitting to the existing scientific knowledge system.

    4. Prove the propositions of this hypothesis using scientific methods, in a way undisputable to the scientific community.

    While addressing this four-pointed fundamental tasks, scientific homeopathy will have to relentlessly fight against the negative-minded skeptics as well as pseudo-scientific energy medicine theoreticians of homeopathy.

    We have to consistently tell the world, real homeopathy is entirely different from those nonsense the pseudoscientific homeopathic theoreticians preach and practice.

    We have to understand and tell the homeopathic community that the negative-minded anti-homeopathic skeptics are entirely different from real scientific community.

    Dialogue has to be between scientific homeopathy and scientific community

    ——————————————————

    Scientific Homeopathy: Fight ‘Skeptics’ As Well As ‘Energy Medicine Homeopaths’ « Dialectical Homeopathy

    ——————————————————

    What is the difference between ‘cure’ and ‘heal’?

    Physicians try to ‘cure’ with scientific methods. They constantly study and update the tools and science of disease and cure. They are called ‘physicians’. Quacks ‘heal’ with pseudo-scientific methods known as ‘healing arts’. They hide their ignorance behind ‘holistic’ claims. They call themselves ‘healers’. That much difference!

    Hahnemann was discussing ‘healing arts’ in organon. That is why he discussed even mesmerism there. For hahnemann, homeopathy was one form of healing arts. We have t make it a ‘science of cure’.

    ——————————————————

    Potentized homeo medicines cannot act as pathological agents. They cannot interact with genetic material.

    Possibilities of potentized homeopathic medicines interacting with genetic substance in the organism is a subject of much concern, speculations and controversy among homeopaths. Such controversies arise from the lack of sufficient understanding regarding the active principles contained in potentized medicines, and their exact mechanism of action in the living system.

    With our new scientific understanding of potentization as a process of molecular imprinting, we are now in a better position to answer these questions satisfactorily. Since, molecular imprints contained in the potentized homeopathic preparations cannot successfully compete with natural ligands in binding with their target molecules, we need not be concerned about the possibility of potentized homeopatic medicines dangerously interacting with genetic material in any way.

    Molecular imprints contained in the potentized homeopathic preparations bind to ligands or biological molecules merely due to their complementary cofigurations without any charge affinity, whereas natural ligands bind to their biological target molecules in capacity of their appropriate spacial configurations as well as charge affinities. So, the bindings of molecular imprints with biological molecules or their ligands will be very temporary and cannot stay long. Such bindings of molecular imprints cannot replace the natural ligand-target interactions happening as part of vital processes. Molecular imprints can not compete with natural ligands in binding to their natural biological targets.

    Hence it is obvious that potentized homeopathic preparations cannot interfere in biological ‘ligand-target’ processes such as ‘substrate-enzyme’, ‘antigens-antibodies’, ‘signal-receptor’ etc. As such, chances of potentized homeopathic medicines acting as pathological agents are very rare even if used indiscriminately.

    Molecular imprints can interfere only in interactions between pathogenic molecules and biological molecules, as well as off-target bindings of ligands with biological molecules, where only configurational affinity is involved. Obviously, molecular imprints can act upon only the molecular blocks created by exogenous or endogenous foreign pathological molecules.

    At the same time, these molecular imprints can effectively compete with the pathogenic actions of deformed proteins that may result from genetic errors, thereby preventing them from creating pathological molecular blocks at various targets. As such, homeopathic medicines can play a great role even in the treatment of certain diseases of genetic origin, at least as palliatives.

    More over, potentized homeopathic medicines can safeguard genetic material from dangerous mutations that may be caused the by inhibitory actions of endogenous or exogenous pathogenicl agents such as toxic drugs, heavy metals, super-oxides etc., on enzymes related with nucleic acid synthesis and genetic expressions.

    ——————————————————

    Teachers and seniors make young homeopaths believe that administration of incorrect remedies especially in high potencies would do grave harm to the patients, and may cause even death. It is warned that our drugs should be handled with great care, and many young homeopaths are scared to prescribe, lest it may be a wrong prescription. If potentized drugs were dangerous, homeopaths would have been the greatest criminals in human history, each of us would have so far killed many innocent people! We would have already harmed a big section of human race by the time being through our wrong prescriptions. Even you and me make many many wrong prescriptions than right prescriptions everyday, believing that we are making correct prescriptions. Can anybody deny it with a sincere heart? Living proofs of safety of homeopathic medicines are the people we treated with wrong prescriptions and stay undamaged!

    ————————————————————————————————

    For the last five years, I use only 30c. If a drug does not act as i expected, and i am sure my selection was right, I would switch on to another sample from another source- same drug, same potency. It will act. Some times I collect different samples of same drug same potency and mix them together. I have seen it giving better results

    That is why I said, confusions regarding potency would be resolved only when we perceive potentization in terms of molecular imprinting. Any potency above 12c contains only molecular imprints

    The term potency is irrelevant from MIT view. Only molecular forms and molecular imprint forms of drugs. bepow 12c and above 12c.

    Quality of drugs may differ from sample to sample, depending upon source of drug substance, mwethod of potentization, genuineness of potentization, difference in keeping and exposure etc

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Similia Similibus Curentur and potentization are two fundamental objective OBSERVATIONS the great genius of hahnemann made regarding the phenomenon of CURE, through his studies and experiments. But he explained these right observations using unscientific speculations and theorizations, due to the limitations of scientific knowledge available to him.

    This underlies the fundamental internal conflict of homeopathy- conflict between correct observations and their wrong explanations. I am trying to resolve this inherent conflict, by explaining homeopathy in scientific terms.

    If you understand homeopathy with a scientific perspective, it is great science. If you approach it with an unscientific mind set, you will talk nonsense theories about it.Similia Similibus Curentur and potentization are two fundamental objective OBSERVATIONS the great genius of hahnemann made regarding the phenomenon of CURE, through his studies and experiments. But he explained these right observations using unscientific speculations and theorizations, due to the limitations of scientific knowledge available to him.

    This underlies the fundamental internal conflict of homeopathy- conflict between correct observations and their wrong explanations. I am trying to resolve this inherent conflict, by explaining homeopathy in scientific terms.

    If you understand homeopathy with a scientific perspective, it is great science. If you approach it with an unscientific mind set, you will talk nonsense theories about it.

    ———————————————————————————————

    Modern medicine uses drug molecules, whereas Homeopathy uses molecular imprints- that is the difference.

    ———————————————————————————————-

    Struggling for existence and recognition for more than 200 years as an independent therapeutic system totally alienated from mainstream scientific knowledge, I think time is now ripe for homeopathy to converges into modern molecular medicine, as an advanced branch of medical science. It would be more accurate to say modern science is now ripe and equipped to accept homeopathy into the mainstream.

    The great divide between ‘modern medicine’ and ‘homeopathy’ could now be effectively bridged through my scientific explanation of potentization and similia similibus curentur on the basis of molecular imprinting. If you understand the process of molecular imprinting involved in potentization, and the exact molecular dynamics of ‘similia similibus curentur’, you would realize that no more riddles remaiin in homeopathy.

    Once the scientific community and people belonging to modern medicine realize the enormous implications of molecular imprinting as a most appropriate way of target-specific drug designing, homeopathy will be accepted and enthroned on its rightful status of an advanced discipline of modern molecular medicine.

    ————————————————————————————————-

    Most of our counter parts in western homeopathic community, especially USA, do not understand or bother to understand the language of science. They are much comfortable by placing homeopathy under the umbrella of CAM. They want homeopathy to be practiced as ‘energy medicine’ and ‘spiritual medicine’. They want to alienate themselves from modern science, and love to theorize about ‘unscientificness’ and ‘limitations’ of modern science. They are more inclined towards spiritualism than science. Ultimate result is, all of them engage in all sorts of unscientific practices along with homeopathy, which discredits homeopathy as a whole before the scientific-minded people

    Most wonderful thing is, they cannot understand the difference between ‘modern science’ and ‘modern medicine’. When I talk about ‘modern science’, they will take it as ‘modern medicine’, and accuse me as a supporter of modern medicine.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    A lot of great researches are going on in various laboratories around the world regarding the role of ‘acetylation’ and deacetylation’ in vital molecular processes such as energy metabolism and genetic transcription.

    “In organic chemistry, acetyl is a FUNCTIONAL GROUP, with chemical formula COCH3. The acetyl group contains a methyl group single-bonded to a carbonyl. The carbonyl center of an acyl radical has one nonbonded electron with which it forms a chemical bond to the remainder R of the molecule. The acetyl moiety is a component of many organic compounds, including the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, acetyl-CoA, acetylcysteine, and the analgesics acetaminophen and acetylsalicylic acid (better known as aspirin).

    The introduction of an acetyl group into a molecule is called acetylation. In biological organisms, acetyl groups are commonly transferred from acetyl-CoA to coenzyme A (CoA). Acetyl-CoA is an intermediate both in the biological synthesis and in the breakdown of many organic molecules.

    Histones and other proteins are often modified by acetylation. For example, on the DNA level, histone acetylation by acetyltransferases (HATs) causes an expansion of chromatin architecture, allowing for genetic transcription to occur. However, removal of the acetyl group by histone deacetylases (HDACs) condenses DNA structure, thereby preventing transcription. In addition to HDACs, Methyl group additions are able to bind DNA resulting in DNA methylation, and this is another common way to block DNA acetylation and inhibit gene transcription.

    Acetylated organic molecules exhibit increased ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Acetylation helps a given drug reach the brain more quickly, making the drug’s effects more intense and increasing the effectiveness of a given dose. The acetyl group in acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) enhances its effectiveness relative to the natural anti-inflammatant salicylic acid. In similar manner, acetylation converts the natural painkiller morphine into the far more potent heroin (diacetylmorphine).”

    Various environmental chemicals and pharmaceutical drugs can interfere in ‘acetylatio-deacetylation’ processes, by blocking concerned enzymes, resulting in cancers and certain neurological complaints.

    In my opinion, potentized drugs containing ‘molecular imprints’ of acetyl functional groups can rectify such molecular errors by binding and deactivating their functional groups. Special merit of molecular imprints is that they cannot interfere in normal biochemical interactions in the organisminvolving acetyl groups.

    ASPIRIN, or acetyl salicylic acid has acetyl functional groups. As such, potentized ASPIRIN should be capable of curing many diseases-including cancers and alzheimers. We should wotk up on that lines and conduct studies to verify my point.

    ——————————————————

    US may be a model for world on many things. But for homeopathy, sorry to say, it is the worst model. Pardon me for telling this hard truth.

    ‎Michael Law said: “Chandran, Just so you know. In the US for many years there was only one college a person could go to to become a homeopathic doctor. That was the Naturopathic college in Washington? or Oregon!. Any way they graduated Naturapathic doctors,. I thought of going there, but had no interest in anything but homeopathy. The school seemed to have a lot of herbalism. and other things. IMHO The best Homeopaths in the USA are still mostly lay people, with a handful of exceptions. Some of those NDs did become really good homeopaths”.

    ——————————————————

    Imagine crude drug molecules as ‘fake keys’ acting upon biological molecules which are ‘locks’, thereby preventing ‘original keys’ or ‘normal ligands’ from entering the key holes. Molecular imprints are ‘artificial key holes’ fitting to the ‘fake keys’, binding to them and preventing them from acting on ‘original locks’. Remember, molecular imprints are ‘artificial key holes’, not ‘duplicate keys. Once you understand the molecular dynamics involved in the ‘key-lock’ imagery, you can understand the whole scientific explanation of similia similibus curentur’. PONDER OVER THIS POINT UNTIL YOU GET IT CLEAR!

    ——————————————————

    A homeopath just requested me: “Don’t wash our dirt in public”. My answer: ‘Public dirt should be washed in public- let people know we wash”

    ——————————————————

    A us-based lady homeopath claims she cures her patients using ‘water charged by keeping on paper on which name of similimum is written’!!!!

    ——————————————————

    An international homeopath markets downloadable ‘mp3 files of homeopathic drugs’ to be played in poultry farms to prevent/cure ‘bird flu’!!!

    He markets ‘homeopathic mp3 files’ for AIDS also! You can read his interview on Hpathy.com

    Kindly see the interview of peter chappel in Hpathy.com. I wonder why Dr Manish Bhatia could not be a little selective in highlighting people and ideas

    ——————————————————

    An Indian ‘homeopathic academician’ of high ‘credentials’ conducts seminars and schools to teach ‘distant drug transmission through hair’!!! He is a ‘big shark’ in Indian homeopathic academic community.

    ——————————————————

    A London-based homeopath claims to cure patients all over world by applying drugs in the eyes of their photos downloaded from computers!!!!! This wonderful claim was made by the veteran homeopath, Dr Vaikuntanath Kaviraj!. See his article on homeopathy World Community. Big people also some times talks such fun!

    He had ‘explained’ it. Using quantum theory, wave theory, bio-energetics, resonance theory, energy medicine, teleportation and such things. Myself being far less intellectual, I did not understand anything.

    That is called ‘pseudoscience’. Utilizing ultra-scientific terms and concepts profusely for justifying totally unscientific and nonsense things. All ‘energy medicine’ theories do it. Kaviraj is a master of that art.

    ——————————————————

    I know a homeopath distributing ‘yantras’, ‘bhasmas’ and ‘talismans’ from his clinic along with homeopathy drugs, claiming it helps healing!

    HOMEOPATHS engaging in unscientific occult practices discredit homeopathy, and make it a subject of mockery. That is why I am bothered.

    ——————————————————

    A homeopath practicing other ‘healing arts’ is illegal, unethical, and inappropriate. It shows unscientific approach and lack of confidence

    Some friends argue a homeopath’s duty is to cure the patient using whatever means. A homeopath’s duty is to cure his patients using using homeopathy. If he feels he cannot cure a patient using homeopathy, he should refer the patient to other better homeopaths. If he thinks the patient could not be cured by homeopathy, advise him to consult good physicians or hospitals of other systems without wasting valuable time. That is the ‘duty’ of a genuine homeopath.

    ——————————————————

    A genuine scientific homeopath should be a ‘physician’- not a ‘healer’. He should practice only homeopathy- not muddle with occult ‘healing’

    ——————————————————

    Similia Similibus Curentur, if understood and applied in its scientific meaning, provides a therapeutic tool far superior to the sophisticated diagnostic tools of modern medicine. It is a tragedy to whole medical science that scientific community could not realize its potentials and implications yet, due to their closed-minded approach towards homeopathy.

    Homeopathy utilizes the method of closely following even the minutest inhibitions and deviations in the biochemical processes in the organism, through a special strategy of monitoring and recording the perceivable symptoms caused by such deviations.

    Obviously, a deviation happening in a particular biochemical pathway resulting from a nano-level molecular inhibition, and their cascading effects, produces a specific train of subjective and objective symptoms in the organism. In other words, each specific group of symptoms exhibited by the organism minutely indicates the particular error occurred in the molecular level. These symptoms are the real indicators of the exact molecular errors existing in the organism, more reliable than any laboratory investigations available now.

    Homoeopathy chases these trains of symptoms to their minutest level, from periphery to interior, in order to study the exact molecular errors underlying any particular state of pathology. Symptoms are classified into categories such as subjective, objective, physical generals, mentals and particulars. All these symptoms are then grouped into common and uncommon symptoms. Symptoms are also analyzed regarding their bearings such as locations, presentations, sensations, modalities and concomitants. Causative factors are also evaulated in this process.

    Not even the most sophisticated tools of ultra-modern technologies can surpass the accuracy of this method in monitoring the pathological molecular errors with such a perfection.

    After collecting and analyzing the ‘total symptoms’, pathological molecular inhibitions are removed by applying appropriate ‘molecular imprints’ as therapeutic agents, selected on the basis of ‘law of similars’ or ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’. This fundamental strategy underlying the homeopathic system of therapeutics evidently surpasses any scientific methods of modern molecular medicine.

    Obviously, “similia similibus curentur” is the most effective technique of identifying and removing the pathological molecular inhibitions in the organism. It is high time that the scientific world had realized and recognized this truth, and incorporated this wonderful tool into their armamentarium. I am sure, modern molecular medicine would inevitably realize the implications of similia similibus curentur in due course of its further development.

    ——————————————————

    In the absence of an updated understanding of the latest revelations regarding the exact dynamics of molecular processes underlying the phenomena of life, disease and cure, a homeopath will not be able to comprehend the scientific interpretations of homeopathic principles, and as such, he will be doomed for ever to meddle with totally unscientific and irrational concepts inherited from the ‘masters’, alienating himself from the world of modern science.

    ——————————————————

    For some people, to be a ‘follower of hahnemann’ means travelling 250 years backward into history and END the journey there. For me ‘to follow hahnemann’ means, BEGIN from hahnemann and take his ideas 250 years forward through the history of human knowledge into the present moment, and into future. That makes all the difference.

    ——————————————————

    If I am asked what is similimum, I would say similimum is the drug that contains ALL the diverse molecules that could produce ALL the diverse molecular inhibitions and symptoms in healthy organism EXACTLY SIMILAR to the molecular inhibitions and symptoms existing in the patient before us, by binding to same biological target molecules. Potentized forms of the similimum would contain molecular imprints of constituent molecules of the drug substance, which can bind to the pathogenic molecules due to complementary configurational affinity and remove the pathological molecular inhibitions.

    To be a PERFECT SIMILIMUM, our drug should contain ALL the diverse molecules that could produce ALL the diverse molecular inhibitions and symptoms, so that in potentized form it would contain ALL the diverse molecular imprints required to remove ALL the diverse molecular inhibitions in the patient. If the selected drug does not contain ALL the diverse molecular imprints required for the patient, it will be PARTIAL SIMILIMUM. In such cases, we can make a PERFECT SIMILIMUM by combining two or more PARTIAL SIMILIMUMS indicated by the symptoms.

    According to my view, even so called ‘single’ medicines are also ‘mixology’, since they are ‘mixtures’ of diverse types molecular imprints. Once we realize it and accept it, we need not worry about ‘dangers’ of ‘mixology’.

    ——————————————————

    Many homeopaths are still doubtful whether science is more advanced than homeopathy, in spite of 250 years of knowledge divide! I cannot help them to come out of that willful blindness by arguing with them. Sitting before your computer and chatting on facebook, if you are still “not sure if i can think of anything science has done for me, i care to appreciate”, I would say it is nothing but intellectual blindness arising from devotion to homeopathy and its master.

    Please read the following passage from Organon : Aphorism 11 : Sixth Edition to know the real level of ‘science’ available to hahnemann during his period:

    “The steel needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles,that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic proper ”

    Would you argue the ‘science’ of hahnemann is right in saying “a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner 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”? Would you say science has not surpassed homeopathy regarding the knowledge of how measles and small pox are infected and transmitted. Would you still argue hahnemann was right in saying “measles and smallpox” is infected just as “steel needle becomes itself magnetic” by the presence of a magnet?

    There are hundreds of such totally unscientific statements in organon and chronic diseases.

    Hahnemann made such wrong observations due to limitations of scientific knowledge available during his time. But, if we NOW argue everything hahnemann said is ‘science’, it is nothing but pure nonsense.

    And, you are still doubtful whether homeopathy or modern science represent more advanced stage of human knowledge! You forget the great strides science have made during last 250 years after hahnemann wrote organon! You are not sure whether ‘science has surpassed homeopathy’! You still love to believe and dare to argue that homeopathy is more scientific than modern science, and hahnemann is the ‘greatest scientist of all times’!

    ——————————————————

    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.

    I am not asking to ‘surpass’ hahnemann. I am asking to take hahnemann 250 years forward through history and make homeopathy catch up with modern scientific knowledge, which has already surpassed homeopathy a lot

    ——————————————————

    If you are still doubtful whether science is more advanced than homeopathy, I cannot help you to come out of that willful blindness. Sitting before your computer and chatting on facebook, you are still “not sure if i can think of anything science has done for me, i care to appreciate”! Do you think Rogers van Zandvorts could have compiled Complete Rep without “anything science has done”?

    Please read the following passage from Organon : Aphorism 11 : Sixth Edition to know the level of ‘science of homeopathy’ during hahnemann’s period:

    “The steel needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles,that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic proper ”

    Would you argue the ‘science’ of hahnemann is right in saying “a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner 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”? Would you say science has not surpassed homeopathy regarding the knowledge of how measles and small pox are infected and transmitted. Would you still argue hahnemann was right in saying “measles and smallpox” is infected just as “steel needle becomes itself magnetic” by the presence of a magnet?

    There are hundreds of such totally unscientific statements in organon and chronic diseases.

    Hahnemann made such wrong observations due to limitations of scientific knowledge available during his time. But, if we NOW argue everything hahnemann said is ‘science’, it is nothing but pure nonsense.

    And, you are still doubtful whether homeopathy or modern science represent more advanced stage of human knowledge! You forget the great strides science made during last 250 years after hahnemann wrote organon.

    ——————————————————

    @Michael Law: Sir, I would like to hear specific remarks on the statement I quoted from organon:

    “The steel needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles,that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic proper ”

    Are you still of the opinion that hahnemann was talking ‘science’ more advanced than modern science?

    It is good that you “agree Hahnemann did not know of Virus at that time”. You must also agree that hahnemann did not know about modern genetics. Hahnemann did not know biochemistry or the complex biochemical process underlying vital processes pathology. Hahnemann did not know the molecular dynamics of cure. Hahnemann did not know the molecular level structure of complex drug substances or how they interact with biological molecules. Hahnemann did not know the supramolecular structure of water or ethyl alcohol. Hahnemann did not know what actually happens at molecular level during potentization. Hahnemann did not know what are the exact active principles of potentized drugs, or how they act as therapeutic agents.

    Hahnemann observed a natural truth regarding cure which he called ‘simila similibus curentur’. He observed that highly diluted drugs can act therapeutically if applied on the basis of this principle. He called this diluting process as potentization. These two observations are the main contributions of hahnemann to medical science. Everythig else, his theories about these observations, inevitable bear the limitations imposed by lack of scientific knowledge of his time

    ——————————————————

    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.

    ——————————————————

    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.

    ——————————————————

    Hahnemann made two important observations regarding therapeutics 250 years ago:

    1. Diseases with specific symptoms can be cured by drugs that can produce similar symptoms in healthy individuals. He called it ‘similia similibus curentur’.

    2. When used according to ‘similia similibus curentur’, dug substances can act as powerful therapeutic agents even in high dilutions through a process of serial ‘dilution and succussion’. He called this process as ‘potentization’.

    These TWO are the main OBSERVATIONS made by Hahnemann, which are known as fundamental principles of Homeopathy.

    Hahnemann tried to explain these OBSERVATIONS in terms of scientific and philosophical knowledge available to him in that POINT OF TIME. Organon consists of these theoretical explanations and speculations.

    Since scientific knowledge was in its primitive stage at that time, Hahnemann’s explanations were bound to bear that limitations. ORGANON contains a lot of theorizations and speculations that do not agree with, or go against modern scientific understanding.

    Equipped with modern scientific knowledge and its tools, we are now in a far better position than Samuel Hahnemann to explain the phenomena he observed 250 years ago. Now we can explain ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’ more scientifically, rationally and logically. With full respect the great genius of our master, we should be truthful and bold enough to discard those evidently unscientific theoretical speculations of ORGANON.

    These two FUNDAMENTAL OBSERVATIONS were based on experiences, experiments and logical evaluations of OBJECTIVE PHENOMENA OF NATURE done by a great intellectual person. But the ‘principles’ he used to explain these objective phenomena were unscientific, obviously due to the limitations of scientific knowledge available to him at that time.

    We should accept his OBSERVATIONS, but judiciously discard or modify his unscientific PRINCIPLES.

    ——————————————————

    Every body have their intellectual barricades! Barricades of strong convictions and philosophies, formed through long course of learning and experience. It is a very difficult task for me to break that barricades, get into your minds and convince you something that goes against what you believed so far. Now I am into that hard task- bit by bit, inch by inch, day by day forward. Like the legendary stone cutter of esop’s fable, I would keep on striking, until finally the stone is crushed to pieces by a last stroke. And I know, every seemingly futile single stroke made earlier matters a lot in making the final stroke a success.

    ——————————————————

    Anybody who knows how to collect symptoms, how to find similimum and how to apply it judiciously, can make results. Because, ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ is the law. If you know how to use that law, you would cure. But your cures do not justify all nonsense unscientific theories you talk about your cures. Many great homeopaths, who get 95% cures are talking great nonsense also. We swallow all those nonsense thinking that they would not talk nonsense, since they get 95% cures!’

    ——————————————————

    Every scientist ‘should be wrong’, every science ‘should be wrong’ if it goes against our ‘master’! Every science is inferior to organon! Avogadro is wrong, if it does not agree with homeopathy! Science should change, not homeopathy! Homeopathy is ‘ultimate’ science, and hahnemann is ultimate scientist! Science have to ‘grow’ to understand homeopathy! Homeopaths need not ‘grow’ to understand science- they have the divine right to stay where they stood 250 years ago! REALLY GREAT, SIR. MOST HOMEOPATHS THINK SO!

    ——————————————————

    Is there any logic in continuing potentization even after all the drug molecules removed from the medium, after crossing the Avogadro limit?

    Here I am saying something that most homeopaths would not be very happy to hear, because my statement goes against their long-existing beliefs and practices. I expect strong opposition on this concept, which directly evolved from my scientific understanding and observations of potentization.

    If ‘molecular imprinting’ is the real mechanism involved in homeopathic potentization, it is obvious that there is no likelihood of any special benefit by higher and higher potentisations above 12C. Logically, potentization need be continued only just beyond the limit of Avagadro number. By that stage, all the drug molecules would be removed from the medium, and the molecular imprinted water–alcohol mixture would have attained sufficient concentration of ‘molecular imprints’, which are the real active principles of potentized medicines. The three-dimensional structure of drug molecules used as ‘guests’ will have already got sufficiently imprinted into the hydration shells or hydrosomes by that time. There is no point in continuing potentization even after that stage.

    Even those who believe that potentization is a process by which ‘medicinal energy’ of drug substances are transferred into the medium, would find it difficult to explain what ‘medicinal energy’ could be ‘transferred’ even after the whole drug molecules are removed through serial dilutions.

    As per my observation, the medicinal property of any homeopathic drug beyond 12c will be the same. It is only a very rare possibility that there could be any significant difference between various so called higher potencies used by us, with regard to their content or medicinal qualities. Many master prescribers have already put on record that if the selection of similimum is correct, any potency would render the expected therapeutic result.

    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.

    Based on this observation, for the last five years I use only 30c, and I get expected results in all cases where selection of similimum was correct.

    ——————————————————

    Constantine hering ‘did’ great things in ‘curing’. But he also ‘said’ many unscientific things about those cures, since scientific knowlege available to him was in its primitive stage

    ——————————————————

    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.

    We now know, NUX tincture prepared from different parts of that tree will have entirely different molecular constitution, and as such, the idea of NUX PERSONALITY does not have any logic or scientific validity.

    We should update on the basis of new scientific knowledge available to us.

    ——————————————————

    Anybody who knows how to collect symptoms, how to find similimum and how to apply it judiciously, can make results. Because, ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ is the law. If you know how to use that law, you would cure. But your cures do not justify all nonsense unscientific theories you talk about your cures. Many great homeopaths, who get 95% cures are talking great nonsense also. We swallow all those nonsense thinking that they would not talk nonsense, since they get 95% cures!’

    ——————————————————

    If we get a ‘single’ similimum that cover the ‘totality of symptoms’, should we think about a second drug? My answer is an emphatic NO. Homeopathy is all about finding ‘similimum’. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Homeopathy was so far taught and practiced on the basis of idea of DRUG PERSONALITIES. As per this view, each individual will have an ideal SIMILIMUM for him, and if you succeed in finding that PERFECT SIMILIMUM, your work is done.

    Once you start looking at your PATIENTS in terms of pathological molecular errors, and DRUGS in terms of constituent molecules and molecular imprints, You can start perceiving matters in a more realistic, scientific light.

    In how many cases we get an exact similimum that cover the ‘totality’ of physical generals, mentals, miasms and particular disease symptoms? Very rare.

    For example, a person with ‘Calc’ constitution may come with an acute shock from grief indicating ‘ignatia’. He may be having a skin eruption with symptoms indicating ‘ars’, and certain rectal symptoms indicating ‘nit acid’. We will not get a ‘single’ similimum that cover the complete ‘totality’ of this case.

    In such cases, we are normally taught to start with a ‘single’ drug that would address his most disturbing complaints and step by step address the ‘total’ case ‘layer by layer’ with ‘single’ drugs. What I am now saying is that there is no harm in prescribing all these ‘similimums’ that cover the whole layers ‘together’. That way we can ensure a ‘total’ cure rapidly.

    ——————————————————

    Potentization involves a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, and individual constituent molecules of drugs are ‘imprinted’ in their individual capacities.

    That means, 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.

    According to 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.

    ——————————————————

    Single Drug-Multiple Drug’ dilemma could be resolved only if you perceive your potentized drugs in terms of diverse types of molecular imprints they contain, co-existing without any mutual interactions, and acting upon pathogenic molecules as independent entities due to the complementary configurational affinity between them.

    ——————————————————

    Hahnemann was talking 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. We now know, NUX tincture prepared from different parts of that tree will have entirely different molecular constitution, and as such, the idea of NUX PERSONALITY does not have any logic or scientific validity. We should update on the basis of new scientific knowledge available to us.

    ——————————————————

    Any drug substance will act upon our mind also, since ‘mind’ is the product of our brain and central nervous system, which are also part of the ‘organism’. I meant, there is no such a thing as ‘nux personality’ or ‘puls personality’. Totality of symptoms produced by tincture prepared from nux seeds will be different from that of nux roots, leaves, flowers, bark or anything else, since their molecular constitutions are different. We know many plants, where fruits are edible, but roots are poisonous. In that case, which will decide the personality of that plant? I was talking about the concept of ‘drug personality’, not personality of human beings

    ——————————————————

    Drug Designing Technology has recently started exploring the possibilities of Molecular Imprinting in the development of target-specific designer drugs. They are now experimenting for developing bio-friendly imprinting matrices and imprinting protocols, so as to prepare artificial binding surfaces for pathogenic molecules that could be utilized as therapeutic agents.

    Even though not yet recognized as such, homeopathic potentization is a process of molecular imprinting, where artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules are produced by imprinting drug molecules into water-ethyl alcohol supra-molecular matrices.

    Homeopathy identifies pathological molecular errors and selects the appropriate molecular imprints through a peculiar technique of ‘comparing symptoms’, which is expressed as the therapeutic principle, ‘simila similibus curentur’

    ——————————————————

    Modern Medicine is gradually evolving into ‘Molecular Medicine’. Molecular Medicine studies vital processes and diseases at molecular level, and deals therapeutics as an art and science of molecular level repairing.

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

    ‘Molecular Medicine’ emphasizes disease and cure in terms of cellular and molecular phenomena and interventions rather than the conceptual and observational focus on patients and their organs common to conventional medicine.

    Molecular Medicine studies drug substances in terms of their molecular level structure and organization, and is more and more relying upon target-specific Designer Drugs synthesized by drug designing technology, supported by computer aided designing protocols.

    ——————————————————

    Most probably, modern molecular medicine and drug designing technology is in the new future going to explore the possibilities of water as a molecular imprinting medium as part of their search for novel substances to be utilized as imprinting matrix.

    It means, Modern Molecular Medicine is slowly advancing towards the realization of a drug designing technology that homeopathy invented as ‘potentization’ and utilized for preparing therapeutic agents 250 years ago.

    It is based on this understanding that I try to propagate the concept that ‘Homeopathy is Molecular Imprinting Therapeutics- An Advanced Branch of Molecular Medicine.

    ——————————————————

    In my futuristic vision, I foresee the fusion of Homeopathy and Modern Medicine into a universal scientific system of ‘Molecular Imprints Medicine’.

    Modern physicians would laugh at my statement. Homeopaths would scorn. But I expect such a convergence to happen by next 10-20 years.

    ——————————————————

    Psora- Chronic disease disposition from off-target actions of antibodies against Infectious Agents Of Itch

    ——————————————————

    Study ‘Molecular Imprinted Polymers’-to follow The Scientific explanation Of Homeopathic Potentization

    ——————————————————

    Luc Montagnier could have explained his observations of ultra-dilutions better using molecular imprinting

    ——————————————————

    Hahnemann no where said Miasms are Genetically Inherited. Later interpreters created all confusions

    ——————————————————

    Potentized drugs contain molecular imprinted hydrogen-bonded clusters of water-ethyl alcohol molecules

    ——————————————————

    Molecular Imprints acts as ‘artificial key-holes’ or ‘artificial binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules

    —————————————————–

    MIT explains homeopathy in terms of latest scientific knowledge of kinetics of bio-molecular interactions

    ——————————————————

    ‘Molecular Imprints Therapeutics’ is the most scientific, viable, rock-solid explanation of homeopathy

    ——————————————————

    To be a real medical science, homeopathy should be explained and proved according to scientific methods.

    ——————————————————

    From my long experience, I am fully convinced ‘Homeopathy Works’. Now my concern is ‘How it Really Works’.

    ——————————————————

    It is fact that nobody could so far propose a scientifically viable ‘working hypothesis’ about homeopathy.

    —————————————————–

    Learn About Nanotoxicity Concerns Before Prescribing Biochemic Salts Indiscriminately

    —————————————————–

    Dielectric Dispersion In Potentized Drugs Indicates ‘Rearrangement Of Molecules’ Or ‘Molecular Imprinting’

    ——————————————————

    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, can 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’ are 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’.

    ——————————————————

    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 main challenge we face when attempting to offer a scientific explanation for homeopathy is that these homeopathic theoreticans 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:

    1. ‘Vital force’ exists only through ‘vital processes’, which are complex chains of molecular level biochemical interactions purely material in nature.

    2. A state of pathology is created by some or other deviations happening in these biochemical processes due to molecular errors of pure material nature.

    3. Therapeutics is possible only through materialistic intervention in these biochemical processes.

    4. Medicines are the material means for such an intervention.

    5. It is due to the peculiar material properties of medicines that they are able to intervene in biochemical processes.

    6. 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 homeopathy is practiced on the basis of therapeutic principle of ‘Similia Similibus Curentu’, many homeopaths think that clinical diagnosis has no place in homeopathic practice.They consider these factors only of lesser value, helpful only for ‘patient satisfaction’ or ‘prognosis’.

    I think we should perceive the information provided by modern technological advancements and laboratory investigations as part of collecting ‘objective’ symptoms, and learn to utilize them in the search for similimum.

    All diagnostic tools provided by ‘modern technology’ are only extensions of physician’s sense organs, which help in making ‘enhanced’ observation of his patient’s symptoms. Similar to the ordinary spectacle that enhances the vision or stethoscope enhances the sounds, laboratory tests and sophisticated equipments ‘enhances’ our observation. As such, information provided by these tests and tools should be considered as ‘Objective Symptoms’ similar to any other objective symptoms, and can be utilized in finding similimum. Only problem is, since our drug provings were not conducted insuch a technologically advanced environment, they do not provide these types of ‘enhanced symptoms’. Due to ill-equipped drug- provings so far conducted, we have no a systematic knowledge of such symptoms now available in our materia medica. But, we can collect such clinical observations from daily practice, and enrich our materia medica.

    I hope future drug proving protocols will incorporate modern technology, and collect these ‘enhanced observations’ also and add them to future materia medica compilations. Then, homeopathy will be in a position to utilize these information also in finding appropriate similimum.

    I am saying lab investigations should be made part of drug proving protocol, and such information included in materia medica as ‘symptoms’, so that they could be used for finding similimum. That is why I said lab investigations should be part of ‘homeopathic case taking’, not part of ‘homeopathic practice’. I wanted to highlight that difference.

    Information obtained from such investigations could be utilized as ‘Objective Symptoms’, I mean. That means, we can make ‘homeopathic prescriptions’ based on lab investigations also, along with other symptoms

    ——————————————————

    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’.

    —————————————————–

    Concepts regarding ‘duration, depth and plane’ of actions of potentized drugs form another unverified part of homeopathic ‘belief system’. They would say, ‘aconite is short acting’, ‘sulphur is long acting’, ‘calcarea is deep acting’, ‘nux has only superfluous action’ and the like. We also hear statements like ‘low potencies are short acting’, ‘high potencies are long and deep acting’, ‘200c act longer and deeper than 30c’ etc. Some would say ‘higher potencies act on mental plane, lower potencies act on physiological plane’.

    All these fanciful ideas regarding ‘duration’, depth’ and ‘plane’ of actions of potentized drugs are based on ‘words of masters’ and ‘experiences’. No scientific experiments needed, no rational and logical explanations needed- simply ‘believe’!

    Nobody so far knows what actually happens during potentization, what is the exact ‘active principle’ of potentized drugs, or how they act therapeutically upon the organism. Without knowing these fundamental facts, how can we say our beliefs regarding ‘duration, depth and plane’ of action of potentized drugs are right?

    A lot of research have to be conducted to verify these ‘belief’

    ——————————————————

    ‎David Moreira messaged me:

    “I once took a dose of medhorrinum 1M, because I really wanted to know more about Homeopathy, and I got a date of symptoms for some time (a month or less), most corresponded well to the set of symptoms described in materia medica for medhorrinum… So you say that high dilutions is not good for experimentations…. I think it is not correct…”

    Pure rubbish. If you wanted to “know more about homeopathy”, this is not the way you should do experiments. Taking oneself ‘single dose’ of a drug and waiting for ‘its symptoms’ to appear! And you got symptoms of that drug for one month! And you consider you have ‘proved’ that “high dilutions are good for experimentation” beyond any doubt!

    If you really want to ‘prove’ that potentized drugs can produce symptoms, you should conduct the experiments according to scientific method. Person who is subjected to experiment should not know which medicine he is taking. Person conducting the experiment should not know which drug is given to which individual. There should be enough controls also. Then you should try to identify the drugs from comparing the symptoms produced with symptoms in materia medica. Only when you succeed in identifying drugs from symptoms in a well controlled blinded experiment, you can say you ‘proved’ that high potency drugs could produce symptoms.

    Taking a dose of ‘known’ drug oneself, waiting for its symptoms for one month, and ascribing all symptoms you produced during one month to that single drug- it is a joke. After taking that ‘single dose’, you are ‘taking’ diverse types of exogenous molecules into your body- through food, water, drinks, air and many many other environmental factors. All those molecules can produce symptoms in you. How can you say all symptoms produced for one month ‘after’ a ‘single dose of medorrhinum 1m’ were due that ‘single dose’?

    Only homeopaths, blinded by ‘beliefs’ can make such claims. For them, everything that happens ‘after’ their dose is the ‘effect’ of that dose! They never bother to consider the variables involved! I know it is a waste of time arguing to convince them. They cannot be convinced by logic or science. They are ‘believers’.

    Let us experiment as follows: I shall send you the drugs to be proved by you. Five different drugs will be given in separate 30ml bottles, numbered 1 to 5. All five drugs will be well proved polychrest drugs in 30c or above. You should prove those drugs, and identify which bottle contained which drug. I shall send the name and bottle numbers of drugs to Dr Nirupam Joshi in advance to be kept in his custody. He would finally decide whether you could identify drugs by observing symptoms you get.

    If you succeed in identifying drugs this way, we can decide high potency can be used for drug proving.

    I have many times experimented by taking almost all major polychests myself in 30c and 200c in repeated doses, some of them even 30ml as single dose. I did not get any ‘proving’.

    During October 2010, I recorded all my subjective, objective, mental, physical, general and particular symptoms in all minute details. After repertorization, I selected 10 drugs that would in combination cover all my symptoms. I mixed all those 10 drugs together in 30c potency, and prepared a 300ml stock. I started taking 10 drops of this mixture three times daily from 8-11-2010 onwards. According to my view, this mixture would contain all the molecular imprints I need. When I get any acute complaints, I use to add their indicated drugs also into the dose of my constitutional stock. Still continuing. I got all my ailments relieved, and I am in very good health till now. Now I am 61 years old. I never experienced any ‘drug proving’.

    ——————————————————

    Potentized drugs can act only if it is indicated. In other words, molecular imprints can bind only to pathogenic molecules having configurational affinity. They cannot interfere in the interaction between biological molecules and their natural ligands. MOLECULAR IMPRINTS ARE ARTIFICIAL BINDING SITES FOR PATHOGENIC MOLECULES. Once you understand this basic point, all your confusions will be gone

    ——————————————————

    Molecular imprints cannot interfere in the interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands. As such, they cannot create a state of pathology or produce symptoms. Some transient symptoms may appear (not pathological). Most opeople will have some molecular errors that could be removed by the drugs we used, and it may create some symptomatic changes. They cannot be considered pathology or drug symptoms. If anybody claim high potencies could ‘prove’, they can experiment by doing it themselves as i proposed above

    ————————————————

    I support only scientific homeopathy. I will not support pseudo-scientific ‘energy medicine’ theories and practice in the name of homeopathy

    ——————————————————

    My request to Dan Ullman is, he should be a little more cautious and consistent while explaining homeopathy. Being the most noted ”Foremost Spokesman” of homeopathy, he should be more responsible. While saying homeopathy is ‘hormesis’, ‘small doses’ and ‘nanopharmacology’, he should be aware that he is contradicting the concept of homeopathic potentization. He should try to explain how potentized drugs, even without a single drug molecule contained them, act therapeutically on the basis of ‘similia similibus curentur’. Any reasonable theory about homeopathy should explain what actually happens during potentization, what are the active principles of potentized drugs, and what is the exact molecular mechanism by which these active principles produces a therapeutic effect. We should explain potentization and similia similibus curentur in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge. Most importantly, we should be consistent in our explanation, whatever it be.

    Energy medicine theory is the greatest enemy of scientific homeopathy. Scientific community will never accept homeopathy as a medical science, if we go on talking ‘energy medicine’. We have to use the paradigms of science, language of science, concepts of science, terms of science, methods of science. We should explain homeopathy as a science, fitting to modern biochemistry, molecular biology and pathology.

    Dana Ulmann would be the first person to write articles supporting any emerging theories or new research reports appearing in homeopathy. As I already said, he instantly ‘supports’ every new theories, but commits to nothing. If you ‘accept’ a theory in its real sense, you will have to discard and disown its contradicting theories. Ulmann will ‘support’ molecular imprints, next day he will write an article supporting ‘energy medicine’ theories. Next day he will support nanoparticle theory. The moment the IIT B research report appeared in media, he wrote an article declaring ‘homeopathy is nanopharmacology’, same time adding that ‘nanopaticles’ act by ‘vibrations’ and ‘resonance’! It is a wonderful exercise. He never goes into the depth of any theory. He only quote others. His all articles always contains ‘it is said’ and ‘it is believed’. He ‘says’ nothing specific. He never antagonize any theory directly, but very cleverly utilize every new ‘researches’ to justify the ‘energy medicine concepts.

    Dana Ullman, who is claimed to be described by TIME magazine as “the Leading Proselytizer of Homeopathy” and ABC News touted as “Homeopathy’s Foremost Spokesman”, is a prominent proponent of ‘ultra-scientific’ ‘energy medicine’ theories in homeopathy that severely discredit the scientific credentials of homeopathy.

    ——————————————————

    Since ‘modern medicine’ requires a clear understanding of pathological molecular processes to decide an appropriate therapeutic agent, they cannot treat many diseases which are not well understood. For homeopathy, knowing the exact molecular error behind the pathology is not necessary, since homeopathy identifies the molecular errors and their remedial agents by observing subjective and objective ‘symptoms’ that express the molecular errors.

    As such, homeopathy can cure any disease even without knowing the underlying molecular errors, merely on the basis of ‘symptoms’. This is a great advantage for homeopathy. Whereas modern medicine can hope for an effective treatment only for well understood diseases, that to with possibility of unwanted side effects, homeopathy can treat any disease effectively and safely.

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

    ——————————————————

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

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

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

    ——————————————————

    I do not think modern medicine is irrelevant or unscientific. Exactly, modern medicine has been advancing in parallel with human scientific knowledge. It plays main role in the health care system all over the world.

    Allopathy Hahnemann talks about is no more. It is not fair to call ‘modern medicine’ as allopathy. Modern medicine is ‘molecular medicine’, based on scientific understanding of vital processes. Remember this point when quoting ‘ant-allopathy’ statements of our masters.

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

    ——————————————————

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

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

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

    ——————————————————

    So far, we understood ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ as ‘similarity of symptoms produced by drugs as well as diseases’.

    According to modern scientific understanding, we can explain it as ‘similarity of molecular errors produced by drug molecules and pathogenic molecules’ in the organism.

    To be more exact, that means ‘similarity of molecular configurations of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules’. Potentized drugs contains ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent molecules of drug used for potentization.

    ‘Molecular imprints’ are three-dimensional negatives of molecules, and hence they would have a peculiar affinity towards those molecules, due to their complementary configuration. ‘Molecular imprints’ would show this complementary affinity not only towards the molecules used for imprinting, but also towards all molecules that have configurations similar to those molecules.

    Homeopathy utilizes this phenomenon, and uses molecular imprints of drug molecules to bind and entrap pathogenic molecules having configurations similar to them. Similarity of configurations of drug molecules and pathogenic molecules are identified by evaluating the ‘similarity of symptoms’ they produce in organism during drug proving and disease. This realization is the the basis of scientific understanding of homeopathy I propose.

    ——————————————————

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

    ——————————————————

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

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

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

    My claim of homeopathy as a specialized branch of modern molecular medicine evolves from my understanding of homeopathic potentization as a process of molecular imprinting.

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

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

    ——————————————–

    I am not happy to see myself losing some good old friends on facebook every day. Of course, I get new friends- especially from new generation, students and beginners.

    When I post an article disagreeing with the ‘theory’ of vital force or dynamic drug energy, or any ‘aphorisms’ of master, I lose a few friends. When I question the belief that our master is the ‘greatest scientist’ and ‘organon is most scientific’, a few friends get displeased and leave me. When I comment on predictive method, sehgal method, sensation method, hair transmission and such established brands in homeopathy, most of their dedicated followers get annoyed and leave me. My comments on energy medicine, spiritual homeopathy, radionics, dowsing, reflexology etc also resulted in losing some valuable friends who do such practices. When I expressed my opinion on the admissibility of homeopaths practicing allopathy, some friends left my groups. My views about the scope of specialization, use of patent drugs and such issues also alienated a few friends. My concepts regarding miasms, potency, dose, repetition, multiple drugs, drug relationships and mother tinctures also resulted in losing some friends. Of course, my ‘arrogance’, ‘ego’ and ‘intolerance’ also will be blamed! I cannot tolerate people coming only for futile arguments, without any inclination to read or learn. I remove them.

    Each new topic I post, each comment I make, each article I publish on my blogs- all of them alienates somebody from me. I know why that happens. But I am helpless. I cannot dilute my convictions or give up my mission of propagating scientific homeopathy to save friendships. I know, I have to pay a price.

    Old friends-especially experienced, established, senior homeopaths- leave me once they understand I am saying something that goes against what they learned, taught and practiced so far. To support my views, they will have to come out of their comfort zones, which is not an easy task. Same time, homeopaths belonging to young generation- students, beginners and scientific minded people- come forward in large numbers for friendship. I see it as a positive indication.

    ——————————————————

    A very special convenience of ‘energy medicine’ is, they can fit any scientific knowledge into their ‘theoretical system’. They can connect everything using their magic wands- ‘‘electromagnetic radiations’ and ‘bio-magnetic resonance’!

    According to them, homeopathic medicines act by ‘resonance’, nanoparticles act by ‘resonance’, ‘ghost dna’ act by ‘resonance’. Everything is ‘energy’. Life is ‘resonance’, disease is lack of ‘resonance’, cure is re-establishment of ‘resonance’. Even cells and genes interact through ‘resonance! ‘Everything could fit comfortably well into this ‘resonance’ theory- let it be homeopathy, faith healing, acupressure, distant healing, radionics, dowsing, hair transmission, touch healing, mesmerism, prayers, pranic, reiki or any occult practice. ‘Radiations’ and ‘Resonance’explains everything.

    Once you accept ‘energy medicine’ theory, everything is easy. You become a ‘healer’- not ‘physician’. You need not bother about learning difficult subjects such as biochemistry, genetics, anatomy, physiology, pathology, pharmacology, diagnosis, materia medica, similimum or anything else! You need not study biological molecules, drug molecules or their chemical interactions. Simply find out where the ‘resonance’ is missing, and re-establish ‘resonance’ using appropriate ‘healing methods’. You can use anything as therapeutic agents- your hands, charged water, dynamized drugs, prayers, healing touch, suggestions, mind power, magnets, hair, nail, excreta! It is a comfort zone for lazy and ignorant people who desire to be ‘healers’. If you are not willing to learn science, or if you do not understand science, be a proponent of ‘energy medicine’!

    ——————————————————

    The term ‘molecular imprints’ is now almost hijacked by the proponents of all diverse shades of unscientific ‘energy medicine’ and ‘spiritual’ theories about homeopathy. It makes distinguishing between scientific and unscientific approaches very hard.

    The term ‘molecular imprinting’ and ‘molecular imprints’ originally comes from polymer chemistry, where these terms are used to describe a technique of creating template-shaped cavities in polymer matrices with memory of the template molecules, to be used as artificial molecular recognition sites.

    This technique is based on the system used by enzymes for substrate recognition, which is called the “lock and key” model. The active binding site of an enzyme has a unique geometric structure that is particularly suitable for a substrate. A substrate that has a corresponding shape to the site is recognized by selectively binding to the enzyme, while an incorrectly shaped molecule that does not fit the binding site is not recognized.

    In a similar way, molecularly imprinted materials are prepared using a template molecule and functional monomers that assemble around the template and subsequently get crosslinked to each other. The functional monomers, which are self-assembled around the template molecule by interaction between functional groups on both the template and monomers, are polymerized to form an imprinted matrix. They are known in the scientific community as a molecular imprinted polymer (MIP). Then the template molecule is removed from the matrix under certain conditions, leaving behind a cavity compl ementary in size and shape to the template. The obtained cavity can work as a selective binding site for a specific template molecule.

    I have been using the concepts of ‘molecular imprinting’ and ‘molecular imprints’ to explain homeopathic potentization in this scientific perspective. My contention is that water has polymer-like properties at supramolecular level, and as such, water can be used as molecular imprinting medium exactly similar to other polymer substances. During potentization, three dimensional configuration of drug molecules are imprinted as nanocavities into the hydrogen-bonded supra-molecular networks of ethyl alcohol-water matrix. These ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’ can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for the drug molecules used for imprinting, as well as to pathogenic molecules having similar configurations. Active principles of potentized drugs are these ‘molecular imprints’.

    This is the scientific understanding of ‘molecular imprinting’ and ‘molecular imprints’.

    Now, the proponents of ‘energy medicine’ theories are trying to hijack this scientific concept to promote their pseudo-scientific theories. They talk about ‘molecular imprints’ of ‘drug energy’ and even ‘spiritual energy’. They talk about ‘molecular imprinting’ of ‘thoughts’ into water. According to them, ‘molecular imprints’ act by ’emitting’ ‘radiations’, ‘waves’, ‘resonance’ and such things. They mix up ‘molecular imprinting’ with ‘water memory’ theories of people like Emotto, Chaplin and Rustum Roy. Their theories have nothing in common with the scientific concepts of ‘molecular imprinting’.

    Anyhow, these people create a lot of confusions during our discussions about scientific homeopathy

    To avoid confusions, now I prefer to use the term ‘hydrosomes’ instead of ‘molecular imprints’, to indicate ‘molecular imprinted nanocavities of water acting as artificial molecular binding sites’.

    Modern biochemistry explains molecular mechanisms of disease and cure in terms of ‘key-lock’ relationship between ligands and their target molecules. This ‘key-lock’ concept has been proved right by the preparation and use of target specific designer drugs. Any scientific explanation we provide for molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’ should be fitting to this ‘key-lock’ concept of molecular interactions. My explanation of of homeopathy on the basis of ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’ acting as ‘artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules’ perfectly meets this fundamental condition.

    ——————————————————

    Whether anybody is practicing or propagating CAM, ENERGY MEDICINE, FAITH HEALING or anything else is not my concern. It is for the law-enforcing authorities to decide whether a HOMEOPATH registered under the provision of CCH Act is permitted to engage in such practices ‘along’ with homeopathy. I do not intend to comment on it. I am questioning the widely propagated theory that ‘homeopathy is energy medicine’. I am questioning the practice of ‘homeopathic occults’ such as homeopathic drug transmission through hair, homeopathic drug transmission through photographs, mp3 file transmission, selecting similimum by radionics machine, dowsing and reflexology, and such things which gravely damage the scientific credentials of homeopathy. I object only when you make homeopathy a PART of ‘energy medicine’. Homeopathy is purely a method of ‘drug therapy’- not energy medicine or spiritual healing. Homeopathy should be understood, explained and practiced a MEDICAL SCIENCE. Homeopaths should be scientific medical professionals.

    ——————————————————

    One senior homeopath friend commented on my discussions regarding ‘energy medicine theories of homeopathy’:

    “In fact I treat my patients with energy medicine apart from Homoeopathy and magnetic therapy. Energy medicine is there and practiced from 4000 years and Homoeopathy is 250 years old. Study some more and learn to know before commenting on any subject. 4000 years back no labs, no trials, still medicine was being given in many ways and patients were being treated too. Just because you would not believe energy medicine, you cant call it funny and mock at it. Energy medicine is having its own value and such comments would not change its place in the Universe. Never think you can attack somebody like this and you do not have any right to discuss the unknown subject in the group.”

    My friend is gravely mistaken. I am not discussing the “”value” or ‘efficacy’ of energy medicine. Nor its historical relevance. I am not interested in ‘knowing’ it. I would not question anybody’s right to practice ‘energy medicine’, ‘magnetotherapy’ or anything like that “apart” from homeopathy. It is up to you to decide what you should practice.

    I was commenting on the widely propagated theory that “homeopathy is energy medicine”. In that case, it is a different matter. I did not criticize ‘reflexology’ per se; I criticized the method of selecting similimum using reflexology David Little talk about. I have nothing if anybody practice radionics or dowsing; but when somebody theorizes about using radionics machines to select homeopathic drugs, I have the right to comment. The age old occult practice using hair as as medium existed here since antiquity. I am not bothered. But when somebody talks about homeopathic drug transmission to distance through hair, and conducts courses and seminars for homeopaths on that topic, it becomes a matter of concern for every homeopath. I am not bothered about the ‘water memory’ theory of Emoto or Rustom Roy. But when a homeopath claims he writes name of homeopathic similimum on paper, keeps it under a glass of water to ‘charge’ it and treats his patients with that ‘charged water’, you should not expect me me to keep silent. When a reputed homeopathy claims he recorded the homeopathic drug information as mp3 file and cured AIDS by playing it to patients, you have no right to ask me to keep mum.

    Anybody can practice any occults or woodoo as he like “apart” from homeopathy, if law permits a ‘physician’ to do so. I don’t bother. But when you make homeopathy “part” of your occult practices, and spin ‘ultra-scientific’ theories about homeopathy to justify such practices, I have the right to intervene and comment. I am bothered only about homeopathy- not about your ‘energy medicine’ or occults. You keep them “apart”, I will not “attack” you.

    Regarding my “right to discuss the unknown subject in the group”, I would like to reserve my comments for the time being, hoping not to spoil our friendship. I expect you would discuss only “known” subjects hereafter.

    ——————————————————

    I constantly try to expose all those ‘big’ people who are propagating homeopathy as a branch of ‘energy medicine’ or ‘spiritual healing’, not due to any personal vendetta. Actually, I do not know these people personally. I do this campaign as part of my mission of advancing homeopathy as a full-fledged ‘medical science’, which I think, cannot be achieved without freeing it from malignant influence of diverse shades of ‘energy medicine’ theories and their highly influential international propagators.

    We cannot hope to advance homeopathy as a scientific medical practice unless we could explain ‘potentization’ and ‘similia similibus curentur’ in a way fitting to modern scientific paradigms, and prove them according to scientific methods. If you are genuine in this mission, you cannot move forward without settling accounts with pseudo-scientific ‘energy medicine concepts’ that have engulfed homeopathy.

    Actually, ‘energy medicine’, energy therapy or energy healing is a branch of complementary and alternative medicine basically distinct from homeopathy. It is based on the belief that a healer is able to channel healing energy into the person seeking help by different methods: hands-on, hands-off, and distant (or absent) where the patient and healer are in different locations. There are various schools of energy healing. It is known as biofield energy healing,spiritual healing, contact healing, distant healing, therapeutic touch, Reiki or Qigong. Spiritual healing is largely non-denominational and traditional religious faith is not seen as a prerequiste for effecting a cure. Faith healing, by contrast, takes place within a religious context.

    Homeopathy is essentially a form of ‘drug therapy’. It has nothing to do with ‘energy medicine’. Homeopathy should be understood, explained and practiced as a scientific medicine.

    ‘Homeopathy is energy medicine’- this theory is intentionally propagated world over by proponents of diverse colors of occult and pseudo-scientific practices destroying the scientific credentials of homeopathy. They spin fanciful theories about homeopathy using ‘vibration theory’, ‘bio-magnetism’,’wave theory’, ‘electro-magnetic radiations’, ‘frequencies’, ‘resonance theory’, ‘piezo-electricity’ and various other absurd theories, pretending themselves to be ‘ultra-scientific’. These people are gravely alienating homeopathy from mainstream scientific knowledge system.

    Along with homeopathic practice, these people are actually doing spiritual healing, psychic healing, Therapeutic touch, Healing Touch, Esoteric healing, Magnetic healing, Qigong healing, Reiki, Pranic healing, Crystal healing, distant healing, intercessionary prayer, Acupuncture, biofield energy healing,spiritual healing, contact healing, distant healing and various other occult practices. They prefer to call themselves as CAM practitioners. That is why they want to include homeopathy in the category of ‘energy medicine’, and try to explain homeopathy in that terms.

    These people propagate hair transmission, telephone transmission, photo transmission, mp3 file transmission, telepathy, radionics, dowsing, spiritual homeopathy and such things in the name of homeopathy.They have great influence and dominance in international homeopathy.

    If you genuinely want homeopathy to be a real ‘medical science’, it is inevitable that you will have to fight for freeing homeopathy from the influence of ‘energy medicine’ theories and associated occult practices. I take up this fight as part of my mission of propagating scientific homeopathy. Kindly do not minimize it into an issue of ‘personality clashes’ or ”ego conflicts.

    —————————————————-

    Dana Ulmann commented on my article:

    “If THAT critique of me and my work is the best you have, you’ve got nothing…you are shooting blanks.

    And for the record, “energy medicine” is not the “enemy” of scientific homeopathy (or scientific anything).

    And by the way, thanx for the promotion of my work, even if you twist it and obviously don’t understand it…oh well, I don’t have high expectations about “medical fundamentalists” like yourself. Heck, people who follow James Randi even though he is an admitted master of deception and misdirection has my most sincere sympathies.
    Peace out… Based on the Alexa ranking of your site, virtually no one comes here. It seems that your blog is a placebo.

    I would expect Dana Ulman to provide specific answers to following direct questions, if he is serious in his inquiry ‘how homeopathy works’

    1. What exactly happens during potentization? What is the exact process involved?

    2. What are the active principles of potentized drugs?

    3. What is the exact process by which these active principles of potentized drugs interact with the organism and produce a therapeutic effect?

    4. How would you explain ‘similia similibus curentur’ in the light of your understanding of potentization and therapeutic action of potentized drugs?

    ——————————————————

    For making a prescription that would offer a ‘Total Cure’ of the individual, we have to get his ‘Totality of Symptoms’ which constitute the his ‘constitutional totality’ as well as various ‘’particular totalities’. Presence of underlying miasms, or ‘chronic disease dispositions arising from off-target effects of antibodies generated against exogenous proteins such as infectious agents’ should also be considered and appropriate ‘anti-miasmatic’ drugs included in the ‘total cure’ prescriptions.

    A patients Mental symptoms and Physical generals constitute the ‘constitutional totality’.

    Particular disease symptoms consisting of their Causations, Appearance, Locations, Sensations, Modalities and Concomitants constitute ‘particular totality’ .

    There may me more than one ‘particular totality’ existing an individual simultaneously, arising from different types of molecular inhibitions. He may be having headache with a ‘particular totality’, with some skin eruptions with yet another ‘particular totality’ , and a gastric complaint with yet another ‘particular totality’, all existing simultaneously.

    Case taking and repertorizing using mental symptoms and physical generals according to classical KENTIAN METHOD would be ideal to find out ‘constitutional totality’ and a ‘similimums’ for that totality.

    Case taking and repertorization using causations, locations, sensations, modalities and concomitants according to BOENNINGHAUSSEN’S METHOD would be ideal to find out’particular totalities’ , and appropriate ‘similimums’ for each ‘particular totality’ .

    If we get a ‘single’ drug as similimum’ for ‘constitutional totality’ and ‘particular totality’ , and the symptoms of miasmatic aspects also covered by that drug, we can prescribe a ‘single drug’.

    IF different ‘similimums’ comes out for ‘constitutional totality’ and different ‘particular totalities’, we will have to make a ‘multiple drug’ prescription. In most chronic cases, nosodes will be required to tackle miasms.

    Concept of ‘constitutional totality’ evolves from KENTIAN METHOD of case taking and repertorization, whereas the concept of ‘particular totality’ is based on BOENNINGHAUSSENS method. In my opinion, KENT and BOENNINGHAUSSEN has their own limitations, and hence a synthesis of both approach is necessary for finding a similimum that cover the ‘Complete Totality’ of the patient.

    In brief, this is the practical way to make individualized ’Total Cure Prescritptions’ for our patients.

    ——————————————————

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————

    Most homeopaths are ‘believers’. For them, homeopathy is a sacred ‘belief system’.

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

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

    They hesitate to accommodate new knowledge. They never ask ‘why-what-how’ about their beliefs. They would never tolerate anybody asking such hard questions
    Most of them prefer to be die-hard fundamentalists- homeopathic fundamentalists. Tougher than even those dreaded religious fundamentalists. They behave themselves like ‘faith-healers’ than scientific medical professionals and physicians. To talk logic, reason and science to such a closed-minded ‘believers community’ is a tough task indeed- and dangerous to some extent.

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

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

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

    One doctor said: “My patient had a severe heart attack ‘after’ an ‘untimely’ second dose of Lachesis 200”.

    We hear this type of incidents and experiences reported by homeopaths in their practice. Somebody said: “my patient got delirious attack’ after a dose of Bell200. Another homeopath argues: “A patient showed eruptions all over body after a dose of merc sol 200, that is a proof that homeopathy drugs have dangerous side effects”.

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Dogmatic preachers and learners may find it difficult to follow or tolerate what I say about homeopathy. I beg to be excused.

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

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

    1. Always keep abreast with modern scientific knowledge

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

    2. Read in between lines

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

    3. Creative Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Do not be misguided by reading the works of interpreters. This is very important if you want to understand what hahnemann really said. Interpreters had done great damage to homeopathy and original teachings of hahnemann. Many people learn homeopathy using the books written by various authors who interpreted hahnemann’s teachings according to their whims and fancies. The most outstanding example is theory of miasms. IIf you read hahnemann’s ‘chronic diseases’ carefully, it would be very clear that hahnemann was talking about miasms as a ‘chronic disease dispositions caused by the infectious agents of itch, syphilis and gonorrhoea’. He did not hink about ‘miasms’ unrelated with ‘infectious materials’.

    But the interpreters made ‘miasmatic analysis a total mess, dragging even genetics and heridity into it. Now, most homeopaths learn ‘miasms’ from interpreters. We have lot of such examples where interpreters have totally misguided homeopathy. We should learn homeopathy from original works of hahnemann, using our own brains and logic, to keep ourselves not misguided.

    ——————————————————

    An Appeal To Scientific-minded Homeopathy Students And Teachers- Please Take Up Some ‘Small’ Research Projects On Potentized Drugs

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

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

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

    1. Exposure to direct sunlight
    2. Exposure to strong artificial light including fluorescent lights
    3. High temperature
    4. Refrigeration
    5. Ionizing radiations
    6. Exposure to strong magnetic fields
    7. Exposing to perfumes, volatile oils, strong odors
    8. Keeping near computers-mobile phones-electronic gadgets
    9. Exposing to electric currents
    10. Nearness of mobile towers
    11. Violent shaking
    Projects can be undertaken for comparative study of potentized drugs and control solutions(water-ethyl alcohol mixture) regarding following physical parameters:
    1. Evaporation rates
    2. Freezing points
    3. Boiling points
    4. Browninan motions
    5. Viscosity and flow rates
    6. Solvent properties
    7. Refraction of light
    8. Absorption of light
    9. Transmission rates of sound

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

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

    ——————————————————

    DrAbhay Meghaji Chheda commented on my article on Dr Praful Vijaykar’s “Embryonic Theory”:

    “Mr. Nambiar, All your comments are welcome. But there should be certain decorum maintained while making comments. After all dr. Prafull Vijaykar’s contribution to Homoeopathic System is immense and lots of successful doctors have Dr. Vijaykar’s teaching as a solid foundation. We do respect your zeal and enthusiasm for Homoeopathy but we also respect great teachers like Dr. Prafull Vijaykar as well. Thanks. DrAbhay Meghaji Chheda”

    My reply: “My comments are not meant personal. I was commenting on the ’embryonic layer’ theory of dr vijaykar. It is not a matter of respect or disrespect towards any individual. If you feel I have made any wrong points in my post, you can counter them point by point, participating the discussion. Please dont make it a personal issue, sir.

    By saying “there should be certain decorum maintained while making comments”, what do you actually mean, sir? Do you mean we should not discuss or criticize what have been spoken by ‘great teachers’? In my article, I did not discuss “Prafull Vijaykar’s contribution to Homoeopathic System “, but only his ’embryonic layer’ theory. Let us confine to that specific topic.

    I agree that there are “lots of successful doctors”. All of those “successful” homeopaths are not followers of Dr Viayakar. “Solid foundation” of all “successful homeopaths” are “similia similibus curentur” taught by hahnemann, not ‘vijaykar’s teachings. Anybody judiciously applying ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentized drugs’ will become “successful” even if they know nothing about vijaykars methods. Success belongs to hahnemann, not vijaykar. You make success using ‘similia’ theory, and deliberately ascribe those successes to ‘teachings’ of vijaykar. It is totally inappropriate, irrational and unacceptable.”

    Dr Vijaykar’s ’embryonic theory’ do not agree with concepts of modern embryology, and his explanations of ‘suppression’ and ‘directions of cure’ in the light of ’embryonic theory’ is plainly irrational, unscientific and contradicts all knowledge we get from modern life sciences. Keeping all these things in mind, how can I say ‘vijaykars theory is “great contribution to homeopathic system”, to show respect to that “great teacher”?

    ——————————————————

    Propagators of ‘hair transmission’ and such things in homeopathy think that their occult practices will become ‘medical science’ by merely sprinkling some scientific and ultra-scientific terms such as ‘genetic’, ‘quantum’, ‘embryonic’, ‘particles’, ‘vibrations’ ‘resonance’, ‘energy field’, ‘teleportation’, ‘radiations’, ‘frequency’, ‘string’ and the like here and there in their articles and lectures.

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

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

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

    If ‘drug energy’ can be “transmitted” to me from long distances through a hair, nail, blood or other tissues removed from my body, and even photographs, how can I dare to throw away my hair in a garbage pit? What if somebody unknowingly deposits some toxic substances on it? How can I entrust my blood sample to a clinical lab, without fearing that they can do some mischief to me by putting some harmful medicines in my blood sample? I think I have to be very cautious to preserve my cut hair and nail without reaching the hands of my enemies!

    If we want to make homeopathy a scientific medical system, homeopaths should at least start to evaluate things by studying ‘what is said’, than ‘who said it’. Even the UKbased ‘international’ homeopath claims he get excellent ‘results’ even in ‘incurable’ cases by using ‘medicines’ in the eyes of photographs of patients downloaded from computer around the world!. He is also a man of ‘great credentials’. Same with ‘masters’ of ‘hair transmission’ method. That man who sent ‘mp3 files of drugs’ to Haiti also is a revered name in international homeopathy. ‘Five-cups -spoon’ method also is contributed by a famous Indian homeopath. We cannot question them, because they are men of great credentials and positions. Until unless we succeed in understanding the exact active principles of homeopathic drugs, and the real mechanism of their therapeutic action, this will go on. And people will ‘follow’ the ‘foolishness’ of ‘masters’ having ‘credentials’ and ‘positions’.

    All those ‘masters’ I referred above conducts seminars, write books, and are ‘followed’ by thousands of homeopaths. But I have decided to listen only to ‘what is said’, ignoring ‘who said it’, and I believe, only that way we can make homeopathy a scientific medical system.

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

    WHOLE SCIENTIFIC MINDED HOMEOPATHS AND PROFESSIONAL BODIES SHOULD COME FORWARD AGAINST THESE “OCCULT” PRACTICES DONE IN THE NAME OF HOMEOPATHY. THESE PEOPLE ARE MAKING HOMEOPATHY A SUBJECT OF MOCKERY BEFORE THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

    ——————————————————

    Dr. Vijaykar totally failed to comprehend the biochemistry involved in homeopathic therapeutics, and hence could not interpret the ‘directions of disease and cure’ in relation with the interactions of biochemical pathways. In the absence of essential scientific knowledge, he only tried to make his theories appear ‘scientific’ by utilizing some terms from embryology and genetics. Playing with scientific vocabulary, he was successful in marketing his theories well among the ‘science-starved’ sections of homeopathic community.

    David Witko, in his book review published in ‘The Homoeopath’,The Society of Homeopaths. 2 Artizan Road,NorthamptonNN1 4HU, United Kingdom, on ‘Predictive Homeopathy Part One – Theory of Suppression’ by Dr Prafull Vijayakar, said as follows:

    “Essentially, and in outline, he charts the development of the human embryo in seven stages, from the cells and mind to the neural plate, neuro-endocrine system, mesoderm, connective tissues, endoderm, and its eventual cornpletion at the ectoderm”

    “All of the organs of the body derive from these seven layers of development. To illustrate, the GI tract is formed as part of the endoderm, whilst the kidneys were formed earlier in the mesoderm”

    “Vijayakar reasons that as natural embryonic growth progresses from the inside to the outside (even our bones develop this way), disease and ill-health will inevitably move in the reverse direction, i.e. from the outside (in Hering-speak) to the inside. From the ectoderm to the endoderm. From the endoderm to the mesoderm. Deeper and deeper. So if you know which parts of the body are associated with each level you can clearly see the progression of disease”.

    This review of David Witko amply illustrates the essence of Vijaykar’s theory of ‘embryonic layers’ relating with hering’s law, on which his whole ‘methods’ and systems’ are built up on.

    Which text book of embryology says about the development of human embryo starting from “cells and mind”? Is it vijaykar’s invention? Embryology never deals with ‘mind’, but only ‘cells’.

    Obviously, vijaykar wanted to make a theory seemingly scientific utilizing some concepts borrowed from genetics, but same time he wanted to establish that ‘mind’ is primary in the development of embryo. Hence, he added the word ‘mind’ along with ‘cells’ while describing the initial stages of embryonic development.

    According to his interpretation of ‘embryology’, development of human embryo ‘starts’ from ‘cells and mind’, then advances “to the neural plate, neuro-endocrine system, mesoderm, connective tissues, endoderm, and its eventual completion at the ectoderm”.

    —————————————————-

    The phenomenon we call ‘MIND’ do not exist without specialized cells called neurons, as well as complex biochemical interactions involving diverse types of neurochemicals. It is utter foolishness to say that a single cell detached from a complex multicellular organism, devoid of any neurons, will have its own ‘mind’.

    ——————————————————

    By ‘scientific homeopathy’, I mean an open system of theory and practice of Homeopathy that spontaneously updates and advances along with our ever-growing scientific knowledge system, which could be verified with available scientific methods and tools, with the involvement of scientific community. At least, we have to make it a theory and practice that do not go against the fundamental directions and world outlook of modern science. Our theory and practice should fit into the scientific paradigms of modern biochemistry, molecular biology and life sciences. Our explanations should agree with the proven wealth of information provided by modern physiology, pathology, therapeutics and pharmacology.

    —————————————————–

    Hahnemann said in ORGANON OF MEDICINE (Sixth Edition): Aphorism 11 (FootNote) as follows:

    “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”

    We cannot blame Hahnemann for saying so. He was talking this 200 years ago, when there was no scientific knowledge available regarding the viruses and virus infections. HE WAS TALKING ON THE BASIS OF KNOWLEDGE AVAILABLE TO HIM DURING HIS TIME.

    But, if some body say the same thing NOW, it becomes a grave offense towards science and advanced human knowledge system existing here. In their eagerness to be known as TRUE DISCIPLES OF THE MASTER, we hear some homeopaths declaring that each and every word spoken by the master is ULTIMATE SCIENCE! They even dare to declare that IT IS MODERN SCIENCE THAT WENT WRONG!

    Had the master lived and written organon 50 years later, he would not have included this passage in his organon.

    ——————————————————

    In ‘Chronic Diseases : Para 139’ Hahnemann says:

    “Sucklings never receive medicine; the mother or wet-nurse receives the remedy instead, and through their milk it acts on the child very quickly, mildly and beneficially”.

    I think Hahnemann has turned his whole principles upside down here.

    1. He is asking to give ‘similimum of the infant’ to mother or wet nurse, for whom that drug is not be symptomatically indicated. As such, if ‘similimum of infant’ is given to nurse, it will not act upon her vital force. If the infant gets that medicine through breast milk of nurse, it means our medicine contains some active factors that could be transferred through breast milk, without acting on her vital force.

    2. Homeopaths believe potentized medicines are said to act through ‘nerves’ on the vital force. There is no ‘nerve cells’ present in ‘milk’. How can then it act through milk?

    3. If homeopathic drugs are actually conveyed from mothers body to infants body through the milk, that only means our drugs contain some ‘material’ factors that can be conveyed through milk, not through ‘nerves’ as it is believed. More over, can ‘vital force’ be transferred through breast milk that do not contain living cells?

    4. If homeopathic drugs are transferred from mother to child through milk, will not the blood and other body fluids of mother also contain those drugs? Could homeopathic drugs be administered through blood transfusions? If a person under homeopathic treatment donates blood, will not the recipient also get drugged by our medicines?

    Administration of homeopathic drugs by transmission through milk raises a lot of questions regarding active principles of potentized drugs, their mode of conveyance in the body and the mechanism of its action that could not be answered by ‘vital force’ theory.

    What if we administer the medicines to a wet nurse, and collect her breast milk in a bottle, will it still preserve its medicinal properties? Can we give that bottled milk to the infant as medicine? Then, in what form medicine exist in that bottled milk? Should this bottled Milk to be considered an organism, with ‘vital force’ present in it?

    Some homeopaths believe that “our dynamic homeopathic medicine when work on vital force that is produce some required chemical changes in body, and infant receive medicinal effect by mother’s milk because infant vital energy is strong that is receive this vital effect frequently”.

    But remember, we are not selecting a similimum for mother or wet nurse, according to their ‘totality of symptoms’. We are selecting similimum for infant. How can an un-indicated homeopathic medicine “work on vital force” and “produce some required chemical changes in body” of mother or wet nurse? Even if it acts up on their organism, it is said that an un-indicated medicine will have only negative influence. Would anybody say this ‘adverse chemical changes’ produced by these ‘negative influence’ are conveyed by the milk to the infant and curing his disease?

    If you want to get a ‘positive’ influence, you will have to determine the similimum for wet nurse by collecting totality of her symptoms, not for infant.

    Let us consider the argument “dynamic homeopathic medicine when work on vital force that is produce some required chemical changes in body”. If so, the infant is getting the milk subjected to “chemical changes” by the action of drug upon the “vital force of mother”. It is this “chemically changed milk” that is consumed by the infant. How this “chemically changed” milk would act homeopathically on the organism of ‘infant’? If anybody argue that the “vital force” of mother is acting on infant through milk, how would you explain this phenomenon if the milk is collected in bottles and given to infant? Would you say “the changed vital force” of mother is collected in a bottle and transferred to infant?

    I think we can explain this phenomenon more rationally and without any confusion. The ‘active principles’ of potentized drugs selected as similimum for the infant is conveyed through blood of mother to the milk, and thereby into the organism of the infant. The active principles act in the infant the same way as a similimum given directly. Is not this explanation more rational and simple?

    This phenomenon clearly proves that active principles of potentized drugs are conveyed through body fluids, not through the ‘nerves’ as commonly believed. I wanted only to make that point clear. If it were ‘nerves’, it will never be conveyed to infants through mother’s breast milk.

    ——————————————————

    Hahnemann never said ALL chronic diseases are MIASMATIC, as our ‘miasmatic experts’ teach. He talks about NON-MIASMATIC chronic diseases also.

    Please listen: In Organon : Aphorism 204(Sixth Edition) Hahnemann says:

    “If we deduct all chronic affections, ailments and diseases that depend on a persistent unhealthy mode of living, as also those innumerable medicinal maladies caused by …the irrational,… persistent, harassing and pernicious treatment of diseases often only of trivial character by physicians of the old school, most the remainder of chronic diseases result from the development of these three chronic miasms, internal syphilis, internal sycosis, but chiefly and in infinitely greater proportion, internal psora”

    This statement shows, Hahneman considered a class of ‘chronic’ diseases’ originating from ‘persistent unhealthy mode of living’ and ‘innumerable medicinal maladies’, other than ‘miasmatic chronic diseases’.

    That means, when treating ‘chronic diseases’ originating from ‘persistent unhealthy mode of living’ and ‘innumerable medicinal maladies’, we need not worry about psora, syphilis or sycosis, but we can treat according to ‘similia similibu cu……rentur’. Remember, most of the ‘chronic diseases’ originating from occupational, environmental, nutritional, drug-induced, infectious and such others belong to the class of “chronic diseases originating from ‘persistent unhealthy mode of living’ and ‘innumerable medicinal maladies”. THEY ARE NOT CAUSED BY MIASMS OF PSORA, SYPHILIS OR SYCOSIS.

    It is obvious that Hahnemann excluded “all chronic affections, ailments and diseases that depend on a persistent unhealthy mode of living, as also those innumerable medicinal maladies” while talking about “chronic diseases” of “miasmatic origin”.

    When treating chronic diseases, first we have to examine whether they belong this group of “chronic affections, ailments and diseases that depend on a persistent unhealthy mode of living, as also those innumerable medicinal maladies” . If so we need not consider miasms, but to find a similimum on the basis of ‘similia similibus curentur’.

    Hahnemann even sub-divided “non-miasmatic chronic diseases” into two: a) All chronic affections, ailments and diseases that depend on a ‘persistent unhealthy mode of living’. b) those ‘innumerable medicinal maladies’. Why the ‘followers of …the master so far ignored this? When selecting a drug on the basis of ‘miasmatic analysis’, can we ignore ‘similia similibus curentur’? If you prescribe a drug without considering ‘similarity’ of symptoms, how can we claim that it is homeopathy? Did Hahnemann ever advise to replace the therapeutic principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’ with ‘theory of miasms’?

    ——————————————————

    Homeopaths should start defining homeopathy as a therapeutic system that cures diseases using ‘molecular imprints’ of drug substances which could produce symptoms similar to the disease in healthy people when used in ‘molecular forms’.

    ——————————————————

    Oxford Dictionary defines homeopathy as : “A system of complementary medicine in which ailments are treated by minute doses of natural substances that in larger amounts would produce symptoms of the ailment”.

    Even homeopaths define homeopathy as a therapeutic system that cures diseases with “small doses” of drug substances which could produce similar symptoms in healthy people when used in “large doses”.

    I think calling potentized drugs as ‘small’ doses of ‘drug substance’ is factually incorrect. A homeopathic preparation in 30c or 200c is not a ‘small’ dose of drug substance. They are actually ‘no doses’ of drug substances, since they contain not even a single drug molecules. There is no ‘drug substance’ in them.

    You cannot explain this phenomenon of curing with ‘no doses’ logically unless you understand and accept ‘Molecular Imprints’ concepts. Once you start thinking in terms of molecular imprints, you will realize that everything fits well with our homeopathic experience on one end, and modern scientific knowledge on other end. There is no way out without accepting MI concepts, because it is the ONLY truth regarding homeopathy.

    Homeopaths should start defining homeopathy as a therapeutic system that cures diseases using ‘molecular imprints’ of drug substances which could produce symptoms similar to the disease in healthy people when used in ‘molecular forms’.

    ——————————————————

    If I am asked to define homeopathy, I would say:

    Homeopathy is a therapeutic method proposed by Samuel Hahnemann, based on his observations that extremely diluted forms of drug substances were capable of curing diseases, if the symptoms of diseases expressed by the patients were similar to the symptoms produced by the same same drug substance in crude form when applied in healthy individuals.

    Hahnemann termed this phenomenon as ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’. Based on this fundamental observation, he developed a therapeutic system named ‘homeopathy’, which was explained in detail in his ‘Organon of Medicine’.

    Constrained by the primitive state of scientific knowledge available to him during his period, hahnemann could not explain the mechanism of therapeutic actions of extremely diluted medicinal substances in scientific terms. Hence, he tried to construct theoretical system based on ‘vital force theory’ and ‘dynamic drug energy’, which do not agree with our present scientific knowledge system. It is the duty of present generation of homeopaths to make homeopathy a scientific medical system.

    In scientific terms, we can explain ‘similia similibus curentur’ as follows:

    ‘Molecular imprints’ of drug molecules contained in extremely diluted forms of drug substances can bind to the pathogenic molecules and thereby relieve the biological molecules from pathological molecular inhibitions, if the pathogenic molecules have ‘functional moieties’ similar in configuration to those of the drug molecules used for preparing the molecular imprints. This similarity and configurational affinity between pathogenic molecules and molecular imprints can be ascertained by comparing the totality of symptoms expressed by the patient with the symptoms that could be produced by the drug substance in healthy individuals.

    I would like to know how all of you think about this definition. Do you think it defines homeopathy well, or it is not appropriate? Would you suggest any modification for this definition?

    ——————————————————

    Molecular imprints of drug molecules contained in potentized drugs cannot be called ‘small doses’ of drug substances. There is no even a single molecule of drug substance present. Call it ‘ghost doses’ of drug substances, if you want.

    ——————————————————

    Even regarding the discovery of hippocrates, the fundamental question remains unanswered. HOW? What is the exact molecular mechanism by which “small doses of that which caused an ailment would cure”? Nobody answered that question scientifically so far.

    What hippocrates discovered is the same phenomenon which was later known as ‘hormesis’. Nobody could so far explain the molecular mechanism involved in ‘hormesis’. In my opinion, only ‘molecular imprints’ can explain ‘hormesis’ or hippocrates’ discovery in scientific terms

    To get an answer to the question how ‘hormesis’ works or ‘small doses’ work, we have to understand the process of ‘dilution’ in terms of ‘size’ of drug molecules. Any drug substance of animal or vegetable origin contain diverse types of drug molecules. Some complex molecules will be very ‘big’ in size, and their number in a given quantity of solution will be comparatively very small as per avogadro theory. Smaller molecules will be present in larger quantities. When we start diluting serially, larger molecules will be ‘imprinted’ into the medium, and molecules get removed from the solution in very early stages of dilution process. Smaller molecules undergo imprinting and removal at later stages only. By reaching 12 c, even the smallest molecules get imprinted and removed. That is why I say potencies above 12c contain molecular imprints only.

    Obviously, lower potencies below 12c will be a mixture of small molecules as well as molecular imprints of larger molecules. We can explain hormesis, hippocrates phenomenon and low potency

    ——————————————————

    Did anybody detect presence of any ‘antibodies’ in the body of anybody while using ‘small’ doses of substances, and absence antibodies when same substance is used in ‘large’ doses? Allergens will produce antibodies not only in ‘small’ doses, not ‘large’ doses also. Sorry, sir. Until and unless you understand and accept the concept of ‘molecular imprints’, you cannot answer these questions scientifically.

    ——————————————————

    A drug in 30c or 200c is not a ‘small’ dose of drug substance. They are actually ‘no doses’ of drug substances, since they contain not even a single drug molecules. Calling potentized drugs as ‘small’ doses of ‘drug substance’ is factually incorrect. There is no ‘drug substance’ in them. You cannot explain this phenomenon logically unless you understand and accept MI concepts. When you start thinking in terms of molecular imprints, you will realize that everything fits well with our homeopathic experience on one end, and scientific knowledge on other end. There is no way out without accepting MI concepts, because it is the ONLY truth regarding homeopathy.

    —————————————————–

    Some people points to Aphorism 81 as an “evidence” to “prove” that Hahnemann
    considered miasms as “genetically inherited”. This aphorism is the most “powerful evidence” they produce in favor of “genetic theory of miasms”.

    Let us see what HAHNEMANN says in Organon : Aphorism 81:

    “The fact that this extremely ancient infecting agent has gradually passed, in some hundreds of generations, through many millions of human organisms and has thus attained an incredible development, renders it in some measure conceivable how it can now display such innumerable morbid forms in the great family of mankind, particularly when we consider what a number of circumstances contribute to the production of these great varieties of chronic diseases (secondary symptoms of psora), besides the indescribable diversity of men in respect of their congenital corporeal constitutions, so that it is no wonder if such a variety of injurious agencies, acting from within and from without and sometimes continually, on such a variety of organisms permeated with the psoric miasm, should produce an innumerable variety of defects, injuries, derangements and sufferings, which have hitherto been treated of in the old pathological works, under a number of special names, as diseases of an independent character.”

    In this aphorism, master says about psora: “this extremely ancient infecting agent has gradually passed, in some hundreds of generations, through many millions of human organism”.

    He is talking about an “infectious agent” that “passed through generations”. He has explained in “chronic diseases” how this “infectious agent” “passed through generations of humanity”, in various forms of “skin infections” such as “leprosy, scarlatina, scabies” and many other forms. Can we infer that by using the word “generations”, he was talking about “genetic inheritance” of leprosy, scarlatina, scabies and other infectious agent”? He only meant that those infections were carried down through ‘generations’ of humanity as “infectious agents”, not as “genetic material”. If somebody talk about “inheritance of property rights through generations”, would anybody interpret it as “inheritance of property rights as genetic material”? How can “infectious agents” of itch, syphilis and gonorrohea can be “inherited through genes”?

    Further, Hahnemann has said about transfer of psora from “nurse to infant”, “mother to infant from womb and genital tract”, “between family members”, “physician to patient”, “physical contacts” and many other modes. Can genetic materials be “inherited” through these modes?

    The problem is, our modern ‘miasmatic analysis experts’ have made us think all diseases in terms of ‘miasms’. The moment we mention a disease or symptom, or name of a drug, they start talking about ‘prominent miasm’, ‘tubercular spetrum’, ‘polymiasmatic’ and such phrases. The most funny thing is that ‘analysis’ of two experts never agree. They are confused, and make others confused. When talking about ‘miasms’ hahnemann was concerned only about ‘chronic disease dispositions’ caused by ‘infectious agent’. He asked to consider the presence of chronic ‘infectious miasms’ in cases where the diseases are not belonging to nutritional, environmental, occupational, iatrogenic and such causes. He used the term ‘faulty living’ and ‘faulty drugging’, which contain all these. In his perod, he knew nothing about ‘genetic causes’, and he did not mention those group of chronic diseases.

    Since he expressly said about miasms as ‘chronic disease dispositions’ caused by ‘infectious agents’, we can include ‘genetic diseases’ also in ‘non-miasmatic’ category. In fact, all chronic diseases, which are not mediated by ‘off-target’ molecular inhibitions caused by ‘anti-bodies’ formed in the body against ‘exogenous’ proteins, belong to ‘non-miasmatic’ category.

    ——————————————————

    I don’t agree with roberts. According to hahnemann, psora is the ‘chronic disease dispositions’ caused by ‘infectious agents of itch’. As per our modern scientific understanding, only way an ;infectious agent’ can cause ‘chronic disease dispositions’ is by generating antibodies, which can exist life long and create off-target molecular inhibitions amounting to chronic diseases. Hence, I perceive miasms as chronic diseases arising from antibodies formed against ‘infectious agents’. ‘Deficiency’ cannot be related with infectious agents.

    ——————————————————

    Kent said in Lesser Writings: “You cannot divorce medicine and theology. Man exists all the way down from his innermost spiritual to his outermost natural”.

    Remember, this is not the words of a religious preacher. These words were spoken by a great physician while explaining the philosophy of homeopathy to his students. This statement clearly exposes the world outlook of Kent, which he used abundantly while explaining homeopathic philosophy.

    By saying “you cannot divorce medicine from theology”,Kent actually ‘divorced homeopathy from scientific thought’ for ever.Kent remains to be the most quoted and most followed ‘homeopathic philosopher’ for that class of ‘spiritual homeopaths’, who want homeopathy to remain ‘divorced’ from modern scientific knowledge and scientific methods.

    ——————————————————

    Hahnemann only said that Psora was the most ancient and insidious miasm, and that it was derived from skin eruptions of various types in the past, such as scabies (Itch), leprosy and psoriasis. These had been contracted by ancestors or in one’s own early childhood. The suppression of these conditions especially through the use of ointments he held to be the primary cause of Psora.

    “Psora is that most ancient, most universal, most destructive, and yet most misapprehended chronic miasmatic disease which for many thousands of years has disfigured and tortured mankind… and become the mother of all the thousands of incredibly various chronic diseases… [Chronic Diseases, p9]”

    But Kent, in his Lectures, greatly enlarged upon the theory of miasms, proposing that Psora was the foundation of all other illness, without which mankind would be pure and healthy both in mind and body, as in the Garden of Eden. He thus regarded Psora as being equated with the ‘Fall of Man’ and with original sinfulness. He portrayed Psora in this highly moralistic light as also being the foundation of the sexual miasms that came later.

    Beyond any doubt,Kent here deviated a lot from original concepts of Hahnemann regarding miasms, there by making homeopathy more of theology than medical science.

    From the quotes above, it is clear that Kentemphasized the moral aspect of origin of miasms, connecting it with ‘sexual sins’. Hahnemann unlike Kent, attached no moral dimension whatsoever to the sexual nature of the two latter miasms.

    See Kent saying: ‘You cannot divorce medicine and theology”. And, ‘A man who cannot believe in God cannot become a homeopath.”
    Being spiritual does not necessarily make one a ‘good’ homeopath or ‘bad’ homeopath. If one know how to apply simila similibus curentur correctly, and have enough knowledge of materia medica, anybody can be a ‘good’ homeopath.

    It was Kent, who unnecessarily introduced the issue of being spiritualist or not as a condition to be a ‘good’ homeopath. His statement that “one who does not believe in god cannot be a homeopath” is totally irrelevant. Hahnemann never placed that condition. It was kent who ‘married’ homeopathy with theology- not hahnemann. I was discussing that aspect of kent’s contribution in my article. In my opinion, without freeing homeopathy from this ‘theological’ and ‘spiritualistic’ philosophy of kent, we cannot study and practice homeopathy as a ‘medical science’. Homeopathy will remain a ‘theological’ or ‘spiritualistic’ healing art as kent wanted it to be.

    A scientist can be a spiritualist also. But a man with ‘scientific world outlook’ cannot be a spiritualist. You can give any number of great scientists who were spiritualists. Being a spiritualist, a scientist cannot utilize full potentials of scientific knowledge. To follow a ‘scientific world out look’ is is entirely different from ‘knowledge in science’.

    Homeopathy cannot be a ‘scientific medicine’, if you understand and practice it as ‘spiritual medicine’ or ‘theological medicine’. I know the influence of spiritualism and kentian philosophy is very deep rooted among homeopaths, and my statement in this regard will not be easily accepted by the profession. But I am sure, homeopaths having ‘scientific world outlook’ will accept my statement.

    Kent said “one who do not believe in god cannot be a homeopath. No man with a scientific world outlook can agree to this statement.

    Homeopathy as a medical science has nothing to do with ‘believing in god’. You can believe or not believe in god, and be a good homeopath.
    I am fully convinced that without freeing homeopathic philosophy and homeopathic community from the spiritualistic or theological influence of ‘kentian philosophy’, we cannot hope homeopathy to become a scientific medical system.

    Studying homeopathic philosophy directly from the original works of hahnemann such as organon and chronic diseases, using scientific and logical mindset is essential first step to free oneself from the influence of ‘spiritualistic’ philosophy ofKent. Only then can we realize the importance of scientific understanding of homeopathy.

    ——————————————————

    Hahnemann says in Organon : Aphorism 1: Footnote:

    “His(physician’s)) mission is not, however, to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes and the mode in which diseases originate in the interior of the organism, (whereon so many physicians have hitherto ambitiously wasted their talents and their time); nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate cause (which must ever remain concealed), wrapped in unintelligible words and an inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned in order to astonish the ignorant – whilst sick humanity sighs in vain for aid. Of such learned reveries (to which the name of theoretic medicine is given, and for which special professorships are instituted) we have had quite enough, and it is now high time that all who call themselves physicians should at length cease to deceive suffering mankind with mere talk, and begin now, instead, for once to act, that is, really to help and to cure.”

    What he actually meant by this statement? By saying “we have had enough” of “theoretic medicine”, does he mean “theoretical medicine” has no any relevance in medical science? If he actually meant so, how could he justify his ‘organon’ and ‘chronic diseases’ which are classical examples of texts on ‘theoretical medicine’, both of which obviously contain a lot of “speculations and hypotheses”?

    ——————————————————

    Hahnemann says: “it is now high time that all who call themselves physicians should at length cease to deceive suffering mankind with mere talk, and begin now, instead, for once to act, that is, really to help and to cure.”

    I think he was referring to those physicians, who “deceive suffering patients with talk”, instead of “really help to cure”.

    Thinking, writing, teaching and studying theoretical medicine has nothing to do with what hahnemann considered ‘deceiving suffering people with talk”.

    I think, by this statement hahnemann meant that a ‘true’ physician should not try to ‘deceive his patients’ by ‘talking theories, speculations and hypotheses, but should “act”, “really help and to cure”.

    Most funny thing about this thing is, homeopaths use this “statement of master” to cover up their lack of knowledge in theoretical medicine, and their laziness to learn theoretical medicine. They pretend to be “following the guideline of master” by not learning ‘theoretical medicine’!. They say, MASTER HAS ASKED US ONLY TO CURE, NOT TO LEARN THEORIES!

    These lazy people conveniently ignore what master said in third aphorism: “To be “a true practitioner of the healing art”, the physician should “clearly perceive what is to be cured in diseases”, “what is curative in medicines”, and how to adapt, the “curative” to the “to be cured”. He should also know the “exact mode of preparation and quantity”, “proper period for repeating the dose” and how to remove “obstacles to recovery””.

    Nobody can “clearly perceive” “what is to be cured”, “what is curative” and “how to adapt the ‘curative’ to ‘to be cured’ without learning theoretical medicine. In modern times, that include learning and updating of biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, anatomy, physiology, pathology and all such subjects. You cannot become a ‘true’ physician, or ‘cure’ suffering people without this knowledge. Hahnemann only said, you should not deceive suffering people by talking theory. He did not say you need not learn theory!

    ——————————————————

    According to Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, the highest ideal of a physician is to get a “rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of health” of his patient “on easily comprehensible principles”.

    To be “a true practitioner of the healing art”, the physician should “clearly perceive what is to be cured in diseases”, “what is curative in medicines”, and how to adapt, the “curative” to the “to be cured”. He should also know the “exact mode of preparation and quantity”, “proper period for repeating the dose” and how to remove “obstacles to recovery”.

    Except the possibility of any “exciting or maintaining cause”, “a miasm”, and “accessory circumstances”, nothing but the “morbid symptoms”, should be considered by the physician, and “totality of symptoms”, should be the sole means to “determine the choice of the most appropriate remedy”.

    Homeopath should clearly perceive “what is to be cured in diseases”, “what is curative in medicines”, and how to adapt, the “curative” to the “to be cured”. And, ““totality of symptoms”, should be the sole means to “determine the choice of the most appropriate remedy”.

    ——————————————————

    I. A TRUE PHYSICIAN SHOULD KNOW:

    1. What is to be cured in diseases.

    2. What is curative in medicines

    3. How to adapt the ‘curative’ to the ‘to be cured’

    4. Exact mode of preparation and quantity of medicine

    5. Proper period of repeating the dose

    6. How to remove obstacles to recovery

    II. PHYSICIAN SHOULD CONSIDER:

    1. Exiting or maintaining cause

    2. Presence of a miasm

    3. Accessory circumstance

    4. Morbid symptoms

    III. CHOICE OF REMEDY SHOULD BASED ON:

    Totality of symptoms only.

    ——————————————————

    By ‘totality of symptoms’, did hahnemann actually mean ‘morbid symptoms only’, or does he include exiting or maintaining cause, miasms, accessory circumstances and morbid symptoms within the purview of ‘totality of symptoms’? Kindly note, he used the term ‘totality of symptoms’ NOT ‘morbid symptoms’, as the “the sole means to determine the choice of the most appropriate remedy”. I think he made the distinction on this point very intentionally.

    Obviously, by ‘totality of symptoms’, hahnemann indicates totality of exciting and maintaining causes, miasms morbid symptoms as well as accessory circumstances. Prescriptions should be based on ‘totality’ of all these factors.

    —————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————

    Everyday I make two or three posts dealing with various fundamental questions involved in the scientific understanding of homeopathy. I wonder why nobody interested in meaningful discussions about these concepts I propose in these posts? Why everybody ignoring, or not interested? Does it mean I failed to make my points clear? Or does it mean all members think these thoughts are ‘inconsequential’ for homeopathy, as somebody said on this group yesterday?

    One senior homeopath commented: “we are not at all bothered about how homeopathy works. IT WORKS- that is enough for us”!

    Another friend commented: “We are interested only in showing results- not theories and hypotheses”

    Newton should have said: “We are not bothered why apples falls to the ground. IT FALLS- that is enough for us”!

    Everyday I get hundreds of application requests and games requests from my friends- even from very senior homeopaths who are considered to be very much busy with practice. They tag me nonsense photographs, and send links to funny and sexy videos. Deleting and untaging them is a most time consuming job for me. Even today, have 230 such requests to delete. That means, all of these people are regularly coming to facebook and playing games and enjoying fun videos. But none of them are interested in discussing serious topics that would resolve misunderstandings, enhance knowledge level and make them better scientific homeopaths. WHY SO?

    ——————————————————

    In my opinion, phenomenon known as ‘hormesis’ could be scientifically explained only using the concepts of ‘molecular imprints’.

    Attempts to explain the properties of higher homeopathic potencies basing on the phenomenon of ‘hormesis’ had been done by some people earlier. This phenomenon was proposed by Southam and Ehrlich and Stebbing. They proposed that a substance which acts as a toxin in high concentrations, acts as a stimulant in low concentrations. This phenomenon is known as ‘hormesis’. There is a theory known as Arndt-Schulz rule or Schulz’ law to explain this phenomenon. The essence of this theory is “For every substance, small doses stimulate, moderate doses inhibit, and large doses kill”. Hugo Paul Friedrich Schulz and Rudolf Arndt are the exponents of this theory. Toxins in their highly diluted form stimulates biological processes. In their concentrated forms the toxins inhibit or kills the biological processes. But even today it has not been possible to explain this phenomenon scientifically.

    The scientific experiments conducted at Utrecht University, undertaken by a team under the leadership of Roeland van Wijk and Fred A.C. Wiegant tried to explain homeopathy on the basis of theory of ‘hormesis’. Even though these experiments succeeded in proving the therapeutic properties of potentized drugs to a certain extent, they failed to correlate it with the phenomenon of ‘hormesis’, and to uncover the molecular kinetics of ‘hormesis’. In my opinion, the phenomenon of ‘hormesis’ could have been better explained on the basis of ‘hydrosomes’ or ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules, which are likely to be formed in the highly diluted solution of a toxic substance.

    ——————————————————

    Many homeopaths believe that drug substances are converted to ‘energy’ during potentization. ‘Matter’ getting ‘converted’ to ‘energy’ during potentization is a concept widely propagated by people trying to establish that homeopathy is ‘energy medicine’.

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

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

    Please remember, the medicinal property is decided by the molecular structure and chemical properties of drug substances, not by the universal ‘atomic energy’.

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

    ——————————————————

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

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

    ——————————————————

    I believe the greatest ‘limitation’ of homeopathy is that we do not know ‘how homeopathy works’. My only mission is to find an answer to that fundamental question in terms of modern scientific knowledge, in a way convincing to scientific community. I believe all other riddle of homeopathy will be spontaneously resolved once this fundamental question is answered.

    I have no ‘methods’, ‘systems’ or ‘theories’ to own, propagate or market. I do not want ‘followers’ ‘believers’ or ‘defenders’. I simply talk what I am convinced, what I feel right. If anybody think I am wrong, let it be so. Not interested in ‘proving’ anything through arguments.

    If anybody is interested to know more about my concepts, I am ready to explain. If anybody is convinced with my explanations, I am happy. If not convinced, kindly leave me alone.

    I am not an academician, scientist or professional with high credentials, positions, qualifications, achievements, fame or authorities- an ordinary old lay man. But do not question my natural right for thought and expression.

    ——————————————————

    Concept of MIT is not a new ‘theory’ or ‘method’. It is only an approach to homeopathy. It is only a scientific and logical way of understanding an explaining how homeopathy works.

    MIT is only a scientific and logical way of understanding and explaining the real processes involved in potentization.

    MIT is only a scientific and logical way of understanding and explaining what are the active principles of potentized drugs.

    MITis only a scientific and logical way of understanding and explaining the molecular mechanism of therapeutics involved in the principle of ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’.

    When somebody ask me “how many cases you cured with MIT”, or “tell us a case you cured with MIT to prove your theory”, I instantly realize the guy did not get even a preliminary idea of MIT. All cases cured by all homeopaths are actually examples of how MIT works. MIT explains the molecular mechanism involved in those cures in terms of modern scientific knowledge. Scientific assumptions and interpretations underlying MIT concepts have actually to be proved not by ‘cured cases’, but by scientific experiments designed and executed according to scientific methods.

    ——————————————————

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

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

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

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

    Why not these friends do some experiments by giving bell 200 or merc sol to a few more persons and watching the outcome before reaching this type of conclusions?
    Dear friends, ‘Cause-Effect’ relationship is different from ‘Before-After’ relationship. Kindly use some logical thinking and rational experiments before declaring foolish conclusions. That is scientific method

    Once there was a question posted on ‘predictive’ page by a ‘follower’. He said, his patient was on lachesis, and recently had a fracture on right hand. ‘Master’ answered, the fracture happened due to driving of symptoms in ‘wrong’ direction, ie; from left to right. Can lachesis cause fracture on right side, if it was wrongly prescribed? The ‘follower’ did not ask any question before swallowing this wonderful answer from the master. Since ‘fracture of right side’ happened ‘after’ lachesis, it should be considered as ’caused by’ lachesis. This is the logic!

    Same thing happens during ‘drug proving’. Once a dose of drug is given to a volunteer for proving, each and every sensations, feelings, mood changes, pains… everything is recorded and ascribed to the drug used for proving. They are included in materia medica at least as a one mark symptoms. We forget the fact that even without that dose of drug, a living human being will experience different sensations, feelings, pains and mood changes!Same thing happens during ‘drug proving’. Once a dose of drug is given to a volunteer for proving, each and every sensations, feelings, mood changes, pains… everything is recorded and ascribed to the drug used for proving. They are included in materia medica at least as a one mark symptoms. We forget the fact that even without that dose of drug, a living human being will experience different sensations, feelings, pains and mood changes!

    ——————————————————

    If anybody is so much sure that we can prove drugs using high potencies, kindly submit yourself with following experiment before an impartial team of experimentors:

    You can recruit 10 individuals apparently healthy, and record all their symptoms and keep them in your custody, giving attested copies to the observing team.

    Then the team would split the volunteers into TWO groups, totally keeping you blinded. They would give a well proved polychrest remedy in high potency to first group, and second group will be kept as control group, giving only unpotentized alcohol-water mixture.

    Drugs will be continued for a period you agree to, and you can record the symptoms of all individuals daily, for a period we mutually agree.

    Then, using the symptoms collected from proving, you should identify the persons who were controls, and should identify the drugs which was administered for this ‘proving’.

    If interested in such an experiment, you can propose modifications in this protocol

    ——————————————————

    A veteran homeopath from India, author of 12 books on homeopathy, posted on our group explaining his wonderful insight regarding ‘vital force’ and ‘energy of medicines’ as follows:

    “The materialists/scientists have no means to verify the materialistic existence of substances that are non-existing on the scientific- apparatus or in laboratory. The potentization (energy) of homoeopathic medicines is, therefore, unacceptable scientifically. See the irony here. Scientists agree that life is energy and all energy is living energy. They also agree that within every living creature there exists a vital and mental organism, the invisible counterpart of the physical structure and that the source of all vital and physiological phenomena is originally contributed by the Creative Will (Mind-Life-Spirit). The scientists agree to all this logically. All this cannot be proved in a laboratory.”

    “Similar is the case of the energy of medicines and also the vital force. We cannot see them but they exist. They exist because we see our whole of organism working.
    We call India ‘Bharat Mata’or mother India. Can we prove that India is our mother? No, we cannot prove it. Still we respect it as our mother. Saint Arvind said that India couldn’t be called only a geographical state with its borders and limitations of boundaries. During struggle for Indian independence, Arvind appealed to people to make India free because it is our mother and no child would like to see mother imprisoned under British regime. India has a soul called ‘Mother’. In the same way, our body has a soul, the vital force. We cannot prove India as our mother. We cannot prove our body has our soul.”

    I quote this post here to demonstrate the pathetic level of scientific understanding existing in even our very senior homeopaths who ‘author’ bundles of books to ‘educate’ the next generation of homeopaths.

    He says: “India has a soul called Mother. In the same way, our body has a soul, the vital force.”

    How could our respected homeopaths be so childish and silly like this? How can I discuss science of therapeutics with this type of people? Personally I feel very much disappointed to know that he is author of 12 books on homeopathy. I was wonder-struck to hear him saying ‘India has a soul’, and comparing the concept of ‘bharat mata’ with ‘vital force’ concept of homeopathy. Sorry to say, this is a grave situation. My only request to him was, kindly write only ‘clinical’ works on homeopathy- never ‘publish’ books on ‘homeopathic philosophy’ of this type. At least he should do that much favor to coming generation of homeopathy.

    ——————————————————

    If you take some time to go through my articles on MIT, 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”.

    We cannot ‘show’ anybody supra-molecular formations of water. It should be ‘understood’, not ‘seen’. To understand MIT concepts I propose, learn the supra-molecular properties of water. Learn the subject matter of molecular imprinting technology. Learn the modern biochemistry and molecular biology. Learn advanced concepts of enzyme kinetics and molecular level pathology. We have to update our basic knowledge in the topics I discuss. Then only you can follow these concepts. Then only I can ‘prove’ molecular imprints concepts to you.

    Once you acquire the background knowledge and then read my articles, you will see that everything I say is simple ‘proved’ science, and only very little remains to be ‘proved’.

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

    We should come out our “comfort zones” and get ourselves exposed to a new knowledge environment, which would demand a fundamental re-thinking and modifying of many things we ‘believed’, learned, taught and practiced as ‘homeopathy’ so far. That would not be a simple task.

    ——————————————————

    PLEASE REMEMBER THESE FUNDAMENTAL POINTS ABOUT MOLECULAR IMPRINTS:

    1. Molecular imprints are not ‘mimics’ of drug molecules, but ‘configurational negatives’ that can bind to drug molecules or similar molecules. Hence potentized medicines act not similar to, but as antidites to original drugs.

    2. If drug molecules and pathogenic molecules are ‘molecular keys’, and biological target molecules are ‘molecular locks’, molecular imprints are ‘artificial keyholes’. Not ‘duplicate keys’.

    3. Molecular imprints can bind only to pathogenic molecules having complementary configuration. If pathogenic molecules having complementary affinity are not present, molecular imprints are inert. Hence, potentized drugs act only if indicated.

    4. Molecular imprints cannot interact each other, and hence potentized medicines never antidote each other.

    5. Molecular imprints act in capacity of their configurational affinity with ligand molecules. Biological molecules interact with their natural ligands in capacities of ‘configurational affinity’ and ‘charge affinity’. Hence, molecular imprints cannot interfere in the interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands. That means, potentized drug never act as pathological agents, and cannot do any harm even if applied without indications.

    ——————————————————

    If drug molecules are ‘keys’, ‘mimics’ would act as ‘duplicate keys’. But ‘molecular imprints’ act as ‘artificial keyholes’ for those ‘keys’ and ‘similar ‘ keys. This point is very important. If we forget this point, we cannot explain ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘similia similibus curentur’.

    If beneviste could have perceived the concept of ‘molecular imprints’ acting as not as ‘duplicate keys’ but as ‘artificial keyholes’, he would have designed his experiments accordingly, so that he can prove that ‘molecular imprints’ can ‘antidote’ or ‘deactivate’ original molecules, thereby preventing them from interacting with biological molecules.

    Since ‘anti- IgE antiserum’ contains natural ligands of enzymes involved in human basophil de-granulation, ‘molecular imprints’ of anti- IgE antiserum cannot be prevent their natural interaction. We should not forget that ‘molecular imprints’ cannot interfere in the interaction between biological targets and their natural ligands. In the absence of this understanding, the experiments of beneveniste were wrongly designed, and were inevitably bound to fail.

    ‎’Molecular imprints’ can prevent only ‘off-target’ actions of biological ligands. For example, we use potentized thyroid extract, which contain molecular imprints of various thyroid hormones having specific roles in metabolism. Potentized thyroidinum never interferes in the natural biological actions of thyroid hormones. But those molecular imprints can rectify the pathological conditions caused by ‘off-target’ bindings of thyroid hormones, especially in situations of hyperthyroidism. This is applicable to all potentized hormone remedies. They never interfere in normal biological actions of those hormones.

    Reason behind this phenomenon is related with the dynamics of molecular interactions. Interactions between natural targets and their ligands involves two factors: configurational affinity and charge affinity. But interactions of ‘molecular imprints’ and their ‘ligands’ involves ‘configurational affinity’ only, without any charge affinity.

    ——————————————————

    Kindly avoid talking ‘vital force’, ‘non-material’, ‘spirit-like’, ‘dynamic’ and such things from our discussions about scientific homeopathy.

    The concepts of ‘vital force’ and ‘dynamic drug energy’, on which the whole philosophical system of homeopathy is believed to be built up on, stands as a formidable stumbling block in its way of harmony with modern science and its methodology.

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

    1.Life exists only through ‘vital processes’, which are complex chains of molecular level biochemical interactions purely material in nature.

    2. A state of pathology is created by some or other deviations happening in these biochemical processes due to molecular errors of pure material nature.

    3. Therapeutics is possible only through materialistic intervention in these biochemical processes.

    4. Medicines are the material means for such an intervention.

    5. It is due to the peculiar material properties of medicines that they are able to intervene in biochemical processes.

    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’.

    Even if we subscribe to the concept of ‘vital force’ at the ideological level, we have to answer the question: “How that vital force expresses in a living organism?” Only as molecular level ‘vital processes’. Using medicinal agents of material qualities, we can deal with these ‘vital processes’ only at the material level. It is an absurdity to think that as physicians, we 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, can 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’ are we talking about?

    ‎’Personality’ of a plant or animal has different levels. Kingdoms, family, species, individual- there are a lot of such levels. There will be molecules specific to kingdom, families, species as well as individual-specific- organ specific- tissue specific. Which level ‘personality’ you are talking about?

    We should learn to think about our drug substances in terms of their constituent molecules- not as ‘personalities’ of a plant or animal

    Proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids- these are present in all living beings. They are not present in non-living world. That way, there will be kingdom-specific, family-specific, species-specific, individual-specific, organ-specific and tissue specific molecular constitution. Which of them are contained in our drug sample decides its medicinal properties.

    ——————————————————

    By ‘drug proving’, we are actually administering a drug sample with specific molecular constitution. The constituent molecules act upon different biological molecules in their individual capacities, and produce diverse types of molecular inhibitions, which expressed as diverse groups of mental and physical symptoms. Our materia medica is a collection of such symptoms. If you closely observe different materia medica of same drug, you can see a lot of difference in symptoms. Those differences are due to differences in molecular level constitutions of drug samples used for proving. Some symptoms will be common to all materia medica of a drug. Those symptoms represent the kingdom-specific, family specific and species specific molecules. Some times we can see a lot of symptoms common to different plants of same species, same family or same kingdom. But, symptoms representing ‘individual-specific’ molecules will be different in different materia medica based on different provings. All these factors show the importance of perceiving our drugs in terms of their constituent molecules.

    If we prepare NUX tincture separately from root, bark, leaves, seeds, flowers etc and prove them, we will get entirely different materia medica. But there will be some symptoms common to all those samples. Those symptoms represent the action of ‘species-specific’, family-specific, and kingdom-specific chemical molecules.

    We can see some symptoms of a plant remedy similar to a mineral remedy. For example, pulsatilla has many symptoms similar to silicea. That is why we say silicea is the chronic of pulsatilla. Pulsatilla plant contains large amount of silicic acid absorbed from silicea rich sandy soil where they grow. Nux vomica has many symptoms similar to that of copper. Nux plant absorbs large amount of copper from soil. It is this copper factor that produces such symptoms in the proving of NUX.

    There was a NUX VOMICA tree in my backyard. I happened to plant some cucumbers near to them, and the cucumber vines covered the whole nux tree. But the cucumbers harvested from it was very bitter in taste, and it produced symptoms of nux poisoning in those who consumed those cucumbers. I suspect the cucumber plant somehow happened to share the molecules of nux plant, may be from fallen and disintegrated nux leaves. Had I proved a tincture prepared from that cucumber plant, it would have given a lot of NUX symptoms

    SEPIA has many symptoms similar to iodine, natrum mur, bromium, fluorine etc. Ink of cuttle fish is concentrated with these minerals absorbed from sea water in which they live

    NATRUM MUR and IODUM have a lot of common symptoms. We know, iodine is commercially extracted from see weeds. Obviously, iodine will be contaminated with sodium chroride, and NAT MUR will be contaminated with iodine of see water.

    ——————————————————

    MIT concepts empowers homeopathy a lot by providing a strong scientific foundation for our theory and practice. It gives us confidence to face and interact with our counterparts in modern medical and scientific community as professional equals, enabling us to discuss the basic principles and modus operandi of our therapeutic art with them in a language understandable and convincing to them. MIT concepts effectively resolves the paradigm divide between modern science and homeopathy. Try to explain homeopathy to your critics and skeptics in terms of scientific concepts of MIT, and experience how they respond in a way totally different from earlier ones. You can see, now it is not so easy for them to sweep aside homeopathy as ‘fake’, ‘unscientific’, placebo’ or ‘belief’. Try it with confidence, and experience the difference.

    ——————————————————

    Without knowing what exactly happens during potentization, what are the active principles of potentized drugs, and what is the exact molecular mechanism by which they act as therapeutic agents, there is no meaning in speculating about potency selection, dosage, mode of administration, repetition, drug relationships and such things. Once we answer the fundamental questions in terms of MIT concepts, all other riddles will be easily resolved.

    ——————————————————

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————

    Modern scientists would any time arrive at ‘drug designing by molecular imprinting in water’, and utilize it with out any mention of homeopathy or potentization. Actually, I am making all my ideas about MIT public with the hope that it may some how prevent allopaths from turning “this discovery in ther side by some way” without recognizing homeopathy.

    I see the danger in the hesitation of homeopathic community to accept MIT concepts at the earliest. By this hesitation and negligence, we are actually giving allopaths a chance to “turn this discovery in ther side by some way”.

    They will have no choice if homeopathic community explains homeopathy and potentization using MIT concepts, before allopaths “turn this discovery in ther side by some way”.

    If homeopathic community fail or delay to recognize and accept ‘molecular imprinting’ as part of their theoretical system, it would be easy for modern medicine to interpret it as their independent invention, and incorporate it into their ‘science’ as a new technology of target-specific drug designing. They can easily ‘hijack’ molecular imprinting without any mention or recognizing of homeopathy, potentization or samuel hahnemann. Hope homeopaths would realize the gravity of this imminent danger.

    ——————————————————

    Dr. Dinesh N Nair, a veteran homeopath from kerala, posted as follows:

    “Dear Chandran Nambiar, How Homoeopathy works,was a big question mark among the believers of Homoeopathy. Many made different explanations from their imaginative capacity and powers. I had not find any scientific explanation better than yours till date. It,s a fact that they can’t appreciate you because of a better explanation based on scientific base and theories, will make their theories discarded. I appreciate you even though there are many nuts yet to be cracked.
    It,s a fact that we live with Homoeopathy, and you live for Homoeopathy. Dr.Dinesh N Nair”.

    Thank you, sir. Such an appreciation from a veteran like you is really a matter of pride for me.Dr. Dinesh N Nair, a veteran homeopath from kerala, posted as follows:

    “Dear Chandran Nambiar, How Homoeopathy works,was a big question mark among the believers of Homoeopathy. Many made different explanations from their imaginative capacity and powers. I had not find any scientific explanation better than yours till date. It,s a fact that they can’t appreciate you because of a better explanation based on scientific base and theories, will make their theories discarded. I appreciate you even though there are many nuts yet to be cracked.
    It,s a fact that we live with Homoeopathy, and you live for Homoeopathy. Dr.Dinesh N Nair”.

    Thank you, sir. Such an appreciation from a veteran like you is really a matter of pride for me.

    ——————————————————

    Even though modern medicine is more and more turning to target-specific designer drugs, ‘drug designing’ using water molecules and molecular imprinting in water are subjects still unknown to modern drug designers. Homeopathy has been using this technique for last 200+ years in the form of potentization. Once the ongoing search for new drug designing techniques and new substances for molecular imprinting finally land them inevitably into the understanding of ‘molecular imprinting in water’, modern medicine and scientific community will have to recognize homeopathy and its potentization. At that moment, they will have to recognize the genius of samuel hahnemann. It is only a matter of time to happen that. Wait and see.Even though modern medicine is more and more turning to target-specific designer drugs, ‘drug designing’ using water molecules and molecular imprinting in water are subjects still unknown to modern drug designers. Homeopathy has been using this technique for last 200+ years in the form of potentization. Once the ongoing search for new drug designing techniques and new substances for molecular imprinting finally land them inevitably into the understanding of ‘molecular imprinting in water’, modern medicine and scientific community will have to recognize homeopathy and its potentization. At that moment, they will have to recognize the genius of samuel hahnemann. It is only a matter of time to happen that. Wait and see.

    Modern scientists would any time arrive at ‘drug designing by molecular imprinting in water’, and utilize it with out any mention of homeopathy or potentization. Actually, I am making all my ideas about MIT public with the hope that it may some how prevent allopaths from turning “this discovery in ther side by some way” without recognizing homeopathy.

    I see the danger in the hesitation of homeopathic community to accept MIT concepts at the earliest. By this hesitation and negligence, we are actually giving allopaths a chance to “turn this discovery in ther side by some way”.

    They will have no choice if homeopathic community explains homeopathy and potentization using MIT concepts, before allopaths “turn this discovery in ther side by some way”.

    ——————————————————

    Molecular Imprinting involved in Potentization can be perceived as a sort of ‘molecular engraving’, in which ‘drug-molecule-shaped’ cavities are engraved into supra-molecular clusters of water and ethyl alcohol. These nanocavities can act as artificial binding sites or ‘locks’ for ‘drug-molecule-shaped’ pathogenic molecules through a ‘key-lock’ interaction, thereby relieving the biological molecules from pathological molecular inhibitions. This is the exact molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics.

    ——————————————————

    Some of my dear friends think that I “shoot down a lot of great homeopaths” through my articles and comments. I “do shoot down” not for some personal vendetta. I am criticizing the ideas they propagate, which I think are unscientific and harmful for future evolution of homeopathy into a scientific medicine. When I criticize somebody, I have only his ideas before me. My criticisms no way imply any sort of disrespect towards those great human beings. I have criticized hahnemann many times for his unscientific speculations. But that does not mean I disrespect that great genius. I consider ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’ as two great inventions in human history. I always try to perceive people in their totality of personality, logically balancing their negative and positive contributions.

    I was always a critic of KENT regarding his spiritualistic approach towards homeopathy. In my article “‘Kentian Philosophy’- Theological Influence That ‘Divorced’ Homeopathy From Scientific Knowledge System For Ever” I have made a hard criticism against him. But I regularly use KENT repertory for my clinical work, and consider the hard work he put into the compilation of that monumental work has no parallel in homeopathic history. I regularly study KKENT’s Lectures on materia medica, as I consider it very useful in studying ‘constitutions’. My criticism and appreciation of KENT is balanced and logical. I have great respect for that great homeopath.

    ——————————————————

    Hahnemann made two important observations regarding therapeutics 250 years ago:

    1. Diseases with specific symptoms can be cured by drugs that can produce similar symptoms in healthy individuals. He called it ‘similia similibus curentur’.

    2. When used according to ‘similia similibus curentur’, dug substances can act as powerful therapeutic agents even in high dilutions through a process of serial ‘dilution and succussion’. He called this process as ‘potentization’.

    These TWO are the main OBSERVATIONS made by Hahnemann, which form the fundamental principles of Homeopathy.

    Hahnemann tried to explain these OBSERVATIONS in terms of scientific and philosophical knowledge available to him in that POINT OF TIME. Organon consists of these theoretical explanations and speculations. Since scientific knowledge was in its primitive stage at that time, Hahnemann’s explanations were bound to bear that limitations. ORGANON contains a lot of theorizations and speculations that do not agree with, or go against modern scientific understanding.

    Equipped with modern scientific knowledge and its tools, we are now in a far better position than Samuel Hahnemann to explain the phenomena he observed 250 years ago. Now we can explain ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’ more scientifically, rationally and logically. With full respect the great genius of our master, we should be truthful and bold enough to discard those evidently unscientific theoretical speculations of ORGANON.

    I would like to call ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ and ‘Potentization’ as FUNDAMENTAL OBSERVATIONS OF HOMEOPATHY, rather than using the term ‘fundamental principles’. That would be more close to truth.

    These two FUNDAMENTAL OBSERVATIONS were based on experiences, experiments and logical evaluations of OBJECTIVE PHENOMENA OF NATURE done by a great intellectual person. But the ‘principles’ he used to explain these objective phenomena were unscientific, obviously due to the limitations of scientific knowledge available to him at that time. We should accept his OBSERVATIONS, but judiciously discard or modify his unscientific PRINCIPLES.

    ——————————————————

    I have also a small ambition- a small dream of being myself immortal. I hope I can continue to live here among you for ever through my MIT concept of homeopathy, even after I cease to physically exist in this world. You may feel it is too much to have such a ‘big’ dream for a humble human being like me. Any how, I dare to dream so, and I dare to put it on record here, as I have already crossed my 61 years of existence on this earth, and am not sure how much time remains for me.

    ——————————————————

    What I say about homeopathy in terms of ‘molecular imprints’ cannot be seen in any of the aphorisms of organon, and as such you cannot discuss this topic only in the light of knowledge you get from ORGANON. We cannot get scientific answers for all our questions from organon. ORGANON is only a BOOK written by a GREAT MAN 250 years ago to explain the phenomena he observed, in terms of knowledge available to him at that point of time.

    If you want, you can even say: “nothing is said in organon about molecular imprinting, and as such, it is not acceptable”. Organon perceives homeopathic drugs in terms of ‘non-material and dynamic drug energy released through potentization’, which act upon the ‘vital force’ in a ‘dynamic way’. If you consider ORGANON as the ultimate authority in scientific knowledge of therapeutic art, you cannot agree with my scientific explanations of homeopathy.

    ——————————————————

    Even a single dose may give permanent cure in some cases. But many cases need frequent repetition and even changing of drugs. I would say, repeat frequently until cure. Repetition do no harm, but lack of repetition may harm. Better to repeat than not to repeat.

    I think many a excellent homeopathic prescriptions are spoiled only due to our ‘theoretical’ hesitation to repeat the doses in adequate intervals, and these failures are wrongly attributed to ‘wrong similimum’ or ‘wrong potency’ selection. We could have avoided such failures by repeating the doses frequently so as to maintain the drug action at optimum levels to effect a complete cure. I know ‘classical homeopaths’ would tear me into pieces for proposing this ‘unhomeopathic’ concept, which according to them would be an unpardonable offence against the ‘purity of homeopathy’ and a gross disrespect to our ‘masters and stalwarts’.

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

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

    ——————————————————

    what I say about ‘molecular imprints’ cannot be seen in any of the aphorisms of organon, and as such you cannot discuss this topic in the light of knowledge you get from ORGANON. We cannot get scientific answers for all our questions from organon. ORGANON is only a BOOK written by a GREAT MAN 250 years ago to explain the phenomena he observed, in terms of knowledge available to him at that point of time.what I say about ‘molecular imprints’ cannot be seen in any of the aphorisms of organon, and as such you cannot discuss this topic in the light of knowledge you get from ORGANON. We cannot get scientific answers for all our questions from organon. ORGANON is only a BOOK written by a GREAT MAN 250 years ago to explain the phenomena he observed, in terms of knowledge available to him at that point of time.

    If you want, you can even say: “nothing is said in organon about molecular imprinting, and as such, it is not acceptable”. Organon says only about ‘dynamic drug energy released through potentization’, which act upon the ‘vital force’ in a ‘dynamic way’. If you consider ORGANON as the ultimate authority in scientific knowledge of therapeutic art, you cannot agree with my scientific explanations of homeopathy.

    ——————————————————

    ‎’Supra molecular nanostructures’ is an important topic of study with implications in areas of nanotechnology, supramolecular chemistry, molecular imprinting in polymers etc. I was trying to explain homeopathic potentization from this perspective.

    Polymer-like supramolecular behavior of water and its capacity to form ‘supramolecular nanostructures’ through hydrogen bonding make water an ideal medium for molecular imprinting for preparing target-specific therapeutic agents. Through the process of molecular imprinting involved in potentization, three dimensional configuration of individual drug molecules are imprinted into these supramolecular nanostructures of water as ‘nanocavities’, which can act as ‘artificial key-holes’ or ‘binding sites’ for the drug molecules as well as pathogenic molecules having simialar functional groups. This is the scientific explanation I provide for homeopathic potentization

    ——————————————————

    Understanding the concept of ‘Molecular Imprinting’ in its correct meaning is essential to follow my scientific explanations of homeopathy:

    Perceive drug molecules as well as pathogenic molecules as ‘keys’, their biological target molecules as ‘locks’, and their interactions in terms of ‘key-lock’ relationships. Perceive homeopathic potentization as a process of making ‘artificial key-holes’ that can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for the drug molecules as well as pathogenic molecules having similar configuration, thereby preventing them from interacting with ‘natural locks’. Exactly, these ‘artificial key-holes’ are ‘Molecular Imprints’, and the process of their preparation is ‘Molecular Imprinting’.

    ——————————————————

    Can anybody define the concept ‘sensitivity to drugs’ in rational terms? When you say an individual is ‘sensitive’ to lachesis, does it mean lachesis is symptomatically indicated similimum for him? If not, what may be the underlying reason for this ‘peculiar sensitivity’?

    According to dictionaries, IDIOSYNCRASY means “a peculiarity of the physical or the mental constitution, especially susceptibility toward drugs, food, etc.”. According to this scientific meaning, it should be towards materials such as “susceptibility toward drugs, food, etc.” In potentized forms of our medicines, only ‘material’ that can produce ‘idiosyncrasy’ is water and ethyl alcohol. That means, nobody will have ‘idiosyncrasy’ towards potentized drugs that do not contain any ‘drug substances’. Homeopaths are talking about ‘idiosyncrasy’ towards potentized drugs! That concept has nothing to do with the scientific concept of ‘idiosyncracy’ towards particular ‘drugs or food substances’.

    Sir, are you talking about an ‘energy level’ or ‘vital force level’ idiosyncrasy, instead of ‘material level’ idiosyncrasy? Such a ‘spiritual’ level idiosyncracy cannot be part a scientific discussion on homeopathy

    There can be peculiar sensitivity towards drug ‘substance’. But there cannot be such a thing called ‘idiosyncrasy’ towards potentized drugs that do not contain any drug ‘substance’.There can be peculiar sensitivity towards drug ‘substance’. But there cannot be such a thing called ‘idiosyncrasy’ towards potentized drugs that do not contain any drug ‘substance’.

    ——————————————————

    What is your opinion about drug provings said to be conducted using ‘high potencies’? Do you think ‘high potencies’ can produce all the symptoms of a drug substance in a healthy individual? Do you think symptoms produced by ‘high poteny’ and ‘crude form’ of a drug will be similar or different? Did you ever personally experience any drug ‘proving’ in high potencies in a healthy individual when administered without indications?

    Instead of arguing, let us conduct a simple experimental study to verify whether we can ‘prove’ drugs in high potencies. I shall give a particular polychrest drug in 200c to 10 healthy individuals you select. You should record the symptoms produced by them for a particular period of time , and identify which drug was given to them. Anybody willing to participate in this experimental study to verify whether high potencies can prove or not?

    “Similia similibus curentur” actually means, “something that produces a set of symptoms when given in crude form, can cure them if given in potentized form”. That is homeopathy. You can CURE diseases having symptoms of NUX by giving NUX in potentized form. But you cannot produce symptoms of NUX by giving potentized NUX. By saying ‘potentized’, I mean potentized above 12c, that do not contain any drug molecules.

    That is why I am asking whether you have any experience of producing NUX symptoms in healthy individuals by giving HIGH potencies of NUX. Instead of answering that question directly, you are saying “thousands of people” are required to produce NUX symptoms.

    If you give a few drachms of NUX tincture to a healthy individual, he will start producing symptoms of NUX. That means, NUX is proved even in ‘single’ individual. It is the ‘drug molecules’ contained in the NUX tincture that act upon various biological molecules and produce symptoms by creating molecular inhibitions and derangements in vital processes. Potentized NUX does not contain drug molecules, but only ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules. Molecular imprints cannot inhibit biological molecules, and as such cannot produce symptoms.

    Potentized drugs can only cure; they cannot produce diseases.

    I am not questioning homeopathic proving. I did not question law of similars. I did not say proving is your idea. I am asking about the ‘belief’ that you can produce symptoms in our materia medica using ‘high potencies’. HIGH POTENCIES, above 12c that do not contain original drug molecules. Sir, hope you understand what I am saying.

    I am asking whether you ever experienced producing of symptoms by giving HIGH potencies of drugs. Hahnemann ‘proved’ cinchona tincture on himself and produced symptoms. He did not say “large number of persons are necessary in order for provings” or, “symptoms could not be produced in if proved in a few individulals”.

    I am asking this question because i have conducted many experiments to verify whether HIGH potency drugs can produce symptoms in our materia medica. I could not produce symptoms. I know my experience is not enough. That is why I am trying to collect experiences of others also. If you believe you can produce symptoms using potentized drugs, in your opinion, how long we should give a drug in HIGH potency to produce symptoms?

    Can anybody produce symptoms of our drugs in healthy individuals by using potencies above 12c? All my experiments and experiences prove otherwise. That is why I raise this question. “Potentized drugs such as 3x, 6x and 6c actually contain ‘drug molecules’, and may produce symptoms. Above 12c, there will not be any drug molecules present, but only ‘molecular imprints’ of original drug molecules. Molecular imprints cannot create molecular inhibitions in biological molecules, but only act upon pathogenic molecules having configurational affinity.

    If we can ‘prove’ drugs using high potency drugs, why cant we conduct an experiment by giving a drug in high potency to a group of healthy people for some period without disclosing which drug is given, entrusting a group of ‘blinded’ homeopaths to record the symptoms produced and asking them to IDENTIFY the drug by comparing the symptoms they recorded with symptoms in our materia medica?

    I hope, such an experiment conducted with necessary planing and monitoring will resolve this issue for ever.

    ——————————————————

    Fundamental point I am trying to make out here is, only drug ‘molecules’ can bind to biological molecules, create molecular inhibitions and produce symptoms. Potentized medicines contain ‘molecular imprints’ which act as ‘artificial key-holes’ for drug molecules and similar pathogenic molecules. Hence, molecular imprints cannot bind to biological molecules or produce molecular inhibitions. That is why I say potentized medicines cannot produce any pathological molecular errors or symptoms.

    If you cannot perceive drug substances in terms of constituent molecules, and potentized drugs in terms constituent molecular imprints, we cannot follow what I am saying. That is why you go on talking about “essence of drugs” “coming up” during potentization. I would request you to think about drugs in terms of constituent molecules, rather than sticking to the concept of ‘essence of drugs’. This concept of ‘essence’ of drugs is part of theory of ‘dynamic drug energy’ to which I totally disagree.

    I dont classify our drugs as ‘low potency’ and ‘high potency’, but as ‘molecular forms’ and ‘molecular imprints forms’. For poroving, drugs should be used in ‘molecular forms’, where as ‘molecular imprints forms’ should be used as therapeutic agents.

    ——————————————————

    I hope homeopaths would refrain from the habit of questioning ‘scientificness’ of science and scientific methods. Such an approach is not at all helpful for the interests of homeopathy. We have to explain and prove homeopathy according to scientific methods, in a way understandable to scientific community. We can do that, and should do that. Talking about ‘limitations’ of science, ‘science lagging behind homeopathy, and ‘homeopathy is ultimate science’, is the way of pseudo-scientific’ theoreticians who want to promote homeopathy as ‘spiritual medicine’, ‘energy medicine’ and ‘consciousness medicine’. Scientific-minded homeopaths should think rationally, talk rationally.

    Homeopaths should place themselves as part of scientific community, and try to resolve the riddles of homeopathy scientifically. Positioning it as an issue of science vs homeopathy is the way of ‘anti-scientific homeopaths’ and ‘anti-homeopathic scientists’. I prefer to think, talk and work upon homeopathy as a scientific discipline.

    ——————————————————

    If homeopathy is only a ‘practical science’, why should homeopaths talk ‘ultra-scientific’ and ‘beyond matter’ theories about homeopathy? Such nonsense talks makes scientists to think homeopathy is utter nonsense.

    We know homeopathy is not nonsense. IT WORKS. But same time we actually dont know HOW IT WORKS. Our theoreticians were never successful even in presenting a scientifically viable working hypotheseis regarding how homeopathy works. Instead, they spin utter nonsense theories that are totally against all known science and laws of nature. They spin theories about ‘limitations’ of science and raise questions about ‘scientificness’ of scientific knowledge and methods. They design new ‘principles and methods of practice’ that imitate occult practices. They market homeopathy with ads and testimonials just like any street marketer promote his fraud products.

    Our theoreticians and ‘brand builders’ are actually alienating homeopathy from scientific community. They are making homeopathy a subject of unending ridicule and mockery. They are responsible for providing sufficient materials to skeptics to attack homeopathy. HOMEOPATHY IS NOT NONSENSE- BUT NONSENSE THEORETICIANS MAKING IT APPEAR NONSENSE!

    ——————————————————

    So long as homeopathic professionals and academicians cannot discard the “beyond matter” and “beyond science” theories about homeopathy, and start thinking and talking as “material scientists”, homeopathy will continue to remain aliented from mainstream scientific community.

    An ‘unscientific’ homeopathic practitioner damages his career only. But an ‘unscientific’ teacher or academician propagating ‘beyond matter’ theories about homeopathy maligns a whole generation of disciples, and the damage done to future of homeopathy is beyond imagination.

    A well respected, prominent homeopathic academician posted as follows:

    “So long materialistic scientists can not view anything beyond matters, homoeopathy to them will remain ever mysterious. It is not the duty of homoeo professionals to prove scientificity in homoeopathy, rather this responsibility goes to scientists itself and it is their fault that the truth what they are witnessing regularly, fail to establish them scientifically. Fortunately modern discoveries gradually opening unbelievable fields beyond so called matter and it is expected that in future homoeopathy will not only be scientifically explainable and acceptable but rather it will show light in discovering new science theories”.

    I wonder what he meant by “materialistic scientists”. Does he mean there is a ‘non-material science” and “non-materialistic” scientists? What he meant by “unbelievable fields beyond so called matter”? Does he mean homeopathy is some thing “beyond matter”? And it is the “fault of scientists” not seeing that something “beyond matter”?

    According to his argument, “it is not the duty of homoeo professionals to prove scientificity in homoeopathy”. But does he think “homoeo professionals” have the divine right to generate any nonsense “ultra-scientific” and “beyond matter” theories about homeopathy? If it is not their duty, why should they make such theories and unverifiable claims, instead of confining to their ‘duty’ of treating patients?

    I was dismayed to know that this respected homeopath talking ‘beyond matter’ theories about homeopathy is a “Professor & H.O.D. in the Dept. of Organon of Medicine in a Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital, P.G.Guide., U.G. & P.G. examiner of several universities and author of several books in homoeopathy”.

    ——————————————————

    You are much worried when a scientist says ‘homeopathy is based on beliefs’. But why you are not worried when ‘master homeopaths’ propagate ‘hair transmission’, ‘photo transmission’, teleporting, radionics, dowsing and such occult practices in the name of homeopathy? Why you have no hesitation to welcome them to your seminars? Why you are not worried about those theories of vibrations, resonances, frequencies, energy medicine, consciousness medicine, spiritual homeopathy and the like? Do you believe homeopaths have the divine right to say any nonsense theories, and scientists have no right to say it is nonsense?

    Head of curriculum committee of CCH is propagating ‘hair transmission homeopathy’ , and conducting seminars on it. No body is worried about. He is considered a BIG man in Indian homeopathy. Are you not aware of it?You are much worried when a scientist says ‘homeopathy is based on beliefs’. But why you are not worried when ‘master homeopaths’ propagate ‘hair transmission’, ‘photo transmission’, teleporting, radionics, dowsing and such occult practices in the name of homeopathy? Why you have no hesitation to welcome them to your seminars? Why you are not worried about those theories of vibrations, resonances, frequencies, energy medicine, consciousness medicine, spiritual homeopathy and the like? Do you believe homeopaths have the divine right to say any nonsense theories, and scientists have no right to say it is nonsense?

    Head of curriculum committee of CCH is propagating ‘hair transmission homeopathy’ , and conducting seminars on it. No body is worried about. He is considered a BIG man in Indian homeopathy. Are you not aware of it?

    ——————————————————

    Science may not have answer for every questions. But science has ‘scientific’ a way of talking about unknown things. Simply admit it is not known yet. And try to explain the probabilities, using existing scientific concepts, in a fitting to the existing knowledge system. Never talk ‘ultra- scientific’ theories about unknown things.

    ——————————————————

    If you are asking whether I had tried hair transmission, dowsing, radionics, astrology and such occult things, NO. I need not relish each and every piece of garbage to verify whether it is garbage. I know, you are not asking “just for curiosity”. We had an argument over this point earlier. I know, you wanted to say I should not question these unscientific practices until I personally ‘try it”. If you are asking whether I had tried hair transmission, dowsing, radionics, astrology and such occult things, NO. I need not relish each and every piece of garbage to verify whether it is garbage. I know, you are not asking “just for curiosity”. We had an argument over this point earlier. I know, you wanted to say I should not question these unscientific practices until I personally ‘try it”.

    As a person constantly updating myself for years on advancements in diverse fields of science, I have the necessary basic knowledge about human body, natural forces and drug substances to say ‘hair transmission theory’ is nonsense. I need not ‘try’ or ‘research’ over it.

    ——————————————————

    Try to perceive diseases in terms of molecular inhibitions, cure in terms of removal of molecular inhibitions, drugs in terms of constituent molecules, and potentized drugs in terms of constituent ‘molecular imprints’. Then you will realize that disease is not ‘single’ and drugs are not ‘single’. Even those drugs you call ‘single’ contains multitudes of independent molecular imprints representing different constituent molecules of original drug substances, which act independently on the biological molecules. Then only you can understand what I say about ‘single-multiple’ drug issue.

    ——————————————————

    Any fraud products are marketed with impressive testimonials of live witnesses, experiences and ‘miraculous’ results. You can watch this phenomenon on totally misguiding commercial tv ads of worthless products. Such ads of testimonials will attract huge numbers of new customers irrespective of quality of products. A small percentage of them will be satisfied from various psychological and personality traits, even though majority get dissatisfied. But that small percentage of ‘satisfied’ customers are used to advance the advertisement and promotion. Nobody knows about dissatisfied customers. Same tactics is very successfully utilized by commercial ‘brands’ of homeopathy such as ‘drug transmission’, ‘predictive’ etc. Please remember, what ever nonsense theories you are talking, if you give the patient his homeopathic similimum, he will get relief. That relief is not the ‘success’ of your nonsense theory, but the success of homeopathy.

    ——————————————————

    In my opinion, number of drugs included in a prescription should not be the primary concern. Our concern should be to ensure that all the diverse types of ‘molecular imprints’ required for the patient are made available in our prescription. A patient will have multiples of molecular errors in him, which may need multiple types of ‘molecular imprints’ to rectify them. In some cases, all the required ‘molecular imprints’ may be available in a ‘single drug’, where as in most cases we may need more than one drug for getting all required ‘molecular imprints’. ‘Single drug-multiple drug’ issue has to be resolved from this angle.

    ——————————————————

    When talking theory, we claim that there will be a ‘most appropriate’ similimum for any particular patient, that cover ‘totality’ of his symptom. But, if many homeopaths are asked to prescribe for a single case, the diversity of prescriptions they provide will be really amazing. Each homeopath is deemed to have selected a ‘similimum’. If we ask ten homeopaths how homeopathy works, they will talk ten different theories. That shows our confusions regarding theories, lack of uniform methodology as well as imperfection of our tools. Subjectivity of the prescriber, not objective scientific rules and factors decides our prescriptions. To be a medical science in its real sense, we have to establish a minimum level uniformity in theories, approaches, tools, methods, outputs and ultimate results.

    ——————————————————

    I am trying to approach homeopathy with a rational mindset, in a logical and scientific perspective.

    “Homeopathy works- but we do not know exactly how it works yet. We are trying to know how it works, using scientific methods and research tools”.

    This is sum total of my rational approach to homeopathy.

    ——————————————————

    “Science lagging behind homeopathy” means “homeopathy is much advanced than modern scientific knowledge”! “Proper equipment does not yet exist to give the ‘scientific community’ the proof they require”. Wonderful! Only homeopaths Can raise such claims.

    Astrologers can say same thing- modern science is lagging behind, and is not equipped to understand them. Black magicians and faith healers also claim the same. Proponents of ‘hair transmission homeopathy’ say ‘science lags behind’ them. MODERN SCIENCE IS LAGGING BEHIND EVERY OCCULT SCIENCE! REALLY GREAT!!!!

    ‎”SCIENCE LAGGING BEHIND HOMEOPATHY”! Such claims are usually made by crazy people. They would say everybody else except himself are crazy. But friends, homeopaths should not be that much crazy, in their eagerness to show their commitment and dedication to homeopathy and ‘master hahnemann’.

    ——————————————————

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

    Please note, so far there is no any ‘fundamental laws’ in homeopathy which anybody proved “as per modern science”. Not even “explained” as per modern science”. But we teach, learn and practice those “unproved” laws without any hesitation.

    One of my friend even asked me to “show molecular imprints present in potentized drugs”, as if he understands molecular imprints as something that could be picked by a forceps and shown to him! Can anybody ‘show’ him supra-molecular formations of water? It should be ‘understood’, not ‘seen’.

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

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

    I can understand the discomfort brewing among ‘settled’ homeopaths when hearing MIT concepts, since they fear it 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.

    ——————————————————

    Possibilities of potentized homeopathic medicines interacting with genetic substance in the organism is a subject of much concern, speculations and controversy among homeopaths. Such controversies arise from the lack of sufficient understanding regarding the active principles contained in potentized medicines, and their exact mechanism of action in the living system.

    With our new scientific understanding of potentization as a process of molecular imprinting, we are now in a better position to answer these questions satisfactorily. Since, molecular imprints contained in the potentized homeopathic preparations cannot successfully compete with natural ligands in binding with their target molecules, we need not be concerned about the possibility of potentized homeopatic medicines dangerously interacting with genetic material in any way.

    Molecular imprints contained in the potentized homeopathic preparations bind to ligands or biological molecules merely due to their complementary cofigurations without any charge affinity, whereas natural ligands bind to their biological target molecules in capacity of their appropriate spacial configurations as well as charge affinities. So, the bindings of molecular imprints with biological molecules or their ligands will be very temporary and cannot stay long. Such bindings of molecular imprints cannot replace the natural ligand-target interactions happening as part of vital processes. Molecular imprints can not compete with natural ligands in binding to their natural biological targets. Hence it is obvious that potentized homeopathic preparations cannot interfere in biological ‘ligand-target’ processes such as ‘substrate-enzyme’, ‘antigens-antibodies’, ‘signal-receptor’ etc. As such, chances of potentized homeopathic medicines acting as pathological agents are very rare even if used indiscriminately. Molecular imprints can interfere only in interactions between pathogenic molecules and biological molecules, as well as off-target bindings of ligands with biological molecules, where only configurational affinity is involved. Obviously, molecular imprints can act upon only the molecular blocks created by exogenous or endogenous foreign pathological molecules.

    At the same time, these molecular imprints can effectively compete with the pathogenic actions of deformed proteins that may result from genetic errors, thereby preventing them from creating pathological molecular blocks at various targets. As such, homeopathic medicines can play a great role even in the treatment of certain diseases of genetic origin, at least as palliatives.

    More over, potentized homeopathic medicines can safeguard genetic material from dangerous mutations that may be caused the by inhibitory actions of endogenous or exogenous pathogenicl agents such as toxic drugs, heavy metals, super-oxides etc., on enzymes related with nucleic acid synthesis and genetic expressions.

    ——————————————————

    So far, we understood ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ as ‘similarity of symptoms produced by drugs as well as diseases’.

    According to modern scientific understanding, we can explain it as ‘similarity of molecular errors produced by drug molecules and pathogenic molecules’ in the organism. That means, ‘similarity of molecular configurations of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules’. To be more exact, it should be understood as ‘similarity of functional groups of pathogenic molecules as well as drug moecules.

    Potentized drugs contains ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent molecules or functional groups of drugs used for potentization. ‘Molecular imprints’ are three-dimensional negatives of molecules, and hence they would have a peculiar affinity towards those molecules, due to their complementary configuration. ‘Molecular imprints’ would show this complementary affinity not only towards the molecules used for imprinting, but also towards all molecules that have configurations similar to those molecules.

    Homeopathy utilizes this phenomenon, and uses molecular imprints of drug molecules to bind and entrap pathogenic molecules having configurations similar to them. Similarity of configurations of drug molecules and pathogenic molecules are identified by evaluating the ‘similarity of symptoms’ they produce in organism during drug proving and disease. This realization is the the basis of scientific understanding of homeopathy I propose.

    ——————————————————

    ‘Molecular Imprinting’ is the key word in the scientific understanding of homeopathic ‘potentization’ and ‘simila similibus curentur’. I am not talking about ‘water memory’ or such things you would have already heard a lot. Once you get the concept of ‘molecular imprinting’ in its right perspective, everything will be clear and simple. Then you will instantly see that homeopathy fits well into the scientific paradigms of modern biochemistry and molecular medicine.

    Please google to learn the modern technology of ‘Molecular Imprinted Polymers’ and ‘guest-host’ molecular formations. Then learn supra-molecular properties of water, such as di-electric properties, hydrogen bonding, hydration shells, supra-molecular networks, polymer-like behaviors, clathrates, liquid crystals etc. You can understand what I mean by ‘molecular imprinting’ in water.

    At that stage, take a little time to study supra-molecular properties of ethyl alcohol, and water-alcohol complexes. Understanding the molecular structure of oligosaccharides such as lactose and sucrose also will be useful.

    Then update your biochemistry from latest textbooks or internet, especially regarding proteins and protein inhibitions, and understand the ‘key-lock’ mechanism involved in ligand-target, substrate-enzyme, antigen-antibody and signal-receptor relationships. Now will be clear on the molecular mechanisms of pathologic molecular inhibitions and therapeutics. Try to understand homeopathic ‘drug proving’ from this angle.

    Once you are clear on these subjects, it will be easy for you perceive ‘potentization’ in terms of ‘molecular imprinting’, and potentized drugs in terms of ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent drug molecules. You will understand the real science involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’.

    —————————————————–

    Carefully read the materia medica of HYDRASTIS.

    Clarke’s Materia Medica : Hydrastis: Stomach: “Indigestion from atony of the stomach, esp. in old people.-Bread or vegetables cause acidity, weakness, indigestion.-Eructations of sour fluid.-Vomits all she eats, except milk and water mixed.-(Cancer.).-Faintness at the stomach; sinking, gone feeling, with continued violent palpitation of the heart, preceded by dull aching pains.-Marasmus.-Acute, distressing cutting pains.-Chronic gastric catarrh; ulceration.-Carcinoma, with emaciation, goneness”.

    These are the symptoms that could be produced by hydrastis in crude forms, and could be cured by hydrastis in potentized forms.

    Our materia medica are authentic references that describes the symptoms representing the molecular level pathology that could be produced by crude forms of our drugs in healthy individuals. Dont take materia medica lightly. Our materia medica provides a lot of information to show crude hydrastis can produce cancerous changes.

    Clarke’s Materia Medica : Hydrastis : female:

    “Lancinating pain in breast extending up to shoulder and down arm.-(Cancer of breast, pains like knives thrust into part.).-Hard, irregular tumour of l. breast, nipple retracted, glands in axilla enlarged and painful, cachectic appearance.”

    ——————————————————

    I think aggravation after administering homeopathic drug shows our prescription was only ‘partial similimum’. It missed some of the molecular imprints required for removing all the molecular inhibitions. If it was a perfect similimum containing all the required molecular imprints, we get cure without any aggravations.

    —————————————————–

    Which part of NUX plant would represent the ‘personality’ of that plant? Roots? Bark? Seeds? Flowers? Leaves? Fruits? Raw? Dry? We are not preparing Nux tincture from the whole plant! Are you of the opinion that tinctures prepared from all parts would have same medicinal properties and same ‘personality’?

    Molecular constitution of tinctures prepared from different parts of same plant will be different. And their medicinal properties will be different. It will change in different seasons, different soils, different climates, different growth stages.

    ‎’Personality’ of a plant or animal has different levels. Kingdoms, family, species, individual- there are a lot of such levels. There will be molecules specific to kingdom, families, species as well as individual-specific- organ specific- tissue specific. Which level ‘personality’ you are talking about?

    ——————————————————

    Dr Andrés Amado Zuno Arce, Profesor Asociado at Universidad Candegabe de Homeopatía, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico explains his ‘scientific’ theory of homeopathy as follows:

    “Brain is like a computer and works with information, and can identify it and need to do so in order for life to be possible. I call “bioinformatics” my ideas and interpretations of homeopathy because we handle the information in the homeoremedy the way we work with information in mechanical-electronic computers. With the mechanical-electronic media of the no bioinformatics we make the computer to do something. With the information in the homeoremedy we make the brain to do something. That is the way the cure is done.”

    THAT IS THE WAY THIS PROFESSOR ‘SCIENTIFICALLY’ EXPLAINS ‘SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR’!

    I could not find any point worthy of discussing in this “theory”. He says “we handle the information in the homeoremedy the way we work with information in mechanical-electronic computers”. “With the information in the homeoremedy we make the brain to do something. That is the way the cure is done.”

    I would have asked and answered questions with him and submitted myself to discussing the topic minutely, if it was a student or a fresher on the other end. But here, it is an ‘associated professor of homeopathy’ talking such silly theories. His ‘computer’ theories of homeopathy show his utter lack of even basic knowledge in biochemistry, molecular biology and other fundamental disciplines of modern science that are essential for understanding science of therapeutics. I preferred to quit, since my previous bitter experiences have taught me that I cannot discuss science with these people propagating ultra-scientific theories of ‘bio-informatics’, ‘bio-magnetism’, ‘energy medicine’ and such absurdities about homeopathy. My only worry is, what would be the fate of those students who are trained under these ‘pseudo-scientific’ theoreticians.

    Common factors of ‘scientific explanations’ proposed by this class of these people are “everything is vibrations”, “everything is energy”, or “everything is information”. For them, life is vibrations, disease is errors in vibrations, medicine is vibrations, and cure is correction of vibrations! Instead of the term ‘vibrations’, they may use ‘energy’ or ‘information’. We need not worry about learning complex bio molecular interactions, chemical properties of drug substances or molecular mechanism of therapeutics! This ‘energy medicine’ theory is very much dear to all diverse shades of occult practitioners in homeopathy ranging from hair transmission to radionics.

    ——————————————————

    Homeopathy, as it is learned, taught and practiced today, is not a ‘science’ in its real sense. It consists of a system of unverified beliefs, theoretical speculations, stagnant dogmas and insufficiently explained ‘experiences’. No doubt, it ‘works’. But, to be a science, that is not enough. We should explain and prove ‘how it works’, in a way understandable and acceptable to scientific community, using scientific methods.

    I believe I have made a decisive step in this direction, by proposing a working hypothesis based on the concept of ‘molecular imprinting’.

    ——————————————————

    Antidoting happens only if there are similar functional groups on constituent molecules of drug substances. I am of the opinion that molecular forms of drug substances molecules can antidote only molecular imprints of drug molecules having similar functional groups. As such, antidoting will be in most cases partial. If nux vom contain any molecules having functional groups similar to camphor, they will antidote only the molecular imprints of that particular molecule, not Nux Vom as a whole.

    Chemical compounds belonging to groups such as Aldehydes, Ketones, Carboxylic Acid, Esters, Amides, Enones, Acyl halide, Acid anhydride etc contains C=O functional groups(carbonyl groups). Most of the volatile oils, perfumes and spices contains such molecules, especially ester groups. Many molecules contained in peppermint have carbonyl functional groups.

    In organic chemistry, a carbonyl group is a functional group composed of a carbon atom double-bonded to an oxygen atom: C=O. It is common to several classes of organic compounds, as part of many larger functional groups. Other organic carbonyls are urea and the carbamates, the derivatives of acyl chlorides chloroformates and phosgene, carbonate esters, thioesters, lactones, lactams, hydroxamates, and isocyanates. Examples of inorganic carbonyl compounds are carbon dioxide and carbonyl sulfide.

    Esters are chemical compounds having carbonyl functional groups derived by reacting an oxoacid with a hydroxyl compound such as an alcohol or phenol. Esters are usually derived from an inorganic acid or organic acid in which at least one -OH (hydroxyl) group is replaced by an -O-alkyl (alkoxy) group, and most commonly from carboxylic acids and alcohols. That is, esters are formed by condensing an acid with an alcohol.

    Esters are ubiquitous. Most naturally occurring fats and oils are the fatty acid esters of glycerol. Esters with low molecular weight are commonly used as fragrances and found in essential oils and pheromones. Phosphoesters form the backbone of DNA molecules. Nitrate esters, such as nitroglycerin, are known for their explosive properties, while polyesters are important plastics, with monomers linked by ester moieties.

    Esters are responsible for the aroma of many fruits, including apples, pears, bananas, pineapples, and strawberries.

    ESTER COMPOUNDS HAVING CARBONYL FUNCTIONAL GROUPS, WHICH ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR VARIOUS ODORS AND FLAVORS:

    Allyl hexanoate -pineapple
    Benzyl acetate- pear, strawberry, jasmine
    Bornyl acetate- Pine
    Butyl butyrate- pineapple
    Ethyl acetate- nail polish remover, model paint, model airplane glue
    Ethyl butyrate- banana, pineapple, strawberry
    Ethyl hexanoate- pineapple, waxy-green banana
    Ethyl cinnamate- cinnamon
    Ethyl formate- lemon, rum, strawberry
    Ethyl heptanoate- apricot, cherry, grape, raspberry
    Ethyl isovalerate- apple
    Ethyl lactate- butter, cream
    Ethyl nonanoate- grape
    Ethyl pentanoate- apple
    Geranyl acetate- geranium
    Geranyl butyrate- cherry
    Geranyl pentanoate- apple
    Isobutyl acetate- cherry, raspberry, strawberry
    Isobutyl formate- raspberry
    Isoamyl acetate- pear, banana (flavoring in Pear drops)
    Isopropyl acetate- fruity
    Linalyl acetate- lavender, sagelavender, sage
    Linalyl butyrate- peach
    Linalyl formate- apple, peach
    Methyl acetate- glue
    Methyl anthranilate- grape, jasmine
    Methyl benzoate- fruity, ylang ylang, feijoa
    Methyl butyrate (methyl butanoate)- pineapple, apple, strawberry
    Methyl cinnamate- strawberry
    Methyl pentanoate (methyl valerate)- flowery
    Methyl phenylacetate- honey
    Methyl salicylate (oil of wintergreen)- Modern root beer, wintergreen, Germolene and Ralgex ointments
    Nonyl caprylate- orange
    Octyl acetate- fruity-orange
    Octyl butyrate- parsnip
    Amyl acetate (pentyl acetate)- apple, banana
    Pentyl butyrate (amyl butyrate)- apricot, pear, pineapple
    Pentyl hexanoate (amyl caproate)- apple, pineapple
    Pentyl pentanoate (amyl valerate- apple
    Propyl acetate- pear
    Propyl hexanoate- blackberry, pineapple, cheese, wine
    Propyl isobutyrate- rum
    Terpenyl butyrate- cherry

    Molecular imprints cannot deactivate each other. Drug ‘molecules’ having C=O functional groups can deactivate ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules having similar functional groups

    ——————————————————

    Any individual will have diverse types of molecular errors in him, caused by diverse types of pathogenic agents affecting diverse types of biological molecules in his organism. Any drug substance consists of diverse types of constituent molecules that can bind to diverse types of biological molecules when applied on the organism for drug proving, and produce diverse groups of symptoms collected in the materia medica. Potentized drugs contain diverse types of molecular imprints of diverse types of constituent drug molecules, which can act up on diverse types of pathogenic molecules and deactivate them when used as therapeutic agents.

    We have to cure individuals having ‘multiple’ molecular errors in vital processes, any drug substance in crude forms as well as potentized forms are ‘multiple’ in molecular constitution, and as such, talk about ‘curing with single drug’ is only an utopian dream

    ——————————————————

    Removal of symptoms is not the real goal of homeopathic treatment. Actually, homeopaths are using symptoms only as indicators to locate the exact molecular level pathology existing in the patient, and to identify an appropriate drug which in ‘molecular imprints’ form can remove those molecular errors. ‘Similia similibus curentur’ means, ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules can remove the pathological molecular errors which are similar to those created in by the drug substances when applied in molecular form upon healthy organism, and expressed through similar symptoms.

    ——————————————————

    ‎’Similimum’ is the drug that contains some constituent molecules having ‘functional groups or moieties siimilar to those of the pathogenic molecules that caused the molecular inhibitions underlying the particular disease in the patient. Due to the presence of same functional groups, drug molecules of similimum and particular pathogenic molecules can bind to same biological target molecules, create similar molecular errors, and produce similar symptoms. That is why homeopathy determines similimum by comparing disease symptoms and drug symptoms. Due to complementary configuration, molecular imprints contained in potentized forms of similimum can selectively bind to the functional groups of pathogenic molecules and deactivate them, thereby relieving the biological molecules from molecular inhibitions. This is the molecular dynamics involved in homeopathic therapeutics, which is known as ‘similia similibus curentur’.

    ——————————————————

    If any body want to ‘practice’ ‘drug transmission’ or any other such occult practices, it is their choice. But when you link those unscientific practices with homeopathy, and to conduct ‘courses’ and seminars for attracting homeopaths into it, it is a different matter. Homeopathy is a system of therapeutics. Any ‘therapeutic’ system uses one or other drug substance into the body of the patient. Nobody can practice ‘drug transmission’ in the name of homeopathy. Sir, did you ever think about the harm you are doing to our attempts to make homeopathy accepted as part of modern scientific medical practice? Adding something that goes completely against accepted scientific knowledge system into homeopathy will create a lot of difficulties to the homeopathic profession who try it it to establish as a scientific therapeutics. You are making homeopathy a subject of constant mockery before the scientific community.I feel very much disgusted to see eminent respected homeopaths like you being part of these unscientific practices. I can only pray your goodness to return back to your rational senses.

    ——————————————————

    To understand the real science behind the phenomena of ‘similia similibus curentur’, ‘drug proving’ and ‘potntization’, we should study drug substances in terms of not only their ‘constituent molecules’, but in terms of ‘functional groups’ and ‘moieties’ of those drug molecules. A drug substance is composed of diverse types of drug molecules. A drug molecule interacts with ‘active groups’ of biological target molecules such as enzymes and receptors using their ‘functional groups’ or ‘moieties’. It is the ‘functional groups’ and ‘moieties’ on the individual drug molecules that decide to which biological molecules they can bind to and produce molecular inhibitions. Different drug molecules with different size and structures, but having same ‘functional group’ or ‘moiety’ can bind to same biological molecules and produce similar molecular errors and similar groups of symptoms. A drug molecule become similimum to a disease when the drug molecule and disease-producing molecule have same functional groups, so that they could bind to same biological targets producing same molecular errors and same symptom groups.

    ——————————————————

    There are a lot of unanswered, insufficiently answered and improperly answered questions in homeopathy. A lot of grey and dark areas there, which need to be explored using the searchlight of modern scientific knowledge. Homeopathy is now learned and practiced on the basis of certain ‘dogmas’ and ‘beliefs’, more than actual ‘knowledge’. More ‘misunderstandings’ than ‘understandings’. We have to try to systematically resolve each and every riddles involved in homeopathy in terms of modern scientific knowledge. I am trying to do that, within my limitations. I know, it is bound to be a slow process, through which homeopathy will progressively evolve into a full-fledged system of medical science.

    ——————————————————

    According to me, ‘vital force theory’ has no relevance in a discussion on medical science. That topic should be discussed as part of philosophy, if anybody is interested in it. It is one’s approach to ‘vital force theory’ that determines to which class he belongs: the class of scientific homeopaths or unscientific homeopaths. I prefer to stay away from those who are so much interested in in discussing vital force. I know, nobody can convince science to them.

    ——————————————————

    To day I had an encounter with a young homeopath who wanted to convince me regarding the existence of ‘Vital force’.

    His main arguments: “If vital force does not exist, then there is no difference between dead body and living one. Because, all the molecules are there in the body even after the death of the person, except the ‘vital force’. If only the molecules makes the man, then our medicine will have to act on dead”.

    His arguments are based on the mis-conceived idea that there is no difference between a ‘dead body’ and living body’ except the presence of ‘vital force’.

    What is death, in scientific perspective? “Death is the permanent termination of the biological functions that sustain a living organism. Phenomena which commonly bring about death include old age, predation, malnutrition, disease, and accidents or trauma resulting in terminal injury”.

    It is material level process involving the “permanent termination” of molecular level “biological functions”. Factors which bring about such a “termination of biological functions” are also “material”- old age, predation, malnutrition, disease, accidents or trauma. All these factors affect the organism at molecular level, creating unrepairable molecular errors in biological pathways, culminating in “permanent termination of biological functions”

    Obviously, death is a “material level” molecular process. There is nothing “immaterial” or “dynamic” in the phenomenon of death.

    The statement “molecules of living body and dead body are the same” is pure ignorance of biochemistry of life, disease and death. They are not same. It is the “molecular level derangement” that bring “permanent termination” of functions. Death is not the “leaving of an immaterial vital force” from the body, but a series of complex biochemical molecular processes leading to “termination of functions”.

    I felt very sorry to hear a young, science-educated homeopathy graduate repeating the obsolete argument that “molecules of a living body and dead body are same”, which demonstrates how much our young generation is deprived of even basic knowledge of biochemistry. How can I talk science of homeopathy to them?

    When a homeopathy student of tender age with very limited knowledge just jump in and try to ‘teach’ me his foolish unscientific ideas pretending himself to be a ‘know- all”, even without bothering to listen or understand what I persistently keep on saying, I just lose my cool. I know it is very bad for an old man like me. It shows I am not a good teacher. Excuse me, friends. Especially this slippery talk about ‘vital force’ always irritates me, because I think it is the greatest stumbling block that prevents homeopathy from becoming a real medical science.

    According to me, ‘vital force theory’ has no relevance in a discussion on medical science. That topic should be discussed as part of philosophy, if anybody is interested in it.

    It is one’s approach to ‘vital force theory’ that determines to which class he belongs: the class of scientific homeopaths or unscientific homeopaths. I prefer to stay away from those who are so much interested in in discussing vital force. I know, nobody can convince science to them.

    ——————————————————

    A young homeopath asks: “How can we prove the ‘scientificity’ of ‘vital force’?”

    How can anybody prove the scientificity of a theory that is totally unscientific and metaphysical?

    Trying to prove scientificity of vital force is just like trying to prove the scientificity of GOD! If you believe in god, you can say this world is the ‘proof’ for God’s existence. Same way, if you believe in vital force , you can say LIFE is the proof for ‘vital force’. JUST BELIEVE IT, DISBELIEVE IT OR IGNORE IT. Vital force theory is a part of spiritualistic philosophy and theology. Do not drag ‘vital force’ into our scientific discourse of homeopathy. Homeopathy is a medical science. Learn it, teach it and practice it as a subject of science.

    ‎250 years ago, when hahnemann happened to observe the objective natural law of cure he named ‘similia similibus curentur’, and realized that extremely diluted medicinal substances acted therapeutically, he had no scientific knowledge available to explain these phenomena. So he tried to explain his newly invented therapeutic method by utilizing vital force theory and concept of dynamic medicinal power. He was compelled to do so due to the primitive state of scientific knowledge that existed during his time.

    Now we are living a new era of scientific awareness. Modern biochemistry, molecular biology and supramolecular chemistry have provided us with enough scientific tools and information to explain similia similibus curentur and potentization in scientific terms. It is a gross injustice and insult to the great genius of hahnemann if we still explain his noble therapeutic method in terms of vital force and dynamic drug energy.

    —————————————————–

    Responding to my post on ‘blind beliefs in homeopathy’, a friend asked me:

    “What about Homeopathy? Is it a blind belief or scientific fact?”

    When I say something is “blind belief”, that does not mean there is no any “scientific fact” in that phenomenon you ‘believe’. It only means you are believing something without actually knowing “scientific fact” behind it.

    Until and unless we succeed in knowing and explaining the ‘scientific facts’ behind the ‘principles’ of homeopathy in scientific terms, and prove them according to scientific methods, everything we talk as ‘principles of homeopathy’ are ‘blind beliefs’.

    Please note, I am not saying “homeopathy is blind belief”, but that so-called “principles of homeopathy” are ‘blind beliefs. Homeopathy is ‘experience’ of a natural phenomenon, but the ‘principles’ we use to explain that phenomenon are speculations and blind beliefs based on 250 year old human knowledge.

    We have to know and explain the ‘scientific facts’ behind the ‘homeopathic experience’ on the basis of present day scientific knowledge, so that we can eliminate ‘blind beliefs’ from it and make it a real science.

    ——————————————————

    Most homeopaths believe CAMPHOR is a ‘universal antidote’ to homeopathic medicines. What is your opinion? What is your experience? Did anybody conduct well-planned experiments to resolve this question? Is it a ‘blind belief’ or a scientific fact? What is special about camphor to make it a ‘universal antidote’?

    Just now, a homeopath commented on ‘SIMILIMUM ULTRA’ group that camphor antidotes only ‘medicines belonging to animal kingdom’. Now you are saying it antidotes only ‘vegetable kingdom’. This shows there is no uniform opinions. There are also homeopaths who believe it antidotes all drugs irrespective of ‘kingdoms’. All these are ‘beliefs’. I am trying to search for scientific truths. in your opinion, why it antidotes ‘medicines of vegetablel kingdom’ only? Why not ‘animal’ or ‘mineral’ kingdoms? What protects them from getting antidoted by camphor?

    I am not asking “what master said”. My question is “What is your opinion- What is your experience- Did anybody conduct well-planned experiments to resolve this question- Is it a ‘blind belief’ or a scientific fact- What is special about camphor to make it a ‘universal antidote’?”

    All of us know what “master said”. We want to know “WHY master said so”? “HOW camphor becomes a ‘universal antidote”? “WHAT is the mechanism of this antidoting action”? WE NEED SCIENTIFICALLY VIABLE ANSWERS- NOT QUOTES FROM MASTERS.

    You are repeating what all of us ‘believe’. But that does not provide logical answers to my questions. Kindly read the questions I asked.

    Observation that “substances which has strong odour has antidots to the homoeopathic medicines” has nothing to do with the belief that “camphor is a universal antidote”. There are hundreds of substances and drugs that contain chemical compounds having “strong odors”, even “stronger” than camphor. But why only camphor is called “universal’ antidote? What is special about camphor that makes it different from other drugs having “strong odors”?

    If “strong odor” is the factor that gives a substance its “antidoting” power, please remember, no potentized drugs have “strong” odor. All drugs potentized above 12c have same odor and chemical properties, since they do not contain original drug molecules. Potentized camphor has no a special odor of its own. How can anybody say that potentized camphor acts as ‘universal antidotes” due to “strong odor”? Your statement “all medicines are also susceptible to capmor either in crude or in potency” is not at all logical. May be in “crude” form- how can you say “and in potency”?

    ——————————————————

    When I say something is “blind belief”, that does not mean there is no “scientific fact”. It only means you are believing something without actually knowing “scientific fact” behind it. Until and unless we succeed in knowing and explaining the ‘scientific facts’ behind the ‘principles’ of homeopathy in scientific terms, and prove them according to scientific methods, everything we talk as ‘principles of homeopathy’ are ‘blind beliefs’. Please note, I am not saying “homeopathy is blind belief”, but what we call “principles of homeopathy” are ‘blind beliefs. Homeopathy is ‘experience’, but its ‘principles’ are speculations and blind beliefs based on 250 year old human knowledge. We have to explain our ‘homeopathic experience’ on the basis of present day scientific knowledge, so that we can eliminate ‘blind beliefs’ from it and make it a real science.

    ——————————————————

    In your opinion, what are the physical influences that will negatively affect the medicinal properties of potentized drugs (above 12c)?

    Exposure to direct sunlight- Exposure to strong artificial light, including fluorescent lights – High temperature – Refrigeration – Ionizing radiations – Exposure to strong magnetic fields – Exposing to perfumes, volatile oils, strong odors – Keeping near computers, mobile phones, electronic gadgets – Exposing to electric currents – Nearness of mobile towers – Violent shaking

    ——————————————————

    In Chronic Diseases – Anti-psoric Drugs, see how CALCAREA CARBONICA is prepared:

    “Break in pieces a clean, somewhat thick oyster shell, take one grain of the softer, snow-white calcareous substance found between the outer and the inner harder shell. This is prepared in all the degrees of potencies up to X in the manner directed as to the preparation of dry medicinal substances for homoeopathic use, given at the conclusion of Part I. This is preserved from sunlight and great warmth, to be used for its various purposes”.

    That means, CALC CARB is the middle layer of ‘oyster shell’, a part of ‘biological tissue’, which belongs to animal kingdom. It contains not only calcium carbonate, but various biological molecules. HOW CAN WE CONSIDER ‘CALC CARB’ AS A MINERAL DRUG?

    Since it is procured from animal tissue (middle layer of oyster shell) , I think it should be considered as ‘animal drug’, exactly similar to CASTOR EQUI (Rudimentary Thumb-nail of the Horse). We know Conchiolinum (Mother-of-Pearl) and Ova Tosta ( egg shell) also belong the category of ANIMAL ORIGIN, similar to CALC CARB. It would be more appropriate call CALC CARB as OYSTER SHELL.

    Calcium carbonate is a chemical compound with the formula CaCO3. It is a common substance found in rocks in all parts of the world, and is the main component of shells of marine organisms, snails, coal balls, pearls, and eggshells.

    To process calcium carbonate from oyster shells, first we have to make Calcium Oxide or quick lime by subjecting it to thermal decomposition.

    Then, calcium carbonate is made by mixing calcium oxide into water, and then bubbling carbon dioxide into the solution.Water is added to give calcium hydroxide, and carbon dioxide is passed through this solution to precipitate the desired calcium carbonate, referred to in the industry as precipitated calcium carbonate.

    How can you say ‘the middle layer of oyster shell’ potentized without any such processing is pure Calcium Carbonate, and is a ‘mineral kingdom’ drug. We can only say it is an ‘animal kingdom drug’ containing calcium carbonate. No doubt, it will contain various other biological molecules also, since it is an ‘animal tissue’.

    ——————————————————

    Kindly understand, molecular constitution of an “animal tissue containing calcium carbonate” will be entirely different from that of pure “calcium carbonate”. As such, their medicinal properties also will be different.’

    NASH uses the term CALCAREA OSTREARUM instead of CALC CARB. I think it is the correct term we should use. We can procure mineral calcarea carb, prove it and potentize it and then call it CALC CARB. That is a different matter. No doubt. Materia Medica of pure CALC CARB thus processed will be different from Materia Medica of CALC OSTREARUM now we have.

    How could you ignore the fact it is the ‘middle layer of oyster shell”- an animal tissue?

    ——————————————————

    Below 12c, molecules of drug substances may be present in potentized drugs. It is safe to avoid potencies below 12c, especially toxic substances such as ars. It may produce unknown effects in the organism. I would say it would be better to confine 12c-30c potencies.

    ——————————————————

    If potentized in genuine way, dilutions above 12c will no contain any drug molecules, but only ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent drug molecules

    Constituent molecules of drug substance bind to various biological molecules and create pathological molecular inhibitions, which are expressed through diverse groups of subjective and objective symptoms.

    Molecular imprints cannot bind to biological molecules and interfere in normal biochemical processes. They can act only on pathogenic molecules having configurational affinity. As such, molecular imprints contained in potentized drugs cannot create any pathological molecular errors or associated symptoms. Hence, ‘proving’ with potentized drugs above 12 c is improbable, if the sample used is ‘genuinely’ potentized.

    But, if the samples we use contain drug molecules due to faulty potentization, it may produce some symptoms in healthy individuals.

    If there are any molecular inhibitions already insisting in the prover, caused by pathogenic molecules which have configurational affinity towards the potentized drugs we use, it may produce some changes in the organism which will be reflected as changes in symptoms, it may be misinterprested as ‘drug proving’.

    Over all, I am of the opinion that drugs cannot be proved using 12c or above, if the samples are genuinely potentized.

    Potencies above 12c contains ‘molecular imprints’, which are the exact active principles of our drugs. They can bind to pathogenic molecules and produce therapeutic effects. I said ‘molecular imprints’ cannot interfere the normal interactions of biological molecules, and hence cannot produce molecular inhibitions or symptoms. Kindly try to understand the difference between ‘drug molecules’ and ‘molecular imprints’.

    Homeopathic “drug proving’ and ‘therapeutic actions’ involves different molecular processes. First is ‘creating molecular errors’, second is ‘resolving molecular errors’. Potentized drugs cannot produce molecular errors, but can resolve molecular errors.

    The question “so what is the use of potency above 12c as it dosen’t proved if acording to this” evolves from the misunderstanding that it is the “disease producing power” that gives our drugs their “curative power”. That is the way we are taught homeopathy. Exactly, it should be understood as “disease producing power” of “molecular forms” of drug substance gives their “molecular imprints” the “curative power”. Homeopathic “curative power” of drugs is in “molecular imprints”, whereas their “disease-producing power” is in their “drug molecules”. This fundamental difference between “drug molecules” and their “molecular imprints” should be clearly understood. There lies the difference between mother tinctures and potentized drugs.

    “Some” provings are done using ‘higher’ potencies. Most provings are done using ‘mother tinctures’ and ‘low potencies’. I have explained why some ‘high potencies’ produce ‘some’ symptoms. To be reliable, provings should be done using ‘molecular forms’. To study the difference, I had suggested CCRH to prove same drugs in crude forms and potentized forms in different groups of provers, and do a comparative study of symptoms. Nobody did such a comparative study earlier.

    If you study our materia medica works carefully, you can see that they are mix-ups of symptoms not only from actual provings, but also collected from toxicological studies, pharmacological studies, accidental poisonings, ancient medical literature and so called ‘clinical provings’.

    For example, Lachesis known to be proved in high potency. Do you think anybody can produce all those symptoms recorded in materia medica of lachesis, by proving high potency? Most symptoms in materia medica of lachesis are the symptoms caused by bites of lachesis which are collected from medical texts and clinical observations.

    ——————————————————

    If ‘wrong prescriptions’ can harm ‘human economy’, homeopaths would have been the greatest criminals in human history. What ever we claim, we make more ‘wrong’ prescriptions everyday than we make ‘right’ prescriptions.

    If we give ask 10 doctors to prescribe for a single patient, they would make TEN or more different prescriptions. That means, at least NINE of them are ‘wrong’ prescriptions. Remember, all these homeopaths make ‘wonderful’ results in their practice!!

    I am bit confused to hear you saying ‘physiological symptoms’ produced by proving. How can you say the symptoms produced by drug proving as ‘physiological symptoms’? By ‘physiological symptoms’ we can mean only those symptoms that represent the normal ‘physiological processes’ of the organism. When the drug substance act upon the organism, normal physiological processes are deranged by molecular level pathological changes, which is expressed as ‘drug symptoms’. These ‘drug symptoms’, how much mild they may be, are ‘pathological’ symptoms produced by molecular level derangement created by drug substance.

    Pathological molecular errors later advances to tissue level pathologies, which will be expressed as observable tissue changes. Whether observable tissue changes are produced or not, drug proving always produces ‘molecular level’ pathologies, and Similia similibus curentur is applicable to them.

    we need not perceive ‘symptoms’ and ‘structural changes’ as different entities. “Structural changes” or “tissue changes” are actually “molecular level pathology” advanced to an “objective” level. You can see, any ‘structural change’ has a ‘MOLECULAR LEVEL PATHOLOGY’ underlying it. Pathology is always ‘molecular level’, and cure is also always happening at ‘molecular level’. Therapeutics is always a ‘molecular level intervention’ in the biological processes by the physician, using ‘molecular tools’ we call ‘drugs’

    ——————————————————

    I have read about a ‘proving’ done by an ‘internationally famous’ homeopath from UK. He ‘proved’ drugs by applying in the eyes of photographs of provers around the world, downloaded from computer. And he got a ‘great collection of symptoms’ by that proving!.

    Kindly give some drugs in high potencies to a few close friends of your, and watch any ‘symptoms’ of that drug you could produce in them. It is very simple. I have tried it on myself, my family members and my friends hyndreds of times using different drugs in high potencies, and I am fully convinced “proving with high potencies” will not be much different from “proving with water”. PLEASE TRY IT, AND GET CONVINCED, SIR.

    I had consumed even ounce doses of LACH 200 to verify its ‘proving’. Nothing happened!. If the prover has any symptoms of the drugs used for proving, that symptom will be removed. That is all

    Please conduct some double blinded provings using high potencies as well as unpotentized water-alcohol mixture for controls. Volunteers should not know what drug they got, those who conduct proving should not know who are real provers and who are controls. Then record symptoms. AND SEE THE FUN!

    You can see many faith healers, street magicians and occult practitioners in indian villages, who can do better magics! But homeopathy is not magic, but scientific therapeutics

    Select 10 volunteers, put potentized drugs under the pillows of five of them, and placebo under other five. Dont allow the conductor or volunteers to know who got placebo and who got drug. Then record the symptoms. You can see how the magic works!

    ——————————————————

    ‎’Beliefs’ that could not be logically explained, contradicts the known scientific truths and reasoning, and not willing to be verified by scientific methods are called ‘blind beliefs’. ‘Blind believers’ never ask logical questions about ‘what-why-how’ of what they ‘believe’, or tolerate anybody asking such questions that may undermine their ‘beliefs’.

    Homeopathic practice is ruled by hundreds of such ‘blind beliefs’, handed down through generations of homeopaths. We have to subject each and every ‘beliefs in homeopathy’ for scientific scrutiny, and prove which are right and which are wrong.

    ——————————————————

    ‎”Mother tincture use only nd only for pallative treatment, later on goes to potency for curative”. This is another ‘blind belief’. Did any scientific study prove ‘mother tinctures cannot cure’, or ‘potencies cannot palliate’?

    ‎”Palliative treatment” is intended only for hopeless “incurable cases”. Why should we think about “palliative” treatment, if a case is “curable”? “Palliative treatment first”, and “then curative treatment” is an unhomeopathic approach.

    “Palliative treatment first, then curative treatment” is only an argument to cover up un-homeopathic use of mother tinctures, when a homeopath fails to find out an appropriate similimum that would give relief to their patients.

    ——————————————————

    I did not say “all believers are unscientific”. I was pointing to various blind, unfounded beliefs among homeopaths. For example, we believe such and such drugs would antidote such and such drugs, or are inimical to such and such drugs, based on the ‘words of masters’. Did anybody conduct any scientific study on that ‘belief’? There are many homeopaths prescribing drugs and getting good results without any concern for ‘drug relationships’. Right or wrong, is not ‘drug relationships’ a ‘blind belief’? I am only saying we have to ‘displace’ beliefs’ with ‘scientific knowledge’.

    Many homeopaths ‘believe’ that ‘mixing’ of two or more potentized drugs are extremely harmful. Did anybody do scientific studies to verify whether this belief is right or wrong?

    We ‘believe’ homeopathic drugs act through nervous system and ‘mind’. Is that belief supported by scientific studies. In vitro studies using potentized drugs and biological molecules have proved that potentized drugs act even in the absence of nerves or nerve cells or ‘mind’. But we continue to ‘blindly believe’ that our drugs act upon nervous system and ‘mind’.

    We believe potentized drugs if taken without indications may ‘prove’ or even cause death. Any studies on that? Many doctors knowingly or unknowingly use drugs without indications. Nothing happens. But we continue to ‘believe’…

    Beliefs about suppression, single drug-multiple drugs, homeopathic aggravation, directions of cure, genetic inheritance of miasms… there are hundreds of such ‘blind beliefs’ among homeopaths. Is it wrong for me to say we should displace these ‘blind beliefs’ with ‘scientific knowledge’?

    We are taught that silicea if given to tuberculous patients may cause grave complications, even resulting in death. Did anybody conduct a scientific study to verify whether this ‘belief’ is right or wrong. I am not asking for random ‘experiences’ of some ‘masters’. Any scientific study? No! We never bother to do that, but continue believing and teaching it to next generation. Is it not ‘blind belief’?

    It is believed that CAMPHOR is a universal antidote, antidoting all other potentized drugs. During my forty years of experience with homeopathy, I am sure, it is a ‘blind belief’. Crude camphor and volatile oils may antidote certain potentized drugs having molecular affinity. But there is no any justification to believe that potentized camphor is by any way different from other potentized drugs. Nobody bothers to verify whether this ‘universal antidote’ theory is right or wrong, but we simply believe…

    Sir, can you say, by being ” teaching since decades and finding of old experienced teacher and practioner” will make such ‘beliefs’ scientific? Why nobody bother to verify such beliefs according to scientific method? Why not CCRH or such authorized bodies think on that lines?

    For centuries, not ‘decades’, humanity believed and taught that ‘sun revolves around earth’. But that belief was scientifically proved to be wrong!

    These ‘beliefs’ could be verified by simple experiments. Even students can do it as part of project works. Why nobody thinking about such projects?

    I agree, there may be some scientific truths behind some of those beliefs. But they should be verified and proved according to scientific methods.

    ——————————————————

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

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

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

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

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

    I did not say “all believers are unscientific”. I was pointing to various blind, unfounded beliefs among homeopaths. For example, we believe such and such drugs would antidote such and such drugs, or are inimical to such and such drugs, based on the ‘words of masters’. Did anybody conduct any scientific study on that ‘belief’? There are many homeopaths prescribing drugs and getting good results without any concern for ‘drug relationships’. Right or wrong, is not ‘drug relationships’ a ‘blind belief’? I am only saying we have to ‘displace’ beliefs’ with ‘scientific knowledge’.

    Many homeopaths ‘believe’ that ‘mixing’ of two or more potentized drugs are extremely harmful. Did anybody do scientific studies to verify whether this belief is right or wrong?

    We ‘believe’ homeopathic drugs act through nervous system and ‘mind’. Is that belief supported by scientific studies. In vitro studies using potentized drugs and biological molecules have proved that potentized drugs act even in the absence of nerves or nerve cells or ‘mind’. But we continue to ‘blindly believe’ that our drugs act upon nervous system and ‘mind’.

    We believe potentized drugs if taken without indications may ‘prove’ or even cause death. Any studies on that? Many doctors knowingly or unknowingly use drugs without indications. Nothing happens. But we continue to ‘believe’…

    Beliefs about suppression, single drug-multiple drugs, homeopathic aggravation, directions of cure, genetic inheritance of miasms… there are hundreds of such ‘blind beliefs’ among homeopaths. Is it wrong for me to say we should displace these ‘blind beliefs’ with ‘scientific knowledge’?

    We are taught that silicea if given to tuberculous patients may cause grave complications, even resulting in death. Did anybody conduct a scientific study to verify whether this ‘belief’ is right or wrong. I am not asking for random ‘experiences’ of some ‘masters’. Any scientific study? No! We never bother to do that, but continue believing and teaching it to next generation. Is it not ‘blind belief’?

    It is believed that CAMPHOR is a universal antidote, antidoting all other potentized drugs. During my forty years of experience with homeopathy, I am sure, it is a ‘blind belief’. Crude camphor and volatile oils may antidote certain potentized drugs having molecular affinity. But there is no any justification to believe that potentized camphor is by any way different from other potentized drugs. Nobody bothers to verify whether this ‘universal antidote’ theory is right or wrong, but we simply believe…

    ——————————————————

    We time and again hear our critics sarcastically declaringthat homeopaths indulge in a totally unscientific way of medical practice, considering the external symptoms alone, and accuse that the basic causes of diseases are not dealt with in homoeopathic treatment. ‘Homoeopaths treat only the symptoms, not the disease’- they say. Even now these learned friends utterly fail to understand the logic of homoeopathy, and the fact that it is a highly scientific method of therapeutics. The subjective and objective symptoms presented by the organism are the only reliable indicators to help us correctly understand the minute molecular deviations underlying a state of pathology. Each group or train of symptoms represent a specific molecular error that had occurred in a particular biochemical pathway. These symptoms invariably indicates the specific type and character of the endogenic or exogenic foreign molecules or ions responsiblefor the particular molecular inhibition. By studying the train of symptoms carefully and systematically, homoeopaths are really observing these exact molecular inhibitions. This symptomatology-based analytical method of homoeopathy is far more exact and superior to the multitude of expensive complex laboratory chemical tests and imaging technologies we consider to be scientific. Identifying the exact molecular errors in the organism of the patient by observing the expressed symptoms, and identifying the most appropriate therapeutic agents from the similarity of symptoms the drugs could produce in healthy organism- this is the scientific essence of “similia similibuscurentur”.

    ——————————————————

    If 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’!

    ——————————————————

    Mother tinctures and crude drugs also can act as ‘similimum’. But the molecular mechanism of action is different from that of potentized drugs.

    Drug molecules contained in mother tinctures and crude drugs ‘compete’ with pathogenic molecules having similar molecular configuration in binding to biological molecules and displace them, thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions. By this ‘competitive’ relationship to pathogenic molecules, mother tinctures and crude drugs can act as similimum and produce therapeutic results.

    ‘Molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs act by an entirely different molecular mechanism. Molecular imprints binds directly to the pathogenic molecules having configurational affinity and deactivate them, thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions. This is the molecular mechanism involved in the therapeutic action of potentized drugs.

    Most notable difference is, drug molecules act as similimum by ‘competitive’ relationship toward pathogenic molecules, whereas ‘molecular imprints’ act by ‘complementary’ relationship.

    Since crude drugs and mother tinctures contain drug molecules that can act upon biological molecules, they can also bind to various biological targets in the organism. Obviously, there is always chance for creation of new molecular inhibitions and drug-induced pathologies when we use crude drugs and mother tinctures. That is the draw back of using mother tinctures even if they are similimum.

    Advantage of potentized drugs is that they do not contain any drug molecules, but only molecular imprints, which are only supra-molecular clusters of water and alcohol molecules. They can act upon pathogenic molecules only, not upon biological molecules. As such, potentized drugs cannot do any further harm to organism.

    That is why we say potentized drugs are safer than mother tinctures and molecular forms of drugs

    Hope I have explained the difference between therapeutic actions of mother tinctures and potentized drugs, even when they are used as similimum.

    ——————————————————

    If we agree that hahnemann explained miasms in terms of ‘infectious agents’, we cannot or limit miasms to three. Hahnemann worked upon three miasms he considered prominent during his time. That is all. Any ‘infectious disease’ can act as a chronic miasm.If we agree that hahnemann explained miasms in terms of ‘infectious agents’, we cannot or limit miasms to three. Hahnemann worked upon three miasms he considered prominent during his time. That is all. Any ‘infectious disease’ can act as a chronic miasm.

    ——————————————————

    According to hahnemann, there are no ‘miasms’ unrelated with infectious agents. He explains psora as miasm of ‘infectious agents of itch’, sycosis as miasm of ‘infectious agents of ‘figwart disease’, and syphilis as miasm of ‘infectious agents of syphilis’.

    My inquiry is, how an infectious agent can create a life long ‘chronic multi-system disease disposition’. My answer is, only through antibodies generated in the body against infectious agents. Antibodies remain life long in the body, creating off-target molecular inhibitions and chronic multi-system disease dispositions. We can explain miasms scientifically only in terms of antibodies.

    ——————————————————

    There are many homeopaths using mother tinctures in their practice. I would like to know how the mother tincture is selected for prescribing. Are you using mother tinctures of drugs selected as similimum on the basis of symptoms? If yes, is it not be better if you use similimum in potencies than as mother tinctures? If you are selecting mother tinctures disregarding the principle of similia, how would you claim you are doing homeopathy? How can you say your prescriptions are different from ayurveda or herbal remedies?

    ——————————————————

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

    ——————————————————

    Drug relationship is a subject about which most homeo practitioners are very much worried and confused. Some practitioners very much rely upon ‘drug relationships’ even in deciding their treatment protocols. Concepts such as ‘complementary’, ‘inimical’, ‘antidotal’ etc. are frequently utilized in everyday practice. Some doctors even deviate from the theory of similimum, due to their over indulgence with ‘drug relationship’ protocols. When prescribing a drug based on its so-called complementary relationship to the earlier prescriptions, we forget to consider whether it is a similimum by totality of symptoms. Yet, we call it ‘classical’ homeopathy. When searching through the literature and authorities regarding drug relationships, it will be seen that no serious scientific studies have been done on this subject. Most of the drug relationships are proposed by empirical clinical observations of practitioners, and not corroborated by scientific studies or evidences. More over, practitioners who are not much bothered over this relationships between drugs swear that their experiences prove otherwise. Some homeopaths prescribe so-called inimical drugs even simultaneously or alternatingly, and get expected clinical results.

    I mean there is no harm in using more than two drugs in potencies above 12c, if you think single remedy does not cover your case in its totality.

    Hahnemann do not mention to consider ‘drug relationship’ when switching over to another drug. He only says “a new examination of the disease must be instituted, the status morbi as it now is must be noted down, and a second homoeopathic remedy selected in accordance with it, which shall exactly suit the present state, and one which shall be all the more appropriate can then be found”. His advice is “a second homoeopathic remedy selected in accordance with” new symptoms.

    According to hahnemann, “a new drug” should be selected only on the basis of “the status morbi as it now”. Not from ‘drug relationships’.

    ——————————————————

    Homeopathic mother tinctures act the same way as Herbal medicines, Ayurveda or Allopathy. They do not work on similia principle, and hence, is not homeopathic. Can we say all those drugs do not play any role in therapeutics? NO. They act as ‘molecular forms’ of drugs, which act antipathically, due to the molecular level structure and properties of those drugs. Mother tinctures also may be also helpful in providing relief by the action of their ‘molecular’ contents. But that cannot be considered ‘homeopathic’ drug action. When we give Alfalfa Q to improve appetite, we are using its ‘allopathic’ action. If we read the materia medica of that drug, it is said that alfalfa increases appetite even up to bulimia. To be genuinely homeopathic, we should use only potentized drugs that do not contain drug molecules, but molecular imprints only- above 12c. While prescribing crude drugs, low potencies or mother tincture on the basis of our old literature like boericke or clarke, we should remember that knowledge of pharmacology was very limited during their period. ARS BROMIDE Q is recomended as a drug for diabetes in boericke materia medica. With the knowledge now available about the toxic properties of ARS COMPOUNDS, would anybody dare to use ars bromide Q now? In old literatures, many mercury compounds are recomended to be used as triturations. In my opinion, without modern scientific studies about pharmacological aspects of our mother tinctures and crude drugs, we should not use them on the reason that it is recmomended in old literatures. Many homeopaths use URAN NIT 1x and 3X, which is beyond any doubt, dangerous substance in molecular forms. In my opinion, homeopaths should use only above 12c, if our claim ‘homeopathy is SAFE’ is justified.

    ——————————————————

    Whether prescribed ‘blindly’ or ‘wisely’, if mother tinctures are prescribed without considering ‘similia’ principle, I would say it is not a homeopathic prescription.

    ——————————————————

    ‎’Molecular imprinting’ in water evolves from the scientific ideas utilized in the technology of ‘molecular imprinted polymers’. Mixing up this concept with the concept of “imaging of drug substance into water” may create confusions. ‘Drug substance’ cannot be ‘imprinted’ as such. Only ‘independent’ constituent molecules are ‘imprinted’. That makes a great difference in our understanding. Talking about ‘image of nux vomica’ is totally different from the concept of ‘molecular imprints’ of individual constituent molecules of drug substance nux vomica. ‘Memory of water’, ‘body imaging’,’energy imprinting’ and such concepts basically differ from the scientific concept of ‘molecular imprinting’. Kindly do not create confusions by mixing up these concepts. ‘Memory of water’, ‘body imaging’,’energy imprinting’ and such concepts are very dear to proponents of various occult practices in homeopathy, such as drug transmission, telepathy, mp3 files, radionics, dowsing, energy medicine and the like. ‘Molecular Impriniting has nothing to do with such ‘ultra scientific’ and pseudoscientific theories. Such theories have already done much harm to homeopathy, making it a piece of mockery before scientific community, and thereby strengthening the hands of anti-homeopathic skeptics. Molecular Imprinting in Water is Molecular Imprinting in Water, just like “molecular imprinting in polymers’. Nothing else. Kindly do not create confusions about this scientific concept, by mixing it up with those ‘energy medicine’ theories. Please google on ‘molecular imprinting’ and read some articles about the technology of ‘molecular imprinted polymers’, to avoid confusions and misinterpretations.

    ——————————————————

    I do not agree with the thinking that Hahnemann “was wrong” or his “concept of miasm is not fully correct”. Actually, he was thinking far ahead of his time while introducing the concept of ‘miasms’ as a factor of ‘chronic disease dispositions remaining after “infectious diseases”. He is absolutely correct even in the light of modern understanding of immunology and “antibody mediated chronic diseases”. 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’. Study of ‘off target’ inhibitions caused by antibodies as a major 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. I just bow my head before the 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.

    ——————————————————

    While introducing the concepts of miasms, I think hahnemann was actually talking about the ‘chronic disease dispositions’ resulting from infectious diseases. He limited to ‘three’ miasms, since according to him, itch, syphilis and gornorrhoea 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 is 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, there by producing diverse types of chronic diseases. Antibodies are the carriers of miasms- this is what I try to make out. Antibodies formed against diverse types of infections are a major class of pathogenic molecules. Hahnemann called it ‘miasms’, as he was not much aware of antibodies and immunology during his period

    ——————————————————

    There is no ‘scientific homeopathy’ and ‘unscientific homeopathy’. In my opinion, it is the difference between ‘scientific approach’ and ‘unscientific approach’ towards homeopathy.

    I would not say homeopathy is originally ‘unscientific’, but many observations and theories of homeopathy are ‘pre-scientific’, which need to be updated into ‘scientific’.

    There is no ‘immutable’, ‘eternal’ principles in science. Every laws, every principles, every theories change and become more and more perfect through an evolutionary process of human knowledge, experience and collective thought. Science never remains static.

    By ‘dialectical homeopathy’, I only mean that this scientific method of constant rejuvenation and advancement should be brought into homeopathy. That is the only way of making homeopathy scientific. Scientific homeopathy means ‘dialectical homeopathy’. It is an approach towards homeopathy.

    ============================================================================================================

    DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ‘MOLECULAR IMPRINTING IN POLYMERS’ AND ‘MOLECULAR IMPRINTING IN WATER’:

    Molecular Imprinting in Polymers is done by mixing the ‘guest’ molecules (molecules so be imprinted) into a mixture of monomers and reactants, allowing them to polymerize, and then removing the ‘guest’ molecules from the ‘guest-host’ complex. The methods discussed in this article explains the ways to remove ‘guest’ molecules using appropriate solvents. 3-dimensional ‘memory’ of guest molecules remain engraved in the polymer matrix.

    When molecular imprinting is done in water, even though water exhibits polymer-like behavior at supra-molecular level, we have to apply different methods to remove ‘guest’ molecules from ‘guest-host’ complexes. Since we are imprinting in an aqueous medium, we cannot extract ‘guest’ molecules using any solvents. More ove, we cannot use any substance that may interact with water or dissolve in water.

    We have to remove ‘guest’ molecules by some other means. I think continuous strong succussions would break open the hydration shells and help ‘guest molecules to come out. Hence, immediately after succussions, the medium would contain a mixture of free hydration shells, guest molecules as well as ‘guest-host complexes. By serially diluting and succussing, drug molecules (guests) will gradually diminish in number, same time the number of empty hydration shells increasing. By the time avogadro limit is crossed, guest molecules will be completely removed, and only empty hydration shells remain. Due to the presence of comparatively heavy ethyl alcohol molecules, which reduce the rate of protonation-deprotonation, the empty hydration shells get stabilized, in which 3 dimensional configuration of guest molecules will be ‘engraved’ . We call these empty hydration shells as ‘molecular imprints’.

    ——————————————————

    In western countries, homeopathy is included under the umbrella class of ‘Complementary And Alternative Medicine(CAM’, which includes all sorts of unscientific, pseudo-scientific and even occult ‘healing arts’.

    See the list of healing practices grouped under CAM :

    Spiritual healing, shamanic healing, acupuncture, acupressure, chiropractic, sonopuncture, Affirmative prayer, Alexander Technique, Apitherapy, Applied kinesiology, Aromatherapy, Astrology, Auriculotherapy, Autogenic Training, Autosuggestion, Bach Flower Therapy, Balneotherapy, Bates Method, Biodanza, Bioresonance therapy, Blood irradiation therapies, Body-Based Manipulative Therapies, Massage therapy, Chelation therapy, Chinese food therapy, Chinese pulse diagnosis, Chromotherapy, Coding therapy, Coin rubbing, Colloidal silver therapy, Colon hydrotherapy, Color Therapy, Craniosacral Therapy, Creative Visualization, Crystal healing, Cupping, Dowsing, Ear Candling, Electromagnetic therapy, Energy therapies, Magnet therapy, Reiki, Qigong, Shiatsu,
    Therapeutic Touch, Faith healing, Fasting, Feldenkrais method, Feng shui, Five Elements, Flower essence therapy, Hair analysis therapy, Facial Analysis, Hatha yoga, Hawaiian massage, Herbalism, Herbal therapy, Herbology, Holistic living
    Holistic medicine, Homeopathy, Home remedies, Hypnosis, Hypnotherapy, Iridology,
    Isopathy, Light therapy, Macrobiotic lifestyle, Magnetic healing, Manipulative therapy, Medical intuition, Meditation, Meridian, Mindfulness meditation, Transcendental meditation, Vipassana, Mega-vitamin therapy, Mind–body intervention, Feldenkrais method, Moxibustion, Music therapy, Natural Health, Natural therapies, Naturopathic medicine, New Thought, Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Nutritional healing, Nutritional supplements, Orgonomy, Orthomolecular medicine, Osteomyology, Osteopathy, Pilates, Polarity therapy, Power yoga, Pranic healing, Prayer, Psychic surgery, Radionics, Rebirthing, Reflexology, Rolfing, Seitai, Self-hypnosis, Shiatsu, Siddha Medicine, Sonopuncture
    Sound therapy, Spiritual Mind Treatment, T’ai Chi Ch’uan, Thai massage, Thalassotherapy, Therapeutic horseback riding, Therapeutic Touch, Tibetan eye chart, Traditional Japanese medicine, Traditional Mongolian medicine, Traditional Tibetan medicine, Trager Approach, Transcendental meditation, Trigger point, Tui Na, Unani medicine, Urine therapy, Water therapy, Yoga, Zang Fu theory etc etc.

    I think the inclusion of homeopathy in this group is totally inappropriate, and is a grave injustice. Homeopaths, at least those want to promote homeopathy as a scientific medical system should strongly oppose this. Actually, homeopathy is an off-shoot of modern medicine.

    Fundamental difference between homeopathy and modern medicine is that homeopathy uses molecular imprints of drug molecules as therapeutic agents, where as modern medicine uses drug molecules themselves. This difference will be melting away once modern medicine advances into molecular medicine, and molecular medicine realizes the implications of molecular imprinted drug designing technology. At that point, homeopathy and modern medicine would converge into a higher stage of Molecular Imprints Therapeutics.

    Let us declare- Homeopathy is not CAM, it is MIT!.

    ——————————————————

    Opium Induces Profound Sleep, Followed By Sleeplessness- Study The Biochemistry of ‘Rebound Actions’ and ‘Secondary Actions’ Of Drugs

    We should study the biochemistry involved in ‘biomolecular feedbacks’, ‘cascading of molecular inhibitions’ and ‘upregullation-down regulation’ mechanisms of cellular receptors, to understand the phenomena of ‘rebound actions’ and ‘secondary actions’ of drugs. Trying to explain these complex biochemical interactions using 250 year old concepts and ideas of hahnemann will lead us no where.

    For example, the “action of opium causing deep sleep followed by much longer lasting wakefulness” is related with the phenomenon of ‘nerve receptors getting blocked by accumulation of ligand molecules, thereby initiating feedback mechanisms’ inducing the up-regulation of glutamate and other pathways in the brain induced by the over-activation of opioid receptors, thereby exert an opioid-opposing effect and so reduce the effects of opioid drugs by altering downstream pathways.

    The terms ‘potency’, ‘infenitsmel’ all comes from the concept of ‘dynamic drug energy’, which is part of vitalistic or ‘energetic’ approach to homeopathy.

    According to me, drugs belongs to only two groups- molecular forms and molecular imprints forms. All allopathic drugs, homeopathic mother tincures, low potencies belong to molecular forms. They act by their molecular level chemical properties. Molecular imprints forms are drugs diluted above avogadro limit, which do not contain drug particles. As per calculations, this limit comes around 12c. Molecular imprints act by their complementary configurational affinity towards pathogenic molecules.

    We cannot expect molecular imprints to create molecular inhibitions in biological molecules. Natural ligands and their biological targets interact by a double affinity- configurational and energectic. Since molecular imprints have only configurational affinity, they cannot compete with natural ligands to bind with biological molecules. Only molecules can create molecular inhibitions- molecular imprints cannot. As such, potentized drugs above 12c will not create any molecular inhibitions or pathological response in organism, in the absence of endogenous or exogenous pathological molecules. ‘Actions’ and ‘reactions’ happen only when we use molecular forms of drugs.
    Actually, so called ‘rebound actions’ have to me studied on the basis of scientific knowledge of ‘biomolecular feedback systems’- not in a vitalistic view point. We can explain any rebound actions or secondary actions using biochemistry.

    Since potenized forms of opium do not contain ‘molecules’ to block the nerve receptors, they cannot cause any ‘secondar’ action. In a crude opium-dosed individual, only thing molecular imprints contained in potentized opium is to bind to the molecules of opium, and relieve the nerve cells from ‘block’. That means, potentized opium can antidote the biological actions of crude opium- that is all.

    ——————————————————

    The word ‘drug potentization’ is part of unscientific concept of ‘dynamic drug energy’, Better say Molecular Imprinting

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

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

    From a scientific perspective of homeopathy, tt would be ideal to replace the term ‘potentization’ with ‘molecular imprinting’ to explain the exact process in scientific terms.

    IT IS ONLY A PROPOSAL BASED ON MY CONVICTIONS. I KNOW WELL, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE ACCEPTED OR APPRECIATED.

    ——————————————————

  • ‘Alpha Molecular Imprints’- Issue Of Potencies Finally Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    GUIDELINES TO PREPARE ALPHA MOLECULAR IMPRINTS:

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

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

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

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

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

    Now we can start work:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Scientific Homeopathy: Fight ‘Skeptics’ As Well As ‘Energy Medicine Homeopaths’

    Scientific homeopathy can advance only by waging consistent and relentless struggle against pseudo-scientific ‘energy medicine’ homeopathic theoreticians on one side, and negative-mined skeptic community on other side.

    For rational-mined people, any true observation or experience of a novel natural phenomenon would be inevitably followed by an inquiry for its logical explanations. People with a scientific approach would try to explain those experiences in terms of concepts of existing knowledge system. If the new observations could not be explained satisfactorily using existing theories, it results in the formulation of a system of learned assumptions known as hypothesis. Exactly, hypothesis means a proposed explanation or educated guess regarding the observed phenomenon. To be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test the hypothesis using available scientific tools and methodology. A hypothesis is called a working hypothesis once it is provisionally accepted as a candidate for scientific verification. Testability using existing scientific tools, simplicity, scope, fruitfulness and conservatism are considered to be the essential qualities of a working hypothesis. By conservatism, it is implied that assumptions of a good hypothesis should be fitting with existing recognized knowledge systems. Assumptions of these working hypothesis will be then subjected to rigorous verifications impartial and unprejudiced members of scientific community according to scientific methods, and if the outcomes are positive, it leads to a scientific theory and is accepted as part of scientific knowledge system. That is the way science advances.

    There may be some experiences and observations that could not be easily explained using existing scientific paradigms, and formulating a scientifically viable hypothesis would be difficult. Even if they are formulated, a hypotheses may fail during scientific verifications, and will have to be abandoned temporarily or permanently. Some hypotheses could be modified, re-formulated and re-submitted for verification. But, abandoning of a particular hypothesis does not necessarily mean the experiences behind them were totally unreal or they do not exist. It only means that the proposed explanation failed. In some cases, formulating a reasonable hypothesis will be difficult. Skeptic minded people instantly deny the existence of such experiences, since they accept only experiences and observations that are ‘proved’. They consider that failure of a particular hypothesis proves the non-existence of such a phenomenon also. They fail to realize the difference between ‘unproved’ and ‘non-existent’. Beyond any doubt, there is a negative aspect in this skeptic approach.

    Side by side with this negative and destructive approach of skeptics lie those pseudo-scientific people who spin imaginative ‘theories’ about every experiences without any consideration for existing knowledge system. They are never bothered about scientific methods or scientific verifications. People lacking scientific world outlook and rational thinking will float nonsense theories in a way fitting to their evil requirements, in a hurry to utilize such observations to justify and promote diverse pseudo-scientific practices they are engaged in. Both negative skepticism and pseudoscience complement each other in harming the evolution and advance of real scientific knowledge.

    Exactly, homeopathy is based on two fundamental observations made by hahnemann regarding the process of cure-

    1. Similia Similibus Curentur: Hahnemann observed through his experiments that diseases could be cured by extremely diluted forms of drug substances, which could produce symptoms similar to disease when applied in large doses in healthy individuals.

    2. Potentization: Hahnemann developed a special process of preparing drugs by serial dilution and shaking, and observed that such expremely diluted drugs could act as therapeutic agents when applied according to similia similibus curentur

    Due to the limitations imposed by the infantile stage of scientific knowledge available to him during that period, hahnemann could not formulate a viable hypothesis to explain his observation in a way fitting to the scientific knowledge system then existed. In fact, science was not properly equipped to provide a reasonable explanation for the phenomena hahnemann observed.

    Instead of leaving his observations unexplained as it should have been truthfully done, hahnemann resorted to building up of a system of philosophical speculations and imaginative theorizations to explain them. May be since he found that the contemporary scientific paradigms were not sufficient for his purpose, he tried to develop a speculative philosophical system utilizing concepts such as ‘vital force’, ‘dynamic energy’ being part of spiritualistic philosophy existed then.

    Obviously, this speculative part of homeopathy does not agree with scientific knowledge or its methods. As such, scientific community adopted a skeptical approach towards homeopathy. They totally denied the existence of even the fundamental observations of hahnemaan, whereas it would have been judicious to deny the theoretical explanations of homeopathy and asking for a more viable explanation for the phenomena hahnemann observed.

    From a rational perspective, we have to logically differentiate between observational part of homeopathy from its speculative part. Observational part is objective experience, which forms the basis of practical application of similia similibus curentur and potentization. They should not be denied on the reason that hahnemann’s theoretical explanations contradict scientific knowledge.

    Skeptical scientists deny homeopathy works on the reason that nobody could explain how homeopathy works. They should understand, both issues should be considered as different questions. The issue of efficacy of homeopathy should not be confused with the lack of explanations or wrong explanations regarding how homeopathy works.

    Pseudoscientific homeopathic theoreticians, starting from hahnemann himself have contributed a lot in alienating homeopathy from scientific community, through their utter nonsense vitalistic and energy medicine theories that never agree with scientific knowledge system or scientific methods.

    According to me, inorder to promote scientific homeopathy, we have to address fllowing preliminary tasks:

    1. Convince the scientific community that homeopathy works, through demonstrations and scientifically acceptable clinical studies.

    2. Convince them the importance of differentiating objective observational part of homeopathy from the unscientific theoretical or explanatory part of homeopathy.

    3. Propose a scientifically viable working hypothesis regarding how homeopathy works, in a way fitting to the existing scientific knowledge system.

    4. Prove the propositions of this hypothesis using scientific methods, in a way undisputable to the scientific community.

    While addressing this four-pointed fundamental tasks, scientific homeopathy will have to relentlessly fight against the negative-minded skeptics as well as pseudo-scientific energy medicine theoreticians of homeopathy.

    We have to consistently tell the world, real homeopathy is entirely different from those nonsense the pseudoscientific homeopathic theoreticians preach and practice.

    We have to understand and tell the homeopathic community that the negative-minded anti-homeopathic skeptics are entirely different from real scientific community.

    Dialogue has to be between scientific homeopathy and scientific community

  • Molecular Imprinted Drugs Will Provide A Converging Point For Homeopathy And Modern Molecular Medicine

    In a far distant historical perspective, I foresee the possibility of converging of modern medicine and homeopathy into a universal molecular medical science of ‘drug-less therapy’, where only molecular imprints will be used as therapeutic agents.

    Modern Medicine is gradually evolving into ‘Molecular Medicine’. Molecular Medicine studies vital processes and diseases at molecular level, and deals therapeutics as an art and science of molecular level repairing.

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

    ‘Molecular Medicine’ emphasizes disease and cure in terms of cellular and molecular phenomena and interventions rather than the conceptual and observational focus on patients and their organs common to conventional medicine.

    Molecular Medicine studies drug substances in terms of their molecular level structure and organization, and is more and more relying upon target-specific Designer Drugs synthesized by drug designing technology, supported by computer aided designing protocols.

    Drug Designing Technology has recently started exploring the possibilities of Molecular Imprinting in the development of target-specific designer drugs. They are now experimenting for developing bio-friendly imprinting matrices and imprinting protocols, so as to prepare artificial binding surfaces for pathogenic molecules that could be utilized as therapeutic agents.

    Even though not yet recognized as such, homeopathic potentization is a process of molecular imprinting, where artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules are produced by imprinting drug molecules into water-ethyl alcohol supra-molecular matrices. Homeopathy identifies pathological molecular errors and selects the appropriate molecular imprints through a peculiar technique of ‘comparing symptoms’, which is expressed as the therapeutic principle, ‘simila similibus curentur’

    Most probably, modern molecular medicine and drug designing technology is in the new future going to explore the possibilities of water as a molecular imprinting medium as part of their search for novel substances to be utilized as imprinting matrix.

    It means, Modern Molecular Medicine is slowly advancing towards the realization of a drug designing technology that homeopathy invented as ‘potentization’ and utilized for preparing therapeutic agents 250 years ago. It is based on this understanding that I try to propagate the concept that ‘Homeopathy is Molecular Imprinting Therapeutics- An Advanced Branch of Molecular Medicine.

    In a far distant historical perspective, I foresee the possibility of converging of modern medicine and homeopathy into a universal molecular medical science of ‘drug-less therapy’, where only molecular imprints will be used as therapeutic agents. Instead of our present ‘potentization’, modern science may develop more sophisticated ways of molecular imprinting, that would enable us to produce therapeutic agents more specific and perfect than our present day ‘potentized drugs’.

    May be be distant dream. But it is a dream based on scientific knowledge.

  • ‘Drug Proving With High Potency Drugs’- A ‘Belief’ Never Verified By Well-Organised Experiments

    Homeopaths have many deep-rooted ‘beliefs’- most of them very irrational and unscientific. But I am sure, they cannot be convinced by talking logic or science that goes against such beliefs.

    Homeopaths ‘believe’ that ‘highly potentized’ drugs can produce symptoms, and can be used for ‘drug proving’. They believe it is dangerous to use potentized drugs without indications.

    One homeopath claimed: “I once took a dose of medhorrinum 1M, because I really wanted to know more about Homeopathy, and I got a date of symptoms for some time (a month or less), most corresponded well to the set of symptoms described in materia medica for medhorrinum… So you say that high dilutions is not good for experimentations…. I think it is not correct…”

    Pure rubbish. If he wanted to “know more about homeopathy”, this is not the way he should do experiments. Taking oneself ‘single dose’ of a drug and waiting for ‘its symptoms’ to appear! And he got symptoms of that drug for one month! And he considers he has ‘proved’ that “high dilutions are good for experimentation” beyond any doubt!

    If he really wanted to ‘prove’ that potentized drugs can produce symptoms, he should conduct the experiments according to scientific method. Person who is subjected to experiment should not know which medicine he is taking. Person conducting the experiment should not know which drug is given to which individual. There should be enough controls also. Then we should try to identify the drugs from comparing the symptoms produced with symptoms in materia medica. Only when we succeed in identifying drugs from symptoms in such a well controlled blinded experiment, we can say we ‘proved’ that high potency drugs could produce symptoms.

    Taking a dose of ‘known’ drug oneself, waiting for its symptoms for one month, and ascribing all symptoms you produced during one month to that single drug- it is a joke. After taking that ‘single dose’, he will be ‘taking’ diverse types of exogenous molecules into your body- through food, water, drinks, air and many many other environmental factors. All those molecules can produce symptoms in him. How can he say all symptoms produced for one month ‘after’ a ‘single dose of medorrhinum 1m’ were due that ‘single dose’?

    Only homeopaths, blinded by ‘beliefs’ can make such claims. For them, everything that happens ‘after’ their dose is the ‘effect’ of that dose! They never bother to consider the variables involved! I know it is a waste of time arguing to convince them. They cannot be convinced by logic or science. They are ‘believers’.

    Homeopathic drugs potentized above avogadro limit (12c) contain only ‘molecular imprints’. Molecular imprints are supramolecular nanostructures formed by hydrogen bonding of ethyl alcohol-water molecules, into which the 3-dimensional configuration of drug molecules are imprinted as nano-cavities. These nano-cavities can act as artificial binding sites for endogenous or exogenous molecules having configurational similarity to the molecules used for imprinting. We can say, molecular imprints are ‘artificial key-holes’ for pathogenic molecular keys.

    Biochemical processes involves two aspects: 1.Binding of ligands to targets, which is determined by configurational affinity.2. Chemical transformation, which is determined by charge affinity of ligands and targets. Since ‘molecular imprints’ have only ‘configurational affinity’, without any ‘charge affinity’ towards biological molecules, potentized drugs cannot interfere in normal biological processes.

    Molecular imprints contained in the potentized homeopathic preparations bind to ligands or biological molecules merely due to their complementary cofigurations without any charge affinity, whereas natural ligands bind to their biological target molecules in capacity of their appropriate spacial configurations as well as charge affinities. So, the bindings of molecular imprints with biological molecules or their ligands will be very temporary and cannot stay long. Such bindings of molecular imprints cannot replace the natural ligand-target interactions happening as part of vital processes. Molecular imprints can not compete with natural ligands in binding to their natural biological targets. Hence it is obvious that potentized homeopathic preparations cannot interfere in biological ‘ligand-target’ processes such as ‘substrate-enzyme’, ‘antigens-antibodies’, ‘signal-receptor’ etc. As such, chances of potentized homeopathic medicines acting as pathological agents are very rare even if used indiscriminately. Molecular imprints can interfere only in interactions between pathogenic molecules and biological molecules, as well as off-target bindings of ligands with biological molecules, where only configurational affinity is involved. Obviously, molecular imprints can act upon only the molecular blocks created by exogenous or endogenous foreign pathological molecules.

    Molecular imprints contained in the potentized homeopathic preparations cannot successfully compete with natural ligands in binding with their biological target molecules, and hence, cannot interfere in the interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands. Obviously, potentized drugs cannot produce any pathological molecular inhibitions in the organism or produce symptoms.

    According to scientific view, ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ means: ‘diseases caused by specific molecular inhibitions and expressed through specific groups of subjective and objective symptoms can be cured by potentized forms of drugs that could create similar pathologic molecular inhibitions and symptoms in healthy individuals if applied in crude form’. Same can be stated in a different way as: “pathological molecular inhibitions can be rectified using ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules that can create similar molecular inhibitions if applied in molecular form”.

    Homeopathy utilizes ‘drug proving’ for studying the pathogenic properties of drug substances by observing their capacity to produce various pathological symptoms in healthy organisms. Homeopathy is based on the principle that a substance becomes a medicinal agent only because it has some disease-producing properties. In other words, if we could know what pathological inhibitions and symptoms a drug can create in healthy organism, we can decide in what disease states that drug could be used as a therapeutic agent in potentized form. Drug proving is unique to homeopathy. Whereas modern medicine studies the disease-curing properties of drugs, homeopathy studies the disease-producing properties of drugs. That makes a great difference.

    Drug proving is done by administering small quantities of a particular drug to controlled volunteer groups of apparently healthy individuals. The subjective and objective symptoms, representing the diverse molecular deviations caused in the organism by the drug substance are carefully observed and recorded. These symptoms are systematically arranged compiled as materia medica of the substance used.

    Let us examine what actually happens at molecular level during drug proving:

    First point we have to note is that most drug substances, especially of vegetable or animal origin, are not ‘simple’ substance. Even if we use them as a ‘single’ substance, actually they consist of diverse types of individual molecules. A substance can interact with biological molecules only as individual molecules. If we really want to understand homeopathy and drug proving scientifically, we should first of all learn to perceive drug substance in terms of its diverse constituent molecules. Once we introduce a sample of drug substance into the living organism for ‘proving’, its constituent molecules are instantly subjected to various processes such as disintegration, ionization, hydration and certain chemical transformations.
    Individual constituent molecules are carried and conveyed through blood and other internal transport systems into the cells and body fluids in different parts of the body. They can interact with various enzymes, receptors, and other biological molecules inside the organism. Individual drug molecules, in capacities of their molecular affinities, get themselves bound to various bio-molecules which participate in the essential biochemical activities in the organism. These interactions are decided and directed by the specific properties such as configurations and charges of active groups of individual drug molecules, and their specific affinity towards biological target molecules.

    The three dimensional structure of the individual drug molecules, and that of the concerned bio-molecules are the decisive factors in this process of formation of molecular binding between them. This peculiarity is called molecular affinity. It is very important to note that drug substances interact with different biological molecules, not as a singular entity, but as individual constituent molecules and ions. These individual drug molecules and ions are capable of competing with natural ligands and substrates in binding to their biological targets, thereby inhibiting the essential bio-chemical processes which can take place only with their presence and mediation. Such molecular inhibitions in various bio-chemical pathways result in a condition of pathology, expressed in the form of a train of subjective and objective symptoms, due to the involvement of various neuro-mediator, neuro-transmitter and cellular signalling systems.

    From this point of view, drug proving has to be done using molecular forms of drugs, since only they can produce real pathological molecular inhibitions in the organism.

    Let us examine what actually happens when potentized drugs are administered into ‘apparently’ healthy individual individuals for drug proving. First point we need to remember is that ‘apparently’ healthy people will not be totally free from pathological molecular inhibitions. There will be diverse types of hidden molecular errors existing in them, arising from diverse types of factors such as nutritional, environmental, miasmatic, genetic, emotional, metabolic, infectious and others. When potentized drugs are introduced into the body, some or other molecular imprints contained in them may act upon these existing molecular inhibitions, which may be reflected as some transient symptoms. Actually, those symptoms are not indicating the ‘disease producing’ properties, but ‘diseases curing’ properties of concerned drugs. As such, symptoms obtained from drug proving using high potencies may confuse our materia medica.

    Potentized drugs may act on ‘healthy’ organism by a different mechanism. Molecular imprints may bind to the natural ligands in the body, if they have any configurational affinity. But, such bindings will not lead to a state of pathology since molecular imprints cannot interfere in the interaction between natural ligands and targets which will have stronger affinity to each other. As such, symptoms appearing from such interactions will be very much temporary, and cannot be considered ‘pathological symptoms’.

    Drugs potentized above 12c cannot cause pathological molecular inhibitions or produce symptoms. As such ‘drug proving’ with ‘high potencies’ is only a myth- ab false belief that is deep-rooted in the minds of homeopaths.

  • Confusions Created By Proponents Of Energy Medicine Over The Concept Of ‘Molecular Imprints’

    The term ‘molecular imprints’ is now almost hijacked by the proponents of all diverse shades of unscientific ‘energy medicine’ and ‘spiritual’ theories about homeopathy. It makes distinguishing between scientific and unscientific approaches very hard.

    The term ‘molecular imprinting’ and ‘molecular imprints’ originally comes from polymer chemistry, where these terms are used to describe a technique of creating template-shaped cavities in polymer matrices with memory of the template molecules, to be used as artificial molecular recognition sites.

    This technique is based on the system used by enzymes for substrate recognition, which is called the “lock and key” model. The active binding site of an enzyme has a unique geometric structure that is particularly suitable for a substrate. A substrate that has a corresponding shape to the site is recognized by selectively binding to the enzyme, while an incorrectly shaped molecule that does not fit the binding site is not recognized.

    In a similar way, molecularly imprinted materials are prepared using a template molecule and functional monomers that assemble around the template and subsequently get crosslinked to each other. The functional monomers, which are self-assembled around the template molecule by interaction between functional groups on both the template and monomers, are polymerized to form an imprinted matrix. They are known in the scientific community as a molecular imprinted polymer (MIP). Then the template molecule is removed from the matrix under certain conditions, leaving behind a cavity compl ementary in size and shape to the template. The obtained cavity can work as a selective binding site for a specific template molecule.

    I have been using the concepts of ‘molecular imprinting’ and ‘molecular imprints’ to explain homeopathic potentization in this scientific perspective. My contention is that water has polymer-like properties at supramolecular level, and as such, water can be used as molecular imprinting medium exactly similar to other polymer substances. During potentization, three dimensional configuration of drug molecules are imprinted as nanocavities into the hydrogen-bonded supra-molecular networks of ethyl alcohol-water matrix. These ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’ can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for the drug molecules used for imprinting, as well as to pathogenic molecules having similar configurations. Active principles of potentized drugs are these ‘molecular imprints’.

    This is the scientific understanding of ‘molecular imprinting’ and ‘molecular imprints’.

    Now, the proponents of ‘energy medicine’ theories are trying to hijack this scientific concept to promote their pseudo-scientific theories. They talk about ‘molecular imprints’ of ‘drug energy’ and even ‘spiritual energy’. They talk about ‘molecular imprinting’ of ‘thoughts’ into water. According to them, ‘molecular imprints’ act by ‘emitting’ ‘radiations’, ‘waves’, ‘resonance’ and such things. They mix up ‘molecular imprinting’ with ‘water memory’ theories of people like Emotto, Chaplin and Rustum Roy. Their theories have nothing in common with the scientific concepts of ‘molecular imprinting’.

    Anyhow, these people create a lot of confusions during our discussions about scientific homeopathy. To avoid confusions, now I prefer to use the term ‘hydrosomes’ instead of ‘molecular imprints’, to indicate ‘molecular imprinted nanocavities of water acting as artificial molecular binding sites’.

    Modern biochemistry explains molecular mechanisms of disease and cure in terms of ‘key-lock’ relationship between ligands and their target molecules. This ‘key-lock’ concept has been proved right by the preparation and use of target specific designer drugs. Any scientific explanation we provide for molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’ should be fitting to this ‘key-lock’ concept of molecular interactions. My explanation of of homeopathy on the basis of ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’ acting as ‘artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules’ perfectly meets this fundamental condition.

  • You Have The Right To Practice Any Occult You Like- But Don’t Say It Is Homeopathy!

    One senior homeopath friend commented on my discussions regarding ‘energy medicine theories of homeopathy’:

    “In fact I treat my patients with energy medicine apart from Homoeopathy and magnetic therapy. Energy medicine is there and practiced from 4000 years and Homoeopathy is 250 years old. Study some more and learn to know before commenting on any subject. 4000 years back no labs, no trials, still medicine was being given in many ways and patients were being treated too. Just because you would not believe energy medicine, you cant call it funny and mock at it. Energy medicine is having its own value and such comments would not change its place in the Universe. Never think you can attack somebody like this and you do not have any right to discuss the unknown subject in the group.”

    My friend is gravely mistaken. I am not discussing the “”value” or ‘efficacy’ of energy medicine. Nor its historical relevance. I am not interested in ‘knowing’ it. I would not question anybody’s right to practice ‘energy medicine’, ‘magnetotherapy’ or anything like that “apart” from homeopathy. It is up to you to decide what you should practice.

    I was commenting on the widely propagated theory that “homeopathy is energy medicine”. In that case, it is a different matter. I did not criticize ‘reflexology’ per se; I criticized the method of selecting similimum using reflexology David Little talk about. I have nothing if anybody practice radionics or dowsing; but when somebody theorizes about using radionics machines to select homeopathic drugs, I have the right to comment. The age old occult practice using hair as as medium existed here since antiquity. I am not bothered. But when somebody talks about homeopathic drug transmission to distance through hair, and conducts courses and seminars for homeopaths on that topic, it becomes a matter of concern for every homeopath. I am not bothered about the ‘water memory’ theory of Emoto or Rustom Roy. But when a homeopath claims he writes name of homeopathic similimum on paper, keeps it under a glass of water to ‘charge’ it and treats his patients with that ‘charged water’, you should not expect me me to keep silent. When a reputed homeopathy claims he recorded the homeopathic drug information as mp3 file and cured AIDS by playing it to patients, you have no right to ask me to keep mum.

    Anybody can practice any occults or woodoo as he like “apart” from homeopathy, if law permits a ‘physician’ to do so. I don’t bother. But when you make homeopathy “part” of your occult practices, and spin ‘ultra-scientific’ theories about homeopathy to justify such practices, I have the right to intervene and comment. I am bothered only about homeopathy- not about your ‘energy medicine’ or occults. You keep them “apart”, I will not “attack” you.

    Whether anybody is practicing or propagating CAM, ENERGY MEDICINE, FAITH HEALING or anything else is not my concern. It is for the law-enforcing authorities to decide whether a HOMEOPATH registered under the provision of CCH Act is permitted to engage in such practices ‘along’ with homeopathy. I do not intend to comment on it. I am questioning the widely propagated theory that ‘homeopathy is energy medicine’. I am questioning the practice of ‘homeopathic occults’ such as homeopathic drug transmission through hair, homeopathic drug transmission through photographs, mp3 file transmission, selecting similimum by radionics machine, dowsing and reflexology, and such things which gravely damage the scientific credentials of homeopathy. I object only when you make homeopathy a PART of ‘energy medicine’. Homeopathy is purely a method of ‘drug therapy’- not energy medicine or spiritual healing. Homeopathy should be understood, explained and practiced a MEDICAL SCIENCE. Homeopaths should be scientific medical professionals.

    Regarding my “right to discuss the unknown subject in the group”, I would like to reserve my comments for the time being, hoping not to spoil our friendship. I expect you would discuss only “known” subjects hereafter.

  • Homeopathy is ‘Medical Science’. Say ‘No’ To ‘Energy Medicine’ Theories!

    I constantly try to expose all those ‘big’ people who are propagating homeopathy as a branch of ‘energy medicine’ or ‘spiritual healing’, not due to any personal vendetta. Actually, I do not know these people personally. I do this campaign as part of my mission of advancing homeopathy as a full-fledged ‘medical science’, which I think, cannot be achieved without freeing it from malignant influence of diverse shades of ‘energy medicine’ theories and their highly influential international propagators.

    We cannot hope to advance homeopathy as a scientific medical practice unless we could explain ‘potentization’ and ‘similia similibus curentur’ in a way fitting to modern scientific paradigms, and prove them according to scientific methods. If you are genuine in this mission, you cannot move forward without settling accounts with pseudo-scientific ‘energy medicine concepts’ that have engulfed homeopathy.

    Actually, ‘energy medicine’, energy therapy or energy healing is a branch of complementary and alternative medicine basically distinct from homeopathy. It is based on the belief that a healer is able to channel healing energy into the person seeking help by different methods: hands-on, hands-off, and distant (or absent) where the patient and healer are in different locations. There are various schools of energy healing. It is known as biofield energy healing,spiritual healing, contact healing, distant healing, therapeutic touch, Reiki or Qigong. Spiritual healing is largely non-denominational and traditional religious faith is not seen as a prerequiste for effecting a cure. Faith healing, by contrast, takes place within a religious context.

    Homeopathy is essentially a form of ‘drug therapy’. It has nothing to do with ‘energy medicine’. Homeopathy should be understood, explained and practiced as a scientific medicine.

    ‘Homeopathy is energy medicine’- this theory is intentionally propagated world over by proponents of diverse colors of occult and pseudo-scientific practices destroying the scientific credentials of homeopathy. They spin fanciful theories about homeopathy using ‘vibration theory’, ‘bio-magnetism’,’wave theory’, ‘electro-magnetic radiations’, ‘frequencies’, ‘resonance theory’, ‘piezo-electricity’ and various other absurd theories, pretending themselves to be ‘ultra-scientific’. These people are gravely alienating homeopathy from mainstream scientific knowledge system.

    Along with homeopathic practice, these people are actually doing spiritual healing, psychic healing, Therapeutic touch, Healing Touch, Esoteric healing, Magnetic healing, Qigong healing, Reiki, Pranic healing, Crystal healing, distant healing, intercessionary prayer, Acupuncture, biofield energy healing,spiritual healing, contact healing, distant healing and various other occult practices. They prefer to call themselves as CAM practitioners. That is why they want to include homeopathy in the category of ‘energy medicine’, and try to explain homeopathy in that terms.

    These people propagate hair transmission, telephone transmission, photo transmission, mp3 file transmission, telepathy, radionics, dowsing, spiritual homeopathy and such things in the name of homeopathy.They have great influence and dominance in international homeopathy.

    A very special convenience of ‘energy medicine’ is, they can fit any scientific knowledge into their ‘theoretical system’. They can connect everything using their magic wands- ‘‘electromagnetic radiations’ and ‘bio-magnetic resonance’!

    According to them, homeopathic medicines act by ‘resonance’, nanoparticles act by ‘resonance’, ‘ghost dna’ act by ‘resonance’. Everything is ‘energy’. Life is ‘resonance’, disease is lack of ‘resonance’, cure is re-establishment of ‘resonance’. Even cells and genes interact through ‘resonance! ‘Everything could fit comfortably well into this ‘resonance’ theory- let it be homeopathy, faith healing, acupressure, distant healing, radionics, dowsing, hair transmission, touch healing, mesmerism, prayers, pranic, reiki or any occult practice. ‘Radiations’ and ‘Resonance’explains everything.

    Once you accept ‘energy medicine’ theory, everything is easy. You become a ‘healer’- not ‘physician’. You need not bother about learning difficult subjects such as biochemistry, genetics, anatomy, physiology, pathology, pharmacology, diagnosis, materia medica, similimum or anything else! You need not study biological molecules, drug molecules or their chemical interactions. Simply find out where the ‘resonance’ is missing, and re-establish ‘resonance’ using appropriate ‘healing methods’. You can use anything as therapeutic agents- your hands, charged water, dynamized drugs, prayers, healing touch, suggestions, mind power, magnets, hair, nail, excreta! It is a comfort zone for lazy and ignorant people who desire to be ‘healers’. If you are not willing to learn science, or if you do not understand science, be a proponent of ‘energy medicine’!

    If you genuinely want homeopathy to be a real ‘medical science’, it is inevitable that you will have to fight for freeing homeopathy from the influence of ‘energy medicine’ theories and associated occult practices. I take up this fight as part of my mission of propagating scientific homeopathy. Kindly do not minimize it into an issue of ‘personality clashes’ or ”ego conflicts.

  • Dana Ullman- Foremost Spokesman Of Pseudo-scientific ‘Energy Medicine’ Theories of Homeopathy

    In his eagerness to defend  his most cherished ‘nanopharmacology’ concept, and to utilize it to provide a scientific glare to his ‘energy medicine’ theories, respected Dana Ullman now gives a new twist to nanoparticle theory of IIT scientists.

    He says: “It doesn’t necessarily assert that it is the nanoparticles that have ALL of the impact. It could also mean that the nanoparticles change the entire sovent (the water medium)”

    This is really a new contribution from dana ulman to nanoparticle theory. But it makes the whole puzzle more mysterious and complex, which is the actual intention of dana. By this statement, he is trying to utilize the ‘nanoparticle theory for justifying the most pseudoscientific ‘energy medicine theories’ in homeopathy’, of which he is a prominent proponent along with his CAM counterparts.

    By this statement, he is trying to say that nanoparticles are not the real active principles of potentized drugs that makes “all impacts”, but they ‘change the whole solvent’ by inducing it to ‘vibrate’ exactly similar to ‘vibrations of drug substance’, and that these ‘immaterial dynamic vibrations’ are the active principles of potentized drugs! He would also say, these ‘vibrations’ will act upon ‘vital force’ in a ‘dynamic way’ by ‘resonance’ and produce cure!

    SEE how cleverly the ‘energy medicine’ proponents twist and convert the nanoparticle theory proposed by IIT scientists in a way fitting to their pseudoscientific ‘dynamic energy- vibration-resonance-vital force’ frame work!!

    His statement makes it very much obvious that dana ulmann and his ‘energy medicine’ friends are ‘supporting’ nanoparticle theory not to rationally resolve the riddles of homeopathy and make it more scientific, but hoping to utilize it to provide a ‘scientific’ glare to their nonsense ‘vibration’ theories.

    Dana Ullman, who is claimed to be described by TIME magazine as “the Leading Proselytizer of Homeopathy” and ABC News touted as “Homeopathy’s Foremost Spokesman”, is a prominent proponent of ‘ultra-scientific’ ‘energy medicine’ theories in homeopathy that severely discredit the scientific credentials of homeopathy.

    Please read his articles on his site and try to understand what he says about the mechanism of homeopathic drug action. He has no opinion of his own. He will quote many others, and say ‘it is said’, ‘it is believed’. He never commits to any theory. Same time, all  articles of Dana Ulman have an undercurrent of ‘energy medicine’ theories.

    Energy medicine theory is the greatest enemy of scientific homeopathy. Scientific community will never accept homeopathy as a medical science, if we go on talking ‘energy medicine’. We have to use the paradigms of science, language of science, concepts of science, terms of science, methods of science. We should explain homeopathy as a science, fitting to modern biochemistry, molecular biology and pathology.

    Dana Ulmann would be the first person to write articles supporting any emerging theories or new research reports appearing in homeopathy. As I already said, he instantly ‘supports’ every new theories, but commits to nothing. If you ‘accept’ a theory in its real sense, you will have to discard and disown its contradicting theories. Ulmann will ‘support’ molecular imprints, next day he will write an article supporting ‘energy medicine’ theories. Next day he will support nanoparticle theory. The moment the IIT B research report appeared in media, he wrote an article declaring ‘homeopathy is nanopharmacology’, same time adding that ‘nanopaticles’ act by ‘vibrations’ and ‘resonance’! It is a wonderful exercise. He never goes into the depth of any theory. He only quote others. His all articles always contains ‘it is said’ and ‘it is believed’. He ‘says’ nothing specific. He never antagonize any theory directly, but very cleverly utilize every new ‘researches’ to justify the ‘energy medicine concepts.

    The flag-ship article of his website  “Why Homeopathy Makes Sense and Works-A Great Introductory Article for Advocates OR Skeptics of Homeopathy” clearly shows that he is is totally blank on “How Homeopathy Works”.

    He admits “precisely how homeopathic medicines work remains a mystery according to present scientific thinking”. If it is a mystery, how could he claim it is “nano-pharmacology”?

    In this article, he says homeopathy uses “nanodoses” of medicinal substances. Either he has no idea about what “nano” means, or he is not aware that drugs potentized above 12c or avogadro number cannot contain a single drug molecule. How can something that does not contain a ‘single’ molecule be ‘nano-doses’ of drug substance? To be “nano-doses”, there should be drug molecules present!

    In the same article, Ulmann says Homeopathy works on the basis of ‘hormesis’. Hormesis is all about the biological actions of ‘small’ quantities of drugs. How could Ullman talk about hormesis knowing well that potentized drugs contain no drug substance? If you accept homeopathy as hormesis, you are obviously discarding the principles of homeopathic potentization. Homeopathy is not SMALL doses- it is NO doses!

    DANA ULLMAN SAYS:  “One metaphor that may help us understand how and why extremely small doses of medicinal agents may work derives from present knowledge of modern submarine radio communications. Normal radio waves simply do not penetrate water, so submarines must use an extremely low frequency radio wave. However, the terms “extremely low” are inadequate to describe this specific situation because radio waves used by submarines to penetrate water are so low that a single wavelength is typically several miles long! If one considers that the human body is 70-80% water, perhaps the best way to provide pharmacological information to the body and into intercellular fluids is with nanodoses. Like the above mentioned extremely low frequency radio waves, it may be necessary to use extremely low (and activated) doses as used in homeopathic medicines, in order for a person to receive the medicinal effect.”

    SEE ANOTHER ‘METAPHOR’:  “It is commonly known that certain species of moths can smell pheromones of its own species up to two miles in distance. It is no simple coincidence that species only sense pheromones from those in the same species who emit them (akin to the homeopathic principle of similars), as though they have developed exquisite and specific receptor sites for what they need to survive and to propagate their species. Likewise, sharks are known to sense blood in the water at distances, and when one considers the volume of water in the ocean, it becomes obvious that sharks, like all living creatures, develop extreme hypersensitivity for whatever will help ensure their survival. It is therefore not surprising that renowned astronomer Johann Kepler once said, “Nature uses as little as possible of anything.”

    These are a very ‘funny’ metaphors only ‘Ulmanian logic’ can decipher relating with ‘how homeopathy works’.!

    In the article “Nobel Prize-Winning Virologist’s New Research Gives Significant Support to Homeopathic Pharmacology” Ullman claims that Luc Montaigner’s researches using ‘aqueous dilutions’ of bacterial DNA supports homeopathic potentization, even though “homeopathy is not mentioned anywhere” by Montaigner. But Ullman conveniently ignores the fact that Montaigner never used dilutions above 12x, which is very much lower to avogadro limit. Upto 23x, there is always chance for original molecules to be present. Montaigner even said he could not detect any ‘electromagnetic signals’ above 18x. How can Ullman claim Montaigner proved the efficacy of ‘high dilutions’ used in homeopathy?

    For my appraisal of Montaigner’s observations, go to this link: http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/luc-montagniers-observations-of-ultra-dilutions-and-its-implications-on-homeopathy/

    Dana is never bothered or does not notice the fact that Montaigner’s ‘ghost dna’ theory and nanoparticle theory of IIT-B team contradict each other!. He ‘supports’ both theories!. That is a very special quality of Dana- he can support and promote any number of contradicting theories same time, without any ‘partiality’.  He commits to nothing. He would connect any contradicting theories using his ‘energy medicine’ theories of ‘electromagnetic radiations’ and ‘biomagnetic resonance’!  According to him, homeopathic medicines act by ‘resonance’, nanoparticles act by ‘resonance’, ‘ghost dna’ act by ‘resonance’. Life is ‘resonance’, disease is lack of ‘resonance’, cure is re-establishment of ‘resonance’. Everything could fit well into this ‘resonance’ theory- let it be homeopathy, faith healing, distant healing, radionics, dowsing, drug transmission or any occult practice. ‘Resonance’ and ‘radiations’ is the answer.

    In his article “Homeopathic Medicine is Nanopharmacology”, Dana Ullman answers the question “How does homeopathy work” as follows:

    “How homeopathic medicines work is presently a mystery. And yet, nature is replete with striking examples of the powerful effects of extremely small doses of active agents.

    It is commonly known that certain species of moths can smell pheromones of its own species up to two miles away. Likewise, sharks are known to sense blood in the water at large distances.

    I stress again that nanopharmacological doses will not have any effect unless the person is hypersensitive to the specific medicinal substance. Hypersensitivity is created when there is some type of resonance between the medicine and the person. Because the system of homeopathy bases its selection of the medicine on its ability to cause in overdose the similar symptoms that the sick person is experiencing, homeopathy’s “law of similars,” as it is called, is simply a practical method of finding the substance to which a person is hypersensitive.

    The homeopathic principle of similars makes further sense when one considers that physiologists and pathologists now recognize that disease is not simply the result of breakdown or surrender of the body but that symptoms are instead representative of the body’s efforts to fight infection or adapt to stress. Fever, inflammation, pain, discharge, and even high blood pressure are but a small number of the common symptoms that the organism creates in order to defend and to try to heal itself.

    Over 200 years of experience by homeopathic physicians hav found that a homeopathic medicine acts longer and deeper when it is more potentized. Although no one knows precisely why this happens, it is conjectured that highly potentized nanopharmacological doses can more deeply penetrate cells and the blood-brain barrier than less potentized medicines. Although there is no consensus on why these ultramolecular doses work more deeply, there is consensus from users of these natural medicines that they do.

    One cannot help but sense the potential treasure-trove of knowledge that further research in homeopathy and nanopharmacology will bring in this new millennium.”

    ————————————————————————————————-

    I GOT NOTHING. DID DANA ANYWHERE PROVIDE ANY STRAIGHT ANSWER TO THE QUESTION ‘HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS? ANYBODY GOT ANY IDEA?

    Only thing I got is he explains “law of similars,” as “simply a practical method of finding the substance to which a person is hypersensitive”, and this “hypersensitivity is created when there is some type of resonance between the medicine and the person”. According to Dana that is how homeopathy works- “resonance between medicine and person”! He pretends to be talking science by saying ‘homeopathy is nanopharmacology’, whereas his ‘nano-pharmocology’ has nothing to do with modern nanotechnology or pharmacology.  His ‘nano pharmacology’ acts by resonance!

    That is the wonderful quality of Dana Ullman’s writings. He talks a lot, he writes a lot- of course in a very knowledgeable and ‘scientific’ language. But nobody gets nothing from him. Everything begins in mystery and ends in mystery.

    And you should know, he is “the Leading Proselytizer of Homeopathy” and “Homeopathy’s Foremost Spokesman” in western world”!

    My request to Dan Ullman is, he should be a little more cautious and consistent  while explaining homeopathy. Being the most noted  “Foremost Spokesman” of homeopathy, he should be more responsible. While saying homeopathy is ‘hormesis’, ‘small doses’ and ‘nanopharmacology’, he should be aware that he is contradicting the concept of homeopathic potentization. He should try to explain how potentized drugs, even without a single drug molecule contained them, act therapeutically on the basis of ‘similia similibus curentur’. Any reasonable theory about homeopathy should explain what actually happens during potentization, what are the active principles of potentized drugs, and what is the exact molecular mechanism by which these active principles produces a therapeutic effect. We should explain potentization and similia similibus curentur in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge. Most importantly, we should be consistent in our explanation, whatever it be.

    Dana Ullman should always remember, there is an elite and skeptic  scientific community keeping watchful eyes on whatever he says. He should be cautious not to provide new arms and ammunition to them to attack homeopathy, by making inconsistent and self-contradicting statements and promoting obviously unscientific theories about homeopathy.

    I would expect Dana Ulman to provide specific answers to following direct questions, if he is serious in his inquiry ‘how homeopathy works’

    1. What exactly happens during potentization? What is the exact process involved?

    2. What are the active principles of potentized drugs?

    3. What is the exact process by which these active principles of potentized drugs interact with the organism and produce a therapeutic effect?

    4. How would you explain ‘similia similibus curentur’ in the light of your understanding of potentization and therapeutic action of potentized drugs?

  • SEE HOW OUR “STALWARTS” MAKE HOMEOPATHY AN UTTER NONSENSE!

    See the real face of international ‘scientific homeopathy’, and its ‘modern masters’! They write books, conduct courses, seminars and interviews to train new generation of homeopaths. They are ‘most revered’ teachers and gurus. They represent homeopathy in international platforms. Nothing to wonder scientific community dismisses homeopathy as ‘fake’, ‘superstitious beliefs’ and ‘quackery’! No wonder James Randy and his skeptic friends rocking!

    DAVID LITTLE is a prominent face of international homeopathy, who founded
    H.O.E. (Homoeopathic Online Education) selling a four year online course on homeopathy. David has been practicing Homoeopathy for the past 30 years.He claims to be providing “valuable knowledge of the true methods of Homoeopathy, so that it can be used in a safe and effective manner”

    “David Little was born in the USA in 1948 and has been a student of Homœopathy since the early 1970s. His first teacher was the late, great Dr. Manning Strahl and he was a colleague of the late Dr. Harimohan Choudhury. He has studied Homoeopathy in the USA and India. He started HOE, Homeopathic Online Education in 1999”.

    Leela D’Souza, who conducted an interview of DAVID LITTLE for Hpathy introduces him: “All of us who know you, admire your work for homeopathy and many have established a strong foundation in their homeopathic journey participating in your course and receiving guidance from you”.

    SEE WHAT DAVID LITTLE TEACHES ABOUT USING REFLEXOLOGY IN SELECTING SIMILIMUM AND POTENCY:

    “Through skillful reflex testing the homoeopath is able to communicate directly with the vital force by learning its language. We can ask the vital force what it wants through reading the reaction of the autonomic nervous reflexes to the stimuli caused by homoeopathic remedies. In this way we can know if a remedy is going to react before we give it! It can also help us to find the correct potency to use. This certainly is a great advantage. This can most easily be done by observing the pupil reflex, the pulse and respiration, palpating and percussing the chest and abdomen, and testing the galvanic skin response with a dielectric substance on the skin of the patient.”

    “All of these effects are the reaction of the autonomic nervous system to the radiations of energy waves from the homoeopathic remedy. In fact many of these reflexes will react before the vial is actually brought into contact with the patient”.

    SEE DAVID LITTLE EXPLAINING HOW TO USE ‘PUPIL REFLEX’ FOR SELECTING SIMILIMUM:

    “Once the is patient is relaxed and ready the operator shines the light into the person’s eyes. If one is using a shaded light it should be held no higher than the waist and suddenly turned upward so that the light shines into the patient’s eyes. If one is using a flashlight it should be held to the side and directed into the patient’s eyes from one to two feet away. The pupils will immediately contract and then after one or two seconds dilate slightly and come to rest. At this moment the assistant should come up behind the patient and with a quick movement bring the remedy close to the person’s body or lightly touch them. If the homoeopath is working alone they may bring the remedy very close or lightly touch the remedy to the hand of the patient while watching the pupils.”

    “If the patient is sensitive to the remedy the pupils of the patient will dilate quite clearly and come to rest in a new position. In certain rare instances the pupils may contract first and then dilate. The remedy that causes the most dilation of the pupil of the pupil is the remedy to which the body is the most susceptible. After allowing the nervous system to settle down for a few minutes, retest the chosen remedy in various potencies. The potency that causes the largest, most stable dilation is the potency to which the body is most reactive. In this way we can use the vital force as a guide in helping to choose a suitable remedy in the proper potency”.

    DAVID LITTLE EXPLAINS HOW TO USE ‘PULSE REFLEXES’ FOR SELECTING SIMILIMUM:

    “While reading the pulse the remedy vial is brought near the subject’s back with a quick swing stopping a few inches away from the patient’s body and the changes in the pulse are recorded. The vial only needs to be in contact with the body for a few seconds but the effect may last for up to 60 seconds. The heart usually responds to the correct remedy with a sudden hesitation, sometimes for up to 1/2 a beat, followed by one loud beat of the heart, and a perceptively new rhythm and volume.”

    “Sometimes the pulse will respond as soon as you pick up the remedy. These effects can be plainly distinguished by auscultation with a stethoscope and can be viewed on a fluoroscope. In cases where there are irregular beats the correct remedy seems to stabilize the pulse and make it more regular. If the heart is arrhythmic because of a serious pathological lesion there is still often a clear response.”

    “The pulse can easily show the homoeopath which remedy the vital force wants in that moment. It will also help show you which potency is the most suitable. Autonomic reflex testing can make a great difference in any homoeopath’s practice, particularly when it is difficult to chose between a few well chosen remedies. It is also useful after several remedies have been used and the symptoms have become masked due to too many partial simillimums”.

    DAVID LITTLE EXPLAINS HOW TO USE ‘RESPIRATORY RESPONSE’ TO SELECT SIMILIMUM AND POTENCY:

    “First of all, observe the rate, rhythm, depth, movement of the chest, and effort in breathing of the client. The normal respiratory rate for a resting adult is 14 to 20 breaths per minute. Infants can breathe up to 44 cycles per minute. After observing the respiration bring the remedy near and touch the patient as in the other testing methods and watch for a response. When a related remedy is brought near the patient will sometimes almost sigh, or take a deep breath, then a new respiratory rate will be established. Look for changes in the rhythm, depth and movement of the chest. Counting the respiration can be done at the same time that the pulse is assessed. These affects can be watched together after one has gained experience in the method. Breath sound changes can be ausculated with a stethoscope much in the same way as the heart sounds. Observation, tactile fremitus, palpation, and percussion also supply information about the state of health of the respiratory system and can be used to assess the actions of related remedies.”

    DAVID LITTLE EXPLAINS ‘PERCUSSION TECHNIQUE’ OF SELECTING SIMILIMUM AND POTENCY:

    “The percussion technique can easily be done by anyone who has experience in the art of percussion for diagnostic purposes although a person can be trained in this method especially for the purpose of testing remedies. In this technique the patient is to be seated facing the west in a chair in the same manner as the previous tests. The experimenter may sit in front of patient toward the left side so that they can percuss the upper and outer section of the person’s chest. They may also stand behind the subject so as to reach over and percuss the subject’s chest from behind. An assistant stands about four or five feet away with the vials of the homoeopathic remedies placed on a table or chair”.

    “The operator then begins to percuss the upper outer area of the apex of the lungs in a steady rhythm where the percussion-note is between flatness and resonance. When the experimenter is ready the assistant picks up a remedy and steps three or four feet away from the rest of the vials and then takes about two seconds to lift the vial upward until they reach the full length of the arm. If the remedy has any relationship to the patient, the percussion tone will become dull once the assistant touches the vial containing the remedy. As the remedy is raised upward the percussion-note may change to a higher pitch or becomes resonant again. Only those remedies which maintain a dull sound no matter how high the vial is held above the body are to be considered for retesting by the other methods for further assessment.”

    “The distance that the remedy “holds” the dull percussion-note is related to its ability to influence the constitution in question. Some of the most active remedies have maintained the reaction at a distances of 75 to 100 feet or more! This imponderable remedy energy passes through walls made of brick, stone, concrete, or plaster without any obstruction. Stearns and his team observed remedy reactions at distances up to 200 feet. The remedy that “holds” the dullness of the percussion-note at the greatest distance is the remedy that will have the greatest influence over the vital force. Although these techniques are not very practical in the clinic it is quite amazing as a demonstration of the sensitivity of the human aura to the energy of a related homoeopathic remedy.”

    DAVID LITTLE EXPLAINS HOW TO USE ‘SKIN RESPONSE” FOR SELECTING SIMILIMUM AND POTENCY:

    “The skin resistance test is another easy to read response of the autonomic nervous system to a correct remedy. It is best if a sitting patient faces west or a prone person lies with the head to the north. The abdomen of the patient should be bared, and if the weather is humid, dried well with a cloth. The operator should then stroke the abdomen with a dielectric rod, such as one made out of glass, rubber, or bakelite. A drinking glass or a 6 oz. remedy bottle works very well. The remedies to be tested should be placed close by and handled by an assistant or the tester. The operator lightly strokes the abdomen in an up and down direction t in order to get a feel of the skin tonus of the patient.

    The assistant or operator now picks up the remedy to be tested and brings it close or in contact with the body while the stroking motion is continued. The operator continues to stroke the abdomen to see if they can observe a “clinging” or “sticky” sensation as the skin is stroked. The dielectric rod will appear to “stick” or feel slightly retarded because of the galvanic skin response. In order to observe the stick effect the rod should be held horizontal to the abdomen and stroked vertically. To start with a single area to the side of, or immediately below the navel should be stroked. All remedies that cause a stick reaction should then be retested by stroking the other areas of the abdomen to see which one causes the largest area of the abdomen to respond. The remedy that shows the largest pattern of reaction will be found to have a strong effect on both the pupil dilation and pulse reflexes. It has also been found that the areas along the spine are also good areas for the testing of the remedies.

    The same technique may be used for testing the remedies on the spine as for the abdomen. Some individuals seem to react better on the back than the front. It is also useful in those men who have too much abdominal hair to get a good response. The remedy that shows the largest area of reaction along the spine is the most suitable. Those individuals who have experience in Osteopathic or Chiropractic methods may notice certain relationships between the reflexes that respond and the areas of the illness treated. This is a phenomenon where research will prove most interesting to those with knowledge of the field. The inside of the arm, especially over the elbow joint, is also another area that responds well to the skin reflex. This area is convenient in situations where it may be impractical to bare the trunk of the body.”

    DAVID LITTLE EXPLAINS HOW TO USE ‘PALPATION’ FOR SELECTING SIMILIMUM AND POTENCY:

    “Palpation is a method of assessing the state of health by means of examination with the hands. The different regions of the body are investigated for heat, cold, unusual growths, swellings, tightness, looseness, and pain by the hands of the examiner. Much of the information acquired during palpation can be used to test remedies much in the same manner as the other reflexes. For example, the tissue can be assessed for areas of tension, relaxation and pain before and after the remedies are brought in contact with the patient. The tight areas of the body become more relaxed and loose areas become more tight. Pain on contact is usually significantly reduced when the correct remedies are in contact with the human electromagnetic field or the body.”

    ” With proper biofeedback equipment the human operator can be removed from the testing altogether and the results analyzed by computers. This area of research is an aspect of modern science where homoeopaths can prove that their remedies have definite physiological results. These biofeedback systems can also be combined with the radionic methods to demonstrate the presence of subtle waves emanating from the human body as well as homoeopathic remedies. This work needs the assistance of those who are experienced in Homoeopathy if it is going to yield the best results. Dr. G. B. Stearns was such a man as he was one of the only Americans to use Boyd’s Emanometer and clinical reflex testing in conjunction with homoeopathy.”

    DAVID LITTLE EXPLAINS THE PREPARING OF LM POTENCY AS FOLLOWS :

    The LM potency is first made from the 3c trituration (1:100x100x100). Next 1 grain of this trituration is placed into 500 drops to make the LM/0 solution (1 to 501 ratio). Then 1 drop is taken from the LM/0 solution and added to 100 drops of dilute and succussed 100 times. This makes the LM 0/1 potency, the first degree of the LM pharmacy (100x100x100x500x100x500 = LM 0/1). The C’s of the 5th Organon (1833) were made with 10 succussions by hand although many modern potencies are made with 10 to 40 or more succussions by machine.

    When speaking of the amount of original medicinal substances in the LM 0/1 it is similar to the amount found in the 6c potency although its remedial powers are greatly expanded due to the larger dilution medium. A mere comparison of the amount of original substances found in the C and LM potency does not show the differences in their inner medicinal qualities. The LM pharmaceutical solution is then used to moisten 500 tiny poppy seed size pellets.

    One pellet of the LM 0/1 is further diluted in a minimum of 3 & 1/2 oz to make the medicinal solution. After succussions 1, 2 or 3 teaspoons are taken from the medicinal solution and further diluted in a dilution glass of water. From this dilution glass 1, 2, 3 teaspoons are given to the patient as a dose. The final liquid dose has been diluted through two more stages than the dry dose. The final amount of original substance given to the patient is more diluted than the dry pill since it has been dissolved in the medicinal solution and stirred into a dilution glass. This final amount of original substance in the teaspoon of solution given to the patient has yet to be calculated in the equation.
    ———————————————————————————————–

    This is the real face of international ‘scientific homeopathy’, and its ‘modern masters’! They write books, conduct courses, seminars and interviews to train new generation of homeopaths. They are ‘most revered’ teachers and gurus. They represent homeopathy in international platforms. Nothing to wonder scientific community dismiss homeopathy as ‘fake’, ‘superstitious beliefs’ and ‘quackery’! No wonder James Randy and his skeptic friends rocking!

  • Why Potentized ‘Snake Venom’ Is Not Effective In Managing Acute Emergencies Of Snake Bites?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

  • How To Safeguard Ourselves From Getting Confused By The Flood Of Nonsense Theories?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • ‘Medical Analyzer’ Proves Potentized Drugs ‘Works’- But The Real Question Is ‘How Homeopathy Works’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “The data reveals the selective action of homoeopathic medicines in different potencies especially in Heart Rate Variability (HRV), Blood Flow Variability (BFV) and Morphology Index Variability (MIV),” Dr Srinath Rao of FMHMC said during the Meeting on Advanced applications of Physiological variability held at BARC here last week.

    Homoeopathy medicines beyond 12th potency do not contain even a single atom or molecule of the medicinal substance. Yet these medicines are effective in the treatment of large number of diseases and particularly the ones that are considered incurable in modern medicine.

    Electronic division of BARC has been actively working on this aspect of homoeopathic medicines for the past three decades and their initial experiments with potencised medicines have recorded 50 to 150 per cent increase in the blood flow in affected parts of the body within 30 minutes of the indicated medicine in variety of patients, Rao said in his paper on `Fundamental Research in Homoeopathy: Experiments with SULPHUR` presented at the Meet.

    “The reproducibility of these experiments largely depended upon the choice of indicated medicine, which was determined subjectively,” Rao said.

    But with the development of Medical Analyser, BARC scientists, headed by J D Jindal, have shown that physiological variability show change in the spectrum caused by randomly selected potentised medicine and randomly selected control subjects (volunteers) in 2004 and “this opened the door to us for using physiological variability in the field of homoeopathy,” Rao said.

    “We used in our experiments with SULPHUR, Anu Photo Rheograph developed by BARC which is based on the principles of Photo Plethysmography also developed by it,” Rao said.

    Dr Nirupama Mishra and colleagues from National Institute of Homoeopathy, C Nayak from the Department of AYUSH along with other private doctors carried out an exploratory scientific trial on 72 healthy volunteers, studied different potencies of Aconitum Napellus and Nux Vomica with the placebo control.

    Homoeopathy is one of the leading alternative systems of medicine worldwide introduced by Dr Samuel Christian Hahnemann (1755-1843). Since its introduction to the mankind, its basic principles have not changed as homoeopathy is primarily a specialised system of rational therapy based on fixed and definite laws of nature.

    Homoeopathy has been mired in controversy due to its concept of drug dynamisation leading to ultra diluted form of medicines. “Since these kinds of medicines do not come under any measurable pharmacological standards, the attention of scientific fraternity has been focused on this apparent lack of existence of material substance in homoeopathic medicine and to its potency concept in the light of Avogadro`s law, rather than on its effectiveness,” Mishra said.

    Both Rao and Mishra pointed out that it was necessary that more medicines and potencies are to be investigated with this scientific tool for the welfare of the humanity.”

    BARC develops new medical instruments:

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

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

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

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

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

    What is BARC Medical Analyzer Software?

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

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

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

    Method of Analysis: Fast Fourier Transform

    ———————————————————————————————–

    MY COMMENT ON THIS REPORT:

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

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

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

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

    1. What happens during potentization?

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

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

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

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

    My answer to these basic questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • No! Homeopathy Is Not ‘Fake’! An Open Letter To Dr.Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Nobel Laureate- Written By Chandran Nambiar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Regards.

    Chandran Nambiar

    For Homeopathic Community

  • Biophoton Theory Of Potentization- Just Another Nonsense That Further Discredit Homeopathy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • I Would Not Blame Any Scientist For Saying Homeopathy Is Not ‘Scientific’, Until We Prove It Is Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Case Taking And Making Homeopathic Prescriptions For Acute Fevers

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

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

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

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

    Abdomen(Pains, flatulence, sensation)

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

    Back(pains, sensations)

    Chest(oppression, palpitation, pains)

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

    Tongue(color, sensations, taste, other peculiarities)

    Respiratory(cough, asthmatic, expectoration etc)

    Nose(coryza, stuffiness, discharges, sensations etc)

    Head(Pains, peculiar sensations)

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

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

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

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

    Face(swelling, discolorations)

    Alternating symptoms, if any

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

    Skin(eruptions, colors, special sensations, coldness)

    Sleep(positions, dreams)

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

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

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

    Modalities: Time modalities, Conditional modalities

    Locations: Sides, peculiar body regions

    Causations: Dietary irregularities, Exposures etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Similarity Of ‘Functional Groups’ Of Drug Molecules And Pathogenic Molecules Determines ‘Similimum”

    To understand the real science behind the phenomena of ‘similia similibus curentur’, ‘drug proving’ and ‘potntization’, we should study drug substances in terms of not only their ‘constituent molecules’, but in terms of ‘functional groups’ and ‘moieties’ of those drug molecules. A drug substance is composed of diverse types of drug molecules. A drug molecule interacts with ‘active groups’ of biological target molecules such as enzymes and receptors using their ‘functional groups’ or ‘moieties’. It is the ‘functional groups’ and ‘moieties’ on the individual drug molecules that decide to which biological molecules they can bind to and produce molecular inhibitions. Different drug molecules with different size and structures, but having same ‘functional group’ or ‘moiety’ can bind to same biological molecules and produce similar molecular errors and similar groups of symptoms. A drug molecule become similimum to a disease when the drug molecule and disease-producing molecule have same functional groups, so that they could bind to same biological targets producing same molecular errors and same symptom groups.

    Drug molecules act upon the biological molecules in the organism by binding their ‘functional groups’ to the active groups on the complex biological molecules such as receptors and enzymes. These molecular interactions are determined by the affinity between functional groups or moieties of drug molecules and active sites of biological molecules. Here, the functional groups of drug molecules are called ‘ligands’, and the biological molecules are called ‘targets’. Ligand-target interaction is  determined by a peculiar ‘key-lock’ relationship due to complementary configurational affinities.

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

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

    According to the scientific definition proposed by Dialectical Homeopathy, ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ means:

    “If a drug substance in crude form is capable of producing certain groups of symptoms in a healthy human organism, that drug substance in potentized form can cure diseases having similar symptoms”.

    Potentization is explained in terms of molecular imprinting. As per this concept, potentized drugs contains diverse types of molecular imprints representing diverse types of constituent molecules contained in the drug substances used for potentization.

    In other words, “potentized drugs can cure diseases having symptoms similar to those produced by that drug in healthy organism if applied in crude forms”.

    Homeopathy is based on the therapeutic principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’, which scientifically means “endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules that cause diseases by binding to the biological molecules can be entrapped and removed using molecular imprints of drug molecules which in molecular form can bind to the same biological molecules, utilizing the complementary configurational affinity between molecular imprints and pathogenic molecules”.

    So far, we understood ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ as ‘similarity of symptoms produced by drugs as well as diseases’. According to modern scientific understanding, we can explain it as ‘similarity of molecular errors produced by drug molecules and pathogenic molecules’ in the organism.

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

    To be ‘similar’ does not mean pathological molecule and drug molecules should  be similar in their ‘whole’ molecular structure. To bind to same targets, similarity of ‘functional groups’ or even a ‘moeity’ is enough. If the adjacent groups that facilitate binding with targets are also same, similarity becomes more perfect. If a drug molecule could produce symptoms similar to a disease, that means the drug molecules contains some functional groups simialr to those of pathogenic molecules that caused the disease. By virtue of these similar functional groups, both pathogenic molecules and drug molecules could bind to same biological targets, producing similar molecular errors and symptoms in the organism.

    Molecular imprints of similar functional groups will also be similar. As such, potentized forms of a drug substance can bind and deactivate the pathogenic molecules having similar functional groups. This is the real molecular mechanism of ‘similia similibus curentur’.

    Except those substances of simple chemical formula belonging to mineral groups, most of the pathogenic agents as well as drug substances consist of complex organic molecules. In the study of chemical interactions involving these organic molecules, understanding the concept of ‘functional groups’ is very important.  ‘Functional groups’ are specific groups of atoms within large organic molecules that are responsible for their characteristic chemical reactions.  Different organic molecules having same functional group will undergo the same or similar chemical reactions regardless of the size of the molecule it is a part of.  However, its relative reactivity can be modified or influenced to an extent by nearby functional groups.

    Even though the word moiety is often used synonymously to “functional group”, according to the IUPAC definition,a moiety is a part of a molecule that may include either whole functional groups or a parts of functional groups as substructures.

    The atoms of functional groups are linked to each other and to the rest of the molecule by covalent bonds. When the group of covalently bound atoms bears a net charge, the group is referred to more properly as a polyatomic ion or a complex ion. Any subgroup of atoms of a compound also may be called a radical, and if a covalent bond is broken homolytically, the resulting fragment radicals are referred as free radicals.

    Organic reactions are facilitated and controlled by the functional groups of the reactants.

    A ‘moeity’ represents discrete non-bonded components. Thus, Na2SO4 would contain 3 moieties (2 Na+ and one SO42-). A “chemical formula moiety” is defined as “formula with each discrete bonded residue or ion shown as a separate moiety”.

    We should learn different types of ‘functional groups’ and ‘moieties’ of constituent molecules of our drug substances, as well as diverse types of pathogenic molecules. We have to study our materia medica from this viewpoint, comparing symptoms of different drug molecules having same functional moieties.  Then we can logically  explain the phenomenon of ‘drug relationships’. We can explain the similarity of drugs belonging to different groups such as ‘calcarea’, ‘merc’, ‘kali’, ‘acid’, ‘sulph’, ‘mur’ etc. Such an approach will make our understanding of homeopathy more scientific and accurate.

    Learn ‘Functional Groups’ from Wikipedia:

    The following is a list of common functional groups. In the formulas, the symbols R and R’ usually denote an attached hydrogen, or a hydrocarbon side chain of any length, but may sometimes refer to any group of atoms.

    Functional Groups containing Hydrocarbons

    Functional groups, called hydrocarbyls, that contain only carbon and hydrogen, but vary in the number and order of π bonds. Each one differs in type (and scope) of reactivity.

    Chemical class

    Group

    Formula

    Structural Formula

    Prefix

    Suffix

    Example

    Alkane

    Alkyl

    RH

    alkyl-

    -ane

    Ethane

    Alkene

    Alkenyl

    R2C=CR2

    alkenyl-

    -ene

    Ethylene
    (Ethene)

    Alkyne

    Alkynyl

    RC≡CR’

    alkynyl-

    -yne

    Acetylene
    (Ethyne)

    Benzene derivative

    Phenyl

    RC6H5
    RPh

    phenyl-

    -benzene

    Cumene
    (2-phenylpropane)

    Toluene derivative

    Benzyl

    RCH2C6H5
    RBn

    benzyl-

    1-(substituent)toluene

    Benzyl bromide
    (α-Bromotoluene)

    There are also a large number of branched or ring alkanes that have specific names, e.g., tert-butyl, bornyl, cyclohexyl, etc.

    Hydrocarbons may form charged structures: positively charged carbocations or negative carbanions. Carbocations are often named -um. Examples are tropylium and triphenylmethyl cations and the cyclopentadienyl anion.

    Functional Groups containing halogens

    Haloalkanes are a class of molecule that is defined by a carbon-halogen bond. This bond can be relatively weak (in the case of an iodoalkane) or quite stable (as in the case of a fluoroalkane). In general, with the exception of fluorinated compounds, haloalkanes readily undergo nucleophilic substitution reactions or elimination reactions. The substitution on the carbon, the acidity of an adjacent proton, the solvent conditions, etc. all can influence the outcome of the reactivity.

    Chemical class

    Group

    Formula

    Structural Formula

    Prefix

    Suffix

    Example

    haloalkane

    halo

    RX

    halo-

    alkyl halide

    Chloroethane
    (Ethyl chloride)

    fluoroalkane

    fluoro

    RF

    fluoro-

    alkyl fluoride

    Fluoromethane
    (Methyl fluoride)

    chloroalkane

    chloro

    RCl

    chloro-

    alkyl chloride

    Chloromethane
    (Methyl chloride)

    bromoalkane

    bromo

    RBr

    bromo-

    alkyl bromide

    Bromomethane
    (Methyl bromide)

    iodoalkane

    iodo

    RI

    iodo-

    alkyl iodide

    Iodomethane
    (Methyl iodide)

    Functional Groups containing oxygen

    Compounds that contain C-O bonds each possess differing reactivity based upon the location and hybridization of the C-O bond, owing to the electron-withdrawing effect of sp hybridized oxygen (carbonyl groups) and the donating effects of sp2 hybridized oxygen (alcohol groups).

    Chemical class

    Group

    Formula

    Structural Formula

    Prefix

    Suffix

    Example

    Alcohol

    Hydroxyl

    ROH

    hydroxy-

    -ol

    Methanol

    Ketone

    Carbonyl

    RCOR’

    -oyl- (-COR’)
    or
    oxo- (=O)

    -one

    Butanone
    (Methyl ethyl ketone

    Aldehyde

    Aldehyde

    RCHO

    formyl- (-COH)
    or
    oxo- (=O)

    -al

    Ethanal
    (Acetaldehyde)

    Acyl halide

    Haloformyl

    RCOX

    carbonofluoridoyl-
    carbonochloridoyl-
    carbonobromidoyl-
    carbonoiodidoyl-

    -oyl halide

    Acetyl chloride
    (Ethanoyl chloride)

    Carbonate

    Carbonate ester

    ROCOOR

    (alkoxycarbonyl)oxy-

    alkyl carbonate

    Triphosgene
    (Di(trichloromethyl) carbonate)

    Carboxylate

    Carboxylate

    RCOO−

    carboxy-

    -oate

    Sodium acetate
    (Sodium ethanoate)

    Carboxylic acid

    Carboxyl

    RCOOH

    carboxy-

    -oic acid

    Acetic acid
    (Ethanoic acid)

    Ester

    Ester

    RCOOR’

    alkanoyloxy-
    or
    alkoxycarbonyl

    alkyl alkanoate

    Ethyl butyrate
    (Ethyl butanoate)

    Hydroperoxide

    Hydroperoxy

    ROOH

    hydroperoxy-

    alkylhydroperoxide

    Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide

    Peroxide

    Peroxy

    ROOR

    peroxy-

    alkyl peroxide

    Di-tert-butyl peroxide

    Ether

    Ether

    ROR’

    alkoxy-

    alkyl ether

    Diethyl ether
    (Ethoxyethane)

    Hemiacetal

    Hemiacetal

    RCH(OR’)(OH)

    alkoxy -ol

    -al alkylhemiacetal

    Hemiketal

    Hemiketal

    RC(ORʺ)(OH)R’

    alkoxy -ol

    -one alkylhemiketal

    Acetal

    Acetal

    RCH(OR’)(OR”)

    dialkoxy-

    -al dialkyl acetal

    Ketal (orAcetal)

    Ketal (orAcetal)

    RC(ORʺ)(OR‴)R’

    dialkoxy-

    -one dialkyl ketal

    Orthoester

    Orthoester

    RC(OR’)(ORʺ)(OR‴)

    trialkoxy-

    Orthocarbonate ester

    Orthocarbonate ester

    C(OR)(OR’)(ORʺ)(OR″)

    tetralkoxy-

    tetraalkylorthocarbonate

    Functional Groups containing nitrogen

    Compounds that contain nitrogen in this category may contain C-O bonds, such as in the case of amides.

    Chemical class

    Group

    Formula

    Structural Formula

    Prefix

    Suffix

    Example

    Amide

    Carboxamide

    RCONR2

    carboxamido-
    or
    carbamoyl-

    -amide

    Acetamide
    (Ethanamide)

    Amines

    Primary amine

    RNH2

    amino-

    -amine

    Methylamine
    (Methanamine)

    Secondary amine

    R2NH

    amino-

    -amine

    Dimethylamine

    Tertiary amine

    R3N

    amino-

    -amine

    Trimethylamine

    4° ammonium ion

    R4N+

    ammonio-

    -ammonium

    Choline

    Imine

    Primary ketimine

    RC(=NH)R’

    imino-

    -imine

    Secondary ketimine

    RC(=NR)R’

    imino-

    -imine

    Primary aldimine

    RC(=NH)H

    imino-

    -imine

    Secondary aldimine

    RC(=NR’)H

    imino-

    -imine

    Imide

    Imide

    (RCO)2NR’

    imido-

    -imide

    Azide

    Azide

    RN3

    azido-

    alkyl azide

    Phenyl azide (Azidobenzene)

    Azo compound

    Azo
    (Diimide)

    RN2R’

    azo-

    -diazene

    Methyl orange
    (p-dimethylamino-azobenzenesulfonic acid)

    Cyanates

    Cyanate

    ROCN

    cyanato-

    alkyl cyanate

    Methyl cyanate

    Isocyanate

    RNCO

    isocyanato-

    alkyl isocyanate

    Methyl isocyanate

    Nitrate

    Nitrate

    RONO2

    nitrooxy-, nitroxy-

    alkyl nitrate

    Amyl nitrate
    (1-nitrooxypentane)

    Nitrile

    Nitrile

    RCN

    cyano-

    alkanenitrile
    alkyl cyanide

    Benzonitrile
    (Phenyl cyanide)

    Isonitrile

    RNC

    isocyano-

    alkaneisonitrile
    alkyl isocyanide

    Methyl isocyanide

    Nitrite

    Nitrosooxy

    RONO

    nitrosooxy-

    alkyl nitrite

    Isoamyl nitrite
    (3-methyl-1-nitrosooxybutane)

    Nitro compound

    Nitro

    RNO2

    nitro-

    Nitromethane

    Nitroso compound

    Nitroso

    RNO

    nitroso-

    Nitrosobenzene

    Pyridine derivative

    Pyridyl

    RC5H4N

    4-pyridyl
    (pyridin-4-yl)

    3-pyridyl
    (pyridin-3-yl)

    2-pyridyl
    (pyridin-2-yl)

    -pyridine

    Nicotine

    Functional Groups containing sulphur

    Compounds that contain sulfur exhibit unique chemistry due to their ability to form more bonds than oxygen, their lighter analogue on the periodic table. Substitutive nomenclature (marked as prefix in table) is preferred over functional class nomenclature (marked as suffix in table) for sulfides, disulfides, sulfoxides and sulfones.

    Chemical class

    Group

    Formula

    Structural Formula

    Prefix

    Suffix

    Example

    Thiol

    Sulfhydryl

    RSH

    sulfanyl-
    (-SH)

    –thiol

    Ethanethiol

    Sulfide
    (Thioether)

    Sulfide

    RSR’

    substituent sulfanyl-
    (-SR’)

    di(substituent) sulfide

    		 (Methylsulfanyl)methane (prefix) or
    Dimethyl sulfide (suffix)

    Disulfide

    Disulfide

    RSSR’

    substituent disulfanyl-
    (-SSR’)

    di(substituent) disulfide

    		 (Methyldisulfanyl)methane (prefix) or
    Dimethyl disulfide (suffix)

    Sulfoxide

    Sulfinyl

    RSOR’

    -sulfinyl-
    (-SOR’)

    di(substituent) sulfoxide

    (Methanesulfinyl)methane (prefix) or
    Dimethyl sulfoxide (suffix)

    Sulfone

    Sulfonyl

    RSO2R’

    -sulfonyl-
    (-SO2R’)

    di(substituent) sulfone

    (Methanesulfonyl)methane (prefix) or
    Dimethyl sulfone (suffix)

    Sulfinic acid

    Sulfino

    RSO2H

    sulfino-
    (-SO2H)

    –sulfinic acid

    2-Aminoethanesulfinic acid

    Sulfonic acid

    Sulfo

    RSO3H

    sulfo-
    (-SO3H)

    –sulfonic acid

    Benzenesulfonic acid

    Thiocyanate

    Thiocyanate

    RSCN

    thiocyanato-
    (-SCN)

    substituent thiocyanate

    Phenyl thiocyanate

    Isothiocyanate

    RNCS

    isothiocyanato-
    (-NCS)

    substituent isothiocyanate

    Allyl isothiocyanate

    Thione

    Carbonothioyl

    RCSR’

    -thioyl-
    (-CSR’)
    or
    sulfanylidene-
    (=S)

    –thione

    Diphenylmethanethione
    (Thiobenzophenone)

    Thial

    Carbonothioyl

    RCSH

    methanethioyl-
    (-CSH)
    or
    sulfanylidene-
    (=S)

    –thial

    Groups containing phosphorus

    Compounds that contain phosphorus exhibit unique chemistry due to their ability to form more bonds than nitrogen, their lighter analogues on the periodic table.

    Chemical class

    Group

    Formula

    Structural Formula

    Prefix

    Suffix

    Example

    Phosphine
    (Phosphane)

    Phosphino

    R3P

    phosphanyl-

    -phosphane

    Methylpropylphosphane

    Phosphonic acid

    Phosphono

    RP(=O)(OH)2

    phosphono-

    substituent phosphonic acid

    Benzylphosphonic acid

    Phosphate

    Phosphate

    ROP(=O)(OH)2

    phosphonooxy-
    or
    O-phosphono- (phospho-)

    substituent phosphate

    Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate (suffix)

    O-Phosphonocholine (prefix)
    (Phosphocholine)

    Phosphodiester

    Phosphate

    HOPO(OR)2

    [(alkoxy)hydroxyphosphoryl]oxy-
    or
    O-[(alkoxy)hydroxyphosphoryl]-

    di(substituent) hydrogen phosphate
    or
    phosphoric acid di(substituent) ester

    DNA

    O‑[(2‑Guanidinoethoxy)hydroxyphosphoryl]‑l‑serine (prefix)
    (Lombricine)

  • Why Sodium Chloride Molecules In Our Food Articles Do Not Antidote Potentized Natrum Mur?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • A Case Of Chronic Headache Cured With ‘Particular’ As Well As ‘Constitutional’ Prescriptions ‘Combined’

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

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

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

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

    Rubrics selected:

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

    Repertorisation Result – Totality Method Using – All Symptoms:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————————–

    RUBRICS EXTRACTED USING SIMILIMUM ULTRA SOFTWARE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

  • Let Us Scientifically Verify The Belief That Camphor Is A Universal Antidote To Potentized Homeopathic Drugs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Displace ‘Blind Beliefs’ With ‘Scientific Knowledge’, If You Really Want To Make Homeopathy A Scientific Medical System

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Always keep abreast with modern scientific knowledge

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

    2. Read in between lines

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

    3. Creative Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Molecular Kinetics Of Homeopathic Therapeutics- Similia Similibus Curentur

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Homeopathy has devised its own method of closely following even the minutest deviations in the biochemical processes in the organism,through a special strategy of monitoring and recording the perceivable symptoms caused by such deviations. Obviously, deviations in a particular biochemical pathway resulting from such a  molecular inhibition produces a specific train of subjective and objective symptoms in the organism. In other words, each specific group of symptoms exhibited by the organism indicates a particular error occurred in the molecular level. Homoeopathy chases these train of symptoms to their minutest level, from periphery to interior, in order to study the exact molecular errors underlying any particular state of pathology. Not even the sophisticated tools of ultra-modern technologies can monitor those molecular errors with such perfection. Then, those pathological molecular inhibitions are removed by applying appropriate therapeutic agents, selected on the basis of ‘law ofsimilars’ or ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’. This fundamental strategy underlying the homeopathic system of therapeutics evidently surpasses even the most scientific methods of modern molecular medicine. It is high time that the scientific world had realized and recognized this truth, and incorporated this wonderful tool into their armamentarium. Obviously, “similia similibus curentur” is the most effective technique of  identifying and removing the pathological molecular inhibitions in the organism.

    We time and again hear our critics sarcastically declaringthat homeopaths indulge in a totally unscientific way of medical practice, considering the external symptoms alone, and accuse that the basic causes of diseases are not dealt with in homoeopathic treatment. ‘Homoeopaths treat only the symptoms, not the disease’- they say. Even now these learned friends utterly fail to understand the logic of homoeopathy, and the fact that it is a highly scientific method of therapeutics. The subjective and objective symptoms presented by the organism are the only reliable indicators to help us correctly understand the minute molecular deviations underlying a state of pathology. Each group or train of symptoms represent a specific molecular error that had occurred in a particular biochemical pathway. These symptoms invariably indicates the specific type and character of the endogenic or exogenic foreign molecules or ions responsiblefor the particular molecular inhibition. By studying the train of symptoms carefully and systematically, homoeopaths are really observing  these exact molecular inhibitions. This symptomatology-based analytical method of homoeopathy  is far more exact and superior to the multitude of expensive complex laboratory chemical tests and imaging technologies we consider to be scientific. Identifying the exact molecular errors in the organism of the patient by observing the expressed symptoms, and identifying the most appropriate therapeutic agents from the similarity of symptoms the drugs  could produce in healthy organism- this is the scientific essence of  “similia similibuscurentur”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Sycosis- Is It Miasm Of Gonorrhoea, Or Human Papilloma Virus? Or, A Mixed Miasm That Confused Hahnemann?

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

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

    In Chronic Diseases : Para 9, Hahnemann says: 

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

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

    In Chronic Diseases, Hahnemann says about SYCOSIS as follows:

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

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

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

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

    Hahnemann continues:

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

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

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

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

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

    Let us listen to hahnemann again: 

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

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

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

    GONORRHEA:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    HUMAN PAPILLOMA VIRUS (HPF):

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

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

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

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

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

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