REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY

Featured

SCIENCE BEHIND HOMEOPATHY

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

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

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

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

SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR

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

DISEASE AND CURE

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

MOLECULAR IMPRINTING INVOLVED IN HOMEOPATHIC POTENTIZATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Molecular Imprinting in Polymers:

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

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

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

Molecular Imprinted Proteins:

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

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

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

Molecular Imprinting in Water:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water-Ethyl Alcohol Mixture :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HERE IS A SCHOLARLY “RESEARCHER” WHO SEEMS TO HAVE LOST HIS COMMON SENSE DUE TO STRONG HOSTLITY TOWARDS HOMEOPATHY!

An allopathy doctor from kerala, an “eminent hepatologist” attatched to a “center of excellence” of a leading hospital, who is engaged in reasearching about “dangers of homeopathy”, has declared that he has found out the quantity of arsenic present in homeopathic drug Arsenic Alb 30. According to him, 1 kg of Ars Alb 30 globules he purchased from market contains 0.18 mg of crude arsenic, and hence it is a very dangerous drug to be used in human beings!

This poor guy seems to have misunderstood that homeopathic drugs are administered to patients as KILOGRAM DOSES of globules!

1 kg of No: 40 sugar globules commonly used by homeopaths approximately consists of around 32000 globules. That means, 1 medicated globule of Ars Alb 30 may contain 0.18/32000 or 0.00000562 mg of arsenic! We can calculate how much negligible quantity of arsenic will enter our body by taking 3 or 4 hlobules of Ars Alb 30, even if the “invention” of our allopathy scientist is right!

What “danger” such a small quantity of arsenic can cause? Our Resepected scientist is bound to answer. Even if a person takes 4 pills of ars alb 30 bds daily for 360 days, total arsenic entering the body through 2880 pills will be much lesser than 18 microgram, that is much below one days reccommended dietary requirement!

Please do some calculations and tell me sir, how much arsenic will reach into the body by consuming Ars Alb 30, 4 pills bds for 3 days? Is it enough to cause toxicity “leading to liver failure and death”?

Arsenic is a trace element that occurs naturally in very small amounts in the diet. Its exact functions are not known. The estimated adult daily intake of arsenic from a typical diet is 12-50 mcg. A dietary requirement of 12-25 mcg/day has been suggested.

Please look into some quick facts regarding arsenic in environment as well as our food articles:

The arsenic content ranged from 0.001 mg/kg in cabbages to 0.104 mg/kg also in bananas.

Inorganic arsenic that exists in soil is highly attracted to sulfur compounds in brussels sprouts, along with other cruciferous vegetables, including kale, broccoli, and cauliflower.

It has been evidenced that arsenic in garlic is present in the most toxic inorganic species As(III) and As(V).

The amounts of As(III) tended to be higher in non-processed nuts such as cashews, almonds, pine nuts, walnuts etc.

The arsenic content of raw rice varies from 0.1 to 0.4 mg of inorganic arsenic/kg of dry mass. Arsenic is concentrated in rice bran.

The cocoa powder revealed the maximum metal concentrations of 0.303 ± 0.035 mg/kg for cadmium, 1.228 ± 0.146 mg/kg for lead and 0.094 ± 0.013 mg/kg for arsenic.

It has also been reported that honey can be contaminated with heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, mercury and cadmium.

Arsenic contamination of groundwater is a form of groundwater pollution which is often due to naturally occurring high concentrations of arsenic in deeper levels of groundwater. It is a high-profile problem due to the use of deep tube wells for water supply in the Ganges Delta, causing serious arsenic poisoning to large numbers of people.

Tobacco contains arsenic so the cigarette/cigar/cigarillo/hookah smoke you inhale does too. Arsenic is introduced into tobacco through the farming process, and is present in small quantities in cigarette smoke. Inorganic arsenic is present in mainstream tobacco smoke and presumably in sidestream smoke as well. Smoking makes it harder for your body to get rid of arsenic before it damages your cells. Arsenic exposure and smoking can increase your risk of lung, kidney and bladder cancer, and heart disease.

Actually, going though the “research paper” of this “allopathy scientist” is a real fun, making us wonder how these people claiming themselves to be “experts”, “researchers” and “scientists” could stoop so low, proving themselves to be pathetically biased and ignorant of the subject they are dealing with as well as the “scientific method” they boast about!

In this “research paper” our researchers from “center of excellence” have claimed to present “three cases of acute liver injury, leading to death in one patient with underlying non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) cirrhosis, after consumption of the homeopathic remedy Arsenic Alb 30 for COVID-19 prevention.”

A comparative study of arsenic content in banana and arsenic Alb 30 will be usefull to realize the folly of our “researcher” attacking homeopathy.

Wikipedia says that 1 kg of banana contains 0.1mg of arsenic. 1 gm banana contains 0.0001 mg of arsenic It means, 0.015 mg arsenic enters our body when we consume 150 gram of average sized banana.

Arsenic detected in 1 kg of Arsenic Alb 30 is 0.18 mg. Arsenic in 1 gm of Ars Alb 30- 0.00018 mg
Arsenic in 150 gm of Ars Alb 30- 0.027 mg

Arsenic we get by consuming 150 gm of banana is approximately equivalent to that we get from 75 gm of Arsenic Alb globules 75 gm of Arsenic Alb 30 globules will contain 2400 globules.

It means, arsenic our children get by eating 150 gms of banana will be equivalent to arsenic they may get by taking 2400 Ars Alb 30 globules.

Since the dosage of Ars Alb 30 per day is 3 globules, they will have to take it for 800 days to get arsenic equivalent to that they get by eating 150 gms of banana ONE DAY

If a child takes one banana every day for 300 days in a year, he will get arsenic equivalent to that he may get by taking 300 x 75 or 22.5kg of arsenic Alb 30 globules or 720000 globules of arsenic Alb 30.

Respected learned paediatrician, kindly tell us which is more dangerous to our children, 3 globules of homeopathic arsenic Alb 30 per day, or one banana per day?

They know very well that “arsenic, known as the king of poisons is a highly toxic substance with the potential to cause acute as well as chronic injury to multiple organ systems, mainly skin, lung, liver, and kidneys”.

But these “researchers” failed pathetically to understand the difference between ARSENIC and ARSENIC ALB 30! They should know, homeopathic ARS ALB 30 will not contain even a single molecule of ARSENIC, since t is diluted to 30c or a ratio “1:1 followed by 60 zeros”, which is very much above avogadro limit.

If their argument is that ARS ALB 30 still contains ARSENIC particles, they should have tested the sample used by the patients they subjected to study, and the test report showing the presence and quantiy of arsenic in the sample attatched to the “research paper”! Instead, they say “analysis of drugs consumed could not be performed in view of inadequate sample availability”. Is it so difficult for anybody to procure a sample of arsenic alb 30 for such a “sample analysis”? Without conducting such a sample analysis, how could they come to the conclusion that ARSENIC ALB 30 contains such a high amount of ARSENIC to cause “acute liver toxicity and death” by using “4 pills” or “three drops”? They are bound to say how much ARSENIC will be present in 4 globules or 3 drops of homeopathic ARS ALB 30, and is that quantity enough to produce the toxic effects of ARSENIC.

And still our “expert hepatologist” builds up stories about “cases of acute liver injury, leading to death in one patient with underlying non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) cirrhosis, after consumption of the homeopathic remedy Arsenic Alb 30 at a dosage of 4 pills bds for 3 days for COVID-19 prevention.”

OUR SCHOLARLY “RESEARCHER” SEEMS TO HAVE LOST HIS COMMON SENSE DUE TO HIS STRONG HOSTLITY TOWARDS HOMEOPATHY!

HOW HAHNEMANNIAN CONCEPT OF ‘MIASMS’ WAS TURNED UPSIDE DOWN BY HIS ‘CLASSICAL’ INTERPRETORS AND TAUGHT IN OUR COLLEGES!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did Homeopathy Community Actually Do Justice to Samuel Hahnemann?

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

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

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

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

Did we actually do justice to Samuel Hahnemann?

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

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

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

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

MIT HELPS TO UNDERSTAND ‘AUTO-IMMUNE DISEASES’ IN TERMS OF ‘MIASMS’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local syndromes which affect a specific organ or tissue:

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

Dermatologic: Pemphigus vulgaris, Vitiligo

Haematologic: Autoimmune haemolytic anaemia, Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura

Neurological: Myasthenia gravis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IS HOMEOPATHY AN “ANCILLARY” OF MODERN MEDICINE?

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

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

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

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

In modern medicine, the word ANCILLARY is clearly defined.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ON HOMEOPATHIC ‘DIAGNOSIS’

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

It is wrong to say “homeopathy treats symptoms”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Biological Properties of Molecular Forms and Molecular Imprinted Forms of A Drug Substance Appear Mutually Opposite?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

”ശാസ്ത്രീയ ഹോമിയോപ്പതിയുടെ ശക്തി സ്വയം അനുഭവിച്ചറിയുക”- ഹാനിമാൻ ജന്മവാർഷിക കാംപൈൻ

“ശാസ്ത്രീയമായ ഗവേഷണ പഠനങ്ങൾവഴി നവീകരിക്കപ്പെട്ട ആധുനിക ഹോമിയോ ചികിത്സാരീതിയുടെ ഗുണഫലങ്ങൾ ജനങ്ങളെ പരിചയപ്പെടുത്തുന്നതിനായി ഹാനിമാൻ ജന്മവാർഷികത്തോടനുബന്ധിച്ച് Center for Research in Redefining Homeopathy (CRRH) “ശാസ്ത്രീയഹോമിയോപ്പതി അനുഭവിച്ചറിയുക” എന്ന 6 മാസം നീണ്ടുനിൽക്കുന്ന ഒരു സൗജന്യ ചികിത്സാ പദ്ധതി ആവിഷ്കരിച്ചിരിക്കുകയാണ്. ശ്രീകണ്ഠപുരം എം എം കോംപ്ലക്സിൽ പ്രവർത്തിക്കുന്ന MIT SCIENTIFIC HOMEOPATHY CHAMBER എന്ന സ്ഥാപനം വഴിയാണ് ഈ പദ്ധതി നടപ്പിലാക്കുന്നത്. പഴകിയതോ താൽക്കാലികമോ ആയ എല്ലാവിധ ശാരീരിക-മാനസിക രോഗങ്ങൾക്കും, ജീവിതശൈലീരോഗങ്ങൾക്കും, ലൈംഗിക-വന്ധ്യതാ പ്രശ്നങ്ങൾക്കും, മദ്യ-മയക്കുമരുന്ന്-ലഹരി അടിമത്തത്തിനും പ്രത്യേകം തയാർചെയ്യപ്പെട്ട ഹോമിയോ ഔഷധങ്ങൾ ഉപയോഗിച്ച് വിദഗ്ധ ഡോക്ടർമാർ MIT PROTOCOL അനുസരിച്ചുള്ള ശാസ്ത്രീയ ഹോമിയോപ്പതി ചികിത്സ നൽകുന്നതാണ്. ഈ പദ്ധതി അനുസരിച്ച് കൺസൾട്ടേഷനും ഔഷധങ്ങളും പൂർണമായും സൗജന്യമായിരിക്കും. താൽപര്യമുള്ളവർ ഈ നോട്ടീസോ വാട്ട്സപ്പ് വഴി ലഭിച്ച ഈ മെസേജോ സഹിതം ശ്രീകണ്oപുരം എം എം കോപ്ലക്സിലുള്ള ഞങ്ങളുടെ സ്ഥാപനത്തിന്റെ കൗണ്ടറിൽ വന്ന് പേരും വ്യക്തിവിവരങ്ങളും നൽകിയാൽ സൌജന്യ ചികിത്സക്കായി രജിസ്റ്റർചെയ്ത് കാർഡ് വാങ്ങിക്കാവുന്നതാണ്. നേരിട്ടു വരാതെതന്നെ 9747320252 എന്ന ഫോൺ നമ്പറിൽ വിളിച്ച് പേർ രജിസ്റ്റർ ചെയ്യാവുന്നതുമാണ്.”

I AM TRYING TO EXPLAIN AND PROVE FUNDAMENTALS OF HOMEOPATHY SCIENTIFICALLY – NOT TO DENY OR DEFEAT HOMEOPATHY!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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