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.

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(substituentsulfide

(Methylsulfanyl)methane (prefix) or
Dimethyl sulfide (suffix)

Disulfide

Disulfide

RSSR’

substituent disulfanyl-
(-SSR’)

di(substituentdisulfide

(Methyldisulfanyl)methane (prefix) or
Dimethyl disulfide (suffix)

Sulfoxide

Sulfinyl

RSOR’

-sulfinyl-
(-SOR’)

di(substituentsulfoxide

(Methanesulfinyl)methane (prefix) or
Dimethyl sulfoxide (suffix)

Sulfone

Sulfonyl

RSO2R’

-sulfonyl-
(-SO2R’)

di(substituentsulfone

(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(substituentester

DNA

O‑[(2‑Guanidinoethoxy)hydroxyphosphoryl]‑l‑serine (prefix)
(Lombricine)

Implications of Luc Montagnier’s Works Upon Scientific Understanding of Ultra Dilutions

Luc Antoine Montagnier is a French virologist and joint recipient with Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Harald zur Hausen of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, for his discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

In 2009 he published a paper regarding detection of electromagnetic signals from bacterial DNA (M. pirum and E. coli) in water that had been prepared using agitation and high dilutions, and similar research on electromagnetic detection of HIV DNA in the blood of AIDS patients treated by anti-retroviral therapy. While homeopaths claim his research as support for homeopathy, many scientists have greeted it with scorn and harsh criticism. Because the research used high dilutions, homeopaths claimed it supported homeopathy, even though it didn’t mention homeopathy or use ultra-high dilutions.

He was also questioned on his beliefs about homeopathy, to which he replied: “I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules.”

He did admit that he wasn’t working with the very high dilution levels normally used in homeopathy: “We find that with DNA, we cannot work at the extremely high dilutions used in homeopathy; we cannot go further than a 10-18 dilution, or we lose the signal. But even at 10-18, you can calculate that there is not a single molecule of DNA left. And yet we detect a signal.”

Luc Montagnier’s observation that ‘high dilutions’ contain “water structures which mimic the original molecules.” is very important for homeopathy. But, he never tried to explain the exact molecular mechanism by which this ‘mimicking’ happens, and more important, did not take up the task of explaining the dynamics of homeopathic therapeutics involved in ‘simila similibus curentur’.

Montaigner s observatios are very much relevant for the scientific understanding of homeopathy. It is very important that he could demonstrate some form of “information/energy/memory” that is retained in ultra high dilutions, even without the presence of a single molecule of original substance.
But the limitation of his work is that he did not go further to inquire what is the actual mechanism involved in this retaining of memory, but simply said it may be some “water structures that mimic the original molecules”!
Most important thing I see in his observations is the mention of possibility of some WATER STRUCTURES as the source of electromagnetic radiations that come from these ultra high dilutions. He also says these water structures MIMIC the original molecules. Actually this is the most relevant part of his work that has great implications upon homeopathy. He proved that ultra high dilutions are not NOTHING, but they contain WATER STRUCTURES that MIMIC original molecules. We have to take this observation forward in finding the most wanted answer to the basic question of homeopathy, “what are the active principles of post-avogadro homeopathy drugs”. Thanks to Montaigner, now we can confidently say “it is the WATER STRUCTURES that mimic the drug molecules”.
Our next step is to find out the mechanism by which these WATER STRUCTURES are formed during the process of homeopathic potentization. MIT hypothesis can answer this question very well. Then we will have to explain the BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM by which these “water structures” produce a therapeutic effect in a way fitting to the principle of similia similibus curentur. MIT can explain this also. Of course these all are only in the hypothetical stage. We have prove this idea by scientific experiments. MIT team is already into this work.
What actually happened to montaigner’s work was that it fell into the hands of people propagating unscientific ENERGY MEDICINE theories. They took up ideas of “electromagnetic radiations” coming from ultra dilutions mentioned by montaigner, and used it to justify their absurd theories that homeopathy medicines act by some sort of mysterious “vibrations”. They totally ignored the statement of Montaigner that these electromagnetic radiations he detected in ultra high dilutions actually come from WATER STRUCTURES that MIMIC the drug molecules.
I consider Luc Montaigner’s work as a great step in scientific understanding of high dilution therapeutics. We have to start from his idea of “water structures mimicking the original molecules”, which he actually considered as the source of electromagnetic radiations he observed emitting from ultra high dilutions.

What happened was that people interested in ‘ultra-scientific’ and ‘dynamic’ interpretation of homeopathy actually hijacked his theory. Only because he said he could detect ‘electromagnetic signals’ showing the presence of ‘molecular memory of dugs’ in high dilutions, these theoreticians used it to justify their pseudoscientific concepts of ‘resonance’, ‘vibrations’, frequencies’, ‘drug transmissions’, ‘radionics’, ‘drug teleportation’ and the like they use in explaining homeopathy.

Luc Montagnier’s limitation lies in the fact that he could not understand the concept of ‘molecular imprinting’. If he could have explained the phenomenon he observed in terms of ‘molecular imprinting’, instead of ‘mimicking’ and ‘vibrations’, the situation would have been entirely different. If he could have gone a bit forward and explained WATER CLUSTERS acting as the source of ‘electromagnetic signals’ as ‘molecular imprints’, he could have avoided the ‘occult’ homeopaths and ‘spiritual homeopaths hijacking and misusing his statements for their ulterior motives.

To be more exact, Montagnier should have said: “high dilutions of something are not nothing- hey are water structures which are ‘three-dimensional negative molecular imprints’ of original molecules.” Not mimics’ . That could have made a big difference for homeopathy.

According to Luc Montaigner, the ‘water structures’ formed in high dilutions are ‘mimics’ of original molecules. But in terms of modern molecular imprinting technology, ‘molecular imprints’ are 3d structures with configurations just complementary to original molecules. If we consider original molecules as ‘keys’, montaigner consider ‘nanostructures’ as duplicate keys. According to my concept, ‘molecular imprints’ are ‘artificial key holes’ that could act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for original keys or keys similar to them. Molecular imprints bind to the pathogenic molecules due to complementary configuration, exactly like a key hole binds to a key. Molecular imprinting produces artificial ‘key-holes’, not ‘duplicate keys.’ Once we understand this difference in perceptions, it would be easy for us to understand ‘similia similibus curentur’ scientifically.

Only ‘three-dimensional negative molecular imprints’ can explain the molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics, where potentized drugs are not acting similar to original drug molecules, but just as exact ‘opposites’. That is ‘similia similibus curentur’.

“I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules.”

Bnveneste also, similar to Montagnier, perceived potentized drugs as “water structures which mimic the original molecules”. Both of them were wrong.

I say, potentized drugs are “water structures which are ‘three-dimensional negative molecular imprints’ of original molecules.” I am trying to explain homeopathy on the basis of this “molecular imprint” concept.

In his article ‘DNA Between Physics and Biology’, Luc Montaigner explains about his famous experiment in which he used ‘nano-water structures’ mimicking specific dna fragments contained ‘ultra dilutions’ to induce in vitro synthesize of similar dna fragments using nucleotide primers and polymerase enzyme as follows:

“Now we undertake the most critical step: to investigate the specificity of the induced water nanostructures by recreating from them the DNA sequence. For this we add to the tube of signalized water all the ingredients to synthesize the DNA by polymerase chain reaction (nucleotides, primers, polymerase). The amplification was performed under classical conditions (35 cycles) in a thermocycler. The DNA produced was then submitted to electrophoresis in an agarose gel. Indeed, a DNA band of the expected size of the original LTR fragment was detected . We further verified that this DNA had a sequence identical or close to identical to the original DNA sequence of the LTR. In fact, it was 98% identical (2 nucleotide difference) out of 104. This experiment was found to be highly reproducible (12 out of 12) and was also repeated with another DNA sequence from a bacterium, Borrelia burgdorferi, the agent of Lyme disease. It clearly shows that the water nanostructures and their electromagnetic resonance can faithfully perpetuate DNA information…”

Instead of this vague theorizing about “water nanostructures and their electromagnetic resonance can faithfully perpetuate DNA information”, he could have explained this phenomenon in a more rational way, if he could understand the concept of ‘molecular imprinting’ involved in high dilutions.

According to my view, it is not the ‘electro magnetic resonance’ or ‘mimicking’ that induced dna synthesis in his experiments. Actually, the high dilutions of dna solutions he preapared contained ‘molecular imprints’ of specific dna fragments. When he added nucleotide primers and polymerase enzymes into this molecular imprinted water medium, molecular imprints could have held the nucleotide primers in the correct sequence and position similar to that of original dna fragment. Then, the polymeraze enzyme could have connected these primers to form dna molecules exactly similar to original one. Here, ‘molecular imprints’ acted as ‘templates’, and helped in arranging nucleotide primers in correct sequence by binding to them, due to the specific configurational affinity.

Since he had no any idea of molecular imprinting, he tried to explain this phenomenon in terms of ‘electromagnetic resonance’, which led to ultra-scientific interpretations. This limitations helped the ‘energy medicine’ theorists to hijack and misuse the works of luc montaigner.