Tag: homeopath

Here is a remarkable study regarding the variation in Fourier Transform Infrared Spectra of some homeopathic potencies and their diluent media, conducted by N.C.SUKUL, Ph.D., SUDESHNA GHOSH, M.Sc., A. SUKUL, Ph.D., and S.P. SINHABABU, Ph.D. It is published in THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, Volume 11,  Number 5, 2005, pp. 807–812. The report is available at this link: http://www.homeopathy.org/research/basic/acm-2005-11_11.pdf

Published report reads as follows: “The aim of this study was to determine whether potentized homeopathic drugs and their diluent media differ from each other with respect to their Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectra. FTIR spectra of Nux  vomica 30C,  Lycopodium 30C,  Santonin 30C,  Cina 30C,  Cina 206C,  Cina 1006C, and their diluent media (90% ethanol and Ethanol) 30C were obtained in the wave number range of  2000–1000 cm_1 at 20°C. Potassium bromide powder soaked with the potencies, pressed into pellets, and air dried were used to measure the spectra. Because water structures in homeopathic potencies are thought to carry specific information on drug molecules and because O-H bending vibrational band (v2) exclusively belongs to water, the study was restricted to the bands in that wave number region. Alcohol has no absorption in the O-H bending region.

 The potencies were found to differ from each other and their diluent media in the number of v2 bands, their wave number (cm_1), shape, and half-width (cm_1) of the bands.

The number and other characteristics of the v2 band represent the number of hydrogen-bonded water species and their hydrogen-bonding strength, respectively. The potencies and their diluent media therefore differ from each other in the number of hydrogen-bonded water species and their hydrogen-bonding strength. The observation that KBr pellets soaked with a potentized drug retains its specific spectral absorption properties simply confirms that medicated sucrose globules, used in homeopathic dispensing, are capable of retaining the therapeutic properties of the drug.

Drugs are prepared and stored in aqueous ethanol. Sucrose globules soaked with liquid potencies retain therapeutic properties of the drugs for a long time. Water also serves as a good medium but it does not keep the properties of a potency for long. It has been suggested that water structures in a potentized drug are responsible for carrying the information of drug molecules or particles present in the mother tincture. Ethanol molecules are thought to promote or to preserve water structures characteristic of a potentized drug.1A basic quality of a hydrogen-bonded solvent such as water is the hydrogen bond strength.

Physicochemical properties of the water in aqueous alcohol mixtures have been studied widely by such techniques as X-ray or light scattering, dielectric relaxation, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging et cetera. Among these methods, infrared (IR) spectroscopy is one of the most promising for the study of the distribution of hydrogen- bonding strengths of the water molecules in the mixtures because of the short time scale of measurements. There are two kinds of fundamental vibrations for molecules: (1) stretching, in which the distance between two atoms increase or decrease but the atom remains in the same bond axis; and (2) bending, in which the position of the atom changes relative to the original bond axis. Infrared radiation causes vibrational excitation of the molecular framework of a compound. In aqueous alcohol O-H stretching vibrational bands of water (v1 and v3) overlap the alcoholic O-H band. For this the IR spectra in the stretching region are of no use for studying hydrogen bonds of the water molecules in water/alcohol mixtures. In the region of bending vibrational band of water (v2), alcohols have no absorption bands. The purpose of the present work is to study v2 bands through Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy in 90% ethanol, Ethanol 30C, and some potentized drugs such as Nux vomica 30C, Lycopodium 30C, Santonin 30C, Cina 30C, Cina 206C, and Cina 1006C prepared in 90% ethanol. Conventionally vibrations are labeled in decreasing frequency within their symmetry type. The symmetric vibrations of H2O are labeled v1 for the highest fully symmetric frequency (3651.7 cm_1) and v2 for the next highest (1595.0 cm_1).7 FTIR spectroscopy provides simultaneous and almost instantaneous recording of the whole spectrum in the infrared region while minimizing background noise.

Nux vomica 30C, Lycopodium 30C, Santonin 30C, and Cina 30C were prepared by successive dilution (1:100 v/v) with 90% ethanol followed by succussion in 30 steps from the respective mother tinctures in this laboratory.8 Cina 200C and Cina 1000C, purchased from M. Bhattacharyya and Co. (Calcutta, India), were further diluted (1:100) and succussed with 90% ethanol in 6 more steps to prepare Cina206C and Cina 1006C. All of these potencies have the same absorbance (3.135) at 255 nm, showing similar concentrations of ethanol (90%). The purpose was to replace the manufacturer’s aqueous ethanol in Cina 200C and Cina 1000C with the ethanol in this laboratory so that the diluent medium (90% ethanol) of all the test potencies would be of the same quality. Ethanol was obtained from Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Calcutta, India). Sterile deionized and double-distilled water was added to absolute ethanol to prepare 90% ethanol, which served as the diluent medium of all potenties as well as the control.

 FTIR spectra were measured at 20°C by a Jasco FTIR spectrometer (Jasco, model 420, Japan). The wave number resolution was 4 cm_1. Spectra  were obtained in the wave number range of 2000–1000 cm_1. Potassium bromide powder (_150 mg) was soaked with 90% ethanol (_0.15 mL) or any of the six potencies tested. The drug-soaked powder was mixed thoroughly with a mortar and pestle, spread in thin film (1 mm deep) in a petri dish, and allowed to dry at 30°C (50% humidity). The powder was then pressed into small equal-sized pellets. The KBr pellets, which simulate sucrose globules soaked with a potency, were exposed to IR radiation in the spectrometer. Five pellets were prepared for each drug or the diluent medium, and the IR spectra measured.

Data were analyzed by one way analysis of variance. Different potencies and their diluent media (90% ethanol, Ethanol  30C) differ significantly (p _ 0.01) from each other with respect to the positions of bands in the wave number regions, their half-widths, and their absorption intensities except the wave numbers.  ……..

 Because all KBr pellets were prepared under similar conditions, it is quite unlikely that they have different amounts of water in them. In earlier work the present authors observed a marked variation in O-H bending vibration among 90% ethanol, Nux vom 30C (unsuccussed), and Nux vom 30C succussed.5 The results of the present study show that potentized drugs differ from each other and also from their diluent medium, 90% ethanol, in the number of v2 bands. The number of observed v2 bands should provide the number of water species with different hydrogen-bonding strengths.6 There may be a few more water species than those actually observed by v2 bands in the spectra. According to Mizuno (personal communication, June 2003), IR spectroscopy has superior power in that different water species are distinctive from each other, but it is very difficult to resolve the curve into components. Mizuno further observed that there was no linearity in the absorption intensities of different bands. Thus different potentized drugs have different water species with different hydrogen-bonding strengths. The v2 bands have different half-widths in different potencies. The broadening of v2 bands has been attributed to the distribution of hydrogen-bonding strengths and vibrational coupling.6 The v2 band of pure water has an unusually broad width of 82 cm_1 at half-maximum. The v2 band is found to be narrower with an increase in the alcohol concentration. The narrowing of the v2 band is considered to be caused by the weakening of the vibrational coupling as a result of dilution by the alcohol. The concentration of ethanol was the same (90%) in all the potencies tested. The variation in the half-width of the v2 band may thus be caused by influence of original molecules at the start of the dilution process and also by succussion. Previously the present authors observed that succussion caused blue shift of the v2 in Nux vomica 30C.In each column of Table 1 the band of different drugs showed either a blue or red shift. Blue shifts represent the formation of stronger hydrogen bonds among water molecules. This has also been confirmed by 1H-NMR studies. It has long been known in clinical practice that sucrose globules soaked with a liquid potentized drug retain all the therapeutic properties of the drugs. FTIR spectra of KBr pellets soaked with potentized drugs simply confirm the long-standing clinical observation.

Cowan et al. demonstrated that the three-dimensional structure of liquid water loses its memory of molecular arrangement through the H-bond network in about 50 fs. The work was based on O-H stretching vibrations of pure H2O. Pure water is not comparable to a homeopathic potency that is prepared by successive dilution and succession from a mother tincture and preserved in 90% ethanol. Ethanol molecules with large nonpolar parts can preserve or promote water structures specific to a homeopathic potency. The efficacy of a homeopathic potency prepared in pure water is very short-lived. An electrostatic component is usually the dominant force contributing to H-bonding. Succussion or any mechanical agitation would therefore make the H-bonding stronger in a homeopathic potency. In ethanol solution the sequential H-bond dissociation and reassociation occur between the same OH groups. In water the broken bonds probably reform to give the same H-bond. Dissociation is a rare event occurring only twice a day, that is, once for every 1016 times the H-bond breaks. Thus clusters can persist for much longer times. The relative proportions of different polymers of water preserved by ethanol are at dynamic equilibria of specific geometric configurations. It is assumed that this dynamic geometric configuration of water clusters in a collective way confers specificity on a potentized homeopathic drug. The homeopathic potencies used in the present study were prepared in 90% ethanol and soaked in KBr pellets. Here water structures were preserved by ethanol and their random.

Based on the study findings several conclusions can be drawn. First, in the FTIR spectra of aqueous alcohol mixtures O-H bending vibrational bands (v2) exclusively belong to water. Nux vomica 30C, Lycopodium 30C,  Santonin 30C,  Cina 30C, Cina 206C, and Cina 1006C differ from each other and also from their diluent medium, 90% ethanol, in the number of v2 bands, their wave-number (cm_1), their shape, and half-width (cm_1) in the FTIR spectra. Second, the number of v2 bands and other parameters of the same represent, respectively, the number of hydrogen-bonded species of water and their hydrogen bonding strengths. Thus the potencies and their diluent medium differ from each other with respect to the number of H-bonded water species and their H-bonding strengths. Third, KBr pellets soaked with potentized drug, such as medicated sucrose globules used in homeopathic dispensing, retain specific spectral properties of the drugs concerned. Finally, homeopathic potencies can be differentiated from each other by FTIR spectra with respect to the O-H bending vibrational band.”

This elaborate study rightly observes that the homeopathic potencies and their original diluent medium differ from each other with respect to the number of H-bonded water species and their H-bonding strengths.

Even though the authors could not understand the real process of “MOLECULAR IMPRINTING” involved in this phenomenon, their observation amply proves that the supra-molecular structure of potentized medicines differs from ethyl alcohol/water mixture, even though their chemical composition remained the same. That means, through the process of potentization, supra-molecular structure of ethyl alcohol/water mixture has undergone fundamental changes. Obviously, it is through these structural changes that the medicinal properties of drug molecules are transferred to the diluent medium.  

This difference in the structure of potentized medicines from their original medium, the specificity of medicinal properties exhibited by potentized medicines, and the fact that potentized medicines exhibit medicinal properties just opposite to that of parent drugs can be satisfactorily explained only on the basis of “molecular imprinting’ as proposed by DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY.

This question is very important in the scientific understanding of molecular processes involved in homeopathic potentization and therapeutics. There are many homeopaths believing that during potentization, the medicinal properties of drugs are some way or other transferred to the potentizing medium, and hence potentized medicines can interact with human organism in the same way as the original drugs.

On the contrary, DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY proposes that potentization involves a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, in which the spacial configuration of drug molecules are imprinted into the medium as 3-D nano cavities, which can act as recognition sites towards original drug molecules or other molecules similar in configuration. As per this view, potentized medicines contain only ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules, which are complementary in configuration to the drug molecules. When applied for therapeutic purpose, these molecular imprints bind to the pathogenic molecules, and not to the biological targets.

In order to prove this concept, we have to experimentally prove that potentized medicines can not interact with biological molecules in the same way as original drug molecules used for potentization.

Here I am reproducing a previously published report regarding such an experiment already conducted by a team of eminent scientists in Germany five years back. It is published in “The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. May 2006, 12(4): 359-365. doi:10.1089/acm.2006.12.359”

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2006.12.359

The team conducted this experiment to verify whether potentized HgCl2 (Mercurius corrosivus) affect the activity of Diastase and α-Amylase in a way similar to crude form of HgCl2.

Research team consisted of: 1. Claudia M. Witt, M.D. Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany. 2. Michael Bluth, M.D. Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany. 3. Stephan Hinderlich, Ph.D. Institute for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany. 4. Henning Albrecht, Ph.D. Karl and Veronica Carstens-Foundation, Essen, Germany. 5. Rainer Lüdtke, M.Sc. Karl and Veronica Carstens-Foundation, Essen, Germany. 6. Thorolf E.R. Weisshuhn Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University  Medical Center, Berlin, Germany. 7. Stefan N. Willich, M.D., M.P.H. Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany.

Their objective was to test for a stimulating or inhibiting effect of high potencies of the homeopathic remedy HgCl2 (Mercurius corrosivus) on two sugar hydrolases- (α-amylase from hog pancreas and diastase extract from winter barley)

High potencies of HgCl2 were produced using stepwise dilution plus shaking. Controls included potentized solvent (aqua bidestillata), equimolar dilutions without shaking, and enzyme-free references. Tested were potencies with dilution factors 1:200 (CC) on diastase extract from winter barley, and 1:100 (C) on α-amylase from hog pancreas. Enzyme activity was colorimetrically determined by Lugol’s iodine-starch reaction.

An inhibiting effect of HgCl2 on enzyme activities was observed only in low potencies and dilutions (which contained molecules of HgCl2). Statistically significant differences between potencies and controls were not found in randomized and blinded experiments.

 This experimental design provided independent reproducible results of cell-free in vitro assays.However, it did not indicate an effect of potentized HgCl2 on hydrolases. The researchers conclusion was that demonstrating potency effects may require additional experimental features.

My Interpretations:

 Reported experiments and the results they obtained may help us in designing and conducting further in vitro experiments to prove the hypothesis put forward by DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY regarding potentization.

 HgCl2 is known in  homeopathy as Merc Cor.

Crude HgCl2 is a known inhibitor of glucose hydrolases such as diastase and α-amylase.

Reported experiments show that similar to crude forms, lower dilutions of this compound also inhibits the hydrolyzing activity of those sugar hydrolase enzymes. Obviously, these lower dilutions contain molecules of HgCl2, and hence the inhibitory action on enzymes.

Same time, these experiments clearly showed that higher potencies of HgCl2 have no inhibitory action on those enzymes. That means, highly potentized HgCl2 cannot ‘mimic’ the original compound as expected by some theoreticians.

This finding, though considered by the researchers as a set back to their expectations, has serious implications in proving the concepts of DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY regarding potentization.

This experiment proves that through the potentization process, the properties of original drugs are not transferred to the potenizing medium in such a way so as to enable it to ‘mimic’ the original drugs.

We homeopaths know beyond any doubt that potentized HgCl2 or Merc Cor produces expected therapeutic effects when administered on the basis of principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’. That means, potentized HgCl2 contains some active principles having specific biochemical properties. Since the present experiments have shown that potentized HgCl2 cannot ‘mimic’ the biochemical properties of original compound, a logical and scientific explanation regarding the real molecular mechanism involved in potentization as well as therapeutic action becomes very much necessary.

Only possibility is ‘molecular imprinting’, as proposed by DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY.

Now, we have to repeat these in vitro experiment to verify whether higher potencies of HgCl2 can reactivate the enzymes already inhibited by lower potencies or crude forms of the same compound.

I have recently conducted a blindfolded UV spectrometric study of Nux Vomica 30 at a pharmaceutical research lab. I sent them 3 samples of Nux Vomica 30( obtained from wilmer schwabe), and 3 samples of highly succussed pure rectified spirit. All 6 samples were similarly bottled and packed to prevent identification, using randomly numbered labels. The study report shows that transmission rate of UV light in Nux Vomica 30 is significantly lower than controls(ethyl alcohol/water). In other words, Nux Vomica 30 was capable of absorbing more UV light than controls. It clearly shows that potentized homeopathic drugs, without any drug molecules contained in them, have some sort of physico-chemical difference from normal potentizing media, that enables them to absorb more energy entering in the form of UV light. It is understood that many other saearchers have also reported similar results through different spectrometric methods. Now the problem before us is how to interpret this observation in accordance with a working model of ‘molecular imprinting’ we are trying to present as the real mechanism of homeopathic ‘potentization’

As per my interpretation, a medium absorbs comparatively more energy when it is less dynamic and in a lower energy state. We all know, cold objects can absorb more heat than a warmer object. More vibrations can be absorbed by a comparatively stable object. From that point of view, Nux Vomica 30 has to be considered to be existing in a more stable, less dynamic state than the control sample. That means, potentized drugs are more structured than ordinary alcohol/water mixture. Only explanation we can provide for this phenomenon is that water/ethyl alcohol molecules exist more hydrogen bonded and mutually attached in potentized drugs. Supra-molecular structure of potentized medicines are more stable. Such an interpretation supports our concept of “molecular imprinting” as the real mechanism of homeopathic potentization.

The theory of ‘single drug, single dose’ is considered to be the ideal homeopathic rule of prescribing. Everybody strive to convince others that he is an ardent follower of this golden rule, even though privately he may be employing multiple drugs, seeking self-consolation in the “law of complementary relationships”. People who claim to follow the ‘single drug, single dose’ rule are held in high esteem by the profession, as true “classical homeopaths”. If any body boldly declares that he uses multiple drugs, he is accused of practicing “polypathic quackery” which is considered to be “unhomeopathic”. Of course, they may quote extensively from our great masters as supporting evidences for their opposition to multiple drugs.

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

Whatever our great masters have said earlier within the limitations of their space-time context, we will have to make a rational assessment of certain factors while trying to answer this important question on the basis of updated scientific knowledge.

Discarding the “dynamic” and “vitalistic” approaches of “classical homeopathy, DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY tries to analyze this issue from an entirely different perspective.

The so-called ‘classical homeopaths’ defines ‘single dug’ as any form of drug substance used as a sample for “proving”. Such a sample is called a ‘single drug’, even though it may be a complex mixture of several separate substances.

According to them, the criteria for “singularity” of a substance is not its constitution, but its “proving”. They think that when they consume any number of a substance as a ‘single’ unit, it will act in the body as ‘single’ substance! This subjective way of reasoning obviously lacks logic.

Any body with minimum understanding of material sciences know that drug substances interfere in the biochemical processes of the organism by their chemical properties, and that these chemical properties are determined by the individual constituent molecules contained in them. Only because we consume different types of molecules as a “single” unit, it cannot act as “single” drug in the bio-molecular processes.

For example, an alcoholic tincture extracted from the Nux Vomica plant is evidently a mixture of many types of enzymes, alkaloids, glycosides, phytochemicals, and other organic and inorganic molecules. It is obvious that tincture of nux vomica may differ in molecular constitution from sample to sample, depending up on whether they are prepared from whole plant, flowers, tender leaves, bark, fruit, or any other sources. No doubt, all these sample will be containing some molecules common to all parts of plant, even though their concentrations may vary. Over and above the natural organic contents, various elements and chemical molecules absorbed from the environment will also be part of that tincture. It may also contain various accidental contaminants and pollutants also. In spite of all these possibilities, we consider Nux Vomica tincture is a “single” medicinal substance, and we often talk about a “Nux Vomica personality” as such!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is least possibility of any constituent molecules of drug substance remaining in their potentized forms above 12c. Only molecular imprints will remain. Hence, when higher potencies of two drugs are mixed together, there will be no chemical interaction taking place between them. In such a mixture, the molecular imprints of constituents of both samples will remain independent, without influencing each other, and with out losing their own individual qualities whatsoever.

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

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

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

 ‘Total Cure Prescriptions’  is an innovation in homeopathic practice, which enables homeopaths to generate wonderful sure-shot customized prescriptions that would offer ‘rapid, permanent and total cure’ for their patients.  Total Cure Prescriptions’  addresses not any individual diseases presented by the patient, but ALL his diseases that may be due to diverse miasmatic, genetic, infectious, environmental, ontogenic, metabolic, emotional or nutritional causes. All in a single go!

A ‘TOTAL CURE PRESCRIPTION’ is a prescription that is expected to contain ALL the diverse types of ‘molecular imprints’ required to remove ALL the diverse types of molecular inhibitions existing in the patient, thereby offering a TOTAL CURE.

You cannot follow this concept unless you could perceive potentized drugs in terms of diverse types of independent molecular imprints contained in them, representing the diverse types of constituent molecules of original drug substance used for potentization. You should also perceive ‘patient’ in terms of diverse types of molecular inhibitions caused by diverse types of pathogenic molecules, and expressed as diverse groups of ‘symptoms’.

To understand this innovative method, it is essential that one has to be familiar with the scientific explanation  proposed by DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY regarding “Simila Similibus Curentur” and “potentization”.

If we get a ‘single’ similimum that cover the ‘totality of symptoms’, should we think about a second drug? My answer is an emphatic NO. Homeopathy is all about finding SIMILIMUM. Nothing more, nothing less.

But in how many cases we get an exact similimum that cover the TOTALITY of physical generals, mentals, miasms and particular disease symptoms? Very rare. For example, a person with CALC constitution may come with an acute shock from grief indicating IGNATIA. He may be having a skin eruption with symptoms indicating ARS, and certain rectal symptoms indicating NIT ACID. We will not get a ‘single’ similimum that cover the complete TOTALITY of this case.

In such cases, we are normally taught to start with a SINGLE drug that would address his most disturbing complaints and step by step address the TOTAL case in LAYERS with ‘single’ drugs. What I am now saying is that there is no harm in prescribing all these SIMILIMUMS that cover the whole layers TOGETHER. That way we can ensure a TOTAL cure RAPIDLY.

KENT taught us to find a similimum based on TOTALITY OF CONSTITUTIONAL SYMPTOMS. His method is most appropriate in determining CONSTITUTIONAL SIMILIMUM.

BOENNINGHAUSSEN taught us to find similimum on the basis of CAUSATION, LOCATION, SENSATIONS, MODALITIES AND CONCOMITANTS of PARTICULAR DISEASE SYMPTOMS.

Nobody would ever reach a same similimum through this different methods proposed by these two MASTERS.

Does it mean either of them was wrong? NO. Both were right. BOENNNINGHAUSSEN was talking about PARTICULAR TOTALITY and KENT WAS talking about CONSTITUTIONAL TOTALITY. I think we should combine KENT and BOENNINGHAUSSEN. Or, combine constitutional totality with particular totalities to get COMPLETE TOTALITY.

This concept of combining potentized drugs evolves from my understanding that potentization involves a process of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING, and individual constituent molecules of drugs are IMPRINTED in their individual capacities. That means, even a drug we consider SINGLE is in fact a mixture of different types of  MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of diverse constituent drug molecules, and they exist without interacting with each other. According to this view, even if we mix two or more potentized drugs together, the constituent MOLECULAR IMPRINTS will not interact each other, and act up on the appropriate molecular targets in their individual capacities.

SINGLE DRUG/ MULTIPLE DRUG dilemma does not bother us if if understand the MOLECULAR IMPRINTING concept proposed by DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY. For the last five years I was experimenting this method, and I have found it totally harmless and very effective.

“Similia Similibus Curentur” is logically explained on the basis of modern scientific understanding of molecular kinetics of pathology and therapeutics. As per this view, a state of pathology arises as deviations in some or other biological channels, expressed in the form of specific trains of subjective and objective symptoms, that may be called “symptom complexes”. These biochemic deviations are caused by specific molecular errors occurring in the organism, resulting from certain molecular blocks in bio-molecules created by binding of endogenic or exogenic pathological molecules. There may be multitudes of molecular errors existing in the organism, represented by multitudes of separate ‘symptom complexes’. Therapeutics involves the removal of these molecular blocks using appropriate molecular agents called ‘drugs’. Homeopathy is a special form of therapeutics, in which ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules are utilized instead of original ‘drug molecules’, selected on the basis of their proven capacity to interfere in the biochemical processes.

“Potentization” is explained on the basis of modern technology of “Molecular Imprinting”. During the homeopathic process of ‘potentization’, individual constituent molecules contained in the drug substances are imprinted into water/alcohol matrix. As such, potentized medicines contains supra-molecular ‘clusters’ of water/ethyl alcohol, into which the configurational memory of drug molecules are imprinted in the form of 3-dimensional nanocavities. These nanocavities or ‘molecular imprints’ are the real active principles of potentized medicines. When introduced into the organism, these ‘molecular imprints’ can specifically bind to the pathological molecules having configurational similarity to those used for molecular imprinting, thereby relieving the biological molecules from pathological inhibitions.

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

Logic of “Total Cure” or “Integrated Similimum”:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Total Cure” method and “Total Cure Prescriptions”:

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

My propositions  regarding “Total Cure” naturally evolve as the logical extension of my scientific concepts regarding “potentization” as a technology of “molecular imprinted drug designing”. I usually recommend only potencies around 30c, and consider it unhomeopathic to use drugs in low potencies(below 12C) that may contain drug molecules.  I am talking only about the desirability of combining of drugs selected as similimum through correct case taking, strict individualization and scientific “compartmentalized” repertorization for each individual patient. More over, this idea is very much in conformity with the modern understanding of diseases as deviations of vital processes arising from some or other molecular errors in the organism. According to my perspective, an individual may be having different types of molecular errors in different biochemical pathways caused by entirely different molecular blocks, and represented in the form of different groups of subjective and objective symptoms. A particular ‘symptom group’ may be the expression of a particular molecular error in a particular bio-chemic pathway, where as another “symptom group” may be representing an entirely different molecular error. Expecting a ‘single’ drug to cover all these diverse and unrelated “symptom groups” representing entirely different types of molecular errors in an organism is obviously utopian wishful thinking. Since different molecular errors may be caused by the binding of different types of exogenic or endogenic foreign molecules upon different biological molecules and pathways, we have to find appropriate ‘similimum’ for each “symptom group” to effect a complete cure. Otherwise we get only partial cures.

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

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

How to apply “Total Cure” Method:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Multiple Drugs” Vs “Single Drug”:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is least possibility of any constituent molecules of drug substance remaining in their potentized forms above 12c. Only molecular imprints will remain. Hence, when higher potencies of two drugs are mixed together, there will be no chemical interaction taking place between them. In such a mixture, the molecular imprints of constituents of both samples will remain independent, without influencing each other, and with out losing their own individual qualities whatsoever.

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

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

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

Issue of “Drug-Relationships:

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

We have already seen during our previous deliberations that in homeopathic potencies above 12C, there is no chance of drug molecules to exist. These preparations contain only molecular imprints of constituent molecules of the drug substance subjected to potentization. Molecular imprints are only supramolecular formations or hydrosomes. Chemically, they contain only water and ethyl alcohol molecules. Any sample of potentized homeopathic drug contains hundreds of types of individual “imprints”, representing the diverse types of molecules contained in the original drug substance. It is clear that they co-exist without disturbing or influenzing each other in anyway, same time preserving their individual properties as “molecular imprints” of specific drug molecules.

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

2.      Same time, the case of mother tinctures and preparations below 12c potencies may be totally different. They contain crude drug molecules, which can interact with each other due to their chemical properties. The concept of ‘drug relationships’ may be valid in the case of these low potencies. Low potencies may be more active than crude drugs, since they contain free molecules and ions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

 To conclude, there is no harm in mixing together, alternating or applying simultaneously, any number of potentized homoeopathic drugs above 12c. As such, there is no need of any guilty feeling on the part of homeopaths who practice this method. They need not shy away from declaring this fact openly, fearing that it is unscientific.

In my opinion, “Total Cure”  or “Integrated Similimum” method is the real homeopathy which takes into account the “totality of symptoms” of the patient in its real sense. This “Total Cure” or “integrated similimum” may  be considered as the “single drug” appropriate for the “totality” of  that particular patient, only which can fulfill the “rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible principles”, which our Master conceived as  “the highest ideal of cure”.

It is true that all those diverse types of vaccinations are producing specific types of antibodies, which exist in organism and act as chronic miasms by creating ‘off-target’ inhibitions in biological molecules. All these molecular inhibitions are creating molecular errors, which would be expressed as specific groups of symptoms. In most cases, similimum selected on the basis of ‘totality of symptoms’ would cover these also, which means the similimum contains molecular imprints that would rectify the molecular errors caused by vaccination miasms also. We need to think about specific anti-miasmatic drugs against vaccinations only if we could not find a perfect similimum. In such cases, cure will be partial, and many symptoms would remain. In such cases, we can consider antimiasmatic drugs based on history of vaccinations, infectious diseases etc.

Exactly, ‘totality of symptoms’ should cover all the symptoms representing all the molecular errors existing in the organism caused by diverse types of environmental, nutritional, metaboloc, infectious, miasmatic, emotional and genetic factors. we should not look for individual drugs for each and every pathogenic agents. If we could find a perfect similimum covering ‘totality’ of symptoms, that would contain the molecular imprints to rectify most of the molecular errors, We should be aware that even our ‘single’ drugs are complex mixtures of diverse types of molecular imprints. We should also remember, same molecular imprints can antidote different types of pathogenic molecules having similar ‘functional moieties’. We can say our drugs are ‘polyvalent’.

HOW I MAKE A ‘TOTAL CURE PRESCRIPTION’?

Collect ALL symptoms of the patient- all mentals, physical generals and particulars, with the ‘qualifications’ of each symptom regarding its peculiar presentations, locations, sensations, modalities, and concomitants.
Search repertorieis, and select appropriate rubrics for all the collected symptoms .

Classify the rubrics into uncommon, common, subjective, objective, mentals, physicals, generals and particulars. Assign grades.

First repertorize using only mentals and physical generals and prepare a list of top-ranking drugs. Compare their symptomatology using a good materia medica book and determine one or more constitutional drugs that would ‘collectively’ cover all the important mentals and general symptoms.

Arrange the particulars into appropriate groups on the basis of their pathological relationships, and repertorize the groups separately and determine similimum for each group.

Select anti-miasmatic nosodes if necessary, on the basis of history of infectious diseases, anaphylaxis and vaccinations of the patient.

Take all the selected constitutional and particular similimums as well as nosodes in 30 c potency, and mix them in a bottle in equal quantities. Do not bother about number of drugs, or drug relationships.

Administer in drop doses thrice or 2-3 hourly until acute complaints are relieved. Then continue medication once or twice daily, until CURE IS COMPLETE. One drop per one drug is my dosage.

Such a well-worked-out ‘TOTAL CURE’ prescription would CURE not only acute complaints, but the PATIENT in his TOTALITY with in a very short span of time.

A TYPICAL ‘MULTIPLE-DRUG PRESCRIPTION’ CASE:

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

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

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

A. Constitution:

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

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

B. Headache:

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

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

C. Joint pains:

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

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

D. Warts:

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

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

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

ANOTHER A ‘MULTIPLE DRUG’ PRESCRIPTION CASE:

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

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

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

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

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

A. CONSTITUTION:

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

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

B.RESPIRATORY:

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

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

C. RECTUM:

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

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

D. SKIN:

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

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

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

If the process of dilution is done strictly as per directions given by Samuel Hahnemann, 99 ml alcohol/water mixture has to be thrown away to get 1 ml of 1c potency, which is used as the back potency for 2c stage of potentization. That means, to prepare 1ml of DM potency we will have to throw away 999999.999 litres of water/ alcohol mixture. Do you believe one lac litres of ethyl alcohol is thrown away by the manufactures while preparing 1 ml of homeopathic medicine in DM potency? If you claim that this is not thrown away but kept as various potencies, can you imagine the size of storage facilities required for each drug? Please remember, we have around 1000 drugs in homeopathy, which means 1000000000 litres of wastage of ethyl alcohol-water mixture! And also calculate the time, energy utensils, bottles and labor required for handling all this! Do you believe all this happening?

Every manufacturer claim that they use back potencies, and hence no wastage of alcohol happens. But somebody in the line has to do the job of raising 30c into 199c, 200c into 999c, 1m into 9999c and so on. If those people do it genuinely as per Hahnemannian method, they will have to bear all these wastage, and the cost of back potencies will be unimaginably high!

In the present atmosphere of profit-oriented pharmaceutical business managed by professional business administrators, we cannot be so naïve to believe that the manufacturers of homeopathic medicines would be so much dedicated to the philosophy of Hahnemann to bear such huge holes in their money bags. Remember, these same people are flooding the market with all sorts of unethical patented mixtures in the name of homeopathy, and bribing the homeopaths to market them, in their greed to amass wealth. How can we expect them to be so much sincere in the service of homeopathy only while preparing potencies? How much pathetic is the situation since there exist no any scientific mechanism to verify the exact identity and potency of a drug other than to trust the labels on the bottles! If somebody make an error knowingly or unknowingly in sticking a label to a stock bottle of back potency, can you imagine the consequences that will continue to haunt generations of homeopaths to come? We have to be consoled that potentized homeo medicines cannot kill human beings.

Believe it or not,if you closely monitor what is happening behind the walls of commercial homeopathic manufacturing units, you will lose all your trust in our ‘very high’ potencies. I had personally discussed with some retired supervisers and managers of certain famous production units, and they confessed some bitter truth.  After 30c, most units do not carry on potentization strictly as Hahnemann directed. A few additional shakes is given to 30c and marked as 199c, which is used as the back potency for 200c. Again with few additional shakes, and 200c becomes 999c used as back potency  for 1m. Over all, we can see that practically, in most cases, the difference between 30c and DM potency is only a four to ten stage dilution and a few additional shakes!. Finished! And we call it ‘ultra-high’ potencies!. Only consolation is that 30c is enough for optimum molecular imprinting to happen, and our drugs will work if used as similimum, since they contain ‘molecular imprints’, and that is enough. This shows that the difference between 30c and CM or DM is very narrow. Our talk about ‘very high’ dilution is practically meaningless. Most homeopaths and manufacturers will not tolerate my statement, because that may undermine the ‘sand hills’ of fame they have built in the name of ‘high potencies’.

Teachers and seniors make young homeopaths believe that administration of incorrect remedies especially in high potencies would do grave harm to the patients, and may cause even death. It is warned that our drugs should be handled with great care, and many young homeopaths are scared to prescribe, lest it may be a wrong prescription. If potentized drugs were dangerous, homeopaths would have been the greatest criminals in human history, each of us would have so far killed many innocent people! We would have already harmed a big section of human race by the time being through our wrong prescriptions. Even you and me make many many wrong prescriptions everyday, believing that we are making correct prescriptions. Can anybody deny it with a sincere heart? Living roofs of safety of homeopathic medicines are the people we treated with wrong prescriptions and stay undamaged!

On the basis of the concept of potentization as ‘molecular imprinting’ discussed in my article “DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY”,  homeopathic  potencies can be broadly classified into two major groups:

1.      The low potencies which contain original drug molecules (probably up to 12c)

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

(Here, the specified probability range is calculated for molecules of lowest molecular weight, using Avogadro Number. Obviously, molecules of higher molecular weight may disappear from the medium at much earlier stages of potentization. Probability range of each individual class of molecules can be calculated using their molecular weight, Avogadro Number and proportions of dilutions).

Low potencies contain original drug molecules acting as ‘Competitive Molecular Factors’(CMF) towards pathologic molecules.

High potencies contain molecular ‘imprints’ acting as ‘Counteractive Complementary Factors’(CCF) towards pathologic molecules.

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

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

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

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

4. Interaction with various structural proteins.

5. Interacting  with carrier proteins.

6. Interaction with ion channels.

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

Drug molecules and their derivatives, due to their gross molecular properties, can chemically interact with biological molecules and metabolites. This phenomenon is utilized when drugs are used as allopathic medicines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possibilities of potentized homeopathic medicines interacting with genetic substance in the organism is a subject of much concern, speculations and controversy among homeopaths. Such controversies arise from the lack of sufficient understanding regarding the active principles contained in potentized medicines, and their exact mechanism of action in the living system.

With our new scientific understanding of potentization as a process of molecular imprinting, we are now in a better position to answer these questions satisfactorily. Since, molecular imprints contained in the potentized homeopathic preparations cannot successfully compete with natural ligands in binding with their target molecules, we need not be concerned about the possibility of potentized homeopatic medicines dangerously interacting with genetic material in any way.

Molecular imprints contained in the potentized homeopathic preparations bind to ligands or biological molecules merely due to their complementary cofigurations without any charge affinity, whereas natural ligands bind to their biological target molecules in capacity of their appropriate spacial configurations as well as charge affinities. So, the bindings of molecular imprints with biological molecules or their ligands will be very temporary and cannot stay long. Such bindings of molecular imprints cannot replace the natural ligand-target interactions happening as part of vital processes. Molecular imprints can not compete with natural ligands in binding to their natural biological targets. Hence it is obvious that potentized homeopathic preparations cannot interfere in biological ‘ligand-target’ processes such as ‘substrate-enzyme’, ‘antigens-antibodies’, ‘signal-receptor’ etc. As such, chances of potentized homeopathic medicines acting as pathological agents are very rare even if used indiscriminately. Molecular imprints can interfere only in interactions between pathogenic molecules and biological molecules, as well as off-target bindings of ligands with biological molecules, where only configurational affinity is involved. Obviously, molecular imprints can act upon only the molecular blocks created by exogenous or endogenous foreign pathological molecules.

At the same time, these molecular imprints can effectively compete with the pathogenic actions of deformed proteins that may result from genetic errors, thereby preventing them from creating pathological molecular blocks at various targets. As such, homeopathic medicines can play a great role even in the treatment of certain diseases of genetic origin, at least as palliatives.

More over, potentized homeopathic medicines can safeguard genetic material from dangerous mutations that may be caused the by inhibitory actions of endogenous or exogenous pathogenicl agents such as toxic drugs, heavy metals, super-oxides etc., on enzymes related with nucleic acid synthesis and genetic expressions.

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

It is not here intended to convert the ongoing scientific discourse of therapeutics into a dialogue between the divergent philosophical world outlooks of spiritualism and materialism, and hence, I do not here endeavour to question somebody’s right to believe in the existence of  a ‘universal’ ‘vital force’ as such. But, at least when dealing with a science of therapeutics, we have to reach a consensus to replace the concept of ‘vital force’ with a more rational expression, ‘vital process’, if we could discuss homeopathy as a system of scientific medicine. ‘Vital force’, what ever it may be, expresses itself in a living organism only through ‘vital processes’, the complex chains of interconnected molecular interactions known as biochemical pathways. It has been already explained that a state of disease  is created through some or other deviations in these normal biochemical processes. Hence, according to our scientific perspective, every pathology starts as an error at the molecular level. We cannot proceed further with our scientific discourse on homeopathy, without a consensus at least about this fundamental position of modern science. Scientists belonging to various disciplines, engaged in the study of various natural phenomena, adopt such a practical stand even if ideologically they happen to be absolute spiritualists. It is impossible even for a most ‘spiritualist’ nuclear physicist to engage himself in his particular research activities, viewing the atoms, sub-atomic particles or forces as mere ‘spiritual entities’. The homeopathic  theoreticians also should at least follow this example. They should be able to deal with phenomena of life, disease, therapeutics, and medicinal substances primarily as material substances and processes. It would be better for homeopathy at large, if these ‘masters’ and ‘gurus’ of homeopathy could confine themselves to a scientific vocabulary, refraining  from mixing it up with unnecessary spiritualistic and philosophical jugglery of words such as ‘vital force’ and ‘non-corporeal’ ‘dynamic power’, while talking about a scientific theory of therapeutics.

Even if we subscribe to the concept of ‘vital force’ at the ideological level, we have to answer the question: “How that vital force expresses in a living organism?” Only as molecular level ‘vital processes’. Using medicinal agents of material qualities, we can deal with these ‘vital processes’ only at the material level. It is an absurdity to think that as physicians, we are dealing with an ‘immaterial’, ‘spirit-like’ ‘vital force’, that too, using instruments and medicinal agents of purely material nature. If homeopathic physicians were dealing with ‘immeterial dynamic forces’, instead of using ‘material medicines’, they could have done it better through prayers, ‘pujas’ and other occult practices!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since we are now competent to offer a scientific molecualar interpretation of ‘similia similibus curentur’, and ‘potentization’, the main fundamental principles of homeopathy, there is no need for relying upon the obsolete vitalistic explanations and speculations of Hahnemann, based on the concept of ‘vital force’ and ‘non-cprporeal’ ‘spirit-like’ ‘dynamic medicinal force’. Instead of repeating the unscientific concept of ‘dynamic medicinal force’,  we can now logically explain the homeopathic potencies on the basis of ‘molecular imprinting in water’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we carefully examine the history of Benevenite’s failure, we would understand that it was not his basic propositions that failed, but the experiments he was subjected to, in order to to prove his arguements. Firstly, his argument that the drugs so diluted to the extend of making it impossible to contain a single molecule,can interfere in biological processes exactly mimicking the basic drug substance was a little exagerated interpretation of results of his original experiments. This inaccurate interpretation of the phenomena he observed, led him to agree to subject himself to inappropriate experiments, that were obviously designed to defeat him. He failed to observe that the molecular memory of the drug substances is imprinted into water in a negative direction, in complementary configuration. Put in another way, drug molecules will be imprinted in water not as exact configurational duplicates, but as negative complements, and hence, they cannot mimic the original drug molecules in biological processes.

Failure to understand this phenomenon was a great mistake, that cost heavy to him. His conclusion that the molecular imprinted water interferes in biochemical processes exactly like the original drug molecules proved to be immature. He failed to comprehend the exact mechanism of molecular imprinting in water, and design the experiments accordingly. Had he understood the real mechanism of molecular imprinting, he would have studied about the unsteady behaviour of hydration shells in water, and taken necessary precautions, before subjecting himself to a controlled experiment. He could have devised some techniques to ensure the stability of hydration shells, such as using alcohol-water mixture instead of pure water, as done in homoeopathic potentization.

Please note, he tried to explain it as ‘molecular memory’ that can mimick the original molecules. Molecular imprints never can ‘mimic’ original molecules. They can only bind to original molecules and deactivate them.

If drug molecules are ‘keys’, ‘mimics’ would act as ‘duplicate keys’. But ‘molecular imprints’ act as ‘artificial keyholes’ for those ‘keys’ and ‘similar ‘ keys. This point is very important. If we forget this point, we cannot explain ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘similia similibus curentur’.

If beneviste could have perceived the concept of ‘molecular imprints’ acting as not as ‘duplicate keys’ but as ‘artificial keyholes’, he would have designed his experiments accordingly, so that he can prove that ‘molecular imprints’ can ‘antidote’ or ‘deactivate’ original molecules, thereby preventing them from interacting with biological molecules.

Since ‘anti- IgE antiserum’ contains natural ligands of enzymes involved in human basophil de-granulation, ‘molecular imprints’ of anti- IgE antiserum cannot be prevent their natural interaction. We should not forget that ‘molecular imprints’ cannot interfere in the interaction between biological targets and their natural ligands. In the absence of this understanding, the experiments of beneveniste were wrongly designed, and were inevitably bound to fail.

‘Molecular imprints’ can prevent only ‘off-target’ actions of biological ligands. For example, we use potentized thyroid extract, which contain molecular imprints of various thyroid hormones having specific roles in metabolism. Potentized thyroidinum never interferes in the natural biological actions of thyroid hormones. But those molecular imprints can rectify the pathological conditions caused by ‘off-target’ bindings of thyroid hormones, especially in situations of hyperthyroidism. This is applicable to all potentized hormone remedies. They never interfere in normal biological actions of those hormones.

Reason behind this phenomenon is related with the dynamics of molecular interactions. Interactions between natural targets and their ligands involves two factors: configurational affinity and charge affinity. But interactions of ‘molecular imprints’ and their ‘ligands’ involves ‘configurational affinity’ only, without any charge affinity.

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

In my opinion, the therapeutic principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’ is the only ‘essential’ fundamental principle of homeopathy. ‘Potentization’ is not a fundamental principle, but a practical way of preparing homeopathic drugs. Other ‘theories’ are only philosophical explanations, conjectures, interpretations, opinions and empirical conclusion based on personal experiences of ‘stalwarts’ and ‘masters’. They are not ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The most quoted and most violated ‘cardinal principle’ of homeopathy is ‘single drug-single dose’. We use multiple drugs in private, and publicly pose as ‘single drug’ prescribers, masking with phrases such as ‘intercurrent’, complementary’, ‘antidote’, ‘anti-miasmatic’, or ‘layer prescriptions’. My point is, even so called ‘single’ drugs are not really ‘single’, but contains diverse types of ‘molecular imprints’.

Some ‘single drug’ prescribers would give a ‘single’ dose of say sulphur cm, and give plenty of biochemic salts or even biochemic combinations, and claim in public that they ‘cured’ the patient with ‘single’ dose of sulphur. Some people would give large doses of mother tinctures along with ‘a single dose of single drug’. Certain others would give a ‘single’ dose of selected similimum, and then frequent doses of ‘complementary’ drugs, for ‘relieving acute complaints’. Prescribing ‘anti-miasmatics’ are also not considered as a violation of ‘single’ drug principles. I am avoiding those who prescribe patented compound drugs from the purview of this discussion, since they are admittedly ‘multiple’ drug prescribers.

A complementary medicine may contain some extra molecular imprints that were not present in original similimum, and that may be helpful in the curative process. Regarding increasing the potency, i cannot agree.

Changing to a new sample from another source, of same drug of same potency, has also gives better response when the curative process come to standstill after a few repetition of a drug

For example, when nux is indicated drug, and given it in 30c with good response. After a few repititions, it becomes standstill. Then you try NUX 30 from another source. It works, same way as you get response from higher potency

Every sample of nux may not contain all types of molecular imprints of constituent molecules of nux vomica. When we change sample, the patient gets those imprints which were absent in first sample.

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to my concept of ‘molecular imprinting’ involved in homeopathic potentization, the active principles of potentized drugs are ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent drug molecules. Since a drug substance constitutes diverse types of independent molecules in it, potentized drugs also would contain different types of ‘molecular imprints’ representing those different drug molecules. These ‘molecular imprints’ acts in their independent capacity of configurational similarity by binding up on pathogenic molecules, producing a therapeutic effect.

As per this view, molecules of drug substances would be completely removed from the medium when the dilution crosses Avogadro limit. That means, even the smallest sized drug molecules will disappear above 23c potency. Hence, I proposed that 30c will be the ideal potency for therapeutic purpose, and further higher potencies will not be different from 30c in medicinal property. SSince drug molecules will be absent above 23c, I presumed that there is no meaning in continuing potentization higher and higher. On that basis, I suggested to use 30c potency only.

But many homeopaths, even those who were not reluctant to accept my ‘molecular imprint’ concept, invited my attention to their experience that when a drug 30c potency acted for some time, a stage reaches where no further improvement is obtained. In such situations, they could create curative response by going to higher and higher potencies of same drug. My friends said that theor experience does not corroborate my suggestion that a drug in all potencies above 30c will be similar in medicinal properties.

I decided to take up this question seriously, and started working up on it. There were many instance where NUX 30 failed but NUX 200 acted. It was also correct that in some cases NUX 30 acted for some time and then came to a standstill, where repeating same potency did not succeed in evoking any response. Then NUX 30 or NUX 1m acted favorably.

There were another experience reported by some homeopaths, and verified by me. When NUX 1m failed, NUX 30 or NUX 200 acted. In my experiments on that lines, I noticed that when a case comes to standstill after a certain period of improvement after using NUX 1m, administration of NUX 30 or NUX 200 was also beneficial, instead of moving to still higher potencies.

Then I started experimenting on another lines. When NUX 30 failed to provide further improvement after a certain stage, I used NUX 30 from another sample obtained from another manufacturer. The result was wonderful. It acted!. I repeated this experiment with different cases, different drugs, different potencies. Finally I came to the conclusion that it was not a question of going higher or lower, but changing of samples, changing of source of potentized drugs. I can now suggest my friends, if you fail with NUX 30, and your are still convinced that the similimum is NUX, use NUX 30 obtained from another manufacturer. It will work. Always keep maximum samples of same drugs in same potencies obtained from different sources, and try all of them before changing your prescription. I have also seen it beneficial to mix all those different samples together and keep as single drug. For example, you can collect NUX 30 from five different manufacturers and mix them together and keep labeled as NUX. And see the difference!

Logical explanation for this phenomenon is very simple. It is associated with the process of molecular imprinting happening in potentization, and the quality of crude drug sample used for potentization. Simply put, each sample of same drug in same potency may differ in their constituent molecular imprints. One sample may miss some ‘molecular imprints’ that may be present in another sample. Each sample provides only partial curative effect, according to the availability of ‘molecular imprints’ present in them. To get a ‘complete’ therapeutic action of a particular drug, we have to use different samples from different sources, one after other, or mixing together.

‎’Miasmatic analysis’ is the sum total of ‘confusions’ created in the minds of already ‘confused’ learners, by ‘teachers’ who are gravely ‘confused’ themselves. The final outcome is ‘Utter Confusion for All’!

Some homeopaths appear to be experts in ‘miasmatic analysis’. Once a case is presented to them, they cannot avoid ‘miasmatic analysis’ of patients, drug substances or diseases. Instead of discussing symptoms and similimum, they would go on talking about miasms. It is funny to note that each ‘miasmatic expert’ would say there is no confusions if you understand it correctly. Then he would give his theories and ‘miasmatic analysis’. Then the next expert comes, and gives his theory and analysis, diametrically opposite to the earlier. He also says there is no confusions if you understand him correctly. I have never seen two ‘miasmatic experts’ talking about miasms in similar language. You give them a case for ‘miasmatic analysis’. Each would come with different analysis. AND YOU SAY, THERE IS NO CONFUSIONS!

I never seen two homeopaths explaining ‘miasms’ in same way. I never seen two homeopaths agreeing up on ‘miasmatic analysis’ of same case, same symptom or same medicine. Everybody talk differently. Is it does not indicate confusions? If you have any doubt on what I said, kindly post a case for ‘miasmatic analysis’ here. They would fight each other with their analysis. They would discuss strange concepts such as “psora merging into tuberculous spectrum”, or “psora converting into sycosis and then to syphilis as disease advances”. They would talk about ‘tri-miasmatic’ drugs, patients and diseases. I have seen it many times on this group. After all these intellectual exercises done, if you want to cure the patient, you have to find a similimum using symptoms! The simple truth is that appropriate similimum would cure even without any ‘miasmatic exercise’, if it is rightly selected.

One expert said: All individuals have all miasms, all drugs have all miasms, and all drugs have all miasms”, One would say warts are sycotic, another say it is psoric. A clever one would say warts have all miasms! Then why should we worry about miasmatic analysis?

I never said that the understanding of underlying miasms has no role in homeopathic therapeutics. Miasms, or ‘Chronic disease dispositions’ caused by infectious agents’ have to be considered and antidoted with appropriate antimiasmatic drugss. But, the intellectual exercises happening in the name of ‘miasmatic analysis’ is making everything a mockery, and UTTER CONFUSION FOR ALL.

In my opinion, the confusion would end only when we reach a consensus on ‘what is miasms’. If you could agree with my explanation of ‘miasms’ as ‘chronic disease dispositions’ caused by ‘off-target’ molecular inhibitions created by ‘antibodies’ generated in the organism against ‘exogenous’ protiens such as ‘infectious agents’, all confusions regarding ‘miasmatic analysis’ would be scientifically resolved. Until that happens, this confusion will remain.

Every chronic disease that is caused by ‘off-target’ molecular inhibitions created by ‘antibodies’ can be called ‘miasmatic diseases.

Let us consider a case of valvular heart disease caused by rheumatic fever. It was the antibodies formed against streptococcus sore throat infection that caused aarthritis, endocarditis, and valvular deformities. This chronic condition was caused by ‘off-target’ molecular inhibitions created by ‘antibodies’. It is a ‘miasmatic’ disease according to me. Same way, we know about chronic fibromyalgia caused by ‘chikunguniya’ antibodies, nephropathy caused by scabies antibodies, many chronic diseases caused by vaccinations. We can give a lot of examples

If we deeply study immunology and immune related diseases, we can understand the real scope of concepts I am trying to explain. A miasmatic disease one that is CAUSED by ‘Antibodies’ existing in the body, which were created earlier against ‘exogenous’ proteins that invaded the organism.

For example, a streptococcus sore throat is only an ‘infection’, not a MIASMATIC DISEASE. But, the artthritis and endocarditis caused by the antibodies generated by that infection are ‘miasmatic diseases’. Am I clear, sir? That is why hahnemann said ‘miasm’ is a ‘chronic disease disposition’ caused by ‘infectious agents’. He did not say ‘miasms are infectious diseases’. Please note the real difference.

Starting from pre-natal life, different kinds of antibodies are generated in our body against diverse types of ‘exogenous’ proteins including infectious agents. Actually, these antibodies are protein molecules of globulin types, which get deformed by getting acted up on by antigens. The active groups of antigens(epitopes) imprints upon the active groups of globulins(peritopes), in such a way that the peritope of globulin is converted into a ‘lock’ exactly fitting to the ‘epitope’ of antigen, which is similar to the ‘key’. Real ‘defense’ mechanism of organism is based on this ‘key-lock’ relationship. The problem arises when the ‘antibodies’ circulates in the body and bind to ‘off-target’ molecules, which have active groups with configuration mimicking the real antigen. This ‘offtarget’ bindings results in inhibitions of involved biological molecules, making them incapable of executing their natural functions. This is called a pathological molecular error, which expresses as a disease, and disease symptoms. This is the mechanism by which ‘antibodies’ or ‘miasms’ cause diseases.

I hope I have provided a most scientific, most logical explanation for the phenomenon of ‘miasms’. If you cannot understand or accept this concept, we are sure to differ in our approach to miasms and ‘miasmatic analysis’.

To discuss this topic, first you have to read my notes carefully, without prejudice, with a willingness to understand. Then, you have to understand it, for which you will have to update your biochemistry. Then you have to think over what I said. Then only we can have a meaningful discussions. If you have no time to read and understand what I say, there is no meaning in ‘discussing’. Please approach this concept without prejudice, because this is something different from what we have already learned.

We always think about ‘antibodies’ as ‘defense molecules’. Same time we should realize that they can act as pathogenic agents through OFF-TARGET interactions. Please learn more about hundreds of ‘auto-immune’ diseases to understand the real gravity of havoc these ‘immune’ bodies can create in the organism.

The problem is, our modern ‘miasmatic analysis experts’ have made us think all diseases in terms of ‘miasms’. The moment we mention a disease or symptom, or name of a drug, they start talking about ‘prominent miasm’, ‘tubercular spetrum’, ‘polymiasmatic’ and such phrases. The most funny thing is that ‘analysis’ of two experts never agree. They are confused, and make others confused. When talking about ‘miasms’ hahnemann was concerned only about ‘chronic disease dispositions’ caused by ‘infectious agent’. He asked to consider the presence of chronic ‘infectious miasms’ in cases where the diseases are not belonging to nutritional, environmental, occupational, iatrogenic and such causes. He used the term ‘faulty living’ and ‘faulty drugging’, which contain all these. In his perod, he knew nothing about ‘genetic causes’, and he did not mention those group of chronic diseases. Since he expressly said about miasms as ‘chronic disease dispositions’ caused by ‘infectious agents’, we can include ‘genetic diseases’ also in ‘non-miasmatic’ category. In fact, all chronic diseases, which are not mediated by ‘off-target’ molecular inhibitions caused by ‘anti-bodies’ formed in the body against ‘exogenous’ proteins, belong to ‘non-miasmatic’ category.

Listen, what I said: ” Miasms are chronic disease dispositions caused by off-target molecular inhibitions created by antibodies, which were generated against ‘exogenous’ proteing molecules including ‘infectious agents”. How can you interpret it in such a way that I said “all miasmatic disorders are autoimmune”? “Genetic disorders’ and ‘genetic expression disorders’ are different. Genetic disorders, which are due to actual errors in genetic substance or DNA, are beyond miasms. But, ‘genetic expression’ disorders or ‘protein synthesis disorders’ may be caused by influences of miasms, infections and many other exogenous or endogenous pathogenic factors, by acting up on the enzyme systems involved. That is the way pathogenic agents act.

I am trying to find out truth, not to satisfy somebody. I hope everybody would ultimately be satisfied with truth I am trying to find out truth, not to satisfy somebody. I hope everybody would ultimately be satisfied with truth

I never say “hahnemanns perceptions were wrong”. But, I would say many of his explanations regarding what he ‘percieved’ were imperfect, due to the infantile stage of scientific knowledge available to him in that time-space context he lived and worked. But many of the interpretations given by later ‘masters’ were wrong, and many times contrary to the real sense of hahnemann’s teachings. Miasms belong to that group. Hahnemann only said about a chronic diasease disposition caused by ‘infectious agents’. It was his interpreters, who mixed up miasms, genetics, embriyology and many other things, and created all these confusions. If uou studyy ‘miasms’ from original works of hahnemann, without the help of interpreters, you would be convinced of the truth in what I am saying.

Antibodies are native globulin proteins ‘imprinted’ with exogenous protein molecules entering into the organism from the environment, as infections, food, drugs, toxins or as part of any interactions with the environment. These exogenous proteins may come from bacterial/viral/fungal/parasitic infections that invade the body, bites and stings of insects and serpents, uncooked food articles, drugs like antibiotics and serum, vaccines, and so on. These exogenous foreign proteins, alien to our genetic constitution, are dangerous to the normal functioning of the organism, and have to be destroyed or eradicated. Body has a well organized defense system for this, which we call immune system. Foreign proteins are called antigens. Body prepares immune bodies or antibodies against these dangerous invaders. Antibodies are specific to each antigen, There are also polyclonal antibodies, which can identify different antigens. Antibodies are exactly native proteins of globulin types, which have peculiar molecular structure with an active group known as ‘paratope’ on its periphery. Active groups of antigen molecules are known as ‘epitopes’. Epitopes of antigens and paratopes of antibodies has a ‘key-lock’ relationship of configuration. They should fit exactly each other in order to happen an immune reaction. Paratopes of antibodies once interacted with epitopes of a particular antigen undergo a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, by which the ‘memory’ of epitope is imprinted into the paratope of antibody. Even after the antigens are destroyed and eradicated by the immune system, these ‘molecular imprinted’ globulins, or antibodies exist and circulate in the organism, in most cases life long. This is the mechanism by which life long immunity is attained through certan infections and vaccinations. These antibodies, or ‘molecular imprinted proteins’ are very important part of our defense system, playing a vital role in protecting us against infections.

If we are preparing nosodes by potentizing antibodies themselves, our drugs contains ‘molecular imprints’ of paratopes of antibodies. These molecular imprints can bind to the paratopes, thereby preventing them from interacting with ‘off-target’ biological molecules. Same time, they also cannot interfere in the interaction between antibodies and their natural antigens, which have comparatively increased affinity. In any way, potentized nosodes or ‘antimiasmatics’ will not weaken the normal immunological mechanism of the organism.

Since we cannot eradicate or permanently inactivate antibodies or miasms with our potentized drugs, we have to administer antimiasmatic drugs in frequent intervals, probably life long. This is a very important realization evolving from the understanding of ‘miasms’ as ‘antibodies’ or ‘molecular imprinted proteins’.

I think hahnemann included all ‘itch’ producing infections under the carpet of ‘psora’. He mentioned about Leprosy, scarlet fever, scabies and many such ‘infectious’ agents as causative factors of psora. He talked about “three miasms”, only because those three infectious agents were creating havoc in europe during his period. According to me, this classification of psora, syphilis and sycosis is not much relevant if we understand ‘miasms’ in terms of ‘antibodies’.

We have many experiences with diseases caused by ‘off-target’ actions of antibodies. Streptococcus antibodies causing endocarditis and arthritis is an example. Sacbies antibodies causing nephropathy, chikungunia antibodies causing fibromyalgia, etc are commonly encountered. Long term side effects of various vaccinations also belong to this group. We know about various diseases appearing in mothers caused by antibodies formed against foetal proteins. Post-delivery psychiatric problems are associated with antibodies formed against some uterine infections and metritis. If you go through your immunology lessons, you will get hundreds of examples. Remember, this area of pathology is not so far well studied.
We have to study all the diseases included in ‘psora’ by hahnemann in this point of view. We have to expose the relationship between these diseases and infectious diseases considerd to be causative factors of psoric miasm.

So far, we have been studying about antibodies as ‘defense’ molecules only. We have to study them as ‘pathogenic’ agents also, especially playing behind many chronic diseases. New generation of homeopathy students can take up such studies as part of their academic research projects. I hope this discussions we do here may induce such creative thoughts in many minds

By detecting the presence of ‘nanoparticles’ in the samples of homeopathic drugs, what did the IIT-B team actually prove”? They only proved that the ‘market samples’ of 6c, 30c and 200c are not much different from each other, and the manufacturers are fooling the profession by selling very low potencies (below Avogadro limit) with labels of ‘ultra-high’ dilutions! The research team also got fooled by conducting this research using these fake ‘ultra-high’ potencies.

Studying the IIT-B research findings carefully, I noted the following points:

1. The team used ‘market samples’ of homeopathic dilutions 6c, 30c and 200c

2. Homeopathic dilutions of ‘metal derived medicines’ only were used for the study.

3. 2000 ml of dilutions of each drug was taken separately, and subjected for evaporation until 4ml remained. This ‘concentrated’ 4ml which remained was used for study.

4. Using Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), electron diffraction and chemical analysis by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES), they “detected the presence of physical entities in these extreme dilutions, in the form of nanoparticles of the starting metals and their aggregates”.

5. They also “found that the concentrations reach a plateau at the 6c potency and beyond.

6. They also “have shown that despite large differences in the degree of dilution from 6c to 200c (1012 to 10400), there were no major differences in the nature of the particles (shape and size) of the starting material and their absolute concentrations (in pg/ml).

5. They also found that these “nanoparticles” of starting materials were present only in the 1% top layer. The remaining part contained no nanoparticles. According to them, during potentization, “this nanoparticle/nanobubble complex rises to the surface and can be within a monolayer once the total metal concentrations are well below 1 ppm. It is this 1% of the top layer of the solution which is collected and added to the next vessel, into 99 parts of fresh solvent and the succession process is repeated. This transfer of the top 1% layer in each step will ensure that once we reach below a certain concentration i.e. well within a monolayer, the entire starting material continues to go from one dilution to the next, resulting in an asymptote beyond 6c.”

By detecting the presence of ‘nanoparticles’ in the samples of homeopathic drugs, what did the IIT-B team actually prove”? They only proved that the ‘market samples’ of 6c, 30c and 200c are not much different from each other, and the manufacturers are fooling the profession by selling very low potencies (below Avogadro limit) with labels of ‘ultra-high’ dilutions! The research team also got fooled by conducting this research using these fake ‘ultra-high’ potencies.

‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ means: ‘Diseases with specific symptoms can be cured by potentized forms of drugs that can create similar symptoms and pathologic processes in healthy individuals if applied in crude form’. Same can be stated in a scientific language as: “Pathological molecular errors can be rectified using ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules that can create similar molecular errors if applied in molecular form”.

Obviously, studying the disease-producing properties of drug substances is essential part of applying ‘similia similibus curentur’.

Homoeopathy has devised its own peculiar way of studying the medicinal properties of substances by observing their capacity to produce various pathological conditions in healthy organisms. It is done in such a way that the information so collected could be utilized in the therapeutic application of those drugs in diseases according to ‘similia similibus curentur’. In modern medicine, toxicological studies and pharmacological studies of a drug are different subjects, where as in homeopathy, pharmacological studies and pathogenic studies or toxicological studies are one and the same.  Homeopathy is based on the principle that a substance becomes a medicinal agent only because it has some disease-producing properties. In other words, if we could know what pathological states and symptoms a drug can create in healthy organism, we can decide in what disease states that drug could be used as a therapeutic agent. This unique way of drug study in homeopathy is called ‘drug proving’.

Small quantities of a particular drug material are administered to controlled volunteer groups of apparently healthy individuals, as part of this drug proving program. The subjective and objective symptoms, representing the diverse molecular deviations caused in the organism by the drug substance are carefully observed and recorded. These symptoms are systematically arranged compiled as materia medica of the substance used.

First point we have to note is that most drug substances, especially of vegetable or animal origin, are not ‘simple’ substance. Even if we use them as a ‘single’ substance, actually they consist of diverse types of individual molecules. A substance can interact with biological molecules only as individual molecules. If we really want to understand homeopathy and drug proving scientifically, we should first of all learn to perceive drug substances in terms of constituent molecules. Once we introduce a sample of drug substance into the living organism for ‘proving’, its constituent molecules are instantly subjected to various processes such as disintegration, ionization, hydration and certain chemical transformations. Individual constituent molecules are carried and conveyed through blood and other internal transport systems into the cells and body fluids in different parts of the body. They can interact with various enzymes, receptors, metabolites and other biological molecules inside the organism. Individual drug molecules, in capacities of their molecular affinities, get themselves bound to various bio-molecules which participate in the essential biochemical activities in the organism. These interactions are decided and directed by the specific properties such as configurations and charges of active groups of individual drug molecules, and their specific affinity towards biological target molecules. The three dimensional structure of the individual drug molecules, and that of the concerned bio-molecules are the decisive factors in this process of formation of molecular binding between them. This peculiarity is called molecular affinity. It is very important to note that drug substances interact with different biological molecules, not as a singular entity, but as individual constituent molecules and ions. These individual drug molecules and ions are capable of competing with natural ligands and substrates in  binding to biological molecules, thereby inhibiting the essential bio-chemical processes which can take place only with their presence and mediation. Such molecular inhibitions in various bio-chemical pathways result in a condition of pathology, expressed in the form of a train of subjective and objective symptoms, due to the involvement of various neuro-mediator, neuro-transmitter and cellular signalling systems.

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

During drug proving, the constituent drug molecules interact with biological molecules using this molecular mechanism, and create molecular inhibitions amounting to pathology. All the biochemical processes mediated or participated by those bio-molecules are affected, and dependent biological pathways are subsequently blocked. Since different biological pathways are inter-dependant, deviations in one pathway naturally affects the dependent ones also. The cascading of molecular deviations influence the neuromediator-neurotransmitter systems and cellular signaling systems and finally manifest in the form of particular groups of subjective and  objective symptoms. This is the real molecular kinetics of drug proving as well as pathology.

We time and again hear our critics sarcastically declaring that homeopaths indulge in a totally unscientific way of medical practice, considering the external symptoms alone, and accuse that the basic causes of diseases are not dealt with in homoeopathic treatment. ‘Homoeopaths treat only the symptoms, not the disease’- they say. Even now these learned friends utterly fail to understand the logic of homoeopathy, and the fact that it is a highly scientific method of therapeutics.  The subjective and objective symptoms presented by the organism are the only reliable indicators to help us correctly understand the minute molecular deviations underlying a state of pathology. Each group or 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 particular molecular inhibition. By studying the train of symptoms carefully and systematically, homoeopaths observe and identify  these exact molecular inhibitions. This symptomatology-based analytical method of 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 the drugs  could produce in healthy organism- this is the scientific essence of “similia similibus curentur”.

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

There are a group of drugs used in homeopathy, which people prefer to call ‘imponderables’. These drugs are considered ‘energy potentized’ or ‘energy medicines’. Medicines such as magnetus polus, x-ray, luna, sol, and even potentized ‘mobile phone radiations’ are available now. Propagators of ‘energy medicine’ concept in homeopathy always raise the issue of ‘imponderables’ to prove their theories.

Are they really ‘imponderables’ as they argue? How they prepare these drugs? Do they potentize sunlight, moonlight, or magnetic force as such? Never.

Even though we call them ‘imponderables’, actually we are potentizing some ‘ponderable’ substances such as water or sugar of milk, which were exposed to the influence of these ‘imponderables energies’. That means, actually we are potentizing the substances that might have undergone some sort of molecular changes due to the influence of energy forms to which they are exposed. Potentization and ‘molecular imprinting’ happens in the same way as any other ‘molecular’ forms of drugs

We are not potentizing ‘sunlight’ or ‘magentic force’, but ‘sugar of milk’ or ‘water’, which might have undergone molecular level changes due to exposure to those energy forms for very long time. During potentization ‘molecular imprinting’ process takes place in these cases also in the same way as any molecular drugs. Please remember, we are not potentizing ‘sunlight’, but ‘sugar of milk exposed to sunlight’. It is only an issue of how you perceive reality

More over, ‘radiation of sun’, ‘magnetic force’ and such things also are not ‘imponderables’ or ‘spiritual’ beings. They are specific forms of matter.

Not only water or sugar of milk, but you can expose any substance to sunlight, and then potentize it. You will be potentizing that ‘substance’, not sun light. Of course the ‘exposed’ substances will undergo certain molecular level changes, and that would reflect in their chemical and biological properties also. We know the difference between sundried and raw samples of vegetable drugs, and that can be explained in terms of chemistry

Keeping ‘sugar of milk’ under sun light, then potentizing it and calling it ‘potentized sun light’ is like frying some meat in a microwave oven, and then potentizing that fried meat and labelling it ‘potentized microwave’!. Dont forget, sugar of milk and water are also chemical substances which are liable to changes when exposed to elactro-magnetic radiations.

100% similimum is a utopian concept. Nobody can find a 100% similimum for a given case. We can find only a ‘most appropriate’ similimum. Hence, offering ‘total cure’ for a patient with ‘single’ drug is practically impossible, whatever the claims are.

An individual will be having diverse types of ‘molecular errors’ in him, with diverse types of pathological conditions, expressed through different groups of subjective and objective symptoms. These molecular errors may belong to genetic, miasmatic, environmental, infectious, emotional, nutritional or such diverse causative factors.

When we match the symptom picture of a given patient with symptom picture of drugs in our material medica to determine a similimum, we are actually matching individual molecular errors in the organism with individual drug molecules contained in the drugs. A drug that contains maximum types of ‘molecular imprints’ matching to maximum types of molecular errors in the organism is considered to be ‘most appropriate ‘similimum. No drug would contain ‘all’ the molecular imprints required to rectify ‘all’ the molecular errors existing in a given patient. Hence, any similimum we select would be only a ‘partial’ similimum for the patient. As such, a ‘single’ drug can never ‘cure’ a patient in his ‘totality’.  The similimum we selected would remove only the molecular errors matching to the molecular imprints contained in it, and hence, it would offer only partial cure.

For a ‘total’ cure, we will have to select additional drugs that would contain molecular imprints matching to the remaining molecular errors, which could be selected on the basis of symptoms that are not covered by the first similimum.

Here comes the relevance of the concept of ‘complementary’ prescriptions, especially if the physician is averse to using multiple drugs in a ‘single’ prescription.

The concept of ‘complementary prescriptions’ should not be confused with the concept of ‘complementary drugs’.

Concept of ‘complementary drugs’ is based on the arbitrary theory that such and such drugs are ‘complementary’ to such and such drugs. It is not based on study of similarity of symptoms. But the concept of ‘complementary prescription’ is based on the real study of symptoms in the patient that are not covered by the similimum selected as the first prescription.

In my opinion, the existing concept of ‘complementary drugs’ should be replaced with a new concept of ‘complementary prescriptions’, which seems to be more scientific and logical.

There is no need of any kind of restrictions for the number of ‘complementary prescriptions’. If the first ‘complementary prescription’ is not enough to complete the cure, we can look for a second ‘complementary prescription’ on the basis of remaining symptoms. We can ensure ‘total cure’ for the patient through systematic application of this ‘complementary prescritption’ method.

Whether the ‘complementary prescriptions’ are applied along with or after the first prescription, could be decided by the physician according to his perceptions.

Learning Hahnemann does not mean merely reading and reciting Organon, Chronic Diseases, Materia Medica and other works written by him. We should read not only the printed lines, but read in between lines. I call it ‘Creative Reading’. Creating our ‘own’ ideas by reading what was written by hahnemann. We should use our ‘own’ brains, our ‘own’ logic, living in our ‘own’ space-time context. Do not be misguided by reading the works of ‘interpreters’, before you are ideologically well-equipped.

 This statement contains following five points regarding the process of learning the works of Hahnemann:

1. Read in between lines

Reading ‘in between lines’ means, understanding beyond the meaning of words we read. Reading is an interaction between the author and the reader. What is written in texts would reflect only fractions of author’s real thought process. Understanding his thought process is essential to grasp the real meaning of his words. There would be a lot of ideas lying hidden between lines, that could be read by an intelligent reader.

2. Creative Reading

‎’Creative reading’ involves the synthesis of new ideas through the process of reading, which were so far unknown to the reader and not said by the author. Here, reading becomes a creative process. Some ideas getting from the author acts like a spark that ignites the mind of reader, and leads to synthesis of new ideas. We should consciously build up a habit of ‘creative reading’.

3. Use our ‘own’ brains, our ‘own’ logic

We should “use our own brains, our own logic” while reading the works of hahnemann. Hahnemann is explaining his theories on the basis of his experiences and observations. He used his brain and his logic in doing so. We should ask ourselves ‘what-why-how’ of everything hahnemann said. This way of learning is called ‘dialectic’ learning, which is different from ‘dogmatic’ learning.

4. Live in our ‘own’ space-time context.

“Live in our ‘own’ space-time context”. Knowledge is evolving through space and time. Hahnemann was talking 250 years ago, sitting in Germany. That was his ‘space-time context’. He developed his concepts and theories utilizing the knowledge available to him in his ‘space-time context’. Human knowledge has evolved a lot there after. We no many things regarding phenomena of nature that hahnemann was not fortunate to know. Now we should learn hahnemann in the light of latest scientific knowledge available to us.

5. Do not be misguided by reading the works of ‘interpreters’

‎”Do not be misguided by reading the works of interpreters”. This is very important if you want to understand what hahnemann really said. Interpreters had done great damage to homeopathy and original teachings of hahnemann. Many people learn homeopathy using the books written by various authors who interpreted hahnemann’s teachings according to their whims and fancies. The most outstanding example is theory of miasms. IIf you read hahnemann’s ‘chronic diseases’ carefully, it would be very clear that hahnemann was talking about miasms as a ‘chronic disease dispositions caused by the infectious agents of itch, syphilis and gonorrhoea’. He did not hink about ‘miasms’ unrelated with ‘infectious materials’. But the interpreters made ‘miasmatic analysis a total mess, dragging even genetics and heridity into it. Now, most homeopaths learn ‘miasms’ from interpreters. We have lot of such examples where interpreters have totally misguided homeopathy. We should learn homeopathy from original works of hahnemann, using our own brains and logic, to keep ourselves not misguided.

Sulphur has a dominant position in homoeopathic materia medica, and  is probably one of the  most prescribed drugs in homeopathic practice. Sulphur has been symbolically entitled as the ‘king of antisorics’by our great masters. It is well proven, and it represents the richest symptomatology in our whole materia medica. Some homeopaths  as a routine manner  administer a dose of sulphur in high potency at the termination of treatment for acute diseases, and  also at the beginning of treatment for chronic diseases. There is also a wide-spread practice of administering a dose of sulphur in high potency when other ‘seemingly well indicated’ remedies fail, so as to arouse reaction. There is also a saying that the frequency of prescibing sulphur and practitioner’s knowledge of materia medica have an inversely proportional relationship, which means, the less the doctor knows his  materia medica, the more he is compelled to use sulphur frequently in his practice. Even though one may basically differ regarding the acceptability of such concepts and practices, they ultimately indicate the paramount importance accorded to sulphur in homoeopathy.

As part of a logical continuation of the scientific interpretation of ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ and ‘Potentization’ discussed in my article “Dialectical Homoeopathy’, I think it would be appropriate to delve into a deeper analysis of the diverse roles sulphur plays in various biological processes in the organism. It may necessarily lead to the study of the various molecular blocks and biochemical deviations underlying the vast symptomatology of suphur. Such an analysis may also show the way for similar scientific studies about other important drugs of homoeopathic materia medica, which will especially be relevant when we try to present homoeopathy as a higher branch of modern molecular medicine.

Homeopathic study of sulphur should be undertaken with the understanding about the role played by  sulphur radicals and suphur-containing functional groups in the interactions of biological molecules. Sulphur-containing HS group is present in almost all active sites of protein molecules such as enzymes and receptors. Bacterial toxins and other biological toxins of protein nature also have sulphur-containing functional groups. Many phytochemicals which are used as drugs, or are essential parts of our diet also contain sulphur radicals or functional groups. As such, sulphur and sulphur containing substances can interfere in hundreds of essential  biomoecular interactions through competitive inhibitions and produce pathological errors in vital processes. Potentized sulphur and sulphur compounds, which contain molecular imprints of sulphur can rectify these molecular errors, thereby acting as a major therapeutic weapon in the homeopathic armamentarium.

In my opinion, we have to undertake a huge research project to study   the symptomatology of all important drugs of our materia medica, in such a way that we can identify their individual symptom complexes in relation with the structure and configuration of the functional groups and moieties of various constituent molecules of the drug substances.  As in the case of every state of pathology, no drug symptom can be  produced in an organism without a corresponding chain of molecular processes underlying it, initiated by the interaction of some or other  drug molecules with some or other biological molecules. From a scientific point of view, drug symptoms should be interpreted and utilized as minute biological indicators of corresponding molecular blocks and biochemical deviations brought about in the organism by the action of drug molecules. We should begin learning materia medica from this scientific perspective, at least in future.

To begin with, let us take up the study of sulphur. For this, we have to collect and analyze all the available information regarding the diverse biochemical processes in the organism in which sulphur has a role to play. Obviously, such a study includes not only the study of various natural biological molecules in the organism, but also various exogenous and endogenous pathogenic molecules containing sulphur moieties,  and the nature and type of molecular inhibitions caused by them.

According to Samuel Hahnemann, the ‘miasm’ of ‘psora’ is the main cause of chronic diseases. As per his interpretation, ‘psora’ is ‘suppressed itch’, which means, the chronic constitutional susceptibility to diseases, resulting from the suppression of ‘itch’ appearing on the surface of the skin. Homeopathic theory of ‘chronic diseases’ is built up on this fundamental concept of ‘psora’. He describes ‘psora’ as a hiding ‘multi-headed hydra’, which expresses its presence in the organism in the form of multitudes of chronic ailments with periodical acute exacerbations, persisting until death. Potentized sulphur is supposed to be a an  antidote of this chronic miasm of ‘psora’, and hence the saying “ sulphur is the king of anti-psorics”.

It is interesting to observe at this point that toxins released by bacteria found in lesions of ‘itch’, are complex chemical molecules of protein nature, containing ‘sulphide’ radicals in their functional groups. The presence of  sulphur-containing amino acid ‘cysteine’ in the bacterial proteins is responsible for this factor.  During infection, bacterial toxins bind to various biological molecules in the organism using this ‘sulphide’ group as the ligand. Antibodies are formed in the organism by a process of ‘molecular imprinting’ of certain class of protein molecules called globulins, with these bacterial toxins. Obviously, the antibodies are molecular imprints of these bacterial toxins, and contain three-dimensional complementary configurations of this ‘sulphide’ group on them. These molecular imprints can immunize the organism against further infections, by acting  as neutralizing agents towards the bacterial molecules, and hence the name ‘antibodies’.  At the same time, these anti-bodies or molecular imprints can create unwanted molecular blocks in diverse biochemic channels in the organism, by binding themselves to various sulphide-containing bio-molecules, due to their configurational affinity towards sulphide groups. These molecular blocks and biochemical inhibitions arising there from are the real cause of chronic diseases that Hahnemann attributes to ‘miasm of ‘psora’. We already know that the antibodies produced against bacterial skin infections or ‘itch’ may attack heart, kidney, brain, and other vital organs causing different types of diseases. Streptococcal and staphylococcal antibodies formed against acute throat and teeth infections may attack synovial membranes of joints,  endocardial linings, and valvular structures of heart. During drug proving, sulphur also binds to the same molecular targets as the bacterial toxins, and produces similar molecular deviations and similar symptoms. The similarity between certain symptom groups produced by these bacterial infections and the homeopathic provings of sulphur correlates with this observation. Potentized sulphur, being molecular imprints of sulphur molecules in alcohol-water medium, can act in the same way as ‘itch’ antibodies and deactivate bacterial toxins having sulphur-containing functional groups. Here we get the scientific explanation for the observation of Hahnemann that potentised sulphur is the most important antipsoric medicine, ‘The King of Antipsorics’. During drug proving, ionized sulphur may also compete with sulphide radicals of various biological protein molecules, thereby preventing their normal biochemical interactions.  It is already known that the amino acid called ‘cysteine’,  containing ‘sulphide’ groups, play an important role in almost all molecular interactions in the organism, especially involving protein molecules of enzymatic functions. This may be the reason for the appearance of so many symptom groups, involving almost every biochemical channels of the body, in the homoeopathic proving of sulphur. Potentized sulphur, being molecular imprints with three-dimensional complementary configuration of sulphur, can neutralize the sulphide groups of bacterial toxins, by binding to them. More over, molecular imprints of sulphur can compete with the bacterial antibodies, in their interactions with biological molecules, and act as a most powerful ‘anti psoric’ drug. As crude drugs also, sulphur exhibits an anti bacterial and antifungal action, by the competitive relationship of sulphur ions with sulphide groups of such proteins.

A few words about the homeopathic nosodes such as ‘psorinum’, ‘tuberculinum’, ‘streptococcin’, etc. will be relevant here. These nosodes in the potentized form contain molecular imprints of antibodies themselves, formed in the organism against bacterial toxins. Hence, these potentized  nosodes will be more useful in treating the chronic miasmatic effects of itch and other bacterial infections, whereas potentized suphur will be appropriate to deal with the direct bacterial infections and bacterial toxins themselves. Hahnnemann also has observed that potentized ‘psorinum’ is more appropriate antipsoric in the treatment of chronic diseases, where as potentized ‘sulphur’ will be ideal for acute complaints of ‘psora’.

  Sulphur in Biological System

 Sulphur is an essential element for the existence of life. It is an indispensable part of various amino acids, proteins, enzymes and co–enzymes. Sulphur is a constituent of many important bio-molecules such as cysteine, methionine, coenzyme-A, iron-sulphur clusters, biotin, lipoic acid, molybdopterin, ERNA, thio-nucleiosides, and thiamine. These molecules are participants in various  vital  biochemical processes including the synthesis of protein.

 Sulphur is also very important in the metabolism of pathogenic organisms such as virus, fungi and bacteria, and  as such, play in major role in causing various ailments in human organism. We know, bacteria belonging to mycobacterium group are responsible for disease such as tuberculosis and leprosy. Studies regarding metabolism of these mycobacteria have greately enhanced our understanding about the role of sulphur in the molecular mechanism of such diseases. Many studies have already taken place regarding sulphur-containing molecules discharged by bacteria belonging to ‘treponema denticola’ group. These bacteria are widely seen associated with teeth and gum diseases of human beings. Several toxic molecules let out by fungi contain sulphur. All these facts make it very clear to us why sulphur adorns such a prominent place in homeopathy. We should understand how such chemical molecules produce diseases in men and how medicines act against them.

 Sulphur is an indispensable constituent in the biochemical processes of plant kingdom also. The sulphur-containing phyto-chemical molecules synthesized by plants, such asglutathione, sulpholipids, alliins, glucosinolates and phytochelates enable them to defend themselves against insects and over come environmental stress.  We use these phytochemicals  as powerful therapeutic agents also.

Sulphur acts as the bridging ligand of the important enzyme which controls the use of oxygen in the living cells, known as cytochrome C-oxidase. This indicates the crucial role of sulphur in the very existence of life itself. Certain bacteria maintain their life itself by depending on sulphur compounds. It is the hydrogen sulphide excreted by such bacteria inhabiting our body which imparts the offensive odour to our sweat and excretions. The peculiar smell produced when organic materials get degenerated is also due to the presence of sulphur in them.

Sulphur is contained in various defence molecules synthesized by bacteria. All the antibiotics synthesized by bacteria such as pencillins, cephlosporins, monobactams and their synthetic derivatives contain sulphur.

There is a lot of sulphur contained in the horns, nails, hair, skin and other appendages of animals. Their charecteristic hardness is due to the strong ‘disulphide’ bonds formed between their protein molecules.

 ‘Sulfhydryl(thiol)’ groups containing sulphur play a very important role in the biochemical processes of all living organisms. Thioredoxins containing ‘thiol’  functional groups are indispensable in the synthesis of various biological molecules.

‘Thiol’ contained in coenzyme-A participate in the oxidiation activities of pyruvate-fatty acid which is the integral part of the energy metabolism  in the cells. Thiol groups of glutathione and mycothiol protect the cells by deactivating dangerous oxidants. Sulphur is also a factor in the structure of many messenger molecules also.

Sulphur ions are comparatively much larger than similar ions. More over, their peculiar electron distribution and ability for easy polarization make them powerful nuceleophiles. It is because of tese peculiarities that Sulphur has attained so much importance in the biochemical processes.

Crude sulphur, bacterial toxins containing thiol or sulphide functional groups, as well as chemical molecules having sulphur moieties can interfere in all these biochemical interactions, through competitive inhibitions. Potentized sulphur can rectify these inhibitions, and by act as therapeutic agents.

Proteins and Sulphur

Among the twenty amino acids essential for the synthesis of proteins, only cysteine andmethionone contain sulphur. Only if we get a correct understanding about these two amino acids including their structure and the role they play in organic processes, will we be able to explain the biological importance of the suplhur.

   Methionine                                             Cysteine

H₃C-S-(CH₂) ₂-CH-COOH                      HS-CH₂-CH-COOH

NH²                                                   NH₂

 The amino acid ‘cysteine’ has to be particularly subjected to our study. Its ‘R’ group is an‘HS’, containing sulphur. A peculiarity of ‘HS’ is that they can form mutual disulphide bonds. Such groups are called ‘thiol’ groups or ‘sulphydryl’ groups.

 ‘HS’ or ‘thiol’ is the functional group of the amino acid called ‘cysteine’. This thiol group has great importance in various bio-chemical processes. If ‘cysteine’ residues contained in different protein molecules or in different parts of the same molecule happens to come into contact with each other, the HS groups in them interact with each other by oxidization process and  become ‘cystine’ through disulphide bonding(S-S). This process plays a very important role in the formation of the highly complex three-dimensional tertiary structure of protein molecules. Multi-unit proteins are also formed by this way.

These ‘disulphide bonds’ are crucial in the structure of several antibodies. Antibodies bind to the antigens by ‘thiol’ groups contained in the cysteine residues at their active sites. Thiolgroups of cysteine residues contained in the active sites of enzymes help substrates to remain bound with enzymes and enable the smooth conduct of biochemical transformations. Cysteine residues at the active sites of enzymes belonging to the group of  ‘cysteine proteases’  may be cited as examples.  The importance of ‘HS’ groups of the amino acid ‘cysteine’ in various enzymatic interactions has to be clearly understood.

The phenomenon of curling found in hair is due to disulphide bonds formed betweencystenie residues. The chemicals used for curling and straightening of hair work by the oxidization-antioxidation processes of cysteine residues contained in the hair.

The HS groups contained in the cysteine residues are capable of reacting with the ions of heavy metals ( Pb, Hg,  Ag).  Such reactions will make proteins inactive by effecting deformities in their three dimensional structure. This is the molecular mechanism behind heavy metal poisoning. Sulphur ions are capable of weakening the reactive power of metal ions by binding themselves on them. This happens in the case of metaloenzymes where metal ions function as co–factors. Thiol groups in cysteine are easily subjected to oxidization. Their reactive  efficiency is tremendously enhanced when ionized. Because of this peculiarity, ‘thiol’ groups become participants in many biochemical processes.

Insulin is rendered inactive in certain circumtances due to the presence of cysteine. It is possible for cysteine to inactivate the three disulphide bonds contained in insulin molecules by deoxidizing and changing their structure, In the conditions of hypoglycema where in the sugar content of blood is alarmingly reduced, cysteine is employed as a drug to make insulin inactive. Apart from cysteine , thiamine and vitamin C are also used for this purpose. Here it is evident why health supplements containing cysteine should not be given to diabetic patients. It is to be specially mentioned that foreign molecules containing sulphur are capable of intervening in the biochemical processes connected with insulin.

The disulphide bonds formed between cysteine residues are responsible for the phenomenon of cross linking between protein molecules. This type of cross linking has great importance in placing molecules like insulin un impaired at their appointed positions.

Glutathione which is formed through the combination of amino acids like cysteine, glycine and glutamic acid is an important antioxidant in the body. Thiol groups and sulphur which is a part of it play an important role in the synthesis and functioning of glutathione.

 Dissulphide bonds play an import role in the post-translational modifications of proteins. It is through disulphide bonds between cysteine residues that the peculiarl three dimensional shapes and foldings of proteins molecules working in extracellular medium are shaped. In case such bonds are not formed protein molecules become deformed and incapable of performing their biochemical functions.

The metal ions such as zinc, iron, copper, nickel etc which function as co-factors of several  enzyme systems actually connect with appropriate  enzymes through thiol groups contained in their cysteine residues. Example are: zinc in alcohol dehydrogenase, iorn in cytochrome P450, nickel in [NiFe]-hydrogenases and copper in blue-copper proteins.

It is with the help of enzymes known as protein disulphide isomerases that the S-S disulphide bonds in proteins are formed. It is possible for various chemical molecules containingsulphur to bind themselves competitively on these enzymes and inhibit their functions. It can be legitimately considered that many symptoms observed in homoeopathic proving of sulphur and sulphur-containing drugs indicate these molecular inhibitions.

Cysteine residue is contained in the active sites of many enzymes.  Sulphur(thiol) groups contained in the enzymes play a crucial role in enzymatic interactions. Antibodies also interacts with other molecules through their thiol groups. Molecular mechanism of immune disorders also should be understood in this perspective.

Cystathionine gamma-lyase and cystathionine beta-synthase, are two important enzymes involved in the synthesis of cysteine. Sulphur ions and sulphur-containing drugs may be capable of inhibiting these enzymes through competitive molecular blocks.

Thiol groups are contained in the molecules of various phytochemicals.  Various viral, bacterial and fungal toxins also contain thiols. Such chemicals can interfere in the molecular interactions of proteins in the organism resulting in multitudes of pathological conditions. Symptomatology of homeopathic provings of those drugs should be subjected to a re-reading with this scientific perspective.

Different types of active groups containing sulphur, like Sulfonyl, Sulfo Sulfinyl, Sulfhydry(Thiol) Thiocynate and Disulphide are capable of interveining in biochemical processes.

 Antibodies:

 Immunoglobulins or antibodies represent a very important class of proteins, playing crucial roles in the biological system. They are found in blood, lymph and other body fluids. These antibodies are part of immune  system of the organism. These antibodies are synthesized in plasma cells known as lymphocytes. Antibodies are molecules belonging toglobulin proteins. Mainly there are five type of immunoglobulins. Antigens are bound to antibodies using their active groups known as epitopes. The site of binding on antibodies are known as peritopes.

The molecular components of an immunoglobin are four polypeptide chains bound  bydisulphide bonds. These disulphide bonds are formed by thiol groups of the cysteineresidues contained in them. It is in the presence of an enzymes known as protein disulphide isomerase PDI that the formation and breaking of these bonds take place.  Moreover, this enzyme participate in many ways in the antigen-antibody process. Involvement of this enzyme is necessary in binding antigens with the molecules of major histocompatability complex(MHC1) which is very important in the defence system of the organism.

Sulphur ions and foreign molecules containing sulphur are capable of competitively binding on disulphide isomerase(PDI) and make them inactive. This is the molecular mechanism of medicinal materials containing sulphur adversely affecting the immunity.

Peritomes of antibodies are subjected to molecular imprinting with epitome groups of antigens. The antibodies thus imprinted have special affinity to the concerned antigens, due to the complementary configurations created by imprinting. It is because of this special complemetary affinity that antibodies are able to recognize exact antigens. It has been proved that these antibodies maintain affinity not only with imprinted antigen epitoms but also with other  molecules having similarity in shape with them. Because of this, the antibodies misunderstand the molecules essential for the body as antigens and create different types of molecular blocks by binding on them. This phenomenon gives the chance for different type immune related diseases. A detailed discussion of this matter has already been made else where in the same article where miasm is discussed. The potentised homoeo preparations have proved to be capable of eradicating such conditions of illness.

Many bacterial viral toxins act as antigens. The groups of symptoms appearing in many diseases due to such bacterial infections exhibit similarity with homoeopathic provings ofsulphur. The reason for this is evident. We used to treat effectively such conditions of illness using high potency sulphur on the basis of Similia Similibus Curentur.

Biotin:

 Biotin is a vitamin containing sulphur. Biotin is the co–factor which makes active several important enzymes like, Acetyl-CoA carboxylase,  Pyruvate carboxylase, Methylcrotonyl-CoA carboxylase,  Propionyl-CoA carboxylase. Many foreign molecules containing sulphurgroups compete with biotin in interacting with the above mentioned enzymes and this subject them to competetive inhibitions. Certain bacterial and viral toxins also function in the same manner. As a result a condition equivilant to the absence of biotin is created and condition of illness similar to that is produced. This will adversely affect the natural growth of cells, and the metabolism of lipids and amino acids. Falling of hair, falling of eyebrow, greying, disinterest in food,  eczema, dermatils, drying of skin, increase in blood sugar, numbness of hands and legs, many types of bacterial infections, fungus infections, mental problems and deterioration of immunity etc. result.

Ubiqiutination :

 Ubiquitins are regulatory protein molecules containing lysine residues playing a very important role in various biochemical processes. By binding themselves on different types of protein molecules ubiqiutins ensure the configurational stability of proteins, and empower them to do their stipulated chemical functions. Ubiqiutin polypeptides  also act asmarkers  of protein molecules, preparing them for their calabolism. Ubiquitin-activating enzyme E1, ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2, ubiquitin-protein ligases E3  etc are the enzymes associated with ubiquitin interactions.

The first stage of this process known as ubiqiutination is performed with the help of cysteineresidues positioned at the active sites of the ubiqiutine-activating enzyme E1.  Molecules containing active groups of sulphur are capable of competitively binding on these enzymes and making them inactive.  This phenomenon underlies many types of disease we face today.

Ubiqiutination is crucial in many organic processes like antigen processing, apoptosis, biogenesis of organelles, cell cycle and division, DNA transcription and repair, differentiation and development, immune response and inflammation, neural and muscular degeneration, morphogenesis of neural networks,  modulation of cell surface receptors, ion channels and the secretory pathway, response to stress and extracellular modulators, ribosome biogenesis, viral infections etc. The plentifulness of diseases conditions likely to be caused by obstructions to the above mentioned organic processes is very evident. All these factors are to be taken in to account when we make a study of the homeopathic symptomatology of Sulphur.

Tyrosine Sulfation:

 Tyrosine sulfation is the process in which sulfate groups are added to tyrosine residues of proteins synthesized in the cells. This chemical process take place in golgi apparatus. In this process,  sulphate ions are extracted  from Adenosine 3′-phosphate 5′-phosphosulfate (PAPS) and added to tyrosine residues of proteins, with the help of an enzyme known asTyrosylprotein sulfotransferase (TPST). Exogenous sulfate ions are capable of creating molecular blocks  in these enzymes, through competitive relationship.  Tyrosine sulfation is essential for the molecular interaction of proteins. Many proteins such as adhesion molecules, G-protein-coupled receptors, coagulation factors, serine protease inhibitors, extracellular matrix proteins,  and hormones are subjected to tyrosine sulfation.

The studies dealing with the chemical process known as tyrosine sulfation and its partipant enzyme systems are even now incomplete. The influence they exert in the processes like the growth of hair, regulating body weight and reproduction is almost fully uncovered. By this time it has been made very clear that the sulfation of protein is an important area of biochemical activities. We have to constantly follow the scientific researchs taking place in this area positioning ourselves in the perspective of Homoeopathy. It will be very interesting to learn the crucial role the sulphate ions play in the organic system.

Glucosinolates :

 Glucosinolates are a class of chemical molecules containing sulphur and nitrogen, found naturally in plants,. They are used as medicinal drugs and natural pesticides. Glucosinolatesare abundant in mustard, radish, horse radish, maca, cress, cabbage, brussels sprouts,  kohlrabi, kale, cauliflower, broccoli, turnip, swede(rutabaga) and rapeseed.

Sinigrin (allylglucosinolate or 2-propenylglucosinlate) is a glucosinolate found in plants like broccoli belonging to the brassica family. It has been proved that sinigrin is capable of preventing the multiplication of cancer cells. Sinalbin,  another glucosinolate found in mustard also belong to the same group. These are converted to allyl isothiocyanate by the action of certain enzymes.

It has been observed that  the organo-sulphur compound sulforaphane , contained  in certain plants can be used as curative agent against helicobacter pylori bacteria, the causative agent of gastric ulcers.  Sulforaphane is also found to be useful as external application to protect skin from ultra violet rays.

Thiocyanate ions containing sulphur inhibit the production of thyroide hormones likethyroxine and triiodothyronine. This is because they are capable of producing molecular blocks by competing with iodine. The thioglycoside  such as alliin contained in garlic are chemically sulfoxides. This function both as antioxidant and hydroxyl radical scavenger, because of the presence sulphur ions in them. It has been proved in the laboratory tests that the functional ability of phagocytes in blood is increased in the presence of alliin.

Lenthionine is the organo-sulphur compound contained in certain types of fungi.  Thesesulphur –containing molecules prevent the clotting of blood. Certain organo-sulphur compounds contained in grlic also function in the same manner. These molecules inhibits the enzymes called C-S lyase.

 Thiamine :

 Thiamine is included in the group of B-complex vitamins. It is a chemical compound containing sulphur. Thiamine diphosphate (ThDP), which is the active form of thiamine works as a co–enzyme in various enzymes systems which regulate catabolic processes of amino acids and sugars. Thiamine is synthesized in bacteria,  fungi and plants. Thiaminerequired by animals has to be obtained through food. In its absence may cause the disease called beriberi, affecting the nervous system and circulatory system. General debility, emaciation and mental disorders are also observed.

Thiamine (C12H17N4OS) is a vitamin soluble in water. Sulfites are capable of inhbitingthiamine. Thiaminase enzymes contained shell fishes and certain other fishes,Hydroxyphenols  such as Caffeic acid, Chlorogenic acid, Tannic acid  foud in plants also make thiamine inactive. Glycocides like quercetin and rutin also deactivate thiamine in the same manner.

Enzymes like phosphatase, pyrophosphatase, thiamine pyrophosphokinase, Na+-dependent ATPase also adversely affect the availability of Thiamine.

Following are the biochemically active forms of thiamine: thiamine monophosphate(ThMP), thiamine diphosphate(ThDP),  thiamine triphosphate (ThTP), adenosine thiamine triphosphate (AthTP), adenosine thiamine diphosphate (AthDP). Thiamine in the form ofThiamine diphosphate (ThDp) act as co–factors for enzymes such as pyruvate dehydrogenase,  2-oxoglutarate dehydrogenase , branched-chain α-keto acid dehydrogenase, 2-hydroxyphytanoyl-CoA lyase and transketolase, which play major roles in carbohydrate metabolism.

The enzyme named transketolase, which requires thiamine as co-factor, participates in the synthesis of sugars such as deoxyribose, ribose and NADPH. Pyruvate dehydrogenase(PDH), and 2-oxoglutarate dehydrogenase(OGDH), both having thiamine as co-factors,  are participants in synthesis of ATP. These enzymes are also important in citric acid cycle, and synthesis of myelin and acetylcholine.

The deficiency of thiamine cause a disease called peripheral neuropathy. This adversely affects sensory, motor and reflex activities in the limbs. Mental problems, emaciation and cardiac  dysfuntions also are very serious problems in children. Excessive consumption of alcohol may result in  deficiency of thiamine. The symptoms of serious thiamine deficiency are found in HIV-AIDS patients. Understanding the molecular mechanism of symptoms of thiamine deficiency exhibiting in HIV infection may help in developing an effective homoeopathic treatment protocol for such diseases.

Werenicke’s encephlopathy is a rare disease caused by the severe deficiency  of thiamine. Its symptoms are decrease in the motility of eyes,  unsteadiness,  and  mental disorders.Koresakott psychosis is a more aggravated form of the same disease.

Genetic disorders such as thiamine responsive megaloblastic anemia, Leigh disease (subacute necrotizing encephalomyelopathy, opsoclonic cerebellopathy (a paraneoplastic syndrome), Nigerian seasonal ataxia etc. are associated with thiamine deficiencies. Sulphurions are capable of creating molecular blocks in the enzymes involved in thiamine metabolism. Compounds containing sulphur or sulphites are directly capable of rendering thiamine molecules inactive.

Iron – Sulphur Proteins:

 These are the proteins containing iron–sulphur clusters. Enzymes such as NADH dehydrogenase, hydrogenases, coenzyme Q- Cytochrome C reductase, succinate-coenzyme Q reductase, nitrogenase and metalloproteins such as ferredoxins are exmples. The sulphur necessary for making of lipoic acid and biotin is made available from iron–sulphur clusters. They play their vital roles in the oxidization and antioxidization processes in mitochondria. Their presence is essential in oxidative phosphorylation processes as well. Nitric oxide is capable of rendering iron–sulphur proteins inactive.

The active group of iron-sulphur proteins are cysteine residues containing ‘thiol’ group. It is specially noteworthy that sulphur ions and exogenous molecules containing sulphur groups are capable of competitive intervention in biochemical processes related to iron-sulphur proteins.

Sulphite Oxidase:

 Sulphite oxidase is an important metalo-enzyme found in the mitocondria of animals. This enzyme is very crucial in the process of ATP synthesis. Molybdopterin molecules containingmolybdinum acts as co–factors for  this  enzyme. This co–factor is bound to the sulphur of cysteine residues in the enzyme molecule.

Exogenic sulphur ions, suphur-containing drugs and bacterial-viral molecules are capable of competitively binding on the molybdopterin molecules, thereby preventing them from connecting with the enzyme molecules. In the absence of the appropriate co-factor, the enzyme is unable to execute its biochemic functions, leading to a condition of pathology amounting to absence of sulphite oxydase. Neurological disorders, mental retardation, physical deformities and brain disorders are the result. It might even result in death. In some cases, absence of this enzyme may happen due to defects in genetic expression also. Any how, we have to bear in mind the role of sulphur in sulphite oxidase metabolism, while engaging in a scientific study of sulphur symptomatology.

Lipoic Acid:

 Co-factors are  indispensible components of several important enzyme systems. Lipoic acidfunction as such a co–factor. It is an organo-sulphur compound containing sulphur in its active group, which is a disulpide. These exist in the cells in the form of dihydrolipoic acid. Often it is not found in the organism in independent form, but as part of various enzyme comlplexes like pyruvate dehydrogenase complex, glycine cleavage gomplexes etc .

Lipoic acid is a food antioxidant as well. It is capable of reviving glutathione, vitamin C and vitamin E. It functions as a good molecular scavenger due to the presence of disulphide groups in it.

It has been already proved that sulphur ions and various drug molecules containing sulphur are capable of inhibiting certain enzyme systems associated with lipoic acid synthesis, thereby negatively affecting the availabilty of lipoic acid in the organism. This point has to be especially considered in our scientific study of symptomatology of sulphur. More over, sulphur ions and sulphur-containing drugs may compete with lipoic acid in binding with their molecular targets, including the enzyme systems. Obiously, some of the symptoms of sulphur proving may be representing the pathologic conditions arising from such lipoic acid deficiency.

Dapsone:

 Leprosy is a disease caused by the bacteria known as mycobacterium leprae. Dapsone (diamino-diphenyl sulfone) is widely used for the treatment of leprosy. Dapsone interferes in the biochemical processes through its active groups containing sulphur(sulfone).Antibiotics belonging to sulfonamide group also work through the same mechanism.Dapsone effects its therapeutic properties against leprosy by interfering in the synthesis ofdihydrofolic acid which is essential for the metabolism of these bacteria.

Apart from leprosy, dapsone is found effective in many disease like pemphigoids, dermatitis herpetiformis, linear immunoglobulinA dermatosis, lichen planus, acne etc. Sulphonegroup of dapsone  compete with sulphur-containing  proteins of infectious agents in binding with native biological molecules, thereby exhibiting their terapeutic effects. It is interesting to note  that we can see many groups of symptoms of above said diseases  in the homeopathic symptomatology of sulphur. It has been also found that dapsone can be used in the treatment of diseases like pneumocystic pneumonia (PCP), idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, and toxoplasmosis. Daspone has been indicated as an antidote for some kinds spider poisons also. Dapsone has been effectively used as external application in some non- bacterial skin diseases also.

It has also been observed that the use of dapsone results in many types of side effects such as hemolysis,  hemolytic anemia, methemoglobinemia, agranulocytosis,  aplastic anaemia, cholestatic jaundice,  toxic hepatitis,  nausea, headache, skin rashes, eosinophilia, insomnia, psychosis, peripheral neuropathy etc. It has been proved that dapsone is capable of interfering in the enzyme system known as cytochrome P450. Since dapsone is a drug containing sulphur in its active group, these observations are relevant in the study of biological roles of sulphur.

  Further studies required

  Sulphur and sulphur containing compounds plays many more important roles in biological processes than those already discussed above. Here we have considered some prominent examples only. Homoeopathic provings and symptomatology of sulphur have to be subjected to a thorough re-reading in the light of latest available knowledge regarding the diverse  biochemical processes sulphur participates in the living organism. Such a scientific re-reading might help us identify  the exact molecular errors underlying  each group of complex subjective and objective symptoms attributed to the homeopathic provings of sulphur.

Various sulphur-containing functional groups of drugs of plant, mineral or animal origin, bacterial and viral products, and new generation sulphur-containing synthetic drug molecules also have to be subjected to in-depth study of their chemical structure, biochemical involvement and symptomatology. Such a scientific study may enable us to understand how constitutions of sulphur get evolved in idividuals, as a cumulative result of genetic factors, environment and life style, including food, drinks, bacterial or viral diseases and usage of medicinal substances. A comparative study  of symptomatology of sulphur with  other drugs containing sulphur moieties like natrum sulph, hepar sulph, kali sulph, ars sulph, aethiops, cadmium sulph, calc sulph, carboneam sulph, chininum sulph, ferrum sulph, hydrast sulph, mag sulph, manganum sulph,  merc suph, sulph Iod,  scid sulph and zinc sulph, petroleum etc., will be much interesting and useful. All the similar symptom groups found in the symptomatologies of all these substances can be attributed to the suphur moieties  contained in these drug molecules.

We have already seen that various viral and bacterial toxins contain sulphur functional groups. Suplhur is present in most of the food articles we consume. The same is the case with the drugs used by different medical systems in the treatment of diseases. Sulphur ions, sulphur-containing drugs and sulphur- containing bacterial and viral toxins can compete with the thiol groups of various protein molecules in our body such as enzymes and antibodies, in binding with their legitimate molecular targets, resulting in unwanted molecular blocks and pathologic conditions.  All these factors may contribute in building up constitutional states of sulphur in a large percentage of population, by creating diverse types of biochemic deviations in their organism.  This indicates the real depth and gravity of the ‘miasm’ which Hannemaan  called ‘psora’ in the whole human race. This study clearly shows how much important is the use of potentized sulphur as a constitutional medication for the protection of our health and vitality.

Homeopathy, based on the principle of ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ uses potentized drugs, containing molecular imprints or  ‘hydrosomes’ of drug molecules. Obviously, sulphur,which plays versatile roles in normal physiology and various states of pathology, will be the most important drug in potentized form in homeopathic therapeutics. As such, the title ‘the king of antipsorics’ is not at all an exaggerated statement as far as sulphur is concerned.

In accordance with the scientific understanding and explanation of homeopathic therapeutics provided by Dialectical Homeopathy, we have to re-examine the whole protocols of Case Taking,  Classification and Grading of Symptoms, selection of similimum and its therapeutic application.

To be capable of following the logic behind the new method of classifying and grading of symptoms proposed by Dialectical Homeopathy, one should be familiar with its basic premises regarding the understanding of ‘similia similibus curentur’ and homeopathic therapeutics.

Since the perception of Dialectical homeopathy about the mechanism underlying  the processes of disease and cure fundamentally differs from that of ‘classical homeopathy’, its ways of application are also bound to differ.

Dialectical Homeopathy explains ‘similia similibus curentur’ on the basis of modern biochemistry and molecular biology. According to this view, diseases are deviations in biochemical pathways caused by material level molecular errors in the organism.  Apart from those of genetic abnormalities and nutritional deficiencies, these molecular errors are caused by inhibitions of essential biological molecules resulting from binding of molecules of exogenous or endogenous origin. These molecular level deviations are primary factors of diseases, which expresses through diverse groups of objective and subjective symptoms. Symptoms are actually the expressions of molecular errors as reflected in the consciousness of the person himself, or perceived the observers.

An individual may be same time having diverse types of pathological molecular errors in him, caused by diverse types of molecular inhibitions originating from genetic, miasmatic, nutritional, infectious, environmental, emotional, metabolic, iatrogentic and various such factors. Symptoms expressed by an individual actually represent such diverse types of pathological molecular errors happened in different biochemical pathways. More over, molecular inhibitions have a cascading effect, errors in one pathway leading to new errors in associated pathways. Diseases progress to new stages through this cascading mechanism. That shows, disease cannot be dealt with as a singular entity in the concerned organism.

According to Dialectical Homeopathy, potentization involves a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, by which three-dimensional artificial binding agents are prepared in water/alcohol medium, that can later bind to the pathogenic molecules having configurational similarity to original drug molecules. These ‘molecular imprints’ are the actual active principles of potentized homeopathic drugs.  When these ‘molecular imprints’ are introduced into the organism according to the therapeutic law of ‘similia similibus curentur’, they would specifically bind to the pathological molecules having configurational affinity, thereby relieving the biological molecules. This is the molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics.

We should understand ‘drug proving’ and materaia medica in a new light. Drug proving actually involves the study of  ‘molecular errors’ that could be created in a healthy organism by introducing crude drug substances. When drug substances are introduced into the organism, independent constituent molecules contained in the drug substances interact with biological molecules and create molecular inhibitions amounting to artificial pathological conditions. These ‘molecular errors’ are expressed through diverse groups of objective and subjective symptoms, and systematically compiled in our material medica texts. The most important insight Dialectical Homeopathy introduces regarding ‘drug proving is that drugs are never ‘proved’ as ‘single’ entities. It is not the drug substances that interact with biological molecules, but the independent constituent molecules of drugs. Materia medica actually represents a collection of symptoms produced by the diverse types of molecular errors caused by diverse types of individual drug molecules being part of the drug substance. As such, a drug substance can not be considered as ‘single’ entities as ‘classical’ approach perceives. They are ‘proved’ as constituent molecules,  potentizaed as individual molecules, and the potentized drugs act as therapeutic agents in capacity of individual ‘molecular imprints’.

According to Dialectical Homeopathy, ‘similia similibus curentur’ should be explained in the light of this new understanding regarding disease and cure. Meaning of ‘similia similibus curentur’ now becomes, “pathological molecular errors can be removed using molecular imprints of drug molecules that were proven to be capable of producing similar molecular errors in organism in capacity of their configurational similarity of their functional groups or moieties”.  This ‘similarity of molecular errors’ and similarity of ‘molecular configurations’ are determined in homeopathy by a very practical way of ‘similarity of symptoms’.

Now, we clearly understand the importance of ‘symptoms’ and ‘similarity of symptoms’ in the application of homeopathic therapeutics.

The exact molecular errors underlying a state of pathology and  the biochemical deviations arising there from could be determined and compared with that of drug substances only by a careful and judicious observation and analysis of ‘symptoms’. Subjective and objective symptoms are the only indicators by which we can identify the molecular errors underlying a pathological condition.

Classifying and grading of symptoms is a very important step in homeopathic case study and selection of similimum. So far, homeopaths were taught to classify symptoms first into ‘physical’ and ‘mental’, considering ‘mentals’ as decisive factors in selecting similimum. This method of classification is based on the theory that diseases originate in the level of ‘vital force’, and the concept that ‘mind’ is primary to ‘body’. Dialectical Homeopathy thinks just the opposite. Material ‘body’ is ‘primary’, and ‘mind is ‘secondary’.  Disease and cure are material phenomena, drugs are material, therapeutics is a ‘material art’, not a ‘spiritual’ one. Diseases and cure happen at molecular level, not ‘spiritual’ level.

According to Dialectical Homeopathy, symptoms should be first classified into ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’.

Many people confuse with the terms ‘subjective’ and ‘mental’. They think both terms mean the same, and use these terms in similar meaning. But, if you logically think over it, you will understand ‘subjective’ does not mean ‘mental’.  There are many ‘subjective’ symptoms that are not ‘mental’. Same way, there are many ‘mental’ symptoms that are not at all ‘subjective’. Without resolving this confusion, it would be difficult to follow what I say regarding classification of symptoms.

‘Subjective Symptoms’ are the symptoms ‘felt’ or experienced’ by the individual, without the involvement of sense organs. The micro-level pathological molecular errors are first experienced subjectively, by the faculty of ‘consciousness’ of the individual, without the involvement of sense organs. The cascading effects of even minute molecular and cellular level deviations would be transmitted to the associated brain centers through the mediation of internal signaling system and neuro-endicrine system. This mechanism initiates certain molecular processes in the brain, which is ‘experienced’, ‘felt’ or ‘sensed’ by the consciousness as diverse groups of ‘subjective symptoms’.  As such, study of ‘Subjective Symptoms’ can be used as an effective way of understanding the exact molecular errors underlying the pathological deviations.

Subjective symptoms may appear much before objective manifestations of pathology. Diseases with same objective manifestation may be accompanied with different subjective symptoms, indicting that they differ in some molecular level processes in the individual, demanding different similimum. Obviously, ‘subjective symptoms’ are the most reliable guides in our search for an appropriate similimum.

For example, most ‘aggravations’, ‘ameliorations’, ‘sensations’, ‘desires’, ‘aversions’ and ‘concomitants’ accompanying ‘physical’ symptoms are ‘subjective’ but not ‘mental’. ‘Itching’ , ‘burning’, ‘pain’, and all such symptoms are ‘subjective physical’, not ‘mental’. ‘Aggravation by cold application’, ‘pain amel by rest’, ‘pain amel by motion’ etc are also ‘subjective physicals’.

Whatever method we use for grading of symptoms and repertorization, ‘Subjective Symptoms’ will come on top rank.

Subjective Symptoms are classified into ‘Subjective Mentals’ and ‘Subjective Physicals’.

Subjective Mental Generals are those symptoms ‘general mental symptoms’ that could be ‘experienced’ by the patient only. Many hallucinations and delusions belong this group. ‘Grief’, ‘anxiety’ etc are ‘subjective mental generals’.

‘Subjective Mentals’ can be further divided into ‘Subjective Mental Generals’ (SMG) and ‘Subjective Mental Particulars’ (SMP)

‘Subjective Physicals’ can be further classified into ‘Subjective Physical Generals’ (SPG) and ‘Subjective Physical Particulars’ (SPP).

‘Objective Symptoms’ are those ‘observed’ by the patient himself, or by the onlookers, with their sense organs aided or un-aided by accessory means. Observations through physical examinations and laboratory investigations also belong to this class. ‘Objective symptoms’ also represent the ‘pathological derangements’, but only those which have advanced into gross observable magnitude. Hence, ‘objective symptoms’ cannot reflect the exact ‘molecular basis’ of pathology. In most cases, ‘objective symptoms’ may also be associated with certain ‘subjective symptoms’, which give real indications to the actual micro-level processes behind. Observing objective symptoms along with associated subjective symptoms help us to identify the exact molecular errors, which is necessary for selecting appropriate similimum. Such objective symptoms, appearing with related subjective symptom can be classified as a subjective symptom. Here lies the importance of sensations, modalities, concomitants, desires and aversions appearing in association with objective symptoms. Objective symptoms, in the absence of associated subjective symptoms are not of much importance in deciding similimum. When we observe an objective symptom, he should look out for ‘how it is felt’ by the patient.

‘Objective Symptoms’  are classified into ‘Objective Mentals’ and ‘Objective Physicals’

 ‘Objective Mentals’ can be further divided into ‘Objective Mental Generals’ (OMG) and ‘Objective Mental Particulars’ (OMG).

‘Objective Physicals’ can be further classified into ‘Objective Physical Generals’ (OPG) and ‘Objective Physical Particulars’ (OPP).

Classification and grading of ‘General Symptoms’:

In the classical way of homeopathic case analysis, ‘mentals’ and ‘physical generals’ are considered to be most important in the selection of similimum. Normally, while describing ‘general symptoms’, the patient would use the prefix ‘I’, and others would use the prefix ‘He’.

According to the new method of case analysis proposed by Dialectical Homeopathy, ‘general’ symptoms are classified into four categories:

1. Subjective Mental General. 2. Subjective Physical General.

3. Objective Mental General. 4. Objective Physical General

A ‘general symptom’ may be either ‘physical’ or ‘mental’. Further, ‘mentals’ are classified into ‘subjective and ‘objective’. ‘Physical generals’ are also classified into ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’.

‘General physical symptoms’ that could be ‘experienced’ only by the patient, such as ‘General weakness’, ‘chilliness’, ‘hot patient’, ‘hot flashes’, etc are ‘subjective physical generals’.

When a ‘subjective physical general’ is associated with a ‘subjective mental general’, it should be graded top in the list, as a ‘subjective mental general’.

If a ‘mental general’ symptom could be observed by others, it becomes a ‘objective mental general’. ‘Laughing immoderately’, ‘wandering on streets’, ‘absence of personal hygiene’,  ‘walking hurried’, ‘eating in a hurry’ ‘abusive’, ‘aversion to answer’, ‘bemoaning’, ‘plays antics’, ‘idiotic’,  ‘crawling on the floor’ etc are ‘objective mental generals.

‘Objective physical generals’ are ‘physical generals’ that could be observed by others. ‘Obesity’, ‘leanness’, ‘emaciation’, ‘chorea’, ‘chlorosis’, ‘collapse’, ‘fainting’, ‘convulsions’, ‘color of discharges’, ‘dwarfish’, ‘flabbiness of skin’, ‘stoop-shouldered’, ‘anasarca’ , ‘trembling’, ‘positions in sleep’, and such symptoms belong to this group.

If an objective physical general is associated with a symptom belonging to subjective physical general or subjective mental general, it should be ranked top in the list.

After classifying and grading ‘general’ symptoms systematically, we can find an appropriate ‘constitutional similimum’ using all subjective and objective generals.

Grading of Symptoms:

Once we classify the symptoms into 8 groups as proposed by Dialectical Homeopathy, its practical application requires a perfect system for ‘Grading of symptoms. This grading ultimately decides the selection of similimum. Once grading of all rubrics are set and weightage marks assigned accordingly, we can use any of the three ‘methods of grading’ we already discussed, such as ‘subjective-objective’, ‘menetal-physical’ and ‘general- particular’ for our repertorization work.

I.  Subjective-Objective Method:

1. Subjective Mental Symptoms. 2. Subjective Physical Symptoms. 3. Subjective Mental Particulars. 4. Subjective Physical Particular. 5. Objective Mental General. 6. Objective Physical General. 7. Objective Mental Particular. 8. Objective Physical Particular

II. Mental-Physical Method:

1. Subjective Mental General. 2. Subjective Mental Particular. 3. Objective Mental General. 4. Objective Mental Particular. 5. Subjective Physical General. 6. Subjective Physical Particular. 7. Objective Physical General. 8. Objective Physical Particular.

III. General-Particular Method:

1. Subjective Mental General. 2. Subjective Physical General. 3. Objective Mental General. 4. Objective Physical General. 5. Subjective Mental Particular. 6. Subjective Physical Particular. 7. Objective Mental Particular. 8. Objective Physical Particular

I would suggest following system of ranking for repertorization:

1. ‘Subjective Mental Generals’ and ‘Subjective Physical Generals’ should be given equal ranking and placed on the top.

2. ‘Subjective Mental Particular’ and ‘Subjective Physical Particulars’ should be considered of equal rank and placed second in weightage.

3. ‘Objective Mental Generals’ and ‘Objective Physical Generals’ can be considered equals in importance and given third place in ranking

4. ‘Objective Mental Particulars’ and ‘Objective Physical Particulars’ can be considered equals and placed in fourth rank.

If you are repertorizing using ‘totality method’, weightage marks can be given accordingly. If  you repertorize using ‘elimination method’, always use top-ranking ones as ‘eliminating symptoms’

By placing in low rank, it does not mean a symptom is un-important and totally ignorable.  All classes of symptoms have their own relevance and should not be ignored.

Grouping of symptoms into ‘Symptom Complexes’:

For those who are not averse to using multiple drugs if necessary, symptoms can further be grouped into ‘Symptom Complexes’. I have already explained through my earlier articles, my concepts of similimum that differs from accepted classical approach.

If we minutely and systematically study the whole symptoms expressed by the patient belonging to the eight different classes discussed above, we can see that each symptom exists as part of a larger unit or ‘symptom complex’ by associating with two or more other subjective or objective symptoms normally called as locations, sensations, modalities and concomitants. A ‘symptom complex’ normally represents a specific train of pathological derangements caused by a particular molecular error in the organism. There may be diverse types of molecular errors existing in the organism caused by diverse types endogenous or exogenous pathogenic agents belonging to genetic, environmental, infectious, miasmatic, metabolic, emotional, iatrogenic and such other factors. Hence, especially in chronic constitutional conditions, we should always expect more than one unrelated ‘symptom complex’ existing in a patient. It would be an ideal condition if we could find a single drug that contains all ‘molecular imprints’ that cover all the different ‘symptom complexes’ existing in the patient. In many cases, each individual ‘symptom complex’ may demand a separate similimum containing appropriate ‘molecular imprints’ capable of removing that particular molecular error it is representing. In such cases, instead of trying to match the totality of whole symptoms expressed by the patient with a ‘single drug’, we will have to address each ‘symptom complex’ by matching them with similar ‘symptom complexes’ in the materia medica of different drugs. Physicians should always try to identify such ‘symptom complexes’ by carefully observing and analyzing the associations and relationships between various symptoms, and find appropriate similimum for each individual symptom complex, to ensure a TOTAL CURE for his patient.

  DIALECTICAL HOMOEOPATHY

The Simple Science of Homeopathic Therapeutics

 K. C. Chandran Nambiar

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

 How Homeopathy Works? A Scientific ‘Working Hypothesis’ Regarding the Molecular Mechanism of Homeopathic Therapeutics

Homeopathic theoreticians till date try to explain the ‘modus operandi’ of potentized homeopathic medicines using one or other hypotheses available or evolved by them, and as such, homeopathy still belongs to a class of ‘unverified science’.

By the term ‘hypothesis’ we mean a ‘proposed explanation’ or “educated guess” for a phenomenon that we observe around us. Every ‘proposed explanation’ cannot be considered a ‘scientific hypothesis’. To be a ‘scientific hypothesis’, the scientific method requires that one can test the hypothesis using available scientific tools and methodology. Every new scientific hypotheses are generally based on previous observations that could not be satisfactorily be explained with the existing scientific theories. The words “hypothesis” and “theory” are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, even though a ‘scientific hypothesis’ is not exactly the same as ‘a scientific theory’. A hypothesis should be proved ‘using scientific tools’ in order to become a scientific theory. A ‘working hypothesis’ is a provisionally accepted hypothesis that is ready to be proved. Experimenters will have to test and reject several hypotheses before solving the given problem ultimately.

Testability (using existing scientific tools), Simplicity (avoiding excessive numbers of entities), Scope (apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena), Fruitfulness (hypothesis may help to explain further phenomena in the future), and Conservatism (fitting with existing recognized knowledge-systems) are considered to be the essential qualities of a good scientific hypothesis.

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

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

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

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

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

 Any working hypothesis about homeopathy should clearly identify a ‘biological mechanism’ that represents the action-reaction homeostasis of ‘vital processes’, which is called as the ‘vital force’ in homeopathy. It should also be capable of explaining the molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics in a way fitting to the verified scientific paradigm of modern biochemistry and molecular biology.

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

 Dialectical Homeopathy proposes following working hypothesis regarding how homeopathy works:

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

 Our concept of ‘molecular imprinting in water’ is based on the available knowledge regarding supra-molecular properties of water, hydrogen bonding, water clusters, clathrate phenomenon etc. Water exhibits some ‘polymer-like’ properties at supra-molecular level, which make it an ideal medium for molecular imprinting.

 Individual constituent drug molecules act as ‘guest’ molecules and water/ethyl alcohol molecules act as the ‘host molecules’ in this imprinting protocol.

 Through the process of serial dilution and succussion, water/ethyl alcohol molecules forms supra-molecular clusters, into which the configuration of individual ‘guest’ molecules are imprinted as 3D nanocavities, which are exactly complementary in shape to the ‘guest’ molecules.

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

 Homeopathic therapeutics utilizes this phenomenon of complementary configurational relationship, where ‘molecular imprints’ prepared in water with configuration complementary to the pathogenic molecules are used to bind them and inactivate them, thereby effecting a therapeutic action. ‘Molecular imprints’ of drug molecules are the real active factors of potentized drugs. When introduced into the organism, due to the complementary relationship, these ‘imprints’ can bind to ‘pathogenic’ molecules having configuration similar to the original drug molecules used for imprinting. By this process, the biological molecules are relieved from the molecular blocks created by pathogenic molecules, thereby rectifying the pathologic molecular deviations happened in the biochemic channels.

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

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

 MD represents a pathological molecular error. 

 Therapeutic process involves with relieving of M from D.

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

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

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

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

 M+D > MD = Pathology

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

‘d’ will be complementary to D1 and D.

Then,

MD+d> M+Dd

M is free now (Cured)

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

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

 Re-Building Homeopathy- A Historical Mission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 The Parallel Road Pursued by Hahnemann

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

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

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

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

 Material Basis of Vital Processes

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

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

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

 Chemistry of Life

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

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

Importance of Proteins and Enzymes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Symptoms – Indicators of Biochemical Processes

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

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

 Logic of Drug proving

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

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

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

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

Potentizaton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Water- its Role in Potentization

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water molecules(H₂O) are symmetric (point group C_2ν), with two mirror planes of symmetry and a 2-fold rotation axis. The hydrogen atoms in this molecule may possess parallel or anti-parallel nuclear spin. The water molecule consists of two light hydrogen atoms(H) and a relatively heavy oxygen atom(O). The approximately 16-fold difference in mass between hydrogen and oxygen gives ease of rotation, and the significant relative movements of the hydrogen nuclei, which are in constant and significant relative movement.

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

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

 Hydrogen Bonding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Role of Ethyl Alcohol in Potentization

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

  Medium used for homoeopathic potentization 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. This may further explain the importance of water-ethyl alcohol mixture being used as the medium of homoeopathic potentization.

Role of Silica (Silicon Dioxide) in Potentization?

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

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

Molecular Memory Of  Water

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Supra-Molecular Sciences

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

Crystal Structure of Water.

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

  Clathrate Compounds

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

 Shape Memory Property Materials

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

Molecular Imprinting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Potentization- Mysteries Solved?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 If it is finally accepted that molecular imprinting is the real mechanism of potentization,  we may reach a consensus that there is no likelihood of any special benefit by higher and higher potentisations above 23C. Logically, potentization need be continued  only just beyond the limit of Avagadro number. By that stage the molecular imprinted water–alcohol mixture will have  attained sufficient medicinal properties, to be used on the basis of ‘similia similibus curentur’. The three-dimensional structure of drug molecules used as ‘guests’ will have already got sufficiently imprinted into the hydration shells or hydrosomes by that time. I find no point in continuing potentization even after that stage.

 As per my observation, the medicinal property of any homeopathic drug beyond 23c will be the same. It is only a very rare possibility that there could be any significant difference between various higher potencies used by us,  with regard to their content or medicinal qualities.  Many master prescribers  have already put on record that if the selection of similimum is correct,  any potency would render the expected therapeutic result.

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

 1.     The low potencies which contain original drug molecules(below 23c)

2.     High potencies which do not contain drug molecules(above 23c)

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Molecular Dynamics of Cure

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

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

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

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

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

 4.   Interaction with various structural proteins.

 5.  Interacting  with carrier proteins.

 6. Interaction with ion channels. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Re-defining “Similia Similibus Curentur”

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

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

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

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

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

 Modern Technology of “Drug Designing”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                            Vital Force

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

 It is not here intended to convert the ongoing scientific discourse of therapeutics into a dialogue between the divergent philosophical world outlooks of spiritualism and materialism, and hence, I do not here endeavor to question somebody’s right to believe in the existence of  a ‘universal’ ‘vital force’ as such. But, at least when dealing with a science of therapeutics, we have to reach a consensus to replace the concept of ‘vital force’ with a more rational expression, ‘vital process’, if we could discuss homeopathy as a system of scientific medicine. ‘Vital force’, what ever it may be, expresses itself in a living organism only through ‘vital processes’, the complex chains of interconnected molecular interactions known as biochemical pathways. It has been already explained that a state of disease  is created through some or other deviations in these normal biochemical processes. Hence, according to our scientific perspective, every pathology starts as an error at the molecular level. We cannot proceed further with our scientific discourse on homeopathy, without a consensus at least about this fundamental position of modern science. Scientists belonging to various disciplines, engaged in the study of various natural phenomena, adopt such a practical stand even if ideologically they happen to be absolute spiritualists. It is impossible even for a most ‘spiritualist’ nuclear physicist to engage himself in his particular research activities, viewing the atoms, sub-atomic particles or forces as mere ‘spiritual entities’. The homeopathic  theoreticians also should at least follow this example. They should be able to deal with phenomena of life, disease, therapeutics, and medicinal substances primarily as material substances and processes. It would be better for homeopathy at large, if these ‘masters’ and ‘gurus’ of homeopathy could confine themselves to a scientific vocabulary, refraining  from mixing it up with unnecessary spiritualistic and philosophical jugglery of words such as ‘vital force’ and ‘non-corporeal’ ‘dynamic power’, while talking about a scientific theory of therapeutics.

 Even if we subscribe to the concept of ‘vital force’ at the ideological level, we have to answer the question: “How that vital force expresses in a living organism?” Only as molecular level ‘vital processes’. Using medicinal agents of material qualities, we can deal with these ‘vital processes’ only at the material level. It is an absurdity to think that as physicians, we are dealing with an ‘immaterial’, ‘spirit-like’ ‘vital force’, that too, using instruments and medicinal agents of purely material nature. If homeopathic physicians were dealing with ‘immaterial dynamic forces’, instead of using ‘material medicines’, they could have done it better through prayers, ‘pujas’ and other occult practices!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Since we are now competent to offer a scientific molecualar interpretation of ‘similia similibus curentur’, and ‘potentization’, the main fundamental principles of homeopathy, there is no need for relying upon the obsolete vitalistic explanations and speculations of Hahnemann, based on the concept of ‘vital force’ and ‘non-corporeal’ ‘spirit-like’ ‘dynamic medicinal force’. Instead of repeating the unscientific concept of ‘dynamic medicinal force’,  we can now logically explain the homeopathic potencies on the basis of ‘molecular imprinting in water’. 

 Miasms and Chronic Diseases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Presumably, sulphur potentized above 23C, shall contain molecular imprints of sulphur. Antibodies against sulphur-containing bacterial toxins being molecular imprinted proteins, may contain some groups on their molecular periphery, imprinted with similar spacial configuration as potentized sulphur. Hence, potentized sulphur can compete with these antibodies in binding with bio-molecular targets. At the same time, we should not forget that these antibodies or deformed proteins may contain various other active sites not similar to sulphur. Hence, potentized sulphur may not be capable to antidote all the pathological properties of antibodies.

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

 Constitution

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

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

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

(1) Genetic and (2) Acquired.

 Genetic factors may be inherited or mutational.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Can Potentized Medicines Act As Pathological Agents?

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

 Genetics and Homeopathy

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

 Mental Symptoms and Peculiar Sensations

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

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

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

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

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

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

 ‘Totality of Symptoms’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 ‘Multi-Similimum’ or Integrated Similimum’

 Dr. Samuel Hahnemann says in his Organon of Medicine:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 How to apply “Multi-Similimum Method

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Multiple Drugs” Vs “Single Drug”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issue of “Drug-Relationships:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Mother Tinctures

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

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

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

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

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

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

External Applications

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

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

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

 Need for Concerted Research

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

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

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

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

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

(Developer of: SIMILIMUM ULTRA- Homeopathic Software) http://www.scribd.com/doc/34350099/Similimum-Ultra-Homeopathic-Software

Stuart N. Close in his ‘Lectures on Philosophy’ (Chapter 13) pp 184-5 says:

“The homeopathic doctrine of dosage, like the law of cure was based upon the discovery of the opposite action of large and small doses of medicine. It is another application in medicine of Law of Mutual Action – the third Newtonian law motion – “Action and Reaction are Equal and Opposite”. Every one at all acquainted with the action of drugs knows, for example, that Ipecac in large doses causes nausea and vomiting and in small doses, under certain conditions, will cure the same; that Opium in large doses will cause a deep sleep or narcosis, and in small doses, under certain conditions, will cure the same.”

 I disagree with Stuart Close regarding his concepts of ‘primary-secondary’ actions of drugs.

I cannot see any substance in the comparison of homeopathic principle and newton’s laws of motion.Newton’s law is related with the action of ‘mechanical force on material bodies’, where as homeopathy deals with an entirely different subject. The principle “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction’ is applicable to the interaction of ‘material bodies and mechanical forces’. Even if a great homeopath like Stuart Close says that homeopathy “is another application in medicine of Law of Mutual Action – the third Newtonian law motion”, it amounts to utter nonsense. He interprets homeopathy as well as newton’s law in a very absurd way through this statement. How can anybody with sound reasoning say that the phenomenon of ‘Opium in large doses causing deep sleep and in small doses cure the same’ is similar to ‘for every action there is an opposite reaction’?Newton’s law has nothing in it comparable to action of ‘Opium in large doses causing deep sleep and in small doses cures the same’. Anybody with minimum common sense would realize that Stuart Close has used a wrong comparison here.

Stuart Close says: “Closely allied to this is the so-called primary and secondary action of drugs, in which we see many drugs, in the first or primary stage of their action producing one group of symptoms, and in the second stage a directly opposite set of phenomena; as when the deep sleep of the primary action of Opium is followed by much longer lasting wakefulness; or where the diarrhea induced by a cathartic is followed by a longer lasting constipation. This applies, of course, only to drugs given in tangible form and considerable quantities, in what are called “physiological doses”.

How can anybody say the phenomenon of “so-called primary and secondary action of drugs, in which we see many drugs, in the first or primary stage of their action producing one group of symptoms, and in the second stage a directly opposite set of phenomena” is “closely allied to” the phenomenon of “opium in large doses causing deep sleep and in small doses cure the same”. First phenomenon is related with ‘large dose’ getting antidoted by ‘small dose’ of same drug, where as second phenomenon is related with “action of opium causing deep sleep followed by much longer lasting wakefulness”.

The logic of Stuart close has obviously misfired in both these statements.

In fact, the ‘effects of large doses being antidoted by small dose of same substance’, on which the principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’ is built up, is related with the known phenomenon of ‘molecular inhibitions getting removed by competitive affinity of similar molecules’. But the “action of opium causing deep sleep followed by much longer lasting wakefulness” is related with the phenomenon of ‘nerve receptors getting blocked by accumulation of ligand molecules, thereby initiating feedback mechanisms’ inducing the up-regulation of glutamate and other pathways in the brain induced by the over-activation of opioid receptors, thereby exert an opioid-opposing effect and so reduce the effects of opioid drugs by altering downstream pathways.

Both are different, and cannot be compared to one another.

In any discussion regarding the ‘primary-secondary’ actions of homeopathic drug substances, the phenomenon of ‘opium causing excessive sleep and constipation, later followed by profound sleeplessness” is always cited as an example.

Opium contains two main groups of alkaloids. Phenanthrenes such as morphine, codeine, and thebaine are the main narcotic constituents. Isoquinolines such as papaverine and noscapine have no significant central nervous system effects

To understand the biochemistry of ‘primary- secondary’ actions of opium, we should learn the biochemical processes involving μ-opioid receptors.

Read from Wikipedia: “The μ-opioid receptors (MOR) are a class of opioid receptors with high affinity for enkephalins and beta-endorphin but low affinity for dynorphins. They are also referred to as μ opioid peptide (MOP) receptors. The prototypical μ receptor agonist is the opium alkaloid morphine; μ (mu) refers to morphin

MOR can mediate acute changes in neuronal excitability via “disinhibition” of presynaptic release of GABA. Activation of the MOR leads to different effects on dendritic spines depending upon the agonist, and may be an example of functional selectivity at the μ receptor. The physiological and pathological roles of these two distinct mechanisms remain to be clarified. Perhaps, both might be involved in opioid addiction and opioid-induced deficits in cognition.

Activation of the μ receptor by an agonist such as morphine causes analgesia, sedation, slightly reduced blood pressure, itching, nausea, euphoria, decreased respiration, miosis (constricted pupils) and decreased bowel motility often leading to constipation. Some of these side effects, such as sedation, euphoria and decreased respiration, tend to lessen with continued use as tolerance develops. Analgesia, miosis and reduced bowel motility tend to persist; little tolerance develops to these effects.

As with other G protein-coupled receptors, signalling by the mu opioid receptor is terminated through several different mechanisms, which are upregulated with chronic use, leading to rapid tachyphylaxis. The most important regulatory proteins for the mu opioid receptor are the β-arrestins Arrestin beta 1 and Arrestin beta 2, and the RGS proteins RGS4, RGS9-2, RGS14 and RGSZ2.

Long-term or high dose use of opioids may also lead to additional mechanisms of tolerance becoming involved. This includes downregulation of mu opioid receptor gene expression, so the number of receptors presented on the cell surface is actually reduced, as opposed to the more short-term desensitisation induced by β-arrestins or RGS proteins. Another long-term adaptation to opioid use can be upregulation of glutamate and other pathways in the brain which can exert an opioid-opposing effect and so reduce the effects of opioid drugs by altering downstream pathways, regardless of mu opioid receptor activation.

Opioid overdoses kill through apnea and fatal hypoxia, often aggravated by simultaneous use of alcohol, benzodiazepines or barbiturates. Substantial tolerance to respiratory depression develops quickly, and tolerant individuals can withstand larger doses. However tolerance to respiratory depression is lost just as quickly during withdrawal. Many overdoses occur in people who misuse their medication after being in withdrawal long enough to lose the tolerance to respiratory depression. Less commonly, massive overdoses have been known to cause circulatory collapse.

Opioid overdoses can be rapidly reversed with any of several opioid antagonists: naloxone, or naltrexone, differing primarily in their duration of action and potency. While commonly referred to as antagonists, and when used to treat an overdose they do appear to function as such, naloxone & naltrexone are inverse agonists”.

So-called secondary actions of opioid substances such as opium can be explained by the phenomenon up-regulation of glutamate and other pathways in the brain induced by the over-activation of opioid receptors, thereby exert an opioid-opposing effect and so reduce the effects of opioid drugs by altering downstream pathways, regardless of mu opioid receptor activation. In effect, the ‘primary-action’ of opioids finally lead to ‘secondary actions’, which are totally in reverse direction.

This is the biochemical mechanism underlying the ‘primary-secondary actions’ of ‘opioid’ substances.

Similar way, we can explain this phenomenon of ‘primary-secondary’ actions  regarding any drug substance in terms of modern biochemistry, by studying the molecular pathways affected by the constituent molecules of those drug substances. There is nothing ‘mysterious’ in it. We need not drag any ‘dynamic’  ‘vital force’ into it.

Now, let us take up the issue of so-called ‘homeopathic aggravations’. This phenomenon is very much discussed by homeopaths. It is true that in many instances we experience such aggravation of symptoms after prescribing homeopathic medicines. Some homeopaths believe that aggravations occur due to wrong prescriptions, whereas consider it happening as part of curative process due to ‘exact’ prescriptions. Some homeopaths differentiate between ‘medicinal’ aggravations which are harmful, and ‘homeopathic’ aggravations which are welcome.

In my opinion such ‘aggravations’ are not due to ‘prescribing wrong drugs’ or ‘exact drugs’, but due to prescribing drugs that cover only part of the ‘symptom complexes’ present in the patient. To follow what I say, one should be well aware of the concepts of ‘molecular errors’ underlying pathology, as well as ‘molecular imprints’ present in potentized medicines. As per our view, an individual will be having multitudes of ‘molecular errors’ caused by binding of diverse types of pathogenic molecules on different biological molecules. Each individual ‘molecular error’ may be expressed in the form of specific subjective and objective ‘symptom complexes’. If we select a drug as a similimum on the basis of some of the leading symptoms only, ignoring other symptoms, that similimum in fact covers only some of the molecular errors. The ‘molecular imprints’ contained in that similimum may remove those molecular errors only. But other molecular errors remain. The ‘symptom complexes’ representing those remaining molecular errors would become more expressive and come to the fore. In the absence of scientific understanding regarding the molecular processes behind this phenomenon, we happen to interpret these new expressions as ‘homeopathic aggravation’.

We experience many instances of wonderful cures that do not obey “Dr.Kent’s 3rd observation” or “Hering’s Law”. They are not universal laws of homeopathic cures. They are all only speculative theories based on isolated experiences. Many of such ‘principles’ and ‘laws’ will have to be abandoned as our scientific understanding of real process of homeopathic cure become more and more perfect and accurate.

Most of us would have experienced some initial aggravations followed by complete relief. We should understand ‘molecular errors’ not as singular static incidents. A particular molecular error caused by a particular pathogenic molecule may result in cascading of new molecular errors. It is like a traffic block in a city. A small traffic block may cause cascading of traffic blocks, ultimately resulting in total failure of traffic system in the city. When a molecular error occurs in a particular biochemical pathway in the organism, it may affect other related pathways also. That is why diseases progress expressing trains of new symptoms. When we start removing these molecular blocks, there may be readjustments happening in all these related biochemical pathways, which may appear as aggravations of symptoms. That is part of normal curative process.

That means, when studying the phenomena of ‘homeopathic aggravations”, both chances will have to be considered. “Re-adjustments’ happening in various biochemical pathways as part of curative process, as well as ‘appearing of remaining symptoms’ because of prescription being partial.

When we follow the TOTAL CURE METHOD proposed by DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY, we prescribe a combination of drugs that would contain all the ‘molecular imprints’ required to rectify all the ‘molecular errors’ covering all ‘symptom complexes’ expressed by the individual. Hence, so-called ‘homeopathic aggravations’ are never experienced in TOTAL CURE PRESCRIPTIONS.

‘Mental symptoms’ represent the molecular level derangement happened in biochemical pathways in the brain centers involved in the phenomenon of conscious and unconscious ‘mind’. Various drugs as well as diseases can create such molecular errors and mental symptoms.

‘Mental symptoms’ belong to 4 categories. Subjective Mental General, Subjective Mental Particular, Objective Mental General and Objective Mental Particular.

When these ‘mental symptoms’ are ‘felt’, ‘experienced’ by the consciousness of the individual himself, such as grief, anxiety, fear, apprehension, dreams etc, they are ‘subjective mentals’.

When these mental derangements are expressed as symptoms observable to an onlooker, it becomes ‘objective mental’. ‘Walking in a hurry’, ‘trembling with fear’, ‘biting finger nails’, ‘facial expressions’, ‘dancing’, ‘chorea’, ‘washing hands frequently’, ‘loquacity’ and such many other mental symptoms can be observed by onlookers, and hence are ‘objective mentals’. Many mentals symptoms appear with both subjective and objective aspects. In such cases, they should be classified as subjective mentals. Whenever a physician observes an objective mental symptom in a patient, he should try to know whether there is a subjective aspect for it. A subjective mental is placed in high ranking compared to purely objective mental.

‘Mental generals’ are symptoms that express derangement of ‘whole’ mind. Such symptoms affect the whole personality of individual. They will be ‘unconditional’. Loathing of life, anxiety, grief, generosity, anger, fear, apprehensions, and such mentals that affect the whole personality are ‘mental generals’.

‘Mental particulars’ are symptoms that express partial and ‘conditional’ derangement in the mind. They would be often very transient. ‘Fear of dog’ is such a ‘conditional’ symptom, if fear is present only when seeing a dog. Such ‘particular fears’ and ‘general fears’ can be differentiated by a physician. ‘Dreams’ affect the mind only during sleep, and hence it is not ‘general’, but a ‘particular’ mental symptom. ‘Hurry’ may be a ‘general’, if it is always present, but if hurry is only while ‘eating’, it becomes a particular symptom. ‘Mental generals’, especially if ‘subjective’, are top ranking in the selection of similimum.

‘Mental generals’ may be either ‘subjective mental generals’ or ‘objective mental generals’.

Subjective Mental Generals are those symptoms ‘general mental symptoms’ that could be ‘experienced’ by the patient only. Many hallucinations and delusions belong to this group. ‘Grief’, ‘anxiety’ etc are ‘subjective mental generals’.

If a ‘mental general’ symptom could be observed by others, it becomes a ‘Objective Mental General’. ‘Laughing immoderately’, ‘wandering on streets’, ‘absence of personal hygiene’,  ‘walking hurried’, ‘eating in a hurry’ ‘abusive’, ‘aversion to answer’, ‘bemoaning’, ‘plays antics’, ‘idiotic’,  ‘crawling on the floor’ etc are ‘objective mental generals.

Same way, ‘Mental Particulars’ also can be classified into ‘Subjective Mental Particulars’ and ‘Objective Mental Particulars’.

In order to prove this hypothesis of ‘molecular imprints’ as active principles of potentized drugs, we find answers to the following 14 questions:

1. Whether the chemical structure and properties of water/ethyl alcohol mixture undergo any change during homeopathic potentization? Or, whether the potentized drugs (above 12c) and unpotentized medium will be similar in their chemical properties?

2. Whether the physical properties of high potency drugs and unpotentized medium will be similar? Rate of evaporation, boiling and freezing points, viscosity, absorption of light, refraction of light, light permeability, brownian motion, solvent properties and such other physical parameters?

3. Whether potentized medicines  contain original drug molecules or not.

4. Whether potentized medicines act up on biological molecules in a way different from control solutions.

5. Whether potentized medicines react with biological molecules in exactly opposite way from that of original drug molecules.

6. Whether by the influence of forces such as heat, electricity or other EMRs, potentized medicines lose their power to interact with biological molecules.

7. Whether potentized medicines can prevent their original drug molecules from interacting with biological molecules.

8. Whether potentized medicines can antidote the biochemical actions of their original drug molecules.

9. Whether potentized medicines contain supra-molecular clusters of water/ethyl alcohol, different from control medium

10. Whether those supra-molecular clusters disappear once the potentized medicines are subjected to heat or electric current or strong EMRs.

11. Whether potentized medicines can absorb more UV light than controls, during spectrometric studies

12. Whether scattering of light in potentized medicines and controls are different.

13. Whether spectroscopic patterns  of  potentized medicines and control solutions are different.

14. Whether the hydrogen bonds in potentized medicines are more strong and stable than that of control solutions.

We have to answer a few fundamental questions regarding homeopathy and prove them according to scientific methods,  so that this noble therapeutic system can claim for its rightful status as an advanced branch of modern molecular medicine. I am here trying to sum up these basic questions:

1. What is the real science behind ‘similia similibus curentur’?

 2. What really happens at ‘material’ level during the process of potentisation?

 3. What are the active principles of potentized medicines?

4. What is the molecular mechanism by which these potentized medicines interact with biological molecules and relieve the pathological molecular inhibitions?

Unless these questions are answered according to scientific method, we cannot claim homeopathy to be a scientific medical system.

MY ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS:

Question 1: What is the real science behind ‘similia similibus curentur’?

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

Question 2: What really happens at ‘material’ level during the process of potentisation?

During initial stages of drug potentization, crude drug substances undergoes division and ionization, therby individual constituent molecules getting freed from intermolecular bonds. During progressive dilution and succussion, these constituent drug molecules undergo a process of ‘molecular imprinting’. During this process, three dimensional ‘molecular imprints’ or hydrosomes of drug molecules are formed in the supra-molecular clusters of water/alcohol medium through stabilization of hydration shells. Due to serial dilution, drug molecules gradually get removed from medium, and by 12c it becomes free of drug molecules and only ‘molecular imprints’ remain.

Question 3: What are the active principles of potentized medicines?

‘Molecular imprints’ of constituent drug molecules are the active principles of potentized homeopathic drugs.

Question 4: What is the molecular mechanism by which these potentized medicines interact with biological molecules and relieve the pathological molecular inhibitions?

‘Diseases’ are errors in vital processes due to derangement of biochemical pathways in the organism, caused by inhibitions of biological molecules by binding of exogenous or endogenous pathogenic molecules. ‘Molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs selectively binds to the pathogenic molecules having complementary affinity due to the configurational similarity of pathogenic molecules and original drug molecules used for potentization. This configurational similarity is decided by ‘similarity of symptoms’. Pathogenic molecules are thus entrapped by the ‘molecular imprints’, thereby relieving the biological molecules from inhibitions. Disease is cured at molecular level itself.

We should always bear in mind that any pathogenic agent, including antibodies or miasms are acting up on an existing constitutional biochemical background, determined by the individual’s specific genotype-phenotype combination.

The constituent molecules of causative factors creates the original molecular inhibitions in some or other biological molecules in the organism. In most cases that would be similar in almost all individuals affected by that particular causative agent. Any such molecular errors have a cascading effect in the organism, by the way creating new errors in new channels. When a biochemical pathway is blocked by a particular molecular inhibition some where, the accumulating metabolites may create new molecular inhibitions. That is expressed through different ‘trains’ of symptoms.

Same pathogenic agent creates different types of cascading of molecular errors and associated trains of symptoms. That is why different people affected by same causative agent creates different symptom pictures and requires different drugs. Here lies the importance of symptomatic approach of homeopathy. Obviously, causative approach cannot cure all diseases, even though that may be helpful in removing original molecular inhibitions, but not secondary ones.

We will have to prescribe different drugs to remove all molecular inhibitions happened at different stages of cascading, especially in chronic diseases. Nosodes and other drugs selected on the basis of causative factors, can only remove original molecular blocks created by pathogenic molecules, not the cascading molecular errors that appeared later. That would require other appropriate indicated drugs selected on the basis of similarity of symptoms representing the molecular errors.

Cascading of molecular errors can be compared to the phenomenon of simple traffic block somewhere in a city cascades into a complete breakdown of traffic system in the whole city. A block in one junction leads to consecutive blocks in feeder roads and adjacent junctions, and gradually brings the whole traffic to standstill. If we interfere during initial stages, we can re-establish traffic by simply removing the original block. But when the whole system is broken down, you cannot re-establish traffic only by removing original block. We will have to intervene at different points in the city to resolve the problem. Same with difference in dealing with diseases at initial stages and later stages.

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

It is not here intended to convert the ongoing scientific discourse of therapeutics into a dialogue between the divergent philosophical world outlooks of spiritualism and materialism, and hence, I do not here endeavour to question somebody’s right to believe in the existence of  a ‘universal’ ‘vital force’ as such. But, at least when dealing with a science of therapeutics, we have to reach a consensus to replace the concept of ‘vital force’ with a more rational expression, ‘vital process’, if we could discuss homeopathy as a system of scientific medicine. ‘Vital force’, what ever it may be, expresses itself in a living organism only through ‘vital processes’, the complex chains of interconnected molecular interactions known as biochemical pathways. It has been already explained that a state of disease  is created through some or other deviations in these normal biochemical processes. Hence, according to our scientific perspective, every pathology starts as an error at the molecular level. We cannot proceed further with our scientific discourse on homeopathy, without a consensus at least about this fundamental position of modern science. Scientists belonging to various disciplines, engaged in the study of various natural phenomena, adopt such a practical stand even if ideologically they happen to be absolute spiritualists. It is impossible even for a most ‘spiritualist’ nuclear physicist to engage himself in his particular research activities, viewing the atoms, sub-atomic particles or forces as mere ‘spiritual entities’. The homeopathic  theoreticians also should at least follow this example. They should be able to deal with phenomena of life, disease, therapeutics, and medicinal substances primarily as material substances and processes. It would be better for homeopathy at large, if these ‘masters’ and ‘gurus’ of homeopathy could confine themselves to a scientific vocabulary, refraining  from mixing it up with unnecessary spiritualistic and philosophical jugglery of words such as ‘vital force’ and ‘non-corporeal’ ‘dynamic power’, while talking about a scientific theory of therapeutics.

Even if we subscribe to the concept of ‘vital force’ at the ideological level, we have to answer the question: “How that vital force expresses in a living organism?” Only as molecular level ‘vital processes’. Using medicinal agents of material qualities, we can deal with these ‘vital processes’ only at the material level. It is an absurdity to think that as physicians, we are dealing with an ‘immaterial’, ‘spirit-like’ ‘vital force’, that too, using instruments and medicinal agents of purely material nature. If homeopathic physicians were dealing with ‘immeterial dynamic forces’, instead of using ‘material medicines’, they could have done it better through prayers, ‘pujas’ and other occult practices!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since we are now competent to offer a scientific molecualar interpretation of ‘similia similibus curentur’, and ‘potentization’, the main fundamental principles of homeopathy, there is no need for relying upon the obsolete vitalistic explanations and speculations of Hahnemann, based on the concept of ‘vital force’ and ‘non-cprporeal’ ‘spirit-like’ ‘dynamic medicinal force’. Instead of repeating the unscientific concept of ‘dynamic medicinal force’,  we can now logically explain the homeopathic potencies on the basis of ‘molecular imprinting in water’.

Since homeopathy is practiced on the basis of therapeutic principle of ‘Similia Similibus Curentu’, many homeopaths think that clinical diagnosis has no place in homeopathic practice.They consider these factors only of lesser value, helpful only for ‘patient satisfaction’ or ‘prognosis’.

I think we should perceive the information provided by modern technological advancements and laboratory investigations as part of collecting ‘objective’ symptoms, and learn to utilize them in the search for similimum.

All diagnostic tools provided by ‘modern technology’ are only extensions of physician’s sense organs, which help in making ‘enhanced’ observation of his patient’s symptoms. Similar to the ordinary spectacle that enhances the vision or stethoscope enhances the sounds, laboratory tests and sophisticated equipments ‘enhances’ our observation. As such, information provided by these tests and tools should be considered as ‘Objective Symptoms’ similar to any other objective symptoms, and can be utilized in finding similimum. Only problem is, since our drug provings were not conducted insuch a technologically advanced environment, they do not provide these types of ‘enhanced symptoms’. Due to ill-equipped drug- provings so far conducted, we have no a systematic knowledge of such symptoms now available in our materia medica. But, we can collect such clinical observations from daily practice, and enrich our materia medica.

I hope future drug proving protocols will incorporate modern technology, and collect these ‘enhanced observations’ also and add them to future materia medica compilations. Then, homeopathy will be in a position to utilize these information also in finding appropriate similimum.

I am saying lab investigations should be made part of drug proving protocol, and such information included in materia medica as ‘symptoms’, so that they could be used for finding similimum. That is why I said lab investigations should be part of ‘homeopathic case taking’, not part of ‘homeopathic practice’. I wanted to highlight that difference.

Information obtained from such investigations could be utilized as ‘Objective Symptoms’, I mean.  That means, we can make ‘homeopathic prescriptions’ based on lab investigations also, along with other symptoms

Some homeopaths have a wonderfully perverted sense of ‘Cause-Effect’ relationship. They consider every ‘Before-After’ chronological relationship as cause and effect, and jump into queer conclusions. Once they give a ‘single’ dose of drug to the patient, everything that ‘follows’ that act will be attributed as the ‘miraculos effect’ of their ‘single dose’. Many ‘cures’, many ‘aggravations’, many ‘side effects’ are actually the product of this perverted understanding of ’cause and effect’.

Once I heard a ‘teacher’ talking at a seminar. He was talking about the probable consequences of ‘unwanted repetitions’ of potentized drugs. He explained his experience of an incident of his middle aged patient having a serious heart attack after an ‘untimely’ second dose of lachesis 200, which was given for an eczema. First dose was given, and there was ‘miraculous’ improvement. after one weak, he happened to give a second dose, which was ‘untimely hurried’. That night, doctor got a phone call informing him that the patient was admitted in ICU following a massive cardiac arrest. ‘I was very sorry for that, because that cardiac arrest was due to the driving of disease to inner layer by untimely repetition of lachesis”- said the doctor.

It is common sense that a ‘cardiac arrest’ in a middle aged man is not that much ‘sudden’ as we think. There should be hyperlipidemia, atherosclerosis, narrowing of coronary arteries happening through years, which finally led to the blockage of arteries and heart attack. Why should a homeopath relate that ‘heart attack’ to a ‘dose of lachesis 200? Only logic is, that happened ‘following’ that dose!

We hear this type of incidents and experiences reported by homeopaths in their practice. Somebody said: “my patient got delirious attack’ after a dose of Bell 200. Another homeopath argues:”A patient showed eruptions all over body after a dose of merc sol 200, that is a proof that homeopathy drugs have dangerous side effects”.

Why not these friends do some experiments by giving bell 200 or merc sol to a few more persons and watching the outcome before reaching this type of conclusions?

Dear friends, ‘Cause-Effect’ relationship is different from ‘Before-After’ relationship. Kindly use some logical thinking and rational experiments before declaring foolish conclusions. That is scientific method

Many friends raise the question: “Why Dialectical Homeopathy? Are you trying to build a new ‘system’ of your own? Already we had enough ‘systems’, ‘brands’ and ‘gurus’. Are you trying to create a new one?”

My answer is an emphatic “NO”. I am totally against ‘system building’ in homeopathy. Actually I use the word ‘dialectical’ to make it clear that this is not a new system. Some thing ‘dialectical’ cannot be a ‘system’. A ‘system’ is always a closed one with its own ‘dogmas’, ‘priniciples’, ‘laws’ and ‘methods’. Where as ‘dialectical’ indicates ‘openness’, ‘amenable to change’, constant ‘growth’. ‘Dialectiacal’ is just opposite to ‘dogmatic’.

‘Dialectical’ only indicates an approach. Science is always ‘dialectical’. Science never tolerates ‘dogmas’ and ‘systems’.

The word ‘dialectical’ comes from latin word ‘dialego’, which originally means ‘dialogue’ or ‘ideological interaction’. Dialogue is not argument. Dialogue is always creative. The dialogue between ‘thesis’ and ‘antithesis’ results in ‘synthesis’, which is a higher stage of knowledge totally different from both ‘thesis’ and ‘antithesis’. That is the way human knowledge advances towards more and more perfection. Scientific method is always ‘dialectical’. There is no ‘immutable’, ‘eternal’ principles in science. Every laws, every principles, every theories change and become more and more perfect through an evolutionary process of human knowledge, experience and collective thought.

By ‘dialectical homeopathy’, I only mean that this scientific method of constant rejuvenation and advancement should be brought into homeopathy. That is the only way of making homeopathy scientific. Scientific homeopathy means ‘dialectical homeopathy’. It is an approach towards homeopathy.

Originally, homeopathy was also ‘dialectical’. Hahnemann was most ‘scientific’ and ‘dialectical’ in his approach. He questioned existing medical ‘system’ through his dialectical approach. He did not accept any ‘dogma’, ‘principle’ or ‘beliefs’ that cannot withstand rational experimentation, logical thinking, and verification with the available scientific knowledge. Actually, homeopathy is the result of his ‘dialectical’ rebellion against existing ‘medical system’.

Hahnemann was ready to revise everything according to new experience and updated knowledge. The fact that he re-wrote organon six times during his life-span clearly shows that he was ‘dialectical’ in his approach. For him, homeopathy was a constantly advancing ‘science’- a medical science. Not a ‘closed system’. He was willing to accommodate the experiences and suggestions of others also.

After the death of hahnemann, initially homeopathy continued to be an open system. That is why the thought of hering, kent, nash, boenninghaussen and many other stalwarts were incorporated into homeopathy, and became part of homeopathy.

After the first generation of homeopaths also disappeared from the scene, homeopathy began to be more and more institutionalized and ‘dogmatized’. It lost the character of science, and became more or less a closed ‘system’. For the last 200 years, homeopathy hesitated to interact with modern scientific knowledge- abstained from creative ‘dialogue’ with other areas of human knowledge. Homeopaths started call this ‘closed’ system as ‘classical homeopathy’. ‘Purity’ was the key word. Safeguarding the purity of ‘original’ dogmas were considered to be the sacred duty of homeopathy. Ultimately, this approach grew into an ‘anti-scientific’ outlook, constantly resisting all innovations and scientific intrusions into the sacred lands of ‘pure homeopathy’

I am trying to make homeopathy a science again. For that, homeopathy has to bridge the great knowledge divide of 200+years and reach abreast with modern scientific human knowledge.

We have to explain each and every ‘principles’ and ‘laws’ of homeopathy in terms of modern science. We have to experiment every claims of homeopathy in accordance with scientific method. We have to be brave enough to accept new knowledge into homeopathy, same time discarding everything obsolete and unscientific in homeopathy. That is the duty of all true followers of hahnemann.

By ‘Dialectical Homeopathy’, I want to instill this scientific sense and approach into fellow homeopaths. I want to declare our willingness to change, growth and advancement towards more and more perfection. I want to declare that homeopathy is ‘science’, not a ‘system of immutable dogmas’.

 ‘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.

Defining ‘sarcodes’  is a very complex task, on which a consensus among homeopaths seems to be almost impossible.

I would go with the definition evolved from discussions on our group: “Sarcodes are homeopathic drugs prepared from healthy animal tissues and secretions that in crude form contain biological molecules having specific physiological functions in the human organism”

According to this definition, an animal product will not be considered a sarcode, if it does not contain some biological molecules that are integral part of vital metabolic processes of human organism. That is the dividing line between ‘animal drugs’ and ‘sarcodes’.

Sarcodes have a very notable peculiarty. They always exist in molecular form in the organism, and participate in various molecular interactions being part of different biochemical pathways. They become homeopathic drugs only when they are not administered  in ‘molecular forms’, but as potentized forms above 12c. In molecular forms below Avogadro limit, they can be considered only as physiological products, not as homeopathic drugs.

Two questions have to be answered here:

1. If sarcodes are natural biological molecules having specific functional roles in human organism, how they become pathogenic agents, requiring the intervention of their own potentized forms or ‘molecular imprints’?

2. If the sarcodes are biological molecules being essential parts of living system, will not their physiological functions get negatively affected by the use of their potentized forms, since it is true that potentized form of a drug substance can antidote the biological effects of same drug in crude form?

Let us consider pituitary hormones. They play a decisive role in the whole metabolism of the organism, and hence called ‘master gland’. Pitutary hormones control many enzyme systems in our body. Then how can they act as pathogenic agents, requiring the use of potentized pituitary extract?

Next question is, when we use potentized pitutrin as a sarcode, will it not act as an antidote towards molecular forms of pituitary hormones and create dangerous consequences, by disrupting the whole endocrine activities mediated by pituitary hormones?

Pepsinum is very important in digestion of proteins. If pepsinum 30 is given to a person, will it create problems in protein digestion by deactivating pepsin molecules? If they cannot antidote pepsin molecules, how can they act as therapeutic agents?

Thyroid hormones play very important roles in metabolic activities in the living organism. Then how it can be pathogenic agents, requiring the intervention of potentized thyroidinum? Will not potentized thyroidinum hinder the biological processes mediated by thyroid hormones?

These are very pertinent questions we have to answer while trying to explain the science behind using of potentized sarcodes.

We can answer these questions only if we know the dynamics of molecular processes involved in biochemical interactions.

Every biological molecules, especially those belonging to hormones, signaling molecules(cytokines), neuro-chemicals, antibodies and enzymes being circulated in the organism enter into two types of chemical interactions: 1. ‘On-target interactions’ and  2. ‘Off-target interactions’.

‘On-target’ interactions are those happening between natural ligands and their genuine targets. Such interactions are essential part of vital processes through which biochemical pathways are carried unhindered. Natural ligands and their genuine targets interact through two stages: a). molecular identification and binding, which is effected by complementary configurational affinity between targets and ligands, b). actual chemical interaction, which is effected through perfect charge affinity between ligands and their genuine targets.

Off-target interactions are those accidentally happening  between ligands and wrong targets having configurational affinity only. In the absence of exact charge affinity, no chemical changes occur. Such interactions are always ‘inhibitory’, temporarily or permanantly deactivating the involved biological molecules. Such ‘inhibitory’ off-target interactions inevitably lead to derangement in associated biochemical pathways resulting in pathological states.

‘Off-target’ inhibitions caused by biological molecules such as hormones, enzymes, antibodies, signaling molecules(cytokines) and neurochemicals are causative factors of a wide range of pathological conditions in human beings. Sarcodes, or potentized preparations of these biological molecules, which contain their ‘molecular imprints’ , can effectively remove these molecular inhibitions and thereby act as therapeutic agents. Here lies the importance of sarcodes in homeopathic therapeutics.

Then comes the issue of selective action of the potentized sarcodes. As any other molecular imprints, molecular imprints in potentized sarcodes also cannot interfere in in the interactions between natural ligands and their genuine targets which involves configurational affinity as well as charge affinity. Since molecular imprints act through configurational affinity only, they can interfere in only inhibitory ‘off-target’ interactions.

It is now obvious that thyroidinum 30 cannot interfere in the essential biochemical processes mediated by thyroid hormones, Piturin 30 cannot interfere in the natural actions of pituitary hormones. This principle is applicable to all potentized sarcodes. We can use potentized sarcodes above 12c without any fear of adverse effects.

Sarcodes can play a very important role in the treatment of diverse types of diseases belonging to metabolic, emotional, psychosomatic, and ontological factors. They can also be part of constitutional prescriptions