‘Total Cure Prescriptions’- An Innovative Method Of Prescribing For Total Cure Of The ‘Patient’

 ‘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.


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.


 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’.


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 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.


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


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),


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),


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),


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.

Are The So-Called “High” Potencies Really So ‘High’ As We Are Made To Believe?

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!

Difference Between Homeopathic High Potencies (Above 12c), Low Potencies (Below 12c) And Crude Drugs

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.

Can Potentized Medicines Act As Pathological Agents? Can They Interact With Genetic Material?

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

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

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

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

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

Homeopathic Theory of ‘Vital Force’, and Modern Scientific Understanding of ‘Vital Processes’

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.

If You Consider An External Application, Use Only Similimum In Potencies Above 12 c Externally

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.

Using Mother Tinctures and Low Potencies(below 12c) Cannot be Considered As Genuine Homeopathic Practice

We know that many homeopathic practioners 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 using mother tinctures and low potencies, especially in a routine way for long terms.

It may relieve some of the symptoms, of course. But chances of emerging new pathological conditions really exist in such atreatment protocol.

We must not forget that the symptomatologies provided in our materia medica give the list of symptoms 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 give temporary relief  by nutritional supplementation, or competitive relationship to pathological  molecules due to configurational similarity. But it is evident from their symptomatologies  that those molecules and ions are capable of creating dangerous pathological molecular inhibitions in various bio-chemic channels in the organism. We should never forget that the subjective and objective symptoms provided in our material medica were createdby the molecular deviations happened in healthy individuals during drug proving. Hence in my opinion, it is ideal to treat patients using potencies above  12c, which do not contain any trace of the drug molecules of the original drug. If our selection of drug iscorrect, there is no any chance of failure in such a protocol. Other wise, it will have to be considered as identical to Ayurveda, Allopathy or Herbal treatment. 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 understoodthat 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 homoeopathic treatment should note this point . Of course, we may get temporary relief, bythe 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 the materia medica,  but may even induce very serious genetic errors to happen. If  hydrastis is the similimum forthe 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 wellk nown Homeopaths, producing results.  No homeopath with some common sense, who had carefully read the material 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 Alfalfais 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 genetic disorders they were likely to produce. It is found in Boecricke Materiamedica that Arsenic Bromide Mother Tincture is indicated for Diebetes. No physician with scientific awareness will even think of prescribing it today.Who will now dare to prescribe Ars iod 3x, Iodum 3x, Sulphur Q, or various compounds of Mercury and Lead only because they are found 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.

How the mother tinctures differ from potentized drugs in their mechanism of therapeutic action, and why potentized drugs are more safe and effective than mother tinctures?

Not only potentized drugs, but mother tinctures and crude drugs also can act as ‘similimum’. But the molecular mechanisms of their therapeutic actions and ultimate outcome are fundamentally different from each other.

Drug molecules contained in mother tinctures and crude drugs ‘compete’ with pathogenic molecules having similar molecular configuration in binding to biological molecules and displace them, thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions. By this ‘competitive’ relationship to pathogenic molecules, mother tinctures and crude drugs can act as similimum and produce therapeutic results.

‘Molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs act by an entirely different molecular mechanism. Molecular imprints binds directly to the pathogenic molecules having configurational affinity and deactivate them, thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions. This is the molecular mechanism involved in the therapeutic action of potentized drugs.

Most notable difference is, drug molecules act as similimum by ‘competitive’ relationship toward pathogenic molecules, whereas ‘molecular imprints’ act by ‘complementary’ relationship.

Since crude drugs and mother tinctures contain drug molecules that can act upon biological molecules, they can also bind to various biological targets in the organism. Obviously, there is always chance for creation of new molecular inhibitions and drug-induced pathologies when we use crude drugs and mother tinctures. That is the draw back of using mother tinctures even if they are similimum.

Advantage of potentized drugs is that they do not contain any drug molecules, but only molecular imprints, which are only supra-molecular clusters of water and alcohol molecules. They can act upon pathogenic molecules only, not upon biological molecules. As such, potentized drugs cannot do any further harm to organism.

That is why we say potentized drugs are safer than mother tinctures and molecular forms of drugs

Jacques Benveniste(1935–2004) Would Have Withstood, Had He Understood ‘Water Memory’ As ‘Molecular Imprinting’

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.