Why Same Causative Agents Create Different Disease Pictures In Different Individuals?

We should always bear in mind that any pathogenic agent, including antibodies or miasms are acting up on an existing constitutional biochemical background, determined by the individual’s specific genotype-phenotype combination.

The constituent molecules of causative factors creates the original molecular inhibitions in some or other biological molecules in the organism. In most cases that would be similar in almost all individuals affected by that particular causative agent. Any such molecular errors have a cascading effect in the organism, by the way creating new errors in new channels. When a biochemical pathway is blocked by a particular molecular inhibition some where, the accumulating metabolites may create new molecular inhibitions. That is expressed through different ‘trains’ of symptoms.

Same pathogenic agent creates different types of cascading of molecular errors and associated trains of symptoms. That is why different people affected by same causative agent creates different symptom pictures and requires different drugs. Here lies the importance of symptomatic approach of homeopathy. Obviously, causative approach cannot cure all diseases, even though that may be helpful in removing original molecular inhibitions, but not secondary ones.

We will have to prescribe different drugs to remove all molecular inhibitions happened at different stages of cascading, especially in chronic diseases. Nosodes and other drugs selected on the basis of causative factors, can only remove original molecular blocks created by pathogenic molecules, not the cascading molecular errors that appeared later. That would require other appropriate indicated drugs selected on the basis of similarity of symptoms representing the molecular errors.

Cascading of molecular errors can be compared to the phenomenon of simple traffic block somewhere in a city cascades into a complete breakdown of traffic system in the whole city. A block in one junction leads to consecutive blocks in feeder roads and adjacent junctions, and gradually brings the whole traffic to standstill. If we interfere during initial stages, we can re-establish traffic by simply removing the original block. But when the whole system is broken down, you cannot re-establish traffic only by removing original block. We will have to intervene at different points in the city to resolve the problem. Same with difference in dealing with diseases at initial stages and later stages.

Some Important Questions Regarding the Mode of Conveyance of Potentized Drugs in the Living Organism

In ‘Chronic Diseases : Para 139’ Hahnemann says: 

“Sucklings never receive medicine; the mother or wet-nurse receives the remedy instead, and through their milk it acts on the child very quickly, mildly and beneficially”.

I think Hahnemann has turned his whole principles upside down here.

1. He is asking to give ‘similimum of the infant’ to mother or wet nurse, for whom that drug is not be symptomatically indicated. If a homeopathic drug is taken by a person without being indicated his similimum, how would it act on his ‘vital force’? Will not it produce adverse effects on his organism?

2. Potentized medicines are said to act through ‘nerves’ on the vital force. There is no ‘nerve cells’ present in ‘milk’. How can then it act through milk?

3. If homeopathic drugs are actually conveyed from mothers body to infants body through the milk, that only means our drugs contain some ‘material’ factors that can be conveyed through milk, not through ‘nerves’ as it is believed.

4. If homeopathic drugs are transferred from mother to child through milk, will                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   drugged by our medicines?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homeopaths Should Perceive Laboratory Investigations and Diagnostic Technologies As Part Of Advanced Homeopathic Case Taking

Since homeopathy is practiced on the basis of therapeutic principle of ‘Similia Similibus Curentu’, many homeopaths think that clinical diagnosis has no place in homeopathic practice.They consider these factors only of lesser value, helpful only for ‘patient satisfaction’ or ‘prognosis’.

I think we should perceive the information provided by modern technological advancements and laboratory investigations as part of collecting ‘objective’ symptoms, and learn to utilize them in the search for similimum.

All diagnostic tools provided by ‘modern technology’ are only extensions of physician’s sense organs, which help in making ‘enhanced’ observation of his patient’s symptoms. Similar to the ordinary spectacle that enhances the vision or stethoscope enhances the sounds, laboratory tests and sophisticated equipments ‘enhances’ our observation. As such, information provided by these tests and tools should be considered as ‘Objective Symptoms’ similar to any other objective symptoms, and can be utilized in finding similimum. Only problem is, since our drug provings were not conducted insuch a technologically advanced environment, they do not provide these types of ‘enhanced symptoms’. Due to ill-equipped drug- provings so far conducted, we have no a systematic knowledge of such symptoms now available in our materia medica. But, we can collect such clinical observations from daily practice, and enrich our materia medica.

I hope future drug proving protocols will incorporate modern technology, and collect these ‘enhanced observations’ also and add them to future materia medica compilations. Then, homeopathy will be in a position to utilize these information also in finding appropriate similimum.

I am saying lab investigations should be made part of drug proving protocol, and such information included in materia medica as ‘symptoms’, so that they could be used for finding similimum. That is why I said lab investigations should be part of ‘homeopathic case taking’, not part of ‘homeopathic practice’. I wanted to highlight that difference.

Information obtained from such investigations could be utilized as ‘Objective Symptoms’, I mean.  That means, we can make ‘homeopathic prescriptions’ based on lab investigations also, along with other symptoms

Dear Homeopaths, Differentiate ‘Cause-Effect’ and ‘Before-After’ Relationships Before Making Conclusions On ‘Effects of Drugs’

Some homeopaths have a wonderfully perverted sense of ‘Cause-Effect’ relationship. They consider every ‘Before-After’ chronological relationship as cause and effect, and jump into queer conclusions. Once they give a ‘single’ dose of drug to the patient, everything that ‘follows’ that act will be attributed as the ‘miraculos effect’ of their ‘single dose’. Many ‘cures’, many ‘aggravations’, many ‘side effects’ are actually the product of this perverted understanding of ’cause and effect’.

Once I heard a ‘teacher’ talking at a seminar. He was talking about the probable consequences of ‘unwanted repetitions’ of potentized drugs. He explained his experience of an incident of his middle aged patient having a serious heart attack after an ‘untimely’ second dose of lachesis 200, which was given for an eczema. First dose was given, and there was ‘miraculous’ improvement. after one weak, he happened to give a second dose, which was ‘untimely hurried’. That night, doctor got a phone call informing him that the patient was admitted in ICU following a massive cardiac arrest. ‘I was very sorry for that, because that cardiac arrest was due to the driving of disease to inner layer by untimely repetition of lachesis”- said the doctor.

It is common sense that a ‘cardiac arrest’ in a middle aged man is not that much ‘sudden’ as we think. There should be hyperlipidemia, atherosclerosis, narrowing of coronary arteries happening through years, which finally led to the blockage of arteries and heart attack. Why should a homeopath relate that ‘heart attack’ to a ‘dose of lachesis 200? Only logic is, that happened ‘following’ that dose!

We hear this type of incidents and experiences reported by homeopaths in their practice. Somebody said: “my patient got delirious attack’ after a dose of Bell 200. Another homeopath argues:”A patient showed eruptions all over body after a dose of merc sol 200, that is a proof that homeopathy drugs have dangerous side effects”.

Why not these friends do some experiments by giving bell 200 or merc sol to a few more persons and watching the outcome before reaching this type of conclusions?

Dear friends, ‘Cause-Effect’ relationship is different from ‘Before-After’ relationship. Kindly use some logical thinking and rational experiments before declaring foolish conclusions. That is scientific method

‘Dialectical Homeopathy’ Is Not A New ‘System’- It Only Indicates A Scientific, Non-Dogmatic Approach Towards Homeopathy.

Many friends raise the question: “Why Dialectical Homeopathy? Are you trying to build a new ‘system’ of your own? Already we had enough ‘systems’, ‘brands’ and ‘gurus’. Are you trying to create a new one?”

My answer is an emphatic “NO”. I am totally against ‘system building’ in homeopathy. Actually I use the word ‘dialectical’ to make it clear that this is not a new system. Some thing ‘dialectical’ cannot be a ‘system’. A ‘system’ is always a closed one with its own ‘dogmas’, ‘priniciples’, ‘laws’ and ‘methods’. Where as ‘dialectical’ indicates ‘openness’, ‘amenable to change’, constant ‘growth’. ‘Dialectiacal’ is just opposite to ‘dogmatic’.

‘Dialectical’ only indicates an approach. Science is always ‘dialectical’. Science never tolerates ‘dogmas’ and ‘systems’.

The word ‘dialectical’ comes from latin word ‘dialego’, which originally means ‘dialogue’ or ‘ideological interaction’. Dialogue is not argument. Dialogue is always creative. The dialogue between ‘thesis’ and ‘antithesis’ results in ‘synthesis’, which is a higher stage of knowledge totally different from both ‘thesis’ and ‘antithesis’. That is the way human knowledge advances towards more and more perfection. Scientific method is always ‘dialectical’. There is no ‘immutable’, ‘eternal’ principles in science. Every laws, every principles, every theories change and become more and more perfect through an evolutionary process of human knowledge, experience and collective thought.

By ‘dialectical homeopathy’, I only mean that this scientific method of constant rejuvenation and advancement should be brought into homeopathy. That is the only way of making homeopathy scientific. Scientific homeopathy means ‘dialectical homeopathy’. It is an approach towards homeopathy.

Originally, homeopathy was also ‘dialectical’. Hahnemann was most ‘scientific’ and ‘dialectical’ in his approach. He questioned existing medical ‘system’ through his dialectical approach. He did not accept any ‘dogma’, ‘principle’ or ‘beliefs’ that cannot withstand rational experimentation, logical thinking, and verification with the available scientific knowledge. Actually, homeopathy is the result of his ‘dialectical’ rebellion against existing ‘medical system’.

Hahnemann was ready to revise everything according to new experience and updated knowledge. The fact that he re-wrote organon six times during his life-span clearly shows that he was ‘dialectical’ in his approach. For him, homeopathy was a constantly advancing ‘science’- a medical science. Not a ‘closed system’. He was willing to accommodate the experiences and suggestions of others also.

After the death of hahnemann, initially homeopathy continued to be an open system. That is why the thought of hering, kent, nash, boenninghaussen and many other stalwarts were incorporated into homeopathy, and became part of homeopathy.

After the first generation of homeopaths also disappeared from the scene, homeopathy began to be more and more institutionalized and ‘dogmatized’. It lost the character of science, and became more or less a closed ‘system’. For the last 200 years, homeopathy hesitated to interact with modern scientific knowledge- abstained from creative ‘dialogue’ with other areas of human knowledge. Homeopaths started call this ‘closed’ system as ‘classical homeopathy’. ‘Purity’ was the key word. Safeguarding the purity of ‘original’ dogmas were considered to be the sacred duty of homeopathy. Ultimately, this approach grew into an ‘anti-scientific’ outlook, constantly resisting all innovations and scientific intrusions into the sacred lands of ‘pure homeopathy’

I am trying to make homeopathy a science again. For that, homeopathy has to bridge the great knowledge divide of 200+years and reach abreast with modern scientific human knowledge.

We have to explain each and every ‘principles’ and ‘laws’ of homeopathy in terms of modern science. We have to experiment every claims of homeopathy in accordance with scientific method. We have to be brave enough to accept new knowledge into homeopathy, same time discarding everything obsolete and unscientific in homeopathy. That is the duty of all true followers of hahnemann.

By ‘Dialectical Homeopathy’, I want to instill this scientific sense and approach into fellow homeopaths. I want to declare our willingness to change, growth and advancement towards more and more perfection. I want to declare that homeopathy is ‘science’, not a ‘system of immutable dogmas’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Molecular Imprinting in Polymers:

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

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

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

Molecular Imprinted Proteins:

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

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

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

Molecular Imprinting in Water:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water-Ethyl Alcohol Mixture :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparative Study of ‘Drug Proving’ Using Potencies and Crude Drugs- A Submission to CCRH Authorities and Researchers

Since CCRH has seriously undertaken drug proving as part of their research projects recently, I would like to bring some relevant points to the notice of researchers and authorities there.

Many drugs are proved in molecular forms (mother tinctures and potencies below Avogadro limit), whereas certain other drugs are proved in potencies above 12c.

My doubt is, whether the symptoms produced by same drug in high potencies and molecular forms will be similar? If they are different, how can we decide which symptoms are to be given more importance in the selection of similimum? I request the CCRH authorities to resolve this problem by conducting drug proving of same drug in both ways, and doing a comparative study of symptoms.

According to scientific view, ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ means: ‘diseases caused by specific molecular inhibitions and expressed through specific groups of subjective and objective symptoms can be cured by potentized forms of drugs that could create similar pathologic molecular inhibitions and symptoms in healthy individuals if applied in crude form’. Same can be stated in a different way as: “pathological molecular inhibitions can be rectified using ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules that can create similar molecular inhibitions if applied in molecular form”.

Homeopathy utilizes ‘drug proving’ for studying the pathogenic properties of drug substances by observing their capacity to produce various pathological symptoms in healthy organisms. Homeopathy is based on the principle that a substance becomes a medicinal agent only because it has some disease-producing properties. In other words, if we could know what pathological inhibitions and symptoms a drug can create in healthy organism, we can decide in what disease states that drug could be used as a therapeutic agent in potentized form. Drug proving is unique to homeopathy. Whereas modern medicine studies the disease-curing properties of drugs, homeopathy studies the disease-producing properties of drugs. That makes a great difference.

Drug proving is done by administering small quantities of a particular drug to controlled volunteer groups of apparently healthy individuals. The subjective and objective symptoms, representing the diverse molecular deviations caused in the organism by the drug substance are carefully observed and recorded. These symptoms are systematically arranged compiled as materia medica of the substance used.

Let us examine what actually happens at molecular level during drug proving.

First point we have to note is that most drug substances, especially of vegetable or animal origin, are not ‘simple’ substance. Even if we use them as a ‘single’ substance, actually they consist of diverse types of individual molecules. A substance can interact with biological molecules only as individual molecules. If we really want to understand homeopathy and drug proving scientifically, we should first of all learn to perceive drug substance in terms of its diverse constituent molecules. Once we introduce a sample of drug substance into the living organism for ‘proving’, its constituent molecules are instantly subjected to various processes such as disintegration, ionization, hydration and certain chemical transformations.

Individual constituent molecules are carried and conveyed through blood and other internal transport systems into the cells and body fluids in different parts of the body. They can interact with various enzymes, receptors, and other biological molecules inside the organism. Individual drug molecules, in capacities of their molecular affinities, get themselves bound to various bio-molecules which participate in the essential biochemical activities in the organism. These interactions are decided and directed by the specific properties such as configurations and charges of active groups of individual drug molecules, and their specific affinity towards biological target molecules.

The three dimensional structure of the individual drug molecules, and that of the concerned bio-molecules are the decisive factors in this process of formation of molecular binding between them. This peculiarity is called molecular affinity. It is very important to note that drug substances interact with different biological molecules, not as a singular entity, but as individual constituent molecules and ions. These individual drug molecules and ions are capable of competing with natural ligands and substrates in binding to their biological targets, thereby inhibiting the essential bio-chemical processes which can take place only with their presence and mediation. Such molecular inhibitions in various bio-chemical pathways result in a condition of pathology, expressed in the form of a train of subjective and objective symptoms, due to the involvement of various neuro-mediator, neuro-transmitter and cellular signalling systems.

From this point of view, drug proving has to be done using molecular forms of drugs, since only they can produce real pathological molecular inhibitions in the organism.

To get this point clear, we have to differentiate between natural biochemical interactions and interactions of inhibitory nature.

Ligand- target Interactions such as those happening between ‘receptors and signaling molecules’’, ‘substrates and enzymes’ ‘antibodies and antigens’ etc can be considered typical biochemical interactions that are important for understanding molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics.

A receptor is a molecule found on the surface of a cell, which receives specific chemical signals from neighboring cells or the wider environment within an organism. These signals tell a cell to do something—for example to divide or die, or to allow certain molecules to enter or exit the cell. In biochemistry, a receptor is a protein molecule, embedded in either the plasma membrane or the cytoplasm of a cell, to which one or more specific kinds of signaling molecules may attach. A molecule which binds (attaches) to a receptor is called a ligand, and may be a peptide (short protein) or other small molecule, such as a neurotransmitter, a hormone, a pharmaceutical drug, or a toxin. Each kind of receptor can bind only certain ligand shapes. Each cell typically has many receptors, of many different kinds. Simply put, a receptor functions as a keyhole that opens a neural path when the proper ligand is inserted.

Ligand binding stabilizes a certain receptor conformation (the three-dimensional shape of the receptor protein, with no change in sequence). This is often associated with gain of or loss of protein activity, ordinarily leading to some sort of cellular response. However, some ligands (e.g. antagonists) merely block receptors without inducing any response. Ligand-induced changes in receptors result in cellular changes which constitute the biological activity of the ligands. Many functions of the human body are regulated by these receptors responding uniquely to specific molecules like this.

Studies on the the shapes and actions of receptors have advanced the understanding of drug action at the binding sites of receptors.

Depending on their functions and ligands, several types of receptors may be identified:

1. Some receptor proteins are peripheral membrane proteins.

2. Many hormone and neurotransmitter receptors are transmembrane proteins: transmembrane receptors are embedded in the phospholipid bilayer of cell membranes, that allow the activation of signal transduction pathways in response to the activation by the binding molecule, or ligand.

3. Metabotropic receptors are coupled to G proteins and affect the cell indirectly through enzymes which control ion channels.

4. Ionotropic receptors (also known as ligand-gated ion channels) contain a central pore which opens in response to the binding of ligand.

5. Another major class of receptors are intracellular proteins such as those for steroid and intracrine peptide hormone receptors. These receptors often can enter the cell nucleus and modulate gene expression in response to the activation by the ligand.

One measure of how well a molecule fits a receptor is the binding affinity, which is inversely related to the dissociation constant. A good fit corresponds with high affinity and low dissociation constant. The final biological response (e.g. second messenger cascade, muscle contraction), is only achieved after a significant number of receptors are activated.

The receptor-ligand affinity is greater than enzyme-substrate affinity. Whilst both interactions are specific and reversible, there is no chemical modification of the ligand as seen with the substrate upon binding to its enzyme.

Many pathological molecular errors are caused by inhibitions of these receptors or enzymes by binding of exogenous or endogenous molecules or ions on them. Bacterial toxins, drugs and such pathological agents act this way.

When we prove our drugs in healthy people, the constituent molecules contained in the drug substances may bind to diverse types of ‘receptors’ or ‘enzymes’ due to the similarity of configurations between natural ligands and drug molecules. Molecules having ‘similar’ configuration can bind to similar receptors, causing similar pathological molecular errors expressed through ‘similar’ subjective and objective symptoms. The concept of ‘similarity of symptoms’ can be scientifically understood if we know the dynamics of ‘ligand-receptor’ and ‘substrate-enzyme’ relationships. Without this fundamental understanding one cannot follow the scientific explanations regarding ‘potentization’ and ‘similia similibus curentur’.

On the surface diverse enzyme molecules of characteristic three dimensional organizations, there will be different functional groups suitable for engaging in various types of biochemical bonds. Certain functional groups play a role in establishing contacts with other molecules, and are called ‘binding groups’. Functional groups performing real chemical processes are known as ‘active groups’. There are also ‘allosteric groups’ which facilitate interactions.

Different types of binding groups, active groups and allosteric groups exist on the same complex enzyme molecule. These binding sites, active sites and allosteric sites of bio-molecules interact with their substrates in a peculiar ‘key-lock’ mechanism, where the substrate acts as key. A key will be suitable only to the particular complimenting key- hole with exact three dimensional structure which fits to the shape of the key. In the same manner, various enzyme molecules engaged in biochemical processes identify and interact with their natural ligands or substrates with the help of peculiarities of their configurational and charge affinities.

Biochemical processes involves two aspects:

1.Binding of ligands to targets, which is determined by configurational affinity.

2. Chemical transformation, which is determined by charge affinity of ligands and targets.

Ligands with only configurational affinity to targets but no charge affinity, may bind to the target, but in the absence of charge affinity, no chemical transformations take place. This leads to molecular inhibitions of target molecules. This exactly like a fake key entering a key hole and failing to open the key and obstructing the lock. Molecular mechanism underlying pathological processes may be broadly compared to such an obstruction and inhibition of molecular locks by binding of some foreign molecules, partially similar to but different from original ones mimicking as the natural ligands. Due to such an inhibition, the particular enzymes or receptors become incapable of interacting with its natural molecular keys or ligands, thereby hindering the concerned normal biochemical process. This situation amounts to a pathology at molecular level. We can also visualize a different scenario of molecular inhibition, where the original key or ligand itself becoming structurally deformed, thereby hindering its interaction with its appropriate molecular lock. There may also be such occasions as some dirt getting collected inside the key-hole, or the key or the keyhole itself has some inherent manufacturing defects etc. All such presumed situations are possible in the case of bio-molecules also, and may result in bio-molecular inhibitions of some sort or other.

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

Based on this much of understanding regarding the molecular dynamics of pathology and drug action, let us examine the desirability of drug proving using potentized forms of drugs.

Drugs potentized above Avogadro limit never contain original drug molecules. They contain only ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’ of individual constituent molecules. These molecular imprints can act only upon their original drug molecules, or pathological molecules having configurational similarity to those drug molecules. It is due to this complementary configurational affinity that potentized drugs act as therapeutic agents. Obviously, ‘molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs cannot as pathological agents. Then, how can we conduct drug proving using potentized drugs?

If drug molecules and pathogenic molecules are ‘molecular keys’ that can bind to specific biomolecular targets acing as ‘molecular locks’, molecular imprints contained in potentized drugs are ‘artificial key-holes’- not ‘duplicate keys’. Hence, olecular imprints can bind only to the ‘keys’ having configurational affinity.

Let us examine what actually happens when potentized drugs are administered into ‘apparently’ healthy individual individuals for drug proving. First point we need to remember is that ‘apparently’ healthy people will not be totally free from pathological molecular inhibitions. There will be diverse types of hidden molecular errors existing in them, arising from diverse types of factors such as nutritional, environmental, miasmatic, genetic, emotional, metabolic, infectious and others. When potentized drugs are introduced into the body, some or other molecular imprints contained in them may act upon these existing molecular inhibitions, which may be reflected as some transient symptoms. Actually, those symptoms are not indicating the ‘disease producing’ properties, but ‘diseases curing’ properties of concerned drugs. As such, symptoms obtained from drug proving using high potencies may confuse our materia medica.

Potentized drugs may act on ‘healthy’ organism by a different mechanism. Molecular imprints may bind to the natural ligands in the body, if they have any configurational affinity. But, such bindings will not lead to a state of pathology since molecular imprints cannot interfere in the interaction between natural ligands and targets which will have stronger affinity to each other. As such, symptoms appearing from such interactions will be very much temporary, and cannot be considered ‘pathological symptoms’

Based on the above observations, I request the CCRH authorities and scientists to conduct a comparative study of symptoms obtained from drug proving using potentized forms and molecular forms of same drugs.

I would like to mention another very important point in relation with this. Any study regarding high potency drugs should be done only using samples prepared under strict observations and supervision of researchers themselves. Never use commercially available samples, since a lot of malpractices are done in potentization. No commercially available ‘back potencies’ should also be used. Do the whole process of potentization starting from crude substance itself, to ensure we are using genuine samples for our research. Otherwise our whole work becomes unreliable.

A Study On The Molecualar Dynamics Of Homeopathic Therapeutics Of Potentized Sarcodes

Defining ‘sarcodes’  is a very complex task, on which a consensus among homeopaths seems to be almost impossible.

I would go with the definition evolved from discussions on our group: “Sarcodes are homeopathic drugs prepared from healthy animal tissues and secretions that in crude form contain biological molecules having specific physiological functions in the human organism”

According to this definition, an animal product will not be considered a sarcode, if it does not contain some biological molecules that are integral part of vital metabolic processes of human organism. That is the dividing line between ‘animal drugs’ and ‘sarcodes’.

Sarcodes have a very notable peculiarty. They always exist in molecular form in the organism, and participate in various molecular interactions being part of different biochemical pathways. They become homeopathic drugs only when they are not administered  in ‘molecular forms’, but as potentized forms above 12c. In molecular forms below Avogadro limit, they can be considered only as physiological products, not as homeopathic drugs.

Two questions have to be answered here:

1. If sarcodes are natural biological molecules having specific functional roles in human organism, how they become pathogenic agents, requiring the intervention of their own potentized forms or ‘molecular imprints’?

2. If the sarcodes are biological molecules being essential parts of living system, will not their physiological functions get negatively affected by the use of their potentized forms, since it is true that potentized form of a drug substance can antidote the biological effects of same drug in crude form?

Let us consider pituitary hormones. They play a decisive role in the whole metabolism of the organism, and hence called ‘master gland’. Pitutary hormones control many enzyme systems in our body. Then how can they act as pathogenic agents, requiring the use of potentized pituitary extract?

Next question is, when we use potentized pitutrin as a sarcode, will it not act as an antidote towards molecular forms of pituitary hormones and create dangerous consequences, by disrupting the whole endocrine activities mediated by pituitary hormones?

Pepsinum is very important in digestion of proteins. If pepsinum 30 is given to a person, will it create problems in protein digestion by deactivating pepsin molecules? If they cannot antidote pepsin molecules, how can they act as therapeutic agents?

Thyroid hormones play very important roles in metabolic activities in the living organism. Then how it can be pathogenic agents, requiring the intervention of potentized thyroidinum? Will not potentized thyroidinum hinder the biological processes mediated by thyroid hormones?

These are very pertinent questions we have to answer while trying to explain the science behind using of potentized sarcodes.

We can answer these questions only if we know the dynamics of molecular processes involved in biochemical interactions.

Every biological molecules, especially those belonging to hormones, signaling molecules(cytokines), neuro-chemicals, antibodies and enzymes being circulated in the organism enter into two types of chemical interactions: 1. ‘On-target interactions’ and  2. ‘Off-target interactions’.

‘On-target’ interactions are those happening between natural ligands and their genuine targets. Such interactions are essential part of vital processes through which biochemical pathways are carried unhindered. Natural ligands and their genuine targets interact through two stages: a). molecular identification and binding, which is effected by complementary configurational affinity between targets and ligands, b). actual chemical interaction, which is effected through perfect charge affinity between ligands and their genuine targets.

Off-target interactions are those accidentally happening  between ligands and wrong targets having configurational affinity only. In the absence of exact charge affinity, no chemical changes occur. Such interactions are always ‘inhibitory’, temporarily or permanantly deactivating the involved biological molecules. Such ‘inhibitory’ off-target interactions inevitably lead to derangement in associated biochemical pathways resulting in pathological states.

‘Off-target’ inhibitions caused by biological molecules such as hormones, enzymes, antibodies, signaling molecules(cytokines) and neurochemicals are causative factors of a wide range of pathological conditions in human beings. Sarcodes, or potentized preparations of these biological molecules, which contain their ‘molecular imprints’ , can effectively remove these molecular inhibitions and thereby act as therapeutic agents. Here lies the importance of sarcodes in homeopathic therapeutics.

Then comes the issue of selective action of the potentized sarcodes. As any other molecular imprints, molecular imprints in potentized sarcodes also cannot interfere in in the interactions between natural ligands and their genuine targets which involves configurational affinity as well as charge affinity. Since molecular imprints act through configurational affinity only, they can interfere in only inhibitory ‘off-target’ interactions.

It is now obvious that thyroidinum 30 cannot interfere in the essential biochemical processes mediated by thyroid hormones, Piturin 30 cannot interfere in the natural actions of pituitary hormones. This principle is applicable to all potentized sarcodes. We can use potentized sarcodes above 12c without any fear of adverse effects.

Sarcodes can play a very important role in the treatment of diverse types of diseases belonging to metabolic, emotional, psychosomatic, and ontological factors. They can also be part of constitutional prescriptions

Confusions Over Selection of Potency Will Be Resolved Once You Understand The Concepts Of MIT

“Do not worry much about selection of potencies. Always use 12c-30c, until a better and more accurate way of molecular imprinting is evolved. If your prescription does not act properly or stop acting, and if you are sure you have selected correct similimum, use same drug, same potency from another sample obtained from another source. Collect maximum samples of 30c of same drug from different sources and mix them for better therapeutic result. It would be an eye opening experience, that would compel you to look into the whole ‘potency question’ from a different angle.”

This opening statement may seem a bit controversial an unacceptable to most of homeopaths trained and experienced in classical ways of thinking. Kindly read the whole article and think over it logically before making any hasty conclusions.

A lot of confusions, controversies and phobias exist regarding the selection of potencies to be administered, after selecting the similimum. Everything is controversial in this area of applied homeopathy. Each homeopath has his own ways, and believes that only he is right.Young homeopaths get confused due to totally contradicting advices they get from their different teachers.

Once similimum is selected for a case through a process of exhaustive case taking, repertorization and material medica study, the next issue that bothers a young homeopath the most is the selection of potency, dosage and repetitions.

There are many laws, principles, theories and guidelines, given by different masters, most of them contradicting and conflicting with one another, which makes everything complex for a new comer.

Through hard experience, most homeopaths finally settle into a stage where they make their own ‘private’ ‘laws’ regarding potency, dose and repetition, which they will never expose to the homeopathic community, for fear of being ridiculed as deviation from principles. Everybody wants to appear to be belonging to that respectable class of ‘classical homeopaths’, pretending to be strictly following all the ‘immutable’  ‘cardinal principles’ of ‘pure’ homeopathy.

Please remember, all these ‘laws’ are made and practiced without even knowing what are the active principles of medicines we are using. Everything is pure speculation. Nobody knows what exactly happens during potentization. Nobody knows what are exactly the active principles of potentized drugs. Nobody exactly knows the molecular mechanism by which potentized drugs interacts with biological organism and creates a therapeutic effect. Nobody knows how lo potencies are different from high potencies. Everything is based on speculations. Dynamism, vibrational theory, Vitalism- everything explained as phenomena happening ‘beyond science’.

I am trying to resolve the issue of potencies in the light of scientifically viable working hypothesis regarding homeopathic therapeutics and potentization.

The word ‘drug potency’ and ‘drug potentization’ is associated with the concept of ‘dynamic drug energy’. As per this view, every drug substance has its ‘inherent qualities’, which exist as specific ‘energy’ of dynamic in form, and act up on the ‘vital force’ of organism by a dynamic way. This dynamic drug energy can exist free from ‘material drug, substance and transferred into rectified spirit or sugar of milk through a process called ‘potentization’. By this process, the ‘dynamic drug energy’ gettin freed from the drug substance moves to the potentizing medium and ‘energizes’ it. By the process of serial dilution and succussion, this dynamic energy could be ‘raised’ to new energy levels, and as such, it is believed that ‘higher’ dilutions are more ‘potentized’ and more powerful. This ‘dynamic drug energy’ carried by the ‘potentized drugs’ act upon the vital force and induces a ‘healing process’.

According to the MIT concept I propose, I am explaining the process involved in potentization in terms of ‘molecular imprinting’. It is not the ‘dynamic drug energy’ that is transferred into the medium during so-called process of potentization, but the three dimensional configuration of constituent drug molecules getting imprinted into the supra-molecular matrix of potentizing medium in the form of nanocavities, through a process of forming hydration shells. These nanocavities act as artificial binding sites or artificial ‘key holes’ for pathogenic molecules having configurational similarity to imprinted molecules. This concept scientifically explains the molecular dynamics of homeopathic therapeutics involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’ in a way fitting to the concepts of modern biochemistry, molecular pathology and therapeutics.

Obviously, the term ‘potentization’ reflects the vitalistic philosophy behind it. It would be ideal to use the term ‘molecular imprinting’ to explain the exact process in scientific terms.

Once you understand and accept ‘molecular imprinting’ as the real process involved in potentization, and perceive ‘potentized’ drugs in terms of constituent molecular imprints, all confusions regarding selection of potencies will be scientifically resolved.

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

As per this view, molecules of drug substances would be completely removed from the medium when the dilution crosses Avogadro limit. That means, even the smallest sized drug molecules will disappear above 12c potency. Hence, I proposed that 12c will be the ideal potency for therapeutic purpose, and further higher potencies will not be different from 12c in medicinal property. Since drug molecules will be absent above 12c, I presumed that there is no meaning in continuing potentization higher and higher. On that basis, I suggested to use 12C to 30c potency only. Mean time, we have to work up on developing a better scientific way of producing molecular imprints perfectly

According to me, there only two classes of drugs:

1. Molecular Imprints Forms- potentized drugs above avogadro limit, or 12c and above, containing only molecular imprints or hydrosomes.

2. Molecular Forms- low potencies below 12c and crude drugs which contain original drug molecules.

(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).

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’  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.

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’ 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, pathogenic 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.

But many homeopaths, even those who were not reluctant to accept my ‘molecular imprint’ concept, invited my attention to their experience that when a drug in 12C- 30c potency acted for some time, a stage reaches where no further improvement is obtained. In such situations, they could create curative response by going to higher and higher potencies of same drug. My friends said that their experiences does not corroborate my suggestion that a drug in all potencies above 12c will be similar in medicinal properties.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Then regarding so-called ‘ultra-high’ dilutions. 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 supervisors 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’.

Most homeopaths believe that administration of incorrect remedies and potencies may harm the patients. If that were the case, homeopaths would have been the greatest criminals in human history! They would have already harmed the whole human race by the time being through 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?



What is the optimum potency, as per MIT? Now I would say ‘ALPHA MOLECULAR IMPRINTS’- I have explained this idea in a separate article