Tag: homeopathic

Some ‘modern masters’ pretend that homeopathy will become a ‘medical science’ by merely sprinkling some scientific and ultra-scientific terms such as ‘genetic’, ‘quantum’, ‘embryonic’, ‘particles’, ‘vibrations’ ‘resonance’, ‘energy field’, ‘teleportation’, ‘radiations’, ‘frequency’, ‘string’ and the like here and there in their articles and lectures.

Same time they would talk about ‘unscientificness’ and ‘limitations’ of modern science.

Next moment they would explain homeopathy in terms of ‘vital force’, ‘dynamic energy’, ‘mind remedy’, ‘spiritual remedies’, ‘hair transmissions’, ‘photo-transmissions’, ‘radionics’, and such other absurd occult practices. These people make homeopathy a subject of unending laughter and mockery before the scientific community.

These people are not interested in real scientific understanding of homeopathy. All of them are marketing their own ‘theories’ and ‘methods’, and have built up a closed community of ardent followers around them. They fear any new wave of scientific understanding in homeopathy would sweep away their sand hills of fame and fortunes.That is why they are desperately fighting tooth and nail to resist any attempts of real scientific awareness.

By ‘scientific homeopathy’, I mean an open system of theory and practice of Homeopathy that fits to our existing scientific knowledge system, which could be verified with available scientific methods and tools, with the involvement of scientific community. At least, we have to make it a theory and practice that do not go against fundamental principles of modern science.

By ‘scientific homeopathy’, I mean a theory and practice of homeopathy that fits into the scientific paradigms of modern biochemistry, molecular biology and life sciences.

By ‘scientific homeopathy’, I mean a theory and practice of homeopathy that would agree with the scientific knowledge provided by modern physiology, pathology and therapeutics.

By scientific homeopathy’, I mean an understanding of homeopathic drugs that can be explained using the language and concepts of modern material sciences, medical science and pharmacology.

During Discussions on a Homeopathic Group Regarding ‘Active Principles’ of Potentized Drugs, A Homeopath Posted As Follows:

“The ingredient in a remedy is electromagnetic energy. In trituration, we make nano-particles, which means electrons are rubbed off the molecule. Those electrons are negatively charged and also charge the lactose. The lactose dissolves in water, and so the water get charged. Succussion is the amplification of that electromagnetic charge.”

I POSTED THE FOLLOWING QUERY AS A RESPONSE TO THIS POST:

“When you say the electrons getting ‘rubbed off’ from the drug molecules, and ‘charge’ the lactose, and while the lactose dissolve in water the ‘water get charged’, and this ‘charge’ of water is the ‘ingredient’ of potentized medicine, acting as ‘electro-magnetic energy’, and ‘succussion’ is ‘amplification’ of that ‘charge’, did you actually think about the questions that will have to be answered?

1. How the simple ‘electrons’ ‘rubbed off’ from the ‘drug molecules’ carry the properties of complex drug molecules and transfer these properties to the lactose? According to your theory, only ‘electrons’ ‘rubbed off’ involve in activating the ‘lactose’. If so, ‘drug molecules’ have no role in this ‘charging’ process. Do you think ‘electrons’ ‘rubbed off’ from a complex molecule can represent the whole molecule, which contains different types of atoms?

2. Let us accept your theory of lactose getting charged by the ‘electrons’ ‘rubbed off’ from the drug molecules. ‘Getting charged’ means, the energy level of lactose molecules are raised to a higher level. According to quantum understanding, any atom or molecules raised to a higher level would return to its ground energy state in a short time by radiating energy, once the ‘process of charging’ is stooped. If so, the lactose charged by trituration will lose its ‘energy’ it is kept for some time. Do you think triturated drugs will lose its medicinal properties if kept for some time?

3. When you say the ‘lactose’ dissolve in water and water also get charged, have you got any idea about the ‘nano-particles’ of drugs created during trituration? What would be its role, if water is getting charged by the ‘charged lactose’?

4. Now, coming to the ‘amplification’ of charges during succussion. How this amplification happens, and how can this amplification increase the medical properties?

5. What is according to you the mechanism by which this ‘charged water’ interfere in the biological process? If it is through ‘electromagnetic radiation’, is it necessary that the ‘charged water’ should be introduced into the body for therapeutic action? Why not this ‘electromagnetic radiation’ act up on the patient when kept nearby?

6. ‘Charged water’ also would return to ground level energy state by discharging ‘electromagnetic radiation’. That means, when potentized medicine would lose its medicinal properties by dissipating its extra energy when kept for some time. Do you agree?

7. When we keep two potentized medicines nearby in our pharmacy, both will be constantly discharging ‘electromagnetic radiation’. Would there be a chance for interacting of these ‘radiations? What if one drug absorbs the radiation coming from other? Or, do you think this EMR will work only when the medicine is inside the body of the patient?

8. Do you think the ‘electrons’ rubbed of during trituration and ‘charging the lactose and then water, can emit EMRs specific to those drugs? Remember, even a single drug contains diverse types of complex molecules. Do you say these electrons can impart the ‘charged water’ the ‘energy’ to emit NUX EMRs, SULPH EMRs and the like? By what mechanism?”

DEAR FRIENDS, KINDLY DISCUSS THIS VERY IMPORTANT TOPIC

Some people points to Aphorism 81 as an “evidence” to “prove” that Hahnemann

considered miasms as “genetically inherited”. This aphorism is the most “powerful evidence” they produce in favor of “genetic theory of miasms”.

Let us see what HAHNEMANN says in Organon : Aphorism 81:

“The fact that this extremely ancient infecting agent has gradually passed, in some hundreds of generations, through many millions of human organisms and has thus attained an incredible development, renders it in some measure conceivable how it can now display such innumerable morbid forms in the great family of mankind, particularly when we consider what a number of circumstances contribute to the production of these great varieties of chronic diseases (secondary symptoms of psora), besides the indescribable diversity of men in respect of their congenital corporeal constitutions, so that it is no wonder if such a variety of injurious agencies, acting from within and from without and sometimes continually, on such a variety of organisms permeated with the psoric miasm, should produce an innumerable variety of defects, injuries, derangements and sufferings, which have hitherto been treated of in the old pathological works, under a number of special names, as diseases of an independent character.”

In this aphorism, master says about psora: “this extremely ancient infecting agent has gradually passed, in some hundreds of generations, through many millions of human organism”.

He is talking about an “infectious agent” that “passed through generations”. He has explained in “chronic diseases” how this “infectious agent” “passed through generations of humanity”, in various forms of “skin infections” such as “leprosy, scarlatina, scabies” and many other forms. Can we infer that by using the word “generations”, he was talking about “genetic inheritance” of leprosy, scarlatina, scabies and other infectious agent”? He only meant that those infections were carried down through ‘generations’ of humanity as “infectious agents”, not as “genetic material”. If somebody talk about “inheritance of property rights through generations”, would anybody interpret it as “inheritance of property rights as genetic material”? How can “infectious agents” of itch, syphilis and gonorrohea can be “inherited through genes”?

Further, Hahnemann has said about transfer of psora from “nurse to infant”, “mother to infant from womb and genital tract”, “between family members”, “physician to patient”, “physical contacts” and many other modes. Can genetic materials be “inherited” through these modes?

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

For the last few weeks I was once again into an in-depth re-learning of ‘Chronic Diseases’. While carefully going through the initial paragraphs of that great text (Para 1 to 7),  I was trying to follow the exact thought process of Dr. Samuel Hahnemann through which he finally arrived at his theory of ‘chronic diseases and miasms’.

Imagine the desperation and hopelessness Hahnemann experienced over the disappointing outcome of chronic diseases treated on the basis of his original theory of ‘similia similibus curentur’.  Listen these words: “their beginning was promising, the continuation less favorable, and the outcome hopeless.”

Hahnemann confesses: “homeopathy failed to bring a real cure in the above-mentioned diseases, and to gain an insight more nearly correct and, if possible, quite correct, into the true nature of the thousands of chronic diseases which still remain uncured, despite the incontestable truth of the Homoeopathic Law of Cure, this very serious task has occupied me since the years 1816 and 1817, night and day”.

I was really wondering about the dedication of our master living totally “occupied” with the “very serious task” of gaining “an insight more nearly correct and, if possible, quite correct, into the true nature of the thousands of chronic diseases which still remain uncured”. That too, the whole “years of 1816 and 1817, night and day”.

Have you ever thought about the mental state of our master when he observed that patients “treated with such medicines as homeopathically best covered and temporarily removed the then apparent moderate symptoms” failed to make a permanent cure? His disillusionment to notice that the treatment on the basis of therapeutic law of ‘similia similibus curentur’ only “produced a kind of healthy condition, especially with young, vigorous persons, such as would appear as real health to every observer who did not examine accurately; and this state often lasted for many years.”?

Hahnemann also had to witness the bitter truth that “the re-appearance of one or more of the ailments which seemed to have been already overcome; and this new condition was often aggravated by some quite new concomitants, which if not more threatening than the former ones which had been removed homeopathically were often just as troublesome and now more obstinate.”

Hahnemann says: “when such a relapse would take place the homeopathic physician would give the remedy most fitting among the medicines then known, as if directed against a new disease, and this would again be attended by a pretty good success, which for the time would again bring the patient into a better state. In the former case, however, in which merely the troubles which seemed to have been removed were renewed, the remedy which had been serviceable the first time would prove less useful, and when repeated again it would help still less. Then perhaps, even under the operation of the homeopathic remedy which seemed best adapted, and even where the mode of living had been quite correct new symptoms of disease would be added which could be removed only inadequately and imperfectly; yea, these new symptoms were at times not at all improved, especially when some of the obstacles above mentioned hindered the recovery.”

Imagine how much desperate the master would have felt to observe the following situation:

“The return and repeated returns of the complaints in the end left even the best selected homoeopathic remedies then known, and given in the most appropriate doses, the less effective the oftener they were repeated. They served at last hardly even as weak palliatives. But usually, after repeated attempts to conquer the disease which appeared in a form always somewhat changed, residual complaints appeared which the homoeopathic medicines hitherto proved, though not few, had to leave un-eradicated, yea, often undiminished. Thus there ever followed varying complaints ever more  troublesome, and, as time proceeded, more threatening, and this even while the mode of living was correct and with a punctual observance of directions. The chronic disease could, despite all efforts, be but little delayed in its progress by the homeopathic physician and grew worse from year to year.”

“It was a continually repeated fact that the non-venereal chronic diseases, after being time and again removed homeopathically by the remedies fully proved up to the present time, always returned in a more or less varied form and with new symptoms, or reappeared annually with an increase of complaints.”

“This was, and remained, the quicker or slower process in such treatments in all non-venereal, severe chronic diseases, even when these were treated in exact accordance with the homoeopathic, art as hitherto known.”

Hahnemann sums up the issue in these questions:

1. “Whence then this less favorable, this unfavorable, result of the continued treatment of the non-venereal chronic diseases even by homeopathy?”

2. “What was the reason of the thousands of unsuccessful endeavors to heal the other diseases of a chronic nature so that lasting health might result?”

3. “Why then, cannot this vital force, efficiently affected through Homoeopathic medicine, produce any true and lasting recovery in these chronic maladies even with the aid of the homeopathic remedies which best cover their present symptoms; while this same force which is created for the restoration of our organism is nevertheless so indefatigably and successfully active in completing the recovery even in severe acute diseases?

4. What is there to prevent this?”

Hahnemann says:

“The answer to this question, which is so natural, inevitably led me to the discovery of the nature of these chronic diseases.”

We know, this inquiry led Hahnemann into the formulation of what we now learn as  “Theory of Miasms  and Chronic Diseases”. He arrived at this answer utilizing the scientific knowledge available to him at that time.

Homeopathic medicines selected on the basis of ‘similia similibus curentur’ were “indefatigably and successfully active in completing the recovery even in severe acute diseases” and troublesome “venereal” diseases such as syphilis and gonorrhoea . But such a tratment plan was not effective in curing “chronic diseases of non-venereal” orgin. WHY? This was the question that hahnemann wanted to answer.

We can now witness Hahnemann logically analyzing this issue before him in the following statements:

“Homoeopathic physician with such a chronic (non-venereal) case, yea in all cases of (non-venereal) chronic disease, has not only to combat the disease presented before his eyes, and must not view and treat it as if it were a well-defined disease, to be speedily and permanently destroyed and healed by ordinary homoeopathic remedies but that he has always to encounter only some separate fragment of a more deep-seated original disease.”.

Here the master introduces the new concept of “separate fragments of a more deep-seated original disease.”. He says the homeopathic physician should not “combat only the disease presented before his eyes”, and must not “view and treat it as if it were a well-defined disease”.

At this point, we will have to go back to Hahnemann’s Organon-Aphorism7. He says:

  “Now, as in a disease, from which no manifest exciting or maintaining cause (causa occasionalis) has to be removed, we can perceive nothing but the morbid symptoms, it must (regard being had to the possibility of a miasm, and attention paid to the accessory circumstances) be the symptoms alone by which the disease demands and points to the remedy suited to relieve it – and, moreover, the totality of these its symptoms, of this outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease, that is, of the affection of the vital force, must be the principal, or the sole means, whereby the disease can make known what remedy it requires – the only thing that can determine the choice of the most appropriate remedy -and thus, in a word, the totality2 of the symptoms must be the principal, indeed the only thing the physician has to take note of in every case of disease and to remove by means of his art, in order that it shall be cured and transformed into health.”

We can see that In ORGANON itself, even while saying “the totality of these its symptoms, of this outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease must be the principal, indeed the only thing the physician has to take note of in every case of disease and to remove by means of his art”, Hahnemann had explicitly indicated about “exciting or maintaining cause has to be removed”, “regard being had to the possibility of a miasm”, and “attention paid to the accessory circumstances”.

That means, according to Hahnemann, “causative factors”, “miasms or infectious toxins”, and “accessory circumstances” also should be considered along with “totality of symptoms” in deciding a treatment plan for a patient.

It is clear that the apparent failure of chronic diseases with homeopathic treatment on the basis of “similia similibus curentur” was due to the neglect shown by the profession (including the master) towards “causative factors”, “miasms or infectious toxins”, and “accessory circumstances”.

HAHNEMANN SAYS:

“The great extent of this is shown in the new symptoms appearing from time to time; so that the homeopathic physician must not hope to permanently heal the separate manifestations of this kind in the presumption, hitherto entertained, that they are well-defined, separately existing diseases which can be healed permanently and completely.”

While saying “homeopathic physician must not hope to permanently heal the separate manifestations of this kind”, he is a bit deviating from his original theory that the “totality of the symptoms must be the principal, indeed the only thing the physician has to take note of in every case of disease and to remove by means of his art”, asserting the importance of “causative factors”, “miasms or infectious toxins”, and “accessory circumstances”.

Obviously, theory of ‘miasms and chronic diseases” is an expansion and re-invention of what he earlier said in aphorism 7, and got ignored by the profession for along period.

He recognizes here that there existed a “presumption, hitherto entertained”, that all those diseases which were so far treated on “totality of symptoms” were “well-defined, separately existing diseases which can be healed permanently and completely”, which led to the failures so far happened.

LISTEN WHAT MASTER SAYS AT THIS POINT:

“He, therefore, must first find out as far as possible the whole extent of all the accidents and symptoms belonging, to the unknown Primitive malady before he can hope to discover one or more medicines which may homeopathically cover the whole of the original disease by means of its peculiar symptoms. By this method he may then be able victoriously to heal and wipe out the malady in its whole extent, consequently also its separate members; that is, all the fragments of a disease appearing in so many various forms.”

Before finding the “totality of symptoms”, the physician “must first find out as far as possible the whole extent of all the accidents and symptoms belonging, to the unknown Primitive malady”.

At this point, Hahnemann proposes the idea that this unknown “primitive malady” must be of “miasmatic” origin.

HAHNEMANN SAYS:

“But that the original malady sought for must be also of a miasmatic, chronic nature clearly appeared to me from this circumstance, that after it has once advanced and developed to a certain degree it can never be removed by the strength of any robust constitution, it can never be overcome by the most wholesome diet and order of life, nor will it die out of itself. But it is evermore aggravated, from year to year, through a transition into other and more serious symptoms, even till the end of man’s life, like every other chronic, miasmatic sickness; e. g., the venereal bubo which has not been healed from within by mercury, its specific remedy, but has passed over into venereal disease. This latter, also never passes away of itself, but, even with the most correct mode of life and with the most robust bodily constitution, increases every year and unfolds evermore into new and worse symptoms, and this, also, to the end of man’s life”.

“Not unfrequently phthisis passes over into insanity; dried-up ulcers into dropsy or apoplexy; intermittent fever into asthma; affections of the abdomen into pains in the joints or paralysis; pains in the limbs into haemorrhage, etc., and it was not difficult to discover that the later must also have their foundation in the original malady and can only be a part of a far greater whole”.

See, how hahnemann systematically arrives at the concept of “miasm of psora” as the “primitive malady” underlying the chronic diseases.

During discussions on my scientific concept of ‘miasms’, many friends raised this question: “What difference it would make in practice, if we understand ‘miasms’ as ‘antibodies’?

I think this question is very much relevant, and I am bound to respond it positively.

First, we have to understand the exact molecular mechanism of  ‘pathology’ and ‘therapeutics’ in terms of modern biochemistry and molecular biology.

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

Same time, these ‘molecular imprinted proteins’ or antibodies plays a negative role also, which is what we call ‘miasms’. They can act as pathogenic factors. Whenever these antibodies happen to come in contact with a native biological molecule having a structural group of configuration similar to the ‘epitope’ of its natural antigen, its paratope binds to it and inhibits the biological molecules. This is a ‘molecular error’ amounting to a state of pathology. Diverse types of chronic diseases and dispositions are created by the antibodies in the organism. These pathological conditions caused by ‘off-target’ binding of antibodies or ‘molecular imprinted proteins’ are the real ‘miasms’ hahnemann described as the underlying factors of ‘chronic diseases’.

Obviously, identifying and removal of these ‘off-target’ molecular blocks or ‘miasms’ caused by antibodies or ‘molecular imprinted proteins’ is an important part in the treatment of chronic diseases. Observing and collecting the whole history of infections and intoxications that might have generated antibodies are important in the management of chronic diseases. History of skin infections, venereal infections, stings of poisonous creatures, vaccinations, serum/antibiotic treatments, sensitization with protein foods  etc. has to be collected in detail and appropriate ‘anti-miasmatics’ included in the treatment protocols of  chronic treatments.

Another important thing we have to remember is that we cannot permanently inactivate ‘antibodies’ using potentized nosodes or anti-miasmatic drugs. Our drugs may act in two ways. If the nosodes are prepared from antibodies themselves, they contain ‘molecular imprints of  epitopes of ‘exogenous toxins’ or antigens themselves. These ‘molecular imprints can compete with the paratopes of antibodies in binding to biological molecues, and prevent them from creating ‘off-target’ biological blocks. Since ‘molecular imprints’ cannot successfully compete with the epitopes of antigens in binding with the paratopes of antibodies, our potentized drugs never interferes with the normal immune mechanism of the body. They only prevents antibodies from binding to ‘off-target’ biological molecules, and thus act as ‘antimiasmatics’.

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

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

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

We should carefully study the whole history of patient to learn his ‘miasms’ or ‘antibodies’. For example, ‘vaccinations’. Each vaccination creates different types of miasms, which we have to antidote with appropriate nosodes . If the patient had history of severe allergy from bee stings, we have to antidote with apis. Same way, history of sanake bites, scabies, TB, everything will have to be considered.

Most of the bacterial toxins has a sulph containg ‘thio’ group on its epitome, and as such, potentized sulph would act as an antidote to almost all types of ‘antibodies’ or ‘miasms’ caused by such bacterial infections. That may be the reason why “sulph” became ‘king of anti-psorics’.

While considering ‘miasms’ of a patient, we should not limit ourselves to inquiries regarding history infectious diseases in his life. Antibodies may form against respiratory allergens such as pollens, fungus, housedust(contain mites), eggs, shell fishes, milk etc., all of which contains proteins exogenous to the body. History of anaphylaxis due to insect bites such as bees and wasps and snakebites should be noticed. History of vaccinations taken, including anti-rabies and anti-venom is also important. All such antibodies may act as chronic ‘miasms’ by attacking off-target biological molecules. We have lot of experiences with cases of kidney failures resulting from anti-rabies vaccinations. Many so-called auto-immune diseases are actually the chronic effects of ‘antibodies’ formed against exogenous proteins acting as ‘miasms’. Even though these ‘miasms’ may laso be part of ‘totality of symptoms’ during a perfect case taking, ‘miasmatic symptoms’ never come top during repertorizations. Hence, in the treatment of chronic diseases, ‘anti-miasmatic drugs’ and ‘nosodes’ should be considered, and applied in frequent intervals along with selected similimum.

NOW WE CAN SEE, THROUGH THE UNDERSTANDING OF ‘MIASMS’ AS ‘ANTIBODIES’, OUR MANAGEMENT OF CHRONIC DISEASES BECOMES MORE SIMPLE AND ACCURATE.

MORE OVER, OUR THEORY AND PRACTICE HAVE NOW BECOME MORE SCIENTIFIC, EXACTLY FITTING TO THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE, ACCEPTABLE TO SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

I THINK THIS IS A GREAT FORWARD STEP IN MAKING HOMEOPATHY A REAL SCIENTIFIC MEDICAL SYSTEM

“Single Dose and Wait” is considered to be the golden law of homeopathic prescription by conventional homeopaths. Repetition of doses at frequent intervals is said to be harmful. It is taught that ‘waiting’ is the keyword for administering the second dose.

I would like to differ with Classical Homeopathy on this point. I think many a excellent homeopathic prescriptions are spoiled only due to our ‘theoretical’ hesitation to repeat the doses in adequate intervals, and these failures are wrongly attributed to ‘wrong similimum’ or ‘wrong potency’ selection. We could have avoided such failures by repeating the doses frequently so as to maintain the drug action at optimum levels to effect a complete cure. I know ‘classical homeopaths’ would tear me into pieces for proposing this ‘unhomeopathic’ concept, which according to them would be an unpardonable offense against the ‘purity of homeopathy’ and a gross disrespect to our ‘masters and stalwarts’.

Whatever be the consequences, I want to discus my logic regarding this issue here. I believe I have strong point to share.

I know my friends would jump in with quotes from the master. Excuse me, I am not unaware of those aphorisms you are going to to quote. I simply differ.

My concepts regarding ‘repetitions’ come from the scientific understanding of potentization as ‘molecular imprinting’ and the active principles of potentized medicines as ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent drug molecules used for potentization. You cannot follow me without understanding the concept of ‘molecular imprints’. To know more before participating this discussion, kindly go to : http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/2011/09/24/how-homeopathy-works-a-scientific-working-hypothesis-regarding-the-molecular-mechanism-of-homeopathic-therapeutics/

According to me, Molecular Imprints are the active principles of potentized drugs. These ‘molecular imprints’ bind to the pathological molecules having ‘complementary’ configuration, there by relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions and effect Cure. Same time,these ‘molecular imprints’ could be antidoted or deactivated by by molecules or ions having complementary configurations. That means, ‘molecular imprints’ we introduced into the body get deactivated by pathological molecules or other molecules having congigurational affinity. Molecules and ions of vegetable alkaloids, enzymes, food additives, environmental toxins, infectious agents, bacterial-viral toxins and a host of other agents may antidote these ‘molecular imprints’. Hence, it is necessary to replenish the supply of ‘molecular imprints’ at frequent intervals to ensure a complete cure. That is my point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As per this view, molecules of drug substances would be completely removed from the medium when the dilution crosses Avogadro limit. That means, even the smallest sized drug molecules will disappear above 12c potency. Hence, I proposed that 30c will be the ideal potency for therapeutic purpose, and further higher potencies will not be different from 30c in medicinal property. SSince drug molecules will be absent above 12c, I presumed that there is no meaning in continuing potentization higher and higher. On that basis, I suggested to use 30c potency only.

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

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

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

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

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

I do not think modern medicine is irrelevant. It plays main role in the health care system all over the world. ALLOPATHY Hahnemann talks about is no more. It is not fair to call ‘modern medicine’ as allopathy. Modern medicine is ‘molecular medicine’, based on scientific understanding of vital processes. Remember this point when quoting ‘ant-allopathy’ statements of our masters. Fundamental difference between homeopathy and modern medicine is that  ‘modern medicine’ uses ‘drug molecules’ as therapeutic agents, where as homeopathy uses ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules. This is a very important difference, indeed.

MODERN MEDICINE has recently advanced into MOLECULAR MEDICINE, where  drugs are selected on the basis of scientific understanding of pathological molecular errors in vital processes. Homeopathy selects drugs on the basis of ‘totality of symptoms’, which are the real indicators of those pathological molecular errors. As such, homeopathy can be defined as a specialized higher branch of ‘modern molecular medicine’.

Since ‘modern medicine’ uses highly reactive ‘drug molecules’ as therapeutic agents, they can create dangerous ‘off-target’ molecular errors in the organism. That is the main draw back of ‘modern medicine’. Since homeopathy uses only ‘molecular imprints’, they cannot cause any ‘off-target’ molecular errors. Hence homeopathy is very safe when compared to modern medicine.

Since ‘modern medicine’ requires a clear understanding of pathological molecular processes to decide an appropriate therapeutic agent, they cannot treat many diseases which are not well understood. For homeopathy, knowing the exact molecular error behind the pathology is not necessary, since homeopathy identifies the molecular errors and their remedial agents by observing subjective and objective ‘symptoms’ that express the molecular errors. As such, homeopathy can cure any disease even without knowing the underlying molecular errors, merely on the basis of ‘symptoms’. This is a great advantage for homeopathy. Whereas modern medicine can hope for an effective treatment only for well understood diseases, that to with possibility of unwanted side effects, homeopathy can treat any disease effectively and safely.

Let those qualified in modern medicine do it. Homeopaths are legally, ethically and philosophically not permitted to practice modern medicine. As a medical system Homeopathy is qualitatively much above and different from modern medicine, if homeopaths approaches it scientifically.

In a far distant historical perspective, I foresee the possibility of converging of modern medicine and homeopathy into a universal molecular medical science of ‘drug-less therapy’, where only molecular imprints will be used as therapeutic agents.

Modern Medicine is gradually evolving into ‘Molecular Medicine’. Molecular Medicine studies vital processes and diseases at molecular level, and deals therapeutics as an art and science of molecular level repairing.

Molecular medicine is the most advanced, most scientific and most recently originated discipline in modern medical science. It is a broad field, where physical, chemical, biological and medical techniques are used to describe molecular structures and mechanisms, identify fundamental molecular and genetic errors of pathology, and to develop molecular interventions to correct those errors.

‘Molecular Medicine’ emphasizes disease and cure in terms of cellular and molecular phenomena and interventions rather than the conceptual and observational focus on patients and their organs common to conventional medicine.

Molecular Medicine studies drug substances in terms of their molecular level structure and organization, and is more and more relying upon target-specific Designer Drugs synthesized by drug designing technology, supported by computer aided designing protocols.

Drug Designing Technology has recently started exploring the possibilities of Molecular Imprinting in the development of target-specific designer drugs. They are now experimenting for developing bio-friendly imprinting matrices and imprinting protocols, so as to prepare artificial binding surfaces for pathogenic molecules that could be utilized as therapeutic agents.

Even though not yet recognized as such, homeopathic potentization is a process of molecular imprinting, where artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules are produced by imprinting drug molecules into water-ethyl alcohol supra-molecular matrices. Homeopathy identifies pathological molecular errors and selects the appropriate molecular imprints through a peculiar technique of ‘comparing symptoms’, which is expressed as the therapeutic principle, ‘simila similibus curentur’

Most probably, modern molecular medicine and drug designing technology is in the new future going to explore the possibilities of water as a molecular imprinting medium as part of their search for novel substances to be utilized as imprinting matrix.

It means, Modern Molecular Medicine is slowly advancing towards the realization of a drug designing technology that homeopathy invented as ‘potentization’ and utilized for preparing therapeutic agents 250 years ago. It is based on this understanding that I try to propagate the concept that ‘Homeopathy is Molecular Imprinting Therapeutics- An Advanced Branch of Molecular Medicine.

In a far distant historical perspective, I foresee the possibility of converging of modern medicine and homeopathy into a universal molecular medical science of ‘drug-less therapy’, where only molecular imprints will be used as therapeutic agents. Instead of our present ‘potentization’, modern science may develop more sophisticated ways of molecular imprinting, that would enable us to produce therapeutic agents more specific and perfect than our present day ‘potentized drugs’.

May be be distant dream. But it is a dream based on scientific knowledge.

Even though modern medicine is more and more turning to target-specific designer drugs, ‘drug designing’ using water molecules and molecular imprinting in water are subjects still unknown to modern drug designers. Homeopathy has been using this technique for last 200+ years in the form of potentization. Once the ongoing search for new drug designing techniques and new substances for molecular imprinting finally land them inevitably into the understanding of ‘molecular imprinting in water’, modern medicine and scientific community will have to recognize homeopathy and its potentization. At that moment, they will have to recognize the genius of samuel hahnemann. It is only a matter of time to happen that. Wait and see.

Modern scientists would any time arrive at ‘drug designing by molecular imprinting in water’, and utilize it with out any mention of homeopathy or potentization. Actually, I am making all my ideas about MIT public with the hope that it may some how prevent modern medicine from turning “this discovery in ther side by some way” without recognizing homeopathy.

Our search into the mysteries of homeopathic potentization inevitably leads us to the study of the wonderful physical and chemical properties of water and alcohol, which constitute the medium used to prepare the ultra dilute preparations.  The answers to our questions lie in the wonderful physico–chemical properties of water, arising from its peculiar supra-molecular structure. Water is a solvent with higher polarity than similar liquids. H–O–H have bond angle of 105 degrees. That means, water molecule is a dipole. Because of this peculiarity, water molecules can exist like a supra-molecular network by forming hydrogen bonds between themselves. A minimum number of five water molecules will be contained in this network. Such five-molecule formations are called ‘pentamers’. Most of the wonderful properties of water arise from this capacity of peculiar hydrogen bonding and supra-molecular formations.

Water molecules(H2O) are symmetric (point group C2ν), with two mirror planes of symmetry and a 2-fold rotation axis. The hydrogen atoms in this molecule may possess parallel or anti-parallel nuclear spin. The water molecule consists of two light hydrogen atoms(H) and a relatively heavy oxygen atom(O). The approximately 16-fold difference in mass between hydrogen and oxygen gives ease of rotation, and the significant relative movements of the hydrogen nuclei, which are in constant and significant relative movement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medium used for homoeopathic potentization contains 87% w/w of alcohol and 13% w/w of water. In this ratio, the number of alcohol molecules will be about more than that of of water molecules. Such a ratio will be very suitable for the production of stable hydration shells. More over, the presence of ethyl alcohol in water is considered as a factor reducing the rate of protonation/deprotonation processes, thereby enhancing the stability of hydration shells. This may further explain the importance of water-ethyl alcohol mixture being used as the medium of homoeopathic potentization.

 We know that water is a good solvent. Let us see what happens when foreign molecules are made to dissolve in water. If a foreign molecule, ion,  or colloidal particle happens to enter the matrix of 3-dimensional dynamic network of water molecules, they are entrapped inside this network. Water molecules arrange themselves around the intruder or ‘guest’ in a peculiar way by the formation hydrogen bonds. These formations of water molecules around the ‘guest’ molecules are known as hydration shells. These hydration shells exist in a dynamic state, and are more or less unstable. The foreign molecules dissolved in water exist in a state of being entrapped inside these hydration shells as ‘guests’. This phenomenon can be seen both in ionic solutions and colloidal solutions. Obviously, hydration shells assume an internal spacial arrangement exactly fitting to the 3-dimensional spacial configuration of the foreign molecule entrapped in them. If we could devise some technique to remove the entrapped ‘guest’ molecules from these hydration shells, without disturbing the hydrogen bonds between the constituent water molecules, these hydration shells can still retain the molecular memory of the molecular configurations of the removed ‘guest’ molecules. This rarely studied phenomenon is known as ‘molecular memory of water’. Actual mechanism and forces underlying this phenomenon has to be investigated minutely by physical scientists. Minute changes occurring in the electron clouds of atoms of water molecules during the formation of hydration shells may be one factor responsible for this phenomenon.

It has been well proven that these hydration shells later show a peculiar capability to differentially recognize the original ‘guest’ molecules which were  responsible for their formation. This may be due to the existence of some imprinted memory of those ‘guest’ molecules retained in the hydration shells. This imprinting of memory may be compared to formation of finger prints. As in the case of finger prints, configuration of these molecular imprints also will be a complementary negative of ‘guest’ molecules.  These empty hydration shells, or supra-molecular formations of water subjected to molecular imprinting, may be called ‘hydrosomes’, which means, minute ‘nano-cavities of water’. Homeopathic process of potentization is essentially a crude method of preparing hydrosomes, prepared by using various drug molecules as ‘guests’. It should be specifically noted that the medium used for homeopathic potentisation is not pure water, but it is mixed with ethyl alcohol in a particular ratio. It may be  inferred that the presence of comparatively heavy ethyl alcohol molecules in this mixture may be contributing to stabilization of ‘hydrosomes’, preventing their easy dissociation.  The convergent forces of rotational movements to which the mixture is subjected as part of potentization, may also be a contributing factor in stabilizing the empty hydration shells by polarization and subsequent reduction of hydrogen bond lengths..

This peculiar configuration of hydrosomes are destroyed only when 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.

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 ‘layer by layer’ with ‘single’ drugs. What I am now saying is that there is no harm in prescribing all these ‘similimums’ that cover the whole layers ‘together’. That way we can ensure a ‘total’ cure rapidly.

KENT taught us to find a similimum based on ‘totality of constitutional symptoms’. His method is most appropriate in determining ‘constitutional similimum’.

BOENNINGHAUSSEN taught us to find similimum on the basis of ‘causation-location-sensations-modalities-concomittants’ of ‘particular disease symptoms’.

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

Does it mean either of them was wrong? NO. Both were right. BOENNNINGHAUSSEN was talking about ‘particular totalities’ 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 few years I was experimenting on this issue, and I have found it totally harmless and very effective to combine potentized drugs above 30c, selected on the basis of  constitutional as well as particular ‘symptom complexes’.

Hahnemann was talking about SINGLE drug on the basis of scientific knowledge available to him during his period 250 years ago.

He had no idea about the molecular level structure of drug substances, or their molecular level interactions with biological molecules. He had no idea about the molecular level pathology and molecular inhibitions undelying diseases. He considered drugs as ‘single’ substance, and diseases as ‘singular’ entities.

For him, NUX was a ‘single’ substance, whereas we now know NUX tincture is a mixture of hundreds of types of alkaloids, gycosides and other phytochemicals, which act upon our body on the basis of their molecular structure and chemical properties.

We now know, NUX tincture prepared from different parts of that tree will have entirely different molecular constitution, and as such, the idea of NUX PERSONALITY does not have any logic or scientific validity.

We should update on the basis of new scientific knowledge available to us.

Here I am saying something that most homeopaths would not be very happy to hear, because my statement goes against their long-existing beliefs and practices. I expect strong opposition on this concept, which directly evolved from my scientific understanding and observations of potentization.

If ‘molecular imprinting’ is the real mechanism involved in homeopathic potentization, it is obvious that there is no likelihood of any special benefit by higher and higher potentisations above 12C. Logically, potentization need be continued only just beyond the limit of Avagadro number. By that stage, all the drug molecules would be removed from the medium, and the molecular imprinted water–alcohol mixture would have attained sufficient concentration of ‘molecular imprints’, which are the real active principles of potentized medicines. The three-dimensional structure of drug molecules used as ‘guests’ will have already got sufficiently imprinted into the hydration shells or hydrosomes by that time. There is no point in continuing potentization even after that stage.

Even those who believe that potentization is a process by which ‘medicinal energy’ of drug substances are transferred into the medium, would find it difficult to explain what ‘medicinal energy’ could be ‘transferred’ even after the whole drug molecules are removed through serial dilutions.

As per my observation, the medicinal property of any homeopathic drug beyond 12c will be the same. It is only a very rare possibility that there could be any significant difference between various so called higher potencies used by us, with regard to their content or medicinal qualities.  Many master prescribers have already put on record that if the selection of similimum is correct, any potency would render the expected therapeutic result.

Since I consider molecular imprints as the active principles of potentized drugs, I do not subscribe to the idea that ‘higher’ potencies are more ‘powerful’, and I see no special benefit by using ‘higher’ potencies.

I think 12c is enough for completing molecular imprinting and removal of all drug molecules from the medium. What happens at molecular level during further potentization is still an open question for me. In supra-molecular chemistry, there is research going on regarding a phenomenon known as ‘induced molecular assembly’. That means, supra-molecular clusters acting as templates and inducing other molecules to form similar clusters. We know, ‘induced molecular assembly’ is involved in crystallization, clathrate formation etc. Even ‘prions’, which are misfolded proteins, multiply by ‘induced misfolding’. Antibodies, which are ‘molecular imprinted proteins’, also multiply by ‘inducing’ other globulin proteins to change configuration. Molecular imprints, which are supra-molecular clusters of water, may also multiply by the process of ‘induced molecular assembly’, where existing ‘molecular imprints’ may act as templates and induce formation of similar molecular imprints. It is only a possibility, which need in-depth study, which may provide us a rational way of resolving the riddle of high potencies. For the time being, I leave it as an open question.

Even though ‘molecular imprints’ may be formed in higher potencies through the process of ‘induced molecular assembling’, by no way that makes higher potencies more ‘powerful’ or ‘potent’. By 12c, all drug molecules will be removed from the medium, and medium gets saturated with ‘molecular imprints’. 12c will be ideal homeopathic. therapeutic agent. I see no special benefits by going ‘higher’. But, diluting medicines while administering by mixing with water may be beneficial, by increase the number of molecular imprints.

Based on this observation, for the last five years I use only 30c, and I get expected results in all cases where selection of similimum was correct.

Vaccines are disease products that can induce the organism to produce antibodies. Exactly, antibodies are ‘molecular imprinted’ native  proteins, especially globulins.

Potentized homeopathic nosodes prepared from disease products are ‘molecular imprints’ in water that can act inside the organism in a similar way as antibodies do.

Since antibodies are ‘molecular imprinted proteins’, the can remain in the system very long periods, and attack the surface proteins of invading microorganisms having configurational complementary relationship. That way, vaccines builds up immunity against specific diseases. Same time, these antibodies can cause various off-target molecular blocks, that my result in various pathological deviations known as ‘side effects’.  That means, antibodies can act as ‘miasms’ also.

Production of antibodies involves a natural process of ‘molecular imprinting’ similar to that happen during homeopathic potentization. Molecules contained in the vaccine substance creates spacial imprints up on native globulin proteins, inducing conformational changes in them. These ‘deformed globulins’ bearing spacial imprints of vaccine molecules are called ANTIBODIES’.

ANTIBODIES ARE ‘MOLECULAR IMPRINTED PROTEINS”. POTENTIZED NOSODES ARE “MOLECULAR IMPRINTED WATER”. BOTH ACT ON BIOLOGICAL MOLECULES BY COMPLEMENTARY CONFIGURATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS.

Since potentized nosodes contains only ‘molecular imprints’ in water/alcohol clusters, they will not remain inside the organism for long periods, and cannot cause off-target molecular blocks. Hence, potentized nosodes are safer than vaccines.

For making a prescription that would offer a ‘Total Cure’  of the individual, we have to get his ‘Totality of Symptoms’ which constitute the his ‘constitutional totality’ as well as various ‘’particular totalities’. Presence of underlying miasms, or ‘chronic disease dispositions arising from off-target effects of antibodies generated against exogenous proteins such as infectious agents’ should also be considered and appropriate ‘anti-miasmatic’ drugs included in the ‘total cure’ prescriptions.

A patients Mental symptoms and Physical generals constitute the ‘constitutional totality’.

Particular disease symptoms consisting of their Causations, Appearance, Locations, Sensations, Modalities and Concomitants constitute ‘particular totality’ .

There may me more than one ‘particular totality’ existing an individual simultaneously, arising from different types of molecular inhibitions. He may be having headache with a ‘particular totality’, with some skin eruptions with yet another ‘particular totality’ , and a gastric complaint with yet another ‘particular totality’, all existing simultaneously.

Case taking and repertorizing using mental symptoms and physical generals according to classical KENTIAN METHOD would be ideal to find out ‘constitutional totality’ and a ‘similimums’ for that totality.

Case taking and repertorization using causations, locations, sensations, modalities and concomitants according to BOENNINGHAUSSEN’S METHOD would be ideal to find out’particular totalities’ , and appropriate ‘similimums’ for each ‘particular totality’ .

If we get a ‘single’ drug as similimum’ for ‘constitutional totality’ and ‘particular totality’ ,  and symptoms arising from probable miasms also were covered by that drug, we can prescribe a ‘single drug’.

IF different ‘similimums’ comes out for ‘constitutional totality’ and different ‘particular totalities’, we will have to make a ‘multiple drug’ prescription. In most chronic cases, nosodes will be required to tackle miasms.

Concept of ‘constitutional totality’ evolves from KENTIAN METHOD of case taking and repertorization, whereas the concept of ‘particular totality’ is based on BOENNINGHAUSSENS method. In my opinion, KENT and BOENNINGHAUSSEN has their own limitations, and hence a synthesis of both approach is necessary for finding a similimum that cover the ‘Complete Totality’ of the patient.

In brief, this is the practical way to make individualized  ‘Total Cure Prescritptions’ for our patients.

Many homeopaths believe that researchers of iit-mumbai have “proved how homeopathy works”. Some people claim that they have “proved homeopathy is nano-medicine”. I fear homeopathic profession have fallen victim to the hype created over the recent IIT-B findings reported in the media.

I would request all homeopaths to read that report carefully, and try to filter out the exact factual findings of the team and separate them from their ‘hypothesis’ and media hype.

Report says that in a study done as part of project work of a ‘chemical engineering’ ‘student’ for his doctorate theses, they ‘bought some samples of medicated globules of homeopathic potencies of some ‘metal elements’  from neighboring shops’, and prepared ‘high dilutions from  these globules’. When examined under high resolution electron microscope, they could detect  ‘traces’ of ‘nanoparticles of metallic elements floating on the top 1% of the solution’. They also found that all potencies from 6c to 200cthey examined contain nanoparticles of same quantity and shape.

Going through the whole published reports, I could summarize the following points:

“IIT-B’s chemical engineering department bought commonly available homoeopathic pills from neigbourhood shops, prepared highly diluted solutions and checked under powerful electron microscopes to find nanoparticles of the original metal.”

“Homeopathic pills—made of naturally occurring metals such as gold and copper-—retain their potency even when diluted to a nanometre or one-billionth of a metre”

“Our paper showed that certain highly diluted homoeopathic remedies made from metals still contain measurable amounts of the starting material, even at extreme dilutions of 1 part in 10 raised to 400 (200C),’’ said Dr Jayesh Bellare.”

“The hypothesis is that nanobubbles form on the surface of the highly diluted mixtures and float to the surface, retaining the original potency. “We believe we have cracked the homoeopathy conundrum,’’ said Bellare.”

“The hypothesis is that a nanoparticle-nanobubble rises to the surface of the diluted solution; it is this 1% of the top layer that is collected and further diluted. So, the concentration remains”

This is the real story of the ‘research’. Everything else is mere hypothesis and media hype.

What ‘fundamental truth’ regarding homeopathy you think has been proved and ‘accepted by the world’ by this finding”?

Did they in any way prove that these ‘nanoparticles floatining on top layers of dilutions’ are the real active principles of potentized homeopathic drugs. And if so, how?

Did they explain our theory of ‘similia similibus curentur’ on the basis of prsence of these ‘nanoparticles’?

Could they detect any nanoparticles of ‘parent drugs’ in any complex drugs of vegetable or animal origin, other than potenciesof  ‘elemental metals’ such as gold, copper and iron?

Can you imagine why the IIT team conducted their experiments using only potencies of ‘elemental metals’?

Doctors, we have to apply a lot of logical thinking before declaring that “the universal truth has to be accepted by the world some day or the other. iit-b showed the way”.

Remember, ‘metallic elements’ are triturated before subjecting to the subsequent process of serial dilutionss and succussions. During this violent ‘rubbing’ of triturating, some metal ions may be converted into ‘nanoparticles’. If the higher potencies were not prepared exactly as prescribed, some of  these nanoparticles may remain in traces in ‘higher’ potencies. The IIT team actually may have detected these remnants of nanoparticles ‘floating’ in upper layers of solutions. This finding by no way proves that these nanopartcles are the real active principles of homeopathic high potency drugs. The presence of traces of nanoparticles in high potency solutions only shows that the samples they ‘bought from neighboring shops ‘were not perfectly potentized.

Only ‘elemental’ drugs and simple minerals can be converted into nanoparticles by process of trituration. Hence, nanoparticles of complex molecules of complex drugs can never be detected. No body can prepare nanoparticles of complex molecules such as atropine or strychnine by homeopathic potentization process. I think the IIT team was very clever to conduct their experiments with ‘metallic elements’ only

Do you subscribe to their reported observation that only “top layer” is therapeutically effective, since it is only there the nano particles are ‘floating”?

What will happen if we remove not only ‘top layers’, but whole upper half from a bottle of potentized medicines? Do you think the remaining part will not be effective therapeutically?

If the ‘nano particles’ are only in ‘traces’, and they ‘float’ on top layers of liquid, it is obvious that these nano particles are not the real active principles of potentized drugs. In order to explain our every day experience that every single drop of drug is powerful, the whole drug should be uniformly saturated with this nanoparticles, and if  that were the case, we cannot say it is in trace amounts. Kindly think over.

Why can’t we examine this issue from another angle? The report says that the samples for study were products of some Indian manufacturers, purchased from ‘neighboring shops’. What if the samples were not actually potentized to the level labeled on them, so as to get rid of traces of drug particles? Do you think it is correct on the part of such a reputed research house to purchase samples from open market for conducting such a sensitive experiment? They should have first devised some way to ensure the quality and potency of samples.

Let me quote from the report: “Further they have shown that despite large differences in the degree of dilution from 6c to 200c, there were no major differences in the nature of the particles(shape and size) of the starting material and their absolute concentrations (in pg/ml).”

What does this observation show? If “from 6cto 200c, there were no major differences in the nature of the particles (shapeand size) of the starting material and their absolute concentrations”, it leadsto some serious doubts whether the samples used were really genuine. Ifdilutions were prepared in prescribed manner, 6c and 200c will never contain’same’ quantity and concentrations of starting material. This observation lacks logic.

Over all, there are many gray areas in this study,which should be seriously considered by homeopaths.

Some doctors saying that they are happy “to get the inference that there is some material present” in homeopathic potencies shows our anxiety to hear that ‘there is something’ in homeopathy. ARE WE NOT CONFIDENT ON THAT?

Doctors, do you think this detection of some’ traces’ of nanoparticles of ‘metal elements’ floating on ‘top layers’ of the dilution in any way help homeopathy in providing a scientific explanation for ‘simila similibus curentur’, or mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics?

The hype regarding the IIT-B study has grown to such a state that thousands of email attachments are being forwarded between homeopaths all over the world on this report.

This over enthusiasm shows the gravity of ‘scientific deprivation’ homeopathic profession is presently subjected to. This hype shows their ‘thirst’ to hear some ‘good’ news from scientific world to get themselves convinced that ‘at least there is something’ in homeopathic medicines.

The present hype has grown to such a stage that some homeopaths even declare that the IIT study has ‘proved’ that homeopathy is nanotechnology!

IIT team only said that they could detect ‘traces’of ‘nano particles’ of naturally occurring ‘metal minerals’ in the samples they tested. “nano particles’ and nano technology is not the same. “Nano’ only refers to a range of measurement in the study of ultraminute forms of matter.Nanotechnology is a modern technology dealing with matter at nano range of measurement, and manipulating them to prepare various nano devices.

No IIT scientist said nothing about ‘nanotechnology’ in homeopathy. They only said that they could detect traces of nanoparticles of ‘elements’ in homeopathic drugs. Why we utterly fail to note the difference and apply some logical thinking before being part of this hype?

We should not forget that the reported IIT study was only a project work of IIT chemical engineering student, as part of his doctorate thesis.

See the report. “IIT-B’s chemical engineering department bought commonly available homoeopathic pills from neighborhood shops, prepared highly diluted solutions and checked under powerful electron microscopes to find nanoparticles of the original metal.”

Is this the way a sample is to be collected for a serious research study on such a sensitive subject?

They purchased ‘homeopathic pills’ and prepared ‘high dilutions’. Is this the way homeopathic potencies are prepared?

What about controls? They should have used control solutions of  ‘unmedicated pills’ in same dilution and the out come compared.

We all know, ‘trace’ particles of ‘metal elements’will be present in any sample of water we obtain from nature. They should have ensured that there is no ‘traces’ of ‘metal elements’ in control dilutions, before publishing this report.

Instead of  ‘naturally occuring’ minerals, that may be present in any natural diluents, they should have conducted the study using potencies of complex drugs such as nux vomica, which contain complex molecules such as brucine, strychnine etc, and try to detect ‘traces’ nanoparticles of those molecules in high dilutions.

“Traces’ of ‘elements’ cannot mimic the medicinal properties of complex molecules.

Were there any homeopathic expert present in the team to over see this study? No body asked about it.

This study only proves either the samples they collected were not properly potentized, the study was not well planned, or the outcome is not logically interpreted. Such half-cooked ‘researches’ and well planned hypes over them will only do harm to homeopathy.

The problem is that “times of india” or any media reporting this study or creating this hype never said that “this is just the beginning of their studies”. See the head line: “IIT-Bteam shows how homeopathy  works”. Is this not mere empty hype? Did they actually show how homeopathy works? They only purchased some “medicated pills” of homeopathic potencies of “naturally occuring metal elements” and prepared highly diluted solutions, and detected ‘traces’ of nanoparticles of of elements ‘floating in the 1% top layer’ of liquid they tested. Did this provide any clue regarding “how homeopathy works”? I consider this as mere hype intended to defame and injure homeopathy. If we accept that homeopathy potencies act by  ‘traces of nanoparticles’ remaining in them even after dilution, the whole laborious process of homeopathic potentization become a meaningless waste. Can we subscribe to this injurious interpretation?

Why should “we have to first prove them there is some medicinal particles present”? So far we were saying that potentized homeopathic medicines do not contain any original drug molecules! Why should we change our stand?

How can we say that the ‘traces’ of ‘nanoparticles’ detected to be floating on the ‘toplayer’ is the real medicinal substance in our potentized drugs? If that inference were correct, ‘traces’ would not be present ‘every where’. But we use every particle of our drugs with expected therapeutic results. Obviously, our drugs contain not ‘traces’ but ‘saturated’ with real ‘medicinal factors’,whatever it may be.

SOMETHING PRESENT IN EVERY PARTICLE OF OUR DRUGS CANNOT BE CALLED “TRACES”.

Only because IIT-B has “the elite group of academia in our country and whole world” do not ensure the correctness of everything they say about homeopathy. Please note, no homeopathic expert is part of this team. Moreover, this work was only a project work of students as part of their doctoral theses. This is not a seriously planned and executed research of  “the elite group of academia”. Instead of merely relying upon the ‘eliteness’ of the organization, let us use our logical thinking to examine the correctness of their methods and interpretation.

Do you expect that “the elite group of academia in our country and whole world” would one day come forward to help homeopathy? They only want to ‘disprove’ homeopathy. The present hype created around this reported study also is part of that ‘ulterior’ ploy. Enemies of homeopathy can utilize this study to ‘prove’ that what ever homeopaths were saying about homeopathic potentization was ultimately wrong. If the active principles of homeopathic drugs are ‘remnants’ of basic drugs existing in ‘traces’, the whole process of potentization become meaningless. Does anybody think that such an interpretation would help homeopathy?

Really, this is an untruthful mis-representation of facts. May be, done by media to create a hype and news value. The title “IIT-Bteam shows how homeopathy  works” has nothing to do with the real content of the work done by the team. The experiment wasnot really planned to find out “how homeopathy works”. The experiment was only to find out whether there remained any traces of starting materials in high potencies. From the selection of samples itself, their method was totally disagreeable to us. Any how, they could detect some ‘traces’ of ‘metal minerals’ in the samples they used. Only that much.  From that simple observation it is not at all right to declare that they have “‘showed how homeopathy works”, and homeopathy is ‘nano technology’! Only because they could detect some ‘traces’ of elements, that does not necessarily mean that the active principles of homeopathic drugs are those ‘traces of element particles’. Could they explain how these ‘nanoparticles’ interfere in the pathological bio molecular processes on the basis of ‘similia similibus curentur’?. With out that being done, how the media declare that they have ‘shown how homeopathy works? In my opinion, responsible homeopaths should try to get a reasonable reply to this question from media or researchers. They should be made to understand they would be answerable while mis-representing their real findings and creating unnecessary hype, which is injurious to homeopathy.

Only because somebody could detect the presence of some’traces’ of ‘nanoparticles’ of original ‘metal elements’ floating on the surface of a ‘particular sample’ of homeopathic drug purchased from market, is it prudent to declare that these ‘traces’ are the active principles of homeopathic drugs, and that they have ‘shown the way homeopathy works’?

This is a very hasty and unwise conclusion. One has to take into consideration a lot of other variables and factors before makingsuch a tall claims.

What if that particular ‘sample’ was not properly potentized as per strict homeopathic guidelines? What if those drugs were not really ‘high’ potencies, as the labels indicated? What if those ‘traces’ of ‘elemental particles’ came from the water they used for making ‘dilutions’ from ‘medicated pills’  they purchased from ‘shop’?

There are a lot of such possibilities.

But our homeopaths succumb to the media hype even without fully reading the lines of the available reports carefully, applying a pinch of logical reasoning. It shows the ‘scientific starvation’ homeopaths are long subjected to.

If they had read the report carefully, they would have realized that ‘project study’ only proves that the ‘researchers’ could’detect’ some ‘traces’ of ‘nanoparticles of metal elements’ floating on the ‘1%top layer’ of the solution of homeopathic ‘sugar pills’ they ‘bought from neighboringshops’.

Does it provide anything to support their claim that they have ‘shown how homeopathy works? Or to substantiate the enthusiasm of homeopaths to declare that somebody has proved ‘homeopathy is nanotechnology’?  Will they understand, only by using a word ‘nano’ does notmake anything ‘nanotechnology’?

This is a very pathetic situation. The IIT students who conducted this study and created this empty hype may be laughing in private seeing this vulnerability of homeopaths.

Really, i feel like crying for homeopathy and homeopaths!

We need no body’s help to “prove that homeopathy works! Thousands of homeopaths the world over are ‘proving’ it daily through millions of cures, for more than last two centuries. We need no ‘certificate of scientist’ to ‘prove’ that ‘homeopathy is not placebo’.

LET ME QUOTE FROM THE MEDIA REPORT:

“The confirmed presence of nanoparticles challenges current thinking about the role of dilutions in homeopathic medicines. They have found that the concentrations reach a plateau at the 6c potency and beyond. Further they have shown that despite large differences in the degree of dilution from 6c to 200c, there were no major differences in the nature of the particles (shape and size) of the starting material and their absolute concentrations (in pg/ml).”

How would those homeopaths, showing so much enthusiasm over this reported study, respond to this statement?

This statement shows how the study can be utilized by opponents of homeopathy to ‘disprove’ the whole theory of homeopathic potentization.

If the real active principles of homeopathic medicines are the ‘traces’ of nanoparticles’ of ‘starting material’, remaining even after dilutions, and from 6c to 200 no major differences in the ‘nature ofparticles’, does it not ‘show’ that our whole concepts regarding ‘potentization’ were utter foolishness?

Do you think that this study really ‘strengthens’ homeopathy or ‘prove’ homeopathy’?

Carefully read this part of media report: “The confirmed presence of nanoparticles challenges current thinking about the role of dilutions in homeopathic medicines”

How can such a finding that ‘challenges current thinking about role of dilutions in homeopathy’ be depicted as a ‘proof’ in favor of homeopathy?

Really, it is going to be used as the greatest ‘evidence’ against homeopathy, by the skeptics in future.

Once this ‘nanoparticles’ theory is accepted by the profession, we will also have to accept the argument that any samples that is proved negative for the presence of ‘nanoparticles’ is ineffective. Obviously, we will have to yield to the argument that any cures we obtain from such homeopathic drugs that do not contain ‘nanoparticles’ are mere placebo effect.

What will we say when finally the government makes a legislation banning all homeopathic potencies that do not contain ‘nanoparticles’ of parent drugs?

Hope the profession would realize the gravity ofthe situation.

Once the presence of ‘nanoparticles’ is accepted as the criteria for effectiveness of homeopathic potencies, the same IIT scientists can develop a sophisticated device to test the presence of ‘nanoparticles’ in any given sample of homeopathic drug. Government can easily make some legislation making it mandatory to subject every homeopathic drugs to this test before getting certified.

How would this finding explain the mechanism of therapeutic action of potentized homeopathic drugs? All homeopathic medicines are not prepared from simple “metallic elements”, but complex drugs of vegetable, mineral and animal origin containing highly complex molecules, not only ‘metalic elements”. Can presence of “nano-particles” of ‘metal elements’ contained in these complex drug molecules mimic the highly complex molecular level properties of those very large molecules?

From the observed presence of ‘NANO PARTICLES OF METAL ELEMENTS’ how would IIT team help us to construct a working model that would explain “similia similibus curentur” logically?

Most funny part of their hypothesis is that “nanoparticle-nanobubble rises to the surface of the diluted solution; it is this 1% of the top layer that is collected and further diluted. So, the concentration remains”.

This statement clearly shows that they know nothing about the real process involved in homeopathic potentization.

Hahnemann advised to throw away the whole content in the bottles after each stage of potntization, and fill the bottle with diluent for moving to next stage. That means, he advised to use the bottom layer drops remaining in the bottle. He never said to use the ‘top layer’ for next stage of potentization.

The observation of IIT team that only the “1% of the top layer that is collected and further diluted” is totally against facts, as all of us know,

In my opinion, IIT team’s reported findings prove nothing regarding the fundamentals of homeopathic therapeutics. They only prove that high potencies of certain metal elements such as “gold and copper” retain some nano particles in them on the ‘top layers’ of dilutions.

I think this finding has no any serious in implications in explaining the therapeutic principle of “similia similibus curentur”, or the molecular mechanism of ‘potentization’.

If their reported hypothesis that “nanoparticle-nanobubble rises to the surface of the diluted solution, and it is this 1% of the top layer” that contains “nano particles” of element which is the active factors is accepted, how would you explain the everyday experiences of homeopaths that even the last drop of our medicines are equally powerful? Do homeopaths utilize only “only 1% of top layer” for therapeutic application in their daily practice? Do they throw away remaining parts of their stock? Is not this hypothesis at least in this aspect utterly meaning less?

IIT study might have been successful in detecting the presence of nano particles of “metal elements” used for potentization, floating on the “surface” of the solution, which they say is only 1% of total liquid. If those nano particles they detected were really the therapeutically active factors of homeopathic medicines, why we get excellent results by using even the last stains of drugs in our dispensing bottles?

Our experience is that not only the “1% top layer”, but each and every particle of our potentized drugs are therapeutically effective. That clearly shows that the therapeutic factors of our drugs are distributed evenly in every part of the liquids. Our potentized drugs are really saturated with the active therapeutic factors, not only on the surface.

I would also like to invite your attention to another aspect of “nanoparticle” theory. There exist a lot of apprehensions over the topic of ‘nanotoxicity’.

Let me quote from Wikipedia on NANOTOXICOLOGY:

“Nanomaterials, even when made of inert elements like gold, become highly active at nanometer dimensions. Nanotoxicological studies are intended to determine whether and to what extent these properties may pose a threat to the environment and to human beings. For instance, Diesel nanoparticles have been found to damage the cardiovascular system in a mouse model.

Calls for tighter regulation of nanotechnology have arisen alongside a growing debate related to the human health and safety risks associated with nanotechnology.

The smaller a particle is, the greater its surface area to volume ratio and the higher its chemical reactivity and biological activity. The greater chemical reactivity of nanomaterials results in increased production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), including free radicals. ROS production has been found in a diverse range of nanomaterials including carbon fullerenes, carbon nanotubes and nanoparticle metal oxides. ROS and free radical production is one of the primary mechanisms of nanoparticle toxicity; it may result in oxidative stress, inflammation, and consequent damage to proteins, membranes and DNA

The extremely small size of nanomaterials also means that they much more readily gain entry into the human body than largersized particles. How these nanoparticles behave inside the body is still a major question that needs to be resolved. The behavior of nanoparticles is a function of their size, shape and surface reactivity with the surrounding tissue. In principle, a large number of particles could overload the body’s phagocytes, cells that ingest and destroy foreign matter, thereby triggering stress reactions that lead to inflammation and weaken the body’s defense against other pathogens. In addition to questions about what happens if non-degradable or slowly degradable nanoparticles accumulate in bodily organs, another concern is their potential interaction or interference with biological processes inside the body. Because of their large surface area, nanoparticles will, on exposure to tissue and fluids, immediately adsorb onto their surface some of the macromolecules they encounter. This may, for instance, affect the regulatory mechanisms of enzymes and other proteins.

Nanomaterials are able to cross biological membranes and access cells, tissues and organs that larger-sized particles normally cannot. Nanomaterials can gain access to the blood stream via inhalation or ingestion. At least some nanomaterials can penetrate the skin; even larger microparticles may penetrate skin when it is flexed. Broken skin is an ineffective particle barrier, suggesting that acne, eczema, shaving wounds or severe sunburn may accelerate skin uptake of nanomaterials. Then, once in the blood stream, nanomaterials can be transported around the body and be taken up by organs and tissues, including the brain, heart, liver, kidneys, spleen,bone marrow and nervous system. Nanomaterials have proved toxic to human tissueand cell cultures, resulting in increased oxidative stress, inflammatory cytokine production and cell death. Unlike larger particles, nanomaterials maybe taken up by cell mitochondria and the cell nucleus. Studies demonstrate the potential for nanomaterials to cause DNA mutation and induce major structural damage to mitochondria, even resulting in cell death. Size is therefore a key factor in determining the potential toxicity of a particle. However it is not the only important factor.”

I have quoted the above passage so extensively, to invite attention to the long term implications of the hype being created over the findings of IIT team.

If we accept ‘nanoparticles’ as the active principles of potentized homeopathicmedicines, ongoing nanotoxicology studies can bemade applicable to homeopathic medicines also.

If the present apprehensions in the scientificworld regarding nanotoxicity finally turns out into a strict legislationalprocesses globally, and homeopathic medicines are included in the group of’nanoparticle’ materials, homeopathy will have a very tough time to come.

I have quoted the above passage so extensively, to inviteattention to the long term implications of the hype being created over thefindings of IIT team.

If we accept ‘nanoparticles’ as the active principles of potentized homeopathic medicines, ongoing nanotoxicology studies can be made applicable to homeopathic medicines also.

If  the present apprehensions in the scientific world regarding nanotoxicity finally turns out into a strict legislational processes globally, and homeopathic medicines are included in the group of ‘nanoparticle’ materials, homeopathy will have a very tough time to come.

“NANOPARTICLE” THEORY REGARDING HOMEOPATHIC POTENTIZATION SHOULD BE WELCOMED WITH GREAT CAUTION.

I warn homeopaths against falling prey to the hype over the reported IIT findings. It proves nothing positive in homeopathy. Ultimately it only provides some new weapons to those who want to ‘disprove’ the whole theory of homeopathic potentization. BEWARE.

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’.

I would like to call ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ and ‘Potentization’ as FUNDAMENTAL OBSERVATIONS OF HOMEOPATHY, rather than using the term ‘fundamental principles’. That would be more close to truth.

Hahnemann made two important observations regarding therapeutics 250 years ago:

1. Diseases with specific symptoms can be cured by drugs that can produce similar symptoms in healthy individuals. He called it ‘similia similibus curentur’.

2. When used according to ‘similia similibus curentur’, dug substances can act as powerful therapeutic agents even in high dilutions through a process of serial ‘dilution and succussion’. He called this process as ‘potentization’.

These TWO are the main OBSERVATIONS made by Hahnemann, which are known as fundamental principles of Homeopathy.

Hahnemann tried to explain these OBSERVATIONS in terms of scientific and philosophical knowledge available to him in that POINT OF TIME. Organon consists of these theoretical explanations and speculations. Since scientific knowledge was in its primitive stage at that time, Hahnemann’s explanations were bound to bear that limitations. ORGANON contains a lot of theorizations and speculations that do not agree with, or go against modern scientific understanding.

Equipped with modern scientific knowledge and its tools, we are now in a far better position than Samuel Hahnemann to explain the phenomena he observed 250 years ago. Now we can explain ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’ more scientifically, rationally and logically. With full respect the great genius of our master, we should be truthful and bold enough to discard those evidently unscientific theoretical speculations of ORGANON.

These two FUNDAMENTAL OBSERVATIONS were based on experiences, experiments and logical evaluations of OBJECTIVE PHENOMENA OF NATURE done by a great intellectual person. But the ‘principles’ he used to explain these objective phenomena were unscientific, obviously due to the limitations of scientific knowledge available to him at that time. We should accept his OBSERVATIONS, but judiciously discard or modify his unscientific PRINCIPLES.

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.

Homeopathic understanding and management of ‘chronic disease’ is based on the concept of ‘miasms’. Hahnemann has provided detailed explanations regarding three types of ‘miasms’ such as ‘psora’, ‘syphills’ and ‘sycosis’. Theory of  ‘miasms’ and chronic diseases were developed during later part of Hahnemann’s life, when he learned from his clinical experience that medicines selected on the basis of similarity of symptoms as he advocated earlier offered only temporary relief to the most patients.

According to his theory of ‘chronic diseases’, ‘psora’, the ‘miasm’ of suppressed ‘itch’, is the underlying primary cause of all chronic diseases other than those of ‘venereal’ origin. ‘Psora’ is said to be the greatest obstruction to cure. Other two miasms, ‘syphilis’ and ‘sycosis’ are considered to be miasms of venereal diseases, ‘syphilis’ and ‘gonorrhoea’ respectively. Hahnemann considered ‘psora’ to be the most important and universal ‘miasm’. According to his theory, unless this ‘miasm’ or ‘disease poison’ is eradicated with appropriate ‘anti-psoric’ drugs, permanent and lasting cure cannot be attained.

The primary forms of expression of ‘psora’ is considered to be the itching eruptions on skin, that of ‘syphilis’ un-healing tissue destructions like malignant ulcers, and that of ‘sycosis’ warts and condylomata.

Symptoms of primary ‘psora’ include the different types of itches and eruptions that appear on the skin. Hahnemann considered the ‘miasm of psora’ to be inherited through generations of human kind.

Now, let us try to analyze the concept of miasms and chronic diseases in the light of scientific understanding of molecular biology, ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’.

Human organism is constantly exposed to the attacks of various types of exogenous and endogenous foreign molecules and ions. They may bind to the complex native biological molecules, thereby deforming their configuration and making them incapable of participating in the normal bio-chemical interactions. As per scientific view, this phenomenon underlies the molecular basis of most pathological conditions.

If the pathological foreign molecules are of protein nature, native biological defense proteins having configurational affinity to these foreign proteins attaches to them, destroys and removes them from the organism as part of body’s defense mechanism.  During this defense process, some of the involved native protein molecules get configurationally deformed by the interaction with foreign molecules. Native protein molecules so deformed will be carrying the 3-D spacial impressions of the interacted foreign molecules on their periphery. These impressions exist as three dimensional pockets, having a configuration complementary to that of foreign proteins. These molecular imprinted proteins thus become incapacitated for their normal biological processes, and remain a burden in the organism. Antibodies actually belong to this class of such deformed globulin proteins, subjected to ‘molecular imprinting’ by foreign proteins.

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

These deformed native proteins may circulate in the system, and accidentally attach to various bio-molecules having complementary configurational affinity, thereby creating various molecular errors and pathological deviations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Para 12 of CHRONIC DISEASES, Hahnemann says: “PSORA has thus become the most infectious and most general of all the chronic miasmas”. I WONDER HOW AN IMMATERIAL “MIASM” BECOME “INFECTIOUS”. That means hahnemann talks about a ‘psora’ th…at can be got transferred from person to to person as INFECTIONS. We have to believe that we will get infected with ‘PSORIC MIASM’ by some sort of physical contact with a ‘PSORIC’ person. ANY OPINIONS?

If PSORA is “immaterial” and “dynamic”, and if it is MOST INFECTIOUS as hahnemann says, it would be transferred from a PSORIC man to a NON-PSORIC man in a “dynamic” way, without the mediation of any “INFECTIOUS MATERIALS. I have no idea abo…ut the mean distance between persons required for such a “dynamic infection” of psora to happen. Some people say that “dynamic drug powers” can be transferred to distant places. Can PSORA also can infect “dynamically” from person to person who are at very distant places?

Due to infections. For example, let us consider PSORA. It is the antibodies formed against ITCH caused by SCABIE MITES. These SCABIES MITES carries mycobacteria on them, and that is why TUBERCULIN TEST is positive for scabies, tuberculosis and leprosy patients. Their antibodies are similar. ALL COMES UNDER PSORA

ANTIBODIES ARE TRANSFERRED FROM MOTHERS TO OFFSPRING THROUGH MATERNAL BLOOD

DEFORMED PROTEINS CAN BIND TO REGULATORY ENZYMES INVOLVED IN DNA SYNTHESIS AND GENE EXPRESSIONS, AND THAT WAY AFFECT THE GENETIC SUBSTANCE ALSO.

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

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

It is interesting to note that even though hahnemann described PSORA as a miasm caused by ‘itch infections’, he did not limit this ‘itch’ to scabies alone. He included leprosy, fungal infections and various other other similar ‘itch’ producing skin infections as the causative factors of psora. It is obvious that he was talking about a ‘class of infections’ as causative agents of PSORA. We know that all these infections produce ‘antibodies’ in the organism by a process of ‘molecular imprinting of native proteins’ with the infectious toxins. Although the natural targets of these antibodies are the infectious agents themselves, antibodies move in the organism freely and may bind to different ‘off-target molecules having configurations similar to natural targets. Such off-target actions of these ‘antibodies’(molecular imprinted proteins or malformed proteins) may cause diverse types of ‘molecular errors’ in various biochemical pathways, resulting in different chronic diseases that we consider belonging to PSORA. According to my view ‘miasm of psora’ includes all antibodies that can trigger a series of molecular interactions that would prompt the ‘regulatory proteins of gene expressions’, to induce the genes to synthesize various ‘inflammatory’ molecules. That is why PSORA is considered to be a miasm behind INFLAMMATORY diseases. According to this interpretation, PSORA is not a single miasm, but a CLASS of miasm or a CLASS of antibodies that can induce genes to produce proteins that would cause inflammatory changes in the system. We can see, all diseases and their symptoms hahnemann included in PSORA exactly fit to this interpretation. LET US SUM UP: A CLASS OF ANTIBODIES AND MALFORMED PROTEINS ARISING FROM MOLECULAR IMPRINTING OF NATIVE PROTIENS WITH A CLASS OF INFECTIOUS TOXINS ARE THE “MOLECULAR CARRIERS OF PSORA”. THESE ANTIBODIES INDUCE THE GENETIC SUBSTANCE TO PRODUCE INFLAMMATORY MOLECULES, THEREBY RESULTING IN INFLAMMATORY CHANGES IN THE ORGANISM.

In the same way as PSORA, we can see that SYCOSIS is a CLASS OF MIASM, consisting of antibodies created by by gonorrhoea, human papiloma virus, vaccinosis etc.These antibodies induce GENETIC SYSTEM to produce INDURATIONS , WARTY GROWTHS AND TUMORS in the organism.

SYPHILITIC miasm consists of a class of antibodies and malformed proteins that induce GENETIC SYSTEM to produce molecules that may cause CELLULAR DESTRUCTION, NON-HEALING ULCERS, NECROSIS etc.

There may be thousands of miasms (antibodies and malformed proteins) in the organism. But all these diverse miasms could be broadly classified into PSORA(INFLAMMATORY), SYCOSIS(INDURATIONS), and SYPHILIS (CELLULAR DECAY). Thus we can say, there exists THREE CLASSES OF MIASMS

Normally, a drug is said to be ‘similimum’ to a given case if the symptomatology expressed by the patient is matching to the recorded symptomatology of that drug. In other words, if the drug picture is similar to a disease picture, the drug is said to be ‘similimum’ to that disease. This ‘matching’ of drug symptoms and disease symptoms are the basis of homeopathic prescriptions guided by the principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’

Since ‘life’ consist of complex chains of inter-related biochemical pathways involving interactions of diverse biological molecules, pathology also should be understood at molecular level. Every state of pathology has an underlying ‘molecular error’ created by an endogenous or exogenous factor that inhibits the normal functioning of a biological molecule. These molecular errors lead to deviations in related biochemical pathways which amount to a state of pathology. Such molecular errors are expressed in the living organism through subjective and objective ‘symptoms’.

Molecular processes being inter related and inter dependant, a particular ‘molecular error’ happening in a particular biochemical pathway may inevitably lead to cascading of molecular errors and biochemical deviations. This is expressed as ‘trains’ of symptoms called ‘symptom complexes’. Observing the ‘symptom complexes’ carefully, we can infer the type and character of molecular errors underlying them. This is the basis of homeopathic methodology of therapeutics.

When crude drugs are introduced into the healthy organism as part of homeopathic drug proving, the constituent drug molecules binds to various biological molecules resulting in diverse types of ‘molecular errors’ expressed in the form of different groups of subjective and objective symptoms. These symptoms are called ‘drug symptoms’ representing molecular level states of ‘drug pathology’.

If the ‘symptom complexes’ expressed by a particular state of pathology happens to be ‘similar’ to certain ‘symptom complexes’ produced by a particular drug, that means, the ‘molecular errors’ underlying that state of pathology was same as the ‘molecular errors’ that could be created by the constituent molecules of that drug in a healthy organism. Obviously, the drug substance contains some molecules that could bind to the biological molecules in the same way as the particular pathogenic molecules did. It further means that the drug contained some molecules that have molecular configurations exactly similar to the particular pathogenic molecules.

Potentized drugs contains ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent molecules contained in the drug used for potentization. These ‘molecular imprints’ are nothing but ‘supra-molecular’ clusters of water/ethyl alcohol molecules, into which the three dimensional special configuration of individual drug molecules are imprinted in the form of ‘nanocavities’. Due to their complementary configuration, these nanocavities can specifically bind to the drug molecules or pathogenic molecules having similar configuration. This is the molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics explained as the fundamental principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’.

Exactly, a ‘similimum’ is a drug that contains some molecules that can produce ‘molecular errors’ in a living organism similar to the ‘molecular errors’ underlying a given state of pathology, attacking same biological molecules.

Since ‘symptoms’ are the only indicators available to identify the exact molecular errors underlying a state of pathology, homeopaths collects these symptoms and try to find out a drug that could produce similar ‘symptoms’ in a healthy organism.

If we could identify the exact molecular errors involved in a state of pathology by any way other than observation of symptoms, we can select a ‘similimum’ that way also. That means, ‘matching disease symptoms and drugs symptoms’ is not the only way to decide a similimum. If we know the exact pathogenic molecules that caused a given pathologic condition, we can select the molecular imprints of that pathogenic molecule as the homeopathic therapeutic agent without matching the symptomatology.

This is what happens when we prescribe various specifics, nosodes and sarcodeswhich are not selected by ‘matching of symptoms’. Autopathic and  tautopathic prescriptions are also not based on similarity of symptoms. When we prescribe PEPSINUM 30 for gastritis, it is not based on ‘similarity of symptoms’, but the knowledge that PEPSIN can cause gastritis.  Many wonderful homeopathic prescriptions are made without any ‘matching of disease symptoms and drug symptoms’.

This deliberations show that similimum does not necessarily mean only a drug selected on the basis of similarity of symptoms.  ‘Similimum’ exactly means ‘similiarity of drug induced molecular errors and pathological molecular errors’, or  ‘similarity of configurations of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules’.

If I am asked what is similimum, I would say similimum is the drug that contains ALL the diverse molecules that could produce ALL the diverse molecular inhibitions and symptoms in healthy organism EXACTLY SIMILAR to the molecular inhibitions and symptoms existing in the patient before us, by binding to same biological target molecules. Potentized forms of the similimum would contain molecular imprints of constituent molecules of the drug substance, which can bind to the pathogenic molecules due to complementary configurational affinity and remove the pathological molecular inhibitions.

To be a PERFECT SIMILIMUM, our drug should contain ALL the diverse molecules that could produce ALL the diverse molecular inhibitions and symptoms, so that in potentized form it would contain ALL the diverse molecular imprints required to remove ALL the diverse molecular inhibitions in the patient. If the selected drug does not contain ALL the diverse molecular imprints required for the patient, it will be PARTIAL SIMILIMUM. In such cases, we can make a PERFECT SIMILIMUM by combining two or more PARTIAL SIMILIMUMS indicated by the symptoms.

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

In the absence of an updated understanding of the latest revelations regarding the exact dynamics of molecular processes underlying the phenomena of life, disease and cure, a homeopath will not be able to comprehend the scientific interpretations of homeopathic principles, and as such, he will be doomed for ever to meddle with totally unscientific and irrational concepts inherited from the ‘masters’, alienating himself from the world of modern science.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Similia Similibus Curentur, if understood and applied in its scientific meaning, provides a therapeutic tool far superior to the sophisticated diagnostic tools of modern medicine. It is a tragedy to whole medical science that scientific community could not realize its potentials and implications yet, due to their closed-minded approach towards homeopathy.

Homeopathy utilizes the method of closely following even the minutest inhibitions and deviations in the biochemical processes in the organism, through a special strategy of monitoring and recording the perceivable symptoms caused by such deviations.

Obviously, a deviation happening in a particular biochemical pathway resulting from a nano-level molecular inhibition, and their cascading effects, produces a specific train of subjective and objective symptoms in the organism. In other words, each specific group of symptoms exhibited by the organism minutely indicates the particular error occurred in the molecular level. These symptoms are the real indicators of the exact molecular errors existing in the organism, more reliable than any laboratory investigations available now.

Homoeopathy chases these trains of symptoms to their minutest level, from periphery to interior, in order to study the exact molecular errors underlying any particular state of pathology. Symptoms are classified into categories such as subjective, objective, physical generals, mentals and particulars. All these symptoms are then grouped into common and uncommon symptoms. Symptoms are also analyzed regarding their bearings such as locations, presentations, sensations, modalities and concomitants. Causative factors are also evaulated in this process.

Not even the most sophisticated tools of ultra-modern technologies can surpass the accuracy of this method in monitoring the pathological molecular errors with such a perfection.

After collecting and analyzing the ‘total symptoms’, pathological molecular inhibitions are removed by applying appropriate ‘molecular imprints’ as therapeutic agents, selected on the basis of ‘law of similars’ or ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’. This fundamental strategy underlying the homeopathic system of therapeutics evidently surpasses any scientific methods of modern molecular medicine.

Obviously, “similia similibus curentur” is the most effective technique of identifying and removing the pathological molecular inhibitions in the organism. It is high time that the scientific world had realized and recognized this truth, and incorporated this wonderful tool into their armamentarium. I am sure, modern molecular medicine would inevitably realize the implications of similia similibus curentur in due course of its further development.

Like ·  · Share · Delete

One of my friends posted this link on my wall http://www.normanallan.com/Sci/bs.html. Many homeopaths point to this link as the most scientific and authoritative reference for research evidences  in favor of homeopathy. Hence, I think it is worth analyzing the observations and conclusions of this article in detail. 

This article titled “Beyond Substance” by Norman Allan, Ph.D.is about the much discussed findings regarding the so-called “GHOST-DNA” molecules in ultra-diluted aqueous solutions of viral DNA. This work was referred to the name of Professor Mounir AbouHaidar and his colleagues, Dr. Mohammed Eweida and Michael Dobbs.  

I find this article is a classical example of how scientific studies are misused for pseudo-scientific explanations of homeopathy.

“The team found that a solution of viral DNA, diluted beyond substance in the manner of homeopathy, can physically bind its substantial, molecular, complementary strand. This implies that the water “remembers” the substance that was in it. It behaves as though the DNA – even though diluted beyond substance – were still there. The ramifications of this phenomenon deeply effects ours understanding of physics, medicine, and of psychology, and as I hope to explain may prove to be a key to our understanding consciousness”.

“In Prof. AbouHaidar’s viral assay a solution of DNA, the genetic ribbon – even after it has been serially diluted until there was no substance left – binds its labeled complementary strand. This means water can be patterned; can carry a signal, and in this sense “remembers”. Water prefers to be ordered, to be patterned, prefers this to our usual conception of liquid as random. Water is stressed by, rather than enjoying amorphous chaos. It prefers to be organized, to behave like a crystal. So water takes whatever substance we put in it, be that salt, or sulphur, or viral DNA, as a seed from which to organize a pattern”.

Based on this research finding, the author tries to explain the homeopathic potentization according to his speculative theorizations.

He expects that if the observed “phenomenon can be replicated, we have a scientific revolution, a paradigm shift, possibly as vast as the discovery of electricity some two hundred and fifty years ago: vast because, as with electricity, it shows us whole new dimensions of order underpinning the phenomenal world, and there is no predicting where all of this may lead”.

The author, himself a physical scientist, explains how he was attracted to this work:

“Jacque Benveniste was a prominent French immunologist, chief immunologist at the government’s research institute, INSERM. When two of his research assistants asked him if they might conduct an experiment into homeopathy, believing a happy coworker is a good coworker, Benveniste said they might. They showed the results to Benveniste, and he became curious.

If you take an antigen, and dilute it homeopathically – again, diluted until there is no substance – it will still generate an immunological response in certain white blood cells. In this case Benveniste, and his colleagues, were looking at basophils.

 Benveniste took these findings to the most prestigious scientific journal, Nature. Because of Benveniste’s prominence Maddox, the editor of Nature, said he would publish the work if Benveniste could find three reputable laboratories that could replicate his findings. “That should get rid of him,” thought Maddox.

Bruce Pomeranz, of the University of Toronto, was one of the researchers that “replicated” the work, along with labs in Milan and Tel Aviv.

In June 1988 the journal Nature, the gatekeeper of scientific orthodoxy, published Benveniste’s ultradilution (homeopathy) paper. The implications of this work are revolutionary, a paradigm shift it there ever was one. There are a lot of people who would rather fight than shift. Nature, the journal, as part of their publishing arrangement with Benveniste, sent a team to investigate his lab. The team included Randy the Magician, to look for sleight of hand, Walter Stewart, a biologist and statistician who had made his reputation as a figure crunching fraud-detector, and the editor, Maddox himself, who had a background in physics. It did not, however, include a cell biologist who might understand the nuances of Benveniste’s experiment. The team had already made up their minds (as Walter Stewart wrote in “Omni”). They knew there had to be a problem with the experiment because in their view the experiment was impossible. In the lab, Beneviniste and his team demonstrated the phenomenon to them three times, but the Nature team had determined before hand that it was an impossible experiment, and not knowing what else to doubt they decided that they couldn’t trust Beneveniste”blind”. The visiting team therefore insisted on adding their own “blind” to the procedure. To do this they introduced an extra manipulation of the samples (they moved the samples into new tubes). Of course this added procedure might or might not effect the outcome of an already delicate experiment. The investigating team sealed their extra code in an envelope, wrapped that up in silver foil (to foil X-ray eyes), and stuck it on to the ceiling of the lab with a video camera trained on it.! When, in this one trial, this new variation of the experiment no longer worked, Maddox announced that the whole affair was a delusion, or a fraud. Such is the stature of the journal, Nature, that the “expert’s” pronouncement was treated with gravity. “In our view, ultradilution should not work. Therefore it does not. Trust us. We’ve looked. We’ve tried it.” (I paraphrase.) This was all every unscientific, yet here the matter rests. (Work by Professor M Roberfroid, Madeleine Ennis, and colleagues, has since vindicated Beneviniste’s work and homeopath.)

 Now our name was on this controversial Benveniste ultradilution paper, and we’re a very respectable laboratory, so there was a large section of the world, at least here in Canada, that looked to us to see what we’d finally have to say on the matter. “We have promising preliminary results,” was all the Professor could say. That, and “No comment.” So when Prof. AbouHaidar’s team stumbled on the incredible that DNA diluted (one part in ten) eighteen or twenty five times (diluted beyond substance) still binds its complementary strand – they came to see us”.

This was how by Norman Allan, Ph.D, author of present article became involved in this work.

The work was done as follows:

“Prof. AbouHaidar is a virologist; a Professor with tenure at the University of Toronto. Professor AbouHaidar was working on a viral assay. You’d take a plant from a field – he was working with potatoes – grind it up, run it through the Professor’s assay, and it would tell you whether there was any of a particular virus present in those potatoes. It works like this: you take a virus, which in this case was a DNA virus, and you “digest it”, splitting each bit of viral DNA into two single complementary strands. Then you divide this digest into two parts. At this point the two parts are (statistically) identical. Take one half of this now single stranded DNA and call it the “target”. Take the other half and call it the “probe”.

The target is spotted out on a filter paper – that is to say, you put a drop of it on a microfilter to make a spot. Then you dilute what’s left one part in ten, and put a drop of the dilute solution at a second spot. Then dilute again one part in ten, and spot it out again. Keep diluting and spotting out the successive dilutions. This is to test how sensitive the assay is. After all, we may be looking for a little bit of virus in a whole field of potatoes. We need a sensitive assay.

 Having spotted out all these successive dilutions, we take the filter paper and bake it at 80 degrees centigrade. After baking, the target won’t wash off. Next let us consider the probe. The probe, remember, in this explanation, the probe is made up of the same single stranded viral DNA fragments. These we’re going to label so we can see them. We mix them with avidin-biotin. The avidin binds to the DNA, and the biotin will bind to a stain, so we’ll get a dark spot where our DNA-avidin-biotin binds the stain.

Now we take our probe and wash it over the targeted filter paper. Where the DNA in the probe finds its complementary strand in the target it binds to it. Next we wash the probe and target, and only where the probe has bound to its complementary strand will there be any of the probe be left. The rest is washed away. Then we ‘develop’ the probe/target filterpaper with our stain. Only where the labeled probe has bound to the target will we see any stain. In the test as set it up, the stain gets lighter and lighter with each dilution. It’s dark, almost black, in the first couple of dilutions, but fades out of sight at about the seventh dilution.

That’s the assay AbouHaidar was refining. (Actually, it’s Dr. Southern’s dot-blot test, so it’s called “Southern blot”, though Dr. Western’s “Western dot-blot”  predates it and is more widely used.). Mohammed Eweida was a postdoc working in Prof. AbouHaidar’s lab with this Southern blot assay. Mohammed Ewieda wasn’t very happy about his situation. I don’t know why, but he was out of there: he was off to the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm in the summer: and so, perhaps to kill time, he spotted out the dilutions eighteen times, even though the staining was lost to sight at the seventh, and and he got a dark spot at the eighteenth dilution!

 “Look at that,” said Dr. Eweida to Michael Dobbs, a postgraduate student working in the lab. Some months before Mike Dobbs had been to Jacque Benveniste’s lecture on ultradilution. (In Homeopathy substances are diluted beyond the infinitesimal till there’s no substance left, which is what is meant by “ultradilution”.) So, when Mohammed showed Michael his anomalous result with an unexpected spot at the eighteenth dilution Michael thought, incredulously, “ultradilution”. “Eh, Mohammed,” he said. “Do that again.” Dr. Eweida repeated the viral assay, this time taking it out to the fiftieth decimal (one in ten) dilution. (That’s 10-50 where ten to the minus 30 is like a drop in the ocean, and 10-37 is like a drop in a million oceans. At 10-26 we pass “Avagadro’s number [which relates to the number of molecules in a “gram molecule”] and would no longer expect to find a single molecule in a gram.) Again there was a dark spot that shouldn’t be there at the eighteenth dilution, and now there were also stained spots at the 19th dilution, and the 25th and 26th, and the 38th, and 43rd dilution, but not at the dilutions in between.  At the 25th and 26th dilutions there is certainly no substance left in the solution. We have passed Avagadro’s number. There is no DNA left in the target. And yet the undiluted complementary strands in the probe (labeled with avidin-biotin) binds to the target!  They can not be binding to a substance, not to molecular DNA. They may be binding to a signal, an electrical signal imprinted into the nitrocellulose. They are binding to something!

 At first sight, to some, this has seemed to contradict classical science. “How can water, with nothing in it, remember what was there formerly, but is no longer there?” But here were Prof. AbouHaidar and Dr. Eweida, here they were with these filterpapers, dozens of them, with dark spots at the 18th and 19th dilution, and the 25th and 26th. Sometimes the pattern moved a little: sometimes only the 18th turned dark, once it was the 17th.

 Well, Prof. AbouHaidar when he first saw it, suspected a joke. And when Dr. Eweida repeated it yet again, Menir AbouHaidar suspected a hoax. So he tried it himself, and there it was. No hoax.

 What to do next? One of the next things that Prof. AbouHaidar did was to come and see us, Dr. Pomeranz and his research team. From here on in I’m going to call Dr. Pomeranz, the Professor. The Professor’s lab (where I had worked for seven years) was one of the labs that replicated Benveniste’s work with ultradilute antigens. The Professor’s name was on Benveniste’s controversial paper, so Prof. AbouHaidar came to talk to us, in confidence, to hear what we could tell them. “Do it again,” we said. And they did.

What does all this mean? It suggests a multitude of things. First let’s look at the patterning of water. If you put, say, one part salt in a hundred parts of water, it seems that the salt will pattern the water – the water mirrors the salt’s “vibration”. Certainly with Prof. AbouHaidar’s DNA we seem to see an electrical patterning that comes back into register with the original space/charge patterning at the 18th dilution.”

Based on these observations, the author tries to explain homeopathy as follows:

 “Now if homeopathic [ultradilute, potentiated] remedies are having effects on organisms – they cured my cat – one of the implications, it seems, is that the body has vibrational fields, patterned energy fields, on which these (vibrational, patterned) remedies can work. Many people, particularly those on the fringe of science, and beyond, have been saying this for years. But no one has demonstrated it in any convincing or replicable manner. This is where Prof. AbouHaidar’s discovery is so special. Finally we have a handle into this realm of vibration.”

Obviously, the author is caught in the “theory of vibrations” in his interpretations. This is a clear example of how a scientist slips and falls into “pseudoscience”. He understands he is moving into the realm of ‘fringe science’ and ‘beyond science’. And now he is trying to utilize “AbouHaidar’s discovery” to rationalize the speculations of ‘fringe science’ and ‘beyond science’, which “have been saying this for years”.  He tries to utilize this unexplained phenomenon as a “handle into this realm of vibration”. The intention of the author is clear now. This shows how science can be used to rationalize ‘unscientific’ theories.

How does homeopathy work in practice? As a scientist, we would expect from the author an explanation that would fit to the existing scientific knowledge system available to modern biochemistry, molecular biology and medical science. But to our total dismay, he comes with totally unscientific and irrational concepts and arguments. He says:

 “How does homeopathy work in practice? At its simplest level, let’s say you’re in an accident, traumatized, the body goes into a particular pattern of vibration, in this case a kind of ‘shock’, Often people seem to get stuck in these patterns. Tinctures made from the plant Arnica have a vibratory pattern that (we may imagine) closely resembles this vibratory pattern associated with traumatic shock. Empirically it has been observed, again and again, that the potentised remedy prepared from Arnica helps physically traumatised people to heal. So, it may be that the body becomes locked in a particular oscillatory pattern, and the remedy, the “similar”, helps to jog it free, to loosen that pattern’s hold on the body so the body can stop repetitively singing that song”

How is it? Is he talking science? Do these words reflect a scientific mind? We had many times heard this pseudo-scientific ‘theory of vibrations’ from so-called vitalists, classical homeopaths and metaphysical theoreticians. But it is a real pity to hear this from a reputed scientist. As a scientist, we would expect him to talk about the bio-chemical derangements caused by traumas, and how the constituent molecules of arnica tincture rectify these bio-molecular errors. How could  the author reach such unscientific conclusions from the reported research findings? The researchers only observed the presence of some sort of ‘memory’ of DNA molecules in ultra-dilutions in water. They said nothing about the mechanism of this ‘memory’. Obviously, the author utilizes these findings to rationalize his ‘fringe science’ speculations. This is unfair and unethical as far as a scientist is concerned.

He continues his imaginative speculations further:

 ”A further implication of homeopathy is seen in the fact that the personality, the emotional make-up, the thought patterns, of patients are the most important guiding feature in deciding which remedy to use. The “mentals” are given more weight then the physical symptoms. The implication of this is that mind, that thought and emotion, are patterns”.

We expect to hear a scientist explain “thought and emotions” on the basis of neurochemistry, where as this ‘scientist’ is talking about ‘patterns’. Wonderful!.

His interpretation of ‘patterns’ in water formed by adding salt shows his total ignorance regarding the process of ‘hydration’ in aqueous solutions. Every science student knows that so-called patterning is nothing but supra-molecular clustering of water molecules through hydrogen bonding. I think he uses the terms like ‘patterns’ and vibrations’ to take this phenomenon into the realm of ‘fringe science’ which seems to be a subject very dear to him.

Instead of speculating over ‘patterns’ and ‘vibrations’, and discussing ‘fringe science’ and ‘beyond science’, this phenomenon could have been scientifically explained on the basis of “Molecular Imprinting”. Such an explanation would fit in to the existing scientific knowledge-system perfectly. More over, based on this concept, we can provide scientific explanation to the molecular mechanism of therapeutic action of potentized homeopathic medicines, fitting to modern biochemistry and molecular biology. HOMEOPATHY COULD BE DEALT WITH NOT AS A ‘FRINGE SCIENCE” or “BEYOND SCIENCE”. BUT AS REAL SCIENCE!

 Let us listen to what the author says further on this subject:

“Come back to the one part salt in a hundred parts water. If we take this salt water and dissolve it again one part in a hundred in clear water, and shake it, it again patterns the water, but this time with some changes. Remember it’s at the 18th and 19th dilution that AbouHaidar’s target bound the probe (at least, that was the case in the first sample that MAME showed us). At the 15th, 16th, there was nothing. This suggests that we are seeing something similar to the interference phenomenon that occurs with harmonic overlays. This is a fairly well known phenomenon (e.g. “Poincare’s recurrence”, see below). However here because it’s a dilution procedure, the harmonics are going to include lower frequency multiples, “subharmonics”, of the original signal as well as the more usual higher frequency harmonics.

 It is very funny to see how hastily the author jumps to his pre-determined conclusions such as ‘interference’ phenomenon and ‘frequency harmonics’, based simply on the observed phenomenon of ‘patterning’ of water in salt solutions. Before that he should have applied some thought regarding ‘hydrogen bonding’, hydration’ and ‘supra-molecular clustering’, and also the probability of ‘molecular imprinting’.

 “Imagine a conjurer’s rope. Take a segment out of that magician’s rope – say one foot out of ten – and hold it taut between your hands, and twang it. Now (by magic) put it back in the original rope. The note, the vibration, in the small piece will pattern and inform the longer piece. The longer piece will now carry that information, but it will also, during the process, generate harmonics, multiples of that original note. But note, in the dilution process (which the homeopaths have traditionally called “potentiation”) it becomes intuitively apparent that we will be generating both harmonics andsubharmonics of the original pattern. And this explains one of the mysteries of homeopathy”

How can see declare that “this explains one of the mysteries of homeopathy”? Obviously, he is overtly trying to ‘prove’ his concepts of ‘vibration theory’ in homeopathy utilizing the unexplained phenomenon observed by the research team..

“It is part of the traditional homeopathic wisdom that the higher potencies, the higher dilutions, are stronger and deeper acting than the lower potencies: that the mother tincture and the low potencies act superficially, at a surface level, at skin level, and at the physical level, while the high potencies act deeper and begin to effect emotions, thoughts, personality – and they are also, the high potencies, much stronger.”

 Author tries to utilize the “traditional wisdom’ of homeopathy to rationalize his speculations. As a scientist, we expect from him rational explanations for those “traditional wisdom” on the basis of “scientific wisdom”. Not the other way.

 “If I were going to treat you, say, with salt, sodium chloride (in Homeopathy we latinize it and call it Nat mur, short for Natrium muraticum). Now why would I treat you with Nat mur. Nat mur is one of the polycrests, which is to say it has power over an extremely broad range of symptoms, and with Nat mur, for sure, I would be guided in large part by personality and etiology (causation). Nat mur is seen in problems caused by grief where the person internalises. With that internalizing there’s a withholding and a holding. The person is likely to brood. “Attachment” is a key word with nat mur, and yet they don’t like to be consoled.  Consolation will irritate them. The substance, salt, will cause (this pattern, this disposition) these problems, and it will also cure them. That’s why we call this type of medicine homeopathy: we treat like with like. This thought, that “like cures like” was Hahnemann’s great “law”. Now this, to me, is not intuitively apparent. But it is a piece of empiricism that was first recorded by Hippocrates, was reiterated by Paracelsus, and explored and developed into a fine art and science by Hahnemann at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century. Hahnemann experimented on himself. His first experiment was to take quinine. Quinine gave him ague-like fevers!”

As per the author this is the “scientific” explanation for the mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics. The wonder is that this ‘explanation’ comes from a “scientist”. According to him, “internalized grief” creates them “changes in pattern” in the “emotions” of an individual. “The substance, salt, will cause (this pattern, this disposition) these problems, and it will also cure them”. “That’s why we call this type of medicine homeopathy: we treat like with like”. How would this “explain the mysteries of homeopathy” as the author claim? To become a scientific explanation, he would have told us how “grief” creates the pathological disturbances in an individual, and what are the neuro-chemical errors happening at molecular level in various related biological pathways. We would also expect him to explain how sodium chloride creates similar biochemical changes individuals. If he wants to “explain the mysteries of homeopathy”, he should also explain what is the active principles in potentized sodium chloride, and how these active principles interact with the biochemical molecules and relieve the organism from the molecular errors caused by “grief”. That is the way a real scientist would talk about a science of therapeutics. Instead, the author talks about “patterns” created by “grief” and “patterns” created by “sodium chloride”. This is not the language of a scientist. We had already had this type of pseudoscientific “explanations’ ad nauseum fro the “gurus” and “masters” of “classical homeopathy”.

After making all these big noises about “explaining the mysteries” of homeopathy on the basis of  concepts like “fringe science”, “beyond science”, “beyond substance”, “harmonics”, “resonance”, “vibrations” etc., it is quite wonderful how the author concludes”

“How do I know all this is what is going on? I don’t. I do know that homeopathy cured my cat. I know that MAME’s ultradilute DNA bound molecular DNA And then we have the well conducted clinical trials of Reilly published in Lancet that demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that a phenomenon exists. Homeopathic remedies are reproducibly significantly more effective than placebo controls (Reilly 94). We know the phenomenon exists. What I’ve written here is my groping for an explanation.”

See his confession: “ What I’ve written here is my groping for an explanation.”. That means, all through this article we were “groping” along with him! Kindly read further: 

“In May 1989 MAME submitted a paper on this ultradilute DNA phenomena to Nature. And Maddox, the editor, sat on it. In the summer of 1989 the University of Toronto opened a new botany building, and Prof. AbouHaidar moved his lab out of its old quarters. After the move and some initial difficulties for a short while the ultradilute experiment ran as before, though the pattern (18, 19, 25, 26) became more chaotic. But then shortly after the move, they lost the phenomenon! It no longer worked. They tried it a few times, and moved back to their mainstream work, genetic engineering, with the world not even ruffled.”

 “It was not my impression that procedures, protocols, were clearly and precisely defined in AbouHaidar’s lab. (Elizabeth once characterized their work as “bucket chemistry”.) Nonetheless the phenomenon seemed to be robust up to the move, and for a short while after the move. As far as I am aware, apart from Elizabeth and my follow up in 1992/93, there has been no further work done with the phenomenon”

”The fact that when MAME moved labs the phenomenon vanished is itself fascinating”.

 “So I urge anyone who has the opportunity to look for ultradilute activity, whether in dot-blots or in other assays, to do so. We stand on the threshold of a new science, a level of patterning in the natural world hitherto overlooked, and who can say where this knowledge might lead”

 Dear friends, is this not the same proverbial situation we say “the mountain delivering a mouse”! The whole verbosity has finally faded into nothing!