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.