‘Scientific Working Hypothesis’- Essential First Step in ‘Proving’ Fundamental Principles of Homeopathy According to ‘Scientific Methods’.

Participating in a discussion on my scientific article on ‘Herings Laws of Directions of Cure’ on facebook, a young ‘professor’ of a homeopathic college in Pakistan declared:

“Intracellular molecular inhibition is not a real cause of disease this is the disease product or result of disease real cause is derangement of vital process of disease or week defense mechanism. When the defense mechanism become week due to some factors. Susceptibility of the weakest part increase. Even presence of some pathogens could not cause disease until the person is susceptible. And symptoms are the sole manifestation of susceptibility of the weakest part. So vital force represents its derangement only through symptoms. For real cure a true homeopath should concentrate toward symptoms to read the message of vital force. Intracellular description could be necessary for researcher but for finding similimum these types of hypotheses are unnecessary”.

One thing is obvious from this negative response. There cannot be a scientific dialogue on homeopathy with such a ‘professor’ of ‘classical homeopathy’. According to them, “these types of hypotheses are unnecessary”. How can we discuss scientific therapeutics and its methods to ‘learned’ people who are not willing to go beyond the phrase that “molecular inhibition is not a real cause of disease, this is the disease product or result of disease”? According to him, “a true homeopath should concentrate toward symptoms to read the message of vital force”. And as such, he is convinced that “these types of hypotheses are unnecessary”!

According to my observations, homeopathy contains the rudimentary forms of an advanced system of molecular medicine or ‘medicine of future’. If we really want Homeopathy to get recognized that way as a ‘scientific system of medicine’, we should no longer learn, teach and practice it as a ‘believe and experience’ system of therapeutics. Above conversation indicates that it  requires a lot of conscious ‘unlearning’ of old lessons not only by the students and practitioners, but the ‘professors’ and academicians as well.

Those who think “these types of hypotheses are unnecessary” should remember one thing: they are learning, teaching and practicing some thing that could not be even called a ‘hypothesis’ according to the standards of modern scientific methodology.

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

‘Hypothesis’ has a well-defined meaning in scientific methodology. By the term ‘hypothesis’ we mean a ‘proposed explanation’ or “educated guess” for a phenomenon that we observe around us. Every ‘proposed explanation’ cannot be considered a ‘scientific hypothesis’. To be a ‘scientific hypothesis’, the scientific method requires that one can test the hypothesis using available scientific tools and methodology. Every new scientific hypothesis is generally based on previous observations that could not be satisfactorily be explained with the existing scientific theories. The words “hypothesis” and “theory” are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, even though a ‘scientific hypothesis’ is not exactly the same as ‘a scientific theory’.

A hypothesis should be proved ‘using scientific tools’ in order to become a scientific theory. A ‘working hypothesis’ is a provisionally accepted hypothesis that is ready to be proved. Experimenters will have to test and reject several hypotheses before solving the given problem ultimately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the above definitions of ‘hypothesis’, it is obvious that homeopathy so far lacks something that could be legitimately called ‘a scientific working hypothesis’ on homeopathy. We are learning, teaching, practicing and boasting about some thing that are not even ‘hypotheses’. Yet, we dare to declare that homeopathy is ‘ultimate science’! We dare to declare that ‘hypotheses are unnecessary’!

For the first time in the history of homeopathy, Dialectical Homeopathy proposes some concepts that could be legitimate candidate to be called a ‘scientific working hypothesis’ that could be proved according to scientific methods.

There lies the historical relevance of Dialectical homeopathy.

Don’t Worry About ‘Drug Relationship’- Drugs Potentized Above 12c Cannot Have Any Mutual Interactions

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

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

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

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

3. Low potencies and mother tincture of a drug may antidote higher potencies of same drug, due to the interaction with the hydrosomes which act as counteractive complementary factors to each other.

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

5. Higher potencies of a drug may antidote the physiological effects of low potencies and mother tinctures of same drug, due to the interaction with the hydrosomes acting as counteractive complementary factors.

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

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

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



Chandran K C Discussing ‘Miasms’ With Dr. Avtar Singh Mavi And Others On Facebook

This is full text of conversations regarding ‘miasms’ on Facebook Group ‘Homeopathy For Total Cure group’ :

Chandran K C:-

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.

Chandran  K C:-

Fundamental therapeutic law of homeopathy is “Similia Similibu Curentur”, and “totality of symptoms” presented by the patient is the most reliable guide in selecting most appropriate similimum. When following so called ‘miasmatic analysis’, ‘flow charts’ ‘genetic interpretations’, ’embriyonic layers’ and such other ‘pseudo-scientific and somewhat ambiguous ‘principles and methods’ propagated by different people, never forget SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR. Remember, that is real homeopathy!

Avtar Singh Mavi:-

Firmness of a theory can only be backed up by the results which can be obtained by the use of that theory. Similia Siilibus Currentur was theory but during Hahnemann or after him whoever used it properly came to know that it gave good results.. Adding big names of physics, chemistry does not prove that a theory is scientific, it has to give results in cases of multiple sclerosis, demyelinating diseases, genetic mutations, cancers, AIDS and other autoimmune disorders- that was why Hahnemann discovered homoeopathy. Embryonic layers is what Herings law says, if u can understand the relation between its postulates and embryology. That is scientific. Gentic interpretation is what hahnemann have told us to do of a patient- read aphorism 5 and 81- where he have clearly told about the genetics of a patient and how it acts in creating disease. Thats scientific. Miasmatic analysis, which hahnemann has described as keystone in curing incurable cases and without which, he said, homoeopathy wont work (refer Chronic Diseases). If u want to follow Hahnemann’s Theories and Laws then follow all or follow none…..and sorry Dr. Chandran but the above said “unscientific” or ‘pseudo-scientific’ theories are only the scientific one, if you can 1st study embroyology, physiology, pathology(which are scientific) thoroughly and apply it the the thoeries of Dr. Hahnemann. and above all application of all these theories are giving wonderful results in above mentioned cases, not only by one or two persons but by hundreds…..that itself shows scientificness of these theories . That is Real and Right Homoeopathy!

Chandran K C:

‎@Avtar Singh Mavi: Sir, everybody would claim that their “theories are only the scientific one”. When you claim “application of all these theories are giving wonderful results”, kindly do not forget that all homeopaths who genuinely follo…w “similia similibus curentur” are also getting ‘wonderful results’. When you say only your method is “Real and Right Homoeopathy”, do you mean all those homeopaths who do not follow the “principles and methods” propagated by you are not practicing “Real and Right Homoeopathy”? Sorry sir, I think it is a far extended claim.

DrPravin Dhole:

Dr chandran sir : what is the importance of six modification in totality of symptoms ,? why the character of pain changes? what is impotance of location? why the extension occurs ? why the modalities forms? why the concommitants present ?

Chandran K C:

‎@Avtar Singh Mavi: Sir, since you kindly asked me to “read aphorism 5 and 81- where he have clearly told about the genetics of a patient and how it acts in creating disease’ I think it would not be inappropriate to quote those parts of ORGANON here. I would like to know how could you relate these statements of the master with modern GENETICS? Where did he “clearly told about the genetics”?

Organon : Aphorism 5: “Useful to the physician in assisting him to cure are the particulars of the most probable exciting cause of the acute disease, as also the most significant points in the whole history of the chronic disease, to enable him to discover its fundamental cause, which is generally due to a chronic miasm. In these investigations, the ascertainable physical constitution of the patient (especially when the disease is chronic), his moral and intellectual character, his occupation, mode of living and habits, his social and domestic relations, his age, sexual function, etc., are to be taken into consideration.”

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”See More

DrPravin Dhole:

throbbing pain never changing in dull acheing pain without presence of syphilis , throbbing frontal headache never extend to occipute without presence of tubercular bridge , syphilis never agg in morning, vomiting with bilious fluid it presence bilious temprament with latent psora

Chandran K C ‎:

@Avtar Singh Mavi: Sorry Sir, either you did not understand MODERN GENETICS, or you failed to comprehend what Hahnemann exactly said in the quoted aphorisms of ORGANON. Or, may be your are willfully misinterpreting genetics and organon due to some motives unknown to me.

DrPravin Dhole:

miasmatic analyisis never be a so called, it is scientific method ,

Chandran K C ‎:

@DrPravin Dhole : Sir do not all these factors include in our concept of “totality of symptoms”?

Chandran K C:

‎@DrPravin Dhole: Sir, do you think ‘misms’ are outside the purview of ‘totality of symptoms’. In my opinion, a similimum selected on the basis of ‘similarity of symtoms’ would cover everything including ‘miasms’

Chandran  K C ‎:

@DrPravin Dhole: Sir, I am not questioning the validity of “miasmatic analyisis”. I was trying to understand myself how this “miasmatic analyisis” could be related with ‘similia similibus curentur’. If you arrive at a prescription through ‘miasmatic analysis’, what will happen if that drug is not a similimum according to ‘similarity of symptoms’

DrPravin Dhole:

smymptoms similarity mean what? simply we cant match symp of patient to symp of drug only , individulization , totality of symp, chronic diseases classification , principle of chronic diseases, evaluation of miasm, confirmation of diathesis… , confirmation of constitution with symp, confirmation diathesis , confirmation of tempament , confirmation of inheritable tendencies and many other factor includes in symp similarities

 DrPravin Dhole:

how we will conclues these factors in case and where?

Chandran  K C ‎:

@DrPravin Dhole : I AGREE, SIR. All factors are included in ‘similarity of symptoms’. And only that is homeopathy.

Chandran  K C:

SIMILARITY OF SYMPTOMS means matching the ‘symptomatology’ of the drug with the ‘subjective and objective symptoms’ expressed by the patient. NOTHING LESS, NOTHING MORE.

Avtar Singh Mavi:

Before reading this I’ll just ask u for one thing. Be away from all prejudices. In aphorism 5, Dr Hahnemann asks of the physician to take into consideration the physical constitution, his moral and intellectual char…acter, his habits and more which represents the Genetic Coding of the patient, this is all what the patient was born with. IN the Aphorism 81, Dr. Hahnemann has referred to an extremely ancient infecting agent which has passed hundreds of generations in millions of human beings ad is the cause of innumerable morbid diseases— have u ever thought of what Dr Hahnemann was referring to through this. It was Gene doctor because gene is the only thing which has passed through hundreds of generation in millions of human being and CAUSE of innumerable diseases as now the genetic scientists are saying all over world. DR. Hahnemann himself was a great scientist and nothing of his saying is away from science……..I think now it will be helpful for u to understand Dr. Hahnemann because even the newly admitted homoeopathic students of 1st year are understanding these things…. If u dont understand even now then u might b having some personal motives!!

Chandran K C:

‎@Avtar Singh Mavi : “In aphorism 5, Dr Hahnemann asks of the physician to take into consideration the physical constitution, his moral and intellectual character, his habits and more”. Hahnemann said nothing about “genetic coding”. He knew nothing about ‘genetic coding’ at that time. It is we, who try to interpret “physical constitution, his moral and intellectual character, his habits and more” in terms of genetics and genetic coding. We should not put our words and interpretations into hahnemann’s mouth, hoping to prove that he new ‘every science’. That is impossible, sir.

Chandran K C:

‎@Avtar Singh Mavi : “IN the Aphorism 81, Dr. Hahnemann has referred to an extremely ancient infecting agent which has passed hundreds of generations in millions of human beings ad is the cause of innumerable morbid diseases”. It is OUR INTERPRETATION that Dr Hahnemann was referring to GENES through this. He cannot “refer” about genes, since it was impossible for him to know anything about ‘genes’ at that time. He was referring to what he actually knew. We now interpret it on the basis of modern genetics.

Chandran  K C:

‎@Avtar Singh Mavi : Sir, the term “infecting agent” used by hahnemann by itself shows he has no any idea about “genes”. No body with minimum understanding of genetics would consider native “genes” of an organism as “infectious agents” for itself. The term “infectious agent” means some thing that “infects” the organism from external environment. That cannot be part of “genetic substance” of an organism.

Chandran  K C:

The term “infectious agent” Hahnemann used to describe “psora” and other “miasms” clearly shows that he did not consider “miasms” as part of genetic substance, and as such, it cannot be inherited through genes. By saying “inherited through generations” hahneman only meant that these ‘miasms’ or ‘infectious agents’ were transferred from generation to generation as “infections”, not as “genes”. HIV infection can be transferred from mother to infant, but it is not a ‘genetic inheritance’. It is only “infection”. That way, hahnemann only meant that the “infectious agents” of “psora” and other “venereal” miasms were transferred through generations of humanity. That has nothing to do with genetics. “INFECTIOUS AGENTS” cannot be inherited through GENES.

 Avtar Singh Mavi:

Doctor now I think that u need to read Genetics, once again. HIV virus is not being transferred from hundreds of generations in millions of human being nor any pathogen can be transferred which is only cause of every disease and what is psora sycosis and syphilis in ‘scientific’ language and how it is transferred in generations…. pls explain

Chandran  K C:


Avtar Singh Mavi:

Doctor if somebody calls u with the name Shekhar are ur characters going to change or will u be not the same person by only changing the name…….what if Dr. Hahnemann has not given the NAME Gene to that thing, cant it be gene which he has observed

Avtar Singh Mavi:

Lastly the thing is Doctor that we can wake a person who is sleeping but we cant wake a person who is pretending to sleep

Chandran K C:

‎@Avtar Singh Mavi : Sir, Let us leave HIV as it is a new comer. LEPROSY was “transferred through generations” ranging for centuries as ‘infectious agents’. But nobody would dare to say that it was inherited through GENES. Same way, Hahnema…nn only meant that ITCH causing “infectious agents” were transferred through “hundreds of generations in millions of human beings”. TUBERCULOSIS is existing here through generations, transferred in the form of “infectious agents”. Only because hahnemann said that “infectious agents” or “miasms” were transferred through “hundreds of generations in millions of human beings”, why should we reach the conclusion that he was talking about GENES and GENETICS”? He was only talking about transferring of “infectious agents” or “miasms” through generations.

Chandran K C:

‎@Avtar Singh Mavi : Sir, you have asked: “what is psora sycosis and syphilis in ‘scientific’ language and how it is transferred in generations…. pls explain”. SHALL I TRY TO EXPLAIN MY CONCEPTS ON THIS SUBJECT?

Chandran  K C:

‎@Avtar Singh Mavi : Sir, I have already explained my concepts regarding miasms in this doc. Would you please go to it: https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_126911884035337&ap=1#!/home.php?sk=group_126911884035337&view=doc&id=163731713686687

DrPravin Dhole:

OUR fundamental of low , is to satisfy the level of suceptibility, infection or specific bacteria or any virus is not inheritable , but suceptibility to the specific agent is an inheritable, constitutional miasmatic suceptibilies are inheritable , which desing the classification of diseases

Chandran  K C:

DrPravin Dhole : But sir, in aphorism 81 hahnemann says about “miasms’ as “infectious agents”. Let me quote: “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”. Is there any clue to show that he was talking about “constitutional miasmatic suceptibilies”? He was talking about “infectious agents”.. He was obviously not talking about “genetic inheritance”, but “transferring of infectious agents through generations”.

Chandran  K C:


Sayan Bhattacharya:

Dear doctors…i hav one question…

Have u seen any old skin disease reappear, during ur treatment of any chronic disease, like bronchial asthma, osteoarthritis??

If ur answer is yes…then U should not have any doubt about the efficacy of miasmatic theory.

Chandran K C:

‎@Sayan Bhattacharya : Sir, it is not a question of “doubt about the efficacy of miasmatic theory”. We are trying to understand homeopathy better.

Chandran K C:

‎@Sayan Bhattacharya : As for me, I have no any doubt regarding the existence of miasms, and the role it plays in chronic diseases. But regarding questions such as what is miasms, how it is inherited and such other details, I have difference of opinions with ‘classical’homeopaths. My perspective is different to homeopathy as a whole.

Chandran K C:

In my view, ‘miasms’ are deformed protein molecules such as antibodies, and prions, which are native proteins subjected to ‘molecular imprinting’ by infectious agents. These deformed proteins can create ‘off-target’ molecular bindings and cause diverse types of chronic diseases.

Chandran K C:

Antibodies formed against various types of ‘itch-causing’ and ‘inflamming’ infections are ‘psora’. Antibodies against various ‘cell-proliferating’ infections such as HPV and Gonorrhoea are ‘sycosis’. Antibodies against various ‘cell-degenerative’ infections such as ‘syphilis’ belong to ‘syphilitic’ miasm.

Chandran  K C:

These antibodies and prion-like defective proteins can remain in the organism life long, and can be transferred to offsprings through maternal blood

Chandran K C:


Chandran  K C:

For example, antibodies formed against streptococcus skin infections and sorethroats are known to attack kidneys, joints and endocardial membranes, resulting in various chronic diseases. This can be included in ‘miasm’ of psora’.

Chandran K C:

Antibodies formed against wart-forming’ human papilloma virus may bind to enzymes involved in gene expressions, thereby causing cellular proliferations, indurations and cancers. This can be included in ‘miasm’ of ‘sycosis’.

Chandran  K C:

Antibodies formed against ‘syphilis’ and similar infections attack different enzyme systems, resulting in cellular degenerations, gangrenes proteiolysis, tand such other conditions. These antibodies may be included in ‘syphilitic’ miasm.

DrPravin Dhole:

streptococcus , staphylococcus and sore throat are only cultivated in the tubercular or scrofulous spectrum, this suceptibility may tranfer to other system but the miasm will be latent sycotic

Amol Ravande:

to Chandran Nambiar K C sir, plz tell me one thing…we can consider that maternal antibodies are transfered to the child…but what about father? how his antibodies can get transferred to child?..

Amol Ravande::

do u mean to say that child will not get any miasmatic background from father? (as per your theory of antibodies)

Chandran  K C ‎:

@Amol Ravande: Sir, I don’t think antibodies or ‘miasms’ could be transferred from father to his child. Only genetically transferred traits can be inherited from father.

Chandran  K C:

‎@Amol Ravande: But see, if father has got an infection, that infection can be transferred to mother through intercourse or other means, and antibodies formed in her body. We are aware that women develop antibodies even against the semen of their sexual partners.

Chandran  K C ‎:

@Amol Ravande: Sir, I am not arguing to establish any thing. I AM ONLY THINKING ALOUD, AND SHARING MY THOUGHTS WITH YOU.

Chandran  K C:

I am only trying for a scientifically viable explanation for our concept of ‘miasm’

Chandran  K C:

I want to prove ‘theory of miasms’ scientifically; not to disprove it.

Amol Ravande:

sir….definately mother will develop antibodies if father has active disease…but if the disease, suppose gonorrhoea, is treated in father long back before marriage…and as per your concept of miasm as disease,.. now the father has sycosis miasm…and now mother conceivs…do u mean to say that child will not born with sycotic predominance?

Chandran  K C:

‎@Amol Ravande : As per my existing knowledge, I see no chance for that.

Chandran  K C:

I have not learned bout a molecular mechanism to transfer information regarding different antibodies into genetic codes

Chandran  K C:

I do not know whether there exist a mechanism of ‘reverse transcription’ of proteins into RNA and then into DNA. If such a mechanism actually exist, it may be possible.

Amol Ravande:

sir…i’m much junior to u…but i must say that i’m not with u regarding this concept…

Chandran  K C:

‎@Amol Ravande : Sir, I am not worried whether people support me or not. I am saying my convictions and original thoughts. At this stage of evolution, I should not expect people to agree with me, because I am talking to a community trained in classical homeopathy, and many of my concepts go against what you are taught.

Amol Ravande:

ya ofcourse sir….but these comments will help u to improve ur concept…to find lacunae in ur concept..i think we should keep our minds open…that’s why i was trying to explain all these things to u…i have no intensions to hurt or criticise u

Partha Sarathi Ray

I’m re-posting:

@Nambiar Sir: Your answer “As per my existing knowledge, I see no chance for that.” regarding the question of Dr.Ravande sounded much surprising to me.If the new born is not inheriting Sycosis (in this example),then how does he show all latent and prominent symptoms of sycosis after birth and at latter stage?And how can our antisycotic drugs cure him?

Chandran K C

If ‘miasms’ are molecular imprinted proteins such as antibodies and prion-like particles, it is obvious that antibodies cannot be inherited from father to his child. But it can be transferred to child through maternal blood.

Chandran  K C

Regarding ‘cure by anti-sycotic drugs’- No drug can cure if it is not ‘similimum’. A similimum will cure if it is antisycotic or not.

Amol Ravande

so u mean cure has nothing to do with miasm? then why hahnemann has given theory of miasms?

Chandran K C

‎@Amol Ravande : “miasms’ play a role in curing ‘miasmatic diseases. But there are a lot of non-miasmatic diseases. I am questioning the idea that all chronic diseases are miasmatic. I have many times pointed out that hahnemann classified chronic diseases into ‘miasmatic’ and ‘non miasmatic’

Chandran  K C

‎@Amol Ravande : Sir, while saying “hahnemann has given theory of miasms”, you should not forget that he also said about “non-miasmatic’ diseases.

Chandran K C  

Please listen: In Organon : Aphorism 204(Sixth Edition) Hahnemann says:

“If we deduct all chronic affections, ailments and diseases that depend on a persistent unhealthy mode of living, as also those innumerable medicinal maladies caused by …the irrational,… persistent, harassing and pernicious treatment of diseases often only of trivial character by physicians of the old school, most the remainder of chronic diseases result from the development of these three chronic miasms, internal syphilis, internal sycosis, but chiefly and in infinitely greater proportion, internal psora”

This statement shows, Hahneman considered a class of ‘chronic’ diseases’ originating from ‘persistent unhealthy mode of living’ and ‘innumerable medicinal maladies’, other than ‘miasmatic chronic diseases’.

Chandran  K C

That means, when treating ‘chronic diseases’ originating from ‘persistent unhealthy mode of living’ and ‘innumerable medicinal maladies’, we need not worry about psora, syphilis or sycosis, but we can treat according to ‘similia similibu cu……rentur’. Remember, most of the ‘chronic diseases’ originating from occupational, environmental, nutritional, drug-induced, infectious and such others belong to the class of “chronic diseases originating from ‘persistent unhealthy mode of living’ and ‘innumerable medicinal maladies”. THEY ARE NOT CAUSED BY MIASMS OF PSORA, SYPHILIS OR SYCOSIS.

Chandran  K C

It is obvious that Hahnemann excluded “all chronic affections, ailments and diseases that depend on a persistent unhealthy mode of living, as also those innumerable medicinal maladies” while talking about “chronic diseases” of “miasmatic origin”.

Chandran K C

When treating chronic diseases, first we have to examine whether they belong this group of “chronic affections, ailments and diseases that depend on a persistent unhealthy mode of living, as also those innumerable medicinal maladies” . If so we need not consider miasms, but to find a similimum on the basis of ‘similia similibus curentur’.

Chandran K C

Hahnemann even sub-divided “non-miasmatic chronic diseases” into two: a) All chronic affections, ailments and diseases that depend on a ‘persistent unhealthy mode of living’. b) those ‘innumerable medicinal maladies’. Why the ‘followers of …the master so far ignored this? When selecting a drug on the basis of ‘miasmatic analysis’, can we ignore ‘similia similibus curentur’? If you prescribe a drug without considering ‘similarity’ of symptoms, how can we claim that it is homeopathy? Did Hahnemann ever advise to replace the therapeutic principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’ with ‘theory of miasms’?

Amol Ravande

i must mention that during hahnemann’s time allopathic treatment was very harsh…leeching, bloodletting, use of mercurial compounds was very much regularly performed. this led to severe suppression and he termed it as medicinal disease…….now the fact is how many of such cases we see now a days? what we see regularly is the diseases like DM, TUMORS, HTN, for which we have to treat the patient with antimiasmatic remedy….there is no point in just making theoratical debates…we have to think about pratical applicability…

Amol Ravande

from your perspective…plz tell me which are nonmiasmatic diseases?

Chandran K C

‎@Partha Sarathi Ray: Sir, your question “if the new born is not inheriting Sycosis (in this example),then how does he show all latent and prominent symptoms of sycosis after birth and at latter stage? And how can our antisycotic drugs cure him?” is very important.

You also said that my answer regarding the question of genetic transfer of sycosis from father to child “as per my existing knowledge, I see no chance for that.” sounded much surprising to you.

First of all please note that Hahnemann described “miasms” as an “infectious agent”, which was “inherited through generations of of humanity”. Only because he said about ‘inheriting through generations’, why should we jump to the conclusion that hahnemann was talking about ‘genetic transfer of miasms’? Remember, nothing was known about modern genetics during his time, and he was not in a position to think about ‘genetic transfer’. “Inherited through generations’ only means that the “infectious agents” were transferred through generations. That means, the infections remained here all along many generations. The term ‘inheritance’ is used not only for ‘genetic inheritance’. We use that term for ‘inheritance of property rights’, ‘inheritance of titles’ and many other things. Hahnemann only could have meant that type of ‘inheritance of infectious agents’.

In our anxiety to make the “master” the “greatest scientist’ and ‘geneticist’ ever lived, we are putting our interpretations and words into his mouth. That is very inappropriate.

Coming to the point of inheritance of ‘sycosis’ from father to child. I have earlier explained that what hahnemann called “sycotic miasm’ was actually a ‘mixed miasm’ arising from sexually transmitted gonorrhoea, human papilloma virus and various yeast infections, that can cause infections in genital tract, warts, uterine fibroids and various other chronic ailments. According to me, the miasm of ‘sycosis’ is the antibodies generated against these infections, which can cause diverse types of chronic diseases including tumors and cancers through off-target molecular bindings.

If a man is infected in his genital tract with these mixed infections, after expressing a few initial symptoms, the infection turns silent, and he would appear to be normal and free of disease. But he can transfer his infections to his sexual partner life long. In women also, after a few initial symptoms such as UTI and vaginal discharges, infections turns silent. But she can infect anybody who engages in sexual intercourse with her. If the man was already infected earlier, both of them would not show any symptoms of infection. The woman can transfer the ‘infectious agents’ to her child from genital tract during delivery, or transfer the antibodies to the infant through maternal blood. Any way, ‘infectious agents’ of ‘sycotic miasms’ would be transferred to the next generation. There is no any involvement of GENETIC TRANSFER here. If the father is infected, there is all chance for ‘transfer of miasm’ to the infant through the mediation of mother.

If still you want to ‘believe’ or ‘establish’ that ‘sycosis is inherited through GENES, I am helpless, sir.

Amol Ravande

sir…i must mention that after taking treatment..either allopathic or homoeopathic, even a trace of bacteria didnot remain in semen of father…do u mean to say that once someone gets gonorrhoea..lifelong bacterias are present in his semen?

Chandran K C

‎@Amol Ravande: It is not a question of ‘my perspective’. Hahnemann has already told about the ‘non-miasmatic’ chronic diseases. I have quoted him many times during this conversation.

In Organon : Aphorism 204(Sixth Edition) Hahnemann says:…

“If we deduct all chronic affections, ailments and diseases that depend on a persistent unhealthy mode of living, as also those innumerable medicinal maladies caused by the irrational,… persistent, harassing and pernicious treatment of diseases often only of trivial character by physicians of the old school, most the remainder of chronic diseases result from the development of these three chronic miasms, internal syphilis, internal sycosis, but chiefly and in infinitely greater proportion, internal psora”

This statement shows, Hahneman considered a class of ‘chronic’ diseases’ originating from ‘persistent unhealthy mode of living’ and ‘innumerable medicinal maladies’, other than ‘miasmatic chronic diseases’.

It is obvious that Hahnemann excluded “all chronic affections, ailments and diseases that depend on a persistent unhealthy mode of living, as also those innumerable medicinal maladies” while talking about “chronic diseases” of “miasmatic origin”.

We should notice that hahnemann was well conscious about two distinct classes of chronic diseases: 1. All chronic affections, ailments and diseases that depend on a ‘persistent unhealthy mode of living’, as also those ‘innumerable medicinal maladies’. 2. Miasmatic chronic diseases arising from psora, syphilis and sycosis. He never said one class is ‘pseudo’ and other is ‘true’.

Hahnemann even sub-divided “non-miasmatic chronic diseases” into two: a) All chronic affections, ailments and diseases that depend on a ‘persistent unhealthy mode of living’. b) those ‘innumerable medicinal maladies’. Why the ‘followers of the master so far ignored this?

When treating chronic diseases, first we have to examine whether they belong this group of “chronic affections, ailments and diseases that depend on a persistent unhealthy mode of living, as also those innumerable medicinal maladies” . If so we need not consider miasms, but to find a similimum on the basis of ‘similia similibus curentur’.

Chandran K C

Amol Ravande: Sir, I am not available for an argument on this topic. I have explained my convictions here. If you feel I am wrong, and if you want to believe otherwise, let it be so. I have decided not to engage in arguments. I would explai…n my ideas. That is all. All of us are prejudiced, and engage in discussions only to disprove and defeat others. I have decided to avoid such arguments. If anybody believe I am wrong, I will not try to convince him through arguments.

Chandran K C ‎

@Amol Ravande : Sir, please comment on what I said about ‘non-miasmatic diseases’. LET US DISCUSS

Chandran  K C

For the time being, let us concentrate on two points:. i. Non-miasmatic diseases. 2.whether miasms are genetically inherited.

Chandran K C

‎@Amol Ravande : From hahnemanns descriptions of sycosis, I do not see ‘sycosis’ as a simple gonorrhoeal miasm. Gonnrorrhoea cannot cause warts or uterine fibroids. It might me a mixed infection of gonorroea, HPV and yeast infections, all sexually transmitted.

Chandran K C

The problem is, we have been trained all these years in such a way that we cannot think about chronic diseases without linking with syphilis, sycosis and psora. We totally ignored hahnemanns observations regarding ‘non-miasmatic chronic di…seases’. You are not willing to hear somebody saying differently from what you have been taught. If we observe the various chronic diseass we encounter daily, we would see that most of them belong to “chronic affections, ailments and diseases that depend on a persistent unhealthy mode of living, as also those innumerable medicinal maladies”, which are ‘non-miasmatic’ according to hahnemann.. Those life style diseases, effects of vaccinations, drugging, environmental toxicit, occupational diseases. nutritional diseases, all belong to this class of ‘non-miasmatic’ diseases.

Chandran  K C

I know, it will be difficult for you to agree with what I say, because you have been trained to think in a different way. I WOULD REQUEST YOU TO APPLY SOME LOGIC AND RATIONAL THINKING.

Chandran K C :

One of the most confusing and most controversial part of homeopathy is the theory of ‘miasms’ and ‘chronic diseases’. Each homeopath understands, interprets and applies this theory in his own way. I think we need a logical and universally acceptable understanding of this concept, that would fit to the available scientific knowledge system and clinical experiences of homeopaths, and provide guidance in our practice.

  Chandran  K C :

One respected homeopath responded to this statement: “dont worry even based on the old theory it is working wonderfully”. That shows he is not much pleased about my attempts of explaining ‘miasm’ and homeopathy at large. I know there would …be many people to agree with him. They are not ‘worried’ because they think homeopathy ‘works well even based on old theories’. I would like to tell them, any objective law of nature would work ‘wonderfully’ even if we do not know ‘how it works’ or even if we interpreted it wrongly. Electricity was ‘working’ here much before we knew anything about electricity. But knowing ‘how exactly it works’ would help us to utilize it more effectively. I think it is applicable to our scientific understanding of ‘miasms’ also. “As far as something is working well, we need not try to understand it better” is a way of thinking not acceptable to scientific-minded people. If that philosophy is accepted, there would not be any scientific research, since everything around us “working well” even without we knowing “how exactly it works”!

Chandran K C :

In Para 12 of CHRONIC DISEASES, Hahnemann says: “PSORA has thus become the most infectious and most general of all the chronic miasmas”. That means hahnemann talks about a ‘psora’ that can be got transferred from person to to person as INFE…CTIONS. Do we have to believe that we will get infected with ‘PSORIC MIASM’ by some sort of physical contact with a ‘PSORIC’ person?

If PSORA is “immaterial” and “dynamic”, and if it is MOST INFECTIOUS as hahnemann says, would it 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 about 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?

Chandran K C:

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.

Chandran K C:

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 endogenous 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.

Chandran K C:

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’.

Chandran K C:

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.

Chandran K C:

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.

Chandran K C:

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.

Chandran  K C:

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.

Chandran  K C:

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 patient…s. Their antibodies are similar. ALL COMES UNDER PSORA



Chandran K C:

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’ produc…ing 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.

Chandran K C:

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

Harishkumar Shinde:

Dear sir, you are started a very good discussion on the subject of MIASM here but therotically understanding miasm is a different thing and clinically applying miasms in practic is very different thing. so the miasm states the present disea…se state and it shows the path of the prognosis of disease, and miasm gives clue for perfect prescription. after proper studying your blog i am ready to discuss on miasms we will discuss, Thanks

Yogesh Upadhyay Homoeopath:

very good explanation by chandran sir really gud to discuss this will elaborate our knowledge of miasm

Chandran  K C:

‎@Yogesh Upadhyay Homoeopath and @Harishkumar Shinde : Thank you sir. I expect a meaningful discourse between us on this topic.

Chandran  K C:

‎@Yogesh Upadhyay Homoeopath and @Harishkumar Shinde : I am waiting for your comments to take this thread forward.

Manish Kumar:

chandran sir as i read all the explanation regarding miasm is very perticular,you did not consider the individual reaction regarding the miasmatic state,the progress of disease itself defying the miasmatic state of individual.the thinking and behaviour of the individual also carry significance,when we categorize miasm,not only pathological condition responsible for miasmatic expression.

Chandran K C:

‎@Manish Kumar: Sir, “the thinking and behavior of the individual” also has a molecular level process behind it. I think we need not consider mental and physical aspects as separate entities. When I talk about pathology I mean ‘molecular pathology’ which is common for mental and physical ‘expressions’.

Manish Kumar:

regarding molecular biology as you raised the question regarding heriditary mechanism of miasm,yes miasm can be travel through one generation to another,hapten is a molecule made up of polypeptide chain which responsible for it,and whwn we …talk about antibodies only iGg immunoglobulin can cross the placental barrier,this immunoglobulin help the palsma cell to form antibodies,and manufacture the interferon and inflamatory substance,miasmgives us clue to observe the bhaviour of the disease which reflect in individual,and it cons

Chandran K C:

@ Manish Kumar: Sir, I feel we share a lot of common concepts regarding ‘miasms’.

Manish Kumar:

why not sir it’s my pleasure

Manish Kumar:

and it can travel from distence also,because if any remedy show it’s manifestation to individual from distence then why not it affect the over individuality of the patient and miasm is also an integral part of individual constitution so it can work

Chandran K C:

‎@Manish Kumar ; Sir, kindly explain your statement “it can travel from distance”. I got confused on that point’

Sayan Bhattacharya:

@ Robert and J.H. Allen…has written quite beautifully much about miasms…but in reality very few teachers can teach us MIASMS. I mean at the bed side.

Aude Sapere:

Beautifly illustrated. Thank u Sir!

Kranti Kumar:


Manasbikash Mandal :

as per my knowledge,homoeopathy cannot be completed without miasm. it is the heart of homoeopathy.

Chandran  K C:

‎@Manasbikash Mandal : I agree sir. Understanding of ‘miasms’ working an individual is essential for a therapeutic intervention to offer ‘total cure’. But I was trying to explain what is exactly the ‘material basis’ of ‘miasms’.

Chandran K C:

‎@Kranti Kumar: I agree with your statement “MIASM IS VERY MUCH AN INFECTIVE PATHOLOGICAL AGENCY WHICH ONCE INFECTS THE HEALHY ANIMAL ECONOMY CREATES SOME PERMANENT DISTURBANCE”. I was trying to explain this phenomenon in terms of antibodies and malformed proteins formed by molecular imprinting of native proteins by exogenous and endogenous pathogenic agents.

Do Not Confuse ‘Scientific Homeopathy’ With Those Well-Marketed ‘Pseudo-scientific Brands Of Homeopathy’

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.

Dielectric Dispersion In Potentized Drugs Indicates ‘Rearrangement Of Vehicle Molecules’ Or ‘Molecular Imprinting’

Tanmoy Maity (Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, Jharkhand 826004, India), D. Ghosh &  C.R. Mahata (Department of Electrical Engineering, Bengal Engineering and Science University, Shibpur, Howrah 711103, West Bengal, India) has published a research paper regarding Effect of dielectric dispersion on potentised homeopathic medicines, which I think is of immense implications in our understanding of active principles of our drugs as ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’.

This report is available onhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491609001258

This paper reports dielectric dispersion occurring in potentised homeopathic medicines subjected to variable frequency electric field using an instrumentation method developed by the authors. Oscillations occur in the direction of electric field, and are usually termed longitudinal/acoustic-mode vibrations.

The test material was lactose soaked with homeopathic medicine. Multiple resonance frequencies, forming a frequency-set, were observed repeatedly for each medicine.

The team reports experimental results for three potencies of Cuprum metallicum (Cuprum met) in the frequency range of 100 kHz–1 MHz. Each exhibits a set of resonance frequencies, which may be termed as its characteristic set. As the frequency-set of each medicine is different from those of others, each medicine may, therefore, be identified by its characteristic frequency-set. This suggests that potentised homeopathic medicines, which are chemically identical with the vehicle, differ from one another in the arrangement of vehicle molecules.

According to them, these “experiments show that  potentised homeopathic medicines, which are chemically identical with the vehicle, differ from one another in the arrangement of vehicle molecules”.

“Difference in arrangement of vehicle molecules” strongly indicates the presence of “supra-molecular clusters of water and ethyl alcohol, into which the three-dimensional configuration of drug molecules are imprinted as nanocavities” as proposed by the hypotheses proposed by Dialectical Homeopathy.

The observation that “the resonance frequencies frequency-set of each medicine is different from those of others” strongly indicates clusters of water-ethyl alcohol molecules specifically rearranged in accordance with the shapes of constituent molecules of drug substance used for potentization.

Such a re-arrangement of vehicle molecules strongly indicates the process of ‘molecular imprinting’ happening during homeopathic potentization. Present work is a decisive step in the scientific understanding of  homeopathy.

Learn About Nanotoxicity Concerns Before Prescribing Biochemic Salts Indiscriminately

I am posting this article on “Nanotoxicity”, extracted from Wilikipedia, in order to invite the attention of homeopaths using frequently administered large doses of BIOCHEMIC SALTS. Latest studies show that molecules contained in the biochemic salts are converted into ‘nanoparticles’ through the process of TRITURATION. If it is right that the triturated biochemic salts contain ‘nanoparticles of minerals’, we should be careful in using them indiscriminately, even in place of ‘placebos’.  If you read the following article carefully, you will understand that prescribing biochemics is not a childs play.

 If you agree that through the process of triturations, mineral substances are converted into nanoparticles, and ‘nanoparticles’ are the active principles of biochemic triturations, you should be well aware of the subject of ‘nanotoxicity’. You should also know that at ‘nano’ level, molecular properties of substances undergo great changes. As such, if you want to utilize the ‘molecular’ properties of biochemic salts for nutritional or therapeutic purpose, you should be using small quanities of substances as doses, not ‘nanoparticles’ contained in the triturated form. If ‘trituration’ involves formation of nanoparticles, we should undertake a serious ‘nanotoxicity’ study of our biochemic salts. You cannot use it on human organism, only because some ‘old masters’ have advised to use it, only because they knew nothing about nanoparticles and nanotoxicity. Not only biochemic salts, we should rethink the use of low potencies (below 30C, that may contain crude molecules or nanoparticles) of any mineral drugs such as Iod 3x, ARS compunds, MERC compounds. URANIUM compounds and the like.

NANOTOXICITY (From Wikipedia):

 “Nanotoxicology is the study of the toxicity of nanomaterials. Because of quantum size effects and large surface area to volume ratio, nanomaterials have unique properties compared with their larger counterparts.

Nanotoxicology is a branch of bionanoscience which deals with the study and application of toxicity of nanomaterials. 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 Royal Society identifies the potential for nanoparticles to penetrate the skin, and recommends that the use of nanoparticles in cosmetics be conditional upon a favorable assessment by the relevant European Commission safety advisory committee. Andrew Maynard also reports that ‘certain nanoparticles may move easily into sensitive lung tissues after inhalation, and cause damage that can lead to chronic breathing problems’.

Carbon nanotubes – characterized by their microscopic size and incredible tensile strength – are frequently likened to asbestos, due to their needle-like fiber shape. In a recent study that introduced carbon nanotubes into the abdominal cavity of mice, results demonstrated that long thin carbon nanotubes showed the same effects as long thin asbestos fibers, raising concerns that exposure to carbon nanotubes may lead to mesothelioma (cancer of the lining of the lungs caused by exposure to asbestos). Given these risks, effective and rigorous regulation has been called for to determine if, and under what circumstances, carbon nanotubes are manufactured, as well as ensuring their safe handling and disposal.

There is currently limited understanding of the human health and safety risks associated with nanotechnology.

The potential for workplace exposure was highlighted by the 2004 Royal Society report which recommended a review of existing regulations to assess and control workplace exposure to nanoparticles and nanotubes. The report expressed particular concern for the inhalation of large quantities of nanoparticles by workers involved in the manufacturing process.

Stakeholders concerned by the lack of a regulatory framework to assess and control risks associated with the release of nanoparticles and nanotubes have drawn parallels with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (‘mad cow’s disease’), thalidomide, genetically modified food, nuclear energy, reproductive technologies, biotechnology, and asbestosis. In light of such concerns, the Canadian based ETC Group have called for a moratorium on nano-related research until comprehensive regulatory frameworks are developed that will ensure workplace safety.

Nanotoxicology is a sub-specialty of particle toxicology. It addresses the toxicology of nanoparticles

Nanoparticles have higher chemical reactivity and biological activity. The greater chemical reactivity of nanomaterials can result 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 larger sized 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 tissue and cell cultures, resulting in increased oxidative stress, inflammatory cytokine production and cell death. Unlike larger particles, nanomaterials may be 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.

Since there is no authority to regulate nanotech-based products, there are many products that could possibly be dangerous to humans. Scientific research has indicated the potential for some nanomaterials to be toxic to humans or the environment. In March 2004 tests conducted by environmental toxicologist Eva Oberdörster, Ph.D. working with Southern Methodist University in Texas, found extensive brain damage to fish exposed to fullerenes for a period of just 48 hours at a relatively moderate dose of 0.5 parts per million (commensurate with levels of other kinds of pollution found in bays). The fish also exhibited changed gene markers in their livers, indicating their entire physiology was affected. In a concurrent test, the fullerenes killed water fleas, an important link in the marine food chain. The extremely small size of fabricated nanomaterials also means that they are much more readily taken up by living tissue than presently known toxins. Nanoparticles can be inhaled, swallowed, absorbed through skin and deliberately or accidentally injected during medical procedures. They might be accidentally or inadvertently released from materials implanted into living tissue.

Researcher Shosaku Kashiwada of the National Institute for Environmental Studies in Tsukuba, Japan, in a more recent study, intended to further investigate the effects of nanoparticles on soft-bodied organisms. His study allowed him to explore the distribution of water-suspended fluorescent nanoparticles throughout the eggs and adult bodies of a species of fish, known as the see-through medaka (Oryzias latipes). See-through medaka were used because of their small size, wide temperature and salinity tolerances, and short generation time. Moreover, small fish like the see-through medaka have been popular test subjects for human diseases and organogenesis for other reasons as well, including their transparent embryos, rapid embryo development, and the functional equivalence of their organs and tissue material to that of mammals. Because the see-through medaka have transparent bodies, analyzing the deposition of fluorescent nanoparticles throughout the body is quite simple. For his study, Dr. Kashiwada evaluated four aspects of nanoparticle accumulation. These included the overall accumulation and the size-dependent accumulation of nanoparticles by medaka eggs, the effects of salinity on the aggregation of nanoparticles in solution and on their accumulation by medaka eggs, and the distribution of nanoparticles in the blood and organs of adult medaka. It was also noted that nanoparticles were in fact taken up into the bloodstream and deposited throughout the body. In the medaka eggs, there was a high accumulation of nanoparticles in the yolk; most often bioavailibility was dependent on specific sizes of the particles. Adult samples of medaka had accumulated nanoparticles in the gills, intestine, brain, testis, liver, and bloodstream. One major result from this study was the fact that salinity may have a large influence on the bioavailibility and toxicity of nanoparticles to penetrate membranes and eventually kill the specimen.

As the use of nanomaterials increases worldwide, concerns for worker and user safety are mounting. To address such concerns, the Swedish Karolinska Institute conducted a study in which various nanoparticles were introduced to human lung epithelial cells. The results, released in 2008, showed that iron oxide nanoparticles caused little DNA damage and were non-toxic. Zinc oxide nanoparticles were slightly worse. Titanium dioxide caused only DNA damage. Carbon nanotubes caused DNA damage at low levels. Copper oxide was found to be the worst offender, and was the only nanomaterial identified by the researchers as a clear health risk.

Very little attention has been directed towards the potential immunogenicity of nanostructures. Nanostructures can activate the immune system inducing inflammation, immune responses, allergy, or even affect to the immune cells in a deleterious or beneficial way (immunosuppression in autoimmune diseases, improving immune responses in vaccines). More studies are needed in order to know the potential deleterious or beneficial effects of nanostructures in the immune system. In comparison to conventional pharmeceutical agents, nanostructures have very large sizes and immune cells, especially phagocytic cells, recognize and try to destroy them.

Size is therefore a key factor in determining the potential toxicity of a particle. However it is not the only important factor. Other properties of nanomaterials that influence toxicity include: chemical composition, shape, surface structure, surface charge, aggregation and solubility, and the presence or absence of functional groups of other chemicals. The large number of variables influencing toxicity means that it is difficult to generalise about health risks associated with exposure to nanomaterials – each new nanomaterial must be assessed individually and all material properties must be taken into account.

In addition, standarization of toxicology tests between laboratories are needed. Díaz, B. et al from the University of Vigo (Spain) has shown (Small, 2008) that many different cell lines should be studied in order to know if a nanostructure induces toxicity, and human cells can internalize aggregated nanoparticles. Moreover, it is important to take into account that many nanostructures aggregate in biological fluids, but groups manufacturing nanostructures do not care much about this matter. Many efforts of interdisciplinary groups are strongly needed in order to progress in this field.

Many nanoparticles agglomerate or aggregate when they are placed in environmental or biological fluids. The terms agglomeration and aggregation have distinct definitions according to the standards organizations ISO and ASTM, where agglomeration signifies more loosely bound particles and aggregation signifies very tightly bound or fused particles (typically occurring during synthesis or drying). Nanoparticles frequently agglomerate due to the high ionic strength of environmental and biological fluids, which shields the repulsion due to charges on the nanoparticles. Unfortunately, agglomeration has frequently been ignored in nanotoxicity studies, even though agglomeration would be expected to affect nanotoxicity since it changes the size, surface area, and sedimentation properties of the nanoparticles. In addition, many nanoparticles will agglomerate to some extent in the environment or in the body before they reach their target, so it is desirable to study how toxicity is affected by agglomeration.

A method was published that can be used to produce different mean sizes of stable agglomerates of several metal, metal oxide, and polymer nanoparticles in cell culture media for cell toxicity studies.Different mean sizes of agglomerates are produced by allowing the nanoparticles to agglomerate to a particular size in cell culture media without protein, and then adding protein to coat the agglomerates and “freeze” them at that size. By waiting different amounts of time before adding protein, different mean sizes of agglomerates of a single type of nanoparticle can be produced in an otherwise identical solution, allowing one to study how agglomerate size affects toxicity. In addition, it was found that vortexing while adding a high concentration of nanoparticles to the cell culture media produces much less agglomerated nanoparticles than if the dispersed solution is only mixed after adding the nanoparticles.

With comparison to more conventional toxicology studies, the nanotoxicology field is however suffering form a lack of easy characterisation of the potential contaminants, the “nano” scale been still a scale difficult to apprehend. The biological systems are themselves still not completely known at this scale. Ultimate Atomic visualisation methods such as Electron microscopy (SEM and TEM) and Atomic force Microscopy (AFM) analysis are allowing fantastic progresses in the visualisation of the nano world. Yet, further nanotoxicology studies will require extremely precise characterisation of the specificities of a given nano-element : size, chemical composition, detailed shape, level of aggregation, combination with other vectors, etc. Above all, these properties would have to be determined not only on the nanocomponent before its introduction in the living environnment but also in the (mostly acqueous) biological environnement. This is why nanotoxicoly is a fantastic field of research . This is also why it is not easy to determine to what extent a given nanoparticule has a dramatic effect when compared to comparable nanoparticules already present in our environnement either through natural/biological origin (see exosoms possibly implied in neural communication or through ancestral human activity (ashes).

Theory Of ‘Electro-Magentic Vibrations’ Regarding Potentization- Unscientific Ideas Wrapped In ‘Scientific’ Verbosity

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.”


“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?”


Did Hahnemann Really Consider Miasms As Genetically Inherited?

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.

Homeopaths Cannot And Should Not Practice Allopathy- Legally, Ethically And Philosophically

Parents dream and groom their children to make ‘doctors’, which is seen as a good ‘money-making’ profession with high social status. But the child fails to get appropriate ranking in entrance exams, and do not get admission to MBBS course. Parents could not invest lakhs to ‘buy’ an MBBS seat for their child. Finally, cursing his parents and his fate, he is enrolled for BHMS course to get at least a ‘doctor’ label. He ‘studies’ homeopathy with indignation, reluctance and inferiority complex. He never loves his homeopathy lessons. For him homeopathy is like a hard dry coconut, and do not know how to dehull it and relish its sweet inner kernel. He comes out of college after completing the course with a BHMS degree. He is never a HOMEOPATH in his hearts. He wants to make some money any how, by practicing allopathy. Such ‘misplaced’ homeopaths are making all these noises in the name of “permitting homeopaths to practice allopathy”! Poor guys!

If a homeopath feels ‘allopathy is better than homeopathy’, and he desires to practice allopathy, let him get an admission in a medical college and get an MBBS degree, and then register himself under MCI. ‘ONLY THEN’ he can practice allopathy. He should not practice allopathy on the strength of BHMS degree. That amounts to quackery, beyond any doubt.

An MBBS and pamphlets supplied by medical reps are enough to practice allopathy, it is simple. To be a homeopath, BHMS is only a first step. He has to learn a lot by himself, through reading, meditation, experience and constant introspection. It is really a hard job for a lazy man.

A homeopath can and should say which is ‘his’ system. There should not be confusion on that. Question here is not ‘which is better’ for ’emergency’, but ‘which system a homeopath should practice’. He should practice ‘only’ homeopathy. Let allopaths practice allopathy.

‘Emergency handling’ cannot be used as a justification for homeopaths practicing allopathy. Even an MBBS doctor cannot deal an ’emergency’ case. He will have refer ’emergency’ cases to well equipped hospitals having special emergency management units. In such a situation no homeopath can handle ’emergency’ cases even if he is permitted to use a few allopathic drugs. This talk of ’emergency dealing’ is only a cover to mask their ignorance and laziness to learn and apply genuine homeopathy. IF YOU GET A CASE THAT YOU FEEL IS BEYOND THE RANGE OF HOMEOPATHY, REFER IT TO COMPETENT HANDS.


Though holding BHMS degree, some people always compares homeopathy and allopathy, and strives to establish that homeopathy is good for nothing. They are totally ignorant of homeopathy, and argue to ‘modernise’ homeopathy by permitting homeopaths to practice allopathy. They never learns anything from discussions, but think they know ‘everything’. They will not allow genuine discussions on homeopathy. Fed up with such arguments for ‘allopathizing’ homeopathy, I was finally compelled to remove such people from my groups. They doing same thing on all groups.

People who fail in their practice due to ignorance or laziness desperately want to practice allopathy to exist as ‘doctors’. They are looking for loopholes in laws. Allopathic practice is controlled by MCI as per their laws. CCH is managing homeopathic practice as per Homeopathy Central Council Act. CCH has no right to ‘permit’ homeopaths to use allopathy drugs without the permission of MCI. As per Central Council Act, a homeopath registered under central council of homeopathy cannot use any drugs not included in homeopathic pharmacopea. All these factors are well known to everybody. Homeopaths using allopathic drugs is pure quackery. A genuine homeopath never think about it. Those ‘doctors’ who have a BHMS degree in their hands but no homeopathy in their heads only need ‘permission’ to use allopathic drugs. Why should people come to a homeopath for allopathic treatment? Why should a homeopath use allopathic drugs if he knows homeopathy? And you call it ‘modern approach’?

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.

Implications of Luc Montagnier’s Works Upon Scientific Understanding of Ultra Dilutions

Luc Antoine Montagnier is a French virologist and joint recipient with Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Harald zur Hausen of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, for his discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

In 2009 he published a paper regarding detection of electromagnetic signals from bacterial DNA (M. pirum and E. coli) in water that had been prepared using agitation and high dilutions, and similar research on electromagnetic detection of HIV DNA in the blood of AIDS patients treated by anti-retroviral therapy. While homeopaths claim his research as support for homeopathy, many scientists have greeted it with scorn and harsh criticism. Because the research used high dilutions, homeopaths claimed it supported homeopathy, even though it didn’t mention homeopathy or use ultra-high dilutions.

He was also questioned on his beliefs about homeopathy, to which he replied: “I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules.”

He did admit that he wasn’t working with the very high dilution levels normally used in homeopathy: “We find that with DNA, we cannot work at the extremely high dilutions used in homeopathy; we cannot go further than a 10-18 dilution, or we lose the signal. But even at 10-18, you can calculate that there is not a single molecule of DNA left. And yet we detect a signal.”

Luc Montagnier’s observation that ‘high dilutions’ contain “water structures which mimic the original molecules.” is very important for homeopathy. But, he never tried to explain the exact molecular mechanism by which this ‘mimicking’ happens, and more important, did not take up the task of explaining the dynamics of homeopathic therapeutics involved in ‘simila similibus curentur’.

Montaigner s observatios are very much relevant for the scientific understanding of homeopathy. It is very important that he could demonstrate some form of “information/energy/memory” that is retained in ultra high dilutions, even without the presence of a single molecule of original substance.
But the limitation of his work is that he did not go further to inquire what is the actual mechanism involved in this retaining of memory, but simply said it may be some “water structures that mimic the original molecules”!
Most important thing I see in his observations is the mention of possibility of some WATER STRUCTURES as the source of electromagnetic radiations that come from these ultra high dilutions. He also says these water structures MIMIC the original molecules. Actually this is the most relevant part of his work that has great implications upon homeopathy. He proved that ultra high dilutions are not NOTHING, but they contain WATER STRUCTURES that MIMIC original molecules. We have to take this observation forward in finding the most wanted answer to the basic question of homeopathy, “what are the active principles of post-avogadro homeopathy drugs”. Thanks to Montaigner, now we can confidently say “it is the WATER STRUCTURES that mimic the drug molecules”.
Our next step is to find out the mechanism by which these WATER STRUCTURES are formed during the process of homeopathic potentization. MIT hypothesis can answer this question very well. Then we will have to explain the BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM by which these “water structures” produce a therapeutic effect in a way fitting to the principle of similia similibus curentur. MIT can explain this also. Of course these all are only in the hypothetical stage. We have prove this idea by scientific experiments. MIT team is already into this work.
What actually happened to montaigner’s work was that it fell into the hands of people propagating unscientific ENERGY MEDICINE theories. They took up ideas of “electromagnetic radiations” coming from ultra dilutions mentioned by montaigner, and used it to justify their absurd theories that homeopathy medicines act by some sort of mysterious “vibrations”. They totally ignored the statement of Montaigner that these electromagnetic radiations he detected in ultra high dilutions actually come from WATER STRUCTURES that MIMIC the drug molecules.
I consider Luc Montaigner’s work as a great step in scientific understanding of high dilution therapeutics. We have to start from his idea of “water structures mimicking the original molecules”, which he actually considered as the source of electromagnetic radiations he observed emitting from ultra high dilutions.

What happened was that people interested in ‘ultra-scientific’ and ‘dynamic’ interpretation of homeopathy actually hijacked his theory. Only because he said he could detect ‘electromagnetic signals’ showing the presence of ‘molecular memory of dugs’ in high dilutions, these theoreticians used it to justify their pseudoscientific concepts of ‘resonance’, ‘vibrations’, frequencies’, ‘drug transmissions’, ‘radionics’, ‘drug teleportation’ and the like they use in explaining homeopathy.

Luc Montagnier’s limitation lies in the fact that he could not understand the concept of ‘molecular imprinting’. If he could have explained the phenomenon he observed in terms of ‘molecular imprinting’, instead of ‘mimicking’ and ‘vibrations’, the situation would have been entirely different. If he could have gone a bit forward and explained WATER CLUSTERS acting as the source of ‘electromagnetic signals’ as ‘molecular imprints’, he could have avoided the ‘occult’ homeopaths and ‘spiritual homeopaths hijacking and misusing his statements for their ulterior motives.

To be more exact, Montagnier should have said: “high dilutions of something are not nothing- hey are water structures which are ‘three-dimensional negative molecular imprints’ of original molecules.” Not mimics’ . That could have made a big difference for homeopathy.

According to Luc Montaigner, the ‘water structures’ formed in high dilutions are ‘mimics’ of original molecules. But in terms of modern molecular imprinting technology, ‘molecular imprints’ are 3d structures with configurations just complementary to original molecules. If we consider original molecules as ‘keys’, montaigner consider ‘nanostructures’ as duplicate keys. According to my concept, ‘molecular imprints’ are ‘artificial key holes’ that could act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for original keys or keys similar to them. Molecular imprints bind to the pathogenic molecules due to complementary configuration, exactly like a key hole binds to a key. Molecular imprinting produces artificial ‘key-holes’, not ‘duplicate keys.’ Once we understand this difference in perceptions, it would be easy for us to understand ‘similia similibus curentur’ scientifically.

Only ‘three-dimensional negative molecular imprints’ can explain the molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics, where potentized drugs are not acting similar to original drug molecules, but just as exact ‘opposites’. That is ‘similia similibus curentur’.

“I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules.”

Bnveneste also, similar to Montagnier, perceived potentized drugs as “water structures which mimic the original molecules”. Both of them were wrong.

I say, potentized drugs are “water structures which are ‘three-dimensional negative molecular imprints’ of original molecules.” I am trying to explain homeopathy on the basis of this “molecular imprint” concept.

In his article ‘DNA Between Physics and Biology’, Luc Montaigner explains about his famous experiment in which he used ‘nano-water structures’ mimicking specific dna fragments contained ‘ultra dilutions’ to induce in vitro synthesize of similar dna fragments using nucleotide primers and polymerase enzyme as follows:

“Now we undertake the most critical step: to investigate the specificity of the induced water nanostructures by recreating from them the DNA sequence. For this we add to the tube of signalized water all the ingredients to synthesize the DNA by polymerase chain reaction (nucleotides, primers, polymerase). The amplification was performed under classical conditions (35 cycles) in a thermocycler. The DNA produced was then submitted to electrophoresis in an agarose gel. Indeed, a DNA band of the expected size of the original LTR fragment was detected . We further verified that this DNA had a sequence identical or close to identical to the original DNA sequence of the LTR. In fact, it was 98% identical (2 nucleotide difference) out of 104. This experiment was found to be highly reproducible (12 out of 12) and was also repeated with another DNA sequence from a bacterium, Borrelia burgdorferi, the agent of Lyme disease. It clearly shows that the water nanostructures and their electromagnetic resonance can faithfully perpetuate DNA information…”

Instead of this vague theorizing about “water nanostructures and their electromagnetic resonance can faithfully perpetuate DNA information”, he could have explained this phenomenon in a more rational way, if he could understand the concept of ‘molecular imprinting’ involved in high dilutions.

According to my view, it is not the ‘electro magnetic resonance’ or ‘mimicking’ that induced dna synthesis in his experiments. Actually, the high dilutions of dna solutions he preapared contained ‘molecular imprints’ of specific dna fragments. When he added nucleotide primers and polymerase enzymes into this molecular imprinted water medium, molecular imprints could have held the nucleotide primers in the correct sequence and position similar to that of original dna fragment. Then, the polymeraze enzyme could have connected these primers to form dna molecules exactly similar to original one. Here, ‘molecular imprints’ acted as ‘templates’, and helped in arranging nucleotide primers in correct sequence by binding to them, due to the specific configurational affinity.

Since he had no any idea of molecular imprinting, he tried to explain this phenomenon in terms of ‘electromagnetic resonance’, which led to ultra-scientific interpretations. This limitations helped the ‘energy medicine’ theorists to hijack and misuse the works of luc montaigner.