Tag: homoeopath

Here is a remarkable study regarding the variation in Fourier Transform Infrared Spectra of some homeopathic potencies and their diluent media, conducted by N.C.SUKUL, Ph.D., SUDESHNA GHOSH, M.Sc., A. SUKUL, Ph.D., and S.P. SINHABABU, Ph.D. It is published in THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, Volume 11,  Number 5, 2005, pp. 807–812. The report is available at this link: http://www.homeopathy.org/research/basic/acm-2005-11_11.pdf

Published report reads as follows: “The aim of this study was to determine whether potentized homeopathic drugs and their diluent media differ from each other with respect to their Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectra. FTIR spectra of Nux  vomica 30C,  Lycopodium 30C,  Santonin 30C,  Cina 30C,  Cina 206C,  Cina 1006C, and their diluent media (90% ethanol and Ethanol) 30C were obtained in the wave number range of  2000–1000 cm_1 at 20°C. Potassium bromide powder soaked with the potencies, pressed into pellets, and air dried were used to measure the spectra. Because water structures in homeopathic potencies are thought to carry specific information on drug molecules and because O-H bending vibrational band (v2) exclusively belongs to water, the study was restricted to the bands in that wave number region. Alcohol has no absorption in the O-H bending region.

 The potencies were found to differ from each other and their diluent media in the number of v2 bands, their wave number (cm_1), shape, and half-width (cm_1) of the bands.

The number and other characteristics of the v2 band represent the number of hydrogen-bonded water species and their hydrogen-bonding strength, respectively. The potencies and their diluent media therefore differ from each other in the number of hydrogen-bonded water species and their hydrogen-bonding strength. The observation that KBr pellets soaked with a potentized drug retains its specific spectral absorption properties simply confirms that medicated sucrose globules, used in homeopathic dispensing, are capable of retaining the therapeutic properties of the drug.

Drugs are prepared and stored in aqueous ethanol. Sucrose globules soaked with liquid potencies retain therapeutic properties of the drugs for a long time. Water also serves as a good medium but it does not keep the properties of a potency for long. It has been suggested that water structures in a potentized drug are responsible for carrying the information of drug molecules or particles present in the mother tincture. Ethanol molecules are thought to promote or to preserve water structures characteristic of a potentized drug.1A basic quality of a hydrogen-bonded solvent such as water is the hydrogen bond strength.

Physicochemical properties of the water in aqueous alcohol mixtures have been studied widely by such techniques as X-ray or light scattering, dielectric relaxation, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging et cetera. Among these methods, infrared (IR) spectroscopy is one of the most promising for the study of the distribution of hydrogen- bonding strengths of the water molecules in the mixtures because of the short time scale of measurements. There are two kinds of fundamental vibrations for molecules: (1) stretching, in which the distance between two atoms increase or decrease but the atom remains in the same bond axis; and (2) bending, in which the position of the atom changes relative to the original bond axis. Infrared radiation causes vibrational excitation of the molecular framework of a compound. In aqueous alcohol O-H stretching vibrational bands of water (v1 and v3) overlap the alcoholic O-H band. For this the IR spectra in the stretching region are of no use for studying hydrogen bonds of the water molecules in water/alcohol mixtures. In the region of bending vibrational band of water (v2), alcohols have no absorption bands. The purpose of the present work is to study v2 bands through Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy in 90% ethanol, Ethanol 30C, and some potentized drugs such as Nux vomica 30C, Lycopodium 30C, Santonin 30C, Cina 30C, Cina 206C, and Cina 1006C prepared in 90% ethanol. Conventionally vibrations are labeled in decreasing frequency within their symmetry type. The symmetric vibrations of H2O are labeled v1 for the highest fully symmetric frequency (3651.7 cm_1) and v2 for the next highest (1595.0 cm_1).7 FTIR spectroscopy provides simultaneous and almost instantaneous recording of the whole spectrum in the infrared region while minimizing background noise.

Nux vomica 30C, Lycopodium 30C, Santonin 30C, and Cina 30C were prepared by successive dilution (1:100 v/v) with 90% ethanol followed by succussion in 30 steps from the respective mother tinctures in this laboratory.8 Cina 200C and Cina 1000C, purchased from M. Bhattacharyya and Co. (Calcutta, India), were further diluted (1:100) and succussed with 90% ethanol in 6 more steps to prepare Cina206C and Cina 1006C. All of these potencies have the same absorbance (3.135) at 255 nm, showing similar concentrations of ethanol (90%). The purpose was to replace the manufacturer’s aqueous ethanol in Cina 200C and Cina 1000C with the ethanol in this laboratory so that the diluent medium (90% ethanol) of all the test potencies would be of the same quality. Ethanol was obtained from Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Calcutta, India). Sterile deionized and double-distilled water was added to absolute ethanol to prepare 90% ethanol, which served as the diluent medium of all potenties as well as the control.

 FTIR spectra were measured at 20°C by a Jasco FTIR spectrometer (Jasco, model 420, Japan). The wave number resolution was 4 cm_1. Spectra  were obtained in the wave number range of 2000–1000 cm_1. Potassium bromide powder (_150 mg) was soaked with 90% ethanol (_0.15 mL) or any of the six potencies tested. The drug-soaked powder was mixed thoroughly with a mortar and pestle, spread in thin film (1 mm deep) in a petri dish, and allowed to dry at 30°C (50% humidity). The powder was then pressed into small equal-sized pellets. The KBr pellets, which simulate sucrose globules soaked with a potency, were exposed to IR radiation in the spectrometer. Five pellets were prepared for each drug or the diluent medium, and the IR spectra measured.

Data were analyzed by one way analysis of variance. Different potencies and their diluent media (90% ethanol, Ethanol  30C) differ significantly (p _ 0.01) from each other with respect to the positions of bands in the wave number regions, their half-widths, and their absorption intensities except the wave numbers.  ……..

 Because all KBr pellets were prepared under similar conditions, it is quite unlikely that they have different amounts of water in them. In earlier work the present authors observed a marked variation in O-H bending vibration among 90% ethanol, Nux vom 30C (unsuccussed), and Nux vom 30C succussed.5 The results of the present study show that potentized drugs differ from each other and also from their diluent medium, 90% ethanol, in the number of v2 bands. The number of observed v2 bands should provide the number of water species with different hydrogen-bonding strengths.6 There may be a few more water species than those actually observed by v2 bands in the spectra. According to Mizuno (personal communication, June 2003), IR spectroscopy has superior power in that different water species are distinctive from each other, but it is very difficult to resolve the curve into components. Mizuno further observed that there was no linearity in the absorption intensities of different bands. Thus different potentized drugs have different water species with different hydrogen-bonding strengths. The v2 bands have different half-widths in different potencies. The broadening of v2 bands has been attributed to the distribution of hydrogen-bonding strengths and vibrational coupling.6 The v2 band of pure water has an unusually broad width of 82 cm_1 at half-maximum. The v2 band is found to be narrower with an increase in the alcohol concentration. The narrowing of the v2 band is considered to be caused by the weakening of the vibrational coupling as a result of dilution by the alcohol. The concentration of ethanol was the same (90%) in all the potencies tested. The variation in the half-width of the v2 band may thus be caused by influence of original molecules at the start of the dilution process and also by succussion. Previously the present authors observed that succussion caused blue shift of the v2 in Nux vomica 30C.In each column of Table 1 the band of different drugs showed either a blue or red shift. Blue shifts represent the formation of stronger hydrogen bonds among water molecules. This has also been confirmed by 1H-NMR studies. It has long been known in clinical practice that sucrose globules soaked with a liquid potentized drug retain all the therapeutic properties of the drugs. FTIR spectra of KBr pellets soaked with potentized drugs simply confirm the long-standing clinical observation.

Cowan et al. demonstrated that the three-dimensional structure of liquid water loses its memory of molecular arrangement through the H-bond network in about 50 fs. The work was based on O-H stretching vibrations of pure H2O. Pure water is not comparable to a homeopathic potency that is prepared by successive dilution and succession from a mother tincture and preserved in 90% ethanol. Ethanol molecules with large nonpolar parts can preserve or promote water structures specific to a homeopathic potency. The efficacy of a homeopathic potency prepared in pure water is very short-lived. An electrostatic component is usually the dominant force contributing to H-bonding. Succussion or any mechanical agitation would therefore make the H-bonding stronger in a homeopathic potency. In ethanol solution the sequential H-bond dissociation and reassociation occur between the same OH groups. In water the broken bonds probably reform to give the same H-bond. Dissociation is a rare event occurring only twice a day, that is, once for every 1016 times the H-bond breaks. Thus clusters can persist for much longer times. The relative proportions of different polymers of water preserved by ethanol are at dynamic equilibria of specific geometric configurations. It is assumed that this dynamic geometric configuration of water clusters in a collective way confers specificity on a potentized homeopathic drug. The homeopathic potencies used in the present study were prepared in 90% ethanol and soaked in KBr pellets. Here water structures were preserved by ethanol and their random.

Based on the study findings several conclusions can be drawn. First, in the FTIR spectra of aqueous alcohol mixtures O-H bending vibrational bands (v2) exclusively belong to water. Nux vomica 30C, Lycopodium 30C,  Santonin 30C,  Cina 30C, Cina 206C, and Cina 1006C differ from each other and also from their diluent medium, 90% ethanol, in the number of v2 bands, their wave-number (cm_1), their shape, and half-width (cm_1) in the FTIR spectra. Second, the number of v2 bands and other parameters of the same represent, respectively, the number of hydrogen-bonded species of water and their hydrogen bonding strengths. Thus the potencies and their diluent medium differ from each other with respect to the number of H-bonded water species and their H-bonding strengths. Third, KBr pellets soaked with potentized drug, such as medicated sucrose globules used in homeopathic dispensing, retain specific spectral properties of the drugs concerned. Finally, homeopathic potencies can be differentiated from each other by FTIR spectra with respect to the O-H bending vibrational band.”

This elaborate study rightly observes that the homeopathic potencies and their original diluent medium differ from each other with respect to the number of H-bonded water species and their H-bonding strengths.

Even though the authors could not understand the real process of “MOLECULAR IMPRINTING” involved in this phenomenon, their observation amply proves that the supra-molecular structure of potentized medicines differs from ethyl alcohol/water mixture, even though their chemical composition remained the same. That means, through the process of potentization, supra-molecular structure of ethyl alcohol/water mixture has undergone fundamental changes. Obviously, it is through these structural changes that the medicinal properties of drug molecules are transferred to the diluent medium.  

This difference in the structure of potentized medicines from their original medium, the specificity of medicinal properties exhibited by potentized medicines, and the fact that potentized medicines exhibit medicinal properties just opposite to that of parent drugs can be satisfactorily explained only on the basis of “molecular imprinting’ as proposed by DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY.

This question is very important in the scientific understanding of molecular processes involved in homeopathic potentization and therapeutics. There are many homeopaths believing that during potentization, the medicinal properties of drugs are some way or other transferred to the potentizing medium, and hence potentized medicines can interact with human organism in the same way as the original drugs.

On the contrary, DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY proposes that potentization involves a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, in which the spacial configuration of drug molecules are imprinted into the medium as 3-D nano cavities, which can act as recognition sites towards original drug molecules or other molecules similar in configuration. As per this view, potentized medicines contain only ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules, which are complementary in configuration to the drug molecules. When applied for therapeutic purpose, these molecular imprints bind to the pathogenic molecules, and not to the biological targets.

In order to prove this concept, we have to experimentally prove that potentized medicines can not interact with biological molecules in the same way as original drug molecules used for potentization.

Here I am reproducing a previously published report regarding such an experiment already conducted by a team of eminent scientists in Germany five years back. It is published in “The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. May 2006, 12(4): 359-365. doi:10.1089/acm.2006.12.359”

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2006.12.359

The team conducted this experiment to verify whether potentized HgCl2 (Mercurius corrosivus) affect the activity of Diastase and α-Amylase in a way similar to crude form of HgCl2.

Research team consisted of: 1. Claudia M. Witt, M.D. Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany. 2. Michael Bluth, M.D. Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany. 3. Stephan Hinderlich, Ph.D. Institute for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany. 4. Henning Albrecht, Ph.D. Karl and Veronica Carstens-Foundation, Essen, Germany. 5. Rainer Lüdtke, M.Sc. Karl and Veronica Carstens-Foundation, Essen, Germany. 6. Thorolf E.R. Weisshuhn Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University  Medical Center, Berlin, Germany. 7. Stefan N. Willich, M.D., M.P.H. Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany.

Their objective was to test for a stimulating or inhibiting effect of high potencies of the homeopathic remedy HgCl2 (Mercurius corrosivus) on two sugar hydrolases- (α-amylase from hog pancreas and diastase extract from winter barley)

High potencies of HgCl2 were produced using stepwise dilution plus shaking. Controls included potentized solvent (aqua bidestillata), equimolar dilutions without shaking, and enzyme-free references. Tested were potencies with dilution factors 1:200 (CC) on diastase extract from winter barley, and 1:100 (C) on α-amylase from hog pancreas. Enzyme activity was colorimetrically determined by Lugol’s iodine-starch reaction.

An inhibiting effect of HgCl2 on enzyme activities was observed only in low potencies and dilutions (which contained molecules of HgCl2). Statistically significant differences between potencies and controls were not found in randomized and blinded experiments.

 This experimental design provided independent reproducible results of cell-free in vitro assays.However, it did not indicate an effect of potentized HgCl2 on hydrolases. The researchers conclusion was that demonstrating potency effects may require additional experimental features.

My Interpretations:

 Reported experiments and the results they obtained may help us in designing and conducting further in vitro experiments to prove the hypothesis put forward by DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY regarding potentization.

 HgCl2 is known in  homeopathy as Merc Cor.

Crude HgCl2 is a known inhibitor of glucose hydrolases such as diastase and α-amylase.

Reported experiments show that similar to crude forms, lower dilutions of this compound also inhibits the hydrolyzing activity of those sugar hydrolase enzymes. Obviously, these lower dilutions contain molecules of HgCl2, and hence the inhibitory action on enzymes.

Same time, these experiments clearly showed that higher potencies of HgCl2 have no inhibitory action on those enzymes. That means, highly potentized HgCl2 cannot ‘mimic’ the original compound as expected by some theoreticians.

This finding, though considered by the researchers as a set back to their expectations, has serious implications in proving the concepts of DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY regarding potentization.

This experiment proves that through the potentization process, the properties of original drugs are not transferred to the potenizing medium in such a way so as to enable it to ‘mimic’ the original drugs.

We homeopaths know beyond any doubt that potentized HgCl2 or Merc Cor produces expected therapeutic effects when administered on the basis of principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’. That means, potentized HgCl2 contains some active principles having specific biochemical properties. Since the present experiments have shown that potentized HgCl2 cannot ‘mimic’ the biochemical properties of original compound, a logical and scientific explanation regarding the real molecular mechanism involved in potentization as well as therapeutic action becomes very much necessary.

Only possibility is ‘molecular imprinting’, as proposed by DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY.

Now, we have to repeat these in vitro experiment to verify whether higher potencies of HgCl2 can reactivate the enzymes already inhibited by lower potencies or crude forms of the same compound.

 

I have recently conducted a blindfolded UV spectrometric study of Nux Vomica 30 at a pharmaceutical research lab. I sent them 3 samples of Nux Vomica 30( obtained from wilmer schwabe), and 3 samples of highly succussed pure rectified spirit. All 6 samples were similarly bottled and packed to prevent identification, using randomly numbered labels. The study report shows that transmission rate of UV light in Nux Vomica 30 is significantly lower than controls(ethyl alcohol/water). In other words, Nux Vomica 30 was capable of absorbing more UV light than controls. It clearly shows that potentized homeopathic drugs, without any drug molecules contained in them, have some sort of physico-chemical difference from normal potentizing media, that enables them to absorb more energy entering in the form of UV light. It is understood that many other saearchers have also reported similar results through different spectrometric methods. Now the problem before us is how to interpret this observation in accordance with a working model of ‘molecular imprinting’ we are trying to present as the real mechanism of homeopathic ‘potentization’

As per my interpretation, a medium absorbs comparatively more energy when it is less dynamic and in a lower energy state. We all know, cold objects can absorb more heat than a warmer object. More vibrations can be absorbed by a comparatively stable object. From that point of view, Nux Vomica 30 has to be considered to be existing in a more stable, less dynamic state than the control sample. That means, potentized drugs are more structured than ordinary alcohol/water mixture. Only explanation we can provide for this phenomenon is that water/ethyl alcohol molecules exist more hydrogen bonded and mutually attached in potentized drugs. Supra-molecular structure of potentized medicines are more stable. Such an interpretation supports our concept of “molecular imprinting” as the real mechanism of homeopathic potentization.

The theory of ‘single drug, single dose’ is considered to be the ideal homeopathic rule of prescribing. Everybody strive to convince others that he is an ardent follower of this golden rule, even though privately he may be employing multiple drugs, seeking self-consolation in the “law of complementary relationships”. People who claim to follow the ‘single drug, single dose’ rule are held in high esteem by the profession, as true “classical homeopaths”. If any body boldly declares that he uses multiple drugs, he is accused of practicing “polypathic quackery” which is considered to be “unhomeopathic”. Of course, they may quote extensively from our great masters as supporting evidences for their opposition to multiple drugs.

We have to examine this “single drug versus multiple drug” issue with honesty and a rational scientific mindset. We should understand that there a lot of relatively darker areas in homeopathy, and obviously a lot of unanswered, incompletely answered and wrongly answered questions there. Once the fundamental questions of molecular mechanism of “similia similibus curentur” and “potentization” is scientifically explained, it will be easier to sort out such lesser issues logically.

Whatever our great masters have said earlier within the limitations of their space-time context, we will have to make a rational assessment of certain factors while trying to answer this important question on the basis of updated scientific knowledge.

Discarding the “dynamic” and “vitalistic” approaches of “classical homeopathy, DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY tries to analyze this issue from an entirely different perspective.

The so-called ‘classical homeopaths’ defines ‘single dug’ as any form of drug substance used as a sample for “proving”. Such a sample is called a ‘single drug’, even though it may be a complex mixture of several separate substances.

According to them, the criteria for “singularity” of a substance is not its constitution, but its “proving”. They think that when they consume any number of a substance as a ‘single’ unit, it will act in the body as ‘single’ substance! This subjective way of reasoning obviously lacks logic.

Any body with minimum understanding of material sciences know that drug substances interfere in the biochemical processes of the organism by their chemical properties, and that these chemical properties are determined by the individual constituent molecules contained in them. Only because we consume different types of molecules as a “single” unit, it cannot act as “single” drug in the bio-molecular processes.

For example, an alcoholic tincture extracted from the Nux Vomica plant is evidently a mixture of many types of enzymes, alkaloids, glycosides, phytochemicals, and other organic and inorganic molecules. It is obvious that tincture of nux vomica may differ in molecular constitution from sample to sample, depending up on whether they are prepared from whole plant, flowers, tender leaves, bark, fruit, or any other sources. No doubt, all these sample will be containing some molecules common to all parts of plant, even though their concentrations may vary. Over and above the natural organic contents, various elements and chemical molecules absorbed from the environment will also be part of that tincture. It may also contain various accidental contaminants and pollutants also. In spite of all these possibilities, we consider Nux Vomica tincture is a “single” medicinal substance, and we often talk about a “Nux Vomica personality” as such!

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

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

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

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

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

The following facts are evident from this deliberation. At least some or other groups of symptoms attributed in the Materia Medica as that of a particular drug substance used for proving might not be related to it at all, but to the contaminants happened to be subjected to proving. Same way, in the potentized form, we are administering to the patient potencies of some additional molecules also in the, entirely different from those subjected to earlier provings. In short, Nux vomica we read in materia medica is different from Nux Vomica we use for treatment, even though both bear the same label. It means that while there will be most of the expected qualities in the potencies we use, there will definitely be the absence of at least some or other qualities we expect. Because, certain contaminant molecules subjected to proving and represented in the materia medica, might not be present in the samples used for potentization. It shows how much uncertain and unpredictable is the outcome of homeopathic medication in present situation.

Now, we have to consider the factor of foreign molecules which are likely to contaminate unexpectedly into the samples used for the commercial preparation of potencies. These foreign molecules have never been proved. We are totally ignorant about the different ways in which they might have interacted with the molecules of the original drug. We have no idea regarding the molecular inhibitions or the groups of symptoms they are likely to produce in the living organism. In spite of all these deficiencies, we apply the potencies of such unknown foreign molecules also, along with the original medicinal substance in to the body of a patient. Same time, we claim we are using ‘single drug’ only!

During our clinical practice, we would have experienced instances of removal of totally unexpected symptoms and diseases from the patient. Those symptoms might not be included in any text book of Materia Medica of the given drug. I suspect it may be the potencies of those unknown molecules entering the sample during potentization that is playing this trick.

The above facts more than expose the hollowness of our belief and often-repeated claim that we give a ‘single drug’ to our patient. It is undeniable that we are using medicines selected on the basis of similarity of symptoms, mixing it with potencies of some or other different types of molecules  as well. This is an unpleasant situation which we cannot neglect. We should understand that we are giving the patient a mixture of “imprints” of different types of molecules, about some of which we have no idea at all. Same time, our medicines provide expected results when applied on the basis of ‘similia similibus curentur’. It shows that the presence of “imprints” of any unproved and unknown foreign molecules in the potentized drug in no way negatively affect the its effectiveness as a therapeutic agent.

During proving of drugs, the molecules and ions contained in them act individually up on different bio-molecular targets, on the basis of their configurational and charge affinity, and produce their own individual “groups of symptoms”. Like wise, when drugs are potentised, the constituent molecules and ions are individually subjected to a process of molecular imprinting in water-alcohol mixture, forming hydrosomes, that are exact counteractive configurational factors (CCF) of original molecules used as “guest” molecules in imprinting. That is why the presence of impurities which enter at the time of potentization never adversely affect the quality of the potencies of original drug. All the potencies, that we consider as single medicine are in realty a mixture or combination of “molecular imprints” of different types of independent molecules and ions, which never interact with each other in potentized form. This revealation prove that there is no harm to the “molecular imprints” of original drug molecules contained in the potencies, even if “imprints” of any foreign molecules happen to be mixed with them, deliberately or otherwise. More over, when introduced into the organism, these “molecular imprints” interact with biological molecules in their individual capacities, on the basis of configurational affinity. Since molecules and ions are subjected to molecular imprinting in their individual capacities, and they cannot interact with each other in that form, there is no chance of happening any harm, by mixing two or more samples of potencies of different drugs.

There is least possibility of any constituent molecules of drug substance remaining in their potentized forms above 12c. Only molecular imprints will remain. Hence, when higher potencies of two drugs are mixed together, there will be no chemical interaction taking place between them. In such a mixture, the molecular imprints of constituents of both samples will remain independent, without influencing each other, and with out losing their own individual qualities whatsoever.

What happens when such a mixture of two or more potentized drugs is introduced into the organism of a patient? Naturally, the molecular imprints of each constituent drug molecule interacts with biological molecules and pathological molecules individually, based on their specific configurational affinity. As counteractive configurational factors, they can bind only to the pathological molecules, which are similar to the original drug molecules that were used for imprinting. The biological molecules are thereby relieved from inhibitions caused by pathological molecules. This process ultimately removes the state of pathology, and relieves the subjective and objective symptoms of disease. A homeopathic cure is said to be effected. Due to their specific configuratioanal affinity, each type of molecular imprints can locate, identify and bind to exact molecular targets, whereas in the absence of exact molecular targets, these imprints stay neutral, since they are composed of mere water and alcohol molecules. The saying that ‘if a homeopathic potency is not similimum to a patient, it will not act’ is well explained here.

The question of acceptability of administering two or more homeopathic medicines in potentized form, by mixing, alternating, or simultaneously, should be discussed in the light of the above findings.

It is a very important fact that the drugs in the potentized form, which have no similarity with any group of symptoms shown by the patient, will not be able to create any sort of reaction in the living organism. Chemically, potentized drugs being only a mixture of alcohol and water, their chemical properties will remain confined to that molecular structure. Therefore, when we mix homoeopathic potencies of different drugs together, there is no chance for any chemical interactions to take place. More over the configurational properties of the diverse types molecular imprints contained in them are not in any way destroyed by this mixing.

 ‘Total Cure Prescriptions’  is an innovation in homeopathic practice, which enables homeopaths to generate wonderful sure-shot customized prescriptions that would offer ‘rapid, permanent and total cure’ for their patients.  Total Cure Prescriptions’  addresses not any individual diseases presented by the patient, but ALL his diseases that may be due to diverse miasmatic, genetic, infectious, environmental, ontogenic, metabolic, emotional or nutritional causes. All in a single go!

A ‘TOTAL CURE PRESCRIPTION’ is a prescription that is expected to contain ALL the diverse types of ‘molecular imprints’ required to remove ALL the diverse types of molecular inhibitions existing in the patient, thereby offering a TOTAL CURE.

You cannot follow this concept unless you could perceive potentized drugs in terms of diverse types of independent molecular imprints contained in them, representing the diverse types of constituent molecules of original drug substance used for potentization. You should also perceive ‘patient’ in terms of diverse types of molecular inhibitions caused by diverse types of pathogenic molecules, and expressed as diverse groups of ‘symptoms’.

To understand this innovative method, it is essential that one has to be familiar with the scientific explanation  proposed by DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY regarding “Simila Similibus Curentur” and “potentization”.

If we get a ‘single’ similimum that cover the ‘totality of symptoms’, should we think about a second drug? My answer is an emphatic NO. Homeopathy is all about finding SIMILIMUM. Nothing more, nothing less.

But in how many cases we get an exact similimum that cover the TOTALITY of physical generals, mentals, miasms and particular disease symptoms? Very rare. For example, a person with CALC constitution may come with an acute shock from grief indicating IGNATIA. He may be having a skin eruption with symptoms indicating ARS, and certain rectal symptoms indicating NIT ACID. We will not get a ‘single’ similimum that cover the complete TOTALITY of this case.

In such cases, we are normally taught to start with a SINGLE drug that would address his most disturbing complaints and step by step address the TOTAL case in LAYERS with ‘single’ drugs. What I am now saying is that there is no harm in prescribing all these SIMILIMUMS that cover the whole layers TOGETHER. That way we can ensure a TOTAL cure RAPIDLY.

KENT taught us to find a similimum based on TOTALITY OF CONSTITUTIONAL SYMPTOMS. His method is most appropriate in determining CONSTITUTIONAL SIMILIMUM.

BOENNINGHAUSSEN taught us to find similimum on the basis of CAUSATION, LOCATION, SENSATIONS, MODALITIES AND CONCOMITANTS of PARTICULAR DISEASE SYMPTOMS.

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

Does it mean either of them was wrong? NO. Both were right. BOENNNINGHAUSSEN was talking about PARTICULAR TOTALITY and KENT WAS talking about CONSTITUTIONAL TOTALITY. I think we should combine KENT and BOENNINGHAUSSEN. Or, combine constitutional totality with particular totalities to get COMPLETE TOTALITY.

This concept of combining potentized drugs evolves from my understanding that potentization involves a process of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING, and individual constituent molecules of drugs are IMPRINTED in their individual capacities. That means, even a drug we consider SINGLE is in fact a mixture of different types of  MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of diverse constituent drug molecules, and they exist without interacting with each other. According to this view, even if we mix two or more potentized drugs together, the constituent MOLECULAR IMPRINTS will not interact each other, and act up on the appropriate molecular targets in their individual capacities.

SINGLE DRUG/ MULTIPLE DRUG dilemma does not bother us if if understand the MOLECULAR IMPRINTING concept proposed by DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY. For the last five years I was experimenting this method, and I have found it totally harmless and very effective.

“Similia Similibus Curentur” is logically explained on the basis of modern scientific understanding of molecular kinetics of pathology and therapeutics. As per this view, a state of pathology arises as deviations in some or other biological channels, expressed in the form of specific trains of subjective and objective symptoms, that may be called “symptom complexes”. These biochemic deviations are caused by specific molecular errors occurring in the organism, resulting from certain molecular blocks in bio-molecules created by binding of endogenic or exogenic pathological molecules. There may be multitudes of molecular errors existing in the organism, represented by multitudes of separate ‘symptom complexes’. Therapeutics involves the removal of these molecular blocks using appropriate molecular agents called ‘drugs’. Homeopathy is a special form of therapeutics, in which ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules are utilized instead of original ‘drug molecules’, selected on the basis of their proven capacity to interfere in the biochemical processes.

“Potentization” is explained on the basis of modern technology of “Molecular Imprinting”. During the homeopathic process of ‘potentization’, individual constituent molecules contained in the drug substances are imprinted into water/alcohol matrix. As such, potentized medicines contains supra-molecular ‘clusters’ of water/ethyl alcohol, into which the configurational memory of drug molecules are imprinted in the form of 3-dimensional nanocavities. These nanocavities or ‘molecular imprints’ are the real active principles of potentized medicines. When introduced into the organism, these ‘molecular imprints’ can specifically bind to the pathological molecules having configurational similarity to those used for molecular imprinting, thereby relieving the biological molecules from pathological inhibitions.

According to Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, the highest ideal of a physician is to get a “rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of health”of his patient “on easily comprehensible principles”. To be “a true practitioner of the healing art”, the physician should “clearly perceive what is to be cured in diseases”, “what is curative in medicines”, and how to adapt, the “curative” to the “to be cured”. He should also know the “exact mode of preparation and quantity”, “proper period for repeating the dose” and how to remove “obstacles to recovery”. Except the possiblity of any “exciting or maintaining cause”, “a miasm”, and “accessory circumstances”, nothing but the “morbid symptoms”, should be considered by the physician,  and “totality of symptoms”, should be the sole means to “determine the choice of the most appropriate remedy”.

Logic of “Total Cure” or “Integrated Similimum”:

“Total Cure” method of repertorization or “Integrated Similimum”, a well-principled  improvisation in modern homeopathic practice, is the most effective and rational way of attaining “total cure” of the patient.  It is an enirely new concept, evolving as a logical outcome of the scientific understanding of homeopathy, similia similibus curentur, potentization, life, disease and cure, as proposed in my article on DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY. It clearly perceives “what is to be cured in diseases”, “what is curative in medicines”, and how to adapt, the “curative” to the “to be cured”. In order to determine the choice of the “most appropriate remedy”, it solely relies up on “totality of symptoms”, with due considerations given to any “exciting or maintaining cause”, “a miasm”, and “accessory circumstances”.

“Total Cure” method is not at all a shortcut to bye-pass systematic case taking, anamnesis  and repertorization that  require much intellectual input and hard work. The concept of “Total Cure” is the integral part of a scientific understanding of “total personality” of an individual patient. In this method, symptoms collected through elaborate and systematic case taking are “compartmentalized” into various  individual symptom groups, called “symptom complexes”, and separate similimum determined for each “symptom complex”. Drugs thus selected are combined to prepare a  “integrated similimum” applicable for the particular patient. If perfecty worked out, this “integrated similimum”  will act as a holistic “single drug”, containing all the diverse types of “molecular imprints” capable of removing each and every molecular blocks, and rectifying all the pathological bio-chemical deviations of the vital processes in the particular organism.

What is “to be cured” in diseases? Instead of vainly repeating the vitalistic explanations provided by our old masters, we should be ready to accept the scientific perception of diseases as specific molecular errors in the vital processes. In most instances of pathology, these molecular errors happen due to the binding of some endogenic or exogenic foreign molecules up on complex biological molecules, thereby resulting in deviations in biochemical pathways. Cure consists of removal of these molecular errors in the organism. Therapeutics is the art of removing these molecular errors by using appropriate medicinal substances.

What is “curative” in homeopathic potentized medicines? Potentized homeopathic medicines  contain different types of 3-d nano-cavities or “molecular imprints” formed in water-alcohol matrix, by imprinting with the individual constituent molecules of drug subastances used for potentization. These “molecular imprints” are capable of binding to the pathological molecules having a configurational similarity to the original drug molecules used for “imprinting”. Such a binding will result in the removal of molecular blocks, thereby relieving the biological molecules from pathological inhibitions.

How to adapt the “curative” to the “to be cured? The “curative” factors are selected and applied to the “to be cured” according to the homeopathic principle of “similia similibus curentur”.

How to determine the choice of “most appropriate” remedy? According to my interpretation,  “most appropriate” remedy should contain all the diverse types of “molecular imprints” required to remove all the molecular errors in the particular organism. As per the proposed method, “molecular imprints” appropriate for each individual molecular error should be separately determined and “integrated” into making of a most appropriate “single remedy”.

How the concept of “totality of symptoms” is perceived? Each specific molecular error in the organism expresses as a particular train of subjective and objective symptoms called “symptom complexes”, with peculiar locations, sensations, modalities and concomitants of their own. Totality of all these separate “symptom complexes” constitute the “totality of symptoms” of an individual. Such a totality  comprises of all the diverse “symptom complexes” representing all the genetic, constitutional, miasmatic and acquired molecular errors in that individual.

“Total Cure” method and “Total Cure Prescriptions”:

 A word of caution. When I talk about  “Total Cure” method of repertorization  or “Integrated Similimum” as a powerful clinical strategy that should be adapted in homeopathy, many homeopaths may at first glance think that I am arguing in favor of unprincipled random mixing of drugs for each and every particular disease entities, as done by the manufacturers of patent combinations now flooding the homeopathic market and blindly prescribed by many homeopaths. I am not at all for such generalized combinations of homeopathic drugs. I am proposing a systematic method of preparing a “Integrated Similimum” for the particular patient we are dealing with, and such a “drug” will never be appropriate for another individual. More over, “Total Cure method of repertorization”  or “Integrated Similimum” should not also be confused with  “multiple drug prescriptions”. “Multiple drug prescriptions”  are commonly employed when the prescriber  is not much confident regarding the selection of similimum in a given case. For most people engaged in this method, it almost develops in time into a habit of prescribing  multiple drugs even in very simple cases. Perhaps  he may not be able to take a final decision between two seemingly similar drugs. This may also be due to paucity of well marked reliable symptoms, non-co-operation of patient, inappropriate case taking, wrong repertorization, deficiency in materia medica knowledge, or aversion to work hard to find a similimum. Perhaps the case may be so acute and severe that it demands instant palliation. In such cases, the doctor may be compelled to use more than one drug, which seems to be equally indicated. Of course, if the real similimum is included  in such a multiple drug prescription, it will definitely act and patient will get relief. If you are using potencies above 23c, since they contain only ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules, according to my perception, there will be no any chance for interaction  between drugs. Hence, there is no any particular harm in using this method, other than the fact that the patient get only partial cure, and it may also be difficult to ascertain which drug actually worked, so that we will have to repeat same combination of drugs if follow up is required. This method of “multiple drug prescription” is used by many homeopaths at least in certain clinical contingencies.

My propositions  regarding “Total Cure” naturally evolve as the logical extension of my scientific concepts regarding “potentization” as a technology of “molecular imprinted drug designing”. I usually recommend only potencies around 30c, and consider it unhomeopathic to use drugs in low potencies(below 12C) that may contain drug molecules.  I am talking only about the desirability of combining of drugs selected as similimum through correct case taking, strict individualization and scientific “compartmentalized” repertorization for each individual patient. More over, this idea is very much in conformity with the modern understanding of diseases as deviations of vital processes arising from some or other molecular errors in the organism. According to my perspective, an individual may be having different types of molecular errors in different biochemical pathways caused by entirely different molecular blocks, and represented in the form of different groups of subjective and objective symptoms. A particular ‘symptom group’ may be the expression of a particular molecular error in a particular bio-chemic pathway, where as another “symptom group” may be representing an entirely different molecular error. Expecting a ‘single’ drug to cover all these diverse and unrelated “symptom groups” representing entirely different types of molecular errors in an organism is obviously utopian wishful thinking. Since different molecular errors may be caused by the binding of different types of exogenic or endogenic foreign molecules upon different biological molecules and pathways, we have to find appropriate ‘similimum’ for each “symptom group” to effect a complete cure. Otherwise we get only partial cures.

“Total Cure” method is based on the scientific understanding that “symptoms”, whether subjective or objective, are the expression of certain pathological deviations in some biochemical pathways in the organism, caused by some or other molecular errors. Deviations in a particular biochemical pathway produces a given group of symptoms consisting of peculiar locations, sensations, modalities and concomitants(LSMC). Deviations in different biochemical pathways produce different groups of symptoms, which we call “symptom complexes”. Each “symptom complex” represents a particular biochemic deviation, caused by a particular molecular error. This is applicable also to symptoms that we call “constitutional” and “miasmatic”. Constitution and “miasms” of an individual is determined by different kninds of diverse genetic or acquired molecular errors.

Different pathological deviations in vital processes happening at molecular level  are expressed in the form of different  subjective and objective “symptom complexes”. No body with a rational mindset can deny the fact that we  cannot find a “single drug’ that covers all those diverse “symptom complexes”  in their “totality”expressed by an individual. It is obvious that a “single drug” of our materia medica cannot contain all the ‘molecular imprints’ required for correcting all these diverse molecular errors existing in the  organmism. Hence, a single drug, how much “similimum” we think it to be, can never cure a patient completely. A drug selected as “similimum” through our existing methods may rectify only a few molecular errors expressed as some of the prominent “symptom complexes”. To effect a complete cure, we should administer a drug that contain all the different types of ‘molecular imprints’ that can rectify all the pathological molecular deviations in that person. Since it is obviously impossible to get such a single drug from nature, we have to prepare a “single drug” that contains all the required molecular imprints for our particular patient. This process is called “integrating similimum”. In this process, we select separate drugs for different “symptom complexes” and mix them together to prepare a single “similimum” that holistically covers all the “symptom complexes”, or “totality of symptoms”. This is the essence of “Total Cure” concept.

How to apply “Total Cure” Method:

 I would suggest to attempt “Total Cure” method only if the physician has enough time to spare on a case. To work out a case as per this method, a detailed and systematic case taking is mandatory. No symptom should be ignored or omitted. Each symptom should be explored in its every details such as locations, sensation, modalities and concomitants(LSMC). For instance, if our patient complains headache, record that with all associated details of LSMC. If same patient complains about some skin eruptions, that also should be recorded with its LSMC. Then there may be abdominal symptoms, mental symptoms, physical generals and the like. Record everything in detail with LSMC.

Once the case taking is completed, next important step is to arrange those symptoms into appropriate “symptom complexes” or “compartments”. This should be done with utmost diligence. Each major symptom, with its qualifying details of locations, sensations, modalities and concomitants  may be grouped under a particular “symptom complex”. Theoretically, “a symptom complex” represents a whole train of symptoms representing a specific pathological deviation in a particular bio-chemical pathway in the organism. Hence, scientific knowledge of pathology and molecular biochemistry would help the physician a lot in undertaking this task effectively. You may need a second interview with the patient to get some more details during this “compartmentalization” process. When such systematic “compartmentalization” of symptoms is done perfectly, we can go for  the actual repertorization.

Now we have to find appropriate repertorial rubrics for the symptoms. Repertorize each “symptom complex” separately and find its similimum. Ideal similimum will be the drug that covers all individual rubrics being part of the “symptom complex”. Most probably, for each “symptom complex”, we will get a separate similimum. If same drug happens to be similimum for more than one “symptom complex”, that should be welcomed as a positive indication. Prepare a “similimum list” of all the drugs selected through repertorization of different “symptom complexes”.

If there are any uncommon, peculiar, characteristic symptoms in the case, not part of any particular “symptom complex”, consider such symptoms as separate individual “symptom complex”, and add their similimum  also to the “similimum list”.

Then consider indications for any nosodes, sarcodes  and other “miasmatic” drugs. They may not come from repertorization, as our reprtories do not represent symptoms of such drugs sufficiently. Tuberculinum, medorrhinum, Thyroidinum, Adrenalin, Pitutrin, and such other drugs will never come top in repertorization. Hence if they come under any of symptom groups, even though not at the top level, they should be added to the similimum list. Perhaps we will have to consider such drugs merely on the basis logical thinking based on our knowledge of biochemistry and molecular pathology. “Causation” also will have to be considered in this way. Causative drugs never come top in repertorization. So they also should be given special consideration.

Now our final “similimum list” is ready. Do not bother much  about the number of drugs. On the other hand, it is very important that any drug which may have a role to play should not be omitted. Procure the drugs from most trusted sources only. Mix them in equal quantities in 30c potency to prepare the “Integrated Similimum” for that particular patient.  If we have done the work perfectly, such a preparation presumably will contain all the “molecular imprints” that may be required to remove all molecular blocks in that patient. By administering this “single drug” for appropriate period, we can ensure a “total” cure for the patient.

Dose, repetition and mode of administration are for the physician to decide. I give three times a day in acute conditions, and once daily in chronic cases, until complete cure is reported. Dose is decided on the basis of number drugs contained in our preparation. A ‘drop for a drug” is my law. If the “integrated-similimum” is prepared by adding five drugs, I use 5 drops for a dose.  There is no harm if you increase or decrease the quantity. It will work.

“Multiple Drugs” Vs “Single Drug”:

 I am well aware that homeopaths generally consider prescribing of more than one medicine at a time, simultaneously, alternating or mixing with each other is totally unscientific, un-principled and un-homeopathic practice. Of course, they may quote extensively from our great masters as supporting evidences for their opposition to multiple drugs. If one is any way constrained to prescribe multiple drugs in certain compulsory practical contingencies, it is done with a conscience of guilt as if he is committing a grave sin to the “sacred” system. They shy to admit it openly, and try to cover up what have been done. The theory of ‘one medicine, one dose’ is considered to be the golden homeopathic rule, and everybody strive to convince others that he is an ardent follower of this rule. People who claim to follow the ‘one medicine, one dose’ rule are held in high esteem by the profession, as true “classical homeopaths”.

We have to examine this “single drug versus multiple drug” issue with honesty and a rational scientific mindset. We should understand that there a lot of relatively darker areas in homeopathy, and obviously a lot of unanswered,incompletely answered and wrongly answered questions there. Once the fundamental principles are scientifically explained, it will be easier to sort out such lesser issues logically.

Is it acceptable in homeopathy to prescribe more than one medicine at a time? Is it against the fundamental logic of homeopathy to do so? Whatever our great masters have said earlier within the limitations of their space-time context, we will have to make a rational assessment of certain factors while trying to answer this important question on the basis of updated knowledge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following facts are evident from this deliberation. At least some or other groups of symptoms attributed in the Materia Medica as that of a particular drug substance used for proving might not be related to it at all, but to the contaminants happened to be subjected to proving. Same way, in the potentized form, we are administering to the patient potencies of some additional molecules also in the, entirely different from those subjected to earlier provings. In short, Nux vomica we read in materia medica is different from Nux Vomica we use for treatment, even though both bear the same label. It means that while there will be most of the expected qualities in the potencies we use, there will definitely be the absence of at least some or other qualities we expect. Because, certain contaminant molecules subjected to proving and represented in the materia medica, might not be present in the samples used for potentization. It shows how much uncertain and unpredictable is the outcome of homeopathic medication in present situation.

Now, we have to consider the factor of foreign molecules which are likely to contaminate unexpectedly into the samples used for the commercial preparation of potencies. These foreign molecules have never been proved. We are totally ignorant about the different ways in which they might have interacted with the molecules of the original drug. We have no idea regarding the molecular inhibitions or the groups of symptoms they are likely to produce in the living organism. Inspite of all these deficiencies, we apply the potencies of such unknown foreign molecules also, along with the original medicinal substance in to the body of a patient. Same time, we claim we are using ‘single drug’ only!

During our clinical practice, we would have experienced instances of removal of totally unexpected symptoms and diseases from the patient. Those symptoms might not be included in any text book of Materia Medica of the given drug. I suspect it may be the potencies of those unknown molecules entering the sample during potentization that is playing this trick.

The above facts more than expose the hollowness of our belief and often-repeated claim that we give a ‘single medicine’ to our patient. It is undeniable that we are using medicines selected on the basis of similarity of symptoms, mixing it with potencies of some or other different types of molecules  as well. This is an unpleasant situation which we cannot neglect. We should understand that we are giving the patient a mixture of potencies of different types of molecules, about some of which we have no idea at all. Same time, our medicines provide expected results when applied on the basis of ‘similia similibus curentur’. It shows that the presence of potencies of any unproved and unknown foreign molecules in the potentized drug in no way negatively affect the its effectiveness as a therapeutic agent.

During proving of drugs, the molecules and ions contained in them act individually up on different bio-molecular targets, on the basis of their configurational and charge affinity, and produce their own individual “groups of symptoms”. Like wise, when drugs are potentised, the constituent molecules and ions are individually subjected to a process of molecular imprinting in water-alcohol mixture, forming hydrosomes, that are exact counteractive configurational factors (CCF) of original molecules used as “guest” molecules in imprinting. That is why the presence of impurities which enter at the time of potentisation never adversely affect the quality of the potencies of original drug. All the potencies, that we consider as single medicine are in realty a mixture or combination of “molecular imprints” of different types of independent molecules and ions, which never interact with each other in potentized form. This revelation prove that there is no harm to the “molecular imprints” of original drug molecules contained in the potencies, even if potencies of any foreign molecules happen to be mixed with them, deliberately or otherwise. More over, when introduced into the organism, these “molecular imprints” interact with biological molecules in their individual capacities, on the basis of configurational affinity. Since molecules and ions are subjected to molecular imprinting in their individual capacities, and they cannot interact with each other in that form, there is no chance of happening any harm, by mixing two or more samples of potencies of different drugs.

There is least possibility of any constituent molecules of drug substance remaining in their potentized forms above 12c. Only molecular imprints will remain. Hence, when higher potencies of two drugs are mixed together, there will be no chemical interaction taking place between them. In such a mixture, the molecular imprints of constituents of both samples will remain independent, without influencing each other, and with out losing their own individual qualities whatsoever.

What happens when such a mixture of two or more potentized drugs is introduced into the organism of a patient? Naturally, the molecular imprints of each constituent drug molecule interacts with biological molecules and pathological molecules individually, based on their specific configurational affinity. As counteractive configurational factors, they can bind only to the pathological molecules, which are similar to the original drug molecules that were used for imprinting. The biological molecules are thereby relieved from inhibitions caused by pathological molecules. This process ultimately removes the state of pathology, and relieves the subjective and objective symptoms of disease. A homeopathic cure is said to be effected. Due to their specific configuratioanal affinity, each type of molecular imprints can locate, identify and bind to exact molecular targets, whereas in the absence of exact molecular targets, these imprints stay neutral, since they are composed of mere water and alcohol molecules. The saying that ‘if a homeopathic potency is not similimum to a patient, it will not act’ is well explained here.

The quesetion of acceptability of administering two or more homeopathic medicines in potentized form, by mixing, alternating, or simultaneously, should be discussed in the light of the above findings.

It is a very important fact that the drugs in the potentized form, which have no similarity with any group of symptoms shown by the patient, will not be able to create any sort of reaction in the living organism. Chemically, potentized drugs being only a mixture of alcohol and water, their chemical properties will remain confined to that molecular structure. Therefore, when we mix homoeopathic potencies of different drugs together, there is no chance for any chemical interactions to take place. More over the configurational properties of the diverse types molecular imprints contained in them are not in any way destroyed by this mixing.

Issue of “Drug-Relationships:

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

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

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

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

3.      Low potencies and mother tincture of a drug may antidote higher potencies of same drug, due to the interaction with the counteractive complementary factors(CCF) contained in the higher potencies.

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

5.      Higher potencies of a drug may antidote the physiological effects of low potencies and mother tinctures of same drug, due to the interaction with the counteractive complementary factors(CCF) contained in the higher potencies.

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

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

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

Conclusion:

 To conclude, there is no harm in mixing together, alternating or applying simultaneously, any number of potentized homoeopathic drugs above 12c. As such, there is no need of any guilty feeling on the part of homeopaths who practice this method. They need not shy away from declaring this fact openly, fearing that it is unscientific.

In my opinion, “Total Cure”  or “Integrated Similimum” method is the real homeopathy which takes into account the “totality of symptoms” of the patient in its real sense. This “Total Cure” or “integrated similimum” may  be considered as the “single drug” appropriate for the “totality” of  that particular patient, only which can fulfill the “rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible principles”, which our Master conceived as  “the highest ideal of cure”.

It is true that all those diverse types of vaccinations are producing specific types of antibodies, which exist in organism and act as chronic miasms by creating ‘off-target’ inhibitions in biological molecules. All these molecular inhibitions are creating molecular errors, which would be expressed as specific groups of symptoms. In most cases, similimum selected on the basis of ‘totality of symptoms’ would cover these also, which means the similimum contains molecular imprints that would rectify the molecular errors caused by vaccination miasms also. We need to think about specific anti-miasmatic drugs against vaccinations only if we could not find a perfect similimum. In such cases, cure will be partial, and many symptoms would remain. In such cases, we can consider antimiasmatic drugs based on history of vaccinations, infectious diseases etc.

Exactly, ‘totality of symptoms’ should cover all the symptoms representing all the molecular errors existing in the organism caused by diverse types of environmental, nutritional, metaboloc, infectious, miasmatic, emotional and genetic factors. we should not look for individual drugs for each and every pathogenic agents. If we could find a perfect similimum covering ‘totality’ of symptoms, that would contain the molecular imprints to rectify most of the molecular errors, We should be aware that even our ‘single’ drugs are complex mixtures of diverse types of molecular imprints. We should also remember, same molecular imprints can antidote different types of pathogenic molecules having similar ‘functional moieties’. We can say our drugs are ‘polyvalent’.

HOW I MAKE A ‘TOTAL CURE PRESCRIPTION’?

Collect ALL symptoms of the patient- all mentals, physical generals and particulars, with the ‘qualifications’ of each symptom regarding its peculiar presentations, locations, sensations, modalities, and concomitants.
Search repertorieis, and select appropriate rubrics for all the collected symptoms .

Classify the rubrics into uncommon, common, subjective, objective, mentals, physicals, generals and particulars. Assign grades.

First repertorize using only mentals and physical generals and prepare a list of top-ranking drugs. Compare their symptomatology using a good materia medica book and determine one or more constitutional drugs that would ‘collectively’ cover all the important mentals and general symptoms.

Arrange the particulars into appropriate groups on the basis of their pathological relationships, and repertorize the groups separately and determine similimum for each group.

Select anti-miasmatic nosodes if necessary, on the basis of history of infectious diseases, anaphylaxis and vaccinations of the patient.

Take all the selected constitutional and particular similimums as well as nosodes in 30 c potency, and mix them in a bottle in equal quantities. Do not bother about number of drugs, or drug relationships.

Administer in drop doses thrice or 2-3 hourly until acute complaints are relieved. Then continue medication once or twice daily, until CURE IS COMPLETE. One drop per one drug is my dosage.

Such a well-worked-out ‘TOTAL CURE’ prescription would CURE not only acute complaints, but the PATIENT in his TOTALITY with in a very short span of time.

A TYPICAL ‘MULTIPLE-DRUG PRESCRIPTION’ CASE:

A 48 yr old obese woman with chronic headache, pain in joints, and warts on various parts. Symptoms were collected and following rubrics selected using Similimum Ultra Software:

1. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Menses : During
2. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Sleep : After : Amel.
3. [Kent]Stomach : NAUSEA : Headache, during:
4. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Cold applications amel.
5. [Kent]Mind : IRRITABILITY : Headache, during
6. [Kent]Genitalia – Female : MENOPAUSE
7. [Kent]Generalities : HOT REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s)
8. [Kent]Mind : ANXIETY
9. [Kent]Generalities : OBESITY
10. [Kent]Extremities-II(PAIN) : PAIN : Joints
11. [Kent]Extremities-II(PAIN) : PAIN : Cold : Applied amel.
12. [Kent]Extremities-II(PAIN) : PAIN : Joints : Walking : After
13. [Kent]Skin : WARTS
14. [Kent]Skin : WARTS : Smooth
15. [Kent]Skin : WARTS : Soft
16. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general
17. [Kent]Extremities-II(PAIN) : PAIN

I decided to use multiple repertorization method in this case. Rubrics were divided into four groups: CONSTITUTION, HEADACHE, JOINT PAINS and WARTS, and repertorized separately:

A. Constitution:

1. [Kent]Genitalia – Female : MENOPAUSE
2. [Kent]Generalities : HOT REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s)
3. [Kent]Mind : ANXIETY
4. [Kent]Generalities : OBESITY
5. Stomach : DESIRES : Salt things

Arg-n.(10/4), Sulph.(12/5), Puls.(9/4), Calc.(9/4), Verat.(9/4), Con.(8/4), Graph.(8/3), Lach.(8/4), Nat-m.(8/3),

B. Headache:

1. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Menses : During
2. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Sleep : After : Amel.
3. [Kent]Stomach : NAUSEA : Headache, during:
4. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general : Cold applications amel.
5. [Kent]Mind : IRRITABILITY : Headache, during
6. [Kent]Head : PAIN, headache in general

Phos.(14/6), Glon.(12/5), Nat-m.(11/5), Ars.(10/5), Bell.(10/5), Bry.(10/5), Lach.(10/5), Puls.(10/5), Sep.(10/4)

C. Joint pains:

1. [Kent]Extremities : PAIN
2.. [Kent]Extremities : PAIN : Joints
3.. [Kent]Extremities : PAIN : Cold : Applied amel.
4.. [Kent]Extremities : PAIN : Joints : Walking : After

Led.(10/4), Bry.(9/3), Puls.(9/3), Colch.(8/3), Guai.(8/4), Arn.(7/3), Kalm.(7/3), Nux-v.(7/3), Phyt.(7/3),

D. Warts:

1. [Kent]Skin : WARTS
2. [Kent]Skin : WARTS : Smooth
3. [Kent]Skin : WARTS : Soft

Dulc.(9/3), Ant-c.(5/2), Calc.(5/2), Caust.(5/2), Thuj.(5/2), Sep.(4/2), Bar-c.(3/1), Bell.(3/1), Calc-s.(3/1),

SULPHUR, PHOS, LEDUM and DULCAMERA were given in 30c potencies. one dose each daily. Headache cured first, then joint pains relieved, and warts disappeared by three months. Cure was complete.

ANOTHER A ‘MULTIPLE DRUG’ PRESCRIPTION CASE:

A 75 year old man, with complaints of asthma, haemorrhoids, constipation, fistula and itching all over. Symptoms were collected in detail, and following rubrics selected using Similimum Ultra Software:

1. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC
2. [Kent]Expectoration : TASTE : Salty
3. [Kent]Expectoration : GRAYISH
4. [Kent]Expectoration : VISCID
5. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC
6. [Kent]Respiration : WHISTLING
7. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC : Eating : Amel
8. [Kent]Rectum : URGING, desire : Eating, after
9. [Kent]Rectum : CONSTIPATION
10. [Kent]Rectum : MOISTURE
11. [Kent]Rectum : HAEMORRHOIDS : External
12. [Kent]Rectum : LUMP, sensation of
13. [Kent]Rectum : ITCHING
14. [Kent]Rectum : CONSTIPATION : Old people
15. [Kent]Rectum : FISTULA
16. [Kent]Rectum : FLATUS : Loud
17. [Kent]Rectum : HAEMORRHOIDS : Cold amel.
18. [Kent]Generalities : HOT REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s)
19. [Kent]Generalities : LEAN people
21. [Kent]Mind : ANGER, irascibility
22. [Kent]Mind : CENSORIOUS, critical
23. [Kent]Mind : HURRY
24. [Kent]Mind : IMPATIENCE
25. [Kent]Mind : SUSPICIOUS
26. [Kent]Mind : QUARRELSOME
27. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Night
28. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Eruption, without
29. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Scratching : Agg
30. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Warm : In bed, on becoming

When repertorized by classical totality method, outcome was as follows:

Sulph.(61/26), Ars.(45/19), Lyc.(44/20), Lach.(41/22), Sep.(41/19), Caust.(39/18), Phos.(39/20), Nux-v.(38/19), Puls.(36/16),

Then I decided to go for ‘Group Repertorization’ method. Symptoms were grouped into CONSTITUTION, RESPIRATORY, RECTUM and SKIN, and repertorized separately using Similimum Ultra

A. CONSTITUTION:

1. [Kent]Generalities : HOT REMEDIES (Gibson Miller’s)
2. [Kent]Generalities : LEAN people
3. [Kent]Mind : ANGER, irascibility
4. [Kent]Mind : CENSORIOUS, critical
5. [Kent]Mind : HURRY
6. [Kent]Mind : IMPATIENCE
7. [Kent]Mind : SUSPICIOUS
8. [Kent]Mind : QUARRELSOME

Sulph.(24/9), Lyc.(20/9), Ars.(17/7), Nux-v.(17/7), Bry.(16/8), Nat-m.(16/7), Lach.(15/8), Acon.(14/7), Aur.(14/7),

B.RESPIRATORY:

1. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC
2. [Kent]Expectoration : TASTE : Salty
3. [Kent]Expectoration : GRAYISH
4. [Kent]Expectoration : VISCID
5. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC
6. [Kent]Respiration : WHISTLING
7. [Kent]Respiration : ASTHMATIC : Eating : Amel

Ambr.(15/7), Ars.(15/6), Lyc.(11/5), Phos.(11/5), Stann.(11/5), Carb-v.(10/5), Calc.(9/5), Chin.(9/5), Puls.(9/3),

C. RECTUM:

1. [Kent]Rectum : URGING, desire : Eating, after
2. [Kent]Rectum : CONSTIPATION
3. [Kent]Rectum : MOISTURE
4. [Kent]Rectum : HAEMORRHOIDS : External
5. [Kent]Rectum : LUMP, sensation of
6. [Kent]Rectum : ITCHING
7. [Kent]Rectum : CONSTIPATION : Old people
8. [Kent]Rectum : FISTULA
9. [Kent]Rectum : FLATUS : Loud
10. [Kent]Rectum : HAEMORRHOIDS : Cold amel.

Aloe.(21/10), Caust.(19/7), Lach.(18/8), Sulph.(18/8), Phos.(16/8), Sep.(15/6), Sil.(15/6), Nit-ac.(14/5), Calc.(13/5),

D. SKIN:

1. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Night
2. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Eruption, without
3. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Scratching : Agg
4. [Kent]Skin : ITCHING : Warm : In bed, on becoming

Sulph.(11/4), Mez.(9/4), Alum.(7/3), Ars.(6/2), Dol.(6/3), Led.(6/3), Merc.(6/4), Puls.(6/3), Anac.(5/2),

SULPH, ALOES and AMBRA were prescribed. In 30 potency, one dose each daily for three months. Occasional doses of ARS 30 also was used during aggravated states of asthmatic attacks. Cure was total.

If the process of dilution is done strictly as per directions given by Samuel Hahnemann, 99 ml alcohol/water mixture has to be thrown away to get 1 ml of 1c potency, which is used as the back potency for 2c stage of potentization. That means, to prepare 1ml of DM potency we will have to throw away 999999.999 litres of water/ alcohol mixture. Do you believe one lac litres of ethyl alcohol is thrown away by the manufactures while preparing 1 ml of homeopathic medicine in DM potency? If you claim that this is not thrown away but kept as various potencies, can you imagine the size of storage facilities required for each drug? Please remember, we have around 1000 drugs in homeopathy, which means 1000000000 litres of wastage of ethyl alcohol-water mixture! And also calculate the time, energy utensils, bottles and labor required for handling all this! Do you believe all this happening?

Every manufacturer claim that they use back potencies, and hence no wastage of alcohol happens. But somebody in the line has to do the job of raising 30c into 199c, 200c into 999c, 1m into 9999c and so on. If those people do it genuinely as per Hahnemannian method, they will have to bear all these wastage, and the cost of back potencies will be unimaginably high!

In the present atmosphere of profit-oriented pharmaceutical business managed by professional business administrators, we cannot be so naïve to believe that the manufacturers of homeopathic medicines would be so much dedicated to the philosophy of Hahnemann to bear such huge holes in their money bags. Remember, these same people are flooding the market with all sorts of unethical patented mixtures in the name of homeopathy, and bribing the homeopaths to market them, in their greed to amass wealth. How can we expect them to be so much sincere in the service of homeopathy only while preparing potencies? How much pathetic is the situation since there exist no any scientific mechanism to verify the exact identity and potency of a drug other than to trust the labels on the bottles! If somebody make an error knowingly or unknowingly in sticking a label to a stock bottle of back potency, can you imagine the consequences that will continue to haunt generations of homeopaths to come? We have to be consoled that potentized homeo medicines cannot kill human beings.

Believe it or not,if you closely monitor what is happening behind the walls of commercial homeopathic manufacturing units, you will lose all your trust in our ‘very high’ potencies. I had personally discussed with some retired supervisers and managers of certain famous production units, and they confessed some bitter truth.  After 30c, most units do not carry on potentization strictly as Hahnemann directed. A few additional shakes is given to 30c and marked as 199c, which is used as the back potency for 200c. Again with few additional shakes, and 200c becomes 999c used as back potency  for 1m. Over all, we can see that practically, in most cases, the difference between 30c and DM potency is only a four to ten stage dilution and a few additional shakes!. Finished! And we call it ‘ultra-high’ potencies!. Only consolation is that 30c is enough for optimum molecular imprinting to happen, and our drugs will work if used as similimum, since they contain ‘molecular imprints’, and that is enough. This shows that the difference between 30c and CM or DM is very narrow. Our talk about ‘very high’ dilution is practically meaningless. Most homeopaths and manufacturers will not tolerate my statement, because that may undermine the ‘sand hills’ of fame they have built in the name of ‘high potencies’.

Teachers and seniors make young homeopaths believe that administration of incorrect remedies especially in high potencies would do grave harm to the patients, and may cause even death. It is warned that our drugs should be handled with great care, and many young homeopaths are scared to prescribe, lest it may be a wrong prescription. If potentized drugs were dangerous, homeopaths would have been the greatest criminals in human history, each of us would have so far killed many innocent people! We would have already harmed a big section of human race by the time being through our wrong prescriptions. Even you and me make many many wrong prescriptions everyday, believing that we are making correct prescriptions. Can anybody deny it with a sincere heart? Living roofs of safety of homeopathic medicines are the people we treated with wrong prescriptions and stay undamaged!

On the basis of the concept of potentization as ‘molecular imprinting’ discussed in my article “DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY”,  homeopathic  potencies can be broadly classified into two major groups:

1.      The low potencies which contain original drug molecules (probably up to 12c)

2.      High potencies which do not contain drug molecules (probably above 12c)

(Here, the specified probability range is calculated for molecules of lowest molecular weight, using Avogadro Number. Obviously, molecules of higher molecular weight may disappear from the medium at much earlier stages of potentization. Probability range of each individual class of molecules can be calculated using their molecular weight, Avogadro Number and proportions of dilutions).

Low potencies contain original drug molecules acting as ‘Competitive Molecular Factors’(CMF) towards pathologic molecules.

High potencies contain molecular ‘imprints’ acting as ‘Counteractive Complementary Factors’(CCF) towards pathologic molecules.

A “drug” means, a sample of substance containing chemical molecules, that can interact with biological molecules, effecting deviations in biological processes. Normally, when a drug substance is introduced into an organism, the constituent drug molecules exhibit their action in any of the following ways:

1. Acting on various structural membranes, deranging their permeability.

2. Engaging in chemical reactions with various molecular substrates and metabolites inside the body.

3. Interacting with enzyme proteins, and other complex bio-molecules, thereby inactivating or  incapacitating them for biochemical processes.

4. Interaction with various structural proteins.

5. Interacting  with carrier proteins.

6. Interaction with ion channels.

7. Binding to Hormone receptors, and Neuro-transmitter receptors.

Drug molecules and their derivatives, due to their gross molecular properties, can chemically interact with biological molecules and metabolites. This phenomenon is utilized when drugs are used as allopathic medicines.

When crude drugs and low potencies are applied as ‘similimum’, the ‘drug’ molecules contained in them, if having configurational similarity to the active groups of pathological molecules, may compete with the pathological molecules in binding to the target bio-molecules, and in that process, relieve the bio-molecules from pathological inhibitions. In this case, drug molecules act as ‘competitive molecular factors’ (CMF) towards pathologic molecules. It should be understood that crude drugs and low potencies act in certain cases as therapeutic agents by this ‘competitive’ mechanism, when selected according to the principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’.

In certain situations, where there is real scarcity of certain molecules necessary for metabolism, crude substances and low potencies or mother tinctures will have to be used by their supplementary or nutritional value. This belongs to Nutritional Therapy, and should not be confused with homeopathy. Various minerals, vitamins, co-factors, micro-nutrients and amino-acid supplements belong to this category.

A more logical and scientifically viable model is required, to explain the therapeutic effects of high potency homeopathic preparations. Potentized homeopathic medicine, when introduced into the organism by any route, is carried by the body fluids, and transported to different parts of body by internal transport system. When the nano-cavities of ‘molecular imprints’ contained these preparations come in the vicinity of active groups of pathological foreign molecules, having similarity to the original ‘guest’ molecules used for imprinting, these ‘molecular imprints’ selectively bind to the pathological molecules due to configurational affinity. By this process, pathological foreign molecules are prevented from binding to biological molecules, thereby relieving the biological molecules from pathological molecular blocks. This can be conceived as some sort of ‘molecular scavenging’ or ‘entrapping’ of pathological molecules, by ‘hydrosomes’ or molecular ‘imprints’ contained in the potentized medicines.

Drugs potentized above ‘Avogadro limit’ act by an entirely different molecular mechanism. ‘Hydrosomes’ or ‘molecular imprints’ formed during potentization are configurational complementaries of original drug molecules used as ‘guest’ for potentization. These ‘molecular imprints’ act as ‘counteractive complementary factors’ (CCF) and bind to the active groups of pathologic molecules having configurational similarity to the drug molecules used for potentization. Thus the pathologic molecules are prevented from interacting with the bio-molecules, thereby relieving the molecular bocks and pathological inhibitions. The danger of drug molecules acting upon on off-target sites, with unfavorable consequences should be expected while using crude drugs and low potencies. If we want to practice real homeopathy, we should deliberately abstain from using medicinal preparations containing drug molecules.

We should also be aware of the difference between crude drugs and low potencies or triturations. Even though both preparations contain same drug molecules, their therapeutic properties are found to be different. In crude form, drug molecules are packed tightly, with their chemical bonds remaining saturated by  interacting with various other molecules or ions. Hence, they are not at all free to exhibit all their individual interactive potentials. Whereas in triturations and low potencies, the drug molecules are free or ionized, they can exhibit all their properties. Hence, pathologic and therapeutic capabilities of triturations and low potencies are much higher to crude forms of same drug, whereas drugs of toxic nature are more toxic in crude forms than dilutions, due to their high concentration of molecules. We already know that various drugs which appear  comparatively inert in their crude forms become very potent medicinal agents in triturated forms. Differences between crude Siliciea and Silice 3x, crude Lyco and Lyco 3x etc. are examples for this phenomenon.

To get an answer to the question how ‘hormesis’ works or ‘small doses’ work, we have to understand the process of ‘dilution’ in terms of ‘size’ of drug molecules. Any drug substance of animal or vegetable origin contain diverse types of drug molecules. Some complex molecules will be very ‘big’ in size, and their number in a given quantity of solution will be comparatively very small as per avogadro theory. Smaller molecules will be present in larger quantities. When we start diluting serially, larger molecules will be ‘imprinted’ into the medium, and molecules get removed from the solution in very early stages of dilution process. Smaller molecules undergo imprinting and removal at later stages only. By reaching 12 c, even the smallest molecules get imprinted and removed. That is why I say potencies above 12c contain molecular imprints only.

Obviously, lower potencies below 12c will be a mixture of small molecules as well as molecular imprints of larger molecules. We can explain hormesis, hippocrates phenomenon and low potency therapeutics from this point of view.

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

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

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

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

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