Homeopathic Theory of ‘Vital Force’, and Modern Scientific Understanding of ‘Vital Processes’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IS IT UNFAIR TO DISCUSS THE HISTORICAL LIMITATIONS OF SAMUEL HAHNEMANN?

Human knowledge develops and unfolds itself through a never ending dialectic process of simultaneous assimilation and negation of history. It is impossible for anybody to proceed with his intellectual quest without drawing resources from the treasures of knowledge amassed by the by-gone generations. Obviously, no genius can totally overcome the objective limitations imposed upon him by the space-time context of his life and activities. Development of human knowledge should be percieved in relation with this  objective framework of  historical evolution. Man knows today much more than he knew yesterday.  Certainly he would know infinitely more tomorrow, than what he knows today. The knowledge of yesterdays, however great they might have been, were much incomplete than that of today. Tomorrow, human knowledge would be definitely more expansive and more comprehensive than that of today. The basis of scientific perspective of knowledge lies in realizing this fundamental truth.

We should never forget the objective historical context of 18th century Germany, where Samuel Hahnemann  lived and developed his novel therapeutic system. Two hundred and more eventful years have passed since it happened. It is not to be seen as a sin to say that his thoughts and propositions were definitely  confined  by the  limitations imposed by the infantile level of science and technology then existed there. Even though the  the essence of the therapeutic principle he developed is capable of  transcending the boundaries of centuries to come, it would be unfair to try to evaluate his achievements and contributions detatched from  his objective time-space framework.

Human knowledge  has attained an ever greater maturity of more than two centuries, compared with the conditions that existed when Hahnemann lived. It is  an undisputable fact that man now knows much more about the diverse phenomena of this universe than in the era of Hahnemann. Hahnemann had developed his ideas depending upon the existing knowledge about the universe available to him. Naturally it is bound to  bear the   limitations imposed  by the objective historical and geographical context.

Obviously, modern science and its methodology were in its infancy in those days. Had he happened to live in this world 200 years later, the towering genius of Hahnemann would have presented to humanity a therapeutic system totally different, and much  more advanced and scientific than what we now call Homeopathy. He would have definitely rewritten completely what we preach and practice in the name of Homeopathy today.

All these facts underlines the crucial relevance of a  complete re-reading and reclaiming of the theory and practice of Homeopathy in conformity with modern scientific and historical context. Whenever we try to learn the teachings of Hahnemann,  we  should be on the look out to understand what he would have said about those subjects, if he were elaborating them in the modern context. We should not take his written words as if they were ultimates, unquestionable and beyond any scope of further revisions and improvements. We should honor the great master by following his teachings as valuable guide to tread forward, and not as lifeless dogmas.  This is the essence of dialectical methodology.

If You Consider An External Application, Use Only Similimum In Potencies Above 12 c Externally

A homoeopathic medicine, as any other drug substance, works internally, irrespective of the route through which it is introduced into the body. Even if a drug is applied externally, intended as a local medication, it will be absorbed into the body fluids through capillary systems, conveyed through blood, lymph or other internal transport systems, undergo bio-chemical changes, and act on various target molecules, according to the configuration of their constituent molecules. This is true whether it is applied on the tongue or on the skin. Hence the term ‘external application’ is a misnomer.

Even if we decide to use a homoeopathic medicine externally, it would be ideal to use a smilimum, in potentized form, selected on the basis of symptomatology. In the case of mother tinctures and low potencies, their usage should be considered only if one intend to administer the mdicine in its crude form itself. In that case, even though we may get some palliations, it will not be much different from allopathy or ayurveda, and cannot be considered a legitimate homeopathic practice. We should bear in mind the fact that when we apply homeopathic drugs as external applications, they act on the basis of therapeutic principle of  ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’.

It is an absolute blunder to consider that medicines used externally on the skin act only on the skin. The homeopathic ointments, hair tonics, creams and toilet soaps flooding the market are to be seen as the growing trend of  unethical commercialization of homeopathy. Homeopaths should fight this trend with all their might.

Using Mother Tinctures and Low Potencies(below 12c) Cannot be Considered As Genuine Homeopathic Practice

We know that many homeopathic practioners prescribe plenty of mother tinctures and  low potency preparations. They do very successful practice also. But, I am a bit suspicious regarding the desirability of using mother tinctures and low potencies, especially in a routine way for long terms.

It may relieve some of the symptoms, of course. But chances of emerging new pathological conditions really exist in such atreatment protocol.

We must not forget that the symptomatologies provided in our materia medica give the list of symptoms that can be generated in healthy persons by the use of these drugs in crude form.  Indiscriminate long-term use of mother tinctures containing plant enzymes, poisonous alkaloids, glycosides and various other phyto-chemical ingredients is an  unpardonable  crime even if it is done in the name of homeopathy. The drug molecules and ions contained in these tinctures might give temporary relief  by nutritional supplementation, or competitive relationship to pathological  molecules due to configurational similarity. But it is evident from their symptomatologies  that those molecules and ions are capable of creating dangerous pathological molecular inhibitions in various bio-chemic channels in the organism. We should never forget that the subjective and objective symptoms provided in our material medica were createdby the molecular deviations happened in healthy individuals during drug proving. Hence in my opinion, it is ideal to treat patients using potencies above  12c, which do not contain any trace of the drug molecules of the original drug. If our selection of drug iscorrect, there is no any chance of failure in such a protocol. Other wise, it will have to be considered as identical to Ayurveda, Allopathy or Herbal treatment. Those who indulge in excessive use of mother tinctures, without bothering  about the constituent drug  molecules and their adverse long term impacts on the organism, are more hazardous to human health than our allopathic counterparts. I humbly request them to think over.

From our materia medica works, it may be understoodthat most of  those people who had participated in proving of  Hydrastis Canadensis developed symptoms of gastric ulcer and hyperacidity along with many other deep seated pathological conditions. Doctors who administer large doses of Hydrastis Tincture to relive gastric symptoms as part of homoeopathic treatment should note this point . Of course, we may get temporary relief, bythe way of competitive relationships with pathological molecules, due to configurational similarity of drug molecules and pathological molecules. The prolonged use of Hydrasts Tincture not only produce the symptoms mentioned in the materia medica,  but may even induce very serious genetic errors to happen. If  hydrastis is the similimum forthe patient, it will be effective in high potencies. This is real homeopathy.

Please do not be provoked when I say that who give Passiflora for inducing sleep, Rauwolfia for lowering blood pressure and Syzijium for high blood sugar in their tincture form, are not practicing ideal Homeopathy even if they may be wellk nown Homeopaths, producing results.  No homeopath with some common sense, who had carefully read the material medica of Alfalfa will dare to prescribe it as tonics to improve the appetite and general health of innocent children. It is evident from its symptomatology that Alfalfais capable of producing diabetes, bulimia, and upsetting the normal functioning of kidneys.

We should remember that there was no exact knowledge regarding the long term evil effects of many drugs, when many of them were proved and their materia medica prepared. There was least knowledge about the genetic disorders they were likely to produce. It is found in Boecricke Materiamedica that Arsenic Bromide Mother Tincture is indicated for Diebetes. No physician with scientific awareness will even think of prescribing it today.Who will now dare to prescribe Ars iod 3x, Iodum 3x, Sulphur Q, or various compounds of Mercury and Lead only because they are found in our text books of Materia Medica?

We know of homeopaths who make their patients consume for prolonged periods, the mother tinctures of several drugs, including various patented combinations flooding the market in the name of Homeopathy. How can Homeopaths prescribe them without any prick of conscience? Those who love homoeopathy should take urgent initiative to prevent such tendencies either through awareness programs and campaigns, or through stringent legislational procedures.

How the mother tinctures differ from potentized drugs in their mechanism of therapeutic action, and why potentized drugs are more safe and effective than mother tinctures?

Not only potentized drugs, but mother tinctures and crude drugs also can act as ‘similimum’. But the molecular mechanisms of their therapeutic actions and ultimate outcome are fundamentally different from each other.

Drug molecules contained in mother tinctures and crude drugs ‘compete’ with pathogenic molecules having similar molecular configuration in binding to biological molecules and displace them, thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions. By this ‘competitive’ relationship to pathogenic molecules, mother tinctures and crude drugs can act as similimum and produce therapeutic results.

‘Molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs act by an entirely different molecular mechanism. Molecular imprints binds directly to the pathogenic molecules having configurational affinity and deactivate them, thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions. This is the molecular mechanism involved in the therapeutic action of potentized drugs.

Most notable difference is, drug molecules act as similimum by ‘competitive’ relationship toward pathogenic molecules, whereas ‘molecular imprints’ act by ‘complementary’ relationship.

Since crude drugs and mother tinctures contain drug molecules that can act upon biological molecules, they can also bind to various biological targets in the organism. Obviously, there is always chance for creation of new molecular inhibitions and drug-induced pathologies when we use crude drugs and mother tinctures. That is the draw back of using mother tinctures even if they are similimum.

Advantage of potentized drugs is that they do not contain any drug molecules, but only molecular imprints, which are only supra-molecular clusters of water and alcohol molecules. They can act upon pathogenic molecules only, not upon biological molecules. As such, potentized drugs cannot do any further harm to organism.

That is why we say potentized drugs are safer than mother tinctures and molecular forms of drugs

Jacques Benveniste(1935–2004) Would Have Withstood, Had He Understood ‘Water Memory’ As ‘Molecular Imprinting’

Jacques Benveniste(1935–2004), who was a famous French immunologist, published a research paper in Nature magazine in the year 1988. This paper and the subsequent controversies which shook the world of science, were incidents which roused great interest as far as Homoeopathy was concerned. It was through this article that the idea of ‘molecular memory of water’ became a subject of discussion in the world of science. But an infuential section of scientists took a stand that ideas put forward by Benveniste were nothing but nonsense. Heated controversies followed, which have not subsided yet, even after 22 years. The accusation raised by his enemies was that Benveniste could not prove his arguments in the controlled experiments overseenby experts appointed by Nature. Benvenistse had later put onrecord that he was a made a scape goat, and subjected to inhuman revenge and character assassination from the part of reperesentatives of official science.

In his original paper, Beneveniste claimed that he could observe in his experiments that human basophil degranulation can be triggered by very dilute aqueous solutions of anti- IgE antiserum. Using the molecular weight of immunoglobulins and Avogadro’s number, he calculated that less than one molecule of antibody is present in the assay when anti-IgE antiserum is diluted to 1 x 1014(corresponding to 2.2 x 10-20 M). But in the experiments he reported, he could detect significant basophil degranulation down to the 1x l0120 dilution. Specific effects have also been triggered by highly diluted agents in other in vitro and in vivo biological systems, but he consented that it still remained unexplained. He pointed to the possibility of biological effects in the physical absence of molecules. He argued that the entities supporting this ‘metamolecular’ biology can only be explored by physical investigation of agitation causing interaction between the original molecules and water, thus yielding activity capable of specifically imitating the native molecules,though any such hypothesis is unsubstantiated at present.

He suspected that the molecular memory of the antibodies which was imprinted in water during dilution is responsible for this peculiar phenomenon. But the sad part of this story is that he failed to prove his arguments in the repeated experiments which were conducted in an atmosphere of absolute hostility, under the supervision of experts who were inimical to him, whose sole aim was to disprove him.

If we carefully examine the history of Benevenite’s failure, we would understand that it was not his basic propositions that failed, but the experiments he was subjected to, in order to to prove his arguements. Firstly, his argument that the drugs so diluted to the extend of making it impossible to contain a single molecule,can interfere in biological processes exactly mimicking the basic drug substance was a little exagerated interpretation of results of his original experiments. This inaccurate interpretation of the phenomena he observed, led him to agree to subject himself to inappropriate experiments, that were obviously designed to defeat him. He failed to observe that the molecular memory of the drug substances is imprinted into water in a negative direction, in complementary configuration. Put in another way, drug molecules will be imprinted in water not as exact configurational duplicates, but as negative complements, and hence, they cannot mimic the original drug molecules in biological processes.

Failure to understand this phenomenon was a great mistake, that cost heavy to him. His conclusion that the molecular imprinted water interferes in biochemical processes exactly like the original drug molecules proved to be immature. He failed to comprehend the exact mechanism of molecular imprinting in water, and design the experiments accordingly. Had he understood the real mechanism of molecular imprinting, he would have studied about the unsteady behaviour of hydration shells in water, and taken necessary precautions, before subjecting himself to a controlled experiment. He could have devised some techniques to ensure the stability of hydration shells, such as using alcohol-water mixture instead of pure water, as done in homoeopathic potentization.

Please note, he tried to explain it as ‘molecular memory’ that can mimick the original molecules. Molecular imprints never can ‘mimic’ original molecules. They can only bind to original molecules and deactivate them.

If drug molecules are ‘keys’, ‘mimics’ would act as ‘duplicate keys’. But ‘molecular imprints’ act as ‘artificial keyholes’ for those ‘keys’ and ‘similar ‘ keys. This point is very important. If we forget this point, we cannot explain ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘similia similibus curentur’.

If beneviste could have perceived the concept of ‘molecular imprints’ acting as not as ‘duplicate keys’ but as ‘artificial keyholes’, he would have designed his experiments accordingly, so that he can prove that ‘molecular imprints’ can ‘antidote’ or ‘deactivate’ original molecules, thereby preventing them from interacting with biological molecules.

Since ‘anti- IgE antiserum’ contains natural ligands of enzymes involved in human basophil de-granulation, ‘molecular imprints’ of anti- IgE antiserum cannot be prevent their natural interaction. We should not forget that ‘molecular imprints’ cannot interfere in the interaction between biological targets and their natural ligands. In the absence of this understanding, the experiments of beneveniste were wrongly designed, and were inevitably bound to fail.

‘Molecular imprints’ can prevent only ‘off-target’ actions of biological ligands. For example, we use potentized thyroid extract, which contain molecular imprints of various thyroid hormones having specific roles in metabolism. Potentized thyroidinum never interferes in the natural biological actions of thyroid hormones. But those molecular imprints can rectify the pathological conditions caused by ‘off-target’ bindings of thyroid hormones, especially in situations of hyperthyroidism. This is applicable to all potentized hormone remedies. They never interfere in normal biological actions of those hormones.

Reason behind this phenomenon is related with the dynamics of molecular interactions. Interactions between natural targets and their ligands involves two factors: configurational affinity and charge affinity. But interactions of ‘molecular imprints’ and their ‘ligands’ involves ‘configurational affinity’ only, without any charge affinity.

WHAT IS THE ‘FUNDAMENTAL’ PRINCIPLE OF HOMEOPATHY, THAT FORMS THE ESSENTIAL BASIS OF THIS THERAPEUTIC SYSTEM?

Exactly, what is the ‘FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE” of homeopathy? A principle that forms the essential basis of homeopathic therapeutic system? I think there is a lot of confusion over the subject of ‘fundamental principles of homeopathy’, not only among homeopaths, but even our ‘theoreticians’.

In my opinion, the therapeutic principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’ is the only ‘essential’ fundamental principle of homeopathy. ‘Potentization’ is not a fundamental principle, but a practical way of preparing homeopathic drugs. Other ‘theories’ are only philosophical explanations, conjectures, interpretations, opinions and empirical conclusion based on personal experiences of ‘stalwarts’ and ‘masters’. They are not ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy.

Some people consider each and every word uttered by our ‘master’ as ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy. They would profusely quote his words from ORGANON whenever some body raises any hard questions.  Some others would even include the words of other ‘stalwarts’ like Kent, Herring and the like also in the category of ‘fundamental’ principles. They would declare that whatever ‘master’ and other ‘stalwarts’ said 200 years ago were “most scientific” and should not be changed. They would not tolerate any attempt of re-reading those ‘theories’ in the light of scientific knowledge humanity has amassed during last two centuries after Hahnemann lived on this earth.

Even though Hanemann was indeed a great genius and visionary, it is impossible for anybody to proceed with his intellectual quest without drawing resources from the treasures of knowledge amassed by previous generations. Obviously, no genius can totally overcome the objective limitations imposed upon him by the space-time context of his life and activities.

We should never forget the objective historical context of 18th century Germany, where Samuel Hahnemann  lived and developed his novel therapeutic system. Hahnemann had developed his ideas depending upon the existing knowledge about the universe available to him. It is not to be seen as a sin to say that his thoughts and words were more or less confined by the limitations imposed by the infantile level of science and technology then existed there. Even though the essence of the therapeutic principle he developed is capable of transcending the boundaries of centuries to come, it would be unfair to try to evaluate his achievements and contributions detached from his objective time-space framework.

Had Hahnemann happened to live in this world 200 years later, the towering genius of Hahnemann would have presented to humanity a therapeutic system totally different, and much  more advanced and scientific than what we now call Homeopathy. He would have definitely rewritten completely what we preach and practice in the name of Homeopathy today.

Whenever we try to learn the teachings of Hahnemann,  we  should be on the look out to understand what he would have said about those subjects, if he were elaborating them in the modern context. We should not take his written words as if they were ultimate immutable truth, unquestionable and beyond any scope of further revisions and improvements. We should honor the great master by following his teachings as valuable guide to tread forward, and not as lifeless dogmas.

If Samuel Hahnemann happened to live among us now, he would have mastered all the latest scientific knowledge available. He would be the greatest scientist of our era. He would explain “similia similibus curentur” on the basis of quantum theory, modern biochemistry  and the latest understanding of molecular dynamics of disease and therapeutics. He would have explained “potentization” on the basis of modern ‘molecular imprinting’, and would have devised a more sophisticated and scientific method of molecular imprinting to replace the present process of potentization.

‘Single Drug-Single Dose’- The Most Quoted And Most Violated ‘Cardinal Principle’ Of Homeopathy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As per this view, molecules of drug substances would be completely removed from the medium when the dilution crosses Avogadro limit. That means, even the smallest sized drug molecules will disappear above 23c potency. Hence, I proposed that 30c will be the ideal potency for therapeutic purpose, and further higher potencies will not be different from 30c in medicinal property. SSince drug molecules will be absent above 23c, I presumed that there is no meaning in continuing potentization higher and higher. On that basis, I suggested to use 30c potency only.

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

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

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

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

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

‘Miasmatic Analysis’- Confused Learners, Confused ‘Masters’. Utter Confusion For All!

‎’Miasmatic analysis’ is the sum total of ‘confusions’ created in the minds of already ‘confused’ learners, by ‘teachers’ who are gravely ‘confused’ themselves. The final outcome is ‘Utter Confusion for All’!

Some homeopaths appear to be experts in ‘miasmatic analysis’. Once a case is presented to them, they cannot avoid ‘miasmatic analysis’ of patients, drug substances or diseases. Instead of discussing symptoms and similimum, they would go on talking about miasms. It is funny to note that each ‘miasmatic expert’ would say there is no confusions if you understand it correctly. Then he would give his theories and ‘miasmatic analysis’. Then the next expert comes, and gives his theory and analysis, diametrically opposite to the earlier. He also says there is no confusions if you understand him correctly. I have never seen two ‘miasmatic experts’ talking about miasms in similar language. You give them a case for ‘miasmatic analysis’. Each would come with different analysis. AND YOU SAY, THERE IS NO CONFUSIONS!

I never seen two homeopaths explaining ‘miasms’ in same way. I never seen two homeopaths agreeing up on ‘miasmatic analysis’ of same case, same symptom or same medicine. Everybody talk differently. Is it does not indicate confusions? If you have any doubt on what I said, kindly post a case for ‘miasmatic analysis’ here. They would fight each other with their analysis. They would discuss strange concepts such as “psora merging into tuberculous spectrum”, or “psora converting into sycosis and then to syphilis as disease advances”. They would talk about ‘tri-miasmatic’ drugs, patients and diseases. I have seen it many times on this group. After all these intellectual exercises done, if you want to cure the patient, you have to find a similimum using symptoms! The simple truth is that appropriate similimum would cure even without any ‘miasmatic exercise’, if it is rightly selected.

One expert said: All individuals have all miasms, all drugs have all miasms, and all drugs have all miasms”, One would say warts are sycotic, another say it is psoric. A clever one would say warts have all miasms! Then why should we worry about miasmatic analysis?

I never said that the understanding of underlying miasms has no role in homeopathic therapeutics. Miasms, or ‘Chronic disease dispositions’ caused by infectious agents’ have to be considered and antidoted with appropriate antimiasmatic drugss. But, the intellectual exercises happening in the name of ‘miasmatic analysis’ is making everything a mockery, and UTTER CONFUSION FOR ALL.

In my opinion, the confusion would end only when we reach a consensus on ‘what is miasms’. If you could agree with my explanation of ‘miasms’ as ‘chronic disease dispositions’ caused by ‘off-target’ molecular inhibitions created by ‘antibodies’ generated in the organism against ‘exogenous’ protiens such as ‘infectious agents’, all confusions regarding ‘miasmatic analysis’ would be scientifically resolved. Until that happens, this confusion will remain.

Every chronic disease that is caused by ‘off-target’ molecular inhibitions created by ‘antibodies’ can be called ‘miasmatic diseases.

Let us consider a case of valvular heart disease caused by rheumatic fever. It was the antibodies formed against streptococcus sore throat infection that caused aarthritis, endocarditis, and valvular deformities. This chronic condition was caused by ‘off-target’ molecular inhibitions created by ‘antibodies’. It is a ‘miasmatic’ disease according to me. Same way, we know about chronic fibromyalgia caused by ‘chikunguniya’ antibodies, nephropathy caused by scabies antibodies, many chronic diseases caused by vaccinations. We can give a lot of examples

If we deeply study immunology and immune related diseases, we can understand the real scope of concepts I am trying to explain. A miasmatic disease one that is CAUSED by ‘Antibodies’ existing in the body, which were created earlier against ‘exogenous’ proteins that invaded the organism.

For example, a streptococcus sore throat is only an ‘infection’, not a MIASMATIC DISEASE. But, the artthritis and endocarditis caused by the antibodies generated by that infection are ‘miasmatic diseases’. Am I clear, sir? That is why hahnemann said ‘miasm’ is a ‘chronic disease disposition’ caused by ‘infectious agents’. He did not say ‘miasms are infectious diseases’. Please note the real difference.

Starting from pre-natal life, different kinds of antibodies are generated in our body against diverse types of ‘exogenous’ proteins including infectious agents. Actually, these antibodies are protein molecules of globulin types, which get deformed by getting acted up on by antigens. The active groups of antigens(epitopes) imprints upon the active groups of globulins(peritopes), in such a way that the peritope of globulin is converted into a ‘lock’ exactly fitting to the ‘epitope’ of antigen, which is similar to the ‘key’. Real ‘defense’ mechanism of organism is based on this ‘key-lock’ relationship. The problem arises when the ‘antibodies’ circulates in the body and bind to ‘off-target’ molecules, which have active groups with configuration mimicking the real antigen. This ‘offtarget’ bindings results in inhibitions of involved biological molecules, making them incapable of executing their natural functions. This is called a pathological molecular error, which expresses as a disease, and disease symptoms. This is the mechanism by which ‘antibodies’ or ‘miasms’ cause diseases.

I hope I have provided a most scientific, most logical explanation for the phenomenon of ‘miasms’. If you cannot understand or accept this concept, we are sure to differ in our approach to miasms and ‘miasmatic analysis’.

To discuss this topic, first you have to read my notes carefully, without prejudice, with a willingness to understand. Then, you have to understand it, for which you will have to update your biochemistry. Then you have to think over what I said. Then only we can have a meaningful discussions. If you have no time to read and understand what I say, there is no meaning in ‘discussing’. Please approach this concept without prejudice, because this is something different from what we have already learned.

We always think about ‘antibodies’ as ‘defense molecules’. Same time we should realize that they can act as pathogenic agents through OFF-TARGET interactions. Please learn more about hundreds of ‘auto-immune’ diseases to understand the real gravity of havoc these ‘immune’ bodies can create in the organism.

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

Listen, what I said: ” Miasms are chronic disease dispositions caused by off-target molecular inhibitions created by antibodies, which were generated against ‘exogenous’ proteing molecules including ‘infectious agents”. How can you interpret it in such a way that I said “all miasmatic disorders are autoimmune”? “Genetic disorders’ and ‘genetic expression disorders’ are different. Genetic disorders, which are due to actual errors in genetic substance or DNA, are beyond miasms. But, ‘genetic expression’ disorders or ‘protein synthesis disorders’ may be caused by influences of miasms, infections and many other exogenous or endogenous pathogenic factors, by acting up on the enzyme systems involved. That is the way pathogenic agents act.

I am trying to find out truth, not to satisfy somebody. I hope everybody would ultimately be satisfied with truth I am trying to find out truth, not to satisfy somebody. I hope everybody would ultimately be satisfied with truth

I never say “hahnemanns perceptions were wrong”. But, I would say many of his explanations regarding what he ‘percieved’ were imperfect, due to the infantile stage of scientific knowledge available to him in that time-space context he lived and worked. But many of the interpretations given by later ‘masters’ were wrong, and many times contrary to the real sense of hahnemann’s teachings. Miasms belong to that group. Hahnemann only said about a chronic diasease disposition caused by ‘infectious agents’. It was his interpreters, who mixed up miasms, genetics, embriyology and many other things, and created all these confusions. If uou studyy ‘miasms’ from original works of hahnemann, without the help of interpreters, you would be convinced of the truth in what I am saying.

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

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

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

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

We have many experiences with diseases caused by ‘off-target’ actions of antibodies. Streptococcus antibodies causing endocarditis and arthritis is an example. Sacbies antibodies causing nephropathy, chikungunia antibodies causing fibromyalgia, etc are commonly encountered. Long term side effects of various vaccinations also belong to this group. We know about various diseases appearing in mothers caused by antibodies formed against foetal proteins. Post-delivery psychiatric problems are associated with antibodies formed against some uterine infections and metritis. If you go through your immunology lessons, you will get hundreds of examples. Remember, this area of pathology is not so far well studied.
We have to study all the diseases included in ‘psora’ by hahnemann in this point of view. We have to expose the relationship between these diseases and infectious diseases considerd to be causative factors of psoric miasm.

So far, we have been studying about antibodies as ‘defense’ molecules only. We have to study them as ‘pathogenic’ agents also, especially playing behind many chronic diseases. New generation of homeopathy students can take up such studies as part of their academic research projects. I hope this discussions we do here may induce such creative thoughts in many minds

 

 

 

Homeopathic ‘Constitutions’ Explained In Terms Of ‘Genotype-Phenotype’ Interactions Studied By Modern Genetics

‘Constitutions’, ‘constitutional symptoms’ and ‘consitutional drugs’ are concepts which play a very important role in homeopathic theory and practice. Concepts such as ‘genetic constitution’ and ‘miasmatic constitution’ are frequently heard in homeopathic discussions. There have been a lot of attempts to explain constitution in terms of ‘miasms’, genetics, embryology and many other concepts.

I am trying to evolve a scientifically viable understanding of our concept of ‘constitution’. I think it would be more logical and scientific if we understand ‘constitution’ in terms of ‘phenotypes’ of individuals. To understand and explain ‘constitutions’ in scientific terms, we have to understand the concepts of ‘genotypes’ and ‘phenotypes’ in modern genetics.

According to modern genetics, the ‘genotype’ is the ‘genetic substance or ‘DNA’ inherited by the organism from its previous generation. It is called the ‘genetic blue print’.

The ‘genotype’ contained the organism gives rise to individual ‘phenotypes through ‘gene expressions’. The ‘genetic code’ stored in DNA is interpreted by ‘gene expression’, and the properties of these expressions five rise to the ‘phenotype’ of the organism.

A ‘phenotype’ is the observable characteristics or traits of an organism, such as morphology, development, biological and physiological properties, behavior, and products of behavior.  ‘Phenotype’ is the result of ‘gene expressions’, which is decided by the interaction between genetic blue print and environmental factors.

‘Genotype’ of an organism is the inherited instructions it carries within its genetic code. Organisms with same ‘genotype’ do not appear or act the same way, because its ‘phenotype’ is decided by the interaction with  environmental and developmental conditions. Similarly, not all organisms that look alike necessarily have the same genotype.

This understanding of ‘genotype-phenotype distinction’, proposed by Wilhelm Johannsen in 1911 to make clear the difference between an organism’s heredity and what that heredity produces,  is very important in providing a scientific explanation for the homeopathic concept of ‘constitutions’.

Despite its seemingly straightforward definition, the concept of the phenotype has some hidden subtleties. Some would argue that anything dependent on the genotype is a phenotype, including molecules such as RNA and proteins. Most of the molecules and structures coded by the genetic material are not visible in the appearance of an organism, yet they are observable and are thus part of the phenotype. Human blood groups are an example. Others would say that this goes beyond the original intentions of the concept with its focus on the (living) organism in itself, meaning that the lowest level of biological organization compatible with the phenotype concept is at the cellular level. Either way, the term phenotype includes traits or characteristics that can be made visible by some technical procedure. Another extension adds behavior to the phenotype since behaviors are also observable characteristics. Indeed there is research into the clinical relevance of behavioral phenotypes as they pertain to a range of syndromes.

Phenotypic variation (due to underlying heritable genetic variation) is a fundamental prerequisite for evolution by natural selection. It is the living organism as a whole that contributes (or not) to the next generation, so natural selection affects the genetic structure of a population indirectly via the contribution of phenotypes. Without phenotypic variation, there would be no evolution by natural selection.

The relationship between ‘genotype’ and ‘phenotype’ has often been conceptualized by the following relationship: “genotype (G) + environment (E) + genotype & environment interactions (GE) → phenotype (P)”

‘Genotypes’ often have much flexibility in the modification and expression of phenotypes; in many organisms these phenotypes are very different under varying environmental conditions. The concept of phenotype can be extended to variations below the level of the gene that affect an organism’s fitness. For example, silent mutations that do not change the corresponding amino acid sequence of a gene may change the frequency of guanine-cytosine base pairs (GC content). These base pairs have a higher thermal stability than adenine-thymine, a property that might convey, among organisms living in high-temperature environments, a selective advantage on variants enriched in GC content.

A phenotype is the ensemble of observable characteristics displayed by an organism. The idea of the phenotype expresses all the effects a gene has on the outside world that may influence its chances of being replicated. These can be effects on the organism in which the gene resides, the environment, or other organisms.

Gene expression is the process by which information from a gene is used in the synthesis of a functional gene product. These products are often proteins, but in non-protein coding genes such as ribosomal RNA (rRNA), transfer RNA (tRNA) or Small nuclear RNA (snRNA) genes, the product is a functional RNA. The process of gene expression is used by all known life to generate the macromolecular machinery for life.

Several steps in the gene expression process may be modulated, including the transcription, RNA splicing, translation, and post-translational modification of a protein. Gene regulation gives the cell control over structure and function, and is the basis for cellular differentiation, morphogenesis and the versatility and adaptability of any organism. Gene regulation may also serve as a substrate for evolutionary change, since control of the timing, location, and amount of gene expression can have a profound effect on the functions (actions) of the gene in a cell or in a multicellular organism.

Factors, such as such as miasmatic, environmental, nutritional, occupational, infectious, emotional, ontogenic, metabolic and xenobiotic influence the process of ‘gene regulation’ at various stages of ‘gene expression’, through which the particular ‘phenotype’ or ‘constitution’ of the individual organism is determined. As such, ‘constitution’ of an individual is the ‘phenotype’ determined by the ‘protein constitution’ developing through ‘genetic expression’’. Constitution’ is expressed in the form of totality of general physical symptoms, morphology, mental symptoms and behavioral peculiarities.

Constitution of a person is decided by the ‘genotype-phenotype’ interactions taking place. Genotype is the ‘genetic substance’ obtained from parents. Phenotype is produced by the ‘expression’ of these genotype. Many factors influence the ‘genetic expression’. They include nutritional factors, environmental factors, infectious fatcors, miasmatic factors or antibodies, metabolic factors, emotional factors, drug factors and many such things. What we call ‘constitution’ is actually the ‘phenotype’ produced by the expression of genotype, influenced by all these diverse factors. Symptoms representing this phenotype is what we call ‘constitutional symptoms’. Drugs selected as similimum on the basis of ‘constitutional symptoms’ can modify the ‘phenotype’ of the individual, but it cannot modify genotype. While talking about ‘consitutional similimum’, we should be aware of these scientific facts.

‎’Genetic expression’ is the chains of biochemical processes by which diverse types of protein molecules are manufactured utilizing the genetic blue print inherited from previous generation. As such, the ‘phenotype’ or ‘constitution’ of an individual is actually the ‘protein constitution’ evolving through genetic expression. What we call ‘constitutional symptoms’ are exactly those symptoms that represent this overall ‘protein chemistry’. Phenotype or protein constitution can be influenced by potentized drugs selected on the basis of ‘constitutional symptoms’, but ‘genotype’ cannot be changed by that. While considering the concept of ‘constitutional treatment’, we should be aware of these scientific facts.

What Did The IIT-B Team Actually Prove About Homeopathy?

By detecting the presence of ‘nanoparticles’ in the samples of homeopathic drugs, what did the IIT-B team actually prove”? They only proved that the ‘market samples’ of 6c, 30c and 200c are not much different from each other, and the manufacturers are fooling the profession by selling very low potencies (below Avogadro limit) with labels of ‘ultra-high’ dilutions! The research team also got fooled by conducting this research using these fake ‘ultra-high’ potencies.

Studying the IIT-B research findings carefully, I noted the following points:

1. The team used ‘market samples’ of homeopathic dilutions 6c, 30c and 200c

2. Homeopathic dilutions of ‘metal derived medicines’ only were used for the study.

3. 2000 ml of dilutions of each drug was taken separately, and subjected for evaporation until 4ml remained. This ‘concentrated’ 4ml which remained was used for study.

4. Using Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), electron diffraction and chemical analysis by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES), they “detected the presence of physical entities in these extreme dilutions, in the form of nanoparticles of the starting metals and their aggregates”.

5. They also “found that the concentrations reach a plateau at the 6c potency and beyond.

6. They also “have shown that despite large differences in the degree of dilution from 6c to 200c (1012 to 10400), there were no major differences in the nature of the particles (shape and size) of the starting material and their absolute concentrations (in pg/ml).

5. They also found that these “nanoparticles” of starting materials were present only in the 1% top layer. The remaining part contained no nanoparticles. According to them, during potentization, “this nanoparticle/nanobubble complex rises to the surface and can be within a monolayer once the total metal concentrations are well below 1 ppm. It is this 1% of the top layer of the solution which is collected and added to the next vessel, into 99 parts of fresh solvent and the succession process is repeated. This transfer of the top 1% layer in each step will ensure that once we reach below a certain concentration i.e. well within a monolayer, the entire starting material continues to go from one dilution to the next, resulting in an asymptote beyond 6c.”

By detecting the presence of ‘nanoparticles’ in the samples of homeopathic drugs, what did the IIT-B team actually prove”? They only proved that the ‘market samples’ of 6c, 30c and 200c are not much different from each other, and the manufacturers are fooling the profession by selling very low potencies (below Avogadro limit) with labels of ‘ultra-high’ dilutions! The research team also got fooled by conducting this research using these fake ‘ultra-high’ potencies.