Homeopathy is ‘Medical Science’. Say ‘No’ To ‘Energy Medicine’ Theories!

I constantly try to expose all those ‘big’ people who are propagating homeopathy as a branch of ‘energy medicine’ or ‘spiritual healing’, not due to any personal vendetta. Actually, I do not know these people personally. I do this campaign as part of my mission of advancing homeopathy as a full-fledged ‘medical science’, which I think, cannot be achieved without freeing it from malignant influence of diverse shades of ‘energy medicine’ theories and their highly influential international propagators.

We cannot hope to advance homeopathy as a scientific medical practice unless we could explain ‘potentization’ and ‘similia similibus curentur’ in a way fitting to modern scientific paradigms, and prove them according to scientific methods. If you are genuine in this mission, you cannot move forward without settling accounts with pseudo-scientific ‘energy medicine concepts’ that have engulfed homeopathy.

Actually, ‘energy medicine’, energy therapy or energy healing is a branch of complementary and alternative medicine basically distinct from homeopathy. It is based on the belief that a healer is able to channel healing energy into the person seeking help by different methods: hands-on, hands-off, and distant (or absent) where the patient and healer are in different locations. There are various schools of energy healing. It is known as biofield energy healing,spiritual healing, contact healing, distant healing, therapeutic touch, Reiki or Qigong. Spiritual healing is largely non-denominational and traditional religious faith is not seen as a prerequiste for effecting a cure. Faith healing, by contrast, takes place within a religious context.

Homeopathy is essentially a form of ‘drug therapy’. It has nothing to do with ‘energy medicine’. Homeopathy should be understood, explained and practiced as a scientific medicine.

‘Homeopathy is energy medicine’- this theory is intentionally propagated world over by proponents of diverse colors of occult and pseudo-scientific practices destroying the scientific credentials of homeopathy. They spin fanciful theories about homeopathy using ‘vibration theory’, ‘bio-magnetism’,’wave theory’, ‘electro-magnetic radiations’, ‘frequencies’, ‘resonance theory’, ‘piezo-electricity’ and various other absurd theories, pretending themselves to be ‘ultra-scientific’. These people are gravely alienating homeopathy from mainstream scientific knowledge system.

Along with homeopathic practice, these people are actually doing spiritual healing, psychic healing, Therapeutic touch, Healing Touch, Esoteric healing, Magnetic healing, Qigong healing, Reiki, Pranic healing, Crystal healing, distant healing, intercessionary prayer, Acupuncture, biofield energy healing,spiritual healing, contact healing, distant healing and various other occult practices. They prefer to call themselves as CAM practitioners. That is why they want to include homeopathy in the category of ‘energy medicine’, and try to explain homeopathy in that terms.

These people propagate hair transmission, telephone transmission, photo transmission, mp3 file transmission, telepathy, radionics, dowsing, spiritual homeopathy and such things in the name of homeopathy.They have great influence and dominance in international homeopathy.

A very special convenience of ‘energy medicine’ is, they can fit any scientific knowledge into their ‘theoretical system’. They can connect everything using their magic wands- ‘‘electromagnetic radiations’ and ‘bio-magnetic resonance’!

According to them, homeopathic medicines act by ‘resonance’, nanoparticles act by ‘resonance’, ‘ghost dna’ act by ‘resonance’. Everything is ‘energy’. Life is ‘resonance’, disease is lack of ‘resonance’, cure is re-establishment of ‘resonance’. Even cells and genes interact through ‘resonance! ‘Everything could fit comfortably well into this ‘resonance’ theory- let it be homeopathy, faith healing, acupressure, distant healing, radionics, dowsing, hair transmission, touch healing, mesmerism, prayers, pranic, reiki or any occult practice. ‘Radiations’ and ‘Resonance’explains everything.

Once you accept ‘energy medicine’ theory, everything is easy. You become a ‘healer’- not ‘physician’. You need not bother about learning difficult subjects such as biochemistry, genetics, anatomy, physiology, pathology, pharmacology, diagnosis, materia medica, similimum or anything else! You need not study biological molecules, drug molecules or their chemical interactions. Simply find out where the ‘resonance’ is missing, and re-establish ‘resonance’ using appropriate ‘healing methods’. You can use anything as therapeutic agents- your hands, charged water, dynamized drugs, prayers, healing touch, suggestions, mind power, magnets, hair, nail, excreta! It is a comfort zone for lazy and ignorant people who desire to be ‘healers’. If you are not willing to learn science, or if you do not understand science, be a proponent of ‘energy medicine’!

If you genuinely want homeopathy to be a real ‘medical science’, it is inevitable that you will have to fight for freeing homeopathy from the influence of ‘energy medicine’ theories and associated occult practices. I take up this fight as part of my mission of propagating scientific homeopathy. Kindly do not minimize it into an issue of ‘personality clashes’ or ”ego conflicts.

Dana Ullman- Foremost Spokesman Of Pseudo-scientific ‘Energy Medicine’ Theories of Homeopathy

In his eagerness to defend  his most cherished ‘nanopharmacology’ concept, and to utilize it to provide a scientific glare to his ‘energy medicine’ theories, respected Dana Ullman now gives a new twist to nanoparticle theory of IIT scientists.

He says: “It doesn’t necessarily assert that it is the nanoparticles that have ALL of the impact. It could also mean that the nanoparticles change the entire sovent (the water medium)”

This is really a new contribution from dana ulman to nanoparticle theory. But it makes the whole puzzle more mysterious and complex, which is the actual intention of dana. By this statement, he is trying to utilize the ‘nanoparticle theory for justifying the most pseudoscientific ‘energy medicine theories’ in homeopathy’, of which he is a prominent proponent along with his CAM counterparts.

By this statement, he is trying to say that nanoparticles are not the real active principles of potentized drugs that makes “all impacts”, but they ‘change the whole solvent’ by inducing it to ‘vibrate’ exactly similar to ‘vibrations of drug substance’, and that these ‘immaterial dynamic vibrations’ are the active principles of potentized drugs! He would also say, these ‘vibrations’ will act upon ‘vital force’ in a ‘dynamic way’ by ‘resonance’ and produce cure!

SEE how cleverly the ‘energy medicine’ proponents twist and convert the nanoparticle theory proposed by IIT scientists in a way fitting to their pseudoscientific ‘dynamic energy- vibration-resonance-vital force’ frame work!!

His statement makes it very much obvious that dana ulmann and his ‘energy medicine’ friends are ‘supporting’ nanoparticle theory not to rationally resolve the riddles of homeopathy and make it more scientific, but hoping to utilize it to provide a ‘scientific’ glare to their nonsense ‘vibration’ theories.

Dana Ullman, who is claimed to be described by TIME magazine as “the Leading Proselytizer of Homeopathy” and ABC News touted as “Homeopathy’s Foremost Spokesman”, is a prominent proponent of ‘ultra-scientific’ ‘energy medicine’ theories in homeopathy that severely discredit the scientific credentials of homeopathy.

Please read his articles on his site and try to understand what he says about the mechanism of homeopathic drug action. He has no opinion of his own. He will quote many others, and say ‘it is said’, ‘it is believed’. He never commits to any theory. Same time, all  articles of Dana Ulman have an undercurrent of ‘energy medicine’ theories.

Energy medicine theory is the greatest enemy of scientific homeopathy. Scientific community will never accept homeopathy as a medical science, if we go on talking ‘energy medicine’. We have to use the paradigms of science, language of science, concepts of science, terms of science, methods of science. We should explain homeopathy as a science, fitting to modern biochemistry, molecular biology and pathology.

Dana Ulmann would be the first person to write articles supporting any emerging theories or new research reports appearing in homeopathy. As I already said, he instantly ‘supports’ every new theories, but commits to nothing. If you ‘accept’ a theory in its real sense, you will have to discard and disown its contradicting theories. Ulmann will ‘support’ molecular imprints, next day he will write an article supporting ‘energy medicine’ theories. Next day he will support nanoparticle theory. The moment the IIT B research report appeared in media, he wrote an article declaring ‘homeopathy is nanopharmacology’, same time adding that ‘nanopaticles’ act by ‘vibrations’ and ‘resonance’! It is a wonderful exercise. He never goes into the depth of any theory. He only quote others. His all articles always contains ‘it is said’ and ‘it is believed’. He ‘says’ nothing specific. He never antagonize any theory directly, but very cleverly utilize every new ‘researches’ to justify the ‘energy medicine concepts.

The flag-ship article of his website  “Why Homeopathy Makes Sense and Works-A Great Introductory Article for Advocates OR Skeptics of Homeopathy” clearly shows that he is is totally blank on “How Homeopathy Works”.

He admits “precisely how homeopathic medicines work remains a mystery according to present scientific thinking”. If it is a mystery, how could he claim it is “nano-pharmacology”?

In this article, he says homeopathy uses “nanodoses” of medicinal substances. Either he has no idea about what “nano” means, or he is not aware that drugs potentized above 12c or avogadro number cannot contain a single drug molecule. How can something that does not contain a ‘single’ molecule be ‘nano-doses’ of drug substance? To be “nano-doses”, there should be drug molecules present!

In the same article, Ulmann says Homeopathy works on the basis of ‘hormesis’. Hormesis is all about the biological actions of ‘small’ quantities of drugs. How could Ullman talk about hormesis knowing well that potentized drugs contain no drug substance? If you accept homeopathy as hormesis, you are obviously discarding the principles of homeopathic potentization. Homeopathy is not SMALL doses- it is NO doses!

DANA ULLMAN SAYS:  “One metaphor that may help us understand how and why extremely small doses of medicinal agents may work derives from present knowledge of modern submarine radio communications. Normal radio waves simply do not penetrate water, so submarines must use an extremely low frequency radio wave. However, the terms “extremely low” are inadequate to describe this specific situation because radio waves used by submarines to penetrate water are so low that a single wavelength is typically several miles long! If one considers that the human body is 70-80% water, perhaps the best way to provide pharmacological information to the body and into intercellular fluids is with nanodoses. Like the above mentioned extremely low frequency radio waves, it may be necessary to use extremely low (and activated) doses as used in homeopathic medicines, in order for a person to receive the medicinal effect.”

SEE ANOTHER ‘METAPHOR’:  “It is commonly known that certain species of moths can smell pheromones of its own species up to two miles in distance. It is no simple coincidence that species only sense pheromones from those in the same species who emit them (akin to the homeopathic principle of similars), as though they have developed exquisite and specific receptor sites for what they need to survive and to propagate their species. Likewise, sharks are known to sense blood in the water at distances, and when one considers the volume of water in the ocean, it becomes obvious that sharks, like all living creatures, develop extreme hypersensitivity for whatever will help ensure their survival. It is therefore not surprising that renowned astronomer Johann Kepler once said, “Nature uses as little as possible of anything.”

These are a very ‘funny’ metaphors only ‘Ulmanian logic’ can decipher relating with ‘how homeopathy works’.!

In the article “Nobel Prize-Winning Virologist’s New Research Gives Significant Support to Homeopathic Pharmacology” Ullman claims that Luc Montaigner’s researches using ‘aqueous dilutions’ of bacterial DNA supports homeopathic potentization, even though “homeopathy is not mentioned anywhere” by Montaigner. But Ullman conveniently ignores the fact that Montaigner never used dilutions above 12x, which is very much lower to avogadro limit. Upto 23x, there is always chance for original molecules to be present. Montaigner even said he could not detect any ‘electromagnetic signals’ above 18x. How can Ullman claim Montaigner proved the efficacy of ‘high dilutions’ used in homeopathy?

For my appraisal of Montaigner’s observations, go to this link: http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/luc-montagniers-observations-of-ultra-dilutions-and-its-implications-on-homeopathy/

Dana is never bothered or does not notice the fact that Montaigner’s ‘ghost dna’ theory and nanoparticle theory of IIT-B team contradict each other!. He ‘supports’ both theories!. That is a very special quality of Dana- he can support and promote any number of contradicting theories same time, without any ‘partiality’.  He commits to nothing. He would connect any contradicting theories using his ‘energy medicine’ theories of ‘electromagnetic radiations’ and ‘biomagnetic resonance’!  According to him, homeopathic medicines act by ‘resonance’, nanoparticles act by ‘resonance’, ‘ghost dna’ act by ‘resonance’. Life is ‘resonance’, disease is lack of ‘resonance’, cure is re-establishment of ‘resonance’. Everything could fit well into this ‘resonance’ theory- let it be homeopathy, faith healing, distant healing, radionics, dowsing, drug transmission or any occult practice. ‘Resonance’ and ‘radiations’ is the answer.

In his article “Homeopathic Medicine is Nanopharmacology”, Dana Ullman answers the question “How does homeopathy work” as follows:

“How homeopathic medicines work is presently a mystery. And yet, nature is replete with striking examples of the powerful effects of extremely small doses of active agents.

It is commonly known that certain species of moths can smell pheromones of its own species up to two miles away. Likewise, sharks are known to sense blood in the water at large distances.

I stress again that nanopharmacological doses will not have any effect unless the person is hypersensitive to the specific medicinal substance. Hypersensitivity is created when there is some type of resonance between the medicine and the person. Because the system of homeopathy bases its selection of the medicine on its ability to cause in overdose the similar symptoms that the sick person is experiencing, homeopathy’s “law of similars,” as it is called, is simply a practical method of finding the substance to which a person is hypersensitive.

The homeopathic principle of similars makes further sense when one considers that physiologists and pathologists now recognize that disease is not simply the result of breakdown or surrender of the body but that symptoms are instead representative of the body’s efforts to fight infection or adapt to stress. Fever, inflammation, pain, discharge, and even high blood pressure are but a small number of the common symptoms that the organism creates in order to defend and to try to heal itself.

Over 200 years of experience by homeopathic physicians hav found that a homeopathic medicine acts longer and deeper when it is more potentized. Although no one knows precisely why this happens, it is conjectured that highly potentized nanopharmacological doses can more deeply penetrate cells and the blood-brain barrier than less potentized medicines. Although there is no consensus on why these ultramolecular doses work more deeply, there is consensus from users of these natural medicines that they do.

One cannot help but sense the potential treasure-trove of knowledge that further research in homeopathy and nanopharmacology will bring in this new millennium.”



Only thing I got is he explains “law of similars,” as “simply a practical method of finding the substance to which a person is hypersensitive”, and this “hypersensitivity is created when there is some type of resonance between the medicine and the person”. According to Dana that is how homeopathy works- “resonance between medicine and person”! He pretends to be talking science by saying ‘homeopathy is nanopharmacology’, whereas his ‘nano-pharmocology’ has nothing to do with modern nanotechnology or pharmacology.  His ‘nano pharmacology’ acts by resonance!

That is the wonderful quality of Dana Ullman’s writings. He talks a lot, he writes a lot- of course in a very knowledgeable and ‘scientific’ language. But nobody gets nothing from him. Everything begins in mystery and ends in mystery.

And you should know, he is “the Leading Proselytizer of Homeopathy” and “Homeopathy’s Foremost Spokesman” in western world”!

My request to Dan Ullman is, he should be a little more cautious and consistent  while explaining homeopathy. Being the most noted  “Foremost Spokesman” of homeopathy, he should be more responsible. While saying homeopathy is ‘hormesis’, ‘small doses’ and ‘nanopharmacology’, he should be aware that he is contradicting the concept of homeopathic potentization. He should try to explain how potentized drugs, even without a single drug molecule contained them, act therapeutically on the basis of ‘similia similibus curentur’. Any reasonable theory about homeopathy should explain what actually happens during potentization, what are the active principles of potentized drugs, and what is the exact molecular mechanism by which these active principles produces a therapeutic effect. We should explain potentization and similia similibus curentur in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge. Most importantly, we should be consistent in our explanation, whatever it be.

Dana Ullman should always remember, there is an elite and skeptic  scientific community keeping watchful eyes on whatever he says. He should be cautious not to provide new arms and ammunition to them to attack homeopathy, by making inconsistent and self-contradicting statements and promoting obviously unscientific theories about homeopathy.

I would expect Dana Ulman to provide specific answers to following direct questions, if he is serious in his inquiry ‘how homeopathy works’

1. What exactly happens during potentization? What is the exact process involved?

2. What are the active principles of potentized drugs?

3. What is the exact process by which these active principles of potentized drugs interact with the organism and produce a therapeutic effect?

4. How would you explain ‘similia similibus curentur’ in the light of your understanding of potentization and therapeutic action of potentized drugs?

Nothing to Wonder Why Scientific Community Dismisses Homeopathy as ‘Quackery’! See The Real Culprits!

See the real face of international ‘scientific homeopathy’, and its ‘modern masters’! They write books, conduct courses, seminars and interviews to train new generation of homeopaths. They are ‘most revered’ teachers and gurus. They represent homeopathy in international platforms. Nothing to wonder scientific community dismisses homeopathy as ‘fake’, ‘superstitious beliefs’ and ‘quackery’! No wonder James Randy and his skeptic friends rocking!

DAVID LITTLE is a prominent face of international homeopathy, who founded
H.O.E. (Homoeopathic Online Education) selling a four year online course on homeopathy. David has been practicing Homoeopathy for the past 30 years.He claims to be providing “valuable knowledge of the true methods of Homoeopathy, so that it can be used in a safe and effective manner”

“David Little was born in the USA in 1948 and has been a student of Homœopathy since the early 1970s. His first teacher was the late, great Dr. Manning Strahl and he was a colleague of the late Dr. Harimohan Choudhury. He has studied Homoeopathy in the USA and India. He started HOE, Homeopathic Online Education in 1999”.

Leela D’Souza, who conducted an interview of DAVID LITTLE for Hpathy introduces him: “All of us who know you, admire your work for homeopathy and many have established a strong foundation in their homeopathic journey participating in your course and receiving guidance from you”.


“Through skillful reflex testing the homoeopath is able to communicate directly with the vital force by learning its language. We can ask the vital force what it wants through reading the reaction of the autonomic nervous reflexes to the stimuli caused by homoeopathic remedies. In this way we can know if a remedy is going to react before we give it! It can also help us to find the correct potency to use. This certainly is a great advantage. This can most easily be done by observing the pupil reflex, the pulse and respiration, palpating and percussing the chest and abdomen, and testing the galvanic skin response with a dielectric substance on the skin of the patient.”

“All of these effects are the reaction of the autonomic nervous system to the radiations of energy waves from the homoeopathic remedy. In fact many of these reflexes will react before the vial is actually brought into contact with the patient”.


“Once the is patient is relaxed and ready the operator shines the light into the person’s eyes. If one is using a shaded light it should be held no higher than the waist and suddenly turned upward so that the light shines into the patient’s eyes. If one is using a flashlight it should be held to the side and directed into the patient’s eyes from one to two feet away. The pupils will immediately contract and then after one or two seconds dilate slightly and come to rest. At this moment the assistant should come up behind the patient and with a quick movement bring the remedy close to the person’s body or lightly touch them. If the homoeopath is working alone they may bring the remedy very close or lightly touch the remedy to the hand of the patient while watching the pupils.”

“If the patient is sensitive to the remedy the pupils of the patient will dilate quite clearly and come to rest in a new position. In certain rare instances the pupils may contract first and then dilate. The remedy that causes the most dilation of the pupil of the pupil is the remedy to which the body is the most susceptible. After allowing the nervous system to settle down for a few minutes, retest the chosen remedy in various potencies. The potency that causes the largest, most stable dilation is the potency to which the body is most reactive. In this way we can use the vital force as a guide in helping to choose a suitable remedy in the proper potency”.


“While reading the pulse the remedy vial is brought near the subject’s back with a quick swing stopping a few inches away from the patient’s body and the changes in the pulse are recorded. The vial only needs to be in contact with the body for a few seconds but the effect may last for up to 60 seconds. The heart usually responds to the correct remedy with a sudden hesitation, sometimes for up to 1/2 a beat, followed by one loud beat of the heart, and a perceptively new rhythm and volume.”

“Sometimes the pulse will respond as soon as you pick up the remedy. These effects can be plainly distinguished by auscultation with a stethoscope and can be viewed on a fluoroscope. In cases where there are irregular beats the correct remedy seems to stabilize the pulse and make it more regular. If the heart is arrhythmic because of a serious pathological lesion there is still often a clear response.”

“The pulse can easily show the homoeopath which remedy the vital force wants in that moment. It will also help show you which potency is the most suitable. Autonomic reflex testing can make a great difference in any homoeopath’s practice, particularly when it is difficult to chose between a few well chosen remedies. It is also useful after several remedies have been used and the symptoms have become masked due to too many partial simillimums”.


“First of all, observe the rate, rhythm, depth, movement of the chest, and effort in breathing of the client. The normal respiratory rate for a resting adult is 14 to 20 breaths per minute. Infants can breathe up to 44 cycles per minute. After observing the respiration bring the remedy near and touch the patient as in the other testing methods and watch for a response. When a related remedy is brought near the patient will sometimes almost sigh, or take a deep breath, then a new respiratory rate will be established. Look for changes in the rhythm, depth and movement of the chest. Counting the respiration can be done at the same time that the pulse is assessed. These affects can be watched together after one has gained experience in the method. Breath sound changes can be ausculated with a stethoscope much in the same way as the heart sounds. Observation, tactile fremitus, palpation, and percussion also supply information about the state of health of the respiratory system and can be used to assess the actions of related remedies.”


“The percussion technique can easily be done by anyone who has experience in the art of percussion for diagnostic purposes although a person can be trained in this method especially for the purpose of testing remedies. In this technique the patient is to be seated facing the west in a chair in the same manner as the previous tests. The experimenter may sit in front of patient toward the left side so that they can percuss the upper and outer section of the person’s chest. They may also stand behind the subject so as to reach over and percuss the subject’s chest from behind. An assistant stands about four or five feet away with the vials of the homoeopathic remedies placed on a table or chair”.

“The operator then begins to percuss the upper outer area of the apex of the lungs in a steady rhythm where the percussion-note is between flatness and resonance. When the experimenter is ready the assistant picks up a remedy and steps three or four feet away from the rest of the vials and then takes about two seconds to lift the vial upward until they reach the full length of the arm. If the remedy has any relationship to the patient, the percussion tone will become dull once the assistant touches the vial containing the remedy. As the remedy is raised upward the percussion-note may change to a higher pitch or becomes resonant again. Only those remedies which maintain a dull sound no matter how high the vial is held above the body are to be considered for retesting by the other methods for further assessment.”

“The distance that the remedy “holds” the dull percussion-note is related to its ability to influence the constitution in question. Some of the most active remedies have maintained the reaction at a distances of 75 to 100 feet or more! This imponderable remedy energy passes through walls made of brick, stone, concrete, or plaster without any obstruction. Stearns and his team observed remedy reactions at distances up to 200 feet. The remedy that “holds” the dullness of the percussion-note at the greatest distance is the remedy that will have the greatest influence over the vital force. Although these techniques are not very practical in the clinic it is quite amazing as a demonstration of the sensitivity of the human aura to the energy of a related homoeopathic remedy.”


“The skin resistance test is another easy to read response of the autonomic nervous system to a correct remedy. It is best if a sitting patient faces west or a prone person lies with the head to the north. The abdomen of the patient should be bared, and if the weather is humid, dried well with a cloth. The operator should then stroke the abdomen with a dielectric rod, such as one made out of glass, rubber, or bakelite. A drinking glass or a 6 oz. remedy bottle works very well. The remedies to be tested should be placed close by and handled by an assistant or the tester. The operator lightly strokes the abdomen in an up and down direction t in order to get a feel of the skin tonus of the patient.

The assistant or operator now picks up the remedy to be tested and brings it close or in contact with the body while the stroking motion is continued. The operator continues to stroke the abdomen to see if they can observe a “clinging” or “sticky” sensation as the skin is stroked. The dielectric rod will appear to “stick” or feel slightly retarded because of the galvanic skin response. In order to observe the stick effect the rod should be held horizontal to the abdomen and stroked vertically. To start with a single area to the side of, or immediately below the navel should be stroked. All remedies that cause a stick reaction should then be retested by stroking the other areas of the abdomen to see which one causes the largest area of the abdomen to respond. The remedy that shows the largest pattern of reaction will be found to have a strong effect on both the pupil dilation and pulse reflexes. It has also been found that the areas along the spine are also good areas for the testing of the remedies.

The same technique may be used for testing the remedies on the spine as for the abdomen. Some individuals seem to react better on the back than the front. It is also useful in those men who have too much abdominal hair to get a good response. The remedy that shows the largest area of reaction along the spine is the most suitable. Those individuals who have experience in Osteopathic or Chiropractic methods may notice certain relationships between the reflexes that respond and the areas of the illness treated. This is a phenomenon where research will prove most interesting to those with knowledge of the field. The inside of the arm, especially over the elbow joint, is also another area that responds well to the skin reflex. This area is convenient in situations where it may be impractical to bare the trunk of the body.”


“Palpation is a method of assessing the state of health by means of examination with the hands. The different regions of the body are investigated for heat, cold, unusual growths, swellings, tightness, looseness, and pain by the hands of the examiner. Much of the information acquired during palpation can be used to test remedies much in the same manner as the other reflexes. For example, the tissue can be assessed for areas of tension, relaxation and pain before and after the remedies are brought in contact with the patient. The tight areas of the body become more relaxed and loose areas become more tight. Pain on contact is usually significantly reduced when the correct remedies are in contact with the human electromagnetic field or the body.”

” With proper biofeedback equipment the human operator can be removed from the testing altogether and the results analyzed by computers. This area of research is an aspect of modern science where homoeopaths can prove that their remedies have definite physiological results. These biofeedback systems can also be combined with the radionic methods to demonstrate the presence of subtle waves emanating from the human body as well as homoeopathic remedies. This work needs the assistance of those who are experienced in Homoeopathy if it is going to yield the best results. Dr. G. B. Stearns was such a man as he was one of the only Americans to use Boyd’s Emanometer and clinical reflex testing in conjunction with homoeopathy.”


The LM potency is first made from the 3c trituration (1:100x100x100). Next 1 grain of this trituration is placed into 500 drops to make the LM/0 solution (1 to 501 ratio). Then 1 drop is taken from the LM/0 solution and added to 100 drops of dilute and succussed 100 times. This makes the LM 0/1 potency, the first degree of the LM pharmacy (100x100x100x500x100x500 = LM 0/1). The C’s of the 5th Organon (1833) were made with 10 succussions by hand although many modern potencies are made with 10 to 40 or more succussions by machine.

When speaking of the amount of original medicinal substances in the LM 0/1 it is similar to the amount found in the 6c potency although its remedial powers are greatly expanded due to the larger dilution medium. A mere comparison of the amount of original substances found in the C and LM potency does not show the differences in their inner medicinal qualities. The LM pharmaceutical solution is then used to moisten 500 tiny poppy seed size pellets.

One pellet of the LM 0/1 is further diluted in a minimum of 3 & 1/2 oz to make the medicinal solution. After succussions 1, 2 or 3 teaspoons are taken from the medicinal solution and further diluted in a dilution glass of water. From this dilution glass 1, 2, 3 teaspoons are given to the patient as a dose. The final liquid dose has been diluted through two more stages than the dry dose. The final amount of original substance given to the patient is more diluted than the dry pill since it has been dissolved in the medicinal solution and stirred into a dilution glass. This final amount of original substance in the teaspoon of solution given to the patient has yet to be calculated in the equation.

This is the real face of international ‘scientific homeopathy’, and its ‘modern masters’! They write books, conduct courses, seminars and interviews to train new generation of homeopaths. They are ‘most revered’ teachers and gurus. They represent homeopathy in international platforms. Nothing to wonder scientific community dismiss homeopathy as ‘fake’, ‘superstitious beliefs’ and ‘quackery’! No wonder James Randy and his skeptic friends rocking!

Vijaykar’s ‘Theories’ on ‘Embryonic Layers’ and ‘Hering Laws of Directions of Cure’

David Witko, in his book review published in ‘The Homoeopath’,The Society of Homoeopaths.2 Artizan Road,NorthamptonNN1 4HU,United Kingdom, on ‘Predictive Homeopathy Part One – Theory of Suppression’ by Dr Prafull Vijayakar, said as follows :

“Essentially, and in outline, he charts the development of the human embryo in seven stages, from the cells and mind to the neural plate, neuro-endocrine system, mesoderm, connective tissues, endoderm, and its eventual cornpletion at the ectoderm”

“All of the organs of the body derive from these seven layers of development. To illustrate, the GI tract is formed as part of the endoderm, whilst the kidneys were formed earlier in the mesoderm”

“Vijayakar reasons that as natural embryonic growth progresses from the inside to the outside (even our bones develop this way), disease and ill-health will inevitably move in the reverse direction, i.e. from the outside (in Hering-speak) to the inside.  From the ectoderm to the endoderm. From the endoderm to the mesoderm. Deeper and deeper. So if you know which parts of the body are associated with each level you can clearly see the progression of disease”.

This review of David Witko amply illustrates the essence of Vijaykar’s theory of ‘embryonic layers’ relating with hering’s law, on which his whole ‘methods’ and systems’ are built up on.

Which text book of embryology says about the development of human embryo starting from “cells and mind”? Is it vijaykar’s invention? Embryology never deals with ‘mind’, but only ‘cells’.

Obviously, vijaykar wanted to make a theory seemingly scientific utilizing some concepts borrowed from genetics, but same time he wanted to establish that ‘mind’ is primary in the development of embryo. Hence, he added the word ‘mind’ along with ‘cells’ while describing the initial stages of embryonic development.

According to his interpretation of ‘embryology’, development of human embryo ‘starts’ from ‘cells and mind’, then advances “to the neural plate, neuro-endocrine system, mesoderm, connective tissues, endoderm, and its eventual completion at the ectoderm”.

Read from Wikipedia on EMBRYONIC LAYERS:

“The gastrula with its blastopore soon develops three distinct layers of cells (the germ layers) from which all the bodily organs and tissues then develop:
the innermost layer, or endoderm, gives rise to the digestive organs, lungs and bladder; the middle layer, or mesoderm, gives rise to the muscles, skeleton and blood system; the outer layer of cells, or ectoderm, gives rise to the nervous system and skin”

‎”A germ layer, occasionally referred to as a germinal epithelium, is a group of cells, formed during animal embryogenesis. Germ layers are particularly pronounced in the vertebrates; however, all animals more complex than sponges (eumetazoans and agnotozoans) produce two or three primary tissue layers (sometimes called primary germ layers). Animals with radial symmetry, like cnidarians, produce two germ layers (the ectoderm and endoderm) making them diploblastic. Animals with bilateral symmetry produce a third layer between these two layers (appropriately called the mesoderm) making them triploblastic. Germ layers eventually give rise to all of an animal’s tissues and organs through the process of organogenesis”

‎”The endoderm is one of the germ layers formed during animal embryogenesis. Cells migrating inward along the archenteron form the inner layer of the gastrula, which develops into the endoderm.

The endoderm consists at first of flattened cells, which subsequently become columnar. It forms the epithelial lining of the whole of the digestive tube except part of the mouth and pharynx and the terminal part of the rectum (which are lined by involutions of the ectoderm). It also forms the lining cells of all the glands which open into the digestive tube, including those of the liver and pancreas; the epithelium of the auditory tube and tympanic cavity; the trachea, bronchi, and air cells of the lungs; the urinary bladder and part of the urethra; and the follicle lining of the thyroid gland and thymus.

The endoderm forms: the stomach, the colon, the liver, the pancreas, the urinary bladder, the lining of the urethra, the epithelial parts of trachea, the lungs, the pharynx, the thyroid, the parathyroid, and the intestines.”

‎”The mesoderm germ layer forms in the embryos of triploblastic animals. During gastrulation, some of the cells migrating inward contribute to the mesoderm, an additional layer between the endoderm and the ectoderm.

The formation of a mesoderm led to the development of a coelom. Organs formed inside a coelom can freely move, grow, and develop independently of the body wall while fluid cushions and protects them from shocks.
The mesoderm forms: skeletal muscle, the skeleton, the dermis of skin, connective tissue, the urogenital system, the heart, blood (lymph cells), the kidney, and the spleen.”

‎”The ectoderm is the start of a tissue that covers the body surfaces. It emerges first and forms from the outermost of the germ layers.

The ectoderm forms: the central nervous system, the lens of the eye, cranial and sensory, the ganglia and nerves, pigment cells, head connective tissues, the epidermis, hair, and mammary glands.

Because of its great importance, the neural crest is sometimes considered a fourth germ layer. It is, however, derived from the ectoderm”

“The “ectoderm” is one of the three primary germ cell layers in the very early embryo. The other two layers are the mesoderm (middle layer) and endoderm (inside layer), with the ectoderm as the most exterior layer. It emerges first and forms from the outer layer of germ cells. Generally speaking, the ectoderm differentiates to form the nervous system (spine, peripheral nerves and brain), tooth enamel and the epidermis (the outer part of integument). It also forms the lining of mouth, anus, nostrils, sweat glands, hair and nails”.

”In vertebrates, the ectoderm has three parts: external ectoderm (also known as surface ectoderm), the neural crest, and neural tube. The latter two are known as neuroectoderm.””

Please note this point: The fertilized ovum “develops three distinct layers of cells (the germ layers) from which all the bodily organs and tissues then develop: the innermost layer, or endoderm, gives rise to the digestive organs, lungs and bladder; the middle layer, or mesoderm, gives rise to the muscles, skeleton and blood system; the outer layer of cells, or ectoderm, gives rise to the nervous system and skin”

It is obvious that brain and nervous system develops from ‘ectoderm’ layer. It is the ‘outermost’ layer of embryo, not ‘innermost’. The theory of vijaykar that ‘brain and mind’ belongs to innermost embryonic layer is pure nonsense. They develop from ‘outermost’ embryonic layer called ‘ectoderm’, from which organs such as skin and hair also develops.  His theory that embryonic development ‘starts’ with ‘mind’ and ‘ends’ with ‘ectoderm’ has nothing to do with embryology, except that he plays with some terms used in embryology.

David Witko says: “Vijayakar reasons that as natural embryonic growth progresses from the inside to the outside, disease and ill-health will inevitably move in the reverse direction, i.e. from the outside to the inside”.

This is the most fundamental ‘reasoning’ of vijaykar, which he utilizes to build a common ground with ‘hering laws regarding directions of cure’ on which his whole ‘theoretical system is built upon.

We already saw that the concept ‘direction of embryonic development’ on which his ‘reasoning’ is itself totally baseless. Embryonic development does not start from ‘inner’ organs of endoderm and ‘complete’ with ‘outer’ organs of ectoderm’ as vijaykar tries to establish.

Even if the direction of ‘embryonic development’ was from ‘inner layer to outer layer’, what is the logic behind his ‘reasoning’ that ‘disease and ill-health will inevitably move in the reverse direction, i.e. from the outside to the inside”?

Most funny thing regarding this ‘reasoning’ is that it goes against the fundamental concept of disease accepted by ‘classical homeopathy’ that ‘diseases originate in the level of vital force’. Vijaykar says ‘direction od disease is from ‘outermost layer’ to ‘innermost layer’. Should we understand that ‘vital force’ belongs to ‘outermost’ layer of organism according to the interpretation of Vijayakar? Both cannot be right by any way. Either vijaykar should say that diseases originate in ‘vital force’ which is the ‘innermost layer’, or he should say disease start in the ‘outermost’ layer, that is skin and hair.

Since vijaykar has gone totally wrong and self contradicting in his understanding of embryonic layers and ‘direction of embryonic development’, his explanation of ‘hering law’ based on his ‘reasoning’ is pure nonsense.

‘Curative processes happen in a direction just reverse to disease processes’- that is the sum total of Hering’s observations regarding ‘directions of cure’.

The four ‘laws’ now known as ‘herings laws’ are actually the working examples he used to demonstrate this fundamental observation.

It was the later ‘interpreters’ who actually converted these four ‘working’ examples into ‘fundamental laws’ of homeopathic cure. They understood and applied these ‘laws’ in a mechanical way. They taught homeopaths to consider ‘hering laws’ regarding ‘directions of cure’ as one of the ‘fundamental laws’ of homeopathy, similar to ‘similia similibus curentur’. They made homeopaths believe that drug effects that do not agree with these ‘laws’ cannot be considered ‘curative’, and are ‘suppressive’. There are some modern streams of homeopathic practice which rely more upon ‘hering laws’ than ‘similia similibu curentur’ in their methods of therapeutic applications.

Actually, Hahnemann did not seriously work upon those aspects of curative processes which we call ‘directions of cure’, or considered it a decisive factor in homeopathic therapeutics. He was more concerned about ‘misms’ in the management of ‘chronic diseases’, where as Hering did not consider ‘miasms’ at all.

Some modern ‘theoreticians’ have come with new theories by combining ‘hering laws’ and theory of miasms, also mixing up with terms of ‘genetics’ and ‘embryology’ which they propagate as the ‘only’ correct understanding of homeopathy

Following are the four working ‘examples’ hering used to demonstrate his observation that ‘Curative processes happen in a direction just reverse to disease processes’, and later considered as ‘Hering laws of direction of cure’:

In a genuine curative process,

  1. Symptoms should disappear in the reverse chronological order of their appearance in disease.
  2. Symptoms should travel from internal parts of body to external parts
  3. Symptoms should travel from more vital organs to less vital organs.
  4. Symptoms should travel from ‘upper’ parts of the body to ‘lower’ parts.

According to those who consider these as the ‘fundamental law of cure’, any drug effect that happen not in accordance with above laws are ‘suppressive’, and hence not ‘curative’.

‘Disease processes and curative processes always happen in reverse directions’ is the fundamental observation hering actually tried to establish regarding ‘directions of disease and cure’.

According to hering’s observation, natural disease processes always advances from lower parts of the body to upper parts, from less vital to more vital organs and from external to internal organs. More over, all these disease processes advance in a chronological order.

Logically, Hering’s observations only mean that “all genuine ‘curative processes’ should happen in a direction just reverse to disease processes”.

Over-extending and mechanical application of ‘herings laws’ without understanding their exact premises and scientific meaning may lead to grave errors regarding interpretation of curative processes and drug effects.

This phenomenon could be explained in the light of modern scientific understanding of ‘cascading of pathological molecular inhibitions’ and complex dynamics of ‘bio-molecular feed back mechanisms’.

To understand this explanation, one has to equip himself with at least a working knowledge regarding the concepts of modern biochemistry regarding the bio-molecular inhibitions involved in pathology and therapeutics.

Except those diseases which are purely due to errors in genetic substances, and those diseases which are due to genuine deficiency of building materials of biological molecules, all other diseases are considered to be caused by ‘molecular inhibitions’. Pathogenic molecules of endogenous or exogenous origin bind to some biological molecules in the organism, causing ‘molecular inhibitions’ which lead to pathological derangement in associated biochemical pathways. These pathogenic molecules may be of infectious, environmental, nutritional, metabolic, drug-induced, miasmatic or any other origin. Derangements in biochemical pathways are expressed through diverse groups of subjective and objective symptoms. This is the fundamental biochemistry of pathology.

Molecular inhibitions happening in a biological molecule due to the binding of a pathogenic molecule initiates a complex process of ‘cascading of molecular errors’ and ‘bio-feedback mechanisms’ in the organism. Errors happening in a particular biochemical pathway leads to errors in another pathway which is dependant on the first pathway for regular supply of metabolites, which further lead to errors in another pathway. This ‘cascading of molecular errors’ happens through successive stages, which is expressed through new subjective and objective symptoms. This ‘cascading’ is behind what we call ‘advancing of disease’ into new systems and organs, exhibiting ever new groups of associated symptoms. For an observer, this cascading appears in the form of ‘traveling of disease’ from one system into another. Along with these ‘cascading’ of molecular errors, there happens a series of activation and shutting down of complex ‘bio-molecular feedback’ mechanisms also. The phenomenon of ‘advancing of diseases’ should be studied in this scientific perspective of modern biochemistry.

When a molecular inhibition happens in some biological molecule ‘A’ due to binding of a pathogenic molecule ‘a’, it actually stops or decreases some essential molecular conversions that are essential part of a complex biochemical pathway P.  If ‘G’ is the normal ligand of ‘A’, and ‘g’ is the product of biochemical interaction involving ‘A’, the result of this molecular inhibition is that ‘G’ accumulates on one side, and ‘g’ is not available for the next stage of molecular processes. Accumulating ‘P’ may induce a feedback mechanism leading to reduction or stoppage its production itself, or may move to other parts of organism and bind to unwanted molecular targets, initiation a new stream of pathological derangement.

Obviously, ‘traveling’ of disease or ‘advancing’ of disease happens through cascading of molecular errors in various biochemical pathways. Some disease processes may ‘travel’ from ‘external’ to internal organs, some from ‘lower parts’ to upper parts, some from ‘less vital’ parts to ‘more vital’ parts. All these ‘traveling’ is basically decided by the involved biochemical pathways. It would be wrong to generalize these observations in such a way that ‘all diseases travel from exterior to interior, lower parts to higher parts,  and less vital to more vital parts’. It is also wrong to generalize in such a way that ‘curative process always travel from interior to exterior, above downwards, and from vital to less vital parts’. This is mechanical understanding and application of hering’s observations.

Actually, curative processes happens in a direction opposite to the direction of disease process. That depends upon the biochemical pathways involved and the exact dynamics of cascading of molecular inhibitions. Its dynamics is very complex, and should not be interpreted and applied in a mechanistic way. When ‘molecular inhibitions’ underlying the disease processes are systematically removed using molecular imprints, the curative process also would take place in the reverse direction of disease processes.

To sum up, Hering’s observations regarding a ‘directions of disease and cure’ is a valuable one, but it should be studied in the light of modern biochemistry.

Curative processes happen in a direction just reverse to disease processes”- that is the sum total of Hering’s observations regarding ‘directions of cure’.

Vijaykar totally failed to comprehend the biochemistry involved in homeopathic therapeutics, and hence could not interpret the ‘directions of disease and cure’ in relation with the interactions of biochemical pathways. In the absence of essential scientific knowledge, he only tried to make his theories appear ‘scientific’ by utilizing some terms from embryology and genetics.  Playing with scientific vocabulary, he was successful in marketing his theories well among the ‘science-starved’ sections of homeopathic community.

Learn About Nanotoxicity Concerns Before Prescribing Biochemic Salts Indiscriminately

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

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

NANOTOXICITY (From Wikipedia):

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

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

Calls for tighter regulation of nanotechnology have arisen alongside a growing debate related to the human health and safety risks associated with nanotechnology. The Royal Society identifies the potential for nanoparticles to penetrate the skin, and recommends that the use of nanoparticles in cosmetics be conditional upon a favorable assessment by the relevant European Commission safety advisory committee. Andrew Maynard also reports that ‘certain nanoparticles may move easily into sensitive lung tissues after inhalation, and cause damage that can lead to chronic breathing problems’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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