similimum – REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY

Sankaran’s ‘Sensations-Kingdoms’ Method- Homeopathy Crippled By Lack Of Basic Scientific Awareness

Corner stone of ‘Sankaran Method’ is classifying drugs into ‘animal’, ‘plant’, and ‘mineral’ kingdoms. Then each kingdom is related with particular group of ‘vital sensations’. Plant remedies are used for individuals having ‘vital sensations’ belonging to the group of ‘sensitivity’, animal remedies are used for those having ‘viatal sensations’ belonging to the class of ‘survival instincts’, and mineral remedies for ‘structural consciousness’.

First, we have to analyze the concept of ‘remedy kingdoms’. Medicinal properties of any remedy is determined by the chemical structure and properties of the individual chemical molecules they contain. Because, it is individual drug molecules that act upon biological molecules, produce inhibitions, molecular pathology and associated symptoms. During potentization, it is the individual drug molecules that undergo molecular imprinting, and as such, it is the individual molecular imprints that act as therapeutic agents. In the absence of this molecular perspective of our medicinal substances, we fall prey to all sorts of unscientific theories that misguide us gravely.

Let us consider a particular remedy belonging to plant kingdom. The molecular composition as well as chemical and medicinal properties of the particular drug sample will be decided by various factors. It will contain kingdom-specific, family-specific, species-specific, variety specific, plant-specific and environmental-specific chemical molecules. Part of plant from which the drug substance is extracted is also a decisive factor. Nux vomica tinctures prepared from seeds, fruits, flowers, leaves, bark or root of nux vomica plant will have different molecular composition and medicinal properties. Some molecules will be common to all samples from a particular plant. Certain other molecules will be common to all samples from a particular species. There will be some molecules common to family, as well as some common to plant kingdom as a whole. Plants belonging to same family will have some common genes, which would produce some similar proteins and enzymes, that would lead to similar molecular processes and synthesis of similar molecules. There would be kingdom-specific, family specific, species specific, variety specific and individual specific and tissue specific chemicals in a plant drug.

As per this perspective, medicinal properties of a given drug substance of ‘plant kingdom’ will be decided by the collective properties of organ specific, plant specific, variety specific, species specific, family specific and kingdom specific chemical molecules contained in them. It is obvious that it is wrong to think that medicinal properties of a drug substance could be assumed by the ‘kingdom’ to which it belongs.

This is applicable to all drugs belonging to mineral as well as animal kingdoms.

When animal or plant substances are disintegrated or divided into individual molecules, they become similar to mineral drugs at molecular level. There are many drugs which could not be included in any particular kingdom. Petroleum is a mineral, but it is the product of disintegration of animal and vegetable matter under ocean beds. Acetic acid is a mineral, but it is prepared from vegetable products. How can we say lactic acid, prepared from milk is plant remedy or mineral remedy? All of us consider calc carb as mineral drug, but exactly it is the ‘middle layer of oyster shells’, and as such, is an animal drug. Kreasote is combination of phenols prepared from wood, and how can we say it is ‘plant’ or ‘mineral’?

At molecular level, the dividing line between ‘plant, animal and mineral’ kingdoms is irrelevant. It is the molecular structure and chemical properties that decide the medicinal properties. To be more specific, it is the functional groups or moieties that act as decisive factor. Classifying drugs on the basis of ‘kingdoms’ and assigning certain ‘mental level sensations’ to them is totally unscientific and illogical. It illustrates the pathetic level of scientific awareness that rules the propagators of ‘sankaran method’.

Rajan Sankaran’s ‘sensation’ method is based on the concepts of ‘deeper level vital sensations’ and corresponding ‘remedy kingdoms’. This method has nothing in common with classical homeopathy, where symptoms belonging to mentals, physical generals and particulars, with their qualifications such as causations, sensations, locations, modalities and concomitants decide the selection of similimum.

According to this theory, ‘structure’ is the basic sensation of ‘minerals’, ‘sensitivity’ is the basic sensation of ‘plants’ and ‘survival’ is the basic sensation of ‘animals’.

According to this methods, case taking involves an inquiry into ‘deeper levels of consciousness’, by prompting the patient to introspect from ‘symptoms’ into ‘deeper, deeper and still deeper’ levels so that his basic ‘vital sensation’ is explored. Then this ‘vital sensation’ is used to decide the ‘kingdom’ to which the patient belong. Remedies are selected from these ‘remedy kingdoms’.

The most dogmatic part of this theory is the relating of ‘vital sensation’ with ‘remedy kingdoms’. On what basis sankaran says ‘sensitivity’ is the ‘vital sensation’ of ‘plants’? Any logical or scientific explanation for this relationship? If we go through materia medica of various drugs, we can see many ‘animal’ and ‘minerals drugs’ having sensitivity of high order. How can anybody claiming to be a homeopath ignore the whole drug provings and materia medica to declare that ‘sensitivity’ is the ‘vital sensation’ of ‘plants’ only?

When a homeopath says ‘sensitivity’ is the ‘vital sensation of plants, it means all plant remedies have produced such a characteristic sensation in healthy individuals during drug proving. To say ‘animal drugs’ have ‘vital sensation’ of ‘survival instinct’, a homeopath should be capable of showing examples from materia medica to justify that statement. Same with ‘vital sensations’ of mineral drugs. Our materia medica does not show that only ‘plant drugs’ produced ‘sensitivity’ in provers. We can see many ‘animal’ and ‘mineral’ drugs with high order of ‘sensitivity’. If not from materia medica, where from Dr Sankaran ‘invented’ that ‘vital sensation’ of ‘sensitivity’ is the basic characteristic of ‘plant kingdom’?

See the rubric ‘sensitive’ in ‘mind’ of kent repertory:

[Kent]Mind : SENSITIVE, oversensitive:- Acon., Aesc., Aeth., Alum., Am-c., Anac., Ang., Ant-c., Apis., Arg-n., Arn., Ars., Ars-i., Asaf., Asar., Aur., Bar-c., Bell., Bor., Bov., Bry., Calc., Calc-p., Calc-s., Camph., Cann-s., Canth., Carb-an., Carb-s., Carb-v., Cast., Caust., Cham., Chin., Chin-a., Chin-s., Cic., Cina., Clem., Cocc., Coff., Colch., Coloc., Con., Crot-h., Cupr., Daph., Dig., Dros., Ferr., Ferr-ar., Ferr-p., Fl-ac., Gels., Gran., Hep., Hyos., Ign., Iod., Kali-ar., Kali-c., Kali-i., Kali-n., Kali-p., Kali-s., Kreos., Lac-c., Lach., Laur., Lyc., Lyss., Mag-m., Med., Meph., Merc., Mez., Mosch., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nat-p., Nat-s., Nit-ac., Nux-v., Ph-ac., Phos., Plat., Plb., Psor., Puls., Ran-b., Sabad., Sabin., Samb., Sanic., Sars., Seneg., Sep., Sil., Spig., Stann., Staph., Sulph., Tab., Teucr., Ther., Thuj., Valer., Verat., Viol-t., Zinc.

In this list, 46 remedies belong to ‘mineral kingdom’: alumina, ammo carb, antim crud, arg nit, ars, ars iod, aur, baryta, borax, calc, calc phos, calc sulph, carb sulph, causticum, cupr, ferr, ferr ars, ferr ph, fl acid, hep, iod, kali group, mag mur, mercury, natrum group, nit acid, phos acid, phos, platinum, plumbum, sanicula, silicea, stannum, suplh, zinc

12 remedies are from ‘animal kingdom’: Apis, cantharis, carb an, crot h, lac can, lach, med, moschus, psorinum, sep, theri.

Remaining 56 remedies are of ‘plant kingdom’.

On what basis sankaran says ‘sensitivity’ is the ‘vital sensation’ of plant kingdom? How can anybody say persons who are ‘sensitive’ at the deeper’ level need ‘plant remedies only? How can this theory be called homeopathy?

Similarly, if we examine various rubrics belonging to ‘survival’ instinct, or ‘structural’ sensations, we can see they are not limited to animal or mineral remedies only. Many ‘plant remedies’ have such symptoms.

According to Rajan Sankaran, FEAR is the indication of VITAL SENSATION of ‘survival instincts’ which need an ANIMAL KINGDOM drug. Based on which materia medica rajan sankaran says ‘vital sensation’ of ‘fear’ indicates only ‘animal kingdom remedy’?

Please see the MIND rubric FEAR in Kent Repertory:

[Kent]Mind : FEAR:- Absin., Acet-ac., Acon., Aeth., Agar., Agn., Aloe., Alum., Am-c., Anac., Ang., Ant-c., Ant-t., Arg-n., Ars., Ars-i., Asaf., Aur., Bapt., Bar-c., Bar-m., Bell., Bor., Bry., Bufo., Cact., Calad., Calc., Calc-p., Calc-s., Camph., Cann-i., Cann-s., Caps., Carb-an., Carb-s., Carb-v., Cast., Caust., Cham., Chin., Chin-a., Chlor., Cic., Cimic., Coca., Coc-c., Cocc., Coff., Coloc., Con., Croc., Crot-h., Cupr., Daph., Dig., Dros., Dulc., Echi., Elaps., Eupho., Ferr., Ferr-ar., Ferr-p., Form., Gels., Gent-c., Glon., Graph., Hell., Hep., Hydr-ac., Hyos., Hyper., Ign., Iod., Ip., Kali-ar., Kali-br., Kali-c., Kali-i., Kali-n., Kali-p., Kali-s., Lach., Lil-t., Lob., Lyc., Lyss., Mag-c., Mag-m., Manc., Meli., Merc., Merc-i-r., Mez., Mosch., Mur-ac., Murx., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nat-p., Nat-s., Nicc., Nit-ac., Nux-v., Onos., Op., Petr., Phos., Phyt., Pip-m., Plat., Psor., Puls., Ran-b., Raph., Rheum., Rhod., Rhus-t., Rhus-v., Ruta., Sec., Sep., Sil., Spig., Spong., Squil., Stann., Staph., Stram., Stront., Stry., Sul-ac., Sulph., Tab., Tarent., Thuj., Til., Valer., Verat., Zinc.

See. 75 drugs belong to PLANT KINGDOM! 54 are MINERAL drugs! Only 9 ANIMAL drugs! How Rajan Sankaran say only ANIMAL drugs are indicated for ‘vital sensation’ of ‘survival instincts’? By this approach, the practitioner who looks only ‘animal’ drugs is actually deprived of a large number of drugs belonging to other ‘kingdoms’, one of which may be the real similimum.

There may be many patients ‘sensitive at deeper levels’ who may require ‘animal’ or ‘mineral’ drugs if we select drugs using homeopathic method of totality of symptoms. Limiting all ‘sensitive’ patients to ‘plant kingdom’ remedies may be detrimental in such cases.

Rajan Sankaran says FEAR is the expression if ‘vital sensation of survival instincts’ which the ‘theme’ or quality of ‘animals’. As such, sankaran method uses only ‘animal remedies’ for people exhibiting ‘deep seated’ fear.

Homeopathic understanding of medicinal properties of drug substances are based on symptoms produced in healthy individuals during drug provings. Those symptoms are listed in our materia medica and repertories. We similimum by comparing symptoms of patients with symptoms of drugs, which is the basis of our therapeutic principle ‘similia similibus curentur’.

Please go to KENT REPERTORY> MIND > FEAR: Aconite, Argentum Nit, Aurum, Bell, Borax, Calc Phos, Calc, Carb sulph, Cicuta, Digitalis, Graphites, Ignatia, Kali Ars, Lyco, Lyssin, Nat Carb, Phos, Platina, Psor, Sepia and Stram are the drugs listed with THREE MARKS under FEAR.

As per homeopathic method of similimum being selected on the basis of our materia medica, these are the prominent drugs to be considered in patients with characeristic sensation of FEAR.

But, according to sankaran, FEAR indicates ‘vital sensation’ of ‘survival instincts’, which needs ‘animal remedies’ only. Only animal remeies found in above list are Lyssin, Psorinum and Sepia. Homeopaths practicing sankaran method will obviously ignore all other drugs in this list, since they are not ‘animal remedies’. Does this approach strengthen homeopaths, or debilitate them?

I want to know, from where sankaran got the idea that only ‘plant remedies’ have ‘fear’ and ‘survival instincts’? Which drug proving? Which materia medica? A person cannot claim to be homeopath by ignoring all available homeopathic literature on materia medica, and producing materia medica and symptoms from his fancies.

Some people claim, sankaran’s concepts are based on his ‘observations’. Did he conducted drug provings of all drugs and ‘observe’ their symptoms? Did he prove the symptoms given in our materia medica are not reliable? Which proving showed him sepia, lyssin and psorinum has more ‘fear’ than phos, bell, stram or arg nit?

Would Sankaran say a homeopath cannot cure a patient having ‘survival insticts’ and ‘fear’ using phosporous or stramonium, if they turn out to be similimum on the basis of totality of symptoms. Should we avoid phos, since it is not an ‘animal drug’?

Please see following rubrics:

[Kent]Mind : FIGHT, wants to:- Bell., Bov., Hipp., Hyos., Merc., Sec.

[Kent]Mind : QUARRELSOME:- Acon., Agar., Alum., Ambr., Am-c., Anac., Anan., Ant-t., Arn., Ars., Aster., Aur., Bar-c., Bell., Bor., Bov., Brom., Bry., Calc., Calc-s., Camph., Canth., Caps., Caust., Cench., Cham., Chel., Chin., Con., Cor-r., Croc., Crot-h., Cupr., Dig., Dulc., Elaps., Ferr., Ferr-ar., Fl-ac., Hipp., Hyos., Ign., Ip., Kali-ar., Kali-c., Kali-i., Lach., Lepi., Lyc., Lyss., Merc., Merl., Mez., Mosch., Nat-a., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nat-s., Nicc., Nit-ac., Nux-v., Olnd., Pall., Petr., Ph-ac., Phos., Plat., Plb., Psor., Ran-b., Rat., Rheum., Ruta., Seneg., Sep., Spong., Stann., Staph., Stram., Stront., Sul-ac., Sulph., Tarent., Thea., Thuj., Til., Verat., Verat-v., Viol-t., Zinc.

According to sankaran, ‘quarelling’ and ‘fighting’ indicates ‘survival instincts’, which require ‘animal remedies’.

Under the rubric “Mind : FIGHT, wants to”, not a single ‘animal remedy’ is seen, except hipp.

Under ‘quarrelsome’, ambra, asterias,cantharis, cenchris, corralium, crotalus, elaps, hipp, lach, lyssin, psor, sep, spong, and tarent are the animal remedies.

Would you say, all remedies other than these ‘animal remedies’ should be eliminated while selecting a similimum for this patient?

According to sankaran, JEALOUSY is a ‘vital sensation’ of ‘ANIMAL KINGDOM’.

See this rubric:

[Kent]Mind : JEALOUSY:- Anan., Apis., Calc-p., Calc-s., Camph., Cench., Coff., Gall-ac., Hyos., Ign., Lach., Nux-v., Op., Ph-ac., Puls., Raph., Staph., Stram.

LACHESIS and HYOS are 3 marks drugs for this symptom. Only APIS, CENCHRIS, and LACHESIS are ‘animal’ drugs’. Anan, Camph, Coff, Hyos, Ign, Nux, Opium, Puls, Raph, Staph and Stram are ‘plant remedies’. Calc P, Calc S, Gall ac and Phos ac are mineral drugs.

We will have to eliminate HYOS when searching a similimum for a person with jealousy as a prominent symptom, if we follow sankaran method!

Homeopathic materia medica or repertory does not support sankaran’s theory that persons with ‘vital sensation’ of ‘jealousy’ would require ‘animal drugs’ only.

Sankaran says LACK OF SELF CONFIDENCE indicates a vital sensation of ‘structural consciousness’, which is a MINERAL quality. Only ‘mineral drugs’ have to be considered for patients exhibiting ‘vital sensation of LACK OF SELF CONFIDENCE.

See this rubric in kent repertory:

[Kent]Mind : CONFIDENCE, want of self:- Agn., Alum., Anac., Anan., Ang., Arg-n., Aur., Bar-c., Bell., Bry., Calc., Canth., Carb-an., Carb-v., Caust., Chin., Chlor., Dros., Gels., Hyos., Ign., Iod., Kali-c., Kali-n., Kali-s., Lac-c., Lach., Lyc., Merc., Mur-ac., Nat-c., Nat-m., Nit-ac., Nux-v., Olnd., Op., Pall., Phos., Plb., Puls., Ran-b., Rhus-t., Ruta., Sil., Stram., Sul-ac., Sulph., Tab., Ther., Verb., Viol-t., Zinc.

Only ANACARDIUM is 3 marks drug for this symptom. It is a PLANT REMEDY!

24 drugs- Agnus, Anac, Anan, Ang, Bell, Bry, Carb v, China, Dros, Gels, Hyos, Ign, Lyc, Nux V, Oleand, Opium, Puls, Ran b, Rhus t, Ruta, Stram, Tab, Verb and Viol t are PLANT REMEDIES.

5 drugs- Canth, Carb an, Lac can, Lach and Ther are ANIMAL DRUGS.

23 drugs- Alum, Arg Nit, Aur, Bar c, Calc, Caust, Chlor, Iod, Kali c, Kali n, Kali s, Merc, Mur ac, Nat c, Nat m, Nit ac, Pall, Phos, Plumb, Sil, Sul ac, Sul and Zinc are MINERAL DRUGS.

Materia medica or repertories no way justify sankaran’s theory that LACK OF SELF CONFIDENCE would require only MINERAL REMEDIES. How can a person claiming to be homeopath make a theory and method of practice totally ignoring our whole materia medica and drug proving?

Sankaran’s reputation, experience or vast followings should not prevent us from asking genuine questions. We need answers for these questions, since sankaran claims to be a homeopath.

Sankaran’s method will result in gravely disabled in incapacitated homeopathic practice, preventing homeopaths from utilizing the unlimited potentials of our materia medica.

Obviously, the basic dogma of ‘sensations-kingdom’ relationship on which ‘sankaran method’ is built up, lacks the support of logic or materia medica.

Anybody can make any theories. But it is wrong to say it is homeopathy.

Rajan Sankaran gives a case of ‘tumor in eye ball’ cured by ‘argentum nit’ as an example of successful employment of his ‘sensation method’:

“I had a case of a man with a tumor in his eyeball, and he described it thus; that this tumour caused a certain “imbalance” in his eyes. Then he described this imbalance as a sense of inco-ordination, and further, how co-ordination was the most important thing in his life; how everything needed to be co-ordinated. Going further along this line, he said it’s the kind of co-ordination that a pilot needs when piloting his plane, or a rocket scientist needs when he makes a rocket. It’s the kind of co-ordination that an actor needs when he is performing live on stage, and several such examples.”

“At some point, he described a situation where his mother-in-law did something behind his back, and when I asked him what he had felt about it, he replied that he felt very disappointed, and betrayed. Now, these emotions of disappointment and betrayal are present in his case, and one might be tempted to use rubrics like “ailments from disappointment, or betrayal”. But if you ask further, “Describe the disappointment”, then you bring out the true individuality of the person in the circumstance. When somebody does something behind your back, which is not expected, the feeling of disappointment is common, not individual. Hahnemann always emphasized the individualizing phenomena, the characteristic symptoms.”

“Here, when we look at disappointment, it’s not individual enough, not characteristic enough. Go further. When I asked him, “Describe the disappointment”, he said, “It’s as if somebody had punched me in my stomach.” This now gets more characteristic. Take it one step further. I asked him, “Describe the experience of being punched” and he said, “I feel completely suffocated.” “Describe suffocation.” And it opens out and you find that there is the suffocation sensation in many areas in his life, like when swimming, or in claustrophobic situations, etc. That suffocation sensation, along with the sense of importance of co-ordination and control, like a stage artist, or a plane pilot, gives us the remedy Argentum nitricum, which has the control, co-ordination as well as the suffocation. That remedy cured the tumour in his eye.”

“So the “ailments from disappointment” or “delusion that somebody had punched his stomach”, is a more superficial expression. The deeper expression is the tremendous sense of suffocation that he felt, not only in the situation with his mother-in-law, but in every area of his life. A sensation that is so individual, and so completely unconnected with the external reality that it becomes the most individualizing symptom of the person, both physical and mental. It is at the Sensation level.”

MY COMMENTS ON THIS CASE:

When we analyze, this case, we would realize that sankaran did not utilize his ‘kingdom approach’ in this case. He does not say ‘argentum nitricum’ was selected as a ‘mineral drug’, as he normally does. Instead, he says “suffocation sensation, along with the sense of importance of co-ordination and control, like a stage artist, or a plane pilot, gives us the remedy Argentum nitricum, which has the control, co-ordination as well as the suffocation. That remedy cured the tumour in his eye.

Rajan Sankaran, being a very experienced physician having mastered the materia medica and successfully treated thousands of cases in his practice, could rightly select ‘arg nit’ as the correct similimum from symptoms such as ‘general sensation of suffocation’, ‘sensation of incordination’, and of course, from other numerous symptoms and observations he would have collected during case taking but opted to give in his case report.

Can any less experienced follower of sanakaran, with lesser materia medica knowledge, ever select ‘arg nit’ as the similimum of this patient, on the basis of ‘suffocation’ and ‘incoordination’ only, and a knowledge that patient needs a ‘mineral drug’ as per sankaran’s theory? Please note, Sankaran does not mention ‘kingdom’ while explaining this case.

Any homeopath who knows how to take case, repertorize and decide a similimum using materia medica, could have very easily selected ‘arg nit’ in this case by classical method in a very simple way.

Since the patient is coming with ‘tumor in eye’, an ordinary homeopath would start case taking by collecting symptoms with ‘eye’ and ‘vision’, trying to collect all modalities, sensations and concomitants associated with ‘eye’ and ‘vision’.

The ‘incoordination’ in eyes sankaran talks about will have to be probed in detail, to know whether it is problems of accommodation(accommodation defective), dimness of vision, diplopia, moving vision, alternate vanishing of vision or anything like that. Remember, all these problems of vision could be seen in materia medica of ‘arg nit’ in high order. Observe whether there is any chemosis, echymosis, lachrymation, pain, swelling, or any other peculiar sensations in eyes, with their modalities. Sensation of fullness in eyes, strbismus, cold-heat modalities also have to be ascertained. Itching, discoloration, frequent wiping, and many such features could be observed.

After completing ‘particulars’, physician would inquire mentals and physical generals. What sankaran interprets as ‘suffocation’ would be described by the patient as aggravation in closed room, desire for open air, aggravation in crowded rooms, general physical anxiety, sensation of balls internally, intolerance of clothing, sensation of being constricted by a band around body, and such symptoms. See, most of these symptoms strongly indicate argentum nitricum.

Regarding his mentals, from what sankaran explained, we can understand there would be symptoms such as persistent anxiety, despair, feeling of betrayed, sadness, anticipations, confusion of mind, being repudiated by relatives, dwelling on past bad experiences, delusions of getting punched, forsaken feelings, mortification and many such symptoms, most of which obviously points to argentum nitricm.

For an experienced homeopath like sankaran, arg nit is the obvious prescription for this case without any special methods and techniques or even repertorization. Any homeopath who could collect these symptoms would reach argentum nit through simple repertorization. As for me, I would have reached arg nit by the time I complete my case taking.

Why should Rajan sankaran pretend to be finding similimum in this type of obvious cases through his ‘sensation-kingdom’ method, only to confuse youg homeopaths?

That is the game plan of all modern gurus and masters. They would prescribe correctly using their materia medica knowledge and, make results. Then they would pretend the made this miraculous results using their ‘special methods’ they are marketing! Innocent follower is betrayed, and his carrier doomed to be spoiled, by keeing on trying the ‘methods’ the guru taught them.

As part of my mission to evolve and promote scientific homeopathy, I will have to discuss and analyse various existing theories about homeopathy. I will have to point out things I think are not agreeing with modern scientific knowledge system. Such criticisms and discussions are part of work I am engaged in. It is nothing personal. I have no any personal agenda here. I analyse and expose each and every ideas, concepts and methods in homeopathy that hinder scientific transformation of homeopathy.

Earlier, once I took up discussing Dr Vijaykar’s theories, ‘cubs’ and ‘lions’ of that group threatened me for my life. They told me ‘you will have no place to run’. Next came the attacks from marketers of ‘hair transmissionis’. Promoters of ‘energy medicine’ theories also did the same. Homeopathic World Community removed all my articles from their pages, since they could not tolerate my exposures of ‘international masters’ who promote homeopathy as ‘energy medicine’ and practice homeopathy as part of their CAM ‘healing arts’. I had to relinquish my HWC membership on that issue.

Now, it is the turn of disciples of Rajan Sankaran and Jan Scholton. Once I just took up discussing ‘sensation method’, ‘kingdom method’ and ‘periodical table method’, a whole hornet’s nest is infuriated and out for me. I wanted to discuss their theories due to my conviction that scientific homeopathy cannot advance without exposing these highly influential but unscientific theories. My message box is daily full of messages warning me of ‘dire consequences’. Instead of discussing or explaining the points I raised, I am abused, threatened and asked to ‘stay away from our master’. I am accused of being jealous, arrogant, insane and working with hidden personal agendas. They diagnosed my problem as ‘severe skepticemia’!

I just don’t care. I will go on with my mission of evolving homeopathy into a full-fledged medical science. I know I will have to pay a price, perhaps with my life itself. But I am not bothered. Let the dogs bark, caravan will move on!

Without criticizing and exposing wrong ideas and wrong practices, we cannot evolve and promote right ideas and right practices in homeopathy.

I am asked to ‘read all books of sankaran, and apply it myself’ to confirm, before commenting on his theories. I agree that we have to study before commenting or criticizing anything. But, we need not ‘apply’ everything ourselves to ‘confirm’. If that were so, nobody will have the right to comment on homeopathy without practicing it. We cannot criticize allopathy without practicing it ourselves! To criticize astrology, I will have to practice astrology. To say robbery is wrong, I will have do robbery myself! To criticize corruption, I have to be corrupt? To comment on a theory, we have to ‘study’ it well, that is all.

I have commented on sankaran’s theories after studying it well. I need not practice it for that.

When anybody say only ‘animal drugs’ have to be used in people characterized by ‘vital level sensation of survival instincts’, I can comment on it on the basis of my knowledge of materia medica and drug proving. I need not ‘apply’ that method. I know many homeopathic drugs belonging to plant or mineral kingdoms having that charecteristics. I have applied those drugs in my homeopathic practice very successfully. Any homeopath, who has studied and applied materia medica knows that sankaran is wrong on this point.

Some friends have expressed their apprehension that criticizing wrong theories and practices happening in homeopathy in public will harm the good will and reputation of our community and our therapeutic system.

I do not subscribe to that view. All these ‘wrong things’ in homeopathy are done and promoted by their propagators in public, with out any concern about the harm they are doing, through articles, books, interviews and seminars all over the world, making homeopathy a topic of unending mockery before the scientific community. All these things are already known to general public better than homeopaths themselves.

These people have already done enough damage to homeopathy through their unscientific theories and nonsense practices. They supply arms and ammunition to skeptics to attack homeopathy. There is no meaning in covering up this dirt. Public dirt should be washed in public, to get the lost reputation and credibility of homeopathy back.

If homeopathic community continue let these people go like this, we cannot even dream about making homeopathy a scientific medical system, and get it recognized as such even in a far distant future.

In his Homeopathic Links interview, Vithoulkas says: “Sankaran alone has done more harm to homeopathy than all the enemies of homeopathy together.”

Andre Saine writes on his website: “Sankaran demonstrated several basic errors of methodology and reasoning in his example of how he ‘discovers’ a remedy”

How would the followers of Sankaran respond to these statements?

Collect all mentals, physical generals and particular symptoms of your patient, with all qualifications such as causations, sensations, locations, modalities and concomitants. Then grade the symptoms into uncommon, common, mental, physical general and particulars. Then repertorize. Compare the materia medica of drugs coming top in repertorization, and decide a similimum. That is the simple way of homeopathic practice- and the most successful way.

If a drug is similimum according to totality of symptoms, it does not matter whether that drug belongs to animal, mineral or plant kingdoms. It does not matter to which ‘sub kingdom’ or ‘family’ the drug belongs. Such a knowledge does not make any difference in your similimum.

Selecting similimum is most important in homeopathy. Similarity of symptoms is our guide in selecting similimum. All these talk about ‘kingdoms’, sub kingdoms, families and such things only contribute in making homeopathy complex, and confuse the young homeopaths. It may help in creating an aura around the teacher, which would attract people to seminars. That is not a silly thing, where money matters above homeopathy!

Scientific Homeopathy: Fight ‘Skeptics’ As Well As ‘Energy Medicine Homeopaths’

Scientific homeopathy can advance only by waging consistent and relentless struggle against pseudo-scientific ‘energy medicine’ homeopathic theoreticians on one side, and negative-mined skeptic community on other side.

For rational-mined people, any true observation or experience of a novel natural phenomenon would be inevitably followed by an inquiry for its logical explanations. People with a scientific approach would try to explain those experiences in terms of concepts of existing knowledge system. If the new observations could not be explained satisfactorily using existing theories, it results in the formulation of a system of learned assumptions known as hypothesis. Exactly, hypothesis means a proposed explanation or educated guess regarding the observed phenomenon. To be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test the hypothesis using available scientific tools and methodology. A hypothesis is called a working hypothesis once it is provisionally accepted as a candidate for scientific verification. Testability using existing scientific tools, simplicity, scope, fruitfulness and conservatism are considered to be the essential qualities of a working hypothesis. By conservatism, it is implied that assumptions of a good hypothesis should be fitting with existing recognized knowledge systems. Assumptions of these working hypothesis will be then subjected to rigorous verifications impartial and unprejudiced members of scientific community according to scientific methods, and if the outcomes are positive, it leads to a scientific theory and is accepted as part of scientific knowledge system. That is the way science advances.

There may be some experiences and observations that could not be easily explained using existing scientific paradigms, and formulating a scientifically viable hypothesis would be difficult. Even if they are formulated, a hypotheses may fail during scientific verifications, and will have to be abandoned temporarily or permanently. Some hypotheses could be modified, re-formulated and re-submitted for verification. But, abandoning of a particular hypothesis does not necessarily mean the experiences behind them were totally unreal or they do not exist. It only means that the proposed explanation failed. In some cases, formulating a reasonable hypothesis will be difficult. Skeptic minded people instantly deny the existence of such experiences, since they accept only experiences and observations that are ‘proved’. They consider that failure of a particular hypothesis proves the non-existence of such a phenomenon also. They fail to realize the difference between ‘unproved’ and ‘non-existent’. Beyond any doubt, there is a negative aspect in this skeptic approach.

Side by side with this negative and destructive approach of skeptics lie those pseudo-scientific people who spin imaginative ‘theories’ about every experiences without any consideration for existing knowledge system. They are never bothered about scientific methods or scientific verifications. People lacking scientific world outlook and rational thinking will float nonsense theories in a way fitting to their evil requirements, in a hurry to utilize such observations to justify and promote diverse pseudo-scientific practices they are engaged in. Both negative skepticism and pseudoscience complement each other in harming the evolution and advance of real scientific knowledge.

Exactly, homeopathy is based on two fundamental observations made by hahnemann regarding the process of cure-

1. Similia Similibus Curentur: Hahnemann observed through his experiments that diseases could be cured by extremely diluted forms of drug substances, which could produce symptoms similar to disease when applied in large doses in healthy individuals.

2. Potentization: Hahnemann developed a special process of preparing drugs by serial dilution and shaking, and observed that such expremely diluted drugs could act as therapeutic agents when applied according to similia similibus curentur

Due to the limitations imposed by the infantile stage of scientific knowledge available to him during that period, hahnemann could not formulate a viable hypothesis to explain his observation in a way fitting to the scientific knowledge system then existed. In fact, science was not properly equipped to provide a reasonable explanation for the phenomena hahnemann observed.

Instead of leaving his observations unexplained as it should have been truthfully done, hahnemann resorted to building up of a system of philosophical speculations and imaginative theorizations to explain them. May be since he found that the contemporary scientific paradigms were not sufficient for his purpose, he tried to develop a speculative philosophical system utilizing concepts such as ‘vital force’, ‘dynamic energy’ being part of spiritualistic philosophy existed then.

Obviously, this speculative part of homeopathy does not agree with scientific knowledge or its methods. As such, scientific community adopted a skeptical approach towards homeopathy. They totally denied the existence of even the fundamental observations of hahnemaan, whereas it would have been judicious to deny the theoretical explanations of homeopathy and asking for a more viable explanation for the phenomena hahnemann observed.

From a rational perspective, we have to logically differentiate between observational part of homeopathy from its speculative part. Observational part is objective experience, which forms the basis of practical application of similia similibus curentur and potentization. They should not be denied on the reason that hahnemann’s theoretical explanations contradict scientific knowledge.

Skeptical scientists deny homeopathy works on the reason that nobody could explain how homeopathy works. They should understand, both issues should be considered as different questions. The issue of efficacy of homeopathy should not be confused with the lack of explanations or wrong explanations regarding how homeopathy works.

Pseudoscientific homeopathic theoreticians, starting from hahnemann himself have contributed a lot in alienating homeopathy from scientific community, through their utter nonsense vitalistic and energy medicine theories that never agree with scientific knowledge system or scientific methods.

According to me, inorder to promote scientific homeopathy, we have to address fllowing preliminary tasks:

1. Convince the scientific community that homeopathy works, through demonstrations and scientifically acceptable clinical studies.

2. Convince them the importance of differentiating objective observational part of homeopathy from the unscientific theoretical or explanatory part of homeopathy.

3. Propose a scientifically viable working hypothesis regarding how homeopathy works, in a way fitting to the existing scientific knowledge system.

4. Prove the propositions of this hypothesis using scientific methods, in a way undisputable to the scientific community.

While addressing this four-pointed fundamental tasks, scientific homeopathy will have to relentlessly fight against the negative-minded skeptics as well as pseudo-scientific energy medicine theoreticians of homeopathy.

We have to consistently tell the world, real homeopathy is entirely different from those nonsense the pseudoscientific homeopathic theoreticians preach and practice.

We have to understand and tell the homeopathic community that the negative-minded anti-homeopathic skeptics are entirely different from real scientific community.

Dialogue has to be between scientific homeopathy and scientific community

Molecular Imprinted Drugs Will Provide A Converging Point For Homeopathy And Modern Molecular Medicine

Modern Medicine is gradually evolving into ‘Molecular Medicine’. Molecular Medicine studies vital processes and diseases at molecular level, and deals therapeutics as an art and science of molecular level repairing.

Molecular medicine is the most advanced, most scientific and most recently originated discipline in modern medical science. It is a broad field, where physical, chemical, biological and medical techniques are used to describe molecular structures and mechanisms, identify fundamental molecular and genetic errors of pathology, and to develop molecular interventions to correct those errors.

‘Molecular Medicine’ emphasizes disease and cure in terms of cellular and molecular phenomena and interventions rather than the conceptual and observational focus on patients and their organs common to conventional medicine.

Molecular Medicine studies drug substances in terms of their molecular level structure and organization, and is more and more relying upon target-specific Designer Drugs synthesized by drug designing technology, supported by computer aided designing protocols.

Drug Designing Technology has recently started exploring the possibilities of Molecular Imprinting in the development of target-specific designer drugs. They are now experimenting for developing bio-friendly imprinting matrices and imprinting protocols, so as to prepare artificial binding surfaces for pathogenic molecules that could be utilized as therapeutic agents.

Even though not yet recognized as such, homeopathic potentization is a process of molecular imprinting, where artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules are produced by imprinting drug molecules into water-ethyl alcohol supra-molecular matrices. Homeopathy identifies pathological molecular errors and selects the appropriate molecular imprints through a peculiar technique of ‘comparing symptoms’, which is expressed as the therapeutic principle, ‘simila similibus curentur’

Most probably, modern molecular medicine and drug designing technology is in the new future going to explore the possibilities of water as a molecular imprinting medium as part of their search for novel substances to be utilized as imprinting matrix.

It means, Modern Molecular Medicine is slowly advancing towards the realization of a drug designing technology that homeopathy invented as ‘potentization’ and utilized for preparing therapeutic agents 250 years ago. It is based on this understanding that I try to propagate the concept that ‘Homeopathy is Molecular Imprinting Therapeutics- An Advanced Branch of Molecular Medicine.

In a far distant historical perspective, I foresee the possibility of converging of modern medicine and homeopathy into a universal molecular medical science of ‘drug-less therapy’, where only molecular imprints will be used as therapeutic agents. Instead of our present ‘potentization’, modern science may develop more sophisticated ways of molecular imprinting, that would enable us to produce therapeutic agents more specific and perfect than our present day ‘potentized drugs’.

May be be distant dream. But it is a dream based on scientific knowledge.

‘Drug Proving With High Potency Drugs’- A ‘Belief’ Never Verified By Well-Organised Experiments

Homeopaths have many deep-rooted ‘beliefs’- most of them very irrational and unscientific. But I am sure, they cannot be convinced by talking logic or science that goes against such beliefs.

Homeopaths ‘believe’ that ‘highly potentized’ drugs can produce symptoms, and can be used for ‘drug proving’. They believe it is dangerous to use potentized drugs without indications.

One homeopath claimed: “I once took a dose of medhorrinum 1M, because I really wanted to know more about Homeopathy, and I got a date of symptoms for some time (a month or less), most corresponded well to the set of symptoms described in materia medica for medhorrinum… So you say that high dilutions is not good for experimentations…. I think it is not correct…”

Pure rubbish. If he wanted to “know more about homeopathy”, this is not the way he should do experiments. Taking oneself ‘single dose’ of a drug and waiting for ‘its symptoms’ to appear! And he got symptoms of that drug for one month! And he considers he has ‘proved’ that “high dilutions are good for experimentation” beyond any doubt!

If he really wanted to ‘prove’ that potentized drugs can produce symptoms, he should conduct the experiments according to scientific method. Person who is subjected to experiment should not know which medicine he is taking. Person conducting the experiment should not know which drug is given to which individual. There should be enough controls also. Then we should try to identify the drugs from comparing the symptoms produced with symptoms in materia medica. Only when we succeed in identifying drugs from symptoms in such a well controlled blinded experiment, we can say we ‘proved’ that high potency drugs could produce symptoms.

Taking a dose of ‘known’ drug oneself, waiting for its symptoms for one month, and ascribing all symptoms you produced during one month to that single drug- it is a joke. After taking that ‘single dose’, he will be ‘taking’ diverse types of exogenous molecules into your body- through food, water, drinks, air and many many other environmental factors. All those molecules can produce symptoms in him. How can he say all symptoms produced for one month ‘after’ a ‘single dose of medorrhinum 1m’ were due that ‘single dose’?

Only homeopaths, blinded by ‘beliefs’ can make such claims. For them, everything that happens ‘after’ their dose is the ‘effect’ of that dose! They never bother to consider the variables involved! I know it is a waste of time arguing to convince them. They cannot be convinced by logic or science. They are ‘believers’.

Homeopathic drugs potentized above avogadro limit (12c) contain only ‘molecular imprints’. Molecular imprints are supramolecular nanostructures formed by hydrogen bonding of ethyl alcohol-water molecules, into which the 3-dimensional configuration of drug molecules are imprinted as nano-cavities. These nano-cavities can act as artificial binding sites for endogenous or exogenous molecules having configurational similarity to the molecules used for imprinting. We can say, molecular imprints are ‘artificial key-holes’ for pathogenic molecular keys.

Biochemical processes involves two aspects: 1.Binding of ligands to targets, which is determined by configurational affinity.2. Chemical transformation, which is determined by charge affinity of ligands and targets. Since ‘molecular imprints’ have only ‘configurational affinity’, without any ‘charge affinity’ towards biological molecules, potentized drugs cannot interfere in normal biological processes.

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

Molecular imprints contained in the potentized homeopathic preparations cannot successfully compete with natural ligands in binding with their biological target molecules, and hence, cannot interfere in the interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands. Obviously, potentized drugs cannot produce any pathological molecular inhibitions in the organism or produce symptoms.

According to scientific view, ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ means: ‘diseases caused by specific molecular inhibitions and expressed through specific groups of subjective and objective symptoms can be cured by potentized forms of drugs that could create similar pathologic molecular inhibitions and symptoms in healthy individuals if applied in crude form’. Same can be stated in a different way as: “pathological molecular inhibitions can be rectified using ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules that can create similar molecular inhibitions if applied in molecular form”.

Homeopathy utilizes ‘drug proving’ for studying the pathogenic properties of drug substances by observing their capacity to produce various pathological symptoms in healthy organisms. Homeopathy is based on the principle that a substance becomes a medicinal agent only because it has some disease-producing properties. In other words, if we could know what pathological inhibitions and symptoms a drug can create in healthy organism, we can decide in what disease states that drug could be used as a therapeutic agent in potentized form. Drug proving is unique to homeopathy. Whereas modern medicine studies the disease-curing properties of drugs, homeopathy studies the disease-producing properties of drugs. That makes a great difference.

Drug proving is done by administering small quantities of a particular drug to controlled volunteer groups of apparently healthy individuals. The subjective and objective symptoms, representing the diverse molecular deviations caused in the organism by the drug substance are carefully observed and recorded. These symptoms are systematically arranged compiled as materia medica of the substance used.

Let us examine what actually happens at molecular level during drug proving:

First point we have to note is that most drug substances, especially of vegetable or animal origin, are not ‘simple’ substance. Even if we use them as a ‘single’ substance, actually they consist of diverse types of individual molecules. A substance can interact with biological molecules only as individual molecules. If we really want to understand homeopathy and drug proving scientifically, we should first of all learn to perceive drug substance in terms of its diverse constituent molecules. Once we introduce a sample of drug substance 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 and body fluids in different parts of the body. They can interact with various enzymes, receptors, and other biological molecules inside the organism. Individual drug molecules, in capacities of their molecular affinities, get themselves bound to various bio-molecules which participate in the essential biochemical activities in the organism. These interactions are decided and directed by the specific properties such as configurations and charges of active groups of individual drug molecules, and their specific affinity towards biological target molecules.

The three dimensional structure of the individual drug molecules, and that of the concerned bio-molecules are the decisive factors in this process of formation of molecular binding between them. This peculiarity is called molecular affinity. It is very important to note that drug substances 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 competing with natural ligands and substrates in binding to their biological targets, 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 in the form of a train of subjective and objective symptoms, due to the involvement of various neuro-mediator, neuro-transmitter and cellular signalling systems.

From this point of view, drug proving has to be done using molecular forms of drugs, since only they can produce real pathological molecular inhibitions in the organism.

Let us examine what actually happens when potentized drugs are administered into ‘apparently’ healthy individual individuals for drug proving. First point we need to remember is that ‘apparently’ healthy people will not be totally free from pathological molecular inhibitions. There will be diverse types of hidden molecular errors existing in them, arising from diverse types of factors such as nutritional, environmental, miasmatic, genetic, emotional, metabolic, infectious and others. When potentized drugs are introduced into the body, some or other molecular imprints contained in them may act upon these existing molecular inhibitions, which may be reflected as some transient symptoms. Actually, those symptoms are not indicating the ‘disease producing’ properties, but ‘diseases curing’ properties of concerned drugs. As such, symptoms obtained from drug proving using high potencies may confuse our materia medica.

Potentized drugs may act on ‘healthy’ organism by a different mechanism. Molecular imprints may bind to the natural ligands in the body, if they have any configurational affinity. But, such bindings will not lead to a state of pathology since molecular imprints cannot interfere in the interaction between natural ligands and targets which will have stronger affinity to each other. As such, symptoms appearing from such interactions will be very much temporary, and cannot be considered ‘pathological symptoms’.

Drugs potentized above 12c cannot cause pathological molecular inhibitions or produce symptoms. As such ‘drug proving’ with ‘high potencies’ is only a myth- ab false belief that is deep-rooted in the minds of homeopaths.

Confusions Created By Proponents Of Energy Medicine Over The Concept Of ‘Molecular Imprints’

The term ‘molecular imprints’ is now almost hijacked by the proponents of all diverse shades of unscientific ‘energy medicine’ and ‘spiritual’ theories about homeopathy. It makes distinguishing between scientific and unscientific approaches very hard.

The term ‘molecular imprinting’ and ‘molecular imprints’ originally comes from polymer chemistry, where these terms are used to describe a technique of creating template-shaped cavities in polymer matrices with memory of the template molecules, to be used as artificial molecular recognition sites.

This technique is based on the system used by enzymes for substrate recognition, which is called the “lock and key” model. The active binding site of an enzyme has a unique geometric structure that is particularly suitable for a substrate. A substrate that has a corresponding shape to the site is recognized by selectively binding to the enzyme, while an incorrectly shaped molecule that does not fit the binding site is not recognized.

In a similar way, molecularly imprinted materials are prepared using a template molecule and functional monomers that assemble around the template and subsequently get crosslinked to each other. The functional monomers, which are self-assembled around the template molecule by interaction between functional groups on both the template and monomers, are polymerized to form an imprinted matrix. They are known in the scientific community as a molecular imprinted polymer (MIP). Then the template molecule is removed from the matrix under certain conditions, leaving behind a cavity compl ementary in size and shape to the template. The obtained cavity can work as a selective binding site for a specific template molecule.

I have been using the concepts of ‘molecular imprinting’ and ‘molecular imprints’ to explain homeopathic potentization in this scientific perspective. My contention is that water has polymer-like properties at supramolecular level, and as such, water can be used as molecular imprinting medium exactly similar to other polymer substances. During potentization, three dimensional configuration of drug molecules are imprinted as nanocavities into the hydrogen-bonded supra-molecular networks of ethyl alcohol-water matrix. These ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’ can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for the drug molecules used for imprinting, as well as to pathogenic molecules having similar configurations. Active principles of potentized drugs are these ‘molecular imprints’.

This is the scientific understanding of ‘molecular imprinting’ and ‘molecular imprints’.

Now, the proponents of ‘energy medicine’ theories are trying to hijack this scientific concept to promote their pseudo-scientific theories. They talk about ‘molecular imprints’ of ‘drug energy’ and even ‘spiritual energy’. They talk about ‘molecular imprinting’ of ‘thoughts’ into water. According to them, ‘molecular imprints’ act by ‘emitting’ ‘radiations’, ‘waves’, ‘resonance’ and such things. They mix up ‘molecular imprinting’ with ‘water memory’ theories of people like Emotto, Chaplin and Rustum Roy. Their theories have nothing in common with the scientific concepts of ‘molecular imprinting’.

Anyhow, these people create a lot of confusions during our discussions about scientific homeopathy. To avoid confusions, now I prefer to use the term ‘hydrosomes’ instead of ‘molecular imprints’, to indicate ‘molecular imprinted nanocavities of water acting as artificial molecular binding sites’.

Modern biochemistry explains molecular mechanisms of disease and cure in terms of ‘key-lock’ relationship between ligands and their target molecules. This ‘key-lock’ concept has been proved right by the preparation and use of target specific designer drugs. Any scientific explanation we provide for molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’ should be fitting to this ‘key-lock’ concept of molecular interactions. My explanation of of homeopathy on the basis of ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’ acting as ‘artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules’ perfectly meets this fundamental condition.

You Have The Right To Practice Any Occult You Like- But Don’t Say It Is Homeopathy!

One senior homeopath friend commented on my discussions regarding ‘energy medicine theories of homeopathy’:

“In fact I treat my patients with energy medicine apart from Homoeopathy and magnetic therapy. Energy medicine is there and practiced from 4000 years and Homoeopathy is 250 years old. Study some more and learn to know before commenting on any subject. 4000 years back no labs, no trials, still medicine was being given in many ways and patients were being treated too. Just because you would not believe energy medicine, you cant call it funny and mock at it. Energy medicine is having its own value and such comments would not change its place in the Universe. Never think you can attack somebody like this and you do not have any right to discuss the unknown subject in the group.”

My friend is gravely mistaken. I am not discussing the “”value” or ‘efficacy’ of energy medicine. Nor its historical relevance. I am not interested in ‘knowing’ it. I would not question anybody’s right to practice ‘energy medicine’, ‘magnetotherapy’ or anything like that “apart” from homeopathy. It is up to you to decide what you should practice.

I was commenting on the widely propagated theory that “homeopathy is energy medicine”. In that case, it is a different matter. I did not criticize ‘reflexology’ per se; I criticized the method of selecting similimum using reflexology David Little talk about. I have nothing if anybody practice radionics or dowsing; but when somebody theorizes about using radionics machines to select homeopathic drugs, I have the right to comment. The age old occult practice using hair as as medium existed here since antiquity. I am not bothered. But when somebody talks about homeopathic drug transmission to distance through hair, and conducts courses and seminars for homeopaths on that topic, it becomes a matter of concern for every homeopath. I am not bothered about the ‘water memory’ theory of Emoto or Rustom Roy. But when a homeopath claims he writes name of homeopathic similimum on paper, keeps it under a glass of water to ‘charge’ it and treats his patients with that ‘charged water’, you should not expect me me to keep silent. When a reputed homeopathy claims he recorded the homeopathic drug information as mp3 file and cured AIDS by playing it to patients, you have no right to ask me to keep mum.

Anybody can practice any occults or woodoo as he like “apart” from homeopathy, if law permits a ‘physician’ to do so. I don’t bother. But when you make homeopathy “part” of your occult practices, and spin ‘ultra-scientific’ theories about homeopathy to justify such practices, I have the right to intervene and comment. I am bothered only about homeopathy- not about your ‘energy medicine’ or occults. You keep them “apart”, I will not “attack” you.

Whether anybody is practicing or propagating CAM, ENERGY MEDICINE, FAITH HEALING or anything else is not my concern. It is for the law-enforcing authorities to decide whether a HOMEOPATH registered under the provision of CCH Act is permitted to engage in such practices ‘along’ with homeopathy. I do not intend to comment on it. I am questioning the widely propagated theory that ‘homeopathy is energy medicine’. I am questioning the practice of ‘homeopathic occults’ such as homeopathic drug transmission through hair, homeopathic drug transmission through photographs, mp3 file transmission, selecting similimum by radionics machine, dowsing and reflexology, and such things which gravely damage the scientific credentials of homeopathy. I object only when you make homeopathy a PART of ‘energy medicine’. Homeopathy is purely a method of ‘drug therapy’- not energy medicine or spiritual healing. Homeopathy should be understood, explained and practiced a MEDICAL SCIENCE. Homeopaths should be scientific medical professionals.

Regarding my “right to discuss the unknown subject in the group”, I would like to reserve my comments for the time being, hoping not to spoil our friendship. I expect you would discuss only “known” subjects hereafter.

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.”

————————————————————————————————-

I GOT NOTHING. DID DANA ANYWHERE PROVIDE ANY STRAIGHT ANSWER TO THE QUESTION ‘HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS? ANYBODY GOT ANY IDEA?

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?

Similarity Of ‘Functional Groups’ Of Drug Molecules And Pathogenic Molecules Determines ‘Similimum”

To understand the real science behind the phenomena of ‘similia similibus curentur’, ‘drug proving’ and ‘potntization’, we should study drug substances in terms of not only their ‘constituent molecules’, but in terms of ‘functional groups’ and ‘moieties’ of those drug molecules. A drug substance is composed of diverse types of drug molecules. A drug molecule interacts with ‘active groups’ of biological target molecules such as enzymes and receptors using their ‘functional groups’ or ‘moieties’. It is the ‘functional groups’ and ‘moieties’ on the individual drug molecules that decide to which biological molecules they can bind to and produce molecular inhibitions. Different drug molecules with different size and structures, but having same ‘functional group’ or ‘moiety’ can bind to same biological molecules and produce similar molecular errors and similar groups of symptoms. A drug molecule become similimum to a disease when the drug molecule and disease-producing molecule have same functional groups, so that they could bind to same biological targets producing same molecular errors and same symptom groups.

Drug molecules act upon the biological molecules in the organism by binding their ‘functional groups’ to the active groups on the complex biological molecules such as receptors and enzymes. These molecular interactions are determined by the affinity between functional groups or moieties of drug molecules and active sites of biological molecules. Here, the functional groups of drug molecules are called ‘ligands’, and the biological molecules are called ‘targets’. Ligand-target interaction is determined by a peculiar ‘key-lock’ relationship due to complementary configurational affinities.

It is to be specifically noted that same functional group will undergo the same or similar chemical reactions regardless of the size or configuration of of the molecule it is a part of. However, its relative reactivity can be modified by nearby functional groups known as facilitating groups. That means, different types of drug molecules or pathogenic molecules having same functional groups and facilitating groups can bind to same biological molecules, and produce similar molecular inhibitions and symptoms. Homeopathic principle of ‘similimum’ is well explained by this understanding. If a drug molecule can produce symptoms similar to symptoms of a particular disease, it means that the drug molecules and disease-causing molecules have same functional groups on them, by which they bind to same biological molecules. Obviously, similarity of symptoms means similarity of functional groups of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules. To be similimum, the whole molecules need not be similar, but similarity of functional groups is enough.

Potentized drugs would contain the molecular imprints of drug molecules, along with molecular imprints of their functional groups. These molecular imprints will have specific configurational affinity towards any molecule having same functional groups, and can bind and deactivate them.

According to the scientific definition proposed by Dialectical Homeopathy, ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ means:

“If a drug substance in crude form is capable of producing certain groups of symptoms in a healthy human organism, that drug substance in potentized form can cure diseases having similar symptoms”.

Potentization is explained in terms of molecular imprinting. As per this concept, potentized drugs contains diverse types of molecular imprints representing diverse types of constituent molecules contained in the drug substances used for potentization.

In other words, “potentized drugs can cure diseases having symptoms similar to those produced by that drug in healthy organism if applied in crude forms”.

Homeopathy is based on the therapeutic principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’, which scientifically means “endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules that cause diseases by binding to the biological molecules can be entrapped and removed using molecular imprints of drug molecules which in molecular form can bind to the same biological molecules, utilizing the complementary configurational affinity between molecular imprints and pathogenic molecules”.

So far, we understood ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ as ‘similarity of symptoms produced by drugs as well as diseases’. According to modern scientific understanding, we can explain it as ‘similarity of molecular errors produced by drug molecules and pathogenic molecules’ in the organism.

To be more exact, that means ‘similarity of molecular configurations of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules’. Potentized drugs contains ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent molecules of drug used for potentization. ‘Molecular imprints’ are three-dimensional negatives of molecules, and hence they would have a peculiar affinity towards those molecules, due to their complementary configuration. ‘Molecular imprints’ would show this complementary affinity not only towards the molecules used for imprinting, but also towards all molecules that have configurations similar to those molecules. Homeopathy utilizes this phenomenon, and uses molecular imprints of drug molecules to bind and entrap pathogenic molecules having configurations similar to them. Similarity of configurations of drug molecules and pathogenic molecules are identified by evaluating the ‘similarity of symptoms’ they produce in organism during drug proving and disease. This realization is the the basis of scientific understanding of homeopathy I propose.

To be ‘similar’ does not mean pathological molecule and drug molecules should be similar in their ‘whole’ molecular structure. To bind to same targets, similarity of ‘functional groups’ or even a ‘moeity’ is enough. If the adjacent groups that facilitate binding with targets are also same, similarity becomes more perfect. If a drug molecule could produce symptoms similar to a disease, that means the drug molecules contains some functional groups simialr to those of pathogenic molecules that caused the disease. By virtue of these similar functional groups, both pathogenic molecules and drug molecules could bind to same biological targets, producing similar molecular errors and symptoms in the organism.

Molecular imprints of similar functional groups will also be similar. As such, potentized forms of a drug substance can bind and deactivate the pathogenic molecules having similar functional groups. This is the real molecular mechanism of ‘similia similibus curentur’.

Except those substances of simple chemical formula belonging to mineral groups, most of the pathogenic agents as well as drug substances consist of complex organic molecules. In the study of chemical interactions involving these organic molecules, understanding the concept of ‘functional groups’ is very important. ‘Functional groups’ are specific groups of atoms within large organic molecules that are responsible for their characteristic chemical reactions. Different organic molecules having same functional group will undergo the same or similar chemical reactions regardless of the size of the molecule it is a part of. However, its relative reactivity can be modified or influenced to an extent by nearby functional groups.

Even though the word moiety is often used synonymously to “functional group”, according to the IUPAC definition,a moiety is a part of a molecule that may include either whole functional groups or a parts of functional groups as substructures.

The atoms of functional groups are linked to each other and to the rest of the molecule by covalent bonds. When the group of covalently bound atoms bears a net charge, the group is referred to more properly as a polyatomic ion or a complex ion. Any subgroup of atoms of a compound also may be called a radical, and if a covalent bond is broken homolytically, the resulting fragment radicals are referred as free radicals.

Organic reactions are facilitated and controlled by the functional groups of the reactants.

A ‘moeity’ represents discrete non-bonded components. Thus, Na₂SO₄ would contain 3 moieties (2 Na⁺ and one SO₄^2-). A “chemical formula moiety” is defined as “formula with each discrete bonded residue or ion shown as a separate moiety”.

We should learn different types of ‘functional groups’ and ‘moieties’ of constituent molecules of our drug substances, as well as diverse types of pathogenic molecules. We have to study our materia medica from this viewpoint, comparing symptoms of different drug molecules having same functional moieties. Then we can logically explain the phenomenon of ‘drug relationships’. We can explain the similarity of drugs belonging to different groups such as ‘calcarea’, ‘merc’, ‘kali’, ‘acid’, ‘sulph’, ‘mur’ etc. Such an approach will make our understanding of homeopathy more scientific and accurate.

Learn ‘Functional Groups’ from Wikipedia:

The following is a list of common functional groups. In the formulas, the symbols R and R’ usually denote an attached hydrogen, or a hydrocarbon side chain of any length, but may sometimes refer to any group of atoms.

Functional Groups containing Hydrocarbons

Functional groups, called hydrocarbyls, that contain only carbon and hydrogen, but vary in the number and order of π bonds. Each one differs in type (and scope) of reactivity.

Chemical class	Group	Formula	Structural Formula	Prefix	Suffix	Example
Alkane	Alkyl	RH		alkyl-	-ane	Ethane
Alkene	Alkenyl	R₂C=CR₂		alkenyl-	-ene	Ethylene (Ethene)
Alkyne	Alkynyl	RC≡CR’		alkynyl-	-yne	Acetylene (Ethyne)
Benzene derivative	Phenyl	RC₆H₅ RPh		phenyl-	-benzene	Cumene (2-phenylpropane)
Toluene derivative	Benzyl	RCH₂C₆H₅ RBn		benzyl-	1-(substituent)toluene	Benzyl bromide (α-Bromotoluene)

There are also a large number of branched or ring alkanes that have specific names, e.g., tert-butyl, bornyl, cyclohexyl, etc.

Hydrocarbons may form charged structures: positively charged carbocations or negative carbanions. Carbocations are often named -um. Examples are tropylium and triphenylmethyl cations and the cyclopentadienyl anion.

Functional Groups containing halogens

Haloalkanes are a class of molecule that is defined by a carbon-halogen bond. This bond can be relatively weak (in the case of an iodoalkane) or quite stable (as in the case of a fluoroalkane). In general, with the exception of fluorinated compounds, haloalkanes readily undergo nucleophilic substitution reactions or elimination reactions. The substitution on the carbon, the acidity of an adjacent proton, the solvent conditions, etc. all can influence the outcome of the reactivity.

Chemical class	Group	Formula	Structural Formula	Prefix	Suffix	Example
haloalkane	halo	RX		halo-	alkyl halide	Chloroethane (Ethyl chloride)
fluoroalkane	fluoro	RF		fluoro-	alkyl fluoride	Fluoromethane (Methyl fluoride)
chloroalkane	chloro	RCl		chloro-	alkyl chloride	Chloromethane (Methyl chloride)
bromoalkane	bromo	RBr		bromo-	alkyl bromide	Bromomethane (Methyl bromide)
iodoalkane	iodo	RI		iodo-	alkyl iodide	Iodomethane (Methyl iodide)

Functional Groups containing oxygen

Compounds that contain C-O bonds each possess differing reactivity based upon the location and hybridization of the C-O bond, owing to the electron-withdrawing effect of sp hybridized oxygen (carbonyl groups) and the donating effects of sp² hybridized oxygen (alcohol groups).

Chemical class	Group	Formula	Structural Formula	Prefix	Suffix	Example
Alcohol	Hydroxyl	ROH		hydroxy-	-ol	Methanol
Ketone	Carbonyl	RCOR’		-oyl- (-COR’) or oxo- (=O)	-one	Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone
Aldehyde	Aldehyde	RCHO		formyl- (-COH) or oxo- (=O)	-al	Ethanal (Acetaldehyde)
Acyl halide	Haloformyl	RCOX		carbonofluoridoyl- carbonochloridoyl- carbonobromidoyl- carbonoiodidoyl-	-oyl halide	Acetyl chloride (Ethanoyl chloride)
Carbonate	Carbonate ester	ROCOOR		(alkoxycarbonyl)oxy-	alkyl carbonate	Triphosgene (Di(trichloromethyl) carbonate)
Carboxylate	Carboxylate	RCOO⁻		carboxy-	-oate	Sodium acetate (Sodium ethanoate)
Carboxylic acid	Carboxyl	RCOOH		carboxy-	-oic acid	Acetic acid (Ethanoic acid)
Ester	Ester	RCOOR’		alkanoyloxy- or alkoxycarbonyl	alkyl alkanoate	Ethyl butyrate (Ethyl butanoate)
Hydroperoxide	Hydroperoxy	ROOH		hydroperoxy-	alkylhydroperoxide	Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide
Peroxide	Peroxy	ROOR		peroxy-	alkyl peroxide	Di-tert-butyl peroxide
Ether	Ether	ROR’		alkoxy-	alkyl ether	Diethyl ether (Ethoxyethane)
Hemiacetal	Hemiacetal	RCH(OR’)(OH)		alkoxy -ol	-al alkylhemiacetal
Hemiketal	Hemiketal	RC(ORʺ)(OH)R’		alkoxy -ol	-one alkylhemiketal
Acetal	Acetal	RCH(OR’)(OR”)		dialkoxy-	-al dialkyl acetal
Ketal (orAcetal)	Ketal (orAcetal)	RC(ORʺ)(OR‴)R’		dialkoxy-	-one dialkyl ketal
Orthoester	Orthoester	RC(OR’)(ORʺ)(OR‴)		trialkoxy-
Orthocarbonate ester	Orthocarbonate ester	C(OR)(OR’)(ORʺ)(OR″)		tetralkoxy-	tetraalkylorthocarbonate

Functional Groups containing nitrogen

Compounds that contain nitrogen in this category may contain C-O bonds, such as in the case of amides.

Chemical class	Group	Formula	Structural Formula	Prefix	Suffix	Example
Amide	Carboxamide	RCONR₂		carboxamido- or carbamoyl-	-amide	Acetamide (Ethanamide)
Amines	Primary amine	RNH₂		amino-	-amine	Methylamine (Methanamine)
	Secondary amine	R₂NH		amino-	-amine	Dimethylamine
	Tertiary amine	R₃N		amino-	-amine	Trimethylamine
	4° ammonium ion	R₄N⁺		ammonio-	-ammonium	Choline
Imine	Primary ketimine	RC(=NH)R’		imino-	-imine
	Secondary ketimine	RC(=NR)R’		imino-	-imine
	Primary aldimine	RC(=NH)H		imino-	-imine
	Secondary aldimine	RC(=NR’)H		imino-	-imine
Imide	Imide	(RCO)₂NR’		imido-	-imide
Azide	Azide	RN₃		azido-	alkyl azide	Phenyl azide (Azidobenzene)
Azo compound	Azo (Diimide)	RN₂R’		azo-	-diazene	Methyl orange (p-dimethylamino-azobenzenesulfonic acid)
Cyanates	Cyanate	ROCN		cyanato-	alkyl cyanate	Methyl cyanate
Cyanates	Isocyanate	RNCO		isocyanato-	alkyl isocyanate	Methyl isocyanate
Nitrate	Nitrate	RONO₂		nitrooxy-, nitroxy-	alkyl nitrate	Amyl nitrate (1-nitrooxypentane)
Nitrile	Nitrile	RCN		cyano-	alkanenitrile alkyl cyanide	Benzonitrile (Phenyl cyanide)
Nitrile	Isonitrile	RNC		isocyano-	alkaneisonitrile alkyl isocyanide	Methyl isocyanide
Nitrite	Nitrosooxy	RONO		nitrosooxy-	alkyl nitrite	Isoamyl nitrite (3-methyl-1-nitrosooxybutane)
Nitro compound	Nitro	RNO₂		nitro-		Nitromethane
Nitroso compound	Nitroso	RNO		nitroso-		Nitrosobenzene
Pyridine derivative	Pyridyl	RC₅H₄N		4-pyridyl (pyridin-4-yl) 3-pyridyl (pyridin-3-yl) 2-pyridyl (pyridin-2-yl)	-pyridine	Nicotine

Functional Groups containing sulphur

Compounds that contain sulfur exhibit unique chemistry due to their ability to form more bonds than oxygen, their lighter analogue on the periodic table. Substitutive nomenclature (marked as prefix in table) is preferred over functional class nomenclature (marked as suffix in table) for sulfides, disulfides, sulfoxides and sulfones.

Chemical class	Group	Formula	Structural Formula	Prefix	Suffix	Example
Thiol	Sulfhydryl	RSH		sulfanyl- (-SH)	–thiol	Ethanethiol
Sulfide (Thioether)	Sulfide	RSR’		substituent sulfanyl- (-SR’)	di(substituent) sulfide	(Methylsulfanyl)methane (prefix) or Dimethyl sulfide (suffix)
Disulfide	Disulfide	RSSR’		substituent disulfanyl- (-SSR’)	di(substituent) disulfide	(Methyldisulfanyl)methane (prefix) or Dimethyl disulfide (suffix)
Sulfoxide	Sulfinyl	RSOR’		-sulfinyl- (-SOR’)	di(substituent) sulfoxide	(Methanesulfinyl)methane (prefix) or Dimethyl sulfoxide (suffix)
Sulfone	Sulfonyl	RSO₂R’		-sulfonyl- (-SO₂R’)	di(substituent) sulfone	(Methanesulfonyl)methane (prefix) or Dimethyl sulfone (suffix)
Sulfinic acid	Sulfino	RSO₂H		sulfino- (-SO₂H)	–sulfinic acid	2-Aminoethanesulfinic acid
Sulfonic acid	Sulfo	RSO₃H		sulfo- (-SO₃H)	–sulfonic acid	Benzenesulfonic acid
Thiocyanate	Thiocyanate	RSCN		thiocyanato- (-SCN)	substituent thiocyanate	Phenyl thiocyanate
Thiocyanate	Isothiocyanate	RNCS		isothiocyanato- (-NCS)	substituent isothiocyanate	Allyl isothiocyanate
Thione	Carbonothioyl	RCSR’		-thioyl- (-CSR’) or sulfanylidene- (=S)	–thione	Diphenylmethanethione (Thiobenzophenone)
Thial	Carbonothioyl	RCSH		methanethioyl- (-CSH) or sulfanylidene- (=S)	–thial

Groups containing phosphorus

Compounds that contain phosphorus exhibit unique chemistry due to their ability to form more bonds than nitrogen, their lighter analogues on the periodic table.

Chemical class	Group	Formula	Structural Formula	Prefix	Suffix	Example
Phosphine (Phosphane)	Phosphino	R₃P		phosphanyl-	-phosphane	Methylpropylphosphane
Phosphonic acid	Phosphono	RP(=O)(OH)₂		phosphono-	substituent phosphonic acid	Benzylphosphonic acid
Phosphate	Phosphate	ROP(=O)(OH)₂		phosphonooxy- or O-phosphono- (phospho-)	substituent phosphate	Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate (suffix)
						O-Phosphonocholine (prefix) (Phosphocholine)
Phosphodiester	Phosphate	HOPO(OR)₂		[(alkoxy)hydroxyphosphoryl]oxy- or O-[(alkoxy)hydroxyphosphoryl]-	di(substituent) hydrogen phosphate or phosphoric acid di(substituent) ester	DNA
						O‑[(2‑Guanidinoethoxy)hydroxyphosphoryl]‑l‑serine (prefix) (Lombricine)

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,

Symptoms should disappear in the reverse chronological order of their appearance in disease.
Symptoms should travel from internal parts of body to external parts
Symptoms should travel from more vital organs to less vital organs.
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.

	Syed on HOW MOLECULAR IMPRINTS OF SILI…
	shifaeshafi on A STUDY REGARDING MODE OF ABSO…
	manishad72 on Australian NHMRC Report On Hom…
	Asokan on REALIZE THE TRUTH BEHIND THE H…
	Asaduz zaman on A Case Of 100 % Congenital Hea…
	ME on Sycosis- Is It Miasm Of Gonorr…
	Sivakumar on ‘Prescribe For the Patie…
	Said Salem on RATIONALE BEHIND COMBINATIONS…
	Shivani Sharma on TO THOSE WHO CONDUCT HOMEOPATH…
	Dr Rajeevan E P on MIT Approach To The Homeopathi…
	John Ricker on No! Homeopathy Is Not ‘F…
	Dr sanat dave m.b.b.… on ‘Miasmatic Analysis…
	Kathleen thomas on Study The So-called ‘Aut…
	homeopathylane on Let Us Scientifically Verify T…
	How Can Homeopathy H… on How Can Homeopathy Help In The…