No! Homeopathy Is Not ‘Fake’! An Open Letter To Dr.Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Nobel Laureate- Written By Chandran Nambiar

Sir,  we all Indians are proud of you for your glorious achievements as a scientist, and your contributions to the advanced studies on structure and functions of ribosomes,  that was duely recognized by the Swedish academy awarding the Nobel prize in 2009. We are very much happy to welcome you to your home land.

A statement you recently made in Chennai regarding homeopathy has created much controversy. You are reported to have said during a public address that  ‘homeopathy works on belief’ and homeopathy is a ‘fake discipline like astrology’. That statement pained homeopathic community a lot, where as it is being enthusiastically utilized by those who regularly attack homeopathy.

Actually, you were echoing the words of ‘anti-homeopathy’ skeptics of western world who are engaged in exposing the ‘pseudo-scientific’ homeopathic theoreticians propagating ‘spiritual homeopathy’ and ‘energy medicine’. I am sorry to say that you failed to realize the entirely different ground realities existing in India in the field of homeopathic education and practice.

Homeopathy has been consistently attacked in this way for last 250 years since its inception, but in spite of all these malicious attacks, homeopathy is thriving in India as a major recognized branch of public health care system.

Hope you would know India is home to around 285,000 registered homeopaths, 186 prestigious homeopathic colleges imparting UG and PG courses, over 6000 government homeopathic dispensaries and about 250 government hospitals. More than 15000 student come out of these colleges every year with BHMS degree, after completing a rigorous five and half year course of study and internship, for which they got admission by scoring top rankings in entrance examinations after 12 years of schooling in science streams. Curriculum of BHMS course constitutes Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Practice of Medicine and all subjects of modern health care knowledge. There is a Central Council of Homeopathy under Government of India, constituted as per a n Central Act passed by Indian parliament, overseeing everything in the field of homeopathic education, research and practice in India.

Homeopathy is a very important wing of public health care system in inIndia. Homoeopathic wings are working in many allopathic hospitals and dispensaries, both government and private.  Homoeopathic doctors provide treatment to millions of patients for different day to day illnesses in the public health care system. Even during sporadic and epidemic conditions, people tend to use homoeopathic drugs for prevention.  Recently, the Indian Government successfully ran a national health campaign ‘Homeopathy for a Healthy Mother & a Happy Child’, which was based exclusively on homoeopathy. Also, private homeopathic practitioners are contributing a great deal in public health care through their private or charitable clinics.

Besides clinical research, there are fundamental, drug standardization, drug proving and clinical verification research going on, both at government and private levels. For example, the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy is conducting a lot of such research, either independently or in collaboration with other research institutes or individual researchers, under an extra-mural research scheme at the Dept of AYUSH, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare of the Indian Government. Other than that, almost all homoeopathic organizations and individuals are doing their bit toward research for the further validation of homoeopathy in today’s times of evidence-based medicine. The results have been encouraging, to say the least. In fact, over the years,Indiahas learnt better ways of conducting research from their international counterparts and the recent research has been carried out as per standardized, internationally recognized methods and are therefore more acceptable.

A few exemplary results from clinical  studies include work on tubercular lymphadenitis, japanese encephalitis, etc. In addition, some administrative studies have been undertaken, like the ‘assessment of the cost effectiveness of homeopathic clinic in the cafeteria approach’ and ‘public-private partnerships in the provision of homeopathic services in the city of Delhi, where it was tried to analyze both the strengths and weaknesses of medical pluralism in India and have worked out some solutions for implementing medical pluralism more effectively in all parts of India.

These facts and figures are a clear reflection of the belief of the people ofIndiain the homeopathic system of medicine, which, in turn, is a result of the effectiveness of homeopathy in treating a wide range of illnesses, which has convinced the Indian masses over a period of time.

Sir, as a well-respected nobel-winner scientist, who is expected to be more concerned about truth, you would have considered all these facts before publicly declaring ‘homeopathy is based on belief, a fake discipline like astrology’.  Community pay much value and reverence to words you speak out, and you are expected to keep up that responsibility when commenting on sensitive topics. You should have experimented yourselves and done a little more home work about homeopathy, before echoing the malicious propaganda of ‘anti-homeopathy skeptics’.  We would not have bothered much if you had said ‘homeopathy is not scientifically well proved’, instead of declaring it is ‘fake like astrology’.

I am sure, you have nothing personally against homeopathy or homeopaths as such. You were talking your perceptions as a truthful scientist. As an individual respecting science, scientists and scientific methods, I would not blame you for making such a statement. I know you are not a homeopath- only a scientist. I understand, as a  truthful scientist, as things stand now, you cannot say ‘homeopathy is scientific’, after seeing all these nonsense theories propagated by ‘homeopathic ‘masters’ the world over.  I understand, nobody could so far even propose a scientifically viable hypothesis about how homeopathy works, a hypothesis that could be presented as a rightful candidate for verification using scientific methods. Actually, those ‘pseudo-scientific’ homeopathic theoreticians are doing the greatest harm to homeopathy than truthful scientists like you.

Homeopaths as well as millions of patients visiting them know homeopathy works. That is their personal experience. You should think more than twice before saying it is ‘mere belief’ and ‘fake’. If you had visited a few homeopathic clinics in you city, you would realize that all people visiting homeopaths are not much less knowledgeable or more ‘superstitious’ than you. Many respected members of scientific community- may not be nobel laureates- use homeopathic medicines, knowing well that it is not ‘proven according to scientific methods’, but very much confident from experience that it is not ‘fake’ or ‘mere belief’. They experience it WORKING.  If you had ever consulted a homeopath or taken a course of homeopathic medicine yourselves, you would not have made this demeaning comment against homeopathy.

But the sad thing is that nobody knows how homeopathy works. To mask this ignorance, ‘intellectuals’ among homeopaths create fanciful theories. All these theories about homeopathy  are utter nonsense- pure absurdity. Until homeopaths stop talking nonsense ‘ultra-scientific’ theories about homeopathy, we cannot expect a fair deal from scientific community. At least homeopaths  should show the humility to say: “we know homeopathy works- that is our daily experience; but we do not know how it actually works; we need the help of scientific community to resolve this riddle”.

By saying ‘homeopathy is based on belief’, what did you actually mean?  Do you mean it is based on ‘beliefs of practitioner’, or it is working on ‘beliefs of patients’?

Do you remember, when you declare homeopathy is a ‘fake discipline’, you are saying that the Act passed by Indian parliament is ‘fake’, Central council of homeopathy is ‘fake’ and those 186 homeopathic colleges inIndiaare ‘fake’?  You mean 285000 registered homeopaths, 6000 government dispensaries and hospitals are doing ‘fake’ medical practice that may ‘endanger’ human lives? According to you, BHMS and MD degrees awarded by Indian universities are all about ‘fake’ disciplines? Do you mean those millions of people thronging daily in homeopathic clinics and getting relief for their ailments are idiots attracted to ‘fake practitioners’ due to ‘belief’ only?

Dr Venkatraman, I would earnestly request you to spare a little time to verify whether homeopathy works.  If you would co-operate, we are ready to provide as many real life proofs as you need. Only when you are ever convinced homeopathy works, we would expect you to take up topic of ‘how homeopathy works’. If you are interested in that topic, I am ready to provide details of my work which try to explain and prove ‘how homeopathy works’  on the basis of ‘Molecular Imprinting’.  I am giving link to my article, hoping you can spare some time in between your busy schedules.

Until that, kindly refrain judiciously from commenting against homeopathy. You can say: “I don’t know whether homeopathy works or not. I know all those theories about homeopathy are unscientific. If homeopathy actually works, it has yet to be proved and explained according to scientific methods”.

If you exhibit the audacity to kindly modify your earlier statement in this way, homeopathic community will be much grateful to you.


Chandran Nambiar

For Homeopathic Community



  1. There are many things in Homoeopathy which is yet to be explored by our honourable Nobel laureates to study and develop to achieve another Nobel to their honor.

  2. I am surprised to know about Dr. Ramakrishnan’s lack of knowledge about Homeopathy.
    He is entitled to his opinion but not to the facts.
    Nobel Laureates agreed there is a strong evidence of homeopathic medicine. They have plenty to say on how Homeopathy Works.
    By the end of year 2013, there have been 5 Nobel laureates in support of Homeopathy, 1 in opposition and 857 have not stated any opinion on Homeopathy.

  3. Birendra

    Venkatraman homoeopathy is not bogus but your thinking is bogus…before giving the statement you should first study about this system of are scientist a nobel person before giving any statement you should think .you have hurt the homoeopathic community .you have not right to say homoeopathy bogus….

  4. Saktinath Bhattacharjee

    There is other Nobel laureate also whose reseach works on high dilution of DNA supports the mechanism of How Homoeopatthy works. He is French Nobel laureate Prof.Luc Motagnier.He said that, solutions containing DNA of pathogenic bacteria and viruses, including HIV, could emit low frequency radio waves that induced surrounding water molecules to become arranged into nanostructures.These water molecules could also emit radio waves. Water could retain such properties even after the original solutions were massively diluted, to the point where the original DNA had effectively vanished. In this way, water could retain the ‘memory’ of substances with which it had been in contact and doctors could use the emissions to detect disease (courtesy : TOI, Kolkata, July 5, 2010).
    Doesn’t it resemble the mechanism behind Homoeopathy’s action ? Saying ‘bogus’ to something implies one’s ignorance also, in that subject. Happening of one thing and proving of, how does it happen are separate matters. It is the lack of Scientific knowledge when it cannot exlplain a thing actually happening or clinically verified. ‘Sun rises’ is a fact, but ‘how this happens’ might not have been explained for long years ago. In case of headache, if you feel better with pressure at carotids, that cannot be ignored in anyway, whether it can be explained, why or how does it happened or not. Thanks.

    • Chandran K C

      Luc Montagnier’s observation that ‘high dilutions’ contain “water structures which mimic the original molecules.” is very important for homeopathy. But, he never explained the exact molecular mechanism by which this ‘mimicking’ happens, and more important, did not take up the task of explaining the dynamics of homeopathic therapeutics involved in ‘simila similibus curentur’. The result was, people interested in ‘ultra-scientific’ and ‘dynamic’ interpretation of homeopathy actually hijacked his theory. Only because he said he could detect ‘electromagnetic signals’ showing the presence of ‘molecular memory of dugs’ in high dilutions, these theoreticians used it to rationalize their pseudoscientific concepts of ‘resonance’, ‘vibrations’, frequencies’, ‘drug transmissions’, ‘radionics’, ‘drug teleportation’ and the like they use in explaining homeopathy. Luc Montagnier’s limitation lies in the fact that he could not understand the concept of ‘molecular imprinting’.

      If he could have explained the phenomenon he observed in terms of ‘molecular imprinting’, instead of ‘mimicking’ and ‘vibrations’, the situation would have been entirely different. If he could have gone a bit forward and explained the source of ‘electromagnetic signals’ as ‘molecular imprints’, he could have avoided the ‘occult’ homeopaths and ‘spiritual homeopaths hijacking and misusing his statements for their ulterior motives.

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

  5. Chandran K C

    ‘Molecular Imprinting in Water’ For Target-Specific Drug Designing- Science Behind Homeopathic Potentization

  6. himadri

    Still Homeopathy is bogus. There is direct evidence , and please publish your results of Moleciular Imprinting so that first fundamental physics is changed and then Homeopathy will start working. Why are you misguiding people? I was suffering from a terrible disease and I knew HM could be of no help.

    • Chandran K C

      If Homeopathy could not help you in a “terrible disease”, that by itself does not prove homeopathy is “bogus”. There are are also many diseases where modern medicine also fails. Would you say modern medicine is also “bogus” on that account?

      “Fundamental physics” need not be changed for homeopathy “to start working”. We can explain the molecular mechanism of homeopathic cure within the limits of “fundamental physics” and “biochemistry”.

  7. Bhimeswara Rao .V.

    After reading all the comments above, I appreciate Dr. Sai Chandran and Gagan ,and that does not mean ,others are not correct in defending Homoeopathy. Of course ,still no particular theory has been established to explain the working of Homoeopathic medicines, but What Dr. Hahnemann told us about the power inside the tiny globules can be only understood by way of change of mass into energy. This can not be refuted as nothing can be detected even with the most modern and sophisticated tools, But the results are astonishing, that too when we strictly follow Hannemanian mode of treatment in minute doses and less frequent doses. As this rule is not followed by certain Homoeopaths, there are failures. If the majority follow, the strict administration advised by the old stalwarts, NO system can beat Homoeopathy and there would be no scope for people like Dr. Venkatraman to comment like this.

    • Chandran K C

      I do not agree with the view that “the power inside the tiny globules can be only understood by way of change of mass into energy”. Anybody with minimum knowledge of physics cannot say matter could be converted to energy by the simple mechanical process of dilution and succussion done during potentization. Even if such an energy is “liberated”, it cannot be preserved in bottles or sugar pills!

      Some homeopaths say our potentized drugs contain ‘atomic energy’!

      Mechanical energy applied during trituations may break the inter-molecular bonds in the drug substances, and they would be divided maximum up to the level of constituent molecules and ions. Further division to atomic level will not happen, since nobody can generate such a high amount of energy by ‘trituration’ to break the very strong chemical bonds between atoms inside molecules. Imagining about ‘conversion’ of matter into energy by potentization reflects utter ignorance of fundamentals of physics.

      More over, medicinal properties of a substance is decided by the structure and chemical properties of constituent molecules of that drug substance. If those molecules were divided further into atoms or subatomic particles as some people imagine, the medicinal properties would have been lost.

      For example, the medicinal properties of nux vomica is based on the structure and properties of various chemical molecules contained in it, such as strychnine, brucine etc. Strychnine is C21H22N2O2. Brucine is C23H26N2O4. If these molecules were divided into atomic level during trituration or potentization, there will be only carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen remaining. Both strychnine and brucine contain same atoms. It is the difference in their stuctural level oranaization that give them different chemical and medicinal properties. If substances are divided into atoms during potentization, potentized brucine and strychnine will not differ in medicinal properties, since both of them contain same atoms.

      Logically, there is only a single way by which the medicinal properties of complex drug molecules could be transeferred to medium during potentization. It is ‘molecular imprinting. Individual molecules and ions being part of the drug substance are subjected to molecular imprinting during potentization. These ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules are the exact active principles of potentized drugs, which act as therapeutic agents by binding to pathogenic molecules and thereby removing molecular inhibitions.

      There is no such a thing called ‘drug energy’ that can be liberated from drug substances and ‘transferred’ to another medium abandoning the drug substances. Medicinal properties of substances come from the ‘structure’ of individual constituent molecules contained in drug substances. In the absence of ‘drug molecules’, there cannot be any ‘drug energy’. During potentization, through the process of molecular imprinting, the supramolecular structure of water is changed, and it is this ‘changed water’ or molecular imprints that act as therapeutic agents. It has nothing to do with ‘liberation’ or ‘transfer’ of drug energy. Only molecular imprinting.

  8. Gagan

    Heights of ignorance. If he calls Homeopathy just a placebo – what about the effects of homeopathy on a 1 week child who does not even know he is given homeopathy pills.
    And his comment about 1 molecule is incorrect. In fact, there is no molecule of original substance remaining in the homeopathic medicine. Avogadros law state that 1 mole of a substance contains 6.023 c 10 (power of 23) molecules. At the minimum, the homeopathic medicine is diluted 1:100 more than 30 times- so no molecule remains as per avogadros law.

    I am a follower of homeopathy – read it like a Bible for the past 20 years. I pity this Nobel Laureate!  


  10. vishal

    I am nobody to comment on the field of medicine but I am pretty happy to know that I am not a nobel laureate. How illiterate/ignorant someone could be to end up becoming a Nobel laureate. When he comments about ‘Ancient India and Planes 2000 years ago’, he completely forgets the fact that the western religions didn’t even exist during that time. How can someone prove that it existed? The word ‘Vimana’ exists for cartoon shows, is it?
    Entire western scholarly pursuit is based on questioning and to an extent distrust. so for and example, they want Indians to prove that planes existed. Creating doubts at each step of pursuit of knowledge. In gurukul system student was encouraged to be inquisitive but would not doubt when Guru tell the truth because there was trust. Anyways important question is not whether plane existed or not, the fact that you are calling us Ancient India means that India existed.

  11. DrHemender pratap

    I am a fan sir!!
    U r great…
    But all these attacks will only stop, when we find a base for our practise…
    Till when do we have to run along with the alkaloids and all those dilutions of them….lets just get MIT be that platform for “homoeopathic modus operandi”
    I will be waiting for the revolution…

  12. Lol – these are too funny. Homeopathy is a farce and the esteemed Dr. Venkatraman Ramakrishnan is to be applauded for supporting science and not myth.

  13. Kamakshi Narayanan

    Nearly 40 years of practicing homeopathy makes me only say – ” Father forgive him, for he knows not what he says ” !
    Dr. Kamakshi Narayanan, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu

  14. Dr.Nalini Bajaj

    Do they believe in basic atomic theory ? Then they have to progress further.. Farther and deeper to know Homoeopathic real realm…
    We as practising Homoeopaths witness its working routinely . Our patients and care gucers are witnesses…
    Although.. The expression they use is ,” oh, its magical.” ..
    I am very proud of the fact that I as a homoeopath am able to serve and cure where they have lost hope for a recovery..

  15. I am a cardiac surgeon; To be frank, I feel shy to make any comment the efficiency of other specialities like neuro surgery, ophthalmology, etc. and also on homeopathy, Ayurveda, – as I do not possess either profeiciency or expertise.

    1. It looks funny to me when I find VR contradicting his own statement ” sometimes scientists propose ideas well outside their area of expertise and make mistakes” . He has knowledge only in the subjects of physics, chemistry, & biology.

    To understand what is modern medicine it takes 5.5 years through MBBS, another 3 years of MD/MS for specilization and further 3 year course DM / MCh for superspecilization – to give a opinion strongly in a narrow specialised field. Similarly the other alternative medicines also have their own structured course to learn.

    I don’t understand in what capacity he could make such bold meaningless statement in a field where he does not have any expertise – neither in modern medicine nor in homeopathy.

    2. The next contradiction is : “They (homoeopaths) take arsenic compounds and dilute it to such an extent that just a molecule is left. It will not make any effect on you” If that is so, why should he say homeopathy is harmful
    when it does not have any effect better than a tap water.

    3. Placebo by definition is a pharmacologically inert preparation prescribed more for the mental relief of the patient than for its actual effect on a disorder. In such case how can homeopathy drugs which he considers as placebo to contain arsenic. If he beliieves that it contains arsenic then it can not become a placebo.

    This reminds me a Tamil proverb”even elephant skids at times while walking” Hence let us pardon him.

    • Shoumo

      Dr. Sai Chandran,
      It is quite painful that you, as a “cardiac surgeon” don’t see the contradictions in your own statements of rebuttal. Not sure whether this will help changing a mindset towards homeopathy, but here are more explicit details to the contradictions in your rebuttal.

      1. VR is a biological scientist directly involved in the field of Protein Ribosome complexes. If you are familiar with his or any such structural biologists work, you will find that they tread path directly with the mechanisms how drugs are targetted to our body to cure ailments. So that gives his statement enough credibility when he makes such remarks about homeopathy and he is not going out of his field of expertise.

      2. In some cases the dilution is 10^-200 times leaving no molecules left in the solution but water/alcohol. Remember there are 10^23 numbers of molecules in one mole of substance. So yes they are not harmful in general terms. But for someone suffering from a curable/life-threatening illness is offered only a homeopathic option for his treatment then it is harmful and that is what he means.

      3. The Human body naturally contains 0.000007% arsenic. If you add a potent (strongly diluted) homeopathic dose of arsenic that would less (refer point 2 above) or no arsenic molecules to one’s body. So yes it is acting as a placebo if it in anyways curing someone of a disease. None of the controlled randomized studies so far has demonstrated the efficacy of a homeopathic concoction above placebo effect. Here is one such study.

      When common people with no knowledge of science and its rigorous testing protocols for a new drug poses such flawed remarks it is a duty of a doctor to clear his/her doubts. I found it unnecessary to comment on author’s ridiculous irrational open letter because he in his biography mentions that he is a self-taught homeopath, and thus I understand his irrational biases towards this pseudoscience. But it is appalling that a person claiming to be a cardiac surgeon has such flawed ideas about his own field of practice. Hope you would be able to open up your mind to see the bigger picture.

      • Chandran K C


        Sir, is it not an “irrational bias” on your part to say “I found it unnecessary to comment on author’s ridiculous irrational open letter because he in his biography mentions that he is a self-taught homeopath, and thus I understand his irrational biases towards this pseudoscience”? As you have came to my page and made such a comment, you are obliged to explain what “ridiculous” thing you found in my article. If you think it is “unnecessary” to answer a “self taught” person, you should have avoided commenting on my page! Where from you got the idea that all “self taught” persons are less knowledgeable and “ridiculous” and “biased” than you? Please read my articles on homeopathy before making such a hasty judgement. Please understand, knowledge is knowledge, whether it is “self taught” or “taught by others”. Learn to respect knowledge!

        Regarding the comments of VR on the issue of drug actions, I have no objections upon his expertise as a molecular biologidt involved in study of ribosomes. But remember, he is an expert in the biological mechanism of drug actions in MOLECULAR FORM. Homeopathy is not using drugs in molecular form, but in MOLECULAR IMPRINTS FORMS. That is a big difference! To understand the biological mechanism of homeopathy using drugs in MOLECULAR IMPRINTS forms, VR’s present expertise in ribosomes is not enough. He should study MOLECULAR IMPRINTING involved in homeopathic POTENTIZATION. Once you learn about drugs in MOLECULAR IMPRINTS form, you will relaize that such drugs act by a biological mechanism entirely different from what is currently researched by VR. Only then VR as well as YOURSELF will become competent to comment about homeopathy or my articles.

        Please do not be under the notion that you are ‘know-alls’, and you can judge lightly everything and everybody. Do not be under the notion that all others outside the range of your knowledge are ‘know nothings’! Plrase do not be under the notion that all “common people” are people “with no knowledge of science and its rigorous testing protocols”, and that what ever they say are “flawed remarks”. There are also a lot of people known as great scientists, who have no any scientific world outlook, even practice ‘pujas’ and religious rituals before starting a scientific project, believe in astrology and such things. If being a scientist will by itself make a person very knowledgeable to comment on everything, why those scientists behave so much irrational? Please understand, even though I am not a scientist by profession, I am more scientific in my world outlook than those scientists you boast about!

        • Shoumo

          Dear Mr. Chandran,
          My sincere apologies to you. I guess I find some of the claims here such unscientific and baseless that inherent irrationality in my brain momentarily took control over me while I was writing those comments. I am really sorry for those words.
          However, I totally stand by the points I have made in my statement regarding homeopathy, which I have supported with references as you might have noted.
          I have heard about the claim of molecular imprints before however whenever such new ideas are coined specially with reference to biological sciences it is based with a well studied publication and followed by a number of successful reproduction by its peers. I have not seen or rather never came accross such work which are published in peer reviewed journals. If you have knowledge of any such publications please post the references.
          I don’t want to go for a personal comment and I am going to mention it outright that I am, or so I guess VR is definitely not a “know all” person. However there are few basic scientific facts on how drugs and molecules interact with the biological molecules (proteins, carbohydrates, lipids etc) that a person like VR (and to some extent me) are aware of. And with that fundamental knowledge we find homeopathic to be irrational.
          So far there was only one such paper discussing molecular imprint sent to Nature and was later retracted because the results could never be replicated infront of the peers:

          I am thus not sure on what basis do you make such claims. I agree there are people with lot of knowledge who practise alternative medicine. But, if there is any true science to such method and demonstrates positive impact they need to be published in a controlled manner to claim its action or else they would be considered as a plain placebo. Hope you understand my rational deduction towards homeopathy.

          • Chandran K C

            I understand your stand. Sorry that I used some harsh words in my previous comment.

  16. Samson aseervatham


  17. gpr

    when all the world can do without homeopathy, India also can do better by getting rid of all those practices that are not universal; and following them simply because they are ours and defending them even when most indians dont need them

    • Chandran Nambiar

      Sure. You have the right to go without homeopathy, if you dont need it. Please comment on topics on which you do not have at least a base-line idea.

  18. Chandran Nambiar

    Reblogged this on DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY.

  19. Yes, it seems he has expressed his frustration over his disappointment. Such person of course do not deserve any respect, it could be his impulsive reaction. Though I am an Indian but naturalised Malaysian, I still feel proud of mymotherland (origin) where I was born. You should not bite the hand that fed you. We teach about civilisation to the world, We have the best brains in the world. Never ever despise Mr. Venga (onion in Tamil Language. Vengayam you are.

  20. Chandran Nambiar

    Now I feel a bit sorry for the first para of my ‘open letter’ to him in which I said as follows: “Sir, we all Indians are proud of you for your glorious achievements as a scientist, and your contributions to the advanced studies on structure and functions of ribosomes, that was duely recognized by the Swedish academy awarding the Nobel prize in 2009. We are very much happy to welcome you to your home land”.

    He may be a nobel-winner scientist. But through his comments he has proved he is not a good human being deserving our respect.

    • Dear Chandran,

      I liked your article and yes, I thought you were too kind to him. At a time when homeopathy is fighting for it’s life against the billion dollar Pharmaceutical industry, these careless remarks from a Nobel Prize winner were irresponsible and terribly damaging. It surprises me that someone coming from a culture steeped in homeopathy could be totally unaware of it. There is an old saying, that “a way of knowing is a way of not knowing”. His chemistry mindset prevents him from seeing other dynamics in the universe. His Nobel Prize was for chemistry, not for knowledge of everything. I define a skeptic of homeopathy as someone who has never taken a well chosen remedy. So here is a man who has never taken a remedy, who believes he is wiser than doctors who have studied and practiced it for a lifetime. What arrogance and, actually ignorance.

  21. Chandran Nambiar

    COMMENT: It is unfortunate that these comments ever appeared in press. Influx of emails, should have been expected. And if he didn’t want them, the email address should have been promptly removed from his home page at Cambridge. I once wrote to Nobel Winners in 1998, and Robert Laughlin, Physics from Stanford found the time to reply!

    Many Indians go abroad for opportunities and various other reasons. Educated elites end up in the United States, mostly because of the abundance of opportunities and facilities. Normal people end up in Gulf countries for a living. At the end of the day, each one of them could blame the mother country for not giving them the job they wanted or deserved! Well, that is one way to approach. But there are many who in spite of the bad experiences they had at home, take a positive view once they reach heights abroad!

    Here some of the comments made by Venkat Ramakrishnan, should not have been made. They might have been spontaneous reactions. The higher one goes, the more humble one should be. India is a lareg country with 1.3 billlion people. Comments like “why bother me?” , “if offered, I will refuse the job in India” etc show that in spite of being a genius molecular biologist, he has to learn some decorum regarding public talking and statements. If India is such a bad idea, why is he visiting Indian Institute of Science at all?? The contents of the comments were less important,,, the tone and timing were bad enough! “The fact that I am of Indian origin is less important” – immature comments like this should not have come from a Nobel Laureate at all. It is true that we are all human beings, and our nationality is an accident of birth. Yes, still ethnic origin is a feature which is visible and cannot be discarded altogether in today’s world. Changing the passport doesn’t change the person!!!

    On the other hand, dis-associating with India and Indians, is a typical characteristic exhibited by white-collar well-off Indians living in the UK! This has been the theme of BBC Comedy Show “Goodness Gracius Me!”. We hope, Venkatraman is not suffering from this syndrome. It appears that the Nobel Laureate while doing excellent work in the lab, seems to have lost touch with ground!

  22. Chandran Nambiar

    Venkatraman Ramakrishnan has expressed disenchantment with people from India “bothering” him “clogging” up his e-mail box and dubbed as “strange” their sudden urge to reach out to him.

    “All sorts of people from India have been writing to me, clogging up my e-mail box. It takes me an hour or two to just remove their mails,” he said.

    He said the deluge of e-mails had buried important communications from colleagues or from journals.

    “Do these people have no consideration? It is okay to take pride in the event, but why bother me?” the 57-year-old Indian-American scientist wondered in an e-mail interview to PTI.

    “There are also people who have never bothered to be in touch with me for decades who suddenly feel the urge to connect. I find this strange,” said Ramakrishnan, who shared this year’s Nobel Prize for Chemistry with two others.

    He expressed anguish over “all sorts of lies” published about him in a section of the media that he went to school and pre-Science in Chidambaram, the Tamil Nadu temple town where he was born in 1952.

    “People I don’t know, for example a Mr Govindrajan, claim that they were my teachers at Annamalai University which I never attended, since I left Chidambaram at the age of three,” Ramakrishnan clarified.

    Ramakrishnan said that it was a good thing if his winning the Nobel Prize encouraged people to read about the work, read books and take interest in science.

    “But I, personally, am not important. The fact that I am of Indian origin is even less important. We are all human beings, and our nationality is simply an accident of birth,” he said.

    On reports that he has been shortlisted for a job in India, Ramakrishnan said he was in no mood to leave his laboratory in Cambridge where he was enjoying his work.

    “Nobody has approached me about an offer to work in India. However, I can categorically state that if they did so, I would refuse immediately,” he said.

    He was reacting to questions about reports that his name was being considered for the post of Director of the country’s premier lab Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology.

    “I cannot imagine a more enjoyable place to work than in the Laboratory of Molecular Biology where I work,” he said citing a “variety of professional and personal reasons” for continuing the work at Cambridge.

    Ramakrishanan said he was a visiting professor at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, to which he makes trips for a couple of weeks every other year.

  23. Shantanu Abhyankar

    Kudos to dr venky for his candid comments. h pathy is NOT a major public health discipline in India. Hpathy is embraced by students as a back door entry to modern medicine. ultimately 99% are forced to gain rudimentary clinical experience and start gp using drugs from modern medicine. so called research in hpathy is of very poor quality and it is yet to be proved if hpathy works!!!

  24. After reading your article I too started suspecting the practice of homeopathy. A confluence of hypothesis formulated out of a dream of a doctor.

  25. Dear Dr. Nambiar,

    I am very happy to read the letter, which is full of true and sincere reflections of our feelings. No doubt, Homeopathy is a scientific, natural and effective system of treatment. We face similar criticism even in Europe, where many people are totally ignorant of this divine science and art of natural treatment. This is because, these people never read a single page of Homeopathic Philosophy or “Organan of Rational Medicine” or tried Homeopathy in need.

    It is really a pity, that in so called developed countries in Europe, people are so naive and ignorant about Homeopathy. My many learned friends like Mr John Benneth are facing these comments regularly and snubbing the idiotic nuisance. But, as you know deaf hears nothing and blinds see nothing. In my opinion these super scientists are both. Either they trying to show that they are wise than God, Nature and our master Dr. Hahnemann or paid a large sum to harm Homeopathy in favour of big pharmaceutical companies around the world. I think the history is repeating , as you know this happened about 100 years ago in the USA, where Homeopathy was very popular and flourishing like wild fire and big pharmaceuticals did everything to shun the Homeopathy.

    We need to unite and keep fighting with our best performance, honesty and being true followers of Dr Hahnemann, as it becomes our moral duty to keep Homeopathy live indefinitely.

    I extend all my support to you and all Homeopaths in this mission.

    With best wishes,

    Dr Shashi Mohan Sharma
    Director & Principal
    Hahnemann College of Homeopathy – UK

  26. Dr.A.Shanthakumar

    I whole heatedly appreciate your move. I am going through each article carefully. I have stared to explain Homeopathy on the basis of Molecular imprint.

  27. Vansh Luniya

    Respected Chandran sir,
    gud evng.
    Your letter to noble lauret Dr.Venkatraman, is indeed a ‘tight slap’ on the faces of old school guys.
    Till when we homoeopaths will suffer from such attacks?
    We should also fight for our selfrespect.
    And not just go on hearing such ‘noble laurets’ and non followers.
    We will fight for our rights and keep growing.
    -Vansh Luniya.


  1. No! Homeopathy Is Not ‘Fake’! An Open Letter To Dr.Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Nobel Laureate. | Dr. Jafer Sadiq MP

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: