Selected Facebook Updates And Tweets Of Chandran K C On Scientific Homeopathy- Volume IV
Not only allopathy, but all ‘medical systems’ except homeopathy use ‘molecular forms’ of drugs as therapeutic agents. Homeopathy uses only ‘molecular imprints’. That is what make homeopathy something ‘special’.
Molecular forms of drugs can act on biological molecules, and hence can produce unexpected off’target molecular inhibitions. That is why they produce dangerous side effects and chronic ‘drug-induced’ or iatrogenic diseases. Any ,edical system that uses ‘molecular forms’ of drugs poses this danger.
Molecular imprints contained in potentized homeopathic drugs act only on pathogenic molecules having specific conformational affinity. They cannot interfere or prevent the normal interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands. As such, they cannot produce any off-target biomolecular inhibitions, or produce any side effects or ‘drug induced’ disease. That is why homeopathy is 100% safe.
Obviously, homeopathy is the only safe medicine! Homeopaths should learn to explain this ‘biochemistry of homeopathic safety’ to their patients and to the whole world!
COPY OF LETTER I SENT TO CCRH TODAY:
From: Similimum <email@example.com> To ccrh <firstname.lastname@example.org >
Chandran K C
K C House, Kovunthala.
Sub: Appointing a sub-committee for considering the viability of MIT concepts- requested- regarding
I have been proposing a scientific hypothesis regarding a scientific model for biological mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics, which is known as MIT concepts.
Homeopathy cannot advance further as a medical science without accepting MIT concepts as an integral part of its theoretical and practical framework, because it is the most perfect, rational and scientific explanation for homeopathy.
MIT is not ‘just another’ brand or school competing for appropriating a share in the homeopathic market, already saturated with and spoiled by various commercial brands and schools. MIT is only a scientific explanation of homeopathy. An advanced phase in the historical evolution of homeopathy.
According to MIT concepts, active principles of potentized drugs are MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or HYDROSOMES, which are nanocavities engraved into water-ethyl alcohol supramolecular matrix through a peculiar process called POTENTIZATION. Potentization actually involves ‘host-guest’ molecular interactions exactly similar to that is commonly utilized by polymer chemists in preparing molecular imprinted polymers. Only difference is, homeopathy uses water-ethyl alcohol mixture as imprinting medium, where as polymer chemists use polymers.
Any potentized drug contain diverse types of molecular imprints representing diverse types of individual constituent molecules being part of drug substance used for potentization. By acting as ‘artificial key holes’, these individual molecular imprints can bind to specific pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity, there by relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions they are subjected to in disease conditions. This is the exact biological mechanism of homeopathic cure.
I have written hundreds of articles explaining diverse aspects of this concept, which are attached herewith
You can also see my facebook pages where these concepts are actively being discussed as well as my blogs
I would request CCRH to urgently consider MIT concepts seriously. A sub-committee of experts should be appointed to look into its viability and implications, and recommend future course of actions and research projects on MIT. I shall be always available to co-operate without any personal reservations or interests, if you ask me to do so.
I would request CCH and CCRH to urgently consider MIT concepts seriously. A sub-committee of experts should be appointed to look into its viability and implications, and recommend future course of actions and research projects on MIT. I shall be always available to co-operate without any personal reservations or interests, if they ask me to do so.
Homeopathy cannot advance further as a medical science without accepting MIT concepts as an integral part of its theoretical and practical framework, because it is the most perfect, rational and scientific explanation for homeopathy.
MIT is not ‘just another’ brand or school competing for appropriating a share in the homeopathic market, already saturated with and spoiled by various commercial brands and schools. MIT is only a scientific explanation of homeopathy. An advanced phase in the historical evolution of homeopathy. A new approach. A new perspective. Nothing else.
Vested interests and prejudices of influential people may create hurdles and delay its universal acceptance for some time, but it is inevitable that it should happen. MIT will be the future homeopathy. Wait and see.
Oxford Dictionary defines homeopathy as : “A system of complementary medicine in which ailments are treated by minute doses of natural substances that in larger amounts would produce symptoms of the ailment”.
Homeopaths also define homeopathy as a therapeutic system that cures diseases with “small doses” of drug substances which could produce similar symptoms in healthy people when used in “large doses”.
If you think over it deeply, you will realize that these definitions are factually incorrect. How can you define potentized drugs as ‘small’ doses of ‘drug substances’, when they are diluted to such an extent that there cannot be even a single drug molecule present in them?
A homeopathic preparation diluted above avogadro limit- above 12c- cannot be called a ‘small’ dose of drug substance. They are actually ‘NO DOSES’ of drug substances, since they contain not even a single drug molecule. There is no ‘drug substance’ in them to call ‘small doses’.
You cannot logically explain this phenomenon of curing with ‘NO DOSES’ of drug substances unless you understand and accept ‘MIT’ concepts. THEN ONLY YOU CAN DEFINE HOMEOPATHY CORRECTLY.
Once you understand and accept MIT concepts, you can define homeopathy confidently as “a therapeutic system that cures diseases using molecular imprints of drug substances which could produce symptoms similar to the disease in healthy people when used in molecular forms”.
I would request our ‘miasmatic experts’ to read carefully what hahnemann said in Organon : Aphorism 204(Sixth Edition):
“If we deduct all chronic affections, ailments and diseases that depend on a persistent unhealthy mode of living, as also those innumerable medicinal maladies caused by …the irrational,… persistent, harassing and pernicious treatment of diseases often only of trivial character by physicians of the old school, most the remainder of chronic diseases result from the development of these three chronic miasms, internal syphilis, internal sycosis, but chiefly and in infinitely greater proportion, internal psora”.
What does this statement of hahnemann show?
This statement shows, hahneman did not consider ALL chronic diseases as ‘miasmatic’, as our respected ‘interpreters’ of the master have been teaching us all through these years.
According to the above statement, master says that ‘all chronic affections’ ‘that depend on persistent unhealthy mode of living’ and ‘innumerable medicinal maladies’ are NOT ‘miasmatic’.
As per this definition, most of the ‘chronic affections’ originating from occupational, environmental, nutritional, drug-induced, faulty life styles and such others that belong to the class of ‘persistent unhealthy mode of living’ and ‘innumerable medicinal maladies” are outside the purview of MIASMATIC ANALYSIS.
In ‘Chronic Diseases : Para 139’ Hahnemann says:
“Sucklings never receive medicine; the mother or wet-nurse receives the remedy instead, and through their milk it acts on the child very quickly, mildly and beneficially”.
There are many homeopaths who use this method for treating infants, and they say it works.
If similimum selected for a patient (infant) could be administerd to another healthyindividual (nurse), and if the drug will act on the patient through the breast milk fed by the nurse, it raises many questions regarding basic assumptins of homeopathy.
I wonder what if we collect the breast milk of the nurse after administering the drug, and then bottle feeding it to the infant. Will it produce a therapeutic effect?
If potentized drugs could be delivered through breast milk of a nurse, that means the ‘active principles’ of potentized drugs consist of SOMETHING ‘material’, that could travel to the milk through blood circulation of the nurse. It disproves our belief that potentized drugs act through ‘nerves’, as there are no nerve cells present in blood or breast milk.
What if we collect the blood of the nurse after medication and transfuse it into the infant? It should work, as the active principles of medicines will be present in blood, it it has to be transferred to the breast milk.
In fact, hahnemann’s advice to administer similimum to the infant through breast milk of nurse seems to undermine some of our beliefs which are considered to be BASIC principles of homeopathy.
Skeptics claim to have ‘proved’ homeopathy does not work, by conducting ‘mass experiments’, where potentized drugs were taken by hundreds of persons in public, without producing any ‘effects’. According to them, they have ‘disproved’ homeopathy’!
Skeptic friends should know, whether homeopathy works or not cannot be proved or disproved by ‘mass administration’ experiments. Such experiments only demonstrated that skeptics do not know what exactly homeopathy is. Fundamental thing they failed to understand is that potentized drugs can produce any ‘effects’ on individuals only if they are indicated by symptoms. That means, there should be some symptom ‘groups’ exising in the individual that are exactly similar to the ‘symptom groups’ produced by by the drug during homeopathic ‘drug proving’ and compiled in the materia medica.
It will be difficult for skeptics to comprehend this fundamental fact of homeopathy, unless they understand that potentized drugs are so much diluted that they do not contain any drug ‘molecules’ as allopathic drugs.
Active principles of potentized drugs are MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or HYDROSOMES, which are nanocavities engraved into water-ethyl alcohol supramolecular matrix through a peculiar process called POTENTIZATION. Potentization actually involves ‘host-guest’ molecular interactions exactly similar to that is commonly utilized by polymer chemists in preparing molecular imprinted polymers. Only difference is, homeopathy uses water-ethyl alcohol mixture as imprinting medium, where as polymer chemists use polymers.
Any potentized drug contain diverse types of molecular imprints representing diverse types of individual constituent molecules being part of drug substance used for potentization. By acting as ‘artificial key holes’, these individual molecular imprints can bind to specific pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity, there by relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions they are subjected to in disease conditions. This is the exact biological mechanism of homeopathic cure.
Obviously, molecular imprints contained in potentized homeopathic drugs have no any action up on a living body if pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity to them are not present there. That is why potentized drugs do not produce any ‘change’ in normal people participated in the ‘mass administration’ experiments conducted by skeptics. As such, those experiments do not prove or disprove anythi g about homeopathy.
By regularly publishing hundreds of blog articles and conducting non-stop facebook discussions, I have been trying persistently to explain my MIT concepts, which proposes a scientific model for the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure, potentization and chronic miasms.
Not a single day passes for me without posting at least one article explaining my concept of ‘molecular imprints therapeutics’ and exploring its implications upon homeopathy.
Without even reading what I have laboriously written about homeopathy, or trying to understand anything about the ideas I am talking about, some friends jump in and ask me to “prove” MIT!
How can I prove my scientific concepts of homeopathy to somebody who does not know or is not willing to learn supra-molecular properties of water?
How can I prove my concepts to somebody who does not know or is not willing to learn the subject matter of molecular imprinting technology?
How can I prove my concepts to somebody who does not know or is not willing to learn the modern biochemistry and molecular biology?
How can I prove my scientific concepts of homeopathy to somebody who does not know or is not willing to learn advanced concepts of enzyme kinetics and molecular level pathology?
My request to those who ask for ‘proof for MIT concepts’ is, kindly update your basic knowledge in the topics I discuss. Then only you can follow these concepts. Then only I can ‘prove’ molecular imprints concepts to you.
Once you acquire the background knowledge and then read my articles, you will see that everything I say is simple ‘proved’ science, and only very little remains to be ‘proved’.
Why homeopaths do not realize how ridiculous it is to claim that homeopathic medicines contain a ‘spirit-like force’, independant of their material existence and properties? A ‘force’ that could be transferred from bottles to bottles, dissolved in water and alcohol, adsorbed on to sugar pills, and acting ‘dynamically’ upon the ‘vital force’ when applied on tongue? An ‘immaterial drug energy’ that is dissipated and lost by heat, magnetism or electricity? Do you think we can engage a science-conscious elite community of 21st century by talking these nonsense theories and pretending to be ‘ultra-scientific’? Do you think you can convince these foolish ‘theories’ to anybody who knows at least a high scool level science lessons?
Explain and prove the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure in scientific terms, if you want to claim homeopathy is a MEDICAL SCIENCE.
Dear homeopaths, while talking about ‘immaterial’ ‘spirit-like’ ‘dynamic healing power’, ‘liberated’ through potenization, which can be carried in corked bottles and swallowed as sugar pellets, you should be aware, how much homeopathy become a laughing stock in the eyes of scientific community.
There cannot be a ‘spiritualistic’ or ‘non-materialistic’ SCIENCE. There cannot be a DYNAMIC, SUPERSTITIOUS or OCCULT science! Science is always MATERIALISTIC, if you are using the term science in its SCIENTIFIC meaning. Science is always RATIONAL.
There cannot be a SPIRITUALISTIC medical science. You may practice a ‘spiritualistic healing art’ if you are inclined to do that. But you have no right to call your FAITH HEALING and SPIRITUAL HEALING as medical science. If you are practicing DYNAMIC healing, you can call yourselves as a HEALER- do not claim you are a PHYSICIAN.
You can talk about ‘spiritualistic’ PHILOSOPHY if you want. You can nurture ‘non-materialistic’ BELIEFS. That is your right. But you cannot call all those BELIEFS as SCIENCE.
LIFE without a body that LIVES? THOUGHTS without a brain that THINKS? Sensations without a nervous system that SENSES?
Force without a particle that carries the force? Motion without something material that moves? Volume without a mass?
Vital force without biochemical vital process? Miasms without a molecular basis? Disease without molecular errors? Dynamic medicinal energy without a medicinal substance? Cure without a material biological mechanism?
Unless homeopaths get themselves out of these superstitious notions, they cannot understand what RATIONAL SCIENTIFIC HOMEOPATHY means.
So called FAITH HEALING and MIRACLE HEALING also work by a process similar to PLACEBO, by inducing the production of ENDORPHINS in the body, which produce a temporary reduction in ‘sensation of pain’ by inhibiting the biological receptors on nerve cells, and also producing a feeling of well being. It is not CURE.
Continued exertions, acupuncture, yogic relaxations, praying, breast feeding, sexualsatisfaction, laughing, satisfying foods- there are a lot of such factors identified to be inducing production of endorphins in our body, which produce the feeling of exhilaration and happiness by acting upon the opioid receptors on neurons, thereby reducing ‘pain sensations’. It is part of an adaptive mechanism of organism for coping with stress conditions.
Any placebo effect is associated with production of endorphin in the body.
Other than placebo effect, potentized drugs selected as similimum can induce production of endorphins only if their natural production was negatively affected by some pathological conditions caused by some molecular inhibitions.
Potentized similimum can cure the pathological effects of off target actions of endorphins such as ‘depersonization’ symptoms.
NOTHING MYSTERIOUS ABOUT ‘FAITH HEALING’!
What ever be your BELIEF, my point is there should be a BIOCHEMICAL PROCESS happening in the BRAIN OF THE PATIENT for a ‘faith healing’ to happen. Such a biochemical process may be induced by the production of some endogenous molecules due to the influence of some PHYSICAL SIGNALS entering the body through his SENSE ORGANS, or some chemicals released in the body by a neurochemical process being part of AUTO SUGGESTION.
Continued exertions, acupuncture, yogic relaxations, praying, breast feeding, sexual satisfaction, laughing, satisfying foods- there are a lot of such factors identified to be inducing production of endorphins in our body, which produce the feeling of exhilaration and happiness by acting upon the opioid receptors on neurons, thereby reducing ‘pain sensations’. It is part of an adaptive mechanism of organism for coping with stress conditions.
The term ‘molecular imprints’ represents a whole class of ‘artificial binding sites’ prepared by using a process of ‘host-guest’ interactions in supramolecilar chemistry. Already there are ‘molecular imprinted polymers’. MIT explanation of homeopathy describes potentized drugs in terms of ‘molecular imprinted water’. In the near future, a whole new range of molecular imprinted substances are expected to come into existence, such as molecular imprinted nucleic acids, molecular imprinted proteins, molecular imprinted lipids, molecular imprinted sugars etc.
To avoid the chances of confusing with other molecular imprinted materials when talking about active principles of homeopathic drugs, I think we have to coin a more specific term that would specifally mean ‘molecular imprinted water’.
I would suggest a new term ‘hydrosomes’ for ‘molecular imprinted water’. The term HYDROSOMES means ‘cavities of water’, which is ideal as ‘molecular imprinted water’ is actually considered to be three-dimensional ‘nanocavities’ engraved into a supra-molecular matrix consisting of water and ethyl alcohol molecules.
Let us say active principles of potentized homeopathic drugs are HYDROSOMES, which means ‘molecular imprinted water.
Homeopathy is HYDROSOME THERAPY.
Thinking is a material activity that involves chemical interactions of biological molecules in our brain. Sensations, emotions, love, hate, grief, sorrow, happiness, pleasure, jealousy, anxiety, worry, anger, calm, expectations, despair, dreams, delusions, moods, dispositions, decision making, understanding- everything we call MENTAL have a BIOCHEMICAL PROCESS behind it. Chemical molecules and physical stimuli entering the body through drugs, foods, sense organs and environment can influence and modify these biochemical processes.
When endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules inhibit any of the biological molecules involved in these processes, molecular errors happen in our brain, which are reflected through abnormal mental symptoms.
Molecular imprints contained in potentized drugs can bind to specific pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity, thereby relieving the biological molecules from molecular inhibitions. Normal biochemical processes are restored in the brain, and the abnormal mental symptoms disappear. This is the biological mechanism of mental symptoms their homeopathic cure.
What we call STRESS is actually ‘molecular errors’ in the neuro-endocrine system, produced by endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules, OR, biochemical effects of ‘physical’ stimuli upon the nervous system entering through various SENSE ORGANS. Such molecular errors induce cascading effects in different biochemical pathways in the organism, resulting in diverse types of MENTAL and PHYSICAL ailments. All these are MATERIAL phenomena.
Once a SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS is formulated, we have to PROVE it by scientific methods so that it will be elevated to the status of a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
In order to PROVE a hypothesis, first we have to frame certain PREDICTIONS on the basis of the given hypothesis which could be then verified by scientific experiments. If the PREDICTIONS are proved right by experiments, the hypothesis consideredPROVED. This is the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
MIT proposes a scientifically viable WORKING HYPOTHESIS for biological mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics, that could be presented as a candidate for verification according to scientific method. I need the involvement of my friends in the present phase of framing appropriate predictions that could be scientifically verified for proving MIT HYPOTHESIS. If you have understood the essence of MIT concepts, and got an idea of what are the essential points to be verified for PROVING it, kindly suggest some logical PREDICTIONS to be experimented.
The phenomena we call VITAL FORCE is actually the effects of complex MATERIAL biochemical molecular processes happening in the living organism. Once these molecular processes cease, vital force also cease to exist. Concept of a VITAL FORCE that ‘animates’ the body, ‘rules’ the vital processes, leaves the body during death, and exists ‘free’ from material body is the contribution of pre-scientific SPIRITUALISTIC philosophy.
MIND is nothing but the functional product of neuro-chemical interactions happening in BRAIN and central nervous system. SENSATIONS are the chemical processes in nervous system produced by external or internal physical stimuli. DREAMS and DELUSIONS are the products of chemical processes happening in neurons in the brain. DISEASES are molecular errors happening in essential biochemical pathways. MENTAL SYMPTOMS are reflections of of molecular errors in the brain. CURE is the removal of molecular errors. DEATH is the complete irreversible disruption and stoppage of vital biochemical processes.
THERE IS NOTHING ‘IMMATERIAL’ IN LIFE, DISEASE, CURE- AND IN HOMEOPATHY.
My work on ‘miasms’ started from two basic convictions:
Firstly, I am convinced that infectious diseases have life-long residual effects on our organism, producing chronic constitutional disease dispositions.
Secondly, I am convinced that any disposition, disease, sensation, mental condition, emotion or constitutional tendency will have a material, ‘molecular level’ biochemical basis underlying it, and a biological mechanism through which it is executed.
Begining with hahnemann’s observation that ‘miasms’ are chronic disease dispositions produced by infectious diseases, I wanted to know the molecular level material basis of miasms, and the biological mechanism by which they produce chronic diseases.
My inquiry was, how can an infectious disease produce ‘residual effects’ in the body even after the infection is over. What remains in the body that can produce such a residual effect?
One thing common to all infectious agents are that all of them introduce some chemical molecules of protein nature into the host, which act as antigens and lead to the production of ‘antibodies’ or immune substances that help the body to fight the invading infectious agents.
Antibodies are native globulin proteins imprinted with antigens, and can bind to the specific antigens by conformational affinity. These antibodies remain in the organism even after the infection is over.
It is these antibodies generated in the organism against specific infectious agents, that produce ‘residual effects’ which hahnemann called miasms. Antibodies circulate in the body, and can bind to various ‘off target’ bilogical molecules such as receptors and enzymes, producing molecular inhibitions in various biochemic pathways. They produce many chronic pathological conditions we call as ‘auto immune’ diseases. Antibodies can even bind to enzymes involved in biochemical processes of genetic expressions, producing phenotype changes in constitutions. It is these phenotype changes that underlie the dispositions we call ‘miasmatic constitutions’.
I have identified the material level molecular basis of ‘miasms’, and explained the biological mechanism by which they produce ‘chronic disease dispositions’. I think my work has contributed in the scientific advancement of hahnemann’s concept of miasms, thereby making it fitting to the modern scientific knowledge system. I have shown that masm is not an unscientific belief, but a scientific fact.
According hahnemann, MIASMS are not INFECTIOUS DISEASES as such- but miasms are CHRONIC DISEASE DISPOSITIONS produced by infectious diseases. Miasm is the chronic RESIDUAL effects of infectious diseases that remain IMPRINTED in the organism for the whole life, which produces disease dispositions, constitutional derangement, and obstructions to cure. Please note that point.
Modern ‘miasmatic experts’ ignore the fact that no where hahnemann talks about miasms unconnected with ‘infectious diseases’. If you read ‘chronic diseases’ carefully, you will realize that hahnemann considered miasms ONLY as ‘chronic disease dispositions’ produced by infectious diseases. He says very specifically that PSORA is the miasm of INFECTIOUS ITCH, SYPHILIS is the miasm of SYPHILIS INFECTION, and SYCOSIS is the miasm of FIGWARTS/GONORRHOEA infection.
It is the later ‘interpreters’ who disconnected miasms from infectious diseases, and started to explain miasms as ‘constitutional dispositions’, ‘genetic inheritence’, ‘original sin’, ‘mental make up’ ‘deviated vital force’ and such things, thereby creating all confusions now known as ‘miasmatic analysis’.
If you really want to study hahnemann’s concept of miasms, and to understand my scientific explanations for it, you should start by carefully reading ‘chronic diseases’. You will be gravely misguided if you try to learn miasms from the works of later interpreters known as ‘miasmatic experts’- they have hijacked hahnemann’s original idea to make it fit to the nonsense theories and methods they propagate. They are confusing the whole homeopathic community with their futile intellectual pretensions and obscurantism in the name of ‘miasmatic analysis’, masking their own ignorance and confusions by playing with complex phrases meaning of which even they fail to understand.
What is the ESSENCE OF HOMEOPATHY?
Filtering out the speculative and philosophical parts of organon, ESSENCE of Similia Similibus Curentur could be summed up in scientific terms as:
“Molecular imprints of drug molecules can cure diseases caused by pathogenic molecules having functional groups similar to the drug molecules, so that the molecular imprints can deactivate the pathogenic molecules by binding to them due to the complementary conformational relationship. Molecular imprints having conformational affinity for the pathogenic molecules are identified by observing the ‘similarity’ of disease symptoms and drug symptoms, since drug molecules and pathogenic molecules having ‘similar’ functional groups can bind to similar biological targets, producing ‘similar’ molecular errors and ‘similar’ train of symptoms.”
Any substance of PROTEIN nature, alien to the genetic code of a given living organism can act as MIASM when it enters into the system, by generating antibodies that can bind to ‘off-target’ biological molecules and produce pathological molecular inhibitions. Bacteria, virus, vaccines, body fluids of other animals, venoms, biological toxins, deformed proteins or any other substance of protein structure that do not agree with the genetic code of the host can act as miasms. Hahhnemann studied only ITCH, GONORRHOEA AND SYPHILIS, since those three infectious agents were most rampant in europe during his time, causing many chronic disease conditions in the population. Hahnemann never said miasms are ONLY three.
Miasm of PSORA is the term hahnemann used for the life long ‘chronic disease disposition’ caused by antibodies formed in the body gainst Infectious agents of itch’. These antibodies can produce diverse types of pathological molecular errors in variois essential biochemical pathways by binding to ‘off-target’ biological molecules such as enzymes and receptors, thereby causing diverse types of constitutional derangements and chronic diseases. Most of the diseases we call ‘auto immune diseases’ are actually caused by PSORA.
Once scientific community realizes that homeopathic potentization is a process of ‘drug designing by molecular imprinting in water’, and ‘molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs work by acting as ‘artificial binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules due to their specific ‘conformational affinity’, homeopathy will be universally recognized as an advanced branch of modern MEDICAL SCIENCE.
Every one has an intellectual barricade with in his mind! A barricade of strong rock-like prejudices, convictions, beliefs and world out look formed through long course of learning and life experiences.
Any new idea that contradict the existing convictions will be stubbornly resisted.
It is a very difficult task for me to break the intellectial barricades of homeopathic minds, and convince them something about the scientific basis of homeopathy that goes against what they believed to be ‘ultimate truths’ so far.
Now I am into that highly challenging task – bit by bit, inch by inch, day by day forward. Like the legendary stone cutter of esop’s fable, I would keep on striking, until finally the stone is crushed to pieces by a last stroke.
And I know, every seemingly futile single stroke made earlier matters a lot in making the final stroke a success- final break will be the cumulative effect of every earlier strokes.
That knowledge keeps me going with my work!
According to my view, drugs belong to two categories:
1. MOLECULAR FORMS- crude drugs, mother tinctures, triturations and potencies below avogadro limit or 12 C belong to this category. They act by their chemical properties exactly similar to allopathic drugs. Use of drugs in molecular forms cannot be considered homeopathy.
2. MOLECULAR IMPRINTS FORMS- drugs potentized 12c and above. These drugs are diluted above avogadro limit, and contain only molecular imprints of constituent drug molecules. They act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity, thereby removing pathological molecular inhibitions of biological molecules. Genuine homeopathy uses only molecular imprints forms of drugs.
Any potency above 12C contain only molecular imprints, and they act similar way. Ideal potency is 12c. . I use 30C, since 12c is not freely available in market.
Once you understand MIT concepts, selection of potency ceases to be an issue, if you have selected the right drug.
Many homeopaths produce excellent results by making right prescriptions by observing and studying symptoms, and then INTERPRET those cases publicly in very incorrect and prejudiced ways, in order to justify some or other methods they are very fond of. They want to establish their success as a success of the particular ‘methods’ they follow- not as success of homeopathy. They ‘publish’ their cases to promote their ‘methods’- not to promote homeopathy. Followers of predictive, sehgal, sankaran- all those people use this tactics for promoting their particular schools. They will talk about ‘digging out deep sensations’, ‘themes’, ‘miasmatic background’, ‘mind remedy’, ‘kingdoms’, ‘periodic table’, ’embryonic layers’ and such things depending upon their ‘schools’. One thing common to them is, they will not say they prescribed by ‘totality of symptoms’.
Homeopathic prescriptions should be based on TOTALITY of symptoms. PHYSICAL and MENTAL. GENERAL and PARTICULAR. MENTAL symptoms, especially if they reflect an ABNORMAL state of affairs in the organism, is very important. But we should not ignore ABNORMAL physical symptoms also. Molecular level errors in the organism are expressed through PHYSICAL and MENTAL symptoms. TOTALITY approach is the most reliable and perfect homeopathic approach, even though even a SINGLE ‘specific’ mental or physical symptom acting as ‘key notes’ may lead us to a remedy in rare occasions.
Can there be a homeopathic contraceptive?
POTENTIZED DRUGS cannot work as contraceptives. CONCEPTION and PREGNANCY are natural PHYSIOLOGICAL processes. Molecular imprints contained in potentized drugs cannot prevent normal interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands.
From MIT perspective, a PERFECT SIMILIMUM, is a drug that contains ALL the diverse types of chemical molecules that could have produced during drug proving ALL the diverse types of molecular inhibitions and symptoms exactly similar to the patient we prescribe for.
Such a drug in potentized form would contain ALL the diverse types of molecular imprints required to remove ALL the diverse types of molecular inhibitions in the patient.
If the selected drug does not contain ALL the diverse types of molecular imprints required for the patient, it will be PARTIAL SIMILIMUM only.
In such cases, we can make it a PERFECT SIMILIMUM by combining two or more PARTIAL SIMILIMUMS together as indicated by the symptoms, so that our prescription would contain ALL the diverse types of molecular imprints required to remove ALL the diverse types of pathological molecular errors in the patient, thereby producing a TOTAL CURE.
According to MIT view, even a substance we consider ‘SINGLE DRUG’ is not really single, if it contains more than one type of ACTIVE UNITS that act on different biological targets. Once we realize and accept this scientific fact, we need not worry about ‘single drug/multiple drug issue.
Did you see the Hpathy interview of Peter Chappel? He is an ‘international’ homeopath who markets downloadable ‘mp3 files of homeopathic drugs’ to be played in poultry farms to prevent/cure ‘bird flu’!!! He ‘records’ the ‘vibrations’ of potentized drugs in mp3 format, which when ‘played’ in poultry farms will prvent and cure bird flu by ‘resonance’!
He markets ‘homeopathic mp3 files’ for AIDS also! And he says a lot of research studies conducted in africa have proved that they cure HIV very effectively. He had sent cds of potentized drugs haiti to treat cholera epidemic there!
I personally requested Dr Manish Bhatia to be a little selective and principled in highlighting this type of people promoting unscientific ideas in homeopathy, as Hpathy is seen by homeopaths as a reliable reference source. But he said, until we prove so, nothing could be called wrong or unscientific- every idea has to be given a try.
Tha means, we should not call this ‘mp3’ homeopathy a nonsense, unless we conduct some ‘research’ and prove it is ‘unscientific’! Existing scientific knowledge and common sense is not enough?
“Homoeopathic medicines are effective in injuries. Any type of molecular inhibition results after injuries?”
Pathogenic molecules may be ENDOGENOUS or EXOGENOUS. In injuries, pathogenic molecules are ENDOGENOUS- if infections did not happen.
A physical INJURY means a DAMAGE to any tissue. It may be burns, scalds, sprains, strains, fractures, cuts, contusions, bruises, abrasions etc etc. BURNS may be caused by chemicals, heat, radiations or many factors.
In any injury, there is DAMAGE to tissues. CELLS are damaged, resulting in release of of various catecholamines, cytokines, histamines and various CHEMICAL MOLECULES that initiate INFLAMMATORY processes, depending upon the nature of injury and the tissue affected. Various normal conversions and transportation of metabolites are obstructed, and they accumulate in various locations where they inhibit other biological molecules. PAIN, BURNING, SWELLING, NUMBNESS- all abnormal sensations are the effects of INHIBITIONS these ENDOGENOUS molecules produce in different biochemical pathways.
NO doubt, INJURIES are associated with MOLECULAR ERRORS. There cannot be an injury without any molecular error.
If you are asking about MENTAL or EMOTIONAL injury, they are molecular level errors produced by various ENDOGENOUS neurochemicals released in excess into the brain, by the action of various PHYSICAL influences such as auditory, tactile, visual, or olfactory stimuli.
According to the ‘key-lock’ model of biochemical processes proposed by modern science, biological molecules act as ‘locks’, and their natural ligands as ‘keys’.
Pathogenic molecules and drug molecules act as ‘fake keys’ that can mimic the natural keys due to their conformational similarity with the ‘ligands’ and block the ‘key-holes’, thereby preventing ‘natural keys’ from interacting with their legitimate ‘locks’. This is what we call ‘disease’.
‘Molecular imprints’ act as ‘artificial key holes’ fitting to the ‘fake keys’ or pathogenic molecules, thereby preventing them from interacting with the ‘key holes’ of bilogical ‘locks’. By this process, original ‘key holes’ or biological molecules are freed from pathological inhibitions produced by the ‘fake keys’. This is ‘cure’.
Remember, molecular imprints are ‘artificial key holes’, not ‘duplicate keys’. Once you understand the molecular dynamics of this ‘key-lock’ mechanism involved in disease and cure, the whole scientific explanation of similia similibus curentur’ proposed by MIT will be crystal clear for you.
Since last five years, after I stumbled upon the idea of molecular imprints, I stopped worrying about selection of potencies, once the appropriate drugs are selected. I use only 30c. I prefer12c or just above avogadro limit, but it is not available for all drugs.
If a drug does not act as i expected, and i am sure my selection was right, I would not change my drug or potency, but would switch on to another sample from another source- same drug, same potency. It will act in most occasions.
I use to collect different samples of same drug same potency from different sources, and mix them together. I have seen it giving better results.
That is why I said, confusions regarding potency would be resolved only when we perceive potentization in terms of molecular imprinting. Any potency above 12c contains only molecular imprints.
The term ‘potency’ is irrelevant from MIT view. Only difference is between ‘molecular forms’ and ‘molecular imprint forms’ of drugs- below 12c and above 12c, or below avogadro limit and above avogadro limit.
Quality of drugs may differ from sample to sample, depending upon source of drug substance, method of potentization, genuineness of potentization, difference in keeping and exposure etc.
Teachers, seniors and ‘masters’ make young homeopaths believe that administration of incorrect remedies, especially in high potencies, would do grave harm to the patients, and may cause even death. It is warned that our drugs should be handled with great care. By this persisten propaganda, many young homeopaths are too scared to prescribe, lest it may be a wrong prescription, that may kill the patient.
Leaving my theoretical explanations apart, living proofs for safety of homeopathic medicines are those thousands and thousands of individuals treated everyday by homeopaths using wrong prescriptions and stay undamaged!
If potentized drugs could have caused injury or deaths by way of wrong prescriptions, homeopaths would have been so far marked as the greatest criminals in human history- each of us might have by now killed hundreds of innocent people!
If it is true that potentized drugs can do harm, homeopaths would have already harmed a big section of human race by the time being, through our wrong prescriptions! Even you and me make many many wrong prescriptions than right prescriptions everyday, believing that we are making correct prescriptions. Can anybody deny it with a sincere heart?
International homeopathic community is brutally dominated by ‘spiritualists’ and ‘vitalists’ who want homeopathy to remain as an ‘energy medicine’ ‘healing art’.
They are not interested in any scientific explanation of homeopathy, but try to establish that their ‘energy medicine’ theories are ‘more scientific’ and far advanced than modern science. They always talk about ‘limiations’ of science, and ‘science lagging behind homeopathy’. They expect modern science to ‘change’ in a way to fit to their ‘energy medicine’ theories and occult practices. Actually, they do not understand the language and methods of science.
They head professional organizations, academic communities, educational institutions, ‘research’ organizations and policy making bodies. They ‘represent’ homeopathy on national and international platforms as well as ‘academic’ debates. They have hijacked ‘official’ homeopathy.
Only a small minority of homeopaths are really interested in scientific explanations of homeopathy, and capable of understanding scientific homeopathy. With MIT, I am addressing this minority.
According to scientific definition proposed by MIT, ‘similia similibus curentur’ means “pathogenic molecules could be entrapped and deactivated using ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules having ‘functional groups’ or ‘moieties’ similar to the pathogenic molecules. Similarity of ‘functional groups’ of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules could be determined by observing ‘similarity of symptoms’ they produce in living organism by binding to ‘similar’ biological molecules and causing similar molecular errors during disease as well as drug proving”.
MIT explanation of homeopathy is actually very simple and logical, and it should be understandable to anybody who learned at least a high school level science lessons. I fear it is my inexpert way of expressing and explaining my ideas that makes it appear complex and difficult to understand for most homeopaths. I know, the real problem is with my poor english and deficient communication skills. I beg excuse for that.
If anybody argue that they can ‘prove’ drugs in ‘high’ potencies, they should be ready to subject themselves to ‘reverse proving’, by way of identifying well known drugs by observing symptoms produced by BLINDLY ‘proving’ them in ‘high’ potencies. Anybody there, please….
Most homeopaths find it difficult to agree with my observation that potencies above avogadro limit cannot produce any molecular errors in the organism, and hence cannot be used for ‘drug proving’.
They ask: “What about our materia medica of many drugs which were compiled from ‘data’ collected by proving”high potencies”?
Did you see the ‘proving data’ of ‘berlin wall’? It was ‘proved’ through ‘meditation proving’. They have compiled a very detailed materia medica of ‘berlin wall’. ‘Proving data’ and ‘materia medica’ of hundreds pf new drugs ‘proved’ by meditation proving, dream proving and trituration proving are are now available, and helios is marketing those drugs. Does it mean those ‘provings’ where scientific, or those symptoms where authentic? Claims of ”high potency’ provings also actually belong that class.
Imaginations, fancies, speculations, placebo effects, drug information from folk medicine, toxicology studies, data collected from accidental exposures, clinically verified symptoms, deductions from biochemistry, allopathic side effects- our materia medica are constituted by all these things. Materia medica are compiled even without any ‘proving’, but on the basis of ‘periodic table’ and ‘kingdoms’! Theories are there about ‘animal symptoms’, vegetable symptoms’ and ‘mineral symptoms’ also!
Another thing is, most of the commercially available ‘high potencies’ are not genuine high potencies as displayed in the labels. Manufacturers do a lot of malpractice by way of marketing very low potencies as ‘high’ potencies. If you use such samples for proving, you will get symptoms, as they contain ‘drug molecules’.
Please remember, IIT B team could detect nanoparticles of drug substances even in 200 c, which means, those samples were actually low potencies below avogadro limit, falsely labelled and marketed as ‘high’ potencies. Did you notice, IIT team even detected that the concentration of nanoparticles were same in 30c and 200c, which means those samples actually belong to same sample of low potency, labelled as 30c and 200c. If they were genuine high potencies, there cannot be a single drug molecule present in dilutions above 12c.
Here is the scientific explanation for my statement “potentized drugs cannot produce any harmful effects”:
MOLECULAR IMPRINTS contained in potentized drugs cannot “interfere in the normal interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands”. Natural ligands act with their biological targets in capacity of ‘conformational affinity’ as well as ‘charge affinity’, where as ‘molecular imprints’ will have in any case only ‘conformational affinity’ towards ‘biological molecules’. That means, natural ligands will be having much higher affinity to biological molecules, than molecular imprints. That is why ‘molecular imprints cannot interfere in normal biological processes’, and hence, cannot produce ‘pathological molecular errors’. Hope my point is clear.
MOLECULAR IMPRINTS can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ and bind to pathogenic molecules and prevent them from interacting with biological molecules, as molecular imprints have comparatively stronger affinity towards pathogenic molecules having functional groups exactly similar to the drug molecules used for preparing molecular imprints (similimum).
‘Key-lock model’ is well explained and proven concept in biochemistry, regarding molecular mechanism of biochemical processes. A lot of new generation designer drugs have been developed and successfully used in modern medicine on the basis of this model, which ratifies this model beyond any doubt.
Any model we propose for the biological mechanism of homeopathic drug actions should be fitting to this scientifically verified and recognized ‘key-lock’ model. only MIT hypothesis satisfies this basic requirement.
By ‘pathology’ I mean ‘deviations in physiology’. I am talking about ‘molecular level’ pathology. Any ‘abnormal symptom’- mental or physical- indicates underlying molecular level pathology or ‘molecular errors’. Potentized drugs – above avogadro limit- cannot produce any molecular error. That is what I have been saying.
Scientific discussions should be done on the basis of scientific knowledge- not ‘what master said’. Knowing what master said is only of academic interest and historical relevance. Whatever hahnemann said regarding various aspects of application of potentized drugs were not based on any scientific understanding of ‘what are the active principles’ of potentized drugs, and ‘how they act’ upon the organism. My opinions are based on the concept that ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent drug molecules are the ‘active principles’, and they act by binding to specific pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity. According to this view, molecular imprints cannot interfere in the normal interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands. Hence, potentized drugs cannot produce any pathological molecular inhibitions, and as such, cannot do any harm in the living body.
What we call ‘mind’ and ‘mental’ are actually the functional products of complex biochemical processes happening in brain and central nervous system. They are not outside the domain of biochemistry involved in vital processes. Mental diseases are actually caused by biomolecular inhibitions and errors happening in brain, exactly same way as any diseases affecting the ‘body’. Most ‘physical’ diseases produce mental symptoms also, by cascading of molecular errors extending into central nervous system. That is why ‘material’ drugs affect mind, and mental problems are cured by ‘material’ drugs.
Psychotherapy actually cures by using verbal, vocal, tactile, visual and such ‘material’ signals, which act upon biochemical processes underlying mental problems. There is nothing ‘immaterial’ in psychotherapy.
Before claiming ‘homeopathy is medical science’, kindly ensure that you can answer the following fundamental questions, in a way fitting to existing scientific knowledge system. If you evade these questions, your claim is meaningless:
1. What happen during potentization?
2. What are the ‘active principles’ of potentized drugs?
3. What is the exact biological mechanism by which potentized drugs ‘cure’?
Skeptics think they are born ‘saviors’ of science, and ‘fight’ homeopathy without understanding what really it is. Cassical homeopaths think that they are the only saviors of homeopathy, and’fight’ modern science because they fail to understand it, and fearing that scientific awareness will undermine homeopathy. Both fight with something they really know nothing about.
Problem with ‘classical’ homeopaths is that they fail to understand even the basics and language of science, but their inflated egos never accept their deficiencies, and they pretend as if they have inherited from the ‘master’ evey ‘ultimate’ knowledge in this universe far better than the scientists.
When I ask for a scientific model for biological mechanism regarding how homeopathy works, it is an INSULT to homeopathy! If anybody declares ‘homeopathy is ultimate science’, and ‘our master is the greatest scientist ever born’, it is a great ‘service’ to homeopathy! Wonderful!!
Some homeopaths seem to think that they can evade hard questions regarding ‘how homeopathy works’ by talking about ‘evidence based medicine’. For them, ‘evidence’ means their ‘experience of producing results’ – not scientific evidence. They hope to mask their intellectual inertia and lack of of scientific knowledge by declaring ‘we practice evidence based medicine’. They argue, questions such as ‘what is the biological mechanism by which homeopathy works’, ‘what happens during potentization’, ‘what are the active principles of potentized drugs’ are irrelevant, as far as they are ‘producing results’. Anybody practicing occults and woodoo also argue the same way: ‘we produce results as per experience’. They also claim to be ‘evidence based practitioners’.
Homeopaths should practice rational ‘knowledge based medicine’ or ‘scientific medicine’ supported by well proven scientific evidence. Do not be under the false notion that you can fool the science conscious community using play of words such as ‘evidence based medicine’ and ‘experience based medicine’.
Many homeopaths are doubtful whether ‘molecular imprints’ will not be lost by evaporation once medicated pills are dried and kept for long periods. Yet they are showing medicinal action if used when indicated?
Please examine the texture of a sample of medicated pills after keeping it for a few months, and compare it with an unmedicated sample. you will realize, evaporation does not mean globlules returning to original state.
Molecular imprints adsorbed into sugar matrix are not lost by evaporation.
One of the funny things we frequently hear from ‘classical’ homeopaths is that provers should have ‘predispositions similar to the remedy’ to produce symptoms during proving. Hahnemann’s concept of proving was by giving drugs to ‘healthy persons without any predispositions’. But these people say ‘good provers’ should have ‘predispositions’ similar to the remedy. If a person has ‘predisposition’ similar to a remedy, that means he is not ‘healthy’ as per hahnemann’s standards, and not fit to be a prover
If a person has ‘predisposition’ for a particular remedy, that means he will be already showing some general and mental symptoms of that remedy. He will have a mental set up and constitution of that remedy. How can you attribute those symptoms to drug proving?
If you are ‘proving’ Natrum Mur in a person already with Natrum Mur symptoms and predispositions, how can you say it is a genuine proving, and how can you consider the symptoms reliable, as those dispositions and symptoms were already there before using Natrum Mur?
The simple fact is, nobody can prove drugs in potencies above 12c which do not contain any drug molecules. Only drug molecules can bind to biological molecules, create molecular inhibitions and produce symptoms. You may get some symptoms by giving high potencies, but those symptoms are no way different from symptoms you get by giving a dose of distilled water. You can give a drop of water for proving, and make a big materia medica by recording all symptoms the person says after that dose. That is the way meditation proving, dream proving and trituration proving also produce symptoms.
Earlier our homeopaths come into terms with scientific facts, the better for homeopathy. At least they should stop arguing nonsense theories that obviously contradict scientific knowledge.
10*23 campaign conducted by skeptics was a classical example of how homeopaths provide arms for skeptics to attack homeopathy. If homeopaths had understood and publicly declared the truth that potentized drugs cannot do any harm or produce any symptoms, as MIT tries to establish, that campaign of skeptics would not have any relevance at all. On the other hand, classical homeopaths wrongly argued that even a ‘single’ drop of potentized drug if taken without indications would cause ‘great harm’. And skeptics clearly proved that homeopaths are wrong, by hundreds of persons publicly consuming dram-fulls of potentized drugs. And it was celebrated as a proof for their claim that ‘there is nothing in homeopathy’!
Homeopaths should exhibit some intellectual courage to discard those obviously unscientific speculative parts of homeopathy. They should learn to re-read the works of master and other old ‘stalwarts’ with a historical and dialectic perspective, and stop spinning fanciful nonsense ‘energy medicine’ theories about things they do not really know about homeopathy. They should say we do not know how homeopathy works, until they know how it exactly works. Anti-homeopathic skeptics will get disarmed spontaneously, and become jobless.
“Homeopathy has shown results”- no doubt for us. It may be the “fundamental base where homeopathy stands” as far as homeopaths are concerned. But for an “enlightened modern knowledge society”, our claims of results will not be enough. They will require answers to questions such as “how the results are produced”? We have to provide a ‘scientifically viable’ answer to that question, by explaining the ‘biological mechanism’ behind the RESULTS. ‘Surviving among homeopaths’ is different from ‘surviving in an enlightened modern knowledge society”.
Without providing a direct and convincing answer to the fundamental question what is the MATERIAL FACTOR of potentized drug that forms its ‘active principle’, and without proposing a viable BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM for its therapeutic actions, in a way that could be subjected to validation by SCIENTIFIC METHODS, there is no hope for homeopathy to SURVIVE in an enlightened modern knowledge society.
Simply quoting those dogmatic APHORISMS of master, declaring ‘our master is the greatest scientist’, and poo-pooing about the ‘limitations of modern science’, and constructing some fanciful pseudo-scientific theories will not help any more, other than further alienating and marginalizing homeopathy from mainstream scientific community.
With my experience witho homeopathy for the last 40+years, I am 100% convinced and confident that it works! It is not placebo effect or ‘belief’, but an objective unrefutable truth.
I am also 100% convinced through my 40+ years study of homeopathy in the light of modern scientific knowledge that explanations provided by hahnemann and his followers for homeopathy are totally unscientific and irrational. Nobody for the past 250 years were successful in proposing even a viable working hypothesis for homeopathy,
Why cant homeopaths understand how foolish it is to imagine a ‘dynamic’ and ‘immaterial’ energy being carried in a corked bottle and kept in a shelf without spreading around in a ‘dynamic’ way? How can there be any ‘material’ or ‘physical’ barriers for a ‘dynamic’ ‘immaterial’ energy to prevent it from escaping from the bottle? How can you confine ‘immaterial’ energy in sugar of milk or sugar pills?
When saying homeopathic ‘medicines’ are ‘dynamic’, did you ever think whether those two words are compatible or not?
We cannot call something a MEDICINE, if it does not contain any MATERIAL substance. The term MEDICINE refers to something MATERIAL.
Any SUBSTANCE, whether medicine or not, is always MATERIAL. There cannot exist a DYNAMIC or IMMATERIAL ‘SUBSTANCE’. Something IMMATERIAL cannot be called a SUBSTANCE! Something ‘dynamic’ or ‘immaterial’ cannot be called a ‘medicine’. If you believe you are using ‘dynamic energy’ in homeopathy, kindly do not call it a ‘medicine’.
TO ALL MODERN GURUS AND MASTERS IN HOMEOPATHY: If you have nothing to propose about the molecular level BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM involved in homeopathic cure, in a way fitting to the existing scientific knowledge, all your ‘theoretical exercises’ will have to be considered as nothing but cheap intellectual gimmicks.
A lot of confusions we encounter today in homeopathy were actually caused by hahnemann himself by trying to explain ‘everything’ in a bid to make homeopathy a ‘complete’ theoretical system. He should have recognized the fact that many aspects of his objective observations regarding the phenomena of cure were actually beyond the scope explaining using the scientific knowledge available to him during his period. He should have exhibited the moral courage and intellectual truthfulness to leave unanswerblae questions unanswered and open, to be taken up by the scientific community at a later stage. By attempting to manufacture a complete closed theoretical system using the concepts borrowed from philosophy of vitalism and dynamis, he actually closed all the chances of future scientific interventions and updating. That made homeopathy a ‘dogmatic’ system, which has to be blindly believed and followed, without any questions being asked.
A ‘prominent’ ‘elite’ homeopath from Mumbai commented on my post as follows:
“Mesmerism is also based on law of similars. Vital energy being stimulated by vital energy is Similar”
No sir. Your statement “vital energy being stimulated by vital energy is ‘similar'” has no logic at all. To say it is ‘law of similars’ that works in mesmerism, DERANGED VITAL ENERGY of the patient should be corrected using SIMILARLY DERANGED VITAL ENERGY of another person. That means, ‘mesmeriser’ should be having symptoms exactly similar to the patient. He should not be a ‘person in perfect health’ as hahnemann proposes. Then only you can claim “mesmerism is also based on law of similars”.
Those modern ‘masters’ who pretend to be ‘einsteins’ and ‘newtons’ of homeopathy, actually promote totally unscientific theories and practices in homeopathy, with a mask of intellectual and scientific verbosity.
They totally fail to comprehend the biological mechanism involved in homeopathic therapeutics, and hence ignore or avoid that aspect of homeopathic learning in their teachings and discourses.
In the absence of essential scientific knowledge, they try to make their theories appear ‘scientific’ by utilizing some terms from, nanotechnology, quantum theory, embryology and genetics, of which they know nothing except some words.
Playing with scientific vocabulary, they were successful in marketing their theories and methods very profitably, among the ‘science-starved’ sections of homeopathic community.
Persons considered to be ‘prominent homeopaths’, ‘leaders of homeopathy’ and ‘great teachers’ do big harm to the scientific credentials of homeopathy, by talking totally unscientific theories about homeopathy. Actually, they do more harm to this system than even those anti-homeopathic skeptics, by way of regularly providing arms to the critics to attack homeopathy. Instead of making ‘dynamic’ theories, they should at least show the humility and intellectual courage to say ‘I dont know’ about things they really do not know.
I do not think ‘what hahnemann said’ could be considered as scientific PROOF for everything.
ORGANON OF MEDICINE: APHORISM 293: FOOTNOTE: HAHNEMANN TALKS ABOUT THE QUALITIES IF A GOOD ‘MESMERISERS’:
“Especially of one of those persons, of whom there are not many who, along with great kindness of disposition and perfect bodily powers, possesses but a very moderate desire for sexual intercourse, which it would give him very little trouble to suppress, in whom, consequently, all the fine vital spirits that would otherwise be employed in the preparation of the semen, are ready to be communicated to others, by touching them and powerfully exerting the will. Some powerful mesmerisers, with whom I have become acquainted, has all this peculiar character.”
I ALWAYS WONDER WHY HAHNEMANN INCLUDED THIS STATEMENT IN THE CONCLUDING PART OF A GREAT WORK SUCH AS ORGANON. I AM SORRY TO SAY, IT GREATLY DIMINISHES THE SCIENTIFIC QUALITY AND CREDENTIALS OF THAT GREAT WORK.
I want to repeat again and again: Mastering the art of CASE TAKING is the only guarentee to successful PRESCRIPTION. Extracting right information from the patient, and CONSTRUCTING as many number of COMPLETE symptoms as possible using that info is what we mean by successful case taking. A symptom is said to be a COMPLETE symptom, when it consists of maximum available number of strong characteristic ACCESSORIES belonging to categories such as CAUSATION, PRESENTATION, LOCATION, SENSATION, MODALITIES and CONCOMITANTS. Even a single ‘complete’ symptom, if it indicates only a single drug, may in certain cases lead us to a reasonable prescription. Case taking is a skill to be consciously developed by individual homeopaths, if they really want to be a successful prescribers.
MIT concept of homeopathy as a ‘specialized higher branch of modern molecular medicine’ evolves from my understanding of homeopathic potentization as a process of molecular imprinting.
Actually, the study of ‘molecular imprinting’ belongs the domain of Supra-molecular Chemistry. Conventionally, ‘molecular imprinting’ is a technology of preparing three dimensional artificial binding sites for molecules in polymer matrices, which are widely used in many biological assays, molecular separation protocols and many other laboratory applications.
From studying the ‘polymer-like’ behavior of water in its ‘supra-molecular’ structural level, I am fully convinced that water, especially water-ethyl alcohol mixture can also be used as a medium for molecular imprinting similar to other polymers, and the ‘molecular imprints’ thus produced can be safely used as therapeutic agents. They would act as selective artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules. In my opinion, this phenomenon of molecular imprinting is involved tin homeopathic potentization, and the active principles of potentized drugs are ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules.
By accepting this scientific definition MIT proposes, ‘potentization’ becomes a branch of modern ‘target-specific drug designing technology’, and homeopathy is raised to the status of a higher branch of ‘modern molecular medicine.’
If a SINGLE symptom is ‘complete’ in itself, being a combination of two or more strong ‘accessory’ characteristics (sensation-presentation-location-causation-modality-concomitant), and if it indicates a SINGLE drug, that symptom could be confidently used as a KEYNOTE symptom. We can locate a lot of such KEYNOTE symptoms from our repertories, which would be very helpful in daily practice.
For homeopaths, ‘believing’ is more important than ‘reasoning’ and ‘knowledge’.
Believing the master, believing in vital force, believing in dynamic energy, believing the stalwarts, believing aphorisms of organon, believing unchangeable laws, believing fundamental principles, believing materia medica, believing repertories, believing the patients, believing drug labels, believing the manufacturer, believing the pharmacist, believing in miracles- you are asked to BE A BELIEVER, IF YOU WANT TO BE A GOOD HOMEOPATH.
I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THIS ‘BLIND’ APPROACH. I WOULD REQUEST HOMEOPATHS TO LEARN, KNOW, ANALYZE, VERIFY, EXPERIMENT AND THINK ABOUT EVERYTHING, BEFORE BELIEVING IN THEM.
You are talking about ‘unchangeable’ ‘laws and principle’ in homeopathy, and declare that they cannot be ‘violated’. Please remember, all these ‘laws’ and ‘principles’ you consider ‘unchangeable’ were made and practiced so far without even knowing what are the active principles of medicines we are using.
Everything we call ‘laws’ and ‘principles’ of homeopathy are pure speculations, evolved from subjective interpretations of experiences.
Nobody really knows what exactly happens during potentization. Nobody knows what are exactly the active principles of potentized drugs. Nobody exactly knows the molecular mechanism by which potentized drugs interacts with biological organism and creates a therapeutic effect. Nobody knows how low potencies are different from high potencies. Everything is based on speculations.
In the absence of advanced scientific knowledge and rational world outlook, our masters interpreted their ‘experiences’ using philosophy of dynamism and vitalism. ‘Laws’ as ‘principles’ were formulated from these unscientific speculations and interpretations. They are bound to change, once homeopathy is explained in scientific terms.
During the 200+ year long history of homeopathy, nobody so far bothered even to propose a scientifically viable working hypothesis about the biological mechanism involved in homeopathic cure, that could be presented as a candidate for verification according to scientific methods.
Hahnemann could not provide scientific explanations for the phenomena involved in homeopathy, due to the historical limitations of knowledge environment available to him. That is understandable and acceptable.
But, what were those ‘faithful disciples’ of hahnemann doing all these years, for explaining and proving homeopathy scientifically? Did they make a single step forward during last two centuries, other than theorizing about the ‘unscientificness’ and ‘limitations’ of modern science? ? Actually they were in the game of making homeopathy appear more and more absurd by talking all sorts of ‘anti-scientific’ and ‘ultra-scientific’ nonsense ‘energy medicine’ theories that contradicts all existing scientific knowledge system. They were talking about ‘miracles’ ‘magics’, and promoting occult practices in the name of homeopathy that no scientific-minded community can agree with.
Even our MODERN ‘newtons’, ‘einsteins’ and ‘gurus’ of homeopathy were only contributing their lot in making homeopathy more and more UNSCIENTIFIC, by talking all sorts of nonsense theories and methods. Their aim was only to market something that will fetch big money into their pockets.
People at our state-nourished high profile ‘research institutions’ were only interested in preparing bills and expenditure vouchers for the huge money they were allotted from public exchequers. How can we blame scientific community for saying homeopathy is unscientific?
Similarity of SYMPTOMS indicate similarity of MOLECULAR ERRORS. Similarity of molecular errors indicate similarity of FUNCTIONAL GROUPS of drug molecules and pathogenic molecules. MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of similar functional groups will be similar in conformation, and they can act as ARTIFICIAL BINDING SITES for any molecules SIMILAR to the molecules used for imprinting. That means, molecular imprints of drug molecules can act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules, if their symptoms are SIMILAR.
Similia Similibus Curentur exactly means this biological mechanism involved in High Dilution Therapeutics.
To combat skeptic attacks effectively, we should make homeopathy scientific. For that, homeopaths should develop a scientific outlook first. At least, homeopathic ‘theoreticians’ should stop talking unscientific nonsense theories about homeopathy. They should learn to say “I don’t know” about things they actually do not know, and start learning some modern science!
FIRST OF ALL, we have to rescue homeopathy from the malignant influence of people promoting unscientific theories and occult practices in homeopathy. Talking nonsense, irrational theories, our unscientific homeopaths do more harm to homeopathy than anti-homeopathic skeptics and scientists.
If we had a scientifically viable and rational theory about homeopathy, no skeptics could have attacked us. It is our deficiencies that make us vulnerable to attacks. Actually, homeopaths who say ‘science is wrong’, as well as skeptics who say ‘homeopathy is wrong’ are two sides of same coin- ignorance.
‘Molecular Imprinting’ Is The Key-word in scientific understanding of homeopathy. If You fail to get it, you fail to understand scientific homeopathy.
Mind is the product of complex chemical interactions happening in brain and central nervous system. Mind does not exist separated from body.
By the term ‘living organism’, we indicate a material system with a specific quantity, quality, structure and functions of its own, which is capable of self-controlled growth and reproduction of its progeny, by accepting matter and energy from its environment. The phenomenon of life exists through a continuous chain of highly complex biochemical interactions which control each other, depend up on each other and are determined by each other.
A ‘living organism’ represents a much higher and advanced level of existence of the same elements of matter we meet in the inorganic world, different only in its structural organization and functional complexity. The universal phenomenon of material motion we find as part of primary existence of matter itself, attains the wonderful qualities of life, due to this complex structural organization. In fact, ‘life’ is the result of a continuous evolutionary process of primary matter in this universe through millions of years, attaining different levels of organizational and functional forms. Primary forces, sub-atomic particles, elementary atoms, simple chemical molecules, complex inorganic molecules, carbon containing organic molecules, bio-molecules, complex bio-polymers, RNA-DNA-Protein structures, organelles, unicellular organisms, multi-cellular organisms, diverse species of plants and animals, and ultimately Homo Sapiens- these are the prominent milestones in the known evolutionary ladder on earth, panning through millions and millions of years. Human beings represents the highest form of this material evolutionary history on earth, as far as it is known to us.Parallel to this biological evolution, we can perceive a systematic evolution and perfection of the nervous system also.
Simple forms of conditioned reflexes that existed in primitive organisms, gradually evolved into nerve cells, neural networks and ultimately into a well organized nervous system in higher animals. In higher forms of life such as humans, this nervous system has attained such a structural and functional perfection that human brain and its diverse faculties have begun playing a decisive role even in the existence and development of that species and even life on earth itself. Of course, collective labor, language and social relations also played a major role in this evolutionary process.
MIND IS THE FUNCTIONAL PRODUCT OF BRAIN. It is wrong to say science cannot explain relationship between the MIND and the BODY. Perceiving MIND as detached from BODY reflects an unscientific world outlook.
According to the view of modern science, a “single” drug is a molecule or ion or ‘functional group’ that can independently interact with biological molecules. Such a molecule or functional group is the active “unit” of the drug substance. If a drug substance contains more than one such biologically active units, capable of independent biological activity, it is a compound drug, not a “single” drug.
It is totally unscientific to say that a drug substance that contain more than one type of biologically active molecules or functional groups is a “single” drug, only because it comes from a “single” natural source, or it is administered as a “single” drug for ‘proving’ or therapeutic purpose. Question is, whether it acts on biological molecules as a “single” unit or “multiple” units.
Hahnemann considered such “compound drugs” as “single” drugs, only because modern scientific knowledge regarding the exact molecular composition of drug substances, as well as molecular mechanism of pathology, therapeutics and biolgical actions of drug substances were not available to him during that period.
In KENT REPERTORY, go to EXTREMITIES: PAIN:
All rubrics for locations, causations modalities, concomitants and extensions etc are elaborately listed under the main rubric PAIN.
Then comes TYPE OF PAINS as follows: Aching, Boring PAIN : Broken, sensation as if, PAIN : Burning, PAIN : Cutting, PAIN : Dislocation, as if, feeling, PAIN : Drawing, PAIN : Gnawing, PAIN : Pinching, PAIN : Pressing, PAIN : Scraping, PAIN : Shooting, PAIN : Sore, bruised, PAIN : Sprained, as if, PAIN: Stitching, PAIN : Tearing, PAIN : Twinging
Under each TYPE OF PAIN, all the modalities, causations, locations, concomitants and extensions are repeated again, very elaborately. It comes hundreds of pages in the repertory, which nobody ever uses, or are used very very rarely.
Actually, TYPES OF PAINS are enough, directly under the main rubric PAIN. All the subrubrics related with other QUALIFICATIONS listed under the main rubric should be applicable to all TYPES OF PAINS.
Such a re-arrangement will by itself reduce the size of repertory by one-third.
SAME HAPPENS UNDER ‘HEAD- PAINS’ also
It is not the ‘drug substance’ as a whole unit that is ‘imprinted’ during potentization. It is the individual chemical molecules contained in the drug substance that undergoes molecular imprinting.
When a drug substance containing diverse types of chemical molecules is potentized, the product will obviously contain all the diverse types of molecular imprints representing all the diverse types of chemical molecules that constituted the drug substance.
When applied as therapeutic agents, it is the individual molecular imprints that bind to specific pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity. Different molecular imprints contained in a same sample of potentized drug act on different molecular targets, on the basis of specific conformational affinity.
That means, potentized form of a drug we normally consider SINGLE is not acting exactly as a SINGLE drug. It acts as a COMBINATION of molecular imprints.
Without a baseline knowledge of biochemistry- especially protein chemistry, molecular kinetics of ‘ligand-target’ interactions, molecular pathology, bio-molecular inhibitions, vital processes, diseases, symptoms, and related topics, you cannot follow the scientific explanation of similia similibus curentur propsed by MIT.
Without a scientific perspective of molecular composition of drug substances, and about the molecular mechanism by which the drug substances interact with biological organism to produce pathological inhibitions and symptoms, you cannot follow the scientific explanations of HOMEOPATHY.
Without a baseline knowledge of latest advances in supra-molecular chemistry such as properties of water and ethyl alcohol, hydrogen bonding, hydration shells, supra-molecular nano-structures, guest-host complexes, molecular imprinting in polymers, molecular self assembly and related subjects, you cannot follow the scientific explanations of potentization in terms of ‘molecular imprinting’.
In the absence of these essential basic scientific knowledge, MIT concepts will fly over your head as ‘playing tricks with words’, and you will go on talking about ‘energy medicine’, vital force, dynamic drug energy, spiritual healing, vibrations, resonance, distance healing and such diverse unscientific and pseudo-scientific things, and continue to make homeopathy and homeopaths a subject of unending mockery and ridicule before the scientific community.
And of course, you will go on declaring homeopathy is the ultimate science, hahnemann is the greatest scientist, and modern science is lagging far behind homeopathy!
Once you understand the fundamentals of scientific explanation of homeopathy on the basis of ‘Molecular Imprints Therapeitics’ (MIT) concepts, you would realize that there are no more questions and riddles remaining unanswerable in homeopathy.
Nothing remains there in homeopathy that could not be explained and proved using existing scientific knowledge and methods. The era of ‘blind beliefs’ and confusions is over. MIT heralds the dawn of scientific realization and due recognition for homeopathy.
In a bid to beat ther market competitors by projecting the superiority in the number of rubrics and number of drugs, compilers of modern repertories are indiscriminately adding hundreds and hundreds of unverified and unreliable rubrics in their repertories in the guise of ‘clinical proving’. Our repertories have become swellen up with bogus rubrics, making them totally unreliable.
Everybody want ‘biggest repertories’ and ‘largest number of rubrics’. That decides the marketability.
Currently there is no any mechanism to ensure the genuineness of repertorial rubrics. Everything is left to the subjective imaginations and fancies of ‘repertory compilers’, and their business strategies.
There should be an international authority representing professional homeopathic bodies all over the world, entrusted with the responsibility of compiling and updating homeopathic repertories. Each rubric to be included in the repertory should be identified, verified and numbered by this authority. It should be ensured that any rubric in our repertories should bear a unique number allotted by this authority.
This international authority should work in the way IUPAC functions. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) is an international federation of National Organizations that represents chemists in individual countries. IUPAC is responsible for Nomenclature and Symbols (IUPAC nomenclature), and is the recognized world authority in developing standards for the naming of the chemical elements and compounds. standardizing nomenclature in chemistry and other fields of science and standardizing nucleotide base sequence code names.
I hope this suggestion would be seriously discussed by the community.
In my opinion, our materia medica and repertories should be updated not only by adding new authentic symptoms and drugs, but also by culling and eliminating all unverified rubrics and drugs. There should be an international body of homeopaths to oversee that work.
‘Molecular Imprinting’ involved in homeopathic ‘potentization’ actually happens through a series of processes such as ‘liberation’ of individual molecules from inter-molecular bonds, formation of ‘host-guest’ complexes by a process of ‘molecular self assembly’ or ‘hydration’, production of ‘molecular imprints’ by separating and removal of ‘guest’ molecules from from ‘host-guest’ complexes by strong succussing and diluting, and ‘multiplication’ of molecular imprints through a process of template-induced molecular assembly or ‘nano-crystallization’.
I do not believe that my intellectual achievements are my private personal ‘properties’, and I am not at all worried about its ‘ownership rights’. I freely appropriate any knowledge available to me from any source, and freely distribute to the public whatever knowledge I have got with me.
What ever knowledge you or me possess, we got them from the collective knowledge of human society. Society is the real SOLE owner of human knowledge accumulated through generations. Individuals get knowledge from this accumulated knowledge of society. Education is actually a process of extracting from collective knowledge.
Individuals can utilize the existing knowledge of society available to his reach. Nobody ‘produce’ knowledge from vanity. He can add to the acquired knowledge whatever small new knowledge he can generate through his thoughts and experiences, and then return it into the repository of collective knowledge of the society.
Our saints, prophets, thinkers, visionaries and great scholars of yesterdays did not worry about the ownership of their ideas. They simply gave everything to us freely. We are using their ideas for generating new ideas, then trying to make it our private property, by calling it RESEARCH. We try to convert knowledge into private capital, and accumulate personal make wealth. We hesitate to share knowledge, and make laws to protect our private ‘intellectual property rights’.
I DISAGREE WITH THIS PREVAILING CAPITALISTIC ‘RESEARCH’ CULTURE
My approach to learning is different. I use any scientific material from any sources of knowledge for expanding and explaining my points. I never claim everything i say are my ‘original’ inventions. Actually, I invent nothing. I am only trying to study and explain different aspects of homeopathy using EXISTING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. Everything I say are already known to science, only thing I do is to put every pieces into appropriate places to construct a theoretical model to EXPLAIN homeopathy.
I do a lot of ‘copy and paste’ from various sources freely in my articles when I think they will help in explaining my points clearly, without any claim for ‘originality’. I know this method is not allowed in RESEARCH PAPERS submitted for PEER REVIEWS , or submitted for any academic purposes. My articles are not intended to be ACADEMIC research papers, but only attempts of ‘explaining’ my ideas using ‘existing’ scientific knowledge. It is not a crime to use external material in such articles. Only thing you should verify is whether the IDEAS are relevant or not for the points I am explaining.
I don’t think ‘credibility’ is something to be artificially manufactured using certain protocols, formats and peer reviews. CREDIBILITY come naturally, if you are telling TRUTH. If we are saying truth, we need not worry about credibility. Even if I leave my work on MIT where it is just now, it will be gradually recognized as a CREDIBLE model of homeopathy, even without any ‘peer reviews’ and ‘journal publications’. MIT is undeniable TRUTH- its credibility is natural. I am not concerned whether anybody ‘ratify’ my work or not.
I do not consider all ‘peer-reviewed’ and ‘published’ articles represent ‘credible’ TRUTH. There are a lot of ‘peer-reviewed’ research papers published in most authoritative journals, but offering nothing valuable.
I am working on homeopathy not to get a PhD. I am concerned only about exploring the TRUTH of homeopathy. There is a big difference between academic research and real searching for truth- one is ‘research’, and the other is ‘search’.
RESEARCH is guided by the motive of acquiring and owning an INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY that can be converted into money. Intellectual SEARCH is motivated by nothing but insatiable thirst for truth and knowledge.
One homeopath asks: “With all due respect sir, I have a question for you, Should The govt of India allow People who are not trained in Homoeopathy to practice homoeopathy Because they know it?”
ANSWER: NO doctor. I don’t think so. Only QUALIFIED homeopaths should be allowed to PRACTICE homeopathy as professional PHYSICIANS or DOCTORS.
Same time, I think there is nothing wrong in promoting the use of homeopathic drugs as HOME REMEDIES by individuals who know about it, as potentized drugs cannot cause any harm even if used wrongly. Such use will help in promoting homeopathy in large scale, and expanding its reach. I consider it as SOCIAL or COMMUNITY homeopathy. Homeopathic HOME REMEDY KITS containing commonly used drugs and a REMEDY GUIDE in regional language should be made available to every home in our country.
SOCIAL or COMMUNITY HOMEOPATHY it is different from QUACKERY. In quackery, unqualified persons claim and PRETEND to be doctors and PRACTICE as ‘professionals’. Such quackery should be prevented by authorities.
Homeopathic practice in india is governed and regulated by CCH act of 1973. It came into force in 1976 (commencement of act) in almost all states of INDIA.
Those having minimum FIVE YEARS experience in homeopathic practice without qualification as on the date of commencement of act are permitted to continue practice as per Section 15 (3) c as follows:
“Nothing contained in sub section (2) shall affect the right of a person to practise Homoeopathy in a State in which, on the commencement of this Act, a State Register of Homoeopathy is not maintained if, on such commencement, he has been practising Homoeopathy for not less than five years.”
Only those belonging to this category are permitted as per law to PRACTICE homeopathy ‘without stipulated qualifications’.
J T KENT says in Philosophical Lectures : Lecture 37:
“In Switzerland the children have been raised for centuries to the knowledge that it is necessary to make watches perfectly, they have been raised, as it were, in the watch factories.
Now, when Homoeopathy is hundreds of years old, and little ones grow up into the knowledge of it and observe and practise it, our successors will acquire knowledge that we do not possess now.”
What does Dr Kent visualize in this statement? He visualizes a society “when Homoeopathy is hundreds of years old”, where “little ones grow up into the knowledge of it and observe and practice it”, similar to the “children in switzerland” who have been “raised for centuries to the knowledge that it is necessary to make watches perfectly, they have been raised, as it were, in the watch factories”.
Dr Kent visualizes a future society where “little ones” will be “raised” to “observe and practice” homeopathy, and “grow up into the knowledge” of PERFECT homeopathy! He was visualizing our children “observing and practicing” homeopathy similar to the “little ones” of switzerland who were raised “as if it where in watch factories”- his dream was a society where everybody ‘observes and practices’ homeopathy as part of their daily life from childhood!
Does anybody now share the wonderful dream of Dr Kent?
They do not like me personally, or my concepts that they fear would initiate a scientific wave that may wipe away their sand hills of fortunes. When I ‘submit’ a paper in front of such prejudiced people, it will be easy for them to silence and ‘finish’ me using their clout and authority, saying “you are not a qualified homeopath, and you are not allowed to do research in homeopathy”.
They will ‘officially’ declare MIT is not homeopathy! That will be a very painful experience for me. Why should I take initiative to place my head into the jaws of such a beast and volunteer to end myself as a prey?
Most of the people at CCH are members in my groups here. They are seeing my posts regularly, every day. Nobody ever comments. If they had thought my ideas were worth consideration, they could have taken it up suo motto and proceed. Or, at least they could have asked me to explain my views to them. That is no happening yet. Once, an additional director from CCRH called me and informed me that they are willing to take up my concepts for research projects. Nothing happened there after. I know why it is so.
If my ideas are right, it will have to be accepted by homeopathic community, whether CCH recognizes it or not. If my ideas are wrong, nobody can help me- it will perish even if CCH authenticates it. Let us wait and see.
Dr Shantha Kumar, a senior homeopath from Colombo, Srilanka, posted on my page:
“When there is poverty of science how could ’eminent scholars and leading Homeopaths’ comment on MIT Concept. only who has a scientific world outlook and belief in dialectical process will be able to understand it easily. parrots which repeats the words of master will not be able to tell any thing new. Real eminent scholars and leading homeopaths who are interested to make homeopathy more scientific, without personal agendas, are with MIT though they have not commented.There are various reason for not commenting.One day all of them openly come out. It is certain.”
It is a futile exercise to quote from organon to ‘disprove’ my ideas. I am not bothered whether aphorisms of hahnemann ‘accept’ or ‘discard’ MIT concepts. I am proposing a SCIENTIFICALLY VIABLE model for biological mechanism for ‘high dilution therapeutics’ involved in homeopathy, based on the latest scientific knowledge existing here, which were not available for hahnemann 250 years ago. Hence, hahnemann cannot ‘accept’ or ‘discard’ my proposals!
If you are talking about a ‘dynamic energy’ that is ‘immaterial’ , ‘spiritual’ and ‘conceptual’, as the active principles of potentized drugs, kindly avoid broadcasting your confusions by ‘explaining’ it using the terms borrowed from PHYSICS such as ‘resonance’ and ‘frequency’. DYNAMIC ENERGY has nothing to do with the scientific concept of ‘energy’ in PHYSICS, which is all about the study of MATERIAL phenomena. ‘Resonance’ and ‘frequency’ are terms used by science to explain certain phenomena involving ‘material energy’. What ever you mean by ‘spiritual energy’, it is not a topic to be discussed on a scientific forum. ENERGY is not something ‘immaterial’- it is just a specific form of existence of MATTER. From scientific perspective, there is no ENERGY without a material particle. Imagining about carrying ‘spiritual energy’ corked in a bottle, and dropping it on tongue of patient is purely absurd.
Homeopathy, as it is learned, taught and practiced today, is not a ‘medical science’ in its real sense. It is only a ‘therapeutic method’. Through MIT concepts, I am trying to raise it into the standard of a MEDICAL SCIENCE- an advanced specialized branch of modern molecular medicine.
Present theoretical system of homeopathy consists of unverified beliefs, contradictory theoretical speculations, stagnant dogmas and insufficiently explained ‘experiences’.
No doubt, ‘homeopathy works’. But, to be a recognized as a science, our claims of ‘working’ is not enough. We should explain and prove ‘how it works’, in a way understandable and acceptable to scientific community, using scientific methods.
I believe I have made a decisive step in this direction, by proposing a scientifically viable working hypothesis regarding the biological mechanism of ‘high dilution therapeutics’ involved in homeopathy. We can prove, HOMEOPATHY IS MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS.
SEMINARS are conducted only to make money- it is pure BUSINESS. Share goes to teachers, sponsors, facilitators, promoters, organizers and other associates . If money was not a factor, why those great ‘new hahnemanns’ do not interact with homeopathic community freely on new generation social media, and ‘educate’ them free of cost? They could have formed FACEBOOK groups of thousands of homeopaths, conducted online classes, discussions and seminars- totally free of cost, if their aim is only to ‘teach’ something. It would have benefited the whole homeopathic community.
Homeopathic ‘cure’ is not mere ‘removal of symptoms’. It is ‘removal of molecular errors’ that produced the symptoms. Homeopathy cannot ‘remove symptoms’ without removing the underlying molecular errors. There is no ‘palliation’ in homeopathy. What you consider ‘homeopathic palliation’ is actually ‘partial cure’ that indicate ‘partial’ removal of molecular errors, produced by using drugs that are ‘partial similimum’ which did not supply ALL the molecular imprints required to remove all molecular inhibitions existing in the patient.
Actually, homeopaths use ‘symptoms’ only as indicators to locate the exact underlying molecular level pathology existing in the patient, and to identify an appropriate drug which in ‘molecular imprints’ form can remove those molecular errors, through a biological mechanism known as SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR.
‘Similia similibus curentur’ means, ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules can remove the pathological molecular errors which are similar to those created in by the drug substances when applied in molecular form upon healthy organism, and expressed through similar symptoms.
LET ME PUT MIT CONCEPTS IN A NUT SHELL, FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO UNDERSTAND IT:
’Similimum’ is the drug that contains some constituent chemical molecules having ‘functional groups or moieties’ siimilar to those of the pathogenic molecules that caused the molecular inhibitions underlying the particular disease in the patient, and expressed through subjective and objective ‘symptoms’.
Due to the presence of similar functional groups, drug molecules of similimum drug as well as particular pathogenic molecules can bind to same biological target molecules, create similar molecular errors, and produce similar symptoms. That is why homeopathy determines similimum by comparing disease symptoms and drug symptoms.
Potentization is a process of molecular imprinting, by which the 3D conformations of individual chemical molecules contained in a drug substance are imprinted into the water-alcohol supramolecular matrix. Due to complementary conformation, molecular imprints contained in potentized drugs can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for any pathogenic molecule having molecular conformation similar to the drug molecules used for imprinting.
Due to this conformational affinity, molecular imprints contained in potentized similimum can selectively bind to the functional groups of particular pathogenic molecules and deactivate them, thereby relieving the biological molecules from molecular inhibitions. We call this process as CURE.
This is the molecular dynamics involved in homeopathic therapeutics, which is known as ‘similia similibus curentur’. This is the essence of MIT concepts in a nut shell.
KINDLY READ THIS POST CAREFULLY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AGAIN AND AGAIN, UNTIL THE IDEA IS CLEARLY CONCEIVED. THINK OVER IT, UNTIL CONFUSIONS ARE RESOLVED. DO NOT JUMP IN TO MAKE COMMENTS UNTIL THE IDEA IS PERFECTLY DIGESTED. ASK FOR ANY CLARIFICATION ON ANY POINT. CRITICIZE ONLY AFTER UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS EXPLAINED.
Aim of a physician is to cure. For that, he has to prescribe a drug that is expected to contain all the appropriate molecular imprints required to remove the molecular inhibitions in the patient. He can decide the drug by any means at his disposal. It may be previous experience in similar cases. It may be experience of somebody else. It may be based on knowledge of exact causative factors. It may be based on knowledge of biochemical process involved. It may be simple logic and reasoning. It may be strong singular symptoms known as keynotes. It may be a ‘specific’ approach. It may be based on ‘totality of symptoms’. There are many options for the physician. Most important thing is, the selected drug should contain the required molecular imprints. FINDING APPROPRIATE MOLECULAR IMPRINTS SHOULD BE THE PRIMARY CONCERN OF A HOMEOPATH- NOT THE ‘METHOD’ USED FOR THAT.
A common man with scientific background will find it very easy to understand homeopathy if you explain it using MIT concepts. Image of homeopathy will be greatly enhanced.
Homeopathic ‘people’ have been already misled by unscientific theories for last 250 years. I am trying to show them the right way by explaining homeopathy in scientific terms.
There cannot exist such a MEDICINE that is ‘energy hased’ or ‘immaterial’. A medicine will be always ‘material’ or ‘matter based’. Potentized medicines are molecular imprints, which are also ‘material’. I have explained the biological mechanism of their action in terms of removal of molecular inhibitions by acting as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules.
Actually, I keep on saying ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization involve great objective observations of hahnemann regarding the phenomena of cure and drug preparation. But he failed in explaining them correctly, due to the historical limitations of scientific knowledge available to him during his period. As such, he was compelled to explain homeopathy using unscientific concepts of vital force and dynamic energy. His explanations do not agree with the modern scientific knowledge system existing now.
Organon consists of hahnemann’s subjective explanations of objective phenomena he observed. Obviously, there are a lot of unscientific and speculative things in organon. It has all the limitations that could be expected in a medical text written 250 years ago.
One Homeopath narrates his CHARGES against me:
“You constantly comment on matters on homoeopathy as unscientific, you said the organon is unscientific, now you say the vital force is unscientific tomorow you will say potentized medicines are not energy based but chemical compounds and reaction do take place , next time will say homeo medicines work through chemical reactions, you are totally mis-leading the people about homoeopathic theory in conclusion a common man may consider homoeopathy as unscientific or a myth which will damage the image of homoeopathy, if anyone in this page has any contradictory statements to me i am bowing my head to you!! chandran sir you are perhaps more a chemistry genius rather than homoeopath! thanks i will learn your biochemistry”
Let me make a list of his charges:
Charge 1: I constantly comment on matters on homeopathy as unscientific.
Answer: Actually, I keep on saying ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization involves great objective observations of hahnemann regarding the phenomena of cure and drug preparation. But he failed in explaining them correctly, due to the historical limitations of scientific knowledge available to him during his period. As such, he was compelled to explain homeopathy using unscientific concepts of vital force and dynamic energy. His explanations do not agree with the modern scientific knowledge system existing now.
Charge 2: I said the organon is unscientific
Answer: Organon consists of hahnemann’ explanations of phenomena he observed. Obviously, there are a lot of unscientific and speculative things in organon. It has all the limitations that could be expected in a medical text written 250 years ago.
Charge 3: I say the vital force is unscientific.
Answer: Exactly. I said it. And I have explained it.
Charge 4: Tomorow I will say potentized medicines are not energy based but chemical compounds and reaction do take place.
Answer: Not tomorrow. I have already said it, and explained it. There cannot such a MEDICINE that ‘energy hased’ or ‘immaterial’. A medicine will be always ‘material’ or ‘matter based’. Potentized medicines are molecular imprints, which are also ‘material’. I have explained the biological mechanism of their action in terms of removal of molecular inhibitions by acting as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules.
Charge 5: Next time I will say homeo medicines work through chemical reactions.
Answer: Not through ‘chemical reactions’. See the above answer.
Charge 6: I am totally mis-leading the people about homoeopathic theory
Answer: Homeopathic ‘people’ have been already misled by unscientific theories for last 250 years. I am trying to show them the right way by explaining homeopathy in scientific terms.
Charge 7: A common man may consider homoeopathy as unscientific or a myth which will damage the image of homoeopathy
Answer: A common man with scientific background will find it very easy to understand homeopathy if you explain it using MIT concepts. Image of homeopathy will be enhanced.
Charge 8: I am ‘perhaps’ more a chemistry genius rather than a homeopath.
Answer: I an not a ‘chemistry genius’ or ‘homeopathy genius’. I am an ordinary lay man with scientific outlook.
A homeopath says: “there are many people in this page many eminent scholars and leading homoeopaths, i dont see any comments which means none of them could understand as one side you say vital force and dynamic energy is unscientific and in another side you are saying the same thing through chemistry and bio-chemic reaction”.
It is a right observation from Dr Imthiaz. Many ’eminent scholars and homeopaths’ could not understand what I am saying! They could not understand why I am saying “vital force and dynamic energy is unscientific”, and explaining homeopathy by “saying the same thing through chemistry and biochemical reactions”.
Only difference between those ’eminent scholar-homeopaths’ and Dr Imthiaz is that he makes comments without understanding anything, whereas others do not comment on what they do not understand!
Dear friend, if you see MIT concepts of homeopathy as “unscientific theory”, and vital force-dynamic energy as “scientific theory”, it only means you are standing upside down! That is why you see ‘scientific’ and ‘unscientific’ reversed!
How can I discuss SCIENCE OF HOMEOPATHY with a ‘homeopath’ who declares “I have faith in homeopathy, be it scientific or not- it has to be that”?
If you are not bothered whether homeopathy is “scientific or not”, it is better to stay away from my pages. I am talking only to those who are interested in scientific understanding of homeopathy. I know, a prominent section of homeopaths belong to this class of “I have faith in homeopathy, be it scientific or not”.
YOU HAVE FAITH- THAT MAY BE ENOUGH FOR YOU. But don’t expect everybody to be satisfied by mere FAITH. There are people who want to know whether it is “scientific or not”.
A homeopath from Srilanka says: “I could explain you theory of vital force as frequency or resonance in the form of physics”!
I have seen a lot of those ‘explanations’, pure rubbish pseudoscience. Dear friend, you cannot make ‘vital force’ theory ‘scientific’ by simply spicing over it with a few ‘scientific’ terms such as ‘resonance’ and ‘frequency’.
Playing with such words may help you to impress those simple-minded people who actually know nothing about physics. Anybody who studied PHYSICS at least up to high school level know what is meant by FORCE, and FOUR FUNDAMENTAL FORCES existing in nature. If “vital force is immaterial”, “spiritual” and “dynamic”, how can you ‘explain’ such an ‘immaterial’ thing using physics? Why should you try to do that? Physics is the study of phenomena of MATERIAL WORLD- not ‘immaterial things’. PHYSICS and METAPHYSICS are entirely different fields, sir. You are talking metaphysics!MEDICAL SCIENCE is not metaphysics or ‘philosophy’. Subject-matter, paradigms and methods of both are entirely different from one another. If you want HOMEOPATHY to be a medical science, and homeopath to be a physician, you have to learn to think, talk and practice homeopathy as a ‘science’- not as ‘philosophy’.
Unless you could avoid ‘vital force’ and ‘dynamic energy’ from the theoretical framework of homeopathy, you cannot learn or practice homeopathy as a MEDICAL SCIENCE. Those concepts are part of a totally unscientific world outlook that has no any relevance in a discussion on medical science. Personally you are free to believe or not believe in ‘vital force’, but that topic should be discussed some where else, as part of philosophy, if anybody is interested in it- not in homeopathy.
It is one’s approach towards ‘vital force theory’ that primarily determines whether he belongs to the class of scientific homeopaths or unscientific homeopaths. I prefer to stay away from those who are so much interested in in discussing ‘vital force’ as part of theory of homeopathy. I know, nobody can talk science to such people.
Do not drag ‘vital force’ into our scientific discourse of homeopathy. Homeopathy is a medical science. Learn it, teach it and practice it as a subject of science.
Citing the ‘experiences of stalwarts’ or quoting the ‘words of masters’ do not by themselves prove any PRINCIPLES or LAWS in homeopathy. Different persons INTERPRET same experience in different ways, depending up on their subjective individual perceptions and understandings.
In the absence of a scientifically viable explanation for biological mechanism of homeopathic cure, “experience of stalwarts and thousands of reputed homeopathic physicians practicing all over the world” will not be considered as EVIDENCES, especially when different ‘stalwarts’ have entirely different and contradicting opinions on many issues in homeopathy.
Unless you are capable of saying ‘what are the active principles of potentized drugs’, and ‘what is the exact biological mechanism by which potentized drugs act’, there is no meaning in making ‘theories’ about ‘optimum doses’, ‘selection of potency’, ‘aggravations’, ‘drug relationships’, ‘bad effects of over dose’, or anything like that.
My opinions on all these subjects are based on the concepts of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS as active principles of potentized drugs.
Now we are living a new era of scientific awareness, very much advanced than that of hahnemann. Modern biochemistry, molecular biology and supramolecular chemistry have provided us with enough scientific tools and information to explain similia similibus curentur and potentization in scientific terms. It is a gross injustice and insult to the great genius of hahnemann if we still continue to explain his wonderful therapeutic method in terms of unscientific concepts of ‘vital force’ and ‘dynamic drug energy’, which he happened to utilize only due to the lack of scientific knowledge available to him during his period.
I hope scientific community would seriously consider my hypothesis of MOLECULAR IMPRINTED PROTEINS as a major class of pathogenic agents that cause so-called auto-immune diseases and various proteinopathies such as alzhiemers, dementia, prion diseases and the like. They should scientifically verify the concept of antibodies and other deformed proteins as ‘native proteins subjected to a natural process of molecular imprinting by alien proteins or antigens’.
Such studies will inevitably lead them to a better understanding of various diseases currently considered incurable, and may also help scientists in developing a whole new range of therapeutic agents to combat such serious diseases.
What is ‘totality of symptoms’? What is the use of ‘totality of symptoms’ in homeopathic case taking? What happen if ‘totality of symptoms’ is not taken?
Many homeopaths think ‘totality of symptoms’ means ‘all symptoms’ of the patient. They writes down ‘all symptoms’ from ‘mind’, ‘generals’ and ‘head’ to ‘particulars’ in minute details, repertorize, select a ‘similimum’ and give it to the patient- and utterly fail in producing any result. Then they declare- ‘well selected’ similmum has failed, totality does not work.
They should understand, ‘totality of symptoms’ does not mean ‘all symptoms’, but all ‘complete symptoms’ you collected from the patient. By TOTALITY OF SYMPTOMS, you should understand ‘all complete symptoms considered in their totality’. If a symptom is not ‘complete’ in itself, it cannot be part of a ‘totality’. Any ABNORMAL symptom, qualified with its most characteristic ACCESSORIES such as ‘causation, location, presentation, sensation, modalities and concomitants’ may be called a COMPLETE SYMPTOM, and in certain cases, even a single ‘complete symptom’ may represent the TOTALITY. A reasonable homeopathic prescriptions could be based on even such a SINGLE ‘total symptom’.
If you do not know the art of collecting one or more such TOTAL SYMPTOMS in your patient, you are bound to fail in producing any result, even if you laboriously collect ‘all symptoms’ and repertorize it.
There may be instances where ‘totality’ of such ‘complete symptoms’ do not indicate a SINGLE remedy. Each separate COMPLETE symptom may give a separate similimum. In order to understand this phenomenon, you should learn to perceive diseases in terms of different types of molecular errors caused by different types of pathogenic molecules. You should also learn to perceive potentized drugs in terms of diverse types of molecular imprints they contain. Different molecular errors may be represented by by different symptom complexes, requiring different types of molecular imprints to rectify them. If a single drug does not provide all the molecular imprints required to remove all the molecular inhibitions in a patient, we will have to use more than one drug to ensure a TOTAL CURE. If different ‘symptom complexes’ indicate entirely different similimum, we should use all those different drugs- serially, alternatingly or in combined prescriptions.
What will happen if a patient is ‘over dosed’ with a ‘well-indicated’ homeopathic drug? Is there any chance for intoxication or any reaction?
My well thought answer to this question is an affirmative ‘NO’!
If the drug is ‘indicated’, that means it contains molecular imprints having conformational affinity to the pathogenic molecules in the organism. ONLY they will work, by binding to them and deactivating them.
In any ‘dose’, there will be a lot of molecular imprints that have no affinity to any targets in that particular patient, and they will not work. They are simply ‘not indicated’. SAME WITH ‘OVER DOSE’- they have no action, as they have no molecular targets to work upon. They ‘work’ as ‘water and ethyl alcohol’ they consist of. That is all
I know we cannot resolve our difference in perspectives regarding ‘vital force’ through an argument here.
I only wanted to say, ‘vital force’ based concepts no way help us to explain homeopathy in scientific terms. Whether we believe in ‘vital force’ or not, we have to explain ‘how homeopathy works’ in terms of molecular mechanisms of its biological actions in a way fitting to the modern scientific knowledge of biochemistry. You may believe and keep on saying “homeopathy works so deep in to the life-force”, but that is not the language of science- that will not make homeopathy a MEDICAL SCIENCE.
Most homeopaths think that to be real homeopaths, they have to blindly BELIEVE in the ‘principles’ and ‘laws’ taught by ORGANON, HAHNEMANN and other STALWARTS of homeopathy, without asking any questions or inquiring about the scientific validity or basis of those teachings
Until and unless we succeed in knowing and explaining homeopathy in scientific terms, and prove them according to scientific methods, everything we talk as ‘principles of homeopathy’ are only ‘blind beliefs’.
Please note, I am not saying “homeopathy is blind belief”, but those scientifically unexplained “principles of homeopathy” are ‘blind beliefs.
Homeopathy involves hahnemann’s objective observation of true ‘experience’ regarding phenomena of cure, but its ‘principles’ and theoretical explanations are mere speculations and blind beliefs based on 250 year old human knowledge.
We have to explain our ‘homeopathic experience’ on the basis of present day scientific knowledge, so that we can eliminate ‘blind beliefs’ from it and make it a real science.
Homeopathic potentization is ‘target-specific drug designing’ by MOLECULAR IMPRINTING IN WATER. ‘Similia Similibus Surentur’ is a scientific method of of ‘target-specific drug piloting’.
When I explain Homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, and say it is an advanced branch of modern molecular medicine, most homeopaths do not understand it, and scientific community totally ignore it. For the time being, it will be difficult for both homeopaths as well as scientists to recognize this great truth. But I am sure, a day will come very shortly, when everybody will understand and accept MIT concepts.
All skeptics are not scientific. Most of those who attack homeopathy are pseudo-scientific skeptics, who vainly pretend to be a ‘saviors of science’, without knowing the essential basics of science or scientific methods. Their ways basically differ from genuine scientific approach. Science is concerned with truth, whereas skeptics blindly negate all truth unknown to them! Anybody can become a self-proclaimed skeptic and pretend as a defender of science, simply by abusing homeopathy and homeopaths. It is much easier than becoming a good homeopath or a good scientist.
There cannot be a SYMPTOM without a molecular level process behind it. Even a SENSATION, a ÈMOTION, a DREAM, or a DELUSION has a molecular level process underlying it, happening in the nervous system.
SYMPTOMS may be of two types: 1. NORMAL or PHYSIOLOGICAL symptoms, that represent normal biochemical interactions that are part of normal physiological processes, 2. ABNORMAL or PATHOLOGICAL symptoms that represent altered biochemical processes that are part of abnormal physiological processes, or molecular level PATHOLOGY.
All drug substances act on biological molecules. No drug can act on MIND without acting on biological molecules, since mind is nothing but complex biochemical processes happening in the brain cells, which is also integral part of body.
PATHOLOGY is always at ‘molecular level’. ÇURE happens at ‘molecular level’. Therapeutics is always a ‘molecular level intervention’ in the biological processes by the physician, using ‘molecular tools’ we call DRUGS.
There is nothing immaterial, or dynamic in life, disease, symptoms, cure, or drug actions a physician deals with. Everything related with the work of a PHYSICIAN are material phenomena.
Potentized homeopathic medicines are commonly dispensed as medicated sugar pills or sugar of milk.
Sugar pills are made of cane sugar or SUCROSE. Sucrose is the organic compound belonging to the class of ‘carbohydrates’, commonly known as table sugar and sometimes called saccharose. A white, odorless, crystalline powder with a sweet taste, it is best known for its role in food. The molecule is a disaccharide composed of the monosaccharides glucose and fructose with the molecular formula C12H22O11.
Sugar of milk or Lactose is a disaccharide sugar found in milk. It has a formula of C12H22O11. Lactose is a disaccharide derived from the condensation of monosacharides galactose and glucose, which form a β-1→4 glycosidic linkage. Its systematic name is β-D-galactopyranosyl-(1→4)-D-glucose. The glucose can be in either the α-pyranose form or the β-pyranose form, whereas the galactose can only have the β-pyranose form: hence α-lactose and β-lactose refer to anomeric form of the glucopyranose ring alone. Lactose is hydrolysed to glucose and galactose, isomerised in alkaline solution to lactulose, and catalytically hydrogenated to the corresponding polyhydric alcohol, lactitol. Lactose crystals have a characteristic tomahawk shape that can be observed with a light microscope.
Both sucrose and lactose, used in homeopathic pharmacy, could be hydrolyzed into their sub-units by digestive enzymes, and absorbed into blood stream.
Use of cane sugar and sugar of milk in homeopathic pharmacy is equivalent to use of various ‘excipents’ in modern pharmaceutical industry. An excipient is generally a pharmacologically inactive substance formulated with the active ingredient of a medication. Excipients are commonly used to bulk up formulations that contain potent active ingredients (thus often referred to as “bulking agents,” “fillers,” or “diluents”), to allow convenient and accurate dispensation of a drug substance when producing a dosage form. They also can serve various therapeutic-enhancing purposes, such as facilitating drug absorption or solubility, or other pharmacokinetic considerations. Excipients can also be useful in the manufacturing process, to aid in the handling of the active substance concerned such as by facilitating powder flowability or non-stick properties, in addition to aiding in vitro stability such as prevention of denaturation over the expected shelf life. The selection of appropriate excipients also depends upon the route of administration and the dosage form, as well as the active ingredient and other factors. Pharmaceutical regulations and standards require that all ingredients in drugs, as well as their chemical decomposition products, be identified and shown to be safe.
CELLULOSE seems to be a better choice for dispensing homeopathic medicines, when compared to sugar of milk and cane sugar. Cellulose is an organic compound with the formula (C6H10O5)n, a polysaccharide consisting of a linear chain of several hundred to over ten thousand D-glucose units. Cotton fibers represent the purest natural form of cellulose, containing more than 90% of this polysaccharide.
In many ways, cellulose makes the ideal excipient for pharmaceuticals as well as food articles. A naturally occurring polymer, it is composed of glucose units connected by a 1-4 beta glycosidic bond. These linear cellulose chains are bundled together as microfibril spiralled together in the walls of plant cell. Each microfibril exhibits a high degree of three-dimensional internal bonding resulting in a crystalline structure that is insoluble in water and resistant to reagents. There are, however, relatively weak segments of the microfibril with weaker internal bonding. These are called amorphous regions but are more accurately called dislocations since microfibril containing single-phase structure. The crystalline region is isolated to produce microcrystalline cellulose.
Microcrystalline cellulose is a term for refined wood pulp and is used as a texturizer, an anti-caking agent, a fat substitute, an emulsifier, an extender, and a bulking agent in food production.The most common form is used in vitamin supplements or tablets. It is also used in plaque assays for counting viruses.
I have been doing some experiments in homeopathic dispensing by using CELLULOSE, both as cotton fibers as well as commercially available microcystalline cellulose. Small quantity of pure cotton fibers were moistened with potentized drugs selected as similimum, and kept until it is dried and advised the patients to keep it under tongue for some time. It acted very promptly, much better than when administered by other conventional means. By keeping under tongue for extended periods, the molecular imprints adsorbed in the cotton get gradually released, thereby ensuring appropriate exposure and availability.
We can apply medicated cotton also as wound dressing, and to cover skin lesions as eczema. Medicated cotton has been used as anal plugging in haemorrhoids with promising results.
Microcrystalline cellulose is commercially available in the market in tablet forms, which could be moistened by potentized drugs and kept for long periods. They also gave excellent results in my experiments.
When homeopaths demand for getting permission to practice allopathy, it means THEY have failed as homeopaths. It is the failure of INDIVIDUAL homeopaths- not of homeopathy.
Abnormal symptoms are expressions of abnormal physiological processes, which is called pathology. Abnormal thermal reactions are expressions of abnormal physiology. You need not consider a normal symptom in the selection of similimum. It is applicable to thermal reactions also. Individualization has to be done using abnormal symptoms.
Drug symptoms represent abnormal molecular processes produced by drug molecules. Disease symptoms represent abnormal molecular processes produced by pathogenic molecules. We are comparing drug symptoms and disease symptoms to identify a drug substance that produced symptoms exactly similar to disease symptoms, so that drug molecules and pathogenic molecules will be similar. Only then, molecular imprints of drug molecules can deactivate pathogenic molecules and remove molecular inhibitions, thereby resulting in a cure
Kindly read CHRONIC DISEASES carefully once again. You will realize, while introducing the concepts of MIASMS, hahnemann was actually talking about the life long ‘chronic disease dispositions’ resulting from infectious diseases.
Most probably, a ‘keynote’ symptom is a ‘symptom complex’ that represents a specific molecular error produced in the organism by a specific pathogenic molecule. When same ‘keynote’ ‘symptom complex’ is also present in a drug, that shows the drug also contains a constituent molecule similar to that pathogenic molecule, which produced similar molecular errors during drug proving. Due to that similarity, molecular imprints of that particular drug molecules can bind specifically to those pathogenic molecules, there by removing the molecular inhibitions they produced in biological molecules.
‘Totality of symptoms’ in a patient means totality of all the diverse types of ‘symptom complexes’ expressed by the patient, representing all the diverse types of molecular errors produced by all the diverse types of pathogenic molecules.
If anybody has least doubt whether or not hahnemann was talking about the ‘miasm of psora’ as originating from ‘infection of itch disease’, kindly read this part from ‘Chronic Diseases’-Para 37:
“Psora (itch disease), like syphilis, is a miasmatic chronic disease, and its original development is similar. The itch disease is, however, also the most contagious of all chronic miasmata, far more infectious than the other two chronic miasmata, the venereal chancre disease and the figwart disease”.
“But the miasma of the itch needs only to touch the general skin, especially with tender children”.
“No other chronic miasma infects more generally, more surely, more easily and more absolutely than the miasma of itch; as already stated, it is the most contagious of all. It is communicated so easily, that even the physician, hurrying from one patient to another, in feeling the pulse has unconsciously inoculated other patients with it; wash which is washed with wash infected with the itch; new gloves which had been tried on by an itch patient, a strange lodging place, a strange towel used for drying oneself have communicated this tinder of contagion; yea, often a babe, when being born, is infected while passing through the organs of the mother, who may be infected (as is not infrequently the case) with this disease; or the babe receives this unlucky infection through the hand of the midwife, which has been infected by another parturient woman (or previously); or, again, a suckling may be infected by its nurse, or, while on her arm, by her caresses or the caresses of a strange person with unclean hands; not to mention the thousands of other possible ways in which things polluted with this invisible miasma may touch a man in the course of his life, and which often can in no way be anticipated or guarded against, so that men who have never been infected by the psora are the exception. We need not to hunt for the causes of infection in crowded hospitals, factories, prisons, or in orphan houses, or in the filthy huts of paupers; even in active life, in retirement, and in the rich classes, the itch creeps in”.
It is obvious that hahnemann considered human beings aquiring ‘miasm of psora’ only by getting ‘infected’ with ‘itch’ disease.
But our ‘miasmatic experts’ make theories about even ‘genetic inheritance’ of ‘psora’! I would request young homeopaths to carefully read the original works of hahnemann with a logical and scientific mindset, instead of ‘learning miasms’ from modern interpreters.
Listen to hahnemann saying: “not to mention the thousands of other possible ways in which things polluted with this invisible miasma may touch a man in the course of his life, and which often can in no way be anticipated or guarded against, so that men who have never been infected by the psora are the exception”.
Hahnemann explains the diverse ways of getting infected by itch to show why “men who have never been infected by psora are the exception”. But our miasmatic experts would say that it is due to ‘genetic inheritance’!
If you perceive DRUG SUBSTANCES in terms of their diverse types individual constituent molecules, and perceive MOLECULAR IMPRINTING in terms of imprinting of those ‘individual’ molecules, you will realize that ‘slight’ changes in molecular constitution of drugs arising from environmental factors will not be a big problem. Most of the kingdom-specific, family-specific, genus-specific, and species-specific CHEMICAL MOLECULES will be there in any sample of that drug. That will be enough for it to work in MOST cases when indicated by symptoms.
In KEYNOTE prescriptions, we select a similimum by considering only specific SYMPTOM COMPLEX representing a specific MOLECULAR ERROR in the patient as a standard single UNIT, and identifying a drug that could produce SYMPTOM COMPLEX similar to it during drug proving.
‘Keynote symptom’ in a patient means a particular ‘symptom complex’ expressed by the patient, representing a particular type of molecular error produced by a particular type of pathogenic molecule.
When finding similimum by ‘totality of symptoms’, we are trying to find a drug that contains maximum number of diverse chemical molecules matching to maximum number of diverse pathogenic molecules that produced the diverse types of molecular errors as well as ‘symptom complexes’ in that particular patient.
When finding similimum by KEYNOTE method, we are trying to find a particular drug that contains a particular constituent molecule that is SIMILAR to a particular pathogenic molecule that produced a particular molecular in the organism and expressed through a particular ‘symptom complex’.
KEYNOTE PRESCRIPTION tries to address a case by identifying a specific molecular error in the patient, where as TOTALITY OF SYMPTOMS tries to address the case by considering maximum number of diverse molecular errors existing in the patient.
Keynote symptom is a symptom, which if present in a patient, will directly lead us to a specific remedy. That symptom will work as a KEYNOTE in deciding a prescription for that case.
We should be very careful while deciding whether a person is cold or hot during case taking. A person should considered HOT only if he is hot even in cold conditions. And should be considered COLD only if he is cold even in hot conditions. That is what I mean by saying ABNORMAL symptoms. Being hot in hot conditions, and cold in cold conditions are NORMAL, have no value in homeopathic case study.
A KEYNOTE symptom is a specific ‘symptom complex’ of ‘accessory symptoms’ that when appears associated with an ABNORMAL BASIC SYMPTOM in a patient, specifically indicates a particular remedy. These KEYNOTE ‘symptom complexes’ are constituted by two or more very characteristic ‘accessory symptoms’ belonging to categories such as causations, locations, presentations, sensations, modalities and concomitants.
A Keynote ‘symptom complex’ becomes more useful in practice, when it contains minimum number of ‘accessory symptoms’ and it indicates minimum number of drugs- preferably SINGLE drug. In such cases, that drug could be prescribed very easily, and with full confidence.
Do you feel safe and confident by ‘vaccinating’ your pet animals using ‘potentized homeopathic nosodes’, avoiding routine vaccinations?
Fundamental error ‘classical miasmatic analysts’ make is, they have turned hahnemann’s concept of miasms upside down. According to those people, ‘gonorrhoea is CAUSED BY sycosis’, itch infection is CAUSED BY psora’, and ‘syphilis disease is CAUSED BY miasm of syphilis’. And these ‘miasms are caused by original sins of humanity’!
They interpret hahnemann in a very wrong way. Kindly read CHRONIC DISEASES once again carefully, avoiding ‘interpreters’. Hahnemann actually said, these three miasms were CAUSED BY these infectious diseases. And, these three miasms in turn CAUSE other diverse types of CHRONIC DISEASES.
According to hahnemann, PSORA is never acquired unless the person is ONCE infected by itch disease, SYCOSIS is never acquired unless the person is ONCE infected by gonoorhoea, SYPHILIS is never acquired unless the the person is ONCE infected with syphilis disease.
All confusions regarding miasms could be resolved only by first resolving the confusion whether hahnemann considered PSORA, SYPHILIS and SYCOSIS are CAUSED by infectious diseases, or those infectious diseases are CAUSED by already existing miasms of ORIGINAL SINS OF HUMANITY.
We are taught that ‘sycosis’ is the miasm of gonorrhoea. Did you ever notice hahnemann on many occasions mentioning ‘figwart disease’ also, along with gonorrhoea while explaining the miasm of sycosis?
On closely observing the symptoms hahnemann ascribed to ‘sycotic miasm’, we can understand that many of those symptoms like warts belong to human papilloma virus infection.
During hahnemann’s period, figwarts were considered to be caused by gonorrhoeal infections, since they appeared concurrently in most individuals. The fact is that gonorrhoea and HPV comes mostly as mixed infections. Since much information was not available during Hahnemann’s time about HPV as the causative agent of ‘ano-genital warts’ or ‘figwart disease’ and ‘uterine fibromas’, he attributed all these complaints and symptoms to gonorrhoea, and called it ‘sycotic miasm’.
In most occasions he refers the miasm of ‘sycosis’ as ‘miasm of figwart disease’, not ‘miasm of gonorrhoea. ‘Figwart disease is not gonorrhoea; it is Human Papilloma Virus disease. It is obvious that hahnemann was confused about gonorrhoea and figwart disease. Since he could not differentiate between gonorrhoea and HPV, he wrongly considered ‘figwart disease’ as part of gonorrhoea.
While introducing the concept of MIASMS of ‘infectious diseases’ as the causative factor of CHRONIC DISEASES, HAHNEMANN was actually thinking far ahead of his contemporary science. Both the scientific community, as well as his own followers failed in understanding the real meaning and implications of this epoch making revelation.
Modern science has only just started to realize the role of ANTIBODIES as a major class of disease-producing molecules, which were so far considered only as ‘defense molecules’ of our body.
Recent studies of ‘off target’ inhibitions produced by antibodies as a major causative factor in chronic diseases so far called as ‘auto-immune’ diseases shows that hahnemann was thinking 200 years ahead of his time while introducing the concept of miasms.
Let us bow our heads in memory of that great genius, whose observational and reasoning skills transcended the limitations of not only his time and knowledge available to him, but even coming centuries.
He limited his discussions to ‘three’ miasms, since according to him, itch-leprosy, syphilis and figwart-gonorrhoea disease were the most widely distributed infectious diseases during his time.
How an ‘infectious agent’ can produce a ‘chronic disposition’ even after the infectious disease is cured, is the subject of my inquiries. According to me, it can happen only through the antibodies generated in the organism against those infectious substances, which contain protein molecules alien to the organism. These antibodies remain lifelong, and can bind to ‘off-target’ biological molecules, thereby producing diverse types of chronic diseases.
ANTIBODIES are the carriers of miasms- this is what I try to make out. Antibodies and misformed proteins generated in the body against diverse types of infectious agents and other ‘alien’ proteins constitute a major class of pathogenic agents that cause diverse types of CHRONIC DISEASES, including even auto-immune diseases and proteinopathies.
Hahnemann called this pathogenic factors as ‘miasms’, as he was not much aware of antibodies and immunology during his period
J H Clarke says in Dictionary Of Materia Medica: Nux Vomica : Relations:
“Nux and Puls. have many symptoms in common, but are opposite in temperament and conditions. For all that they may be required by the same patient when temperaments and conditions are mixed.”
What does it mean? Does it mean PULS and NUX will be required by the same patient “when temperaments and conditions are mixed”?
If we prepare separate samples of NUX VOMICA tinctures from root, bark, leaves, seeds, flowers etc of that tree and prove them, we will get entirely different materia medica of NUX VOMICA, as the molecular constituents of each sample will be different. Only some of the symptoms will be common to all those samples, which represent the biological actions of ‘species-specific’, ‘family-specific’, ‘kingdom-specific’ and ‘species-specific’ chemical molecules present in all samples. Symptoms representing ’tissue-specific’ actions will be different from sample to sample, and their medicinal properties also will differ. Molecular constitution, symptoms and medicinal properties will vary from sample to sample, depending upon climate, environment, soil conditions, processing, seasons, contamination, and many such factors.
If you see homeopathy as a finished product you “PURCHASED”, and organon as an “instruction manual of that product”, you need not worry about the scientific or unscientific aspects of homeopathy. In this case, homeopath is not a physician, but only a USER of a PRODUCT he PURCHASED!
If you see homeopathy as a MEDICAL SCIENCE, and homeopath as a PHYSICIAN, you will have to be concerned about unscientific things in homeopathy, you will have to update it in accordance with the advancement of science and human knowledge. For this class of homeopaths, homeopathy will not “remain the same” in theory, concept and practice. IT WILL CHANGE.
THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC AND UNSCIENTIFIC APPROACHES TOWARDS HOMEOPATHY.
“SIMILIA SIMILIA CURENTUR represents a RIGHT observation regarding the OBJECTIVE phenomenon of cure”. I ACCEPT IT, and try to advance it.
“ORGANON explains that phenomenon in a very unscientific way”. I DISCARD that explanation, and try to explain homeopathy in scientific terms.
MIT is only a ‘hypothesis’ at the present stage of its evolution- I agree. But it is a ‘scientific working hypothesis’, as it proposes a SCIENTIFIC MODEL for biological actions involved in homeopathic cure. Can anybody say ‘classical homeopathy’ is a ‘scientifically verified theory’, or is there at least a viable hypothesis in it? If you claim so, kindly tell me in SCIENTIFIC TERMS, what is the ‘biological mechanism’ of homeopathic drug action, and what are the exact ‘active principles’ of potentized drugs? If you cannot answer these questions, your ‘classical homeopathy’ does not qualify to be called even as a ‘hypothesis’, sir.
Why should I ‘BELIEVE’ in organon? It is not a bible to be ‘believed’. It is a 250 year old MEDICAL TEXT. I read it, study it. Lean from it. Think about it. Accept something that are rational and logical in it. Discard something that are not logical and rational in it. If I think organon and homeopathy is totally wrong, why should I work for homeopathy?
In my view, SIMILIA SIMILIA CURENTUR represents a RIGHT observation regarding the OBJECTIVE phenomenon of cure. But ORGANON explains that phenomenon in a very unscientific way, due to the infantile stage of scientific knowledge available at that time. I am trying to explain SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge.
MOLECULAR IMPRINTS act as ‘artificial binding sites’ ONLY for pathogenic molecules having specific complementary conformational affinity. They cannot produce any pathological inhibitions in biological molecules. They cannot interfere in the interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands. As such, they cannot do any harm even if administered on wrong indications, or used in ‘excess’ doses. If not indicated, it will not work- that is all.
I beg you, please. Please free your mind from silly egos, personal jealousies and theoretical prejudices for a while. Please free your mind from the chains of your hard ‘beliefs’ and ‘dedications’ for a while. Please spare at least ONE hour for carefully reading an article on ‘Molecular Imprints Therapeutics’ and think over it for a while with an OPEN mind. Please spend a few minutes searching the web for the meaning of some technical terms used in the article that you feel difficult to comprehend.
If you do at least that much favor to me, you will experience a great revolutionary transformation happening in your vision as a homeopath by understanding MIT concepts.
If you do that much favor to me, you will experience how much it changes the way you perceive and practice homeopathy.
If you do that much favor to me, you will start wondering how you could so far afford to miss or ignore this simple but wonderful revelation going around here for some time now.
There is no ‘scientific homeopathy’ and ‘unscientific homeopathy’. There is only homeopathy. The difference is between ‘scientific approach’ and ‘unscientific approach’ towards homeopathy.
MOLECULAR IMPRINTING happens only if there is MOLECULES to imprint. Once the dilution crosses 12C or avogadro limit, all drug molecules will be removed, and only MOLECULAR IMPRINTS remain. As such, there is no chance for any molecular imprinting to happen.
If you continue the process of ‘serial dilution and succussion’ even after crossing avogadro limit, there is a chance for REPLICATION of molecular imprints by a process of INDUCED MOLECULAR ASSEMBLY similar to the process involved in CRYSTALLIZATION, and it is not impossible, as molecular imprints are actually NANO-CRYSTALS.
How much you can DILUTE a solution? Nobody can DILUTE a solution even after all the SOLUTE molecules are removed from it. You cannot dilute water by adding a little more water into it! That means, you can dilute a DRUG only upto AVOGADRO LIMIT or 12C. You cannot prepare a 30C ‘dilution’ or 200C ‘dilution’ of a DRUG SUBSTANCE! There cannot be such a thing called ‘ULTRA-DILUTION’. HIGHEST dilution is 12C.
USE THE TERM ‘MOLECULAR IMPRINTING’, INSTEAD OF ‘POTENTIZATION’, ‘DILUTION’ AND ‘DYNAMIZATION’.
‘Potentization’, ‘Dynamyzation’, ‘Dilution’- Homeopaths use all these words to refer to the process of ‘serial dilution and succussion’ by which homeopathic medicinal substances are prepared.
Do these terms exactly describe the actual process of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING involved in this process?
The term ‘dilution’ is applicable only when the solute molecules remain in the solution. Once the solute molecules are completely removed from the ‘solution’, it is not a ‘solution’, and as such, it cannot be further ‘diluted’. You cannot ‘dilute’ water by a adding a little more water. That means, a preparation diluted above 12c or avogadro limit cannot be called a ‘dilution’.
The term ‘potentization’ originated from the concept that the ‘potency’ or medicinal ‘power’ of the preparation increases through each stage of ‘dilution and succussion’. This concept of ‘increasing medicinal power’ is not valid once you perceive this process as MOLECULAR IMPRINTING. Molecular imprinting is actually a process of preparing ‘artificial recognition sites’ in the supra-molecular matrix of the medium, through a process of ‘host-guest’ interactions between solute molecules and solvent molecules. Obviously, the term ‘potentization’ does not exactly describe the process of medicinal preparation in homeopathy.
The term ‘dynamization’ from the vitalistic or energy medicine theories of homeopathy. As per this view, every drug substance has its ‘inherent qualities’, which exist as specific ‘energy’ of dynamic in form, and act up on the ‘vital force’ of organism by a dynamic way. This dynamic drug energy can exist free from ‘material drug substance and get transferred into rectified spirit or sugar of milk through a process of ‘serial dilution and succussion’.. By this process, the ‘dynamic drug energy’ gettin freed from the drug substance moves to the potentizing medium and ‘energizes’ it. By the process of serial dilution and succussion, this dynamic energy could be ‘raised’ to new energy levels, and as such, it is believed that ‘higher’ dilutions are more ‘dynamized’ and more powerful. This ‘dynamic drug energy’ carried by the homeopathic act upon the vital force and induces a ‘healing process’.
According to scientific understanding proposed by MIT concepts, the process of ‘serial dilution and succussion’ is explained in terms of ‘molecular imprinting’. It is not the ‘dynamic drug energy’ that is transferred into the medium during so-called process of potentization, but the three dimensional conformation of constituent drug molecules getting imprinted into the supra-molecular matrix of potentizing medium in the form of nanocavities, through a process of forming hydration shells. These nanocavities act as artificial binding sites or artificial ‘key holes’ for pathogenic molecules having configurational similarity to imprinted molecules. This concept scientifically explains the molecular dynamics of homeopathic therapeutics involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’ in a way fitting to the concepts of modern biochemistry, molecular pathology and therapeutics.
Logically, it would be ideal to use the scientific term ‘MOLECULAR IMPRINTING’ to explain the exact process involved the preparation of homeopathic drugs. Prepared drugs above 12th stage of dilution- above avogadro limit- could be called MOLECULAR IMPRINTS- Nux Vomica MI, Sulphur MI, Ars MI and the like.
If we really want to make homeopathy a part of MEDICAL SCIENCE, any explanation we provide for the biological mechanism of homeopathic drug actions should be fitting to the paradigms of modern science.
Modern biochemistry explains molecular mechanisms of life processes, disease and cure in terms of ‘key-lock’ relationship between ligands and their target molecules. This ‘key-lock’ concept has been proved practically right by the great successes in the field of DRUG DESIGNING, where specific drug molecules fitting to specific biological targets are synthesized exactly like making appropriate keys for particular locks.
Any model we propose for the 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’ acting as ‘artificial binding sites’ specific pathogenic molecules perfectly meets this fundamental condition.
PLEASE NOTE: Only MIT concepts explains ‘potentization’, ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘high dilution therapeutics’ in exact scientific terms, in a way agreeing with modern scientific understanding of life, disease and cure.
In western countries, homeopathy is included under the umbrella class of ‘Complementary And Alternative Medicine(CAM), which includes all sorts of unscientific, pseudo-scientific and even occult ‘healing arts’. Homeopathy is taught along with these things in many western institutions. If you go through the profile info of even those famous homeopaths, you can realize the real picture.
See the list of healing practices grouped under CAM :
Spiritual healing, shamanic healing, acupuncture, acupressure, chiropractic, sonopuncture, Affirmative prayer, Alexander Technique, Apitherapy, Applied kinesiology, Aromatherapy, Astrology, Auriculotherapy, Autogenic Training, Autosuggestion, Bach Flower Therapy, Balneotherapy, Bates Method, Biodanza, Bioresonance therapy, Blood irradiation therapies, Body-Based Manipulative Therapies, Massage therapy, Chelation therapy, Chinese food therapy, Chinese pulse diagnosis, Chromotherapy, Coding therapy, Coin rubbing, Colloidal silver therapy, Colon hydrotherapy, Color Therapy, Craniosacral Therapy, Creative Visualization, Crystal healing, Cupping, Dowsing, Ear Candling, Electromagnetic therapy, Energy therapies, Magnet therapy, Reiki, Qigong, Shiatsu, Therapeutic Touch, Faith healing, Fasting, Feldenkrais method, Feng shui, Five Elements, Flower essence therapy, Hair analysis therapy, Facial Analysis, Hatha yoga, Hawaiian massage, Herbalism, Herbal therapy, Herbology, Holistic living Holistic medicine, Homeopathy, Home remedies, Hypnosis, Hypnotherapy, Iridology, Isopathy, Light therapy, Macrobiotic lifestyle, Magnetic healing, Manipulative therapy, Medical intuition, Meditation, Meridian, Mindfulness meditation, Transcendental meditation, Vipassana, Mega-vitamin therapy, Mind–body intervention, Feldenkrais method, Moxibustion, Music therapy, Natural Health, Natural therapies, Naturopathic medicine, New Thought, Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Nutritional healing, Nutritional supplements, Orgonomy, Orthomolecular medicine, Osteomyology, Osteopathy, Pilates, Polarity therapy, Power yoga, Pranic healing, Prayer, Psychic surgery, Radionics, Rebirthing, Reflexology, Rolfing, Seitai, Self-hypnosis, Shiatsu, Siddha Medicine, Sonopuncture Sound therapy, Spiritual Mind Treatment, T’ai Chi Ch’uan, Thai massage, Thalassotherapy, Therapeutic horseback riding, Therapeutic Touch, Tibetan eye chart, Traditional Japanese medicine, Traditional Mongolian medicine, Traditional Tibetan medicine, Trager Approach, Transcendental meditation, Trigger point, Tui Na, Unani medicine, Urine therapy, Water therapy, Yoga, Zang Fu theory etc etc.
I think the inclusion of homeopathy in this group of unscientific healingbpractices is totally inappropriate, and is a grave injustice to homeopathy. Homeopaths, at least those want to promote homeopathy as a scientific medical system should strongly oppose this. Actually, homeopathy is an off-shoot of modern medicine, an advanced branch of modern molecular medicine.
Homeopaths should declare, HOMEOPATHY IS NOT CAM- IT IS MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS.
Recently, I get hundreds of chat requests every day- asking for more clarifications on MIT, requesting answers for some questions, seeking help in prescribing for some cases and the like. On some occasions, I am forced to keep 10-15 persons in waiting. I don’t know why most of my friends opt for private chat, instead of posting their questions and comments on my pages. I prefer public discussions, if the topic is not purely personal. If discussed on our groups publicly, it will save me from the burden of repeating same things, and it will be useful for all those who visit this page. When overburdened with chat requests so that I am unable to attend other works, I use to disable chat. Hope my friends would understand my position and co-operate.
Even though modern medicine is more and more turning to target-specific designer drugs, ‘drug designing’ using water molecules and molecular imprinting in water are subjects still remaining unknown to modern drug designers.
Homeopathy has been using this MOLECULAR IMPRINTING technique of preparing therapeutic agents for last 200+ years in the form of POTENTIZATION.
Once the ongoing search of modern scientists for new drug designing techniques and new substances for molecular imprinting finally land them inevitably into the understanding of ‘molecular imprinting in water’, modern medicine and scientific community will have to recognize homeopathy and its potentization. At that moment, they will have to recognize the genius of samuel hahnemann. It is only a matter of a little time now to happen that.
Only thing is, homeopaths should at the eariest tell to the world, HOMEOPATHY IS MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS, and POTENTIZATION IS MOLECULAR IMPRINTING IN WATER.
Researches working up on developing novel DRUG DESIGNING TECHNIQUES may any time arrive at ‘molecular imprinting in water’ as a way to design a whole new range of target-specific drugs to be used in modern medicine. Once they do it, we need not expect them to mention any reference to homeopathy, which actually utilized this drug designing technology by way of POTENTIZATION. They will appropriate it into modern medicine as their original invention, same time continuing their attack on homeopathy.
Actually, I am discussing all my ideas about Molecular Imprints Therapeutics in public, with the hope that it may some how prevent allopaths from appropriating this discovery without paying due recognization to homeopathy.
I see danger in the hesitation of homeopathic community to accept MIT concepts at the earliest. By this hesitation and negligence, we are actually giving allopaths a chance to “turn this discovery in ther side by some way”.
Scientists will have no choice if homeopathic community explains homeopathy and potentization using MIT concepts, before allopaths appropriating MOLECULAR IMPRINTIMG as their invention.
If homeopathic community fail or delay to recognize and accept ‘molecular imprinting’ as part of their theoretical system, it would be easy for modern medicine to interpret it as their independent invention, and incorporate it into their ‘science’ as a new technology of target-specific drug designing. They can easily ‘hijack’ molecular imprinting without any mention or recognizing of homeopathy, potentization or samuel hahnemann.
Hope homeopaths would realize the gravity of this possibility.
Does anybody use MOTHER TINCTURES on the basis of the SIMILIA principle they always swear about, by selecting it as similimum by comparing with totality of symptoms? NO! Nobody prescribes ALFALFA Q, SYZIGIUM Q or RAUVOLFIA Q as SIMILIMUM.
In my opinion, there is nothing wrong in using MOTHER TINCTURES in ‘safe’ doses, if physician decides so. There is nothing wrong in using ALLOPATHY MEDICINES or HERBAL MEDICINES in ‘safe’ doses, if physician decides so. It may do some help in SOME cases- and harm in MOST cases.
But, it is WRONG to say he is practicing HOMEOPATHY!
If you really “want to know the logic behind our medicine action”, first thing you have to try to understand is, “what are the active principles of potentized drugs”, and what is the EXACT MOLECULAR MECHANISM by which these active principles work on our organism. Only after getting SCIENTIFICALLY viable answers to these two fundamental questions, you can move further with your inquiries. UNTIL YOU ANSWERS these BASIC questions, all other theories such as “homoeo medicine act on nerves”, “going to to the brain”, “similimam will trigger to the brain”, “next weak immune system will active again”, “will try to over come on infection”, “it will fight against disease”- EVERYTHING WILL REMAIN PURE IMAGINATION.
My request is, try to answer these TWO questions first:
1. What are the active principles of potentized drugs?
2. what is the EXACT MOLECULAR MECHANISM by which these active principles work on our organism?
Let us discus other things ONLY after reaching a consensus on these TWOP OINTS.
You can ignore what I am saying, as I am not an academician, scientist or a professional with high credentials, positions, qualifications, achievements, fame or authority. I am only an ordinary old lay man. But please do not question my natural right for thought and expression as a human being and a citizen of a country where democracy prevails. Nobody can stop me from THINKING and TALKING. Whether you agree with me or accept my ideas is not my concern. My only concern is whether I am right or wrong- and my strong conviction is, MIT IS RIGHT!
I have no any ‘method’, ‘system’ or ‘theory’ of my own, to propagate or market. MIT is not a new invention- it is only a humble attempt to understand explain homeopathy and high dilution therapeutics, in the light of already available scientific knowledge. I simply talk what I think, what I am convinced, what I feel right. If anybody think I am wrong, I am not interested in ‘proving’ anything to them through arguments. I do not want ‘followers’ ‘believers’ or ‘defenders’. If my ideas are right, they will be accepted now or later by the community. If wrong, they will naturally perish.
If anybody is interested to know more about MIT concepts, I am ready to explain. I am ready to answer any questions you ask, as that will help to make my concepts more and more perfect. If anybody want to prove MIT wrong, let them do so- but I am not available for arguments, as nobody can convince anything to anybody through arguments.
In my opinion, the fundamental ‘limitation’ of homeopathy is that we do not know exactly ‘how homeopathy works’. It just works- that is all.
My mission is to find an answer to that fundamental question, utilizing the already available modern scientific knowledge, in a way convincing to scientific community.
I believe all other ‘riddles’ of homeopathy will be spontaneously resolved once this fundamental question is satisfactorilly answered through MIT concepts I propose.
Homeopathy existed here more than 250 years as an independent therapeutic system totally alienated from mainstream scientific knowledge.
The great divide between ‘allopathy and homeopathy’ could now be effectively bridged through my scientific explanation of potentization and similia similibus curentur in terms of MIT.
Once the people belonging to modern medicine understand the implications of MIT concepts, and accept ‘molecular imprinting’ as part of their target-specific drug designing technology, i am sure, modern MOLECULAR MEDICINE will automatically transform itself into MOLECULAR IMPRINTS MEDICINE.
I think time is now ripe for homeopathy and modern medicine to converge into a common stream of an advanced HIGHER STAGE of scientific medicine, equipped with a whole new range of target-specific medicinal substances developed through MOLECULAR IMPRINTING.
Since MODERN MEDICINE requires a clear understanding of pathological molecular processes underlying the disease to decide an appropriate therapeutic agent, they have no specific treatment for many diseases which are not well understood.
For HOMEOPATHY, knowing the exact molecular error behind the pathology is not necessary, since homeopathy identifies the molecular errors and selects their remedial agents indirectly, by observing subjective and objective ‘symptoms’ that represent the molecular errors.
As such, homeopathy can handle any curable disease even without knowing the exact underlying molecular errors, merely on the basis of ‘similarity of symptoms’.
This is a great advantage for homeopathy. Whereas modern medicine can hope for an effective treatment only for well understood diseases, that too with possibility of unwanted side effects, homeopathy can treat any curable disease effectively and safely.
Since MODERN MEDICINE uses highly reactive ‘drug molecules’ as therapeutic agents, they can create dangerous ‘off-target’ molecular inhibitions in the organism, which we call ‘side effects’ or ‘medicinal diseases’. That is the main draw back of any medical system that utilizes ‘drug molecules’ as therapeutic agents. Since HOMEOPATHY uses only ‘molecular imprints’ that can act only upon pathogenic molecules having specific conformational affinity, they cannot cause any ‘off-target’ inhibitions in any biological molecules in the organism. Hence, homeopathy is very safe when compared to modern medicine.
WHAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOMEOPATHY AND MODERN MEDICINE?
In my opinion, the fundamental difference between homeopathy and modern medicine is that ‘modern medicine’ uses DRUG MOLECULES as therapeutic agents, where as homeopathy uses MOLECULAR IMPRIMTS of drug molecules.
Once again, I would request: kindly avoid commenting on my pages if you do not understand, or are not interested to understand what I say. I am not interested in arguments, but only in a CREATIVE dialogue that helps to advance our knowledge and expand our vision.
IF YOU FEEL ALL THESE QUESTIONS I RAISE AND DISCUSS ARE IRRELEVANT FOR HOMEOPATHY, YOU CAN LEAVE MY PAGE, BECAUSE ALL MY WORKS HERE ARE ONLY ABOUT FINDING ANSWERS FOR THESE HARD FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS ABOUT HOMEOPATHY. WHY SHOULD YOU WASTE YOUR TIME HERE, IF EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE AS HOMEOPATHY IS “SIMPLE AND LOGICAL” FOR YOU, AND IF YOU HAVE NOTHING REMAINING TO LEARN FROM HERE?
“Potentized drugs act by stimulating body defense mechanism” is another cliche for homeopaths.
Nobody is bothered about knowing the exact MOLECULAR MECHANISM by which this “stimulating” is produced by potentized drugs. Nobody is bothered about knowing the MOLECULAR MECHANISM by which drug proving produces symptoms. Nobody is bothered about what are the actual ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of potentized drugs, or the MOLECULAR MECHANISM by which potentized drugs “cure the sick”.
They believe, homeopathy is well explained by merely repeating ‘it stimulates defense mechanism’. HOW? They never ask or answer such a question! Still, everything is “very simple and logical” for them! Sorry to say, your ‘simplicity and logic’ is only a reflection of pathetic IGNORANCE!
Once you start to think over the questions I just raised above, you will realize that things are not that much simple and logical as you think. You will realize that you have been so far groping in the darkness of 250 year old knowledge environment. You will realize that only MIT provides ‘simple and logical’ answers to these questions.
In a scientific dialogue, there is no place for words such as ‘dynamic medicine’. It is a term originating from the unscientific philosophy of dynamism.
If there exists a something that can act ‘dynamically’, it cannot be called a ‘drug’, since drug is a substance that act ‘chemically’- not dynamically. A ‘dynamic’ thing does not need nerves also for ‘acting’. A ‘dynamic’ cannot be carried in pills, or sugar of milk. You cannot keep a ‘dynamic’ thing corked in a bottle- it will disappear ‘dynamically’!
It is an already disproved idea that ‘potentized drugs act through nerves’. MOLECULAR IMPRINTS contained in potentized drugs can enter the body fluids through any mucous surface, or even through pores in our skin.
A lot of research works have been conducted IN VITRO, regarding the action of potentized drugs on laboratory samples of blood, enzymes and tissues, which do not contain NERVE CELLS. The belief of homeopathic drugs acting on nerve cells is already disproved scientifically. But homeopaths hesitate to discard ‘nerve cell’ theory, since their most cherished ‘vital force’ is believed to ‘work through nerves’! They fear, if homeopathic drugs are proved to act without the presence of nerve cells, their VITAL FORCE THEORY as such would collapse.
I know, most homeopaths will find difficult to understand or agree with my views on many things being discussed on this page.
To be capable of understanding what I say about homeopathy, you have to be capable of perceiving:
1. ‘Drug substances’ in terms of diverse types of constituent molecules,
2. ‘Diseases’ in terms of underlying bio-molecular inhibitions or errors produced by pathogenic molecules,
3. ‘Symptoms’ as expressions of diverse types of molecular errors in the organism,
4. ‘Drug proving’ in terms of bio-molecular inhibitions and symptoms produced by constituent molecules of drug substances,
3. ‘Potentization’ in terms of molecular imprinting of individual drug molecules contained in the drug substance,
4. ‘Potentized drugs’ in terms of diverse types of molecular imprints representing the drug molecules,
5. ‘Cure’ in terms of removal of inhibitions of biological molecules.
Obviously, this MIT perspective differs fundamentally from classical understanding of homeopathy.
According to my observations, even if selected as perfect similimum, vegetable and animal drugs fail to bring a perfect cure in many occasions. Same time, if you get a mineral drug as similimum, cure is speedy and perfect. Any opinion?
To understand and explain this phenomenon, we should RIGHTLY understand the molecular processes involved in drug proving, potentization, disease and cure.
In order to produce a homeopathic cure, we have to apply MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug molecules similar to the ‘exact’ pathogenic molecules that ‘actually’ BIND to the biological molecules and produce inhibitions. That is what we mean by ‘perfect similimum’.
When we administer a drug substance in ”crude’ or MOLECULAR form in a healthy person for proving, individual constituent molecules of that substance bind to different biological target molecules and produce molecular errors that are expressed through abnormal symptoms.
Most important point to be noticed is, in the case of vegetable and animal drugs, before binding to the biological targets, constituent molecules may undergo some initial chemical changes in inside the body at various stages of absorption and transportation, depending up on the routes and forms through which they are administered. In such instances, it is these ‘changed’ molecules that bind to the biological molecules and produce symptoms- not the original molecules contained in the drug substance we administered.
For example, if we administer a drug substance consisting of protein molecules such as enzymes, these proteins cannot enter the circulation as such, but only after getting decomposed into constituent amino acids. If ‘snake poison’ enters the body directly into the body through snake bite, proteinaceous enzymes contained it will act directly up on biological molecules. If the same snake poison is ingested by oral route, those enzymes will undergo chemical changes before absorption, and it will be these ‘changed’ molecules that act in our body.
At the same time, we are potentizing vegetable and animal drugs, we are preparing molecular imprints of the ORIGINAL MOLECULES in the drug substance, not the CHANGED molecules that bind to the biological molecules and produce symptoms.
That means, potentized forms of vegetable and animal drugs may not be capable of acting as EXACT similimum, even if indicated by symptoms.
Regarding mineral drugs, the drug molecules or ions enter the body without much changes, and produce molecular inhibitions. Hence, potentized mineral drugs can remove the molecular inhibitions PERFECTLY, when applied as similimum.
I know, there will be many confusions and questions on this subject, since this is the first time this topic is raised. LET US CONTINUE DISCUSSION until all confusions are resolved.
My point is, ALL molecular errors produced in the organism by a vegetable or animal drug cannot be removed by using the potentized forms of those drugs. This is because, it is the ORIGINAL molecules of drug that are potentized, but it is the CHANGED molecules that produce many of the molecular errors and symptoms. That means similia principle should be understood from this angle also
That means, all molecular errors in a person cannot be removed by potentized form of a vegetable-animal drug, even if it seems to be perfectly indicated by ‘totality of symptoms’, since there is an anomaly between the drug molecules that were used for potentization and the drug molecules that actually produced the symptoms. Hope my point is clear.
My point is different, sir. It is not an issue of mineral or vegetable. I am talking about the changes that happen in COMPLEX proteinaceous molecules in animal-vegetable drugs before they act upon the biological molecules, when administered for proving. And pointing to the anomaly between molecular imprints prepared from ORIGINAL molecules, and symptoms produced by CHANGED molecules. Reagarding mineral drugs, their ions and molecules act upon biological molecules without any change, and hence, molecular imprints will be exactly fitting to the ions that produced symptoms.
Your comment deals with an entirely different subject. Kindly try to understand what i tried to explain. If you did not get what i said, kindly avoid making comments that are outside the purview of my topic. We can discuss it later, when i succeed in explaining my point in a better way
Central and State medical councils and governments have rightly initiated actions against the conduct of unrecognized post graduate diploma course (PG Hom(London) of Hahnemann Collegeof Homeopathy, London by a an Indian franchisee in mumbai. It is a welcome move.
Hpathy and its supremo Dr Manish Bhatia is acting as an Indian franchisee for conducting a similar unrecognized high profile homeopathy course of George Vithoulkas, not only for homeopathy graduates but lay men also, and offering DIPLOMAS at high cost of INR 2 lakhs and more! I wonder why the authorities spare these people, while closing down the PG hom team?
Another funny thing is, the Dr. M. K. Sahani, Chairman, Education Committee of Central Council of Homoeopathy and Professor and Head, Dept. of Repertory at G.D. Memorial Homoeopathic Medical College, Patna(Bihar) is also the Chairman of Research Institute Of Sahani Drug Transmission & Homoeopathy in Patna, an institution running ‘post-graduate’ course for teaching HAIR TRANSMISSION HOMEOPATHY, and offering a diploma on that ‘speciality’ for homeopathy graduates. Why the laws of our land is not equally applicable to all?
Most of those ‘new remedies’ appearing in ‘modern’ repertories are not proved systematically according to homeopathic methods. Many provings are done by nonsense methods such as dream proving, meditation proving trituration proving etc. UTTER NONSENSE. They have ‘proved’ even berlin wall, saturn and rainbow! If you read those symptoms they ‘recorded’ by their ‘provings’, you can realize they are nothing but fancies and wild imaginations. Claims of ‘clinical experiences’ is only a part of that absurd game.
There is a DIALECTICAL relationship between THEORY and PRACTICE. All PRACTICE is knowingly or unknowingly guided by a THEORY of some sorts. All THEORY knowingly or unknowingly evolve from PRACTICE.
When we say ‘rare remedy’, that only means our knowledge about that remedy is very ‘rare’.
They are prescribed rarely, only because they are indicated rarely, since we know very little about their actions and symptoms. Once it is proved completely, and we have all the symptoms it could produce in all ogans in our body, it will be frequently indicated, and it will no more be called a rare dug
In my opinion, drug substances consisting of ‘protein molecules’ have to be administered by parenteral routes for perfect proving. If given orally, these protein molecules are worked upon by digestive enzymes and chemically modified before entering the circulation as constituent amino acids. Effects they produce in our body will be entirely different when administered by oral and parenteral routes. This explains the difference between symptoms produced by snake bites and provings of snake poisons. This is applicable to provings of enzymes, nosodes, hormones such as insulin etc etc. Effects of egg albumin taken by mouth and by injections is a striking example.
Potentized forms contain molecular imprints of protein molecules. But when we use them in molecular form by administering by oral route, those molecules are proved in in aform modified by digestive process. That means, symptoms will not represent the original molecules which are potentized.
Snake poisons applied orally will produce symptoms entirely different from those which are produced when they are applied by parenteral route.
I prefer to use those old repertories which were born out of dedication of their compilers to homeopathy- not market interests.
I am fed up with the so-called modern repertories, ever-swollen up with unreliable ‘clinical’ symptoms lavishly added on the basis of claims of experiences of individual practitioners. They are nothing but exaggerated interpretations and imaginations, without any scientific rationale or objective verification.
A lot of new drugs added in new repertories without any source of scientific proving. Many so called modern high potency provings are nothing more than placebo effects and imaginations of provers. Even drugs proven by those nonsense dream proving and meditation proving are also included in some modern repertories. They only aim to make their repertories appear bigger than their competitor in the market. They try to make the homeopathic community believe that it is the number of NEW RUBRICS AND NEW DRUGS that decide rhe quality and reliability of a repertory. They purchase the consent of INTERNATIONAL MASTERS to use their names as ‘sources’ for the new additions, so that they appear authentic and reliable.
Even though there are many corrections to be made, I love our old repertories such as kent, which were born out of love and dedication for homeopathy, rather than the petty business interests that motivate the modern compilers.
Of course, our repertories have to be modernized and updated. A lot of filtering has to be done. But that should be done by an international body of scientific minded homeopaths, who are not driven by personal business interests. That should not be left to the discretion of market forces.
Until that happens, I prefer to continue with our old repertories.
SCOPE OF HOMEOPATHY IN THE MANAGEMENT OF DIABETES:
What we call DIABETES is a GROUP of metabolic diseases with entirely different MOLECULAR basis, but presenting through some what similar clinical problems.
Clinically, all conditions with high blood sugar, either because the pancreas does not produce enough insulin, or because cells do not respond to the insulin that is produced. are grouped under DIABETES. This high blood sugar produces the classical symptoms of polyuria (frequent urination), polydipsia (increased thirst) and polyphagia (increased hunger).
There are three main types of diabetes mellitus (DM).
Type 1 DM results from the body’s failure to produce insulin, and currently requires the person to inject insulin or wear an insulin pump. This form was previously referred to as “insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus” (IDDM) or “juvenile diabetes”.
Type 2 DM results from insulin resistance, a condition in which cells fail to use insulin properly, sometimes combined with an absolute insulin deficiency. This form was previously referred to as non insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) or “adult-onset diabetes”.
The third main form, gestational diabetes occurs when pregnant women without a previous diagnosis of diabetes develop a high blood glucose level. It may precede development of type 2 DM.
Other forms of diabetes mellitus include congenital diabetes, which is due to genetic defects of insulin secretion, cystic fibrosis-related diabetes, steroid diabetes induced by high doses of glucocorticoids, and several forms of monogenic diabetes.
Type 2 diabetes mellitus is characterized by insulin resistance, which may be combined with relatively reduced insulin secretion. The defective responsiveness of body tissues to insulin is believed to involve the insulin receptor. In the early stage of type 2, the predominant abnormality is reduced insulin sensitivity. At this stage, hyperglycemia can be reversed by a variety of measures and medications that improve insulin sensitivity or reduce glucose production by the liver.
INSULIN RECEPTORS are transmembrane receptors that are activated by insulin, IGF-I, IGF-II and belongs to the large class of tyrosine kinase receptors. Metabolically, the insulin receptor plays a key role in the regulation of glucose homeostasis, a functional process that under degenerate conditions may result in a range of clinical manifestations including diabetes and cancer.
Endogenous ligands of INSULIN RECEPTORS include insulin, IGF-I and IGF-II. The binding of ligand to the receptor induces a chain of biochemical processes leading to blood glucose homeostasis.
Insulin receptors, work by causing the addition of a phosphate group to particular tyrosines on certain proteins within a cell, which eventually leads to an increase in the high affinity glucose transporter molecules on the outer membrane of insulin-responsive tissues, including muscle cells and adipose tissue, and therefore to an increase in the uptake of glucose from blood into these tissues. In other words, the glucose transporter molecules are transported from cellular vesicles to the cell surface, where it then can mediate the transport of glucose into the cell.
THIS IS THE EXACT MOLECULAR MECHANISM BY WHICH INSULIN CONTROLS SUGAR METABOLISM WITH IN THE CELLS
The main activity of activation of the insulin receptor is inducing glucose uptake. For this reason “insulin insensitivity”, or a decrease in insulin receptor signaling, leads to diabetes mellitus type 2 – the cells are unable to take up glucose, and the result is hyperglycemia or an increase in circulating glucose, and all the sequelae that result from diabetes.
There is a group of diabetic cases, where the defect is purely related with a GENETIC DISORDER, resulting in a totally non-functional insulin receptor. They present with fluctuations of the glucose level: After a meal the glucose is initially very high, and then falls rapidly to abnormally low levels. HOMEOPATHY HAS NO SCOPE IN THESE CASES.
Prediabetes indicates a condition that occurs when a person’s blood glucose levels are higher than normal but not high enough for a diagnosis of type 2 DM. Many people destined to develop type 2 DM spend many years in a state of prediabetes which has been termed “America’s largest healthcare epidemic.”:10–11
Latent autoimmune diabetes of adults (LADA) is a condition in which type 1 DM develops in adults. Adults with LADA are frequently initially misdiagnosed as having type 2 DM, based on age rather than etiology.
Genetic mutations (autosomal or mitochondrial) can lead to defects in beta cell function.
Abnormal insulin action may also have been genetically determined in some cases.
Any disease- CHRONIC PANCREATITIS, CYSTIC FIBROSIS- that causes extensive damage to the pancreas may lead to diabetes
Diseases associated with excessive secretion of insulin-antagonistic hormones can cause diabetes (which is typically resolved once the hormone excess is removed).
Many drugs impair insulin secretion and some toxins damage pancreatic beta cells, leading to DIABETES.
The following is a comprehensive list of other causes of diabetes:
1. Genetic defects of β-cell function- Maturity onset diabetes of the young- Mitochondrial DNA mutations
2. Genetic defects in insulin processing or insulin action- Defects in proinsulin conversion- insulin gene mutations- Insulin receptor mutations
3. Exocrine pancreatic defects- Chronic pancreatitis- Pancreatectomy- Pancreatic neoplasia- Cystic fibrosis- Hemochromatosis- Fibrocalculous pancreatopathy
4. Endocrinopathies- Growth hormone excess (acromegaly)- Cushing syndrome- Hyperthyroidism- Pheochromocytoma- Glucagonoma
5. Infections- Cytomegalovirus infection- Coxsackievirus B
6. Drugs- Glucocorticoids- Thyroid hormone- β-adrenergic agonists- Statins
My method of managing DIABETES:
SIMILIMUM is selected using PHYSICAL GENERALS, MENTALS and PARTICULARS. In certain cases, it may not be single, but multiple, depending upon symptoms. Doses repeated daily for long period.
CORTISONE 30, PITUTRIN 30, PANCREATINUM 30, INSULINUM 30, ACTH 30, THYROIDINUM 30, CARCINOCIN 30, ADRENALIN 30, SULPHUR 30 etc are also used ALONG WITH selected similimum.
Pancreatic enzymes play a big role in destroying beta cells and producing a state of diabetes. Hence, molecular imprints of constituent molecules of pancreatic extract is expected to reverse it, if used before total destruction of beta cells. That is why PANCREATINUM 30 is incorporated in the prescription.
In persons with genetic disposition for cancers, especially if there is such a family history, ANTIBODIES against proteins synthesized by mutant genes will be existing in their body- whether they have cancer or not. These cancer antibodies work as chronic miasm, by attacking various off-target biological molecules. In my opinion, we should consider CARCINOCIN to be included in all chronic prescriptions, especially METABOLIC diseases such as DIABETES and various AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES.
Lectures on Homœopathic Materia Medica- Dr. James Tyler Kent:
“Pulsatilla is a hot-blooded patient, but after using that remedy a while you notice that the patient goes to the other extreme and becomes chilly, and wants much clothing; the heat is taken out of the case. Silicea is the natural follower of Puls., and you would be astonished to know how often a patient leaving Puls. runs toward Sil.”
Homeopaths believe and claim that our drugs ‘activate our immune system’ , and the “activation by the medicine produces an immunity that makes it stronger than the disease and the person is restored to health”.Other than simply making theories of ‘activating immunity’, did any body propose any molecular level biological mechanism by which this ‘activation of immunity’ happens? Did anybody explain what are the active principles of potentized drugs that ‘activate’ the immunity?
In my opinion, homeopathy has nothing to do with this theory of so-called ‘activating’ of immunity. Molecular imprints contained in our potentized drugs do not act on our immune system, but on the specific ‘pathogenic molecules’ that bind to the biological molecules and produce the diseases.
We can compare the action of ‘molecular imprints’ with the action of ‘antibodies’. Molecular imprints bind to specific pathogenic molecules in capacity of conformational affinity and deactivates them by a molecular mechanism exactly similar to the interaction between antibodies and their antigens.
It would be more appropriate and scientific to say ‘potentized drugs act similar to immune system’ than saying ‘potentized drugs activate immune system’.
Hope the difference in these two perceptions and their implications are obvious.
Ears(pains, discharges, tinnitus, sensations, hearing), Extremities(pains, numbness, cramps, coldness, peculiar sensations), Eyes(lachrymation, discolorations, sensations, swelling, visual), Face(swelling, discolorations), Alternating symptoms, if any, Perspiration(increased, decreased, localized, offensive, other peculiarities),
Skin(eruptions, colors, special sensations, coldness), Sleep(positions, dreams), Urinary(frequency, stranguary, burning, color, sediments, odor), Mind(mental abnormalities, fears, loquacity, anger, irritability, disposition), Physical generals(paroxysms, dropsy, trembling, weakness- chill- chilliness, vertigo).2. MODALITIES: Time modalities, Conditional modalities3. LOCATIONS: Sides, peculiar body regions4. CAUSATION: Dietary irregularities, Exposures etc.Collect maximum available symptoms under above FOUR categories. Even if you get minimum one prominent symptom each belonging to all these four categories, a reasonable prescription consisting of one or two drugs could be easily worked out, which will bring down temperature if used repeatedly in 30c potency.
If we have a good repertory software, and know how to use its sophisticated tools, it is a matter of a few minutes. Repertorization will be over by the time case taking is finished, if we work out the case using tools for ‘smart’ ways of case taking and repertorization.
Years back, I had a wonderful experience with prescribing for fever. My 5 year old son was suffering from fever for days. In spite of all my desperate attempts, temperature did not come down even after ten days. At night, the temperature will go up to 103 F. Whole family was very much worried. For me, it was very hard to accept failure and take him to allopath. One night at 12 pm, I was sitting sleepless at the bedside of son, who was much exhausted and asleep. Suddenly, I noticed he was SLEEPING WITH LEGS CROSSED. Without awakening him, I separated his legs. Instantly, he would cross the lower limbs again. I tried to keep is legs apart many times, but he crossed limbs again instantly. I sensed some peculiarity in his behavior, and took KENT repertory and searched for an appropriate rubric. I failed to get one. Then I searched in Boericke Repertory, and could locate following rubric:
[Boericke]Nervous system : SLEEP : Position : Must lie : Legs [with] : Crossed:- Rhod.
I decided to try RHODODENDRON. But there was no RHODO available in my medicine chest. Finally, could locate an old plastic vial labelled RHODO 30, and there was only some powdery remnants sticking in its bottom. I added some cold water into vial, and gave it to my son, without awakening him. After ten minutes, to my wonder, the boy was perspiring, temperature was gone! Next morning, he was very much normal and playing.
IT WAS A WONDERFUL EXPERIENCE THAT TAUGHT ME A GREAT LESSON IN PRESCRIBING FOR FEVERS.
AN ‘ABNORMAL BASIC SYMPTOM’ COMBINED WITH ITS ‘CHARACTERISTIC ACCESSORY SYMPTOMS’ FORMS A ‘COMPLETE HOMEOPATHIC SYMPTOM’.Success in homeopathic practice depends up on physician’s skills to collect as many ‘complete symptoms’ as possible in a particular case he is dealing with.First of all, we should be capable of differentiating between ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ symptoms.‘Normal’ symptoms are those which represent ‘normal’ physiological processes in organism, which have no role in determining a similimum. Normal thirst, normal perspiration, normal bowel movements, normal appetite, normal sleep, normal emotions, normal body temperature, normal thermal responses etc etc.Normal thirst represents normal physiology. But, if a person is thirstless in conditions where he should be thirsty, for example, when exposed in hot atmosphere for long time, it shows an abormality. To be extremely thirsty in very cold climate is also abnormal. Feeling extremely hot in chilly climates abnormal, and feeling chilly in very hot climate is also abnormal. Perspiring in hot climate is normal, but in cold climate is abnormal. Soft stool passed with difficulty is abnormal, but hard stool passed with difficulty is normal.‘Abnormal’ symptoms are those symptoms that represent an ‘abnormal’ state of affairs in the organism- or, a molecular level pathology. It is these ‘abnormal’ symptoms that decide our selection of similimum. Abnormal thermal reactions, abnormal emotions, abnormal body temperature, abnormal appetite, abnormal thirst, abnormal sleep, abnormal perspiration, abnormal behaviors etc etc.Identifying ‘abnormal’ symptoms is a tough task, if we are not aware of ‘normal physiology’ that are represented by ‘normal symptoms’.Next stage is, identifying ‘basic symptoms’ and ‘accessory symptoms’.A ‘basic symptom’, such as headache, joint pain, abdominal pain or any such ‘complaints’ for which a person seeks medical aid, becomes a valuable homeopathic symptom, ONLY when it is made ‘complete’ by adding with their ‘characteristic’ ‘accessory’ symptoms.‘Accessory symptoms’ are factors that make a ‘basic’ symptom a ‘complete’ one.
The word ‘accessory’ means something that ‘adds completeness’ to something else. In that sense an ‘accessory symptom’ might be a symptom that gives ‘completeness’ for another symptom. If a ‘headache’ is ‘amel by cold applications’, ‘amel by cold applications’ is the ‘accessory’ of the symptom ‘headache’, thereby making it a ‘complete symptom’.
Locations, presentations, sensations, modalities, concomittants, extensions etc constitute the broad class of ‘accessory symptoms’. Such factors make the symptoms ‘complete’. Accessory factors are also known as ‘symptom qualifications’. ‘ACCESSORY’ seems to be more meaningful and appropriate.
Accessory symptoms may be either ‘essential/common’ or characteristic/uncommon’. We are concerned with only ‘characteristic/uncommon’ accessories. A joint pain increasing by movement is common, but relieving by movement is uncommon. Sensation of heat relieving by cold application is common, but relieving by heat is uncommon. A joint pain increasing by movement is common, but relieving by movement is uncommon. Sensation of heat relieving by cold application is common, but relieving by heat is uncommon. Toothache relieved by chewing is uncommon, but increased by chewing is common.
Once the patient describes a ‘basic symptom’, homeopath should be always on the look out for as many related characteristic accessories that would make it a ‘complete symptom’. Converting trivial ‘basic symptoms’ into valuable ‘complete’ symptoms need much observation and reasoning skills on the part of homeopath, which decides his success as homeopath.
We should ignore Normal Basic Symptoms, and collect only Abnormal Basic Symptoms. We should ignore Essential/Common Accessory Symptoms, and collect only Characteristic/Uncommon Accessory Symptoms. This is the secret of successful case taking.
Here is the success formula for finding perfect similimum:
Abnormal Basic symptom+ Characteristic Accessory symptoms = Complete Homeopathic symptom >>> Perfect Similimum.
The complaints that arise in this kind of case, even the acute complaints, will run to Sulphur.”What does this statement mean?KENT SAYS: “Sulphur state is sometimes brought about by being long housed up and adapting the diet to the stomach”That means, Kent considers SULPHUR CONSTITUTION is not GENETIC, but ‘brought about’.He says “Sulfur produces this state of disorder”. And “he has become so from long periods of indigestion, bad assimilation and feeble nutrition”
For the time being, only thing I can say affirmatively is that “molecular imprints cannot interact each other, and there cannot be any harm by combining any number of drugs together”. Everything else belonging to the ‘practical’ side should be experimented and resolved. Hoping for the best.
A drug considered “rightly selected” by the physician need not be always the “perfect similimum”. Even a ‘well selected’ drug may lack some of the molecular imprints required for removing ALL the molecular inhibitions in your patient. In such a situation, there will be a certain amount of RESIDUAL symptoms representing the RESIDUAL inhibitions, and they may come to the fore when prominent existing symptoms disappear by the action of our drug. We interpret such ‘drug induced’ ‘re-adjustments’ of symptoms appearing in the patients as MEDICINAL aggravations
One homeopath friend commented on my post: “Every aspect of homeopathy needs to be explained in the light of present knowledge but its fundamentals should not be distorted- it should be in accordance to homeopathy”.This statement reflects a fear that his most cherished ‘fundamentals’ of homeopathy may get ‘distorted’ when homeopathy is explained “in the light of present knowledge”.His fear is reasonable. I don’t think anybody can explain “every aspect” of homeopathy without “distorting” its “fundamentals.” We should not expect that ‘every’ aspect of homeopathic theory and practice could be ‘explained’ in terms of modern science.His fear evolves from the fact that homeopathy is taught as a closed system of eternally immutable ‘laws’, ‘rules’, ‘principles’ and ‘methods’ every ‘true’ homeopath is bound to ‘obey’. We hear ‘seven cardinal principles of hahnemann’, ‘hering laws’, ‘kents observations’ and many other ‘theories’ that rule the practice of homeopathy. Anybody violating or thinking beyond these ‘fundamental laws’ are considered to be ‘wrong homeopaths’. And they ask science to explain “every aspect” of homeopathy without “distorting” its “fundamentals”!We should remember, no ‘masters’ so far knew what really happens during potentization. Nobody so far knew what are the exact active principles of potentized drugs. Nobody so far knew the exact molecular level mechanism by which the active principles of potentized drugs interact with the biological organism and produce a therapeutic effect. Only things our masters actually knew was the objective natural phenomena of ‘likes curing likes’ and ‘high dilution effects’.Everything else were mere speculations. Speculations based on unscientific philosophy of ‘dynamism’ and ‘vitalism’. All ‘laws’, ‘rules’, ‘methods’ and ‘doctrines’ we consider as ‘cardinal principles of homeopathy evolved from these speculative theories. All ‘directions’ regarding ‘doses’, repetitions’, ‘single drugs’, ‘follow ups’ and everything else were formulated without clearly knowing the substances we are actually dealing with or how they actually work. They were based on misinterpreted ‘experiences’ of ‘stalwarts’ with historically limited scientific knowledge.Once we acquire scientific knowledge regarding the exact processes involved in potentization, active principles of potentized drugs and the molecular mechanism of their therapeutic action, all the existing ‘methods’, ‘laws’, ‘rules’ and ‘principles’ are bound to change. New ‘principles’ and ‘methods’ will evolve. That means, we will have to discard, change or ‘distort’ many things so far considered as ‘fundamentals’ of homeopathy.I am talking about ‘principles’ and ‘methods’ of homeopathic practice such as ‘dose’ and ‘repetitions’ on the basis of my scientific understanding of potentization as ‘molecular imprinting’, active principles of potentized drugs as ‘molecular imprints’, and homeopathic therapeutics as removal of biochemical inhibitions. My explanations cannot be expected to be strictly in accordance with what you consider inevitable ‘laws’ of homeopathy.Acquiring a scientific understanding of the phenomena involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’, and applying that knowledge judiciously for curing the sick- that should be the only ‘fundamental rule’ that guide a homeopath.’Likes cures likes’ and ‘high dilution effects’ represent the objective part of homepathy, which are concerned with truthful observations of natural phenomena involved in the process of ‘cure’. This is the strong and rational aspect of homeopathy that have to be preserved, explored and advanced into more and more perfection.The theoretical explanatory part of homeopathy, which is based on totally unscientific and irrational philosophy of ‘dynamism’ and ‘vitalism’ of eighteenth century europe, as well as the ‘rules’, ‘laws’ and ‘methods’ formulated accordingly, is the real stumbling block that prevents this wonderful therapeutic art from advancing into a scientific medical system.We have to preserve and strengthen the rational objective aspect of homeopathy, and explain it in terms of modern scientific knowledge. We should show the audacity to discard its irrational and unscientific theoretical parts. Once we understand the real science involved in the phenomena of ‘likes cure likes’ and ‘potentization’, a whole new set of practical ‘rules’ and ‘laws’ would spontaneously evolve.
In the PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION of ORGANON, Dr Hahnemann made the following statement:
“In this third edition I have not refrained from making any alterations and emendations suggested by increased knowledge and necessitated by further experience.”
This statement is a fitting answer to those ‘dogmatic’ homeopaths who argue nothing could be changed or updated in homeopathy.
Hahenemann advises us not to “refrain” from making “alterations and emendations”, if “suggested by increased knowledge and necessitated by further experience.”
Can anybody explain vital force’ in scientific terms? Can anybody explain ‘dynamic force’ and ‘drug energy’ in terms of modern science? NO. Because they have no SCIENCE in it! They are totally unscientific concepts being part of philosophy of DYNAMISM
Her distress was intense. As her father watched her, he noted that she rolled constantly from side to side.
This reminded him of the description of TARENTULA just published, which he had read a few days previously, emphasizing this feature.
He administered TARENTULA and obtained for the sufferer euthanasia that appeared impossible before.”KENT do not say whether TARENTULA was used in potency or crude form, or how many doses or how much quantity it was given. Being a case of LIPPE and reported by KENT, we can guess it would by high potency and single dose.It may be a fact that the patient became calm after that dose of tarentula. But is it right to say it was a ‘euthanasia’ CAUSED by ‘tarentula’, only due to the fact that the death happened AFTER giving that dose? It is obvious that the patient was in terminal condition, and the fact that “she rolled constantly from side to side” may be the symptom of deathly distress. Presumably, death was normal in this case, and tarentula is not the cause of death.Did anybody, after this reported death, ever could produce a EUTHANASIA using TARENTULA? Did anybody conduct any experiment to prove TARENTULA can produce euthanasis?The problem here I think is, KENT and LIPPE considered every events happening AFTER administration of a dose as EFFECTS of that dose. This is a common problem for all homeopaths, who believe in ‘marvels’ of homeopathic doses.
Many homeopaths do satisfactory practice even without using a computer and a software. They should understand, they can do MUCH BETTER practice and produce much better cures if they use a computer and a good homeopathic clinical software.
A homeopath, POOR in theory and art of homeopathy cannot become a GOOD homeopath merely by adding a computer and software into his tool kit. But, one who has GOOD mastery over theory and art of homeopathy can become a much BETTER homeopath if he uses such sophisticated technological enhancements in his practice.
I am very thankful to those who criticize me and ask difficult questions, even if it be as part of their bid to ‘prove’ me wrong. Such criticisms and question help me a lot in making me think more, rectify my mistakes and make MIT concepts more and more perfect. My distracters and antagonists contributed indirectly a lot in developing my ideas. Without them, MIT would not have reached its present stage of perfection.
Getting hard and unexpected questions on every possible aspects of our concepts, and giving rational and scientific answers to them, is a good practical way of knowing whether we are right or not. I have been subjecting MIT concepts to this verification process by discussing it on facebook. It has fully convinced me that I am on right path.
According to scientific definition, a HYPOTHESIS is any idea put forward to explain a known but still unexplained phenomenon in a way fitting to existing knowledge system, that could be verified according to scientific methods. An idea that could not be PROVED or DISPROVED by scientific methods cannot be called a HYPOTHESIS.
If a HYPOTHESIS is PERFECT and SCIENTIFIC, it should be capable of answering any questions related with the phenomenon we are trying to study. It is the FIRST step in verifying a HYPOTHESIS.
That is why I respond to any questions anybody ask. I am trying to find answers to ALL questions related with homeopathy using MIT concepts, and I am very happy to see that I can explain everything. That shows, MIT hypothesis is well QUALIFIED to be considered as a WORKING HYPOTHESIS to be presented as a rightful candidate for verifications according to SCIENTIFIC METHODS.
You have the right to BELIEVE “cardinal principles of homeopathy are valid for all times”. Let it be so. I don’t expect everybody to change their ‘beliefs’ by debating with me.
You have to remember, those ‘cardinal principles’ ‘valid for all times’ were constructed with out any knowledge regarding ‘what happens during drug proving’, ‘what are the active principles of potentized drugs, or ‘what is the biological mechanism by which potentized drugs act’.
Masters’ understanding of potentization, potentized drugs and process of cure were based on totally unscientific ‘vital force’ theory and ‘dynamic energy theory. I don’t think they are ‘valid for all times, but changeable as our knowledge advances.
I am perceiving potentization in terms of molecular imprinting, and homeopathic cure in terms of modern biochemistry. My views are bound to differ with your BELIEFS. You are free to believe in what you think ‘valid for all times’. I know I cannot change your belief through an argument.
I am happy to hear anybody saying they SERIOUSLY disagree with my MIT concepts. At least I can expect they would have read carefully whatever I have written about MIT and understood my explanations, so that they could disagree. DISAGREEING after reading and understanding is more welcome than AGREEING without reading or understanding anything I say.
Asking me to read Aphorism 1 when I ask questions about the biological mechanism of homeopathic drug action is like asking you to read BIBLE if you have any doubts regarding your computer system- FUNNY!
Kindly realize, In this age of scientific awareness and enlightenment, APHORISM 1 provides only a very fragile defense for your IGNORANCE of science, LAZINESS to learn new things, and the INERTIA that makes you satisfied with your existing poor knowledge.
I made it clear many times earlier: MIT is only a HYPOTHESIS. But it is a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis- a WORKING hypothesis. It has to be yet VALIDATED using scientific methods.
But remember, MIT is the first ever SCIENTIFIC hypothesis in the history of homeopathy, that fits well to the existing scientific knowledge system. NOBODY ever proposed such a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis that could be presented as a candidate for validation using scientific methods.
A concept is called a SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS when it succeeds in explaining a phenomenon using EXISTING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. MIT explains homeopathy using modern scientific knowledge of BIOCHEMISTRY and MOLECULAR IMPRINTING. That is the first step in evolving of a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
MIT is only a theoretical MODEL for biological mechanism of homeopathic cure, based on BIOCHEMISTRY and MOLECULAR IMPRINTING.
MIT answers TWO basic question of homeopathy:
1. What are the active principles of potentized drugs? MOLECULAR IMPRINTS.
2. What is the molecular mechanism by which potentized drugs act upon the organism and produce cure? REMOVAL OF MOLECULAR INHIBITIONS.
Everything else I talk come as natural, logical implications of this basic understanding of homeopathy.
Most homeopaths resents MIT concepts, thinking it is all about multi-drug prescriptions and combination remedies. My adversaries always stress on this point to keep homeopaths away from considering MIT seriously. Some people think that they will have to become multi-drug prescribers once the accept MIT concepts.
I want to clarify. MIT is basically scientific model that explains the biological mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics based on biochemistry and molecular imprinting. It answers to TWO basic question: 1. What are the active principles of potentized drugs? 2. What is the molecular mechanism by which potentized drugs act upon the organism and produce cure?
Issue of multiple-single drugs arises only when people ask such a question. It is not part of MIT model. It is the answer to questions related with practice. I said, there is ‘no harm’ in combining two or more drugs in potencies above 12c, since they contain no drug molecules. It does not mean ‘single drug’ cannot cure, if it is indicated by totality of symptoms. I said, why should we think about multiple drugs if single drug can do the job?
Once you understand drug substances in terms of ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent molecules, you cannot answer this question any other way. Concept of ‘single drug’ and ‘multiple drugs’ becomes irrelevant once we understand that even ‘single’ drugs are actually combinations of diverse types of molecular imprints that never interact each other. ‘Molecular imprints cannot interact each other, and they cannot prevent biological molecules from interacting with their natural ligands’. Once we accept this basic scientific truth, we need not ‘theoretically’ declare ‘multiple drugs’ are harmful. That does not mean MIT is ‘multiple drug therapy’. You can use multiple drugs or single drugs as you prefer and as your case demands. It is not an important issue of MIT concepts.
Nobody can deny the fact that majority of homeopaths use ‘multiple’ drugs in their practice, even though they never dare to admit it in public, due to the fear that community may label them ‘unhomeopathic’ if they do so. They produce excellent results also, by this method. Whether you call it complementary prescriptions, intercurrent prescriptions, alternating prescriptions, layer prescriptions or any such things, they are all ‘multiple’ drug prescriptions. Whether you ‘combine’ drugs in your bottle or inside the body of the patient by administering as alternating doses, drugs act as ‘combinations’ inside the organism.
MIT is not ‘multiple drug’ therapy. It is only a theoretical model for biological mechanism of homeopathic cure. Only thing is, MIT provides homeopaths the courage of conviction to admit what they actually do- without fear, forebodings or shame. They know what they do- no need of pretensions and show offs.
If I am asked to define who is a HOMEOPATH, I would say: “ANYBODY who can CURE a reasonable percentage of sick persons having ailments belonging to CURABLE categories, or give RELIEF in INCURABLE diseases, using MOLECULAR IMPRINTS forms of drug substances, which if applied in molecular forms in healthy individuals will be capable of producing ‘disease’ or ‘symptoms’ similar to the disease being treated, is a HOMEOPATH”.
To be called a homeopath:
1. He should be capable of CURING a reasonable percentage of cases belonging to curable categories.
2. He should be capable of giving RELIEF to incurable cases.
3. He should use ONLY ‘molecular imprints’ forms of drugs, ie: potencies not below 12c. Molecular mechanism of drug actions of crude drugs are not homeopathic, but allopathic.
4. Prescriptions should be based on the principle of SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR, understood in its SCIENTIFIC meaning- not ‘vitalistic’ meaning.
Unless one does nor satisfy these FOUR CRITERIA, he is not a homeopath- what ever labels he has, whatever credentials he has, what ever qualifications he has, whatever authorities he has, whatever claims he has, how much patients he has, how much money he makes, how much followers he has, whatever positions he holds, how much famous he is…….
Can you free your mind from silly personal jealousies and theoretical prejudices for a while? Can you free your mind from the burden of your old lessons and beliefs for a while? Can you spend at least an hour for carefully reading an article on ‘molecular imprints therapeutics’ and think over it for a while with an open mind? Can you spend a few minutes searching the web the meaning of some technical terms used in the article that you feel difficult to comprehend?
If you can do at least that much, you will experience a great revolutionary transormation happening in your vision as a homeopath by understanding MIT concepts. How it changes the way you perceive and practice homeopathy. You will start wondering how you could so far afford to miss or ignore this simple wonderful revelation going around here for some time now.
According to my view, we cannot prevent ALL the different types of epidemic fevers with a SINGLE drug or SINGLE dose. Different fevers need different MOLECULAR IMPRINTS, and we should ensure all the required molecular imprints are provided in the MEDICINE we give. I would suggest to determine GENUS EPIDEMICUS of different fevers prevalent during this season, and make a combination of all those selected drugs in 30C potency. That combination should be taken TWICE DAILY for a reasonable period, until current epidemics are over.
IMMUNE BOOSTING happens only if our drugs contain MOLECULAR IMPRINTS that can bind to pathogenic molecules, thereby preventing them from interacting with biological molecules .
I would never ask a patient whether he is hot or cold. While collecting particular symptoms, I would also try to get thermal modalities of maximum particulars. When talking about thirst, I will try to know whether he prefers warm or cold water. I would try to know whether he prefers foods warm or cold. Any preferences in bathing cold or warm? I will try to know whether he prefers covering head, whether he prefers light dresses or woolen ones. Whether he want to cover the whole body during sleep? Whether he likes to sit without much dresses always, and why so. I would also try to know whether he prefers fanning, open windows etc. I would listen whether he complains over sweating. I would note when his complaints aggravate, in hot climates or cold climates.
By analyzing all these particular modalities and preferences, I can decide whether the patient is HOT or COLD in GENERAL. If I could not reach such a conclusion AFFIRMATIVELY, I never consider GENERAL THERMALS as repertorial rubric.
Most patients are not much sure about their thermals, if they are not so much prominent. If we ask direct questions or leading questions, they will say something answer. Such answers are unreliable. If we ask same questions in successive interiviews, they give different answer, as they do not remember what they said earlier
MOLECULAR IMPRINTS cannot produce any molecular inhibitions, and hence cannot produce any harm, even if used without any indications. Molecular imprints cannot interfere the interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands
Once we rebuild the theoretical model of homeopathy with a “working hypothesis which sound logical”, we cannot keep existing structures intact. Existing “homoeopathic experience and discipline” is based on totally unscientific concepts such as ‘vital force theory’ ‘dynamic immaterial energy’ , where as MIT is based on modern biochemistry and molecular imprinting.
If MIT concepts are right, we will have to ‘inevitably’- not intentionally for that matter- do some ‘cutting and crippling’. It happens naturally. My “conclusions” VALIDATE- not ‘going against’ all the TRUE EXPERIENCES in homeopathy. But go against all WRONG INTERPRETATIONS so far made about those “true homoeopathic experience and discipline”. I fear you confused between “true experiences” and their “wrong interpretations”. MIT preserves the “true experience”, but discards their unscientific “interpretations”.
WHAT I AM DO IS, ‘CUTTING THE HAT TO MAKE IT FITTING TO THE HEAD’, NOT”CUTTING THE HEAD ACCORDING TO THE HAT”.
So far, HAT or the subjective theoretical explanations worn by homeopathy was not fitting to the HEAD or objective truth of homeopathy- similia similibus curentur and potentization. I AM CUTTING A NEW HAT THAT FITS WELL.
Is it right to say homeopathy uses only NATURAL remedies? The term NATURAL actually implies substances used as medicines in the forms it naturally exists. If we mean ‘derived from nature’, all drugs- even synthetic ones- are basically derived from nature.
Can we consider potentized drugs NATURAL? POTENTIZATION of drugs never happens spontaneously in nature. It is an ARTIFICIAL process, by which molecular imprints are synthesized. I think potentized drugs are more SYNTHETIC, than NATURAL.
ESSENTIAL first step in understanding MIT explanation of homeopathy is to understand drug substances in terms diverse types of individual CONSTITUENT molecules, instead of the SINGLE DRUG concept strongly got fixed in the minds of homeopaths. It is the structure, conformations and chemical properties of INDIVIDUAL MOLECULES contained in a drug that decide the medicinal properties of DRUG substance. MOLECULAR IMPRINTING happens as ‘individual’ molecules, DRUGS act on the biological molecules of organism as ‘individual’ molecules.
If you fail to understand this basic fact, you will fail miserably in understanding MIT, and also in understanding homeopathy as a MEDICAL SCIENCE.
When my friends again and again try to discuss ‘single-multiple’ drug issue and talk about ‘imprints of nux vomica’ and ‘imprints of pulsatilla’, I fear most of them ignore this basic lesson, even though I have been repeatedly trying to stress its vital importance.
We should always bear in mind that any pathogenic agent, including antibodies or miasms are acting up on an existing constitutional biochemical background, determined by the individual’s specific genotype-phenotype combination.
The constituent molecules of causative factors creates the original molecular inhibitions in some or other biological molecules in the organism. In most cases that would be similar in almost all individuals affected by that particular causative agent. Any such molecular errors have a cascading effect in the organism, by the way creating new errors in new channels. When a biochemical pathway is blocked by a particular molecular inhibition some where, the accumulating metabolites may create new molecular inhibitions. That is expressed through different ‘trains’ of symptoms.
Same pathogenic agent creates different types of cascading of molecular errors and associated trains of symptoms in different individuals, depending upon their internal genotype-phenotype environments. That is why different people affected by same causative agent creates different symptom pictures and requires different drugs. Here lies the importance of symptomatic approach of homeopathy. Obviously, causative approach cannot cure all diseases, even though that may be helpful in removing original molecular inhibitions, but not secondary ones.
We will have to prescribe different drugs to remove all molecular inhibitions happened at different stages of cascading, especially in chronic diseases. Nosodes and other drugs selected on the basis of causative factors, can only remove original molecular blocks created by pathogenic molecules, not the cascading molecular errors that appeared later. That would require other appropriate indicated drugs selected on the basis of similarity of symptoms representing the molecular errors.
Cascading of molecular errors can be compared to the phenomenon of simple traffic block somewhere in a city cascades into a complete breakdown of traffic system in the whole city. A block in one junction leads to consecutive blocks in feeder roads and adjacent junctions, and gradually brings the whole traffic to standstill. If we interfere during initial stages, we can re-establish traffic by simply removing the original block. But when the whole system is broken down, you cannot re-establish traffic only by removing original block. We will have to intervene at different points in the city to resolve the problem. Same with difference in dealing with diseases at initial stages and later stages.
Obviously, the TOTALITY OF SYMPTOMS may vary according to the differences in CASCADING of molecular errors, and we would need DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS of molecular imprints to tackle them.
Secondary molecular errors are caused by cascading of molecular errors created by original pathogenic molecules. This cascading depends upon the biochemical environment as well as genotype-phenotype constitution of the individual. It is a very complex mechanism. There are a lot of variables working.
For example, if there is a psychological stress, diverse types of chemical molecules such as hormones, cytokines, neuromediators etc will be present in excess, which may modulate and enhance the cascading effects of original inhibitions caused by an infectious agent.
Molecular errors in certain metabolic pathways caused by pathological inhibitions may result in the production of many metabolic byproducts such as superoxides in the organism, which will cause new molecular errors. If enough antioxidants are present in the organism, such damages will be minimized. We have to understand the beneficial effects of various vitamins, micro-nutrients and antioxidants from this point of view also. All these factors differ from individual to individual.
Homeopathy is a sort of molecular level ‘repairing’ of the diseased organism. It is done by ‘scavenging’, ‘entrapping’ and ‘removing’ of ‘disease-causing’ pathogenic molecules that have inhibited the ‘biological molecules’.
To do this ‘repairing’ job, ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules are used as tools, which are prepared by a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, where in the three-dimensional conformations of individual drug molecules are imprinted into supra-molecular nano-structures of water-alcohol matrices through ‘host-guest’ interactions.
Appropriate ‘molecular imprints’ are selected by comparing the disease symptoms expressed by the patient and ‘drug symptoms’ previously verified and well-documented.
Principe underlying this selection process is known as ‘similia similibus curentur’, which actually means, pathological molecular inhibitions can be removed using molecular imprints of drug molecules which could produce similar inhibitions in healthy people, which will be expressed through ‘similar’ symptoms.
I see facebook not as a place of fun or leisure. I consider it as a serious and effective WORK PLACE. I make hundreds of posts and comments daily on my facebook timeline, discussion groups, pages as well as on twitter, as part of my endeavor to evolve and promote MIT concepts of scientific homeopathy. My friends, who come on face book only occasionally, and those who are able to spend very limited time here, may miss most of my updates. There are also many late comers in my growing friends list. There may be also some people willing to read some of my posts again and again. In order to ensure my works are secured for future use, and to make them easily available for everybody any time, I regularly compile my face book posts and updates into large volumes. So far, EIGHT volumes have been compiled.
- Posted in: Uncategorized