Volume XI: Selected Facebook Updates And Tweets Of Chandran K C On Scientific Homeopathy
Even if you give a ‘single’ dose of pure water to a set of ‘provers’ and start recording the symptoms they report for months AFTER that dose, without revealing the secret to the ‘provers’ and ‘compilers’, you will be amazed to see that they have compiled a BIG ‘materia medica’ of water! Do some experiments if anybody can.
This is exactly what happens when some people conduct ‘high potency proving’, ‘dream proving’, ‘meditative proving’, ‘trituration proving’, and other such nonsense ‘methods’ by which the MAKE ‘materia medica’!
To be rational, reliable and scientific, MATERIA MEDICA should be compiled by ‘proving’ drug substances in MOLECULAR FORMS- potencies below 12c, mother tinctures or crude substances. Only molecular forms of drugs can can act upon biological molecules and produce molecular errors in vital processes, which will be reflected through subjective and objective symptoms
The ESSENCE of ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ is- “DISEASE-CURING properties of potentized drugs are directly reverse to the DISEASE-PRODUCING properties of those drugs in crude form”. SIMPLE!
You will be gravely disappointed if you believe that the job of science is to ratify all your beliefs, laws, principles, methods and aphorisms regarding homeopathy.
There are a lot of unscientific ideas in what are so far considered to be ‘fundamentals’ of homeopathy, and most of them cannot withstand scientific scrutiny.
If you are committed to uphold what are scientific, truthful and rational in homeopathy, you will have to be prepared to bravely and mercilessly discard those obviously unscientific things. That is the real meaning of hahnemann’s dictum “be unprejudiced”
Explained in scientific terms, homeopathic POTENTIZATION is a ‘nano-technique’ of TRANSLATING drug molecules into their ‘reverse copies’ or ‘spacial negatives’ in water-alcohol matrix through a process of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING , accomplished by ‘guest-host’ interactions between drug molecules and water-ethyl alcohol molecules.
If you cannot understand this statement, you cannot understand MIT concepts of Scientific Homeopathy
Once ‘drug molecules’ are translated into ‘molecular imprints’ by the process of potentization, the ‘disease-producing’ properties of drug substances are converted into ‘disease-curing’ properties.
This ‘reversal’ of properties happens since molecular imprints are ‘reverse copies’ or ‘spacial negatives’ of drug molecules, which enables them to act in biological environments by an exactly ‘reverse’ molecular mechanism.
Hahnemann’s greatest contributions to medical science was the invention of the universal relationship between ‘disease-producing’ and ‘disease-curing’ properties of substances, and the technique of preparing ‘reverse copies’ or ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules.
Hahnemann and his followers failed to explain this invention in a way fitting to the scientific knowledge system. Scientific community failed to realize the meaning and implications of this epoch-making invention. Medical science failed to imbibe this most powerful weapon into its arsanal for the last two centuries. Ultimate losers of this negligence were the whole suffering humanity.
Drug Proving is done by administering medicines in APPARENTLY HEALTHY individuals. “Apparently healthy” is a very relative and subjective concept. It only means a person ‘appear to be healthy’ to the observers as per ‘symptoms and physiological values’.
We have to bear in mind that even though a person is ‘apparently healthy’, it does not mean that he is free from all sorts of probable molecular errors in his vital processes. There will be diverse types of hidden molecular errors existing in him, arising from diverse types of factors such as nutritional, environmental, miasmatic, genetic, emotional, metabolic, infectious and others. ‘Apparently healthy’ only means that those molecular errors could not be observed or identified by the observers. There will be many subjective and objective symptoms, which the observers wrongly takes as ‘normal’ ones.
What will happen if we administer ‘molecular imprints’ in the form of ‘high potency drugs’ in such ‘apparently healthy’ persons with hidden molecular errors, accidentally or for conducting ‘drug proving’?
When potentized drugs are introduced into the body of ‘apparently healthy’ individuals having hidden molecular errors, some of the molecular imprints may act upon the pathogenic molecules if there exist a ‘conformational affinity’ in between them. Some of the ‘hidden’ molecular errors may get rectified, which will result in some sort of changes or readjustments in the ‘apparently’ normal symptom picture of the individual. Such changes appears for the observer as the appearance of ‘new’ symptoms. If we have no idea regarding the biological mechanism of ‘high dilution effects’, such changes will be interpreted as ‘drug proving’.
Actually, those occasional ‘new’ symptoms appearing after the use of ‘high potency’ drugs are not indicating the ‘disease producing’ properties of potentized drugs, but their ‘diseases curing’ properties. By wrongly incorporating such symptoms in the ‘symptomatology’ as genuine drug symptoms, a lot of confusions have been created by our masters and ‘drug provers’ in our materia medica works.
To be reliable and genuine, materia medica should be compiled incorporating ‘drug symptoms’ produced by ‘drug proving’ conducted using ‘molecular forms’ of drugs only- crude forms, mother tinctures and potencies below 12C.
Drugs potentized above Avogadro limit (12C) will not contain any original drug molecule. They contain only ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’ of individual constituent molecules.
These molecular imprints can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ ONLY upon their original drug molecules, or pathological molecules having conformational similarity to those drug molecules. It is due to this complementary spacial affinity that molecular imprints contained in potentized drugs act as therapeutic agents.
Molecular imprints cannot interfere in the normal biochemical interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands, since their interactions are based on much stronger ‘conformational+charge’ AFFINITY.
Drug molecules and pathogenic molecules are ‘fake keys’ that can mimic as ‘original keys’ and bind to bio-molecular ‘key holes’ and prevent them from interacting with their ‘original keys’ or natural ligands. Molecular imprints contained in potentized drugs are ‘artificial key-holes’ for binding and deactivating the ‘fake keys’. ‘Artificial key holes’ cannot compete with natural ‘bilogical key holes’ in binding with their ‘original keys’.
Obviously, ‘molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs cannot produce any molecular errors in normal vital processes. Then, how can we imagine about DRUG PROVING using potentized drugs?
One important point we have to note is that most drug substances, especially of vegetable or animal origin, are not ‘simple’ substances as homeopaths are taught to imagine. Even though we CONSIDER them as ‘single’ substances, actually they consist of diverse types of individual molecules.
Next point to be noted is that a substance can interact with biological molecules only as INDIVIDUAL molecules- NOT AS WHOLE SUBSTANCES .
Once we introduce a sample of drug substance into the living organism for ‘proving’, its constituent molecules are instantly subjected to various processes such as disintegration, ionization, hydration and certain chemical transformations. It is these INDIVIDUAL molecules that act upon biological molecules, produce deviations in biochemical processes and produce SYMPTOMS.
If we really want to understand homeopathy and drug proving scientifically, we should first of all learn to perceive drug substance in terms of its diverse constituent molecules, with their specific molecular structures and chemical properties. It is the CHEMICAL PROPERTY of a molecule that determines its BIOLOGICAL as well as MEDICINAL properties.
SYMPTOMS produced by a drug substance such as NUX VOMICA is actually the SUM TOTAL of all symptoms representing all the diverse types of molecular deviations produced in different biochemical pathways in the organism by the action of HUNDREDS of types of individual chemical molecules with entirely different chemical properties contained in nux vomica upon different biological molecules.
If we could remove some of the constituent chemical molecules from a sample of Nux Vomica, and use that sample for drug proving, we will not get certain symptoms that represent the removed chemical molecules.
Obviously, the concept of DRUG PERSONALITY is a myth that originated from the ignorance of our masters regarding the molecular constitution of complex drug substances, or how they exactly interact with biological molecules and produce symptoms. DRUG PERSONALITY will change if the molecular constitution of a drug substance changes.
Whereas researchers of modern medicine introduce new drugs by studying the DISEASE-CURING properties of substances, new drugs are introduced in homeopathy by studying the their DISEASE-PRODUCING proeprties. That makes a great difference, which skeptics and critics of homeopathy fail to understand.
According to scientific view promoted by MIT, ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ means: “pathological molecular inhibitions can be rectified using ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules that can create similar molecular inhibitions if applied in molecular form”.
Once you understand this simple explanation, you will experience your whole perspective and approach to ‘aphorisms’ ‘principles’, ‘laws’ and ‘methods’ of homeopathy undergoing a revolutionary transformation.
What exactly happens during ‘drug proving’?
If a drug substance in ‘molecular form’ is introduced to a healthy living organism, which exists in a relative state of dynamic equilibrium, constituent molecules of that drug substance are conveyed by the internal transport systems into different parts of the body.
Individual drug molecules bind by their conformational affinity to any of the complexbio-molecules such as receptors, enzymes etc engaged in various natural biochemical processes.
As a result of such molecular binding, the bio-molecules are subjected to deviations in their three-dimensional configurations, and becomes incapacitated to deliver their natural molecular functions.
All the biochemical processes such as genetic expressions and protein synthesis mediated or participated by those bio-molecules are affected, and dependent biological pathways are subsequently blocked.
Since different biological pathways are interdependent, deviations in one pathway naturally affects the dependent ones also.
Subsequent cascading of molecular errors influence the biochemical processes in nervous system and neuro-endocrine system and finally manifest in the form of particular groups of subjective and objective symptoms.
This is the real biochemical kinetics of molecular level drug-induced pathology involved in drug proving.
I am accused that I am making “tall claims and foolish theories” without understanding the “essence of organon”.
For the last 42+ years, I have read organon thousands of times. As per my understanding, “essence” of organon is ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’.
I have been trying to understand, explain and prove this “essence” of organon in a way fitting to the modern scientific knowledge and its methods, using the paradigms and concepts of modern biochemistry as well as supramolecular chemistry. I have been trying to propose a scientifically viable model for biological mechanism of homeopathic cure involved the law of ‘similia similibus curentur’.
If anybody think my concepts and explanations are wrong, kindly tell me on which specific points I am wrong. Kindly tell me, what is the “essence of organon” according to your understanding.
Mud-slinging and venom-spitting are not the answers for the hard questions I raise.
A SENIOR HOMEOPATH SAYS IN HIS COMMENT ON MY POST ON MY WALL:
1. I have not read organon.
2. I did not know the “essence” of organon.
3. I am “putting tall claims and foolish theories”.
4. I am doing research without “knowing anything.”
5. I am trying to inventing or discovering new things about homeopathy without “reading or understanding” homeopathy.
6. I am not ” trained in a proper recognised college”, and hence I am a “quack”.
7. Homeopaths should be careful about me, as I will damage homeopathy.
8. I can only “sing in the bath room”- not in “public forums”.
THESE ARE ARE THE VALUABLE “CRITICISMS” OF THIS LEARNED HOMEOPATH ABOUT MIT CONCEPTS I PROPOSE.
He asks me to “face the critics , then only one can improve”. HE GENUINELY WANTS ME TO “IMPROVE”. THANKS, DR. DEEPAN SHAH !!
I am not inclined to argue with him. I had many such encounters with him. He never comments about topics i posted. Comes only for personal attacks. I just BLOCKED this venom-spitting person
If a homeopath- especially a young one- declares that he “reads only organon”, I wiil suspect something seriously deranged in his mental condition.
I had witnessed a prominent “seminar holder” of Kerala saying to his audience that he had an experience of “LACHESIS 200” causing heart attack! What was his “experience”? He “wrongly” gave ‘single dose of lachesis 200’ to ONE of his patients during day time “for eczema”, and the patient was admitted to hospital due to a serious heart attack that night. Inference of the “homeopath” is that the heart attack was CAUSED by lachesis 200, since it happened AFTER he gave it to that patient! “Wrongly prescribed Lachesis 200 has driven the disease from the skin to inner layers”! This is the LOGIC OF HOMEOPATHY!!!
Some homeopaths have a wonderfully perverted sense of ‘cause-effect’ relationship. They consider every ‘before-after’ chronological relationship as cause and effect, and jump into queer conclusions. Once they give a ‘single’ dose of drug to the patient, everything that ‘follows’ that act will be attributed as the ‘miraculous effect’ of their ‘single dose’. Many ‘cures’, many ‘drug relations’, many ‘aggravations’, many ‘side effects’ and MANY DRUG PROVINGS are actually the products of this perverted understanding of ‘cause and effect’.
Dear friends, ‘cause-effect’ relationship is different from ‘Before-After’ relationship. Kindly use some logical thinking and rational experiments before declaring foolish conclusions. Follow scientific method.
One homeopath commented on my wall:
“I dont know MIT theory but I am curing patients on the law given in Organon of Medicine by Hahnemann . I am driven my car on driving principles but I dont fully know Physics & Chemistry working in car Engine .Practitioner work on some principles but Scientist explains Principles working within”!
“For ‘curing’ patients by giving homeopathic drugs, one need not necessarily know “how homeopathy works”. But you can apply it more accurately and successfully, if you know its “how” also.
You need not know the principles of nutrition to fill your belly. Does it mean we need not know the science of nutrition and the nutritional contents of food articles? More you know, better will be your application. There is much difference between BLIND application and SCIENTIFIC application.
If you are not interested to know HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS, no body will compel you to study it, if you will keep silent without talking nonsense theories about it. There are people who want to know the science behind homeopathy. Let them do it. Those who are not interested, may keep away from such scientific discussions and continue their “driving”.”
If you can “prove” drugs using “high”potencies, you should also be capable of identifying the drugs by observing the symptoms they produce. Can you?
If you believe you can ‘prove’ drugs in 30C or higher, kindly agree to jointly conduct some simple experiments, sir.
I will give 10 samples of well proven polychrest drugs in 30C potency in ten serially numbered bottles, without revealing their names. You should ‘prove’ them and identify at least five samples from them by observing the symptoms they produce during proving. Bottling and numbering of drug samples will be done by a panel of credible persons, and they will keep the exact identity of each bottle well documented and sealed to be revealed during final verification.
ARE YOU READY FOR SUCH AN EXPERIMENT? IF YES, WE CAN DISCUSS ABOUT ITS DETAILS AND MODALITIES. IF YOU ARE NOT READY, KINDLY STOP THESE HOLLOW CLAIMS OF ‘HIGH POTENCY PROVING’. THIS IS NOT A TOPIC TO BE ‘PROVED’ BY ARGUMENTS, BUT BY SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS.
A friend of mine, a senior political leader of kerala, called me over phone three days back. He told me, he gets severe hoarseness and loss of voice while making public speeches, and asked me to send some medicines. He did not give any more symptoms. I decided to try a SPECIFIC. I sent him 2 dram pills of WYETHIA 30, and advised to take 4 pills 2 hly. He called me next day, and told that he has good relief by the medicine. It is three days now. He called me just now, and told me thankfully that he has no any hoarseness now, even if speaking continuously for hours. VIVA HOMEOPATHY!
Most homeopaths, especially those considered to be the ‘international spokespersons’ and ‘gurus’ of homeopathy, always evade fundamental questions in a very clever way. They talk a lot, write a lot, teach a lot. They discuss very complex issues, conduct costly seminars- but always feign deaf and dumb when simple fundamental questions are asked to them. Actually, we have to make them answer a few fundamental questions regarding homeopathy and prove them according to scientific methods, so that this noble therapeutic system can claim its rightful status as a MEDICAL SCIENCE. I am here trying to sum up these basic questions:
1. What is the real scientific explanation for ‘similia similibus curentur’?
2. What really happens at ‘material’ level during the process of potentisation?
3. What are the active principles of potentized medicines?
4. What is the biological mechanism by which potentized medicines remove the pathological molecular inhibitions to produce cure?
Unless these questions are answered according to scientific method, we cannot claim homeopathy to be a scientific medical system.
MY ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS:
Question 1: What is the real scientific explanation for ‘similia similibus curentur’?
In scientific terms, ‘similia similibus curentur’ means, “pathological molecular inhibitions underlying a disease and expressed through specific groups of subjective and objective symptoms can be removed by applying ‘molecular imprints’ of drug substances, which in crude form could produce similar molecular inhibitions in healthy individuals, expressed through similar groups of symptoms”.
Question 2: What really happens at ‘material’ level during the process of potentisation?
During initial stages of drug potentization, crude drug substances undergoes division and ionization, therby individual constituent molecules getting freed from intermolecular bonds. During progressive dilution and succussion, these constituent drug molecules undergo a process of ‘molecular imprinting’. During this process, three dimensional ‘molecular imprints’ or hydrosomes of drug molecules are formed in the supra-molecular clusters of water/alcohol medium through stabilization of hydration shells. Due to serial dilution, drug molecules gradually get removed from medium, and by 12c it becomes free of drug molecules and only ‘molecular imprints’ remain.
Question 3: What are the active principles of potentized medicines?
‘Molecular imprints’ of constituent drug molecules are the active principles of potentized homeopathic drugs.
Question 4: What is the biological mechanism by which potentized medicines remove the pathological molecular inhibitions to produce cure?
‘Diseases’ are errors in vital processes due to derangement of biochemical pathways in the organism, caused by inhibitions of biological molecules by binding of exogenous or endogenous pathogenic molecules. ‘Molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs selectively binds to the pathogenic molecules having complementary affinity due to the conformational similarity of pathogenic molecules and original drug molecules used for potentization. This conformational similarity is expressed as ‘similarity of symptoms’. Pathogenic molecules are thus entrapped by the ‘molecular imprints’, thereby relieving the biological molecules from inhibitions. Disease is cured at molecular level itself.
If anybody can propose a more rational and comprehensive SCIENTIFIC model for homeopathy than what is described above, please come forward. Do not run away from basic questions, and hide your heads in the ‘aphorisms’ of organon like an ostrich.
We hear a lot of claims about “proving” of drugs in “high” potencies.
If anybody believe he can ‘prove’ drugs in 30C or higher, kindly agree to conduct a simple experiment. I will give 10 samples of well proven polychrest drugs in 30C potency in ten serially numbered bottles, without revealing their names. You should ‘prove’ them and identify at least five samples from them by observing the symptoms they produce during proving. Bottling and numbering of drug samples will be done by a panel of credible persons, and they will keep the exact identity of each bottle well documented and sealed to be revealed during final verification.
ANY BODY THERE READY FOR THIS EXPERIMENT? IF NOT, ALL THESE CLAIMS OF ‘HIGH POTENCY PROVING’ ARE MEANINGLESS. THIS IS NOT A TOPIC TO BE ‘PROVED’ BY ARGUMENT, BUT BY SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS.
PATHOGENIC MOLECULES produce diseases by binding their active FUNCTIONAL GROUPS to the specific biological molecules in the organism due to their molecular affinity, and producing molecular errors.
During drug proving, poisoning and crude molecular actions, DRUG MOLECULES produce bio-molecular errors and symptoms in the healthy organism by binding their FUNCTIONAL GROUPS to the biological molecules.
When disease symptoms and drug symptoms appear SIMILAR, that means functional groups of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules were similar, so that they could bind to similar bio-molecular targets and produce similar molecular errors in the organism.
HYDROSOMES or ‘molecular imprints’ of ‘functional groups’ of drug molecules contained in the potentized drugs can act as ‘artificial binding sites or LIGAND TRAPS towards the SIMILAR pathogenic molecules, due to their COMPLEMENTARY conformation.
It is now obvious that when using SIMILIMUM as therapeutic agents, we are actually using MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of ‘functional groups’ of drug molecules to bind to the ‘functional groups’ of pathogenic molecules and deactivate the.
This observation leads us to some very important conclusions: What we actually need is the MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of biologically active FUNCTIONAL GROUPS. If we can prepare molecular imprints of all biologically active functional groups, and make them available as homeopathic remedies, we will not need all these thousands of different drug substances. We will require only a very limited number of drugs, which could be universally applied as per homeopathic indications.
We will have to prepare MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of only following classes of FUNCTIONAL GROUPS to make our wonderful therapeutic arsenal:
Functional Groups consisting of Hydrocarbons: Alkyl ( Ethane), Alkenyl ( Ethylene) , Alkynyl (Acetylene), Phenyl (Cumene), Benzyl (Benzyl bromide).
Functional Groups containing Halogens: Halo ( Chloroethane), fluoro (Fluoromethane), chloro (Chloromethane), bromo (Bromomethane), iodo (Iodomethane).
Functional Groups containing oxygen: Hydroxyl (Methanol), Carbonyl (Butanone), Aldehyde (Acetaldehyde), Haloformyl (Acetyl chloride), Carbonate ester (Triphosgene), Carboxylate (Sodium acetate), Carboxyl (Acetic acid), Ester (Ethyl butyrate), Methoxy, Hydroperoxy (Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide), Peroxy (Di-tert-butyl peroxide), Ether (Diethyl ether), Hemiacetal, Hemiketal, Acetal, Ketal , Orthoester, Orthocarbonate ester.
Functional Groups containing nitrogen: Carboxamide (Acetamide), Primary amine (Methylamine), Secondary amine (Dimethylamine), Tertiary amine (Trimethylamine), 4° ammonium ion (Choline), Primary ketimine, Secondary ketimine, Primary aldimine, Secondary aldimine, Imide (Succinimide), Azide (Phenyl azide), Azo (Methyl orange), Cyanate (Methyl cyanate), Isocyanate (Methyl isocyanate), Nitrate (Amyl nitrate), Nitrile (Benzonitrile), Isonitrile (Methyl isocyanide), Nitrosooxy (Isoamyl nitrite), Nitro (Nitromethane), Nitroso (Nitrosobenzene), Pyridyl (Nicotine).
Functional Groups containing sulphur: Sulfhydryl (Ethanethiol), Sulfide (Dimethyl sulfide), Disulfide (Dimethyl disulfide), Sulfinyl (Dimethyl sulfoxide), Sulfonyl (Dimethyl sulfone ), Sulfino (2-Aminoethanesulfinic acid), Sulfo (Benzenesulfonic acid), Thiocyanate (Phenyl thiocyanate), Isothiocyanate (Allyl isothiocyanate), Carbonothioyl (Diphenylmethanethione), Carbonothioyl.
Groups containing phosphorus: Phosphino (Methylpropylphosphane), Phosphono (Benzylphosphonic acid), Phosphate (Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate), Phosphodiester (O‑[(2‑Guanidinoethoxy)hydroxyphosphoryl]‑l‑serine).
Groups containing boron: Borono, Boronate, Borino, Borinate.
THIS IS ONLY A PRELIMINARY THOUGHT IN THIS DIRECTION.
Study of ‘Molecular Imprinting’ involved in homeopathic ‘potentization’, as well as the ‘biological mechanism’ of therapeutic actions of potentized drugs belong to the domain of SUPRA-MOLECULAR CHEMISTRY, rather than CHEMISTRY or BIOCHEMISTRY. Molecular imprints contained in potentized drugs, and their biological actions may be considered exactly as APPLIED BIOMIMETIC ARCHITECTURES.
Supramolecular chemistry refers to the study of supra-molecular systems, and focuses on the peculiar molecular formations made up of a discrete number of assembled molecular subunits or components. The forces responsible for the supra-molecular spatial organization are mostly those weak intermolecular forces and electrostatic or hydrogen bonding. In certain cases, strong covalent bonding are also involved, provided that the degree of electronic coupling between the molecular component remains small with respect to relevant energy parameters of the component.
While traditional chemistry focuses on the covalent bonding involved in formation of stable chemical ‘molecules’, supra-molecular chemistry studies the weaker and reversible ‘non-covalent’ interactions between molecules. These ‘non-covalent’ forces include hydrogen bonding, metal coordination, hydrophobic forces, van der Waals forces, pi-pi interactions and electrostatic effects.
Supra-molecular chemistry studies the phenomena such as molecular self-assembly, protein folding, molecular recognition, host-guest chemistry, mechanically-interlocked molecular architectures, and dynamic covalent chemistry.
The study of non-covalent interactions and supra-molecular formations is crucial to understanding many biological processes such as cell structure, biomolecular interactions, molecular recognition, protein kinetics, ligand-target interactions, antigen-antibody interactions, genetic expression, molecular inbitions, proteinopathies etc. Study of biological systems is often the inspiration for supra-molecular research.
Homeopathy and its therapeutic principle ‘similia sibilibus curentur’, as well as ‘drug potentization’ could be rationally explained only with the help of supra-molecular chemistry.
The existence of intermolecular forces was first postulated by Johannes Diderik van der Waals in 1873. However, Nobel laureate Hermann Emil Fischer developed supra-molecular chemistry’s philosophical roots. In 1894, Hermann Emil Fischer suggested that enzyme-substrate interactions take the form of a “lock and key”, the fundamental principles of molecular recognition and host-guest chemistry. In the early twentieth century non-covalent bonds were understood in gradually more detail, with the hydrogen bond being described by Latimer and Rodebush in 1920.
The use of these principles gradually led to an increasing understanding of protein structure and other biological processes. For instance, the important breakthrough that allowed the elucidation of the double helical structure of DNA occurred when it was realized that there are two separate strands of nucleotides connected through hydrogen bonds. The use of non-covalent bonds is essential to replication because they allow the strands to be separated and used to template new double stranded DNA.
Eventually, chemists were able to take these concepts and apply them to synthetic systems. The breakthrough came in the 1960s with the synthesis of the crown ethers by Charles J. Pedersen. Following this work, other researchers such as Donald J. Cram, Jean-Marie Lehn and Fritz Vogtle became active in synthesizing shape- and ion-selective receptors, and throughout the 1980s research in the area gathered a rapid pace with concepts such as mechanically-interlocked molecular architectures emerging.
The importance of supra-molecular chemistry was established by the 1987 Nobel Prize for Chemistry which was awarded to Donald J. Cram, Jean-Marie Lehn, and Charles J. Pedersen in recognition of their work in this area. The development of selective “host-guest” complexes in particular, in which a host molecule recognizes and selectively binds a certain guest, was cited as an important contribution.
In the 1990s, supra-molecular chemistry became even more sophisticated, with researchers such as James Fraser Stoddart developing molecular machinery and highly complex self-assembled structures, and Itamar Willner developing sensors and methods of electronic and biological interfacing. During this period, electrochemical and photochemical motifs became integrated into supramolecular systems in order to increase functionality, research into synthetic self-replicating system began, and work on molecular information processing devices began. The emerging science of nanotechnology also had a strong influence on the subject, with building blocks such as fullerenes, nanoparticles, and dendrimers becoming involved in synthetic systems.
Supramolecular chemistry deals with subtle interactions, and consequently control over the processes involved can require great precision. In particular, noncovalent bonds have low energies and often no activation energy for formation. As demonstrated by the Arrhenius equation, this means that, unlike in covalent bond-forming chemistry, the rate of bond formation is not increased at higher temperatures. In fact, chemical equilibrium equations show that the low bond energy results in a shift towards the breaking of supramolecular complexes at higher temperatures.
However, low temperatures can also be problematic to supramolecular processes. Supramolecular chemistry can require molecules to distort into thermodynamically disfavored conformations, and may include some covalent chemistry that goes along with the supramolecular. In addition, the dynamic nature of supramolecular chemistry is utilized in many systems such as molecular mechanics, and cooling the system would slow these processes.
Thus, thermodynamics is an important tool to design, control, and study supra-molecular chemistry. Perhaps the most striking example is that of warm-blooded biological systems, which entirely cease to operate outside a very narrow temperature range.
The molecular environment around a supra-molecular system is also of prime importance to its operation and stability. Many solvents have strong hydrogen bonding, electrostatic, and charge-transfer capabilities, and are therefore able to become involved in complex equilibria with the system, even breaking complexes completely. For this reason, the choice of solvent can be critical.
‘Molecular self assembly’ is the construction of systems without guidance or management from an outside source other than to provide a suitable environment. The molecules are directed to assemble through non-covalent interactions. Self-assembly may be subdivided into intermolecular self-assembly to form a supramolecular assembly, and intra-molecular self-assembly or folding as demonstrated by foldamers and polypeptides. Molecular self-assembly also allows the construction of larger structures such as micelles, membranes, vesicles, liquid crystals, and is important to crystal engineering.
Molecular self-assembly is a key concept in supramolecular chemistry. This is because assembly of molecules in such systems is directed through noncovalent interactions such as hydrogen bonding, metal coordination, hydrophobic forces, van der Waals forces, pi-pi interactions, as well as electromagnetic interactions. Common examples include the formation of micelles, vesicles, liquid crystal phases, and Langmuir monolayers by surfactant molecules. Further examples of supramolecular assemblies demonstrate that a variety of different shapes and sizes can be obtained using molecular self-assembly.
Molecular self-assembly allows the construction of challenging molecular topologies. One example is Borromean rings, interlocking rings wherein removal of one ring unlocks each of the other rings. DNA has been used to prepare a molecular analog of Borromean rings. More recently, a similar structure has been prepared using non-biological building blocks.
Molecular self-assembly underlies the construction of biologic macromolecular assemblies in living organisms, and so is crucial to the function of cells. It is exhibited in the self-assembly of lipids to form the membrane, the formation of double helical DNA through hydrogen bonding of the individual strands, and the assembly of proteins to form quaternary structures. Molecular self-assembly of incorrectly folded proteins into insoluble amyloid fibers is responsible for infectious prion-related neurodegenerative diseases. Molecular self-assembly of nanoscale structures plays a role in the growth of the remarkable β-keratin lamellae/setae/spatulae structures used to give geckos the ability to climb walls and adhere to ceilings and rock overhangs
DNA nanotechnology is an area of current research that uses the bottom-up, self-assembly approach for nanotechnological goals. DNA nanotechnology uses the unique molecular recognition properties of DNA and other nucleic acids to create self-assembling branched DNA complexes with useful properties. DNA is thus used as a structural material rather than as a carrier of biological information, to make structures such as two-dimensional periodic lattices (both tile-based as well as using the “DNA origami” method) and three-dimensional structures in the shapes of polyhedra. These DNA structures have also been used to template the assembly of other molecules such as gold nanoparticles and streptavidin proteins
Study of ‘molecular self assembly’ is very important in understanding molecular imprinting involved in homeopathic drug potentization.
‘Molecular recognition’ is the specific binding of a guest molecule to a complementary host molecule to form a ‘host-guest complex’. Often, the definition of which species is the “host” and which is the “guest” is arbitrary. The molecules are able to identify each other using non-covalent interactions. Key applications of this field are the construction of molecular sensors and catalysis.
Molecular recognition and self-assembly may be used with reactive species in order to pre-organize a system for a chemical reaction to form one or more covalent bonds. It may be considered a special case of supra-molecular catalysis. Non-covalent bonds between the reactants and a “template” hold the reactive sites of the reactants close together, facilitating the desired chemistry. This technique is particularly useful for situations where the desired reaction conformation is thermodynamically or kinetically unlikely, such as in the preparation of large macrocycles. This pre-organization also serves purposes such as minimizing side reactions, lowering the activation energy of the reaction, and producing desired stereochemistry. After the reaction has taken place, the template may remain in place, be forcibly removed, or may be “automatically” decomplexed on account of the different recognition properties of the reaction product. The template may be as simple as a single metal ion or may be extremely complex.
‘Mechanically-interlocked molecular architectures’ consist of molecules that are linked only as a consequence of their topology. Some non-covalent interactions may exist between the different components often those that were utilized in the construction of the system, but covalent bonds do not. Supramolecular chemistry, and template-directed synthesis in particular, is key to the efficient synthesis of the compounds. Examples of mechanically-interlocked molecular architectures include catenanes, rotaxanes, molecular knots, molecular Borromean rings and ravels.
In certain situations, ‘supra-molecular chemistry’ may include ‘covalent bondings’ also. In such ‘dynamic covalent chemistry’, covalent bonds are broken and formed in a reversible reaction under thermodynamic control. While covalent bonds are key to the process, the system is directed by non-covalent forces to form the lowest energy structures
‘Biomimetics’ is an important application of supra-molecular chemistry. Many synthetic supra-molecular systems are designed to copy functions of biological systems. These bio-mimetic architectures can be used to learn about both the biological model and the synthetic implementation. Examples include photoelectrochemical systems, catalytic systems, protein design and self-replication.
‘Molecular imprinting’ is another application of supra-molecular chemistry, which describes a process by which a host is constructed from small molecules using a suitable molecular species as a template. After construction, the template is removed leaving only the host. The template for host construction may be subtly different from the guest that the finished host binds to. In its simplest form, imprinting utilizes only steric interactions, but more complex systems also incorporate hydrogen bonding and other interactions to improve binding strength and specificity.
Homeopathic potentization could be rationally explained by molecular imprinting.
‘Molecular machines’ are molecules or molecular assemblies derived from supramolecular chemistry, that can perform functions such as linear or rotational movement, switching, and entrapment. These devices exist at the boundary between supramolecular chemistry and nanotechnology, and prototypes have been demonstrated using supramolecular concepts
Different synthetic recognition motifs commonly utilized in supramolecular chemistry: The ‘pi-pi charge-transfer interactions’ of bipyridinium with dioxyarenes or diaminoarenes have been used extensively for the construction of mechanically interlocked systems and in crystal engineering. The use of ‘crown ether binding’ with metal or ammonium cations is ubiquitous in supramolecular chemistry. The formation of ‘carboxylic acid dimers’ and other simple hydrogen bonding interactions. The complexation of bipyridines or tripyridines with ruthenium, silver or other metal ions is of great utility in the construction of complex architectures of many individual molecules. The complexation of porphyrins or phthalocyanines around metal ions gives access to catalytic, photochemical and electrochemical properties as well as complexation. These units are used a great deal by nature. ‘Macrocycles’ are also very useful in supramolecular chemistry, as they provide whole cavities that can completely surround guest molecules and may be chemically modified to fine-tune their properties. Cyclodextrins, calixarenes, cucurbiturils and crown ethers are readily synthesized in large quantities, and are therefore convenient for use in supramolecular systems. More complex cyclophanes, and cryptands can be synthesised to provide more tailored recognition properties. Supramolecular metallocycles are macrocyclic aggregates with metal ions in the ring, often formed from angular and linear modules. Common metallocycle shapes in these types of applications include triangles, squares, and pentagons, each bearing functional groups that connect the pieces via “self-assembly”. Metallacrowns are metallomacrocycles generated via a similar self-assembly approach from fused chelate-rings.
Many supramolecular systems require their components to have suitable spacing and conformations relative to each other, and therefore easily-employed structural units are required. Commonly used spacers and connecting groups include polyether chains, biphenyls and triphenyls, and simple alkyl chains. The chemistry for creating and connecting these units is very well understood. Nanoparticles, nanorods, fullerenes and dendrimers offer nanometer-sized structure and encapsulation units.
Surfaces can be used as scaffolds for the construction of complex systems and also for interfacing electrochemical systems with electrodes. Regular surfaces can be used for the construction of self-assembled monolayers and multilayers.
Photo-electro-chemically active units are used in supra-molecular chemistry. Porphyrins, and phthalocyanines have highly tunable photochemical and electrochemical activity as well as the potential for forming complexes. Photochromic and photoisomerizable groups have the ability to change their shapes and properties (including binding properties) upon exposure to light. TTF and quinones have more than one stable oxidation state, and therefore can be switched with redox chemistry or electrochemistry. Other units such as benzidine derivatives, viologens groups and fullerenes, have also been utilized in supramolecular electrochemical devices.
Certain ‘biologically-derived units’ are also utilized in supra-molecular chemistry. The extremely strong complexation between avidin and biotin is instrumental in blood clotting, and has been used as the recognition motif to construct synthetic systems. The binding of enzymes with their cofactors has been used as a route to produce modified enzymes, electrically contacted enzymes, and even photoswitchable enzymes. DNA has been used both as a structural and as a functional unit in synthetic supramolecular systems.
Applications of supramolecular chemistry is fastly expanding. Supramolecular chemistry and molecular self-assembly processes in particular have been applied to the development of new materials. Large structures can be readily accessed using bottom-up synthesis as they are composed of small molecules requiring fewer steps to synthesize. Thus most of the bottom-up approaches to nanotechnology are based on supramolecular chemistry.
A major application of supramolecular chemistry is the design and understanding of catalysts and catalysis. Noncovalent interactions are extremely important in catalysis, binding reactants into conformations suitable for reaction and lowering the transition state energy of reaction. Template-directed synthesis is a special case of supramolecular catalysis. Encapsulation systems such as micelles and dendrimers are also used in catalysis to create microenvironments suitable for reactions (or steps in reactions) to progress that is not possible to use on a macroscopic scale.
Supramolecular chemistry has been used to demonstrate computation functions on a molecular scale. In many cases, photonic or chemical signals have been used in these components, but electrical interfacing of these units has also been shown by supramolecular signal transduction devices. Data storage has been accomplished by the use of molecular switches with photochromic and photoisomerizable units, by electrochromic and redox-switchable units, and even by molecular motion. Synthetic molecular logic gates have been demonstrated on a conceptual level. Even full-scale computations have been achieved by semi-synthetic DNA computers.
Research in supramolecular chemistry also has application in green chemistry where reactions have been developed which proceed in the solid state directed by non-covalent bonding. Such procedures are highly desirable since they reduce the need for solvents during the production of chemicals.
Supramolecular chemistry is often pursued to develop new functions that cannot appear from a single molecule. These functions also include magnetic properties, light responsiveness, self-healing polymers, synthetic ion channels, molecular sensors, etc. Supramolecular research has been applied to develop high-tech sensors, processes to treat radioactive waste, and contrast agents for CAT scans.
Supramolecular chemistry is also important to the development of new pharmaceutical therapies by understanding the interactions at a drug binding site. The area of drug delivery has also made critical advances as a result of supramolecular chemistry providing encapsulation and targeted release mechanisms. In addition, supramolecular systems have been designed to disrupt protein-protein interactions that are important to cellular function. Supramolecular chemistry and molecular imprinting could be utilized in modern drug designing technology of next generation. Molecular imprinted water and biomolecules such as proteins are promising areas. It should be in this connection that we should study the MOLECULAR IMPRINTING perspective of homeopathic potentization, proposed by MIT concepts.
I just want to say: “Scientific Approach is Possible in Homeopathy”! To know HOW, study the concepts proposed by ‘Molecular Imprints Therapeutics- MIT”
By posting articles based on biochemical approach to similimum in various diseases, I actually want to convey the message to homeopaths that once they understand MIT concepts, they can now approach disease, similimum and homeopathic therapeutics from a scientific angle, entirely different from what we were taught so far. This is ‘science-based homeopathy’. This approach is not a deviation from ‘fundamentals’ of homeopathy as some friends suspect. It is based on the advanced scientific definition of ‘similia similibus curentur’ that “molecular imprints of pathogenic molecules or of similar molecules that could cause the molecular inhibitions can remove those inhibitions”.
I just want to say: “Scientific Approach is Possible in Homeopathy”
Potentized homeopathic nosodes prepared from disease products are ‘molecular imprints’ in water-alcohol medium that can act inside the organism in a similar way as ANTIBODIES do. They can act as PROPHYLACTICS by binding to the invading pathogenic molecules and preventing them from attacking biological molecules.
Vaccines are disease products that can induce the organism to produce antibodies. Exactly, antibodies are ‘molecular imprinted’ native proteins, especially globulins.
Since antibodies are ‘molecular imprinted proteins’, the can remain in the system very long periods, and attack the surface proteins of invading microorganisms having configurational complementary relationship. That way, vaccines builds up immunity against specific diseases. Same time, these antibodies can cause various off-target molecular blocks, that my result in various pathological deviations known as ‘side effects’. That means, antibodies can PRODUCE chronic ‘miasms’ also.
Production of antibodies involves a natural process of ‘molecular imprinting’ similar to that happen during homeopathic potentization. Molecules contained in the vaccine substance creates spacial imprints up on native globulin proteins, inducing conformational changes in them. These ‘deformed globulins’ bearing spacial imprints of vaccine molecules are called ANTIBODIES’.
ANTIBODIES ARE ‘MOLECULAR IMPRINTED PROTEINS”. POTENTIZED NOSODES ARE “MOLECULAR IMPRINTED WATER”. BOTH ACT ON PATHOGENIC MOLECULES BY COMPLEMENTARY CONFIGURATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. DIFFERENCE IS, ANTIBODIES CAN ATTACK BIOLOGICAL MOLECULES AND PRODUCE MIASMS, WHEREAS MOLECULAR IMPRINTS CANNOT.
Since potentized nosodes contains only ‘molecular imprints’ in water/alcohol clusters, they will not remain inside the organism for long periods, and cannot cause off-target molecular blocks. Hence, potentized nosodes are safer than vaccines. VACCINES CAN PRODUCE CHRONIC DISEASES, WHEREAS NOSODES CURE CHRONIC DISEASES.
As such, molecular imprints contained in potentized drugs can provide prophylactic protection only for short periods. Life ling prophylaxis is not possible with homeopathy. It could be useful in epidemics
You cannot approach, understand, explain or apply homeopathy as a ‘medical science’, if you have no essential basic knowledge in modern biochemistry. I would humbly request all homeopaths to update their biochemistry urgently.
For those who lack this scientific basis, and for those who think learning homeopathy means blindly ‘following’ the ‘masters’ and the ‘gurus’, everything I talk about homeopathy will appear “imaginary theories” and “empty sounds”, since my ideas will be simply flying over their head.
Problem becomes even worse, if they suffer from inflated egos, which prevent them from learning anything new, since they are under the illusion that they “know everything about homeopathy”!
Due to their deficiencies in essential minimum scientific background, many homeopaths fail to understand MIT concepts of scientific homeopathy. They cannot even tolerate my questions about ‘active principles of potentized drugs’ or ‘biological mechanism of homeopathic cure’, as “it is not said in organon”!
One ‘senior homeopath’ told me : “YOUR WRITINGS ARE USELESS HIGH SOUNDING EMPTY POSTULATIONS”. He could hear only ‘high sounds’- not their meaning!. I can understand this state of mind, but can only sympathize with those ‘learned’ friends. There is no meaning in requesting them to learn science- they cannot!
Hering’s four ‘observations’, now commonly known as ‘herings laws’, are actually some empirical assumptions regarding ‘order of cure’ in the homeopathic curative process.
Following are the four assumptions of hering:
In a genuine curative process,
a. Symptoms should disappear in the reverse chronological order of their appearance in disease.
b. Symptoms should travel from internal parts of body to external parts
c. Symptoms should travel from more vital organs to less vital organs.
d. Symptoms should travel from ‘upper’ parts of the body to ‘lower’ parts.
According to those who consider these as the ‘fundamental law of cure’, any drug effect that happen not in accordance with above laws are ‘suppressive’, and hence not ‘curative’.
‘Disease processes and curative processes always happen in reverse directions’ is the fundamental observation hering actually tried to establish regarding ‘directions of disease and cure’.
Hering never called these observations as ‘laws’. None of his famous contemporaries and close colleagues ever discussed or made any reference to a law of direction of cure. Writings of Boenninghausen, Jahr, Joslin, P.P. Wells, Lippe, H.N.Guernsey, Dunham, E.A. Farrington, H.C. Allen, Nash, etc, were all silent.
“When Hering died in 1880, colleagues all over the world assembled to pay tribute to the great homeopath. His many accomplishments were recalled. Strangely, none made any mention of a law of direction of cure promulgated by Hering. Arthur Eastman, a student who was close to Hering during the last three years of the venerable homeopath, published in 1917 Life and Reminiscences of Dr. Constantine Hering also without mentioning a law pertaining to direction of cure. Calvin Knerr, Hering’s son-in-law, published in 1940, 60 years after Hering’s death, the Life of Hering, a compilation of biographical notes. Again no mention is made of the famous law.
In 1865, Hering described these observations not as a law but as Hahnemann’s general observations or as plain practical rules. Essentially he emphasizes the proposition that the ‘symptoms should disappear in the reverse order of their appearance during the treatment’ of patients with chronic psoric diseases.
In 1875, Hering discussed only one proposition, that the ‘symptoms will disappear in the reverse order of their appearance’. The three other propositions are now not mentioned at all.
All the illustrious contemporaries of Hering seems to remain silent on this point, at least as far as available literature shows.
‘Curative processes happen in a direction just reverse to disease processes’- that is the sum total of Hering’s observations regarding ‘directions of cure’.
Hering no where mentioned about such ‘laws’!
Actually, Hahnemann did not seriously work upon those aspects of curative processes which we call ‘directions of cure’, or considered it a decisive factor in homeopathic therapeutics. He made some observations regarding ‘order of cure’. He was more concerned about ‘misms’ in the management of ‘chronic diseases’, where as Hering did not consider ‘miasms’ at all.
Some modern ‘theoreticians’ have come with new theories by combining ‘hering laws’ and theory of miasms, also mixing up with terms of ‘genetics’ and ‘embryology’ which they propagate as the ‘only’ correct understanding of homeopathy.
It was ‘KENT’ who later actually called these observations as ‘Herings laws’ and converted these four observations into ‘fundamental laws’ of homeopathic cure. KENT taught to understand and apply these ‘laws’ in a mechanical way. He taught homeopaths to consider ‘hering laws’ regarding ‘directions of cure’ as one of the ‘fundamental laws’ of homeopathy, similar to ‘similia similibus curentur’. Kent made homeopaths believe that drug effects that do not agree with these ‘laws’ cannot be considered ‘curative’, and are ‘suppressive’. There are some modern streams of homeopathic practice such as that of Dr Vijaykar, which rely more upon ‘hering laws’ even than ‘similia similibu curentur’ in their methods of therapeutic applications. In 1911,Kent, almost arbitrarily, calls the original observations of Hahnemann “Hering’s law”.
According to so-called hering’s laws, natural disease processes always advances from lower parts of the body to upper parts, from less vital to more vital organs and from external to internal organs. More over, all these disease processes advance in a chronological order.
Logically, Hering’s observations only meant that “all genuine ‘curative processes’ should happen in a direction just reverse to disease processes”.
Over-extending and mechanical application of ‘herings laws’ without understanding their exact premises and scientific meaning may lead to grave errors regarding interpretation of curative processes and drug effects.
This phenomenon could be explained in the light of modern scientific understanding of ‘cascading of pathological molecular inhibitions’ and complex dynamics of ‘bio-molecular feed back mechanisms’.
To understand this explanation, one has to equip himself with at least a working knowledge regarding the concepts of modern biochemistry regarding the bio-molecular inhibitions involved in pathology and therapeutics.
Except those diseases which are purely due to errors in genetic substances, and those diseases which are due to genuine deficiency of building materials of biological molecules, all other diseases are considered to be caused by ‘molecular inhibitions’. Pathogenic molecules of endogenous or exogenous origin bind to some biological molecules in the organism, causing ‘molecular inhibitions’ which lead to pathological derangement in associated biochemical pathways. These pathogenic molecules may be of infectious, environmental, nutritional, metabolic, drug-induced, miasmatic or any other origin. Derangement in biochemical pathways are expressed through diverse groups of subjective and objective symptoms. This is the fundamental biochemistry of pathology.
Molecular inhibitions happening in a biological molecule due to the binding of a pathogenic molecule initiates a complex process of ‘cascading of molecular errors’ and ‘bio-feedback mechanisms’ in the organism. Errors happening in a particular biochemical pathway leads to errors in another pathway which is dependant on the first pathway for regular supply of metabolites, which further lead to errors in another pathway. This ‘cascading of molecular errors’ happens through successive stages, which is expressed through new subjective and objective symptoms. This ‘cascading’ is behind what we call ‘advancing of disease’ into new systems and organs, exhibiting ever new groups of associated symptoms. For an observer, this cascading appears in the form of ‘traveling of disease’ from one system into another. Along with these ‘cascading’ of molecular errors, there happens a series of activation and shutting down of complex ‘bio-molecular feedback’ mechanisms also. The phenomenon of ‘advancing of diseases’ should be studied in this scientific perspective of modern biochemistry.
When a molecular inhibition happens in some biological molecule ‘A’ due to binding of a pathogenic molecule ‘a’, it actually stops or decreases some essential molecular conversions that are essential part of a complex biochemical pathway P. If ‘G’ is the normal ligand of ‘A’, and ‘g’ is the product of biochemical interaction involving ‘A’, the result of this molecular inhibition is that ‘G’ accumulates on one side, and ‘g’ is not available for the next stage of molecular processes. Accumulating ‘P’ may induce a feedback mechanism leading to reduction or stoppage its production itself, or may move to other parts of organism and bind to unwanted molecular targets, initiation a new stream of pathological derangement.
Obviously, ‘traveling’ of disease or ‘advancing’ of disease happens through cascading of molecular errors in various biochemical pathways. Some disease processes may ‘travel’ from ‘external’ to internal organs, some from ‘lower parts’ to upper parts, some from ‘less vital’ parts to ‘more vital’ parts. All these ‘traveling’ is basically decided by the involved biochemical pathways. It would be wrong to generalize these observations in such a way that ‘all diseases travel from exterior to interior, lower parts to higher parts, and less vital to more vital parts’. It is also wrong to generalize in such a way that ‘curative process always travel from interior to exterior, above downwards, and from vital to less vital parts’. This is mechanical understanding and application of hering’s observations.
Actually, curative processes happens in a direction opposite to the direction of disease process. That depends upon the biochemical pathways involved and the exact dynamics of cascading of molecular inhibitions. Its dynamics is very complex, and should not be interpreted and applied in a mechanistic way. When ‘molecular inhibitions’ underlying the disease processes are systematically removed using molecular imprints, the curative process also would take place in the reverse direction of disease processes.
To sum up, Hering’s observations regarding a ‘directions of disease and cure’ is a valuable one, but it should be studied in the light of modern biochemistry.
‘Curative processes happen in a direction just reverse to disease processes”- that is the sum total of Hering’s observations regarding ‘directions of cure’.
Obviously there is something paradoxical in ‘herig laws’ which everybody over look. It is said that “disease advances in a direction from outer parts to internal parts”, and “direction of cure is from inner to outer”. If it is right, symptoms appeared last (inner) will be cure first, and symptoms appeared earlier (outer) will be cured last! But as per the first law, the reverse should happen- symptoms appeared first (outer) should go first, and those appeared later (inner) will go second. Is it not paradoxical?
There are many diseases that appear first in internal organs, and their external manifestations appear only during later stages of disease process. What should be their “direction of cure” according to hering law?
Concept of “outer-internal” most time contradicts with the concept of “lower-upper”. Did anybody notice this contradiction? Top of head is “upper”, but it is same time “outer”!
Same way, according to hering, “direction of disease process is lower to upper”, and “direction of cure is upper to lower”. This is contrary to the other law “cure happens in reverse order of appearance”!
Does “cure in reverse order” actually means “reappearance of old symptoms”? Should we agree with the theory that all cures ‘without reappearance of old symptoms” are not “genuine cures”?
Regarding upper limb, which is “upper” and which is “lower” – fingers or axille? In the case of dogs and cows, which limb is upper and which is lower- front limbs or hind limbs?
According to embryology:
“The gastrula with its blastopore soon develops three distinct layers of cells (the germ layers) from which all the bodily organs and tissues then develop:the innermost layer, or endoderm, gives rise to the digestive organs, lungs and bladder; the middle layer, or mesoderm, gives rise to the muscles, skeleton and blood system; the outer layer of cells, or ectoderm, gives rise to the nervous system and skin” (Wikipedia).
Which is ‘inner most’? Homeopaths believe mind is innermost. But embryology says nervous system belongs to ectoderm. “Lungs, bladder and digestive system” are inner! ‘Mind’ is ‘outer’ than lungs, bladder and lungs! Bladder is much ‘lower’ than brain, but ‘innermost’! What should be the ‘direction of cure’ in a disease that ‘moved’ from bladder to brain?
I always wonder why our GURUS and MASTERS ignored this paradoxical states in hering laws!
Biological molecules interact with their natural ligands by a ‘key-lock’ relationship, where biological molecules can be considered as ‘locks’, and their natural ligands as ‘original keys’.
Drug molecules and pathogenic molecules having conformations ‘similar’ to the original keys can act as ‘fake keys’, and enter the ‘keyholes’ of biological ‘locks’, thereby hindering the normal interaction between natural ‘locks’ and ‘keys’. This hindrance in bio-molecular interactions underlie the molecular level mechanism of ‘pathology’ as well as ‘drug proving’.
Molecular imprints are ‘artificial keyholes’ exactly fitting to the ‘drug molecules’ used to prepare them. If drug molecules and pathogenic molecules are of ‘similar’ conformation, molecular imprints of drug molecules can act as ‘artificial keyholes’ for similar pathogenic molecules also, and bind to them. ‘Fake keys’ that block the keyholes of biological molecules can be removed by using these ‘artificial keyholes’.
This is the molecular mechanism involved in homeopathic therapeutics.
First of all, we have to understand the fundamental difference between drug substances BELOW 12C or AVOGADRO LIMIT, and ABOVE 12C or AVOGADRO LIMIT. Former contains DRUG MOLECULES, where as latter contains ONLY MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug molecules. They act by entirely different BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM.
When applied as SIMILIMUM, ‘molecular forms’ or crude drugs may COMPETE with pathogenic molecules for binding to the targets, and give some therapeutic effects. But they cannot bind to the pathogenic molecules as such, and hence the therapeutic effect will be very temporary. More over, these drug molecules can bind to various unexpected molecular targets, resulting in harmful effects commonly known as SIDE EFFECTS.
When applied as SIMILIMUM, ‘molecular imprints’ act by an entirely different biological mechanism. They act as ARTIFICIAL BINDING SITES for pathogenic molecules having conformational complementary affinity, and BIND to them and deactivate them. Hence, cure will be long lasting and more permanent. More over, molecular imprints cannot interfere in the normal interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands. As such, issue of SIDE EFFECTS does not arise when we use drugs potentized above 12C.
Some homeopaths ‘believe’ that ‘highly potentized’ drugs can produce symptoms, and can be used for ‘drug proving’. They believe it is dangerous to use potentized drugs without indications.
One homeopath claimed: “I once took a dose of medhorrinum 1M, because I really wanted to know more about Homeopathy, and I got a date of symptoms for some time (a month or less), most corresponded well to the set of symptoms described in materia medica for medhorrinum… So you say that high dilutions is not good for experimentations…. I think it is not correct…”
Pure rubbish. If he wanted to “know more about homeopathy”, this is not the way he should do experiments. Taking oneself ‘single dose’ of a drug and waiting for ‘its symptoms’ to appear! And he got symptoms of that drug for one month! And he considers he has ‘proved’ that “high dilutions are good for experimentation” beyond any doubt!
If he really wanted to ‘prove’ that potentized drugs can produce symptoms, he should conduct the experiments according to scientific method. Person who is subjected to experiment should not know which medicine he is taking. Person conducting the experiment should not know which drug is given to which individual. There should be enough controls also. Then we should try to identify the drugs from comparing the symptoms produced with symptoms in materia medica. Only when we succeed in identifying drugs from symptoms in such a well controlled blinded experiment, we can say we ‘proved’ that high potency drugs could produce symptoms.
Taking a dose of ‘known’ drug oneself, waiting for its symptoms for one month, and ascribing all symptoms you produced during one month to that single drug- it is a joke. After taking that ‘single dose’, he will be ‘taking’ diverse types of exogenous molecules into your body- through food, water, drinks, air and many many other environmental factors. All those molecules can produce symptoms in him. How can he say all symptoms produced for one month ‘after’ a ‘single dose of medorrhinum 1m’ were due that ‘single dose’?
Only homeopaths, blinded by ‘beliefs’ can make such claims. For them, everything that happens ‘after’ their dose is the ‘effect’ of that dose! They never bother to consider the variables involved! I know it is a waste of time arguing to convince them. They cannot be convinced by logic or science. They are ‘believers’.
Homeopathic drugs potentized above avogadro limit (12c) contain only ‘molecular imprints’. Molecular imprints are supramolecular nanostructures formed by hydrogen bonding of ethyl alcohol-water molecules, into which the 3-dimensional configuration of drug molecules are imprinted as nano-cavities. These nano-cavities can act as artificial binding sites for endogenous or exogenous molecules having configurational similarity to the molecules used for imprinting. We can say, molecular imprints are ‘artificial key-holes’ for pathogenic molecular keys.
Biochemical processes involves two aspects: 1.Binding of ligands to targets, which is determined by configurational affinity.2. Chemical transformation, which is determined by charge affinity of ligands and targets. Since ‘molecular imprints’ have only ‘configurational affinity’, without any ‘charge affinity’ towards biological molecules, potentized drugs cannot interfere in normal biological processes.
Molecular imprints contained in the potentized homeopathic preparations bind to ligands or biological molecules due to their complementary cofigurational affinity, whereas natural ligands bind to their biological target molecules in capacity of their appropriate spacial configurations as well as charge affinities. So, the bindings of molecular imprints with biological molecules or their ligands will be very temporary and cannot stay long. Such bindings of molecular imprints cannot replace the natural ligand-target interactions happening as part of vital processes. Molecular imprints can not compete with natural ligands in binding to their natural biological targets. Hence it is obvious that potentized homeopathic preparations cannot interfere in biological ‘ligand-target’ processes such as ‘substrate-enzyme’, ‘antigens-antibodies’, ‘signal-receptor’ etc. As such, chances of potentized homeopathic medicines acting as pathological agents are very rare even if used indiscriminately. Molecular imprints can interfere only in interactions between pathogenic molecules and biological molecules, as well as off-target bindings of ligands with biological molecules, to which their comparative configurational affinity is more. Obviously, molecular imprints can act upon only the molecular blocks created by exogenous or endogenous foreign pathological molecules.
Molecular imprints contained in the potentized homeopathic preparations cannot successfully compete with natural ligands in binding with their biological target molecules, and hence, cannot interfere in the interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands. Obviously, potentized drugs cannot produce any pathological molecular inhibitions in the organism or produce symptoms.
According to scientific view, ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ means: ‘diseases caused by specific molecular inhibitions and expressed through specific groups of subjective and objective symptoms can be cured by potentized forms of drugs that could create similar pathologic molecular inhibitions and symptoms in healthy individuals if applied in crude form’. Same can be stated in a different way as: “pathological molecular inhibitions can be rectified using ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules that can create similar molecular inhibitions if applied in molecular form”.
Homeopathy utilizes ‘drug proving’ for studying the pathogenic properties of drug substances by observing their capacity to produce various pathological symptoms in healthy organisms. Homeopathy is based on the principle that a substance becomes a medicinal agent only because it has some disease-producing properties. In other words, if we could know what pathological inhibitions and symptoms a drug can create in healthy organism, we can decide in what disease states that drug could be used as a therapeutic agent in potentized form. Drug proving is unique to homeopathy. Whereas modern medicine studies the disease-curing properties of drugs, homeopathy studies the disease-producing properties of drugs. That makes a great difference.
Drug proving is done by administering small quantities of a particular drug to controlled volunteer groups of apparently healthy individuals. The subjective and objective symptoms, representing the diverse molecular deviations caused in the organism by the drug substance are carefully observed and recorded. These symptoms are systematically arranged compiled as materia medica of the substance used.
Let us examine what actually happens at molecular level during drug proving:
First point we have to note is that most drug substances, especially of vegetable or animal origin, are not ‘simple’ substance. Even if we use them as a ‘single’ substance, actually they consist of diverse types of individual molecules. A substance can interact with biological molecules only as individual molecules. If we really want to understand homeopathy and drug proving scientifically, we should first of all learn to perceive drug substance in terms of its diverse constituent molecules. Once we introduce a sample of drug substance into the living organism for ‘proving’, its constituent molecules are instantly subjected to various processes such as disintegration, ionization, hydration and certain chemical transformations.
Individual constituent molecules are carried and conveyed through blood and other internal transport systems into the cells and body fluids in different parts of the body. They can interact with various enzymes, receptors, and other biological molecules inside the organism. Individual drug molecules, in capacities of their molecular affinities, get themselves bound to various bio-molecules which participate in the essential biochemical activities in the organism. These interactions are decided and directed by the specific properties such as configurations and charges of active groups of individual drug molecules, and their specific affinity towards biological target molecules.
The three dimensional structure of the individual drug molecules, and that of the concerned bio-molecules are the decisive factors in this process of formation of molecular binding between them. This peculiarity is called molecular affinity. It is very important to note that drug substances interact with different biological molecules, not as a singular entity, but as individual constituent molecules and ions. These individual drug molecules and ions are capable of competing with natural ligands and substrates in binding to their biological targets, thereby inhibiting the essential bio-chemical processes which can take place only with their presence and mediation. Such molecular inhibitions in various bio-chemical pathways result in a condition of pathology, expressed in the form of a train of subjective and objective symptoms, due to the involvement of various neuro-mediator, neuro-transmitter and cellular signalling systems.
From this point of view, drug proving has to be done using molecular forms of drugs, since only they can produce real pathological molecular inhibitions in the organism.
Let us examine what actually happens when potentized drugs are administered into ‘apparently’ healthy individual individuals for drug proving. First point we need to remember is that ‘apparently’ healthy people will not be totally free from pathological molecular inhibitions. There will be diverse types of hidden molecular errors existing in them, arising from diverse types of factors such as nutritional, environmental, miasmatic, genetic, emotional, metabolic, infectious and others. When potentized drugs are introduced into the body, some or other molecular imprints contained in them may act upon these existing molecular inhibitions, which may be reflected as some transient symptoms. Actually, those symptoms are not indicating the ‘disease producing’ properties, but ‘diseases curing’ properties of concerned drugs. As such, symptoms obtained from drug proving using high potencies may confuse our materia medica.
Potentized drugs may act on ‘healthy’ organism by a different mechanism. Molecular imprints may bind to the natural ligands in the body, if they have any configurational affinity. But, such bindings will not lead to a state of pathology since molecular imprints cannot interfere in the interaction between natural ligands and targets which will have stronger affinity to each other. As such, symptoms appearing from such interactions will be very much temporary, and cannot be considered ‘pathological symptoms’.
Drugs potentized above 12c cannot cause pathological molecular inhibitions or produce symptoms. As such ‘drug proving’ with ‘high potencies’ is only a myth- a false belief that is deep-rooted in the minds of homeopaths.
Many homeopaths argue that ‘high potencies’ will be ‘proved’ if used without indications. By ‘proving’, they mean producing of ‘drug symptoms’. If their claim is right, those friends should be capable of identifying a particular polycrest drug by observing the symptoms they ‘produce’, and comparing them with the symptoms described in materia medica books. Anybody there to take up this challenge?
You are talking about ‘immutable laws’ of homeopathy that cannot be ever changed. Please understand, those ‘laws’ where made by human beings on the basis of their available knowledge regarding phenomena of nature. Nature is not immutable, our knowledge is not immutable- how can you then imagine about immutable ‘laws’ of homeopathy?
The great genius of hahnemann made some observations regarding the relationship between drug-induced diseases and phenomenon of curative process, which he developed into a ‘principle’ called ‘similia similibus curentur’. This principle was based on his observation that if a disease has symptoms similar to those produced by a drug substance in healthy individuals, a ‘infinitely diluted’ dose of that drug could cure that disease.
Constrained by the historical limitations of knowledge environment he lived in, he could not scientifically understand how this curative process actually happened, or how the ‘infinitely diluted’ drug substance got medicinal properties. He tried to explain these phenomena on the basis of ideas he generated using the philosophy of ‘dynamism’ and ‘vitalism’ that were strong influences in his world outlook. He developed the idea that the ‘infinitely diluted’ drug substances contained some ‘dynamic medicinal energy’ that acted upon the ‘vital force’ of the patients and produced a curative effect.
Everything hahnemann said about the ‘application’ of homeopathy, such as dose, repetition, drug interactions, miasms, mode of application and a lot of other things were based on his ‘dynamic’ concepts regarding ‘potentization’ and drug actions, which were actually evolved from his limitations of scientific knowledge. He had no any scientific idea regarding what exactly happened during ‘potentization’. He had no any idea regarding the ‘biological mechanism’ by which potentized drugs acted upon the organism. He applied a lot of imaginations to fill the gaps of scientific knowledge, in order to construct a ‘complete’ therapeutic system.
Once we scientifically understand ‘potentization’ as a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, and we could explain the biological mechanism of ‘similia similibus curentur’ in terms of modern biochemistry, all those old ‘laws’ cannot stay ‘immutable’. They will have to be modified or discarded. That is the way human knowledge advances.
MIT concepts represent an advanced stage in this dialectical evolution of homeopathy. It is SCIENTIFIC HOMEOPATHY. Homeopathy cannot be ‘immutable’- it is undergoing ‘mutations’!
Every word occasionally uttered by the ‘master’ or later ‘stalwarts’ during their life times cannot be considered ‘fundamental laws’ of homeopathy, as our ‘classical homeopaths’ believe. Most of these so-called ‘laws’ are only irrational subjective interpretations, speculations and imaginations of ‘masters’, which do not agree with principles of modern science and its methods.
Actually, ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ is the ONLY ‘fundamental principle’ of homeopathy, with the technique of ‘potentization’ as its integral part. It explains the ‘biological mechanism’ of processes involved in homeopathic cure, which still holds valid in the light of modern scientific knowledge also.
I am not making any ‘new’ law in homeopathy. Actually, I am verifying and explaining the existing ‘laws’ in the light of advanced scientific knowledge. Obviously, those ‘laws’ which fail to withstand such a scientific scrutiny will be automatically deleted. It will only strengthen the foundation of homeopathy, and make its practice more rational, systematic and accurate.
Prescribe confidently. Even if you happen to give a ‘wrong’ drug to your patient, it will not do any harm if you are using in ‘molecular imprints’ forms or potencies 12C or above. You can safely switch over to right drug any time, if your earlier prescription proves to be wrong.
Find a similimum using all ÀBNORMAL MENTALS and ABNORMAL PHYSICAL GENERALS. It can be considered the CONSTITUTIONAL DRUG of the patient.
If the constitutional drug covers the ABNORMAL PARTICULAR SYMPTOMS also, it could be confidently prescribed.
If there are ABNORMAL PARTICULARS that are not covered by the selected constitutional drug, repertorize the particulars separately and find similimum. Prescribe the constitutional similimum as well as particular similimum, as combination or alternatingly.
In some cases, where there are entirely unrelated pathological conditions existing in the patient, particular symptoms may be arranged in different groups, and repertorized separately. In such cases, there will be two or more PARTICULAR similimums. Prescribe them along with CONSTITUTIONAL similimum.
I know, ‘classical homeopaths’ will not agree with this method. Let them disagree. One thing is sure- this method is very practical , and it simplifies homeopathic prescribing for young homeopaths. Cure is ensured.
If the patient invites your attention to an ‘abnormal’ OBJECTIVE or ‘observable’ symptom such as a lesion, a tissue change, a disability, peculiar discharge or a lab report, inquire about its ‘associated’ SUBJECTIVE aspects such as pains, sensations and factors that produce feelings of amel or agg. Such ‘objective-subjective’ combinations of symptoms belong to the category of ‘COMPLETE SYMPTOMS’, which are essential for a successful search of similimum.
If the the patient invites your attention first to a SUBJECTIVE complaint such as some abnormal sensations, pains or mental states, inquire whether there is any OBJECTIVE symptom associated with each of them, and also their aggravations, ameliorations and concomitants. Then only they become COMPLETE symptoms.
Regarding symptoms where ‘subjective-objective’ combinations are not available, look for ‘accompanying’, concomitant, alternating, extending or simultaneous symptoms. All such symptoms belong to the class of CONCOMITANTS, which may by themselves strongly indicate or lead to a similimum.
There are many ways to find similimum for a given patient. You may arrive at different similimums in same case, when you search for it though different ways, and all of them will probably work. Homeopathy is very very flexible.
Even a single ‘key note’ symptom may some times lead to a similimum.
In certain cases, you can select a similimum using totality of ‘abnormal’ mental symptoms only.
You can select a similimum using totality of ‘abnormal’ physical generals only.
Finding similimum is possible using totality of ‘abnormal’ mentals and physical generals, which is called ‘constitutional similimum’.
You can find a similimum using ‘totality’ of abnormal mentals, physical generals and particular symltoms .
In certain cases, you can combine constitutional similimum and particular similimum.
You can find similimum using abnormal particular symptoms only.
You can find multiple similimums using multiple ‘symptom groups’.
There are many specific remedies for different diseases, based on previous experiences of cures.
In iatrogenic diseases and bad effects of allopathic drugs, you can use tautopathic prescriptions.
Sarcodes and potentized biological products could be prescribed on the basis of knowledge of biochemistry.
Nosodes could be used on the basis of miasmatic history such as infections and vaccinations.
MOST IMPORTANT POINT TO BE REMEMBERED IS, USE ONLY POTENCIES ABOVE 12C, SO THAT THE DRUGS WILL ACT BY A ‘HOMEOPATHIC’ BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM. DO NOT HESITATE TO USE MULTIPLE DRUGS IF SYMPTOMS INDICATE SO. DO NOT HESITATE TO REPEAT DOSES FREQUENTLY UNTIL CURE IS COMPLETE.
Some ‘senior’ homeopaths argue that so-called “laws” of homeopathy should not be questioned or revised, as those LAWS were “surviving here for years”!
“Surviving for years” is not a scientifically viable justification for anything. Many superstitions and occult practices were “surviving here” for centuries. Astrology and palmistry are “surviving for years”. Black magics survive here. Should we agree all those things are scientific, only for the reason that they are “surviving for years”?
Try to understand homeopathy scientifically. Try to explain its ‘laws’ scientifically. Try to prove them scientifically. Try to practice them scientifically. Discard what are obviously unscientific. If you cannot, at least keep away from creating hurdles to those who are trying to make homeopathy a MEDICAL SCIENCE.
It is not your “laws” and “methods” that cure, but the ‘molecular imprints’ contained the drugs you selected. You have to worry only about ensuring that all the diverse types of molecular imprints required by the patient are included in your prescription. You need not worry about ‘laws’ and ‘methods’, if you know how to select your prescription.
Dr. Santimoy Mukherjee commented on my post:
“BOGUS IDEA,IF YOU DON’T FOLLOW RULES SUCCESS WILL ONLY REMAIN A DREAM”
MY ANSWER: Sir, what about the “rules”? Are they not “bogus”? On what basis those ‘rules’ are made? Can you explain those ‘rules’ in the light of modern scientific knowledge, other than bogus claims of ‘experiences’ and those dogmatic ‘aphorisms’? If you can, you are welcome for a discussion.
Kindly answer me following fundamental questions, which should be the BASIS of any scientific RULES in homeopathy:
1. What actually happens during potentization, by which the medicinal properties of drug substances are transferred to the medium, with out even a single drug molecule remaining in it?
2. What are the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of potentized drugs?
3. What is the molecular level BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM by which potentized drugs act up on the organism and produce a therapeutic effect?
4. What is the SCIENTIFIC meaning of ‘similia similibus curentur’ in terms of biochemical interactions involved in vital processes?
If you cannot answer these questions, all your UNDERSTANDING of homeopathy and its rules will be simply BOGUS.
Without any idea regarding WHAT are the active factors of ‘drugs’ you use, how can anybody make RULES about its dose, repetition, relationships and such things?
Whithout any idea regarding HOW your drugs really act upon the organism, how can anybody make THEORIS about its harms, suppressions, bad effects and such things?
Are they not BOGUS Ideas, fancies and imaginations of people you consider masters? If not, as their dedicated ‘follower’, you are responsible to explain them in terms of currently available scientific knowledge. If you cannot do that, at least do not try to malign those who try to do it.
I have explained MY IDEAS on the basis of MY ANSWERS for above questions. If you think my ideas are BOGUS, you are expected to explain your ideas by answering the above questions according to your views. If you evade from these FOUR fundamental questions, that means, you are not intellectually equipped for a REASONABLE interaction with me.
Homeopaths always justify their ‘laws’ and ‘theories’ not by scientific evidences or rational explanations, but using anecdotes of their ‘experiences’ and quotes from ‘masters’.
What they claim to be ‘experiences’ are actually their absolutely unscientific subjective interpretations of ‘their’ experiences, exactly similar to the ‘experiences’ of the gang of blind men of the proverbial fable, who ‘saw’ the elephant!
Such subjective interpretations and anecdotes have no any value as ‘evidences’ according to scientific method, unless our interpretations and explanations agree with existing scientific knowledge system.
What Is The Key To Successful Homeopathic Practice?
Practice homeopathy with minimum THEORY, with minimum ‘DON’TS’. Practice it with confidence- without any fear or foreboding.
COLLECT ALL ‘ABNORMAL BASIC SYMPTOMS’, AND MAKE THEM ‘COMPLETE SYMPTOMS’ BY ADDING WITH THEIR ‘ACCESSORIES’ SUCH AS ‘CAUSATION-LOCATION-SENSATION-PRESENTATION-MODALITY-CONCOMITANTS’. THEN SELECT ONE OR MORE SIMILIMUMS AS REQUIRED, USING ‘ANY’ OF THE VARIOUS METHODS APPROPRIATE FOR YOUR CASE. THIS IS THE PRIMARY SKILL YOU SHOULD MASTER.
Use only 30C.
Do not hesitate to repeat frequently.
Do not hesitate to change remedies as indicated by symptoms .
Do not worry about ‘single-multiple’ drugs.
Do not worry about ‘drug relationships’.
Do not worry about ‘miasmatic analysis’.
Do not worry about ‘suppressions’.
Do not worry about ‘aggravations’ and ‘bad effects’ of potentized drugs.
You will definitely succeed!
Most people do not ‘understand’ the real essence of what they ‘read’ or hear- fact is, they even do not try to understand. It creates a lot of unpropductive arguments.
There are a lot of people here who vehemently argue against MIT, without even trying to understand what is MIT. I am tired of their hollow ‘discussions’.
In most cases, we are actually prescribing a ‘partial’ similimum, thinking that it is a ‘perfect’ similimum.
To be a ‘perfect’ similimum, a drug should contain ALL the diverse types of ‘molecular imprints’ required to remove ALL the diverse types of molecular inhibitions in the patient, caused by ALL the diverse types of pathogenic molecules, and expressed through ALL the diverse groups of subjective and objective symptoms.
It is practically impossible for any drug to be a PERFECT similimum of a patient. Any drug will be missing some or other molecular imprints required for a COMPLETE cure.
Whatever ‘method’ you use to select a prescription for your patient, if it contains the appropriate ‘molecular imprints’ required to remove the bio-molecular errors existing in the patient by acting by a ‘homeopathic’ biological mechanism of deactivating pathogenic molecules, you are doing PURE HOMEOPATHY.
Do not worry about those ‘laws’, ‘principles’, ‘methods’ or even ‘aphorisms’ you were taught to ‘believe’ blindly, which were the products of historically limited knowledge regarding phenomena involved in disease, cure and medicinal substances that existed here in a 250 year old knowledge environment.
DISEASE need not be always SINGLE. Any individual patient will have MULTIPLE diseases, arising from multiple molecular errors caused by multiple types of pathogenic molecules, and represented by MULTIPLE groups of subjective and objective symptoms.
Any DRUG SUBSTANCE contains MULTIPLE types of chemical molecules, which can act up on different biological molecules as individual units and produce MULTIPLE molecular inhibitions, which are represented by MULTIPLE groups of ‘drug symptoms’.
Any POTENTIZED DRUG is composed of MULTIPLE types of molecular imprints representing the MULTIPLE chemical molecules contained in the drug substance.
When used as therapeutic agent, MULTIPLE molecular imprints contained in potentized drugs act upon MULTIPLE pathogenic molecules according to individial conformational affinity, and deactivate them. This deactivating of pathogenic molecules leads to removal of molecular inhibitions of biological molecules, which amount to cure.
Obviously, DISEASES are not SINGLE, DRUG SUBSTANCES are not SINGLE, POTENTIZED DRUGS are not SINGLE, and CURE is not SINGLE.
Obviously, ‘SINGLE DRUG-MULTIPLE DRUG’ issue is totally irrelevant in homeopathic prescribing. We have to ensure that the prescription we give to the patient is capable of providing all the MULTIPLE molecular imprints required to remove all the MULTIPLE molecular inhibitions existing in the patient. Whether those molecular imprints come from SINGLE source or MULTIPLE sources is of no consequence in the process of cure.
Pathogenic molecules and drug molecules can produce ‘similar’ molecular pathology and ‘similar’ symptoms, if they are ‘similar’ in their molecular conformations. Molecular imprints of drug molecules can remove the molecular pathology produced by pathogenic molecules having conformations ‘similar’ to those drug molecules.
‘Similia similibus curentur’ embodies this biological mechanism involved in disease and cure, as well as in ‘disease-drug’ relationship.
The more ‘repertorial rubrics’ you know related with each clinical conditions that may be presented before you, the easier will be the process of case taking for you, and the more complete and perfect the case ‘picture’ you build up. That is why I always insist that the regular study of repertory should be considered as an inevitable part of mastering the art of case taking.
Searching for some thing with a clear idea of what you are searching for is far better than searching without any idea about the things you are actually looking for. It is applicable also for homeopathic case taking, which is essentially a search for symptoms in the patient.
Homeopathic ‘case taking’ is all about deciding ‘what are to be taken from a case’ for making a homeopathic prescription. If you do not know what to ‘take’ from a case, you cannot make a right prescription.
When I say “homeopathic drugs potentized above 12c CANNOT do any harm”, I am explaining WHY I think so, on the basis of a scientific model for its biological action. When you say “homeopathic drugs potentized above 12c CAN do harm”, I expect you too to explain WHY you think so, on the basis of some rational model for its biological action. Otherwise we cannot have a reasonable interaction.
Once you accept the scientific fact that drugs potentized above 12c cannot do any harm, and that they cannot interact each other, making homeopathic prescriptions becomes very simple. Collect symptoms, find similimum, use any number of indicated drugs in potency above 12c, repeat frequently until cure- that is all. No need of worries about ‘single-multiple’ issue, potency ‘selection’, drug relationships, ‘second prescriptions’, ‘miasmatic analysis’, ‘suppressions’ etc etc.
Any drug substance, whether it be allopathic or homeopathic, can do ‘harm’ in a living body only if it can interfere in the normal interaction between biological molecules and their natural ligands. As far as these normal interactions goes on unhindered, it means there is no ‘errors’ in vital processes- means, no ‘harm’.
If anybody say, homeopathic drugs potentized above 12c will do ‘harm’ if used without indications, they are expected to explain their views regarding the biological mechanism of this ‘harm’. They should explain, HOW these potentized drugs exactly interfere in the normal interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands. Mere quoting of ‘aphorisms’ is not enough for this. Explain in the language of scientific knowledge.
According to my opinion, potentized drugs above 12c cannot do any harm. I am not talking about my belief. I am also explaining why I think so, in scientific terms.
Drugs potentized above avogadro limit contain only ‘molecular imprints’. These molecular imprints are the ‘active principles’ of potentized drugs.
Molecular imprints are supra-molecular congregations of water-ethyl alcohol molecules, into which the ‘spacial form’ of drug molecules are imprinted or engraved as three-dimensional nano-cavities. These nano-cavities have a conformation exactly complementary to the drug molecules used for imprinting. As such, molecular imprints will have a selective affinity towards those drug molecules as well as any other molecule having conformations SIMILAR to those drug molecules.
When potentized drugs are introduced into our body, these molecular imprints selectively bind to the pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity. We say, molecular imprints act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for the pathogenic molecules. Such a binding between pathogenic molecules and molecular imprints ultimately relieves the biological molecules from the inhibitions earlier produced by pathogenic molecules. This is the exact biological mechanism of homeopathic cure.
Molecular imprints may temporarily bind to some biological molecules, if there is any similarity of molecular conformations. But this binding will be very transient and weak, and hence, the natural ligands can easily displace them and interact with their biological targets. Biological ligands and their biological targets interact by their conformational as well as charge affinities, where as molecular imprints have only conformational affinity. That is why the binding between biological molecules and molecular imprints are easily displaced by natural ligands. That means, molecular imprints cannot prevent or interfere in the normal biological interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands. In other words, drugs potentized above 12c cannot do any ‘harm’ even if used without indications.
You are free to disagree with my explanations. But you should be prepared to propose another viable model of biological mechanism of homeopathic drug actions, when declaring “potentized drugs will do harm”.
Here I am not discussing what hahnemann ‘said’ or not said. I am discussing science. Do not quote aphorisms to argue with me. Aphorisms are not ‘ultimate proof’ for anything in science, but aphorisms themselves have to be explained in scientific terms and proved according to scientific methods. If aphorisms could not withstand scientific scrutiny, they will have to moved to archives only to be used only as historical reference materials in future.
I do not think that ‘aphorisms’, ‘advice’ or ‘experiences’ of our ‘great master’ are ‘ultimate’ proofs and justifications for everything we teach and practice as homeopathy. We need scientific explanations and proofs for ‘words of master’ if you really want to establish homeopathy as a MEDICAL SCIENCE.
Homeopathy should be dealt with as a medical science. Medical science cannot be an art based only on ‘beliefs’ and ‘aphorisms’ . It should be based on scientific knowledge. It should be based rational explanations, facts and proofs. It should be based on reproducible and well-verified evidences and experiences.
Since a potentized drug above 12c cannot do any harm, I do not hesitate to prescribe an ‘extra’ drug over and above the selected similimum, if I feel it ‘may’ help. If it helps, it is ok. Even if it does not help, IT WILL NOT DO ANY HARM.
Molecular mechanism underlying a disease process caused by the action of exogenous or endogenous pathogenic agents may be figuratively visualized as an obstruction of a ‘key-hole’ by insertion of a defective ‘duplicate key’ mimicking the original key, where biological molecules are ‘key holes’, their natural ligands are ‘original keys’ and pathogenic molecules are ‘defective duplicate keys’.
Molecular mechanism of homeopathic cure could be visualized as removal of ‘defective duplicate keys’ from the ‘key-holes’ using ‘artificial key holes’ fitting to the ‘duplicate keys’, there by facilating the normal interaction between original ‘key holes’ and their original keys. Molecular imprints contained in potentized drugs act as ‘artificial key holes’ in this model.
You can follow my MIT explanation of ‘similia similibus curentur’, only if you understand this ‘key-lock’ model of disease and cure.
We have been taught to believe that ‘CAMPHOR is a universal antidote to homeopathic drugs- camphor bottles should be kept away from other drugs’. Some homeopaths even believe that not only crude camphor, but even potentized camphor can antidote all other homeopathic drugs. I think this topic has to be scientifically explored.
In Chronic Diseases : Para 142, Hahnemann describes the articles to be avoided during homeopathic treatment:
“For many easily perceived reasons, but especially in order that this delicate doses of medicine may not be interfered with in their action, the homoeopathic physician cannot in his antipsoric treatment allow the intermediate use of any hitherto customary domestic remedy, no perfumery of any kind, no fragrant extracts, no smelling-salts, no Baldwin tea, or any other herb teas, no peppermint confection, no spiced confections or anise-sugar or stomach drops, or liqueurs, no Iceland-moss, or spiced chocolate, no spice-drops, tooth-tinctures or tooth-powders of the ordinary kinds, nor any of the other articles of luxury.”
According to this statement of hahnemann, , the ‘delicate doses of medicine’ used in homeopathy may be ‘interfered with in their actions’ by these articles. Kindly notice, all the articles Hahnemann listed here are those which may contain VOLATILE OILS. That indicates a very important observation.
I have been wondering for long whether there exist any scientific basis for this advice made by Hahnemann. After studying the molecular structure of various volatile organic compounds including camphor, and understanding the mechanism of their interactions, now I think there could be some amount of truth in it, though it was somewhat distorted and far stretched by hahnemann. Certain chemical molecules contained in these aromatic organic compounds may be capable of antidoting certain MOLECULAR IMPRINTS contained in a wide class of potentized homeopathic drugs- especially vegetable drugs-, by deactivating their constituent molecular imprints by binding to them due to their conformational affinity.
Most aromatic organic compounds have a C=O moiety in its functional group. Such compounds are called carbonyl compounds, which also include aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acid, esters, amides, enones, acyl halides, acid unhydrides etc. Most of these substances are aroma compounds, which are responsible for the property known as fragrance and flavors.
Compounds that contain C-O bonds possess differing reactivity based upon the location and hybridization of the C-O bond, owing to the electron-withdrawing effect of hybridized oxygen. Certain medicinal properties of various vegetable substances and some animal products are mostly due to the presence of molecules having highly reactive C=O moiety in their functional groups.
In organic chemistry, functional groups are specific groups of atoms within molecules that are responsible for the characteristic chemical reactions of those molecules. The same functional group will undergo the same or similar chemical reactions regardless of the size of the molecule it is a part of. However, its relative reactivity can be modified by nearby functional groups.
The word moiety is often used synonymously to “functional group,” but to be more specific, a moiety is a part of a molecule that may include either whole functional groups or a parts of functional groups as substructures. The atoms of functional groups are linked to each other and to the rest of the molecule by covalent bonds. When the group of covalently bound atoms bears a net charge, the group is referred to more properly as a polyatomic ion or a complex ion. Any subgroup of atoms of a compound also may be called a radical, and if a covalent bond is broken homolytically, the resulting fragment radicals are referred as free radicals.
Camphor is a volatile organic aroma compound with chemical formula C10H16O, belonging to the class known as terpenoids. When kept open, its molecules would easily diffuse into the atmosphere.
Camphor is a cyclic terpene, having a C=O moeity in its functional group. Such compounds are called carbonyl compounds, which also include aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acid, esters, amides, enones, acyl halides, acid unhydrides etc. Most of these substances are aroma compounds, which are responsible for the property known as fragrance and flavors. Compounds that contain C-O bonds each possess differing reactivity based upon the location and hybridization of the C-O bond, owing to the electron-withdrawing effect of sp hybridized oxygen.Medicinal properties of various vegetable substances and some animal products are mostly due to the presence of molecules having highly reactive C=O moiety in their functional groups.
Drug molecules act upon the biological molecules in the organism by binding their functional groups to specific active groups on the complex biological molecules. Here, the functional groups of drug molecules called ligands, and the biological molecules are called targets. Ligand-target intercation is always determined by a ‘key-lock’ relationship due to complementary configurational affinities.
It is to be specifically noted that same functional group will undergo the same or similar chemical reactions regardless of the size or configuration of of the molecule it is a part of. However, its relative reactivity can be modified by nearby functional groups known as facilitating groups. That means, different types of drug molecules or pathogenic molecules having same functional groups and facilitating groups can bind to same biological molecules, and produce similar molecular inhibitions and symptoms.
Homeopathic principle of ‘similimum’ is well explained by this understanding. If a drug molecule can produce symptoms similar to symptoms of a particular disease, it means that the drug molecule and disease causing molecule has same functional groups on them. Obviously, similarity of symptoms means similarity of functional groups of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules. To be similimum, the whole molecules need not be similar, but similarity of functional groups is enough.
Potentized drugs would contain the molecular imprints of drug molecules, along with molecular imprints of their functional groups. These molecular imprints will have specific configurational affinity towards any molecule having same functional groups, and can bind and deactivate them.
As said above, most of the vegetable and animal drugs contains diverse types of aromatic drug molecules and esters having C=O functional groups, which are also present on camphor molecules. Potentized homeopathic drugs would contain molecular imprints of this functional groups, which can be easily deactivated by crude camphor molecules as well as other aromatic molecules. Molecules of Volatile substances such as camphor would easily diffuse into atmosphere and nearby potentized drugs, and bind to molecular imprints of C=O functional groups they contain. It would result in deactivation of molecular imprints, which we call antidoting.
I hope, I have scientifically explained the molecular mechanism of the phenomenon of antidoting of potentized drugs by perfumes and strong smelling substances. Most perfumes contains esters, which have C=O functional groups.
Now it is obvious that CAMPHOR IS NOT A UNIVERSAL ANTIDOTE AS WE BELIEVE. Only MOLECULAR or crude forms and low potencies of CAMPHOR can ‘selectively’ antidote particular ‘molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs. MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or or potencies above 12c of camphor cannot antidote any other potentized drugs. More over, even MOLECULAR forms of camphor cannot antidote ALL molecular imprints of potentized drugs, but only those individual molecular imprints which have conformational affinity due to the presence of C=O functional groups.
The terms ‘potentization’ and ’dynamization’ actually come from the concept of ‘dynamic drug energy’, which is part of vitalistic approach to homeopathy. This ‘dynamic’ concept of ‘potency’ is of no any relevance in scientific homeopathy.
According to my view, drugs belong to only two groups- 1. MOLECULAR FORMS, 2. MOLECULAR IMPRINTS FORMS.
All allopathic drugs, homeopathic mother tinctures and low potencies below avogadro limit or 12c belong to the class of MOLECULAR FORMS. They act upon living organism by the chemical properties of their individual constituent molecules. This mechanism of action is actually ALLOPATHIC.
All drugs diluted and succussed above avogadro limit or 12C, which do not contain any drug molecule, belong to the class of MOLECULAR IMPRINTS forms. Molecular imprints act by binding to pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity. This mechanism of action is HOMEOPATHIC.
Exactly, it would be better to use the term ‘HOMEOPATHIZATION, instead of the conventional terms POTENTIZATION or DYNAMIZATION.
If we browse through various leading homeopathic websites, we come across hundreds of ‘research studies’, articles and interviews of ‘stalwarts’ propagating diverse types of imaginative ‘theories’ and ‘hypotheses’ written in highly scholastic and ‘scientific’ language, claiming to unravel the riddles of homeopathy once and for all.
These authors are ‘leading homeopaths’ or ‘academicians’ so much revered by the homeopathic community for their high academic ‘authority’, ‘professional credentials’ and ‘institutional background’ that no average person would dare to question their wisdom. Most of them are ‘prominent faces’ and ‘representatives’ of international homeopathy.
Most funny part about these intellectual exercises is that most homeopaths never read those article, or try to understand even if they read them. Nobody is interested in what is actually said in them. Nobody verifies the correctness of theories or claims made in those articles. Nobody tries to differentiate grains from pebbles. Most people simply wonder at those ‘great’ pieces of knowledge, and go on broadcasting this ‘wonderful knowledge’ by keeping on posting these ‘links’ wherever they have access, in a desperate endeavor to ‘educate’ the whole community!
No wonder, in spite of all these ‘ground-breaking’ researches, theories and hypotheses being regularly broadcast, homeopathy still remains where samuel hahnemann left it 200 hundred years ago. Nobody could so far provide even a scientifically convincing answer to the basic question “how homeopathy works”. All these great authors only contribute their best in enhancing confusions among homeopathic community through their writings and seminars- that is all.
To safeguard ourselves from confusions being created by these ever-new flooding of ‘researches’ ‘theories’ and ‘hypotheses’, I would suggest to use following questions as touch-stones for their primary evaluation whenever you are introduced to a ‘new theory’:
1. Does this theory scientifically and logically explain the exact processes involved in homeopathic potentization?
2. Does this theory scientifically and logically answer the question ‘what are the exact active principles contained in potentized medicines”?
3. Does this theory propose a scientifically and logically viable model for the exact biological mechanism by which these active principles act up on the organism to produce a therapeutic effect?
4. Does this theory scientifically and logically explain ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge on one side, and to our homeopathic experiences on the other side?
If the answers you get for these FOUR FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS are found to be negative, simply dismiss those ‘theories’. They are nothing but hollow ‘scientific’ verbosity.
Idea of ‘Molecular Imprinting’ involved in potentization was originally concieved as a a bio-friendly adaptation of the technique of Molecular Imprinting In Polymers done by polymer technologists. As such, knowing the basics of ‘molecular imprinted polymers’ will be very helpful in understanding the MIT explanation of homeopathic potentization.
In polymer technology, the technique of molecular imprinting allows for the preparation of synthetic polymers with specific binding sites for a target molecule. This can be achieved if the target is present during the polymerization process, thus acting as a molecular template. Monomers carrying certain functional groups are arranged around the template through either noncovalent or covalent interactions. Following polymerization with a high degree of cross-linking, the functional groups become fixed in defined positions by the polymer network.
Subsequent removal of the template by solvent extraction or chemical cleavage leaves cavities that are complementary to the template in terms of size, shape and arrangement of the functional groups. These highly specific receptor sites are capable of rebinding the target molecule with high specificity, sometimes comparable to that of antibodies. Molecularly imprinted polymers have therefore been named “antibody mimics”. It has been shown that they can be substituted for biological receptors in certain formats of immunoassays and biosensors. They are characterized by high stability.
Target molecules for which we want to prepare ‘artificial binding sites’ or ‘molecular imprints’, which are normally large complex protein molecules, are identified and selected as ‘template molecules. These template molecules are added to a mixture of ‘monomers’ and ‘activators’ and thoroughly mixed. This mixture is allowed to undergo a process of ‘self assembling’ and ‘polymerization’, which is actually a ‘guest-host’ molecular complex, in which the template molecules are trapped in a hardened polymer matrix which act as ‘host’.
This ‘host-guest’ complex is pulverized, and subjected to a process of ‘solvent extraction’, by which soluble template molecules are remove from insoluble polymer matrix. The resultant preparation consists of polymer matrix carrying empty spaces or ‘cavities’ where the template molecules were originally trapped. These cavities are called ‘molecular imprints’, which actually mimic the spacial configuration of template molecules.
Due to this complementary configuration, these ‘molecular imprints’ exhibit a special affinity towards original template molecules, and act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for them. Due to this special affinity, they could be used as substitutes for biological receptors in certain formats of immunoassays and bio-sensors.
Since ‘molecular imprinted polymers’ prepared by this process are synthetic polymers, they cannot be used as drugs or applied in living organisms.
Homeopathy uses water-ethyl alcohol mixture as ‘host’ in place of polymers, and drug molecules as ‘templates’ or ‘guests’ for preparing molecular imprints that could be used as drugs. Since molecular imprints prepared by this process consist of only water and ethyl alcohol molecules, they could be safely used as therapeutic agents. It is obvious that homeopathic potentization is actually a biofriendly adaptation of molecular imprinting originally done in polymer technology.
Most homeopaths vehemently oppose MIT concepts of scientific homeopathy due to the fear that their most cherished ‘fundamentals’ of homeopathy may get ‘distorted’ when homeopathy is explained in the light of modern scientific knowledge.
Their fear is reasonable. I don’t think anybody can scientifically explain homeopathy without “distorting” some of its ‘laws’ and ‘principles’ which were so far taught to be the ‘fundamentals’ of this ‘system’. There are a lot of unscientific things in it, which will have to be abandoned.
This fear actually evolves from the fact that homeopathy has been so far 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’. Homeopaths can tolerate modern science only if it helps them to justify their ‘fundamental laws’. If not, ‘science is wrong’- not their ‘immutable laws’!
They 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 that ‘likes curing likes’ and ‘high dilutions have therapeutic 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.
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.”
Advances made by modern science provide us with “increased knowledge”, which inevitably demands “updations and alterations” in theory and practice of homeopathy. Our great ‘master’ realized it very well!
One young homeopath asked me yesterday: “A soft and silent classical musical tune makes happy. Will it make any biological changes?”
Do you think emotions, whether it be “happiness”, ‘sorrow’, ‘anger’ or anything else are not related with any “biological changes”? If anybody think so, you are thoroughly mistaken. I can only request you to update your scientific knowledge, especially modern biochemistry.
Many homeopaths believe that since ’emotions’ and ‘psychosomatic diseases’ originate from MIND, they are outside the realm of biochemistry.
According to them, mind is something ‘immaterial’, ‘dynamic’ and ‘spirit-like’, and hence mental phenomena cannot be explained in terms of SCIENTIFIC knowledge. ‘Mind is beyond science’- they say. And they talk about MIND as part of immaterial VITAL FORCE.
The phenomena we call MIND never exist in the absence of a MATERIAL BODY, and a highly complex central nervous system being part of that body. MIND does not exist free from the complex biochemical molecular level interactions in the central nervous system, which actually represents the highest stage of MATERIAL EVOLUTION on earth. MIND can be influenced by material substances such as drugs, which can modify the biochemical processes in brain.
Any mental activity is related with production, transportation and interactions of some CHEMICAL molecules in the body, that can influence the whole physiological processes in the organism. SENSATIONS, EMOTIONS, COGNITION, MEDITATION, LEARNING, MEMORY, THOUGHTS, CONSCIOUSNESS, MOODS, FEELINGS, DREAMS- every phenomena we associate with MIND happen through BIOCHEMICAL PROCESSES in our nervous system. Some specific chemical molecules are produced as part of those processes.
CHEMICAL MOLECULES produced during mental activities have specific TARGETS and specific FUNCTIONS of their own. It is the actions of those molecules on their specific targets that produce the particular state of mind and its physiological processes.
When these chemical molecules being part of MENTAL ACTIVITIES are produced in excess, or they are not removed from the system in due course, they will circulate in the body, BIND to unexpected OFF-TARGET biological molecules, and lead to their INHIBITION. Such ‘off-target’ inhibitions caused by the neuro-chemicals circulating in the body are the CAUSATIVE FACTORS pf certain pathological conditions we call PSYCHOSOMATIC DISEASES.
Obviously, there is nothing ‘immaterial’ or ‘dynamic’ in PSYCHOSOMATIC diseases. They are purely MATERIAL, that could be treated by MATERIAL drugs. PSYCHOSOMATIC DISEASES also belongs to a class of pathological conditions caused by INHIBITIONS of biological molecules by the ‘off-target’ actions of ENDOGENOUS molecules acting as pathogenic agents.
So far I have written more than TWO HUNDRED ARTICLES explaining various aspects of my MIT concepts on scientific homeopathy, and published on my web site RE-DEFINING HOMEOPATHY. All my important facebook updates about homeopathy are also compiled into TEN VOLUMES and published on same page. I know, most of you have no enough time to spare for reading all these articles, as you are very busy with your practice and other activities.
I want to assure you one thing with confidence: If you read all these articles carefully and try to understand them clearly, you will realize that there remains very few questions un-answered now in homeopathy. Very few ‘riddles’ remain to be resolved. Hope all of you will read them.
Please do not ignore these articles. If you ignore them, it will be great loss to yourselves and homeopathy as a whole. I do not expect everybody to agree with me- but I hope every young homeopath should read what I have written on SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF HOMEOPATHY. I can only request to them.
I am disheartened to see young homeopaths coming to argue with me to safe guard most unscientific notions about homeopathy they were taught. I feel very sorry when those emerging young homeopaths expose their lack of knowledge in modern science, which is essential to understand homeopathy as a MEDICAL SCIENCE, and practice it as a scientific PHYSICIAN. Had they read my articles, they would have not talked that much nonsense as they do now.
Anybody who have got any idea about the scientific meaning of the word “energy” cannot even imagine about a concept of “drug energy”.
There cannot exist something called “medicinal energy” as homeopaths are taught to believe. Science can think only about “medicinal properties”, which are nothing but biological actions of drug substances upon biological molecules, determined by the chemical structure and properties of individual molecules contained in those drug substances.
Any substance is made up of molecules and atoms, which if further divided becomes subatomic particles such as protons, electrons, neutrons and the like. If these subatomic particles are again divided into still smaller particles, they release ENERGY, which is actually nothing but a peculiar form of existence of MATTER itself. This energy will be the same whether it is made by division of atoms contained in nux vomica, sulphur or any other drug substance.
Please understand how much utter nonsense it is to imagine that there is a ‘nux vomica energy’, ‘lyco enery’ etc. Do not make homeopathy appear so silly before the scientifically conscious and elite modern community.
Homeopathy can rightfully exist as a legitimate THERAPEUTIC PRACTICE once it is proved according to ‘scientific method’ that IT REALLY WORKS.
In order to claim the status of a legitimate MEDICAL SCIENCE, we have to further explain and prove the biological mechanism of HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS, according to ‘scientififc method’.
‘HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS’ belongs to the realm of fundamental research. ‘DOES HOMEOPATHY WORK’ belongs to applied research. Once it is proved that HOMEOPATHY WORKS, the inevitable question that follows will be HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS. Both questions have to be answered according to SCIENTIFIC METHOD, to establish that homeopathy is a MEDICAL SCIENCE. It is for researchers to decide which question they want to answer.
I am more concerned about the question ‘how homeopathy works’, as I already know the answer of the question ‘does homeopathy work’ beyond any doubt. More over, a lot of people have been working on that question and a lot of SCIENTIFIC experiments have been so far conducted which PROVED ‘homeopathy works’, where as NOBODY so far succeeded in proposing even a WORKING HYPOTHESIS to answer the question ‘how homeopathy works’.
Viewing from the standpoint of scientific definition of HYPOTHESIS, it is very much obvious that ALL of the presently existing most celebrated ‘theories’ or hypotheses regarding homeopathy cannot be considered ‘SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS, since they contain concepts and conclusions that could not be tested by any scientist using ‘currently available scientific tools and methodology’ or ‘fit with existing recognized knowledge-systems’.
When attempting to provide a scientific explanation to homeopathy, it is essential that first we have to propose a ‘scientific hypotheses’. That means, a hypothesis that ‘could be tested by any scientist using currently available scientific tools and methodology’ and that ‘fits with existing recognized knowledge-systems’.
Such a working hypothesis of homeopathy, over and above the aforesaid qualifications, should also be immediately useful to the practitioner, because homeopathy is a therapeutic art of practical implications. Besides lending the essential scientific credibility to the homeopathic paradigm, any hypothesis we propose should try to meet some practical utility criteria as a minimum requirement.
There are already many imaginative and ‘scientific’ ‘theories’ going around that seek to explain everything about homeopathy but fail to predict or offer anything of relevance. If a hypothesis fail to predict some relevant practical outcomes, then it becomes scientifically untestable and, therefore, unusable in practice.
Assumptions being proposed by a scientific hypothesis should be simple, testable and their numbers should be held to a minimum. The assumptions should also reflect the basic experience that is already generally held to be known.
Any working hypothesis about homeopathy should clearly identify a ‘biological mechanism’ that represents the action-reaction homeostasis of ‘vital processes’, which is so far wrongly explained in homeopathy by the the ‘vital force’ concept of vitalistic philosophy. It should be capable of explaining the molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics in a way fitting to the verified scientific paradigm of modern biochemistry and molecular biology.
Once a working hypothesis is proposed, there is much more research to be done before that is accepted as a ‘scientific theory’. The hypothesis needs to offer predictions that can be repeatedly and conclusively proved or disproved in the laboratory and in the clinic with out any bias.
Homeopathy so far lacks something that could be legitimately called ‘a scientific working hypothesis’ on homeopathy. We are learning, teaching, practicing and boasting about some “theories” that are not even ‘hypotheses’.
Yet, we dare to declare that homeopathy is ‘ultimate science’! We dare to declare that ‘modern science is unscientific’!
For the first time in the history of homeopathy, MIT proposes some concepts that could be legitimately called a ‘scientific working hypothesis’ and proved according to scientific methods.
Here lies the historical importance and relevance of MIT concepts.
Any attempt to explain and prove homeopathy according to ‘scientific method’ should start by proposing a SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS regarding the model for ‘biological mechanism’ of its working.
‘Hypothesis’ has a well-defined meaning in scientific methodology. By the term ‘hypothesis’ we mean a ‘proposed explanation’ or “educated guess” for a phenomenon that we observe around us.
Every ‘proposed explanation’ cannot be considered a ‘scientific hypothesis’.
To be a ‘scientific hypothesis’, the scientific method requires that one can test the hypothesis using available scientific tools and methodology.
Every new scientific hypothesis is generally based on previous observations that could not be satisfactorily be explained with the existing scientific theories.
The words “hypothesis” and “theory” are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, even though a ‘scientific hypothesis’ is not exactly the same as ‘a scientific theory’. A hypothesis should be proved ‘using scientific tools’ in order to become a scientific theory.
A ‘working hypothesis’ is a provisionally accepted hypothesis that is ready to be proved. Experimenters will have to test and reject several hypotheses before solving the given problem ultimately.
Testability (using existing scientific tools),
Simplicity (avoiding excessive numbers of entities),
Scope (apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena),
Fruitfulness (hypothesis may help to explain further phenomena in the future),
Conservatism (fitting with existing recognized knowledge-systems)
are considered to be the essential qualities of a good scientific hypothesis.
If anybody thinks he really KNOWS homeopathy- I mean rational knowledge of its ESSENCE, not the dogmatic learning of ‘aphorisms’- , kindly try to answer following questions:
1. What is the molecular level process happening during potentization, by which medicinal properties of drug substances are transferred to the potentizing medium without any drug molecule remaining in it?
2. What are the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of potentized drugs?
3. What is the exact BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM by which potentized drugs act up on the organism and produce therapeutic effect?
If you think answering these questions is not essential for KNOWLEDGE of homeopathy, you can keep away from my posts.
Question of BELIEF arises when we lack rational KNOWLEDGE about something.
The real question is NOT whether you ‘believe’ in homeopathy or not. What matters is whether you REALLY ‘know’ homeopathy or not.
Knowing homeopathy does not mean learning the ‘aphorisms’, ‘principles’ and ‘laws’ written by the ‘master’ by heart, and reciting it and quoting it here and there without understanding its real meaning or relevance. It does not mean simply READING all books written by ‘stalwarts’ and ‘interpreters’.
Knowing homeopathy actually means, understanding the ESSENCE of hahnemann’s writings in a RATIONAL and HISTORICAL perspective, and UPDATING it in accordance with the latest available SCIENTIFIC knowledge, and applying it as a MEDICAL SCIENCE.
Ask yourselves- Do you really KNOW homeopathy?
I would like to invite your attention to what Hahnemann says in ‘Chronic Diseases : Para 139′ regarding administration of homeopathic drugs:
“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”.
This statement prompts us to re-view the fundamentals of homeopathy in a new light. Such a rational review will turn your whole existing ‘principles’ regarding mode of homeopathic drug action upside down.
1. Hahnemann is asking here to give ‘similimum of the infant’ to mother or wet nurse, for whom that drug need not be symptomatically indicated. If a homeopathic drug is taken by a person without being indicated his similimum, it will not act on his ‘vital force’ as per the theory of similia similibus curentur. That means, the ‘mother or wet nurse’ receiving the similimum of infant has no any role in the curative process. Further, if the ‘unindicated’ drug can cause ‘proving’ as believed by classical homeopaths, there is even chances of adverse effects on the individual!
2. Potentized medicines are said to act through ‘nerves’ on the vital force. There is no ‘nerve cells’ present in ‘milk’. If the medicine could be conveyed to infant through the milk of mother or wet nurse, it clearly proves nerves are not involved the conveyance of medicinal action, as ‘believed’ by classical homeopaths. We will have to consider a different explanation regarding mode of conveyance of homeopathic ‘drug energy’ inside organism, if it act through milk.
4. If homeopathic drugs are transferred from mother to child through milk, will not the blood and other body fluids of mother also contain those drugs?
Could homeopathic drugs be administered through blood transfusions? If a person under homeopathic treatment donates blood, will not the recipient also get drugged by our medicines?
Administration of homeopathic drugs by transmission through milk raises a lot of questions regarding active principles of potentized drugs, their mode of conveyance in the body and the mechanism of its action that could not be answered by ‘vital force’ theory.
What if we administer the medicines to a wet nurse, and collect her breast milk in a bottle, will it still preserve its medicinal properties? Can we give that bottled milk to the infant as medicine? Then, in what form medicine exist in that bottled milk? Should this bottled Milk to be considered an organism, with ‘vital force’ present in it?
Some homeopaths believe that “our dynamic homeopathic medicine when work on vital force that is produce some required chemical changes in body, and infant receive medicinal effect by mother’s milk because infant vital energy is strong that is receive this vital effect frequently”.But remember, we are not selecting a similimum for mother or wet nurse, according to their ‘totality of symptoms’. We are selecting similimum for infant. How can an un-indicated homeopathic medicine “work on vital force” and “produce some required chemical changes in body” of mother or wet nurse?
Even if it acts up on their organism of mother, it is said that an un-indicated medicine will have only negative influence. Would anybody say this ‘adverse chemical changes’ produced by these ‘negative influence’ are conveyed by the milk to the infant and curing his disease?
If you want to get a ‘positive’ influence, you will have to determine the similimum for wet nurse by collecting totality of her symptoms, not for infant.
Let us consider the argument “dynamic homeopathic medicine when work on vital force that is produce some required chemical changes in body”. If so, the infant is getting the milk subjected to “chemical changes” by the action of drug upon the “vital force of mother”. It is this “chemically changed milk” that is consumed by the infant. How this “chemically changed” milk would act homeopathically on the organism of ‘infant’?
If anybody argue that the “vital force” of mother is acting on infant through milk, how would you explain this phenomenon if the milk is collected in bottles and given to infant? Would you say “the changed vital force” of mother is collected in a bottle and transferred to infant?
I think we have to explain this phenomenon more rationally and without any confusion. In fact, the MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or ‘active principles’ of potentized drugs selected as similimum for the infant would have been conveyed through blood of mother to the milk, and thereby into the organism of the infant. These MOLECULAR IMPRINTS act in the infant the same way as a similimum given directly. Is not this explanation more rational and simple?
This phenomenon clearly proves that active principles of potentized drugs are conveyed through body fluids as MIT envisages, not through the ‘nerves’ as commonly believed. I wanted only to make that point clear. If it were ‘nerves’, it will never be conveyed to infants through mother’s breast milk.
Most homeopaths are mere ‘believers’. For them, homeopathy is a sacred ‘belief system’ almost similar to religion. They ‘believe’ that ‘homeopathy is ultimate science’ and ‘our master’ is ‘greatest scientist of all times’. They ‘believe’ in master, ‘believe’ in organon’, ‘believe’ in ‘similia similibus curentur’, ‘believe’ in ‘vital force’, ‘believe’ in ‘dynamic drug energy’, ‘believe’ in ‘miasms’, ‘believe’ in ‘immutable fundamental principles’, ‘believe in ‘single drug-single dose’, ‘believe’ in ‘hering laws’, ‘believe’ in ‘drug relationships’, ‘believe’ in ‘words of stalwarts’, ‘believe’ in ‘teachers’ and ‘gurus’. This unending list of ‘homeopathic beliefs’ is fascinating.
They ask me: “Do you believe in homeopathy?” “Do you believe in our master”?
Sorry friends, I do not think homeopathy is something to be ‘believed’. It should be studied and updated. It is a matter of knowledge-not belief.
Most of us use to wonder, why different homeopaths happen to select entirely different similimum when asked to prescribe for a single case, and how all those different prescriptions give relief in most cases. This is one of the most frequently asked questions that nobody could so far find a rational answer.
This question could be scientifically answered only when we understand the exact biological mechanism involved in homeopathic cure, and when we percieve pathogenic agents and drug substances in terms of the FUNCTIONAL GROUPS and MOIETIES of their constituent molecules.
Any drug substance can act as similimum for a particular case, if it contains some chemical molecules carrying the particular functional groups by which pathogenic molecules have been binding to the biological organism to produce molecular inhibitions. It is not the whole drug, but the particular functional groups of individual chemical molecules that actually work as similimum. In potentized form, it is the molecular imprints of those functional group that bind to pathogenic molecules and remove the blocks they produced upon the biological molecules.
When different drugs selected by different homeopaths for a single case could produce cure, it means all those different drug substances were actually containing some chemical molecules having same functional groups that are similar to those contained in the pathogenic molecules that produced the disease. As such, potentized forms of ANY of those different drugs could provide the molecular imprints required to remove the molecular inhibitions in the patient.
This explains the therapeutic flexibility of homeopathy, and why same case could be cured by entirely different drugs.
Please remember following important points:
1. Homeopathic POTENTIZATION is a process of preparing MOLECULAR IMPRINTS through ‘host-guest’ interactions between individual drug molecules contained in drug substance (guest) and water-ethyl alcohol molecules (host).
2. MOLECULAR IMPRINTS are hydrogen-bonded supra-molecular aggregates of water-ethyl alcohol molecules, into which three-dimensional conformations of ‘guest’ or drug molecules are engraved as nanocavities exactly fitting to the guest molecules as well as other molecules ‘similar’ to the guest molecules.
3. MOLECULAR IMPRINTS can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ or ‘key-holes’ for any drug molecule or pathogenic molecule that are ‘similar’ in conformation to that of ‘guest’ molecules used for imprinting.
4. Drugs potentized above 12C or avogadro limit contain ONLY ‘molecular imprints’, which are the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of potentized drugs.
5. When used as therapeutic agent as per indications, these MOLECULAR IMPRINTS selectively bind to the pathogenic molecules, thereby relieving the biological molecules from pathological inhibitions they produced. This is the exact BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM of homeopathic cure.
6. Due to the phenomenon known as COMPARATIVE AFFINITY, molecular imprints can bind only to pathogenic molecules, whereas they cannot interfere in the normal biochemical interactions between biological molecules and their NATURAL LIGANDS. As such, MOLECULAR IMPRINTS can only CURE diseases, but cannot PRODUCE diseases.
All my suggestions regarding potency selection, dose, repetition etc are based on this understanding. Please try to understand these points very clear, before coming to argue with me. Argue with me ONLY IF you have another more rational and more scientific model of BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM for homeopathic therapeutics.
It is true that I am not a ‘follower’ of hahnemann. Actually, I do not want to follow the ‘foot-steps’ of hahnemann. On the other hand, I want to continue the great journey of homeopathy forward, from the point where hahnemann left it 200 years ago.
PATHOGENIC MOLECULES produce diseases by binding their active FUNCTIONAL GROUPS to the specific biological molecules in the organism due to their molecular affinity, and producing molecular errors.
During drug proving, poisoning and crude molecular actions, DRUG MOLECULES produce bio-molecular errors and symptoms in the healthy organism by binding their FUNCTIONAL GROUPS to the biological molecules.
When disease symptoms and drug symptoms appear SIMILAR, that means functional groups of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules were similar, so that they could bind to similar bio-molecular targets and produce similar molecular errors in the organism.
Organon is a monumental work of theoretical medicine, of great relevance in the history of medical literature. It contains the rudimentary forms of modern molecular medicine and ‘molecular imprints therapeutics’, even though hahnemann did not realize such advanced dimensions of his path-breaking inventions. But that does not mean each and every word of organon are ‘immutable’ truths. By historical reasons, it is bound to be otherwise. If you study organon with a rational and scientific mindset, you will see that there are a lot of unscientific and irrational ideas in organon, reflecting the primitive state of scientific knowledge available to hahnemann 250 years ago.
Fundamental cause of homeopathy still remaining in the present state of backwardness is that homeopaths are not taught to study organon with a ‘historical’ perspective, but only to ‘believe’ it is ‘ultimate science’, and hahnemann is the ‘greatest scientist of all times’. They are taught to be ‘blind’ followers of the ‘great master’! We have to change this perspective as well as approach, if we really want homeopathy to be a ‘medical science’.
Dear friends, learn how to read creatively. ‘Creative reading’ involves the technique of enhancing our knowledge and generating of new ideas along with the reading process itself- ideas which were so far unknown to the reader and not any where mentioned or imagined by the author. Here, reading itself becomes a creative process. Some rudiments of ideas or even hidden hints getting from the author while reading act like sparks that ignites the imagination and thought process of the reader, which leads to the synthesis of entirely new and original ideas. I always try to use this ‘creative reading’ technique while reading anything. Anybody can consciously build up a habit of ‘creative reading’.
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, NINE volumes have been compiled.
LATE COMERS TO MY FRIENDS LIST AND DISCUSSION FORUMS ARE REQUESTED TO READ MY FOLLOWING COMPILATIONS OF FACEBOOK UPDATES TO GET A PRELIMINARY IDEA OF WHAT IS GOING ON HERE:
- Posted in: Uncategorized