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

 ‘Drug designing’ is an advanced branch of modern pharmaceutical chemistry, which is involved with the process of developing new medicinal substances appropriate to the specific  biological targets in the organism. Such a ‘designer drug’ is most commonly a small organic molecule which can inhibit or activate the functioning of a target biomolecule such as a protein, thereby resulting in a therapeutic process in the organism. Essentially, ‘drug designing’ involves the development of small molecules that are complementary in ‘shape’ and ‘charge’ to the biomolecular target to which they interact and therefore will bind to it. Modern drug designing protocols utilize computer modeling techniques also. This type of modeling is known as ‘computer-aided drug design’. Actually, ‘drug design’ is involved with ‘ligand’ design. Prediction of binding affinity of molecules to be designed is the first step in a successful modeling technique.  Many other properties such as bioavailability, metabolic half life, lack of side effects, also should be optimized before a designed ‘ligand’ can become a safe and efficacious drug. Most of these ‘other’ characteristics are often very difficult to optimize using presently available drug design techniques.

Selection of drug target is most important in “drug designing”. A drug target is typically a key molecule involved in a particular metabolic or signaling pathway that is specific to a disease condition or pathology, or to the infectivity or survival of a microbial pathogen. Most of the therapeutic inteventions aim to inhibit the functioning of the ‘pathologic’ pathway in the diseased state by causing a key molecule to stop functioning. Drug molecules may be designed that bind to the active region and inhibit this key molecule. Some other therapeutic interventions  actually enhance the ‘normal’ biochemical pathway by promoting specific molecules in the ‘normal’ pathways that may have been affected in the diseased state. Main challenge in all ‘drug therapies’ including ‘designer drugs’ is that  these drug molecules should not affect any other important “off-target” molecules or ‘antitargets’ that may be similar in appearance to the target molecule, since drug interactions with off-target molecules may lead to undesirable side effects.

Designer drugs are small organic molecules produced through chemical synthesis, but biopolymer-based drugs (also known as biologics) produced through biological processes are becoming increasingly more common in modern drug designing.

‘Ligand-based drug design’ and ‘structure-based drug design’ are two major technologies now utilized in drug designing technologies.

Ligand-based drug design is based on the knowledge of other molecules that can bind to the biological target of interest. These other molecules may be used to derive a ‘pharmacophore’ which defines the minimum necessary structural characteristics a molecule must possess in order to bind to the target. In other words, a model of the biological target may be built based on the knowledge of what binds to it and this model in turn may be used to design new molecular entities that interact with the target.

Structure-based drug design is based on the knowledge of the three dimensional structure of the biological target obtained through methods such as x-ray crystallography or NMR spectroscopy. Using the structure of the biological target, candidate drugs that are predicted to bind with high affinity and selectivity to the target may be designed using interactive graphics.

Main draw back of ‘designer drugs’ is that  there is a chance for these drug molecules affecting “off-target” molecules or ‘antitargets’ having similarity to the target molecules. Such interactions with off-target molecules may lead to grave consequences. Optimizing of various factors such as bioavailability, metabolic half life, and lack of side effects are the real challenges facing “drug designing” technology.

Molecular Imprinting in Polymers:

  ‘Molecular imprinting in polymers’ is a fast grownig research area that may be interesting to people engaged in developing “drug designing” techniques. A lot of research is currently going on over this subject the world over. This technology involves the imprinting of synthetic polymer substances using enzymes or such macromolecules as ‘guest’molecules. As a result of imprinting, nano cavities with 3-d spacial configurations complementary to the ‘guest’ molecules will be created in the interaction surfaces of the polymers. These imprinted polymers, by virtue of the nanocavities they contain can be used to bind molecules with configurational similarity to ‘guest’ molecules. They are at present widely used in various laboratory assays as powerful adsorption surfaces. MIPs are also found to be of much practical use in various areas of science  and technology .

Molecular imprinted polymers of today cannot be used as therapeutic agents, since they are totally foreign substances to the organism. More over, native enzymes can not degrade the polymers even if they can play a therapeutic role in the organism.

Molecular imprinting may become part of future drug designing techniques, only if the search for safer substances and methods for molecular imprinting happens to be successful.

Molecular Imprinted Proteins:

 Biopolymer-based drugs (also known as biologics) produced through biological processes are becoming increasingly more common in modern drug designing. But the revolutionary concept of molecular imprinting in proteins is only in its emerging stage, which may have implications in drug designing techniques. It has already been acknowledged that the biological molecules presently classified as antibodies are nothing but native globulin proteins subjected to natural molecular imprinting process with foreign pathologic proteins acting as ‘guest’ molecules. Scientists have already realized the fact that the much discussed pathologic molecules known as ‘prions’ are nothing but disfigured protein molecules subjected to molecular imprinting. Protiens, being polymers with complex and flexible tertiary structures,  are expected to be a very good medium for molecular imprinting. Different types of protein based substances, subjected to artificial molecular imprinting, may  evolve in the future as effective therapeutic agents and laboratory reagents.

Apart from protein molecules,  different types of biopolymers such as polysaccharides and nucleic acids also may be experimented as medium for molecular imprinting.

Native proteins extracted from the patients could be subjected to molecular imprinting with appropriate ligands or other pathologic molecules acting as ‘guest’ molecules and used as target oriented therapeutic agents.  But the problem remains that such imprinted proteins can be used only in the individual whose proteins are used for imprinting. Otherwise it may result in grave anaphylactic reactions. Moreover these imprinted proteins may remain in the organism for very long periods, without undergoing degradation, and cause ever new pathological molecular blocks. Such issues have to be addressed properly.

Molecular Imprinting in Water:

 Our protracted search for a safe and reliable universal medium for molecular imprinted drug designing finally takes us to the study of wonderful physico-chemical properties of the most abundant substance on earth called water. But the concept and technology of molecular imprinting in water still remains in very infantile stage. The author is of the opinion that with its strange polymer-like behaviours, capable of forming hydrogen-bonded supra-molecular structures, water can be the ideal candidate for molecular imprinted drug designing in future.

Though in a slighly lesser level, Ethyl Alcohol and Lactose are also capable of forming polymer-like supra-molecular formations through hydrogen bonding, and hence may be onsidered as  candidates for molecular imprinting experiments. Possibilities of these substances in combination with water also have to be explored.

Water(H2O) is a wonderful substance with strange physico–chemical properties arising from its peculiar supra-molecular structure. Water is a solvent with higher polarity than similar liquids. H–O–H bond angle is 105 degrees. That means, water molecule is a dipole. Because of this peculiarity, water molecules can exist like a supra-molecular network through hydrogen bonding.  A minimum number of five water molecules will be contained in this network. Such supra-molecular formations are called pentamers. Most of the wonderful properties of water arise from this peculiar capacity of hydrogen bonding and resultant supra-molecular formations. Water molecules (H2O) are symmetric (point group C2ν) with two mirror planes of symmetry and a 2-fold rotation axis. The hydrogen atoms may possess parallel or antiparallel nuclear spin. The water molecule consists of two light atoms (H) and a relatively heavy atom (O). The approximately 16-fold difference in mass gives rise to its ease of rotation and the significant relative movements of the hydrogen nuclei, which are in constant and significant relative movement.

Although not often perceived as such, water is a very reactive molecule available at a high concentration. This reactivity, however, is greatly moderated at ambient temperatures due to the extensive hydrogen bonding. Each water molecules possess a strongly nucleophilic oxygen atom that enables many of life‘s reactions, as well as ionizing to produce reactive hydrogen and hydroxide ions. Reduction of the hydrogen bonding at high temperatures or due to electromagnetic fields results in greater reactivity of the water molecules.

As liquid water is so common-place in our everyday lives, it is often regarded as a ‘typical’ liquid. In reality, water is most atypical as a liquid, behaving as a quite different material at low temperatures to that when it is hot. It has often been stated that life depends on these anomalous properties of water. In particular, the high cohesion between molecules gives it a high freezing and melting point, such that we and our planet are bathed in liquid water. The large heat capacity, high thermal conductivity and high water content in organisms contribute to thermal regulation and prevent local temperature fluctuations, thus allowing us to more easily control our body temperature. The high latent heat of evaporation gives resistance to dehydration and considerable evaporative cooling. Water is an excellent solvent due to its polarity, high dielectric constant and small size, particularly for polar and ionic compounds and salts. It has unique hydration properties towards biological macromolecules (particularly proteins and nucleic acids) that determine their three-dimensional structures, and hence their functions, in solution. Hydration of biological molecules results in formation of gels that can reversibly undergo the gel-sol phase transitions that underlie many cellular mechanisms. Water ionize and allows easy proton exchange between molecules, thus contributing to the richness of the ionic interactions in living organisms.

In reality, hydrogen bonding is a special type of dipole force. It is a force of attraction formed between partial electro negative atom which is part of another molecule. The reason for strength is the partial positive charge attained by hydrogen. Hydrogen is capable of establishing similar bonds with the atoms of nitrogen, fluorine and oxygen. That is to say that the basis of hydrogen bonding is the attraction between one hydrogen atom which is part of a molecule which is attached to oxygen or nitrogen and  oxygen or nitrogen which remains part of another molecule. This force is less powerful than the co–valent bonds which keeps the atoms inside molecule bound together. But these less powerful bonds are responsible for the wonderful bio–chemical qualities of water.

In the ordinary liquid state, in spite of 80% of the electrons being concerned with bonding, the three atoms in water do not stay together, as the hydrogen atoms are constantly exchanging between water molecules due to protonation/deprotonation processes. Both acids and bases catalyze this exchange and even when at its slowest (at pH 7), the average time for the atoms in an H2O molecule to stay together is only about a millisecond. As this brief period is, however, much longer than the timescales encountered during investigations into water’s hydrogen bonding or hydration properties, water is usually treated as a permanent structure.

The presence of ethyl alcohol in water is considered to be a factor reducing the rate of protonation/deprotonation processes, thereby enhancing the stability of hydration shells.

Hydrogen bond strength can be affected by electromagnetic and magnetic effects.

Any factors, such as polarization, that reduces the hydrogen bond length, is expected to increase its covalency. There is still some dispute over the size of this covalency, however any covalency will increase the network stability relative to purely electrostatic effects. As hydrogen bond strength depends almost linearly on its length (shorter length giving stronger hydrogen bonding), it also depends almost linearly (outside extreme values) on the temperature and pressure .

Hydrogen bonded chains (that is, O-H····O-H····O) are cooperative; the breakage of the first bond is the hardest, then the next one is weakened, and so on. Thus unzipping may occur with complex macromolecules held together by hydrogen bonding, for example, nucleic acids. Such cooperativity is a fundamental property of liquid water where hydrogen bonds are up to 250% stronger than the single hydrogen bond in the dimer. A strong base at the end of a chain may strengthen the bonding further.

Water-Ethyl Alcohol Mixture :

 At this stage we have to understand a few facts about Ethyl Alcohol(CH3- CH2 – OH ). The molecules of alcohol also have the dipole structure as water molecules. It is possible for them to establish mutual connection through hydrogen bonding. The molecular weight of alcohol molecul is 46. The molecular weight of water(H2O) is 18. That means that the number of water molecules contained in 18 gram of water and the number of alcohol molecules contained in 46 gram of ethyl alcohol are equal. When alcohol and water are thoroughly mixed alcohol molecules network with water molecules through hydration bonds, The mobility of water molecules is restricted by the bonds established with alcohol molecules. Hence, hydration shells formed in alcohol–water mixture are comparatively more stable. The count of alcohol molecules and the count of water molecules contained in their mixture in 73:27 ratio will be equal. (73% w/w. alcohol and 27% w/w water) This mixturei is known as (40 power   spirit).

Ideal medium for molecular imprining is supposed to contains 87% w/w of alcohol and 13% w/w of water. In this ratio, the number of alcohol molecules will be about more than that of of water molecules. Such a ratio will be very suitable for the production of stable hydration shells. More over, the presence of ethyl alcohol in water is considered as a factor reducing the rate of protonation/deprotonation processes, thereby enhancing the stability of hydration shells

We know that water is a good solvent. Let us see what happens when some foreign molecules are made to dissolve in water. If a foreign(called ‘guest’) molecule, ion,  or colloidal particle happens to enter the matrix of 3-dimensional dynamic network of water molecules, they are entrapped inside this network. Water molecules arrange themselves around the ‘guest’ molecule in a peculiar way by the formation of hydrogen bonding. These formations of water molecules around the ‘guest’ molecules is known as hydration shells. These hydration shells exist in a dynamic state, and are more or less unstable. The ‘guest’ molecules dissolved in water exist in a state of being entrapped inside these hydration shells. This phenomenon can be seen both in ionic solutions and colloidal solutions. Obviously, hydration shells assume an internal spacial arrangement exactly fitting to the 3-dimensional spacial configuration of the ‘guest’ molecule entrapped in them. If we could devise some technique to remove the entrapped ‘guest’ molecules from these hydration shells, without disturbing the hydrogen bonds between the constituent water molecules, these hydration shells can retain the molecular memory of the molecular configurations of the removed ‘guest’ molecules. This rarely studied phenomenon underlies the much debated controversial ‘molecular memory of water’. Actual mechanism and forces underlying this phenomenon have to be investigated minutely by physical scientists. Minute changes occuring in the electron clouds of atoms of water molecules during the formation of hydration shells may be one factor responsible for this phenomenon. It has been well proven that these hydration shells later show a peculiar capability to differentially recognize the original ‘guest’ molecules which were  responsible for their formation. This may be due to the existence of some imprinted memory of those host molecules retained in the hydration shells. This imprinting of memory may be compared to formation of finger prints. As in the case of finger prints, configuration of these molecular imprints also will be a complementary negative of ‘guest’  molecules.  These empty hydration shells, or supra-molecular formations of water subjected to molecular imprinting, may be called ‘hydrosomes’, which means, minute ‘cavities of water’.

Homeopathic process of potentization may be a crude method of preparing hydrosomes, imprinted with various drug molecules(‘guest’), for utilizing as therapeutic agents.  It should be specially noted that the medium used for homeopathic potentisation is not pure water, but it is mixed with ethyl alcohol in a particular ratio. It may be  inferred that the presence of camparatively heavy ethyl alcohol molecules in this mixture may be contributing to stabilize the hydrosomes, preventing their easy dissociation.  The convergent forces of rotational movements to which the mixture is subjected as part of homeopathic potentization, may also be a contributing factor in stabilizing the empty hydration shells.

This peculiar 3-d configuration of ‘hydrosomes’ are destroyed only when the energy level of water molecules are disturbed by the effect of heat,  electricity, magnetism and other electro magnetic radiations. As stated earlier the hydration shells formed in pure water are comparatively unstable. Here lies the importance of the fact that homeopathic potencies are made using alcohol- water mixture.

Information we recently receive from various research institutions, regarding the wonderful  supra-molecular structures of various materials and their hitherto unknown peculiar properties, may greatly contribute in our  efforts to devise a protocol for molecular imprinted drug designing using water. Studies on  ‘water clusters’, ‘crystalline structure of water’, ‘shape memory property’, ‘molecular imprinting’,  ‘nano technology’,  ‘clathrate formations’ and other diverse phenomena are offering promising indications in this direction. We have to utilize all these new revealations in our scientific study regarding the possibility of developing a technology of drug designing by molecular imprinting in water.

We all know that water exists as ice crystals in its solid form. But it has been recently observed that water can exist even in its liquid form in crystals. In reality, water formed by melting of ice is in a state of liquid crystals. The lattice structure which is formed through hydration bonds is responsible for this phenomenon. Molecular imprinting in water is much interested in this area of research pertaining to this peculiar crystalline nature of water. It is believed that in the process of molecular imprinting of water using ‘guest’ molecules,  this crystalline structure of water plays a crucial role. It is likely that more advanced studies about dynamics of crystallization of water may help us to evolve a perfect technology for molecular imprinting in water.

The studies about Clathrate Compounds or host-guest compounds in supra-molecular chemistry is an area in which we should have sincere interest. Clathrates are the molecular networks which are formed when gases dissolve  in water under high pressure. They exist in a peculiar host–guest relationship. The studies about this phenomenon are still in their infancy. Clathrates have a crystalline nature,  existing as molecular networks,  formed by a process of water molecules arranging around the guest molecules. The studies about the dynamics of clathrate formation are also likely to help in evolving a perfect protocol for molecular imprinting in water. Even if  the host molecules are removed from clathrates, the network of water molecules have been found to remain intact. More over, the existing clathrates can induce the formation of similar clathrates. It will be very useful to consider these above discoveries connecting them with the phenomenon of molecular imprinting.

A lot of studies has been so far published regarding shape memory materials.  Several alloys having  crystalline structure have been observed to possess shape memory property. Such materials are known as SMART materials. This phenomenon also has to be understood well while trying to evolve a molecular imprinting technique of drug designing.

It is in the phenomenon of ‘molecular memory of water’ itself that we naturally land on when we attempt to develop molecular imprinted drugs. We have already seen that the alcohol–water molecules contained in the medium used for imprinting  arrange themselves around the ‘guest’ molecules, and form hydration shells. We should develop a way to systematically remove the ‘guest’  molecules entrapped in the hydration shells, so that empty hydration shells or ‘hydrosomes’ remain. These ‘hydrosomes’ will be imprinted with the three-dimensional ‘finger print’ of ‘guest’ molecules used for imprinting.

When molecular imprinted water is  introduced into the organism by any route, is carried by the body fluids, and transported to different parts of body. When molecular imprints come in the vicinity of ligands or active groups of pathological foreign molecules having similarity to the original ‘guest’ molecules, these molecular imprints selectively bind to those pathological molecules. By this process, pathological foreign molecules are prevented from binding with biological molecules, thereby relieving the biological molecules from pathological molecular blocks. This can be described as some sort of ‘molecular scavenging’ or entrapping of pathological molecules, by ‘hydrosomes’ or “molecular imrints”.

Drugs designed through molecular imprinting in water will be the safest of all therapeutic agents so far used in the history medical science. Though there is a chance for these molecular imprints affecting “off-target” molecules or ‘antitargets’ having similarity to the target molecules, such interactions will be of very transient nature, since these molecular imprints will be easily degraded into constituent water-ethyl alcohol molecules. Such temporary interactions with off-target molecules may not lead to any dangerous consequences. Factors such as bioavailability, metabolic half life, and lack of side effects also will be obviously remain in favorable range.

Using various ligands and pathological molecules involved in each disease process as ‘guest’  molecules, we can develop most appropriate specifc designer drugs against almost any disease. Instead of original pathological molecules or ligands, drug molecules having configurational similarity to them also can be used as “guest” molecules in the molecular imprinting protocol. Homeopathic potentization utilizes this strategy, which is the real essence of “similia similibus curentur”. I  hereby appeal to the government and scientific community to take up this task with urgent priority, so that a whole new range of safe and effective designer drugs could be developed though this novel process of molecular imprinting in water.

Advertisements

Exploring The Aphorisms of ORGANON With a Scientific Perspective- Concepts of Vital Force and Dynamic Energy

In Aphorisms 9 to 16 hahnemann explains his VITAL FORCE THEORY, which is actually a reassertion of unscientific philosophy of DYNAMISM that was a strong intellectual presence during his period. This part of ORGANON contributes much in making homeopathy incompatible with modern scientific knowledge, and it seems to be the greatest stumbling block in our efforts of making homeopathy a MEDICAL SCIENCE. This part of organon reflects the most primitive state of scientific knowledge that existed during hahnemann’s period. There is no doubt, if master had lived a few years later, he would have completely avoided this part from organon. In my opinion, these most unscientific aphorisms should be bracketed from new editions of organon being taught in our colleges, classifying it as only of historical interest. They should be replaced and updated with NEW scientific understanding of life, disease and cure, based on modern biochemistry and advanced life sciences.

For a scientific-minded person, there nothing to be seriously debated or argued in the ‘vital force theory’ in ORGANON, other than noting its historical premises and moved away into the archives.

READ Organon : Aphorism 9:

“In the healthy condition of man, the spiritual vital force (autocracy), the dynamis that animates the material body (organism), rules with unbounded sway, and retains all the parts of the organism in admirable, harmonious, vital operation, as regards both sensations and functions, so that our indwelling, reason-gifted mind can freely employ this living, healthy instrument for the higher purpose of our existence.”

My comments:

According to hahnemann, vital force is a ‘dynamis’ that ‘animates’ and ‘rules’ the ‘material body’. It is this vital force that “retains all the parts of the organism in admirable, harmonious, vital operation, as regards both sensations and functions”. As per this view, “material body” is only an “instrument” of “indwelling, reason-gifted mind”.

Hahnemann seems to think that the role of “material body” is limited to obeying the “rule” of vital force and act as an “instrument” of mind. He do not consider the molecular level structure, organization and chemical properties of the complex biological molecules constituting the ‘material body’ to play a role in the evolution of the phenomena he call ‘vital force’. He failed to understand that a ‘vital force’ cannot ‘animate’ a NON-LIVING ‘material body’ irrespective of its molecular level structure, organization and chemical properties? Actually, it is the STRUCTURE, ORGANIZATION and CHEMICAL PROPERTIES of complex biological molecules in the organism that initiate the MOLECULAR INTERACTIONS of ‘vital processes’ hahnemann call “vital force”. It is obvious that VITAL FORCE theory perceives biological processes upside down! At least, hahnemann should have noticed that this “all powerful” VITAL FORCE cannot “animate” MATERIAL BODIES if they have no a molecular level structure appropriate for the complex biological interactions constituting the vital processes.

Organon : Aphorism 10 : Sixth Edition:

“The material organism, without the vital force, is capable of no sensation, no function, no self-preservation1, it derives all sensation and performs all the functions of life solely by means of the immaterial being (the vital principle) which animates the material organism in health and in disease.

Foot notes:- It is dead, and only subject to the power of the external physical world; it decays, and is again resolved into its chemical constituents.”

My comments:

The most relevant question is, can this “immaterial” vital force ‘animate’ a metal body, a stone or a piece of wood and convert them into LIVING organisms, and give them ‘sensations’? Why vital force is capable of “animating” ONLY “material bodies” having a peculiar molecular structure and organization?

No ‘vital force’ can ‘animate’ a dead organism and bring it back to life, once the biochemical processes essential for normal vital functions are stopped and biological molecules are disorganized. All the functions you consider as vital force are seen only in highly organized organism constituted by complex biological molecules. It is the molecular level structure and organization of biological molecules and their interactions that impart properties of life to a ‘material body’. Vital force cannot animate a ‘material object’ in the absence of biological chemical molecules.

Organon : Aphorism 11 : Sixth Edition:

“When a person falls ill, it is only this spiritual, self acting (automatic) vital force, everywhere present in his organism, that is primarily deranged by the dynamic1 influence upon it of a morbific agent inimical to life; it is only the vital force, deranged to such an abnormal state, that can furnish the organism with its disagreeable sensations, and incline it to the irregular processes which we call disease; for, as a power invisible in itself, and only cognizable by its effects on the organism, its morbid derangement only makes itself known by the manifestation of disease in the sensations and functions of those parts of the organism exposed to the senses of the observer and physician, that is, by morbid symptoms, and in no other way can it make itself known.

Foot notes:- What is dynamic influence, – dynamic power? Our earth, by virtue of a hidden invisible energy, carries the moon around her in twenty-eight days and several hours, and the moon alternately, in definite fixed hours (deducting certain differences which occur with the full and new moon) raises our northern seas to flood tide and again correspondingly lowers them to ebb. Apparently this takes place not through material agencies, not through mechanical contrivances, as are used for products of human labor; and so we see numerous other events about us as results of the action of one substance on another substance without being able to recognize a sensible connection between cause and effect. Only the cultured, practised in comparison and deduction, can form for himself a kind of supra-sensual idea sufficient to keep all that is material or mechanical in his thoughts from such concepts. He calls such effects dynamic, virtual, that is, such as result from absolute, specific, pure energy and action of the one substance upon the other substance.

For instance, the dynamic effect of the sick-making influences upon healthy man, as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the principle of life in the restoration of health is nothing else than infection and so not in any way material, not in any way mechanical. Just as the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material, not mechanical. One sees that the piece of iron is attracted by one pole of the magnet, but how it is done is not seen. This invisible energy of the magnet does not require mechanical (material) auxiliary means,

hook or lever, to attract the iron. The magnet draws to itself and this acts upon the piece of iron or upon a steel needle by means of a purely immaterial invisible, conceptual, inherent energy, that is, dynamically, and communicates to the steel needle the magnetic energy equally invisibly (dynamically). The steel needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property.

In a similar way, the effect of medicines upon living man is to be judged. Substances, which are used as medicines, are medicines only in so far as they possess each its own specific energy to alter the well-being of man through dynamic, conceptual influence, by means of the living sensory fibre, upon the conceptual controlling principle of life. The medicinal property of those material substances which we call medicines proper, relates only to their energy to call out alterations in the well-being of animal life. Only upon this conceptual principle of life, depends their medicinal health-altering, conceptual (dynamic) influence. Just as the nearness of a magnetic pole can communicate only magnetic energy to the steel (namely, by a kind of infection) but cannot commu nicate other properties (for instance, more hardness or ductility, etc.). And thus every special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of man in a peculiar manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only small-pox and not measles.

These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of the medicinal substances, thus dynamically, as if through infection. Far more healing energy is expressed in a case in point by the smallest dose of the best dynamized medicines, in which there can be, according to calculation, only so little of material substance that its minuteness cannot be thought and conceived by the best arithmetical mind, than by large doses of the same medicine in substance.

That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed, conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses.

It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or mathematical surfaces (with which the higher energies of the dynamized medicines are being interpreted but vainly as still sufficiently material) that the medicinal energy is found. More likely, there lies invisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated, specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has become through the dynamization.

Is it then so utterly impossible for our age celebrated for its wealth in clear thinkers to think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner?

If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination? And if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?”

My Comments:

Listen to this statement, which amounts to a confession by Hahnemann: “think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner”. That clearly explains how Hahnemann happened to “think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal” It was only “since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner”! He was compelled to explain homeopathy using concepts of “dynamic energy” and “vital force”, only because he could not explain the phenomena of cure he observed, using “any other manner”! This statement constitutes a great historical truth.

In my opinion, foot note of aphorism 11 is a severe self-insult Hahnemann inflicted upon his own credibility, as it contains a lot of most irrational and unscientific statements that reflects the limitations of scientific knowledge available to him.

Please read carefully the following statements I quoted from this most unscientific and most unwanted foot-note:

“Our earth, by virtue of a hidden invisible energy, carries the moon around her”

“moon raises our northern seas to flood tide and again correspondingly lowers them to ebb by a hidden invisible energy”

“we see numerous other events about us as results of the action of one substance on another substance without being able to recognize a sensible connection between cause and effect.”

“calls such effects dynamic, virtual, that is, such as result from absolute, specific, pure energy and action of the one substance upon the other substance.”

“For instance, the dynamic effect of the sick-making influences upon healthy man, as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the principle of life in the restoration of health is nothing else than infection and so not in any way material, not in any way mechanical. “

“the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material, not mechanical.”

“the piece of iron is attracted by one pole of the magnet, but how it is done is not seen.”

“The magnet draws to itself and this acts upon the piece of iron or upon a steel needle by means of a purely immaterial invisible, conceptual, inherent energy, that is, dynamically, and communicates to the steel needle the magnetic energy equally invisibly (dynamically).”

“a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property.”

“Substances, which are used as medicines, are medicines only in so far as they possess each its own specific energy to alter the well-being of man through dynamic, conceptual influence, by means of the living sensory fibre, upon the conceptual controlling principle of life “

“The medicinal property of those material substances which we call medicines proper, relates only to their energy to call out alterations in the well-being of animal life.”

“Only upon this conceptual principle of life, depends their medicinal health-altering, conceptual (dynamic) influence, just as the nearness of a magnetic pole can communicate only magnetic energy to the steel, namely, by a kind of infection.”

“every special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of man in a peculiar manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only small-pox and not measles. “

“These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of the medicinal substances, thus dynamically, as if through infection”

“That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed, conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses”

“It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or mathematical surfaces that the medicinal energy is found. “

“there lies invisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated, specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has become through the dynamization.”

“If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination?”

“And if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?”

IF YOU READ ALL THESE SENTENCES I QUOTED FROM ABOVE FOOT NOTE, YOU WILL REALIZE WHY I CONSIDER THIS FOOT NOTE AS A SELF-INFLICTED INSULT UP ON CREDENTIALS OF OUR MASTER.

Organon : Aphorism 12 : Sixth Edition:

“It is the morbidly affected vital energy alone that produces disease, so that the morbid phenomena perceptible to our senses express at the same time all the internal change, that is to say, the whole morbid derangement of the internal dynamis; in a word, they reveal the whole disease; consequently, also, the disappearance under treatment of all the morbid phenomena and of all the morbid alterations that differ from the healthy vital operations, certainly affects and necessarily implies the restoration of the integrity of the vital force and, therefore, the recovered health of the whole organism.

Foot notes:- How the vital force causes the organism to display morbid phenomena, that is, how it produces disease, it would be of no practical utility to the physician to know, and will forever remain concealed from him; only what it is necessary for him to know of the disease and what is fully sufficient for enabling him to cure it, has the Lord of life revealed to his senses”

My Comments:

Regarding the question “how vital force causes disease”, Hahnemann declares “it would be of no practical utility to the physician to know, and will forever remain concealed”. Up on god, he says the physician should try to know only “what it is necessary for him to know of the disease and what is fully sufficient for enabling him to cure it”! Lazy and dogmatic homeopaths love to quote this statement frequently to cover up their inability to answer “how homeopathy works”. According to them, our master has eternally forbidden us from asking such questions!

Organon : Aphorism 13:

“Therefore disease (that does not come within the province of manual surgery) considered, as it is by the allopathists, as a thing separate from the living whole, from the organism and its animating vital force, and hidden in the interior, be it ever so subtle a character, is an absurdity, that could only be imagined by minds of a materialistic stamp, and has for thousands of years given to the prevailing system of medicine all those pernicious impulses that have made it a truly mischievous (non-healing) art.”

My comments:

Hahnemann considers asking questions about the inner processes of disease is an “absurdity” “imagined by minds of a materialistic stamp”, and it is this “materialistic mind” that made “the prevailing system of medicine” “a truly mischievous (non-healing) art.”

Organon : Aphorism 14 : Sixth Edition:

“There is, in the interior of man, nothing morbid that is curable and no invisible morbid alteration that is curable which does not make itself known to the accurately observing physicians by means of morbid signs and symptoms – an arrangement in perfect conformity with the infinite goodness of the all-wise Preserver of human life.”

My comments:

“”There is, in the interior of man, nothing morbid that is curable and no invisible morbid alteration that is curable which does not make itself known to the accurately observing physicians by means of morbid signs and symptoms”- It is a correct statement even valid from modern scientific point of view, even if we discard the vitalistic interpretations of Hahnemann.

Organon : Aphorism 15 : Sixth Edition:

“The affection of the morbidly deranged, spirit-like dynamis (vital force) that animates our body in the invisible interior, and the totality of the outwardly cognizable symptoms produced by it in the organism and representing the existing malady, constitute a whole; they are one and the same. The organism is indeed the material instrument of the life, but it is not conceivable without the animation imparted to it by the instinctively perceiving and regulating dynamis, just as the vital force is not conceivable without the organism, consequently the two together constitute a unity, although in thought our mind separates this unity into two distinct conceptions for the sake of easy comprehension.”

My comments:

I would suggest to modify this aphorism as follows: “”The affection of the morbidly deranged molecular level vital processes, and the totality of the outwardly cognizable symptoms produced by it in the organism and representing the existing malady, constitute a whole; they are one and the same. The molecular processes in the organism are indeed the material basis of the phenomenon life.

Homeopathy can exist even without vital force theory. Actually, it becomes more rational and scientific by replacing the concept of ‘vital force’ with modern scientific understanding of ‘molecular level biochemical vital processes’.

Organon : Aphorism 16 : Sixth Edition:

“Our vital force, as a spirit-like dynamis, cannot be attacked and affected by injurious influences on the healthy organism caused by the external inimical forces that disturb the harmonious play of life, otherwise than in a spirit-like (dynamic) way, and in like manner, all such morbid derangements (diseases) cannot be removed from it by the physician in any other way than by the spirit-like (dynamic1, virtual) alterative powers of the serviceable medicines acting upon our spirit-like vital force, which perceives them through the medium of the sentient faculty of the nerves everywhere present in the organism, so that it is only by their dynamic action on the vital force that remedies are able to re-establish and do actually re-establish health and vital harmony, after the changes in the health of the patient cognizable by our senses (the totality of the symptoms) have revealed the disease to the carefully observing and investigating physician as fully as was requisite in order to enable him to cure it.

Foot notes:- Most severe disease may be produced by sufficient disturbance of the vital force through the imagination and also cured by the same means.”

My Comments:

Hahnemann says: “alterative powers of the serviceable medicines acting upon our spirit-like vital force, which perceives them through the medium of the sentient faculty of the nerves everywhere present in the organism”. According to this view, homeopathic potentized drugs act through “sentient nerves”. But research works proved otherwise. Researchers have proved that potentized drugs act even up on in vitro biological samples which do not contain any ‘sentient nerves’ or nerve cells. There are enough scientific evidences now to prove that potentized drugs act up on biological molecules- not merely ‘sentient nerves’.

Hahnemann’s statement “disease may be produced by sufficient disturbance of the vital force through the imagination and also cured by the same means” actually explains the phenomena of so-called psychosomatic diseases, which are well explained by biochemistry, without any involvement of vital force theory. According to scientific view, “imaginations’ and “emotoions” are not “non-material” What we call ‘emotions’ and ‘sensations’ are actually very complex biochemical processes happening in our brain. There is nothing ‘immaterial’ in ‘emotions’ and other mental processes. During those biochemical processes, different types of chemical molecules are synthesized and utilized by the central nervous system, such as hormones, cytokines, neuro-mediators and neurotransmitters etc. What we call ‘bad effects’ of emotions are actually the delayed, off-target or rebound chemical actions of these biochemical molecules. Biochemistry can explain such phenomena without any involvement of any ‘immaterial’ or ‘dynamic’ vital force.

​Role of PEPSINUM 30 in the Treatment of  Gastric  Ulcers, Gastritis, Esophagitis, Deep Ulcers of Buccal Cavity, Esophgeal Carcinoma Etc.

Pepsin is a protein-degrading or proteolytic enzyme in the digestive system. Pepsin is released by the cells in the stomach. This enzyme degrades food proteins into peptides to facilitate absorption. Pepsin is a digestive protease, a member of the aspartate protease family. During the process of digestion, pepsin severs the links between particular types of amino acids, collaborate to break down dietary proteins into their components, i.e., peptides and amino acids, which can be readily absorbed by the intestinal lining. Pepsin is most efficient in cleaving peptide bonds between hydrophobic and preferably aromatic amino acids such as phenylalanine, tryptophan, and tyrosine.

Pepsin is expressed as a pro-form zymogen, pepsinogen, whose primary structure has an additional 44 amino acids. In the stomach, chief cells release pepsinogen. This zymogen is activated by hydrochloric acid (HCl), which is released from parietal cells in the stomach lining. The hormone gastrin and the vagus nerve trigger the release of both pepsinogen and HCl from the stomach lining when food is ingested. Hydrochloric acid creates an acidic environment, which allows pepsinogen to unfold and cleave itself in an autocatalytic fashion, thereby generating pepsin (the active form). Pepsin cleaves the 44 amino acids from pepsinogen to create more pepsin.

Pepsin is most active in acidic environments between 37°C and 42°C. Accordingly, its primary site of synthesis and activity is in the stomach (pH 1.5 to 2). Pepsin exhibits maximal activity at pH 2.0 and is inactive at pH 6.5 and above, however pepsin is not fully denatured or irreversibly inactivated until pH 8.0. The stability of pepsin at high pH has significant implications on disease attributed to laryngopharyngeal reflux. Pepsin remains in the larynx following a gastric reflux event. At the mean pH of the laryngopharynx pH = 6.8 pepsin would be inactive but could be reactivated upon subsequent acid reflux events resulting in damage to local tissues.

Pepsin is one of the primary causes of mucosal damage during laryngopharyngeal reflux.  Pepsin remains in the larynx pH 6.8 following a gastric reflux event. While enzymatically inactive in this environment, pepsin would remain stable and could be reactivated upon subsequent acid reflux events. Exposure of laryngeal mucosa to enzymatically active pepsin, but not irreversibly inactivated pepsin or acid, results in reduced expression of protective proteins and thereby increases laryngeal susceptibility to damage.

Pepsin may also cause mucosal damage during weakly acidic or non-acid gastric reflux. Weak or non-acid reflux is correlated with reflux symptoms and mucosal injury. Under non-acid conditions (neutral pH), pepsin is internalized by cells of the upper airways such as the larynx and hypopharynx by a process known as receptor-mediated endocytosis.  Upon cellular uptake, pepsin is stored in intracellular vesicles of low pH at which its enzymatic activity would be restored. Pepsin is retained within the cell for up to 24 hours. Such exposure to pepsin at neutral pH and endoyctosis of pepsin causes changes in gene expression associated with inflammation, which underlies signs and symptoms of reflux, and tumor progression. This and other research implicates pepsin in carcinogenesis attributed to gastric reflux.

Pepsin is found in the saliva of persons suffering from gastro-esophageal reflux, which causes persistent corroding of buccal mucosa, leading to deep ulcers of mouth cavity.

Commercial pepsin is extracted from the glandular layer of hog stomachs. It is a component of rennet used to curdle milk during the manufacture of cheese. Pepsin is used for a variety of applications in food manufacturing: to modify and provide whipping qualities to soy protein and gelatin, to modify vegetable proteins for use in nondairy snack items, to make precooked cereals into instant hot cereals, and to prepare animal and vegetable protein hydrolysates for use in flavoring foods and beverages. It is used in the leather industry to remove hair and residual tissue from hides and in the recovery of silver from discarded photographic films by digesting the gelatin layer that holds the silver. Pepsin was historically an additive of  chewing gum. It also gave name to Pepsi-Cola, originally formulated with pepsin and cola nuts.

PEPSINUM is the homeopathic preparation prepared by potentizing PEPSIN. In potentized forms, it contains MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of pepsin molecules. Potentized PEPSINUM above 12C could be used in the treatment of GERD, to heal the mucosal damage caused laryngopharyngeal reflux. It  is also useful in the treatment of gastric ulcers, esophagitis, esophageal ulcerations and strictures, esophageal and laryngeal carcinoma etc. 

Personally, I have regularly used PEPSINUM 30 successfully in the treatment of GASTRITIS, GASTRIC ULCER and ESOPHAGITIS and deep ulcers of buccal cavity.

Australian NHMRC Report On Homeopathy- A Report Sponsored By The People Who Conspire Against Homeopathy !

It is really terrifying to see how ‘scientific method’ and its ‘golden rules’ are misused by powerful people to crush simple truth of homeopathy, and to shield their vested anti-people business interests in healthcare industry. It is disheartening to see how our respected ‘men of science’ and ‘democratic rulers’ have turned mere puppets of global healthcare corporate kings and greedy big pharma giants.  I am totally shattered to witness this dark ‘other side’ of science and democracy which I cherished so much all my life.

I have in front of me the ‘NHMRC INFORMATION PAPER- Evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for treating health conditions’ published in March 2015 by National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia, after an elaborate study of all published materials(http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cam02a_information_paper.pdf ). I have been studying it minutely for the last few days, along with all its appended documents.

Learned NHMRC ‘hired’ pundits have given their final verdict of homeopathy in this ‘Information Paper’: “Homeopathy is Good for Nothing!” It is “Nothing better than Placebo!” Homeopathy should not exist- FINISHED!

NHMRC concludes: “Based on the overall findings of the assessment of the evidences of effectiveness of homeopathy, NHMRC has reached the following final conclusions: There is no reliable evidence from research in humans that homeopathy is effective for treating the range of health conditions considered. There were no health conditions for which there was reliable evidence that homeopathy was effective.  Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness. People who are considering whether to use homeopathy should first get advice from a registered health practitioner. Those who use homeopathy should tell their health practitioner, and should keep taking any prescribed treatments. For some health conditions, studies reported that homeopathy was not more effective than placebo. For other health conditions, some studies reported that homeopathy was more effective than placebo, or as effective as another treatment, but those studies were not reliable. To be confident that the reported health benefits of homeopathy were not just due to chance or the placebo effect, they would need to be confirmed by other well-designed studies with an adequate number of participants. For the remaining health conditions it was not possible to make any conclusion about whether homeopathy was effective or not, because there was not enough evidence.”

After going through the Information Paper as well as the appended documents carefully, I feel that NHMRC showed some sort of undue haste in arriving at such a totally negative conclusion regarding the effectiveness of homeopathy. They seem to be more inclined towards ‘excluding’ materials and evidences rather than evaluating them, and declare all seemingly positive evidences as “inconclusive” and “unreliable”. This hurry sparks doubts in my mind regarding the real goal of this project. Important question is, is it appropriate for scientific method to utilize ‘lack of sufficient evidence’ as an ‘evidence against’ homeopathy? Does ‘search for truth’ means ‘denying truth’?

Before advancing further with this critique, we have to know the people behind this ‘Information Paper’, and their real objectives in taking up a work of this type, that may have catastrophic effects up on a low-cost medical system currently accepted by millions of people around the world for their day to day health care requirements. It is very serious, since the ‘paper’ recommends that “homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions”! It is so serious that recommendations made in this paper may be utilized by interested parties to undermine even the very existence of homeopathy as a system of medical practice. Before declaring homeopathy is ineffective, NHMRC could have conducted some well designed studies and researches of their own, instead of arriving at hasty conclusions from assessments of already ‘published materials’ only, that too by hired ‘contractors’. I wonder what held them back from doing this, if they were really dedicated to finding out truth in the common interest of the society! At least in the interest of finding truth, they could have concluded their report by recommending the scientific community to undertake serious research works on homeopathy, since all the works so far done were found to be ‘methodologically flawed’, ‘unreliable’ and ‘inconclusive’!

NHMRC introduced themselves as follows: “NHMRC is Australia’s peak body for supporting health and medical research by funding the best research, selected through a competitive peer review process. NHMRC also develops health advice for the Australian community, health professionals and governments in the form of public health and clinical practice guidelines, Statements, Information Papers and evidence reviews. NHMRC also provides advice on ethical behavior in health care and in the conduct of health and medical research. The work of NHMRC is guided by its Strategic Plan, and defined by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Act 1992. The Strategic Plan covers a three year period and is submitted to the Health Minster for approval, prior to being tabled in Parliament. The NHMRC Strategic Plan 2013–2015 has identified ‘claiming benefit for human health not based on evidence’ as a major health issue for consideration.”

According to them, “this Information Paper is an example of NHMRC’s function to ‘advise the community’ under section 7(1)(a) of the NHMRC Act 1992. Published research on a topic of interest has been identified, analyzed and synthesized into a summary of the evidence for the Australian community, health professionals and policy makers. This information can then be utilized to assist people in making healthcare choices, guide clinical practice or influence policy and perhaps new funding approaches, all of which lead to improvements in health and health care delivery. Within our health system, there are practices which are currently not based on sturdy evidence. Health and medical research is the means by which we test the value of procedures, processes, systems and products offered to patients, or proposed as preventive means by the health system and its policy and decision makers. NHMRC is a strong advocate for the development and use of evidence to inform policy and practice and in recent years, NHMRC and other health research funding bodies have increased funding for such research. NHMRC is of the view that when offering treatments for illness, all registered health practitioners must give consideration to the evidence for the effectiveness of such treatments. This consideration should be reflected in their professional ethics and clinical practices.”

According to the NHMRC report, the ‘Information Paper’ is the outcome of their assessment of the evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy, based on: a) an overview of published systematic reviews by an independent contractor, b) an independent evaluation of information provided by homeopathy interest groups and the public, and, c) consideration of clinical practice guidelines and government reports on homeopathy published in other countries. Kindly do not misunderstand, NHMRC did not conduct any research by themselves about homeopathy that led them to a judgment. It was only an “assessment” based on available published materials.

Why did NHMRC conduct such an ‘assessment’ of homeopathy?  Listen what they say: “NHMRC is responsible for supporting health and medical research as well as providing Australians with advice based on best available evidence. This advice assists people in making informed decisions about their health care. This includes providing advice about the use of conventional therapies, as well as complementary and alternative medicines or traditional practices which, despite their longstanding history of use, may not have been demonstrated to be effective. Many health care practices and products are promoted as beneficial to health when there is little or no evidence to support these claims. In some cases these claims may mislead people to reject practices and treatments that are proven to be effective, in favor of non-evidence-based treatments. People who use homeopathy need to understand the potential benefits and risks to enable them to make an informed decision. Health practitioners also need to know what homeopathy is, be aware of the current scientific evidence from research on homeopathy, and understand any possible benefits and risks to patients—particularly when people decide to use homeopathy instead of other evidence-based treatments. For these reasons, NHMRC undertook an assessment of the evidence to provide Australians with reliable information on the effectiveness of homeopathy”.

I repeat my question once again: Why NHMRC did not conduct some well designed studies and researches of their own regarding the effectiveness of homeopathy, instead of arriving at hasty conclusions from assessments of already ‘published materials’ only, knowing well that they are ‘unreliable’ due to flawed methodology, that too by hired ‘contractors’? What held them back from taking up this most important task, if they were really dedicated to finding out truth in the common interest of the society! Why a responsible body such as NHMRC  could not hire a team to conduct such a research work strictly following the scientific methodology, so that ‘reliable’ and ‘conclusive’ output is ensured? If people at NHMRC were genuinely interested to know whether homeopathy works or not, it would have been the easiest way for them, rather than searching for ‘unreliable’ databases!

Only imaginable reason is, NHMRC actually wanted to build a defenseless case against homeopathy, rather than finding out the truth! It was their only goal mandated by their bosses- nothing else!

This work was overseen by the ‘Homeopathy Working Committee’ established by the NHMRC. “Given their collective expertise in evidence-based medicine, study design, and complementary and alternative medicine research, the Homeopathy Working Committee also provided advice on how the evidence should be interpreted in developing an Information Paper.”

Who were the “experts” that constituted this “homeopathic working committee”, who “provided advice on how the evidence should be interpreted in developing a Information Paper” of this type?

See the list of Committee members and their credentials given in the Information Paper:

  1. Professor Paul Glasziou, MBBS, PhD, FRACGP, General practitioner Professor and Director of the Centre for Research into EvidenceBased Practice, Bond University, Queensland Expert in evidence-based medicine
  1. Professor Peter Brooks, AM, MBBS, MD (Lund), FRACP, FAFRM, FAFPHM, MDHonCausa, FRCP (Glas, Edin), Rheumatologist Director of the Australian Health Workforce Institute, University of Melbourne, Victoria (to September 2013) Executive Director Research, Northern Hospital, Epping, Victoria Former board member, Australian Centre for Complementary Medicine Education and Research, University of Queensland
  1. Professor Frederick Mendelsohn, AO, MB BS, PhD, MD, FRACP Neuroscientist Former Chair in Medicine and Director of the Howard Florey Institute, University of Melbourne, Victoria
  1. Mr John Stubbs, BA, DipAcct Consumer Executive Officer, canSpeak Honorary Associate, School of Medicine, University of Sydney, New South Wales Member, Australian Health Ethics Committee, NHMRC Member, Consumer Consultative Group, NHMRC
  1. Associate Professor Evelin Tiralongo, BPharm(Hons), PhD, GradCertHigherEd Pharmacist Discipline head for complementary medicine teaching and research, School of Pharmacy and Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland Member, Clinical Trials Coordinating Centre, Griffith University Member, Society for Medicinal Plant and Natural Product Research
  1. Dr Nikolajs Zeps, BSc(Hons), PhD Research scientist Director, St John of God Subiaco Hospital Research network Adjunct Professor School of Health Sciences, Curtin University Adjunct Professor, Centre for Comparative Genomics, Murdoch University Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Surgery and School of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Western Australia Adjunct Associate Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Notre Dame, Western Australia Founding Director, Australian Clinical Trials Alliance Member, Research Committee, NHMRC Member, Australian Health Ethics Committee, NHMRC: Triennium 2010–2012
  1. Professor Chris Baggoley, AO, BVSc(Hons), MBBS, BSocAdmin, FACEM, FIFEM , Australian Government Chief Medical Officer

Out of these SEVEN ‘experts’, nobody belongs to the homeopathic community, or claims to have any ‘expertise’ or ‘knowledge’ about homeopathy. All of them belong to modern medical community, who represent a community having known ‘prejudices’ and ‘biases’ against homeopathy. Yet, the committee is called ‘Homeopathic Working Committee’! It is really a big fun to hear calling a body of ‘anti-homeopathic experts’ as ‘Homeopathic Working Committee! If their intentions were genuine, NHMRC should have included in this committee a couple of persons having expertise in homeopathy also, at least to give them a say and prove that there is no bias against homeopathy. Anti-homeopathic goal of NHMRC in taking up this task of ‘assessing’ homeopathy is evident from the constitution of this working committee itself.

 Let us come to the methodological aspects of NHMRC ‘assessment’.  It is consented that the assessment was based on “an overview of published systematic reviews by an independent contractor”. That means, it was that “independent contractor” who conducted the “overview of published systematic reviews” that led to the publication of this ‘Information Paper’.

NHMRC mentions in their ‘paper’ that they commissioned a professional research group OptumInsight (Optum) to do a thorough search of published research to find systematic reviews of studies (prospective, controlled studies) that compared homeopathy with no homeopathy or with other treatments and measured effectiveness in patients with any health condition. That means, OPTUM is the “independent contractor”.

The researchers of OPTUM searched databases of health publications to find systematic reviews published in English between 1 January 1997 and 3 January 2013. For each health condition, the research group collated the findings of the systematic reviews and assessed the quality and reliability of the evidence. The findings are described in detail in the Overview Report. The purpose of this approach was to use published systematic reviews as a way of identifying the body of evidence for homeopathic treatments. The professional research group of OPTUM did not accept the conclusions or interpretations of the systematic reviews, but instead considered the included studies. The professional research group evaluated the quality of each of the included studies, using the information provided by the systematic reviews.

Additional information was submitted by homeopathy interest groups and the public to NHMRC, for its consideration as a part of its review of homeopathy, on two occasions. The preliminary submitted literature on the effectiveness of homeopathy was provided by the Australian Homoeopathy Association and the Australian Medical Fellowship of Homeopathy as well as members of the public. During public consultation on the draft Information Paper, a range of stakeholders submitted 12  additional literature for consideration in the development of this Information Paper .

All submitted literature was assessed by OPTUM researchers to identify evidence within the scope of NHMRC’s assessment. Only the types of studies that were included in the overview (prospective, controlled studies) were assessed in detail. For each study included, OPTUM assessed the quality and reliability of the results and summarized the findings in a review of submitted literature. This evidence was considered when preparing this Information Paper.

Our study of NHMRC ‘Information Paper’ and their conclusions will not be complete unless we know the people behind OPTUM, whom NHMRC hired as “impartial contractors” to do the whole work. Then only you will understand that it is not an issue of ‘prejudice’ and ‘skeptic bias’, but a pre-planned, state-mediated, well financed,  global conspiracy against homeopathy, sponsored by international pharmaceutical lobbies. OPTUM is not “impartial contractors” or “hired researchers” as NHMRC tries to make out, but the real players with their own vested interests, who conducted and orchestrated the whole event for their powerful patrons in the big pharma and healthcare industry.

OPTUM introduces themselves in their website as a “health services and innovation company on a mission, with 94,000 people dedicated to improving the health system for everyone in it, powering MODERN HEALTHCARE by combining data and analytics with technology and expertise”. Visit www.optum.com to know the real role and stakes of this giant in global modern health care business.  OPTUM is a leading information and technology-enabled corporate health services business house with diverse interests and different areas of health care industry, including drug development, clinical trials, pharmaceuticals as well as medical insurance.   They also run their own pharma industry house known as ‘OptumRx’. OPTUM has a colossal presence in different spheres of international health care industry, mostly interested in eradicating all complementary medical systems including HOMEOPATHY, which may pose threat to their big pharma interests.

Now the picture is very clear. OPTUM is not “impartial contractors” or ‘job workers’ hired by NRHMC, but the executors of a global scale health industry conspiracy to “finish” HOMEOPATHY. Entrusting a team of anti-homeopathic experts as well as OPTUM for making “assessment” regarding effectiveness of homeopathy was actually  like appointing jackals as the caretakers of chickens!

If you go though the whole report, you will see how effectively and professionally OPTUM has done the work they were entrusted to do. Final outcome was pre-determined, and all “assessments” were aimed at that goal. Entrusting OPTUM as well as experts of anti-homeopathic professional interests for the ‘assessment’ of effectiveness homeopathy has actually proved to be like appointing ‘jackals’ as the caretakers of ‘chicken’!

See how the OPTUM researchers dealt with the 343 articles submitted by homeopathy interest groups and individuals and produced a BIG ZERO from them: “A total of 343 articles were submitted to NHMRC, of which a large majority (234) were of a research or publication type not meeting the inclusion criteria. A further 79 articles had already been included or considered in the Overview Report. On considering the remaining 30 articles, studies were excluded if they: covered an intervention not meeting the inclusion criteria; were of a research type not meeting the inclusion criteria; did not report on efficacy outcomes; the study design confounded the results; or were not published in English. This resulted in nine studies examining the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of eight different clinical conditions identified for further assessment. Five of the eight conditions (otitis media, delayed-onset muscle soreness, depression, bruising, and sleep or circadian rhythm disturbances) were examined in the overview. The results of these studies were considered in relation to the body of evidence identified in the overview but did not alter the overall conclusions about the effectiveness of homeopathy because of their poor quality, poor design, poor reporting of the study design or method, or too few participants.”

See the fate of ‘public consultation’ submitted literature: “A total of 48 submissions were received from consumers, consumer groups, health care professionals, homeopathy practitioners and homeopathy organisations. Of the 153 articles cited in these submissions, 94 were excluded because they did not meet the criteria for the NHMRC review (e.g. they did not investigate the treatment of health conditions in humans, they had already been considered in an earlier stage of the NHMRC review, or they were not published studies). The remaining 59 studies, which had not been included in the overview report, were assessed against pre-determined criteria for consideration. After this assessment, 17 more of these studies were excluded because they did not meet the criteria for the NHMRC review. Of the remaining 42 published studies, three represented a single study, resulting in a final total of 40 studies assessing the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of health conditions, compared with no homeopathy or with other treatment. For each study, the risk of bias was systematically assessed using a standardised method (the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias) and analysed. The included studies investigated homeopathy for the treatment of 14 health conditions (16 studies) that were covered by systematic reviews included in the overview: rheumatoid arthritis, influenza-like illness, hot flushes, rhinosinusitis, ankle sprain, oral dryness, psychophysiological-onset insomnia, stress, dermatological reactions to radiotherapy, warts, osteoarthritis of the knee, chronic low back pain, upper respiratory tract infection and otitis media. Most studies were assessed to have a moderate, moderate-to-high or high risk of bias. Many of these studies were poorly designed, poorly conducted or poorly reported. In addition, the studies had too few participants to be able to detect differences in health outcomes between the treatment groups. The findings of these studies did not alter the overall conclusions of the NHMRC review. Although one small study with a low risk of bias favoured homeopathy for the treatment of cough in upper respiratory tract infections, this study did not have enough participants to outweigh the wider body of evidence considered in the overview”

“The OPTUM researchers searched databases of health publications to find systematic reviews published in English between 1 January 1997 and 3 January 2013. For each health condition, the research group collated the findings of the systematic reviews and assessed the quality and reliability of the evidence. The findings are described in detail in the Overview Report. The purpose of this approach was to use published systematic reviews as a way of identifying the body of evidence for homeopathic treatments. The professional research group did not accept the conclusions or interpretations of the systematic reviews, but instead considered the included studies. The professional research group evaluated the quality of each of the included studies using the information provided by the systematic reviews”.

Detailed assessments of NHMRC ‘Information Paper’ regarding effectiveness of of homeopathy in different classes of diseases are really amusing:

There is no reliable evidence on which to draw a conclusion about the effectiveness of homeopathy, compared with placebo, for the treatment of these health conditions:  acne vulgaris, acute otitis media (inflammation of the middle ear) in children, acute ankle sprain, acute trauma in orthopaedic patients, amoebiasis and giardiasis (gastrointestinal conditions caused by parasites), ankylosing spondylitis, boils and pyoderma (types of skin infections), Broca’s aphasia in people who have had a stroke,  bronchitis, cholera, cough, chronic polyarthritis, dystocia (difficult labour), eczema, heroin addiction,  knee joint haematoma (bruising), lower back pain, nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy, oral lichen planus, osteoarthritis, proctocolitis, postoperative pain-agitation syndrome, radiodermatitis (skin damage caused by radiotherapy) in women with breast cancer, seborrhoeic dermatitis, suppression of lactation after childbirth in women who elect not to breastfeed, stroke, traumatic brain injury (mild), uraemic pruritis, vein problems due to cannulas in people receiving chemotherapy,

Why NHMRC reached this conclusion? “For each condition, only one study that compared homeopathy with placebo was found, and this study was unreliable. It was either poor quality (poorly designed or poorly done) or unknown quality, or it had too few participants to give a meaningful result, or both”.

Don’t laugh, please! They could find only “one study”. That was “unreliable” also! Why should they wait to jump into their pre-determined ‘conclusion’?

NHMRC ‘paper’ continues: “There is no reliable evidence that homeopathy is as effective as the other therapies for the treatment of these health conditions-  acute otitis media or otitis media with effusion (inflammation of the middle ear) in children (compared with antibiotics, mucolytic medicines, secretolytic medicines, antipyretic medicines, nasal sprays, or monitoring the condition but not providing treatment, allergic rhinitis (compared with antihistamines, cortisone or intranasal cromolyn sodium), anxiety or stress-related conditions (compared with lorazepam, diazepam or cognitive behavioural therapy), depression (compared with fluoxetine or diazepam) , eczema (compared with corticosteroids, antihistamines, or other unspecified therapies), non-allergic rhinitis (compared with aspirin, xylometazoline or other therapies), osteoarthritis (compared with paracetamol or various nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), upper respiratory tract infection (compared with anti-inflammatory drugs, antibiotics or other therapies).

“There is no reliable evidence on which to draw a conclusion about the effectiveness of homeopathy compared with other therapies for the treatment of these health conditions: burns (second- and third-degree), fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome,  malaria, proctocolitis (inflammation of the rectum and colon), recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (yeast infection of the vagina and/or vulva, also called ‘thrush’), rheumatoid arthritis”

Again, why NHMRC reached this conclusion? Their answer: “For each condition, only one study that compared homeopathy with another treatment was found, and this study was unreliable. It was either poor quality (poorly designed or poorly done) or unknown quality, or it had too few participants to give a meaningful result, or both.”

Do not miss this very important observation by NHMRC: “The studies of homeopathy were generally poor quality. For some health conditions, this meant that no conclusion could be made on whether or not homeopathy was effective. For other conditions, this meant that NHMRC could not be confident that the results reported by studies were reliable.”

If available studies of homeopathy were generally of “poor quality”, and “no conclusion could be made” on the basis of those studies, how could NHMRC come to the generalized conclusion that “homeopathy is ineffective”?  If they “could not be confident” by available studies, how could be they so “confident” to give a sweeping verdict against homeopathy.  NHMRC is bound to explain this point.

NHMRC admits the LIMIATIONS of their study as follows:

The overview was based on finding systematic reviews of homeopathy, rather than searching for all individual published studies of homeopathy. The advantage of this strategy was to make use of the large amount of work that had already been done by researchers around the world in finding and assessing studies and to provide an overarching picture of the whole body of evidence. However, there were also some disadvantages:

  • As the overview only included systematic reviews, some individual studies of homeopathy may not have been considered (particularly recent studies published since the latest systematic reviews). This risk was offset by inviting homeopathy interest groups and the public to provide extra evidence at two stages of the review: before the overview and at public consultation on the draft of this Information Paper. From this process an additional 42 studies were considered as part of the assessment of the evidence. These studies did not alter the overall findings of the assessment of the evidence.
  • To assess the quality of individual studies, the research group had to rely on the way that these were reported by systematic reviews. Details of study design (e.g. the outcomes measured and the length of follow up), the statistical significance of the results and the clinical importance of any reported health benefits were not always available. Also, the description of an individual study was sometimes inconsistent between systematic reviews. In these instances, the findings of the systematic review which was assessed to be of a higher quality was considered.
  • It was not possible to separate the evidence for clinical homeopathy (in which the homeopath chooses one or more homeopathic medicines to treat a particular health condition) and individualized homeopathy (in which the homeopath matches all the person’s symptoms to a single homeopathic medicine), because most of the systematic reviews did not analyze these separately. Most of the studies used clinical homeopathy.
  • It was not possible to make conclusions about the effects of homeopathy on each of the specific health outcomes (e.g. pain, mobility) relevant to a particular health condition (e.g. arthritis), because of the large number of outcomes and the different reporting of outcomes between the different systematic reviews. Instead, outcomes were aggregated for each health condition and a single conclusion made.
  • It was often difficult in studies to find the details of other treatments with which homeopathy was compared. To interpret the studies that compared homeopathy with another treatment, it is necessary to understand whether the other treatment is an effective standard treatment. This information was often not available from the systematic reviews.
  • It is also likely that some studies assessing homeopathic treatments have never been published. Searching of clinical trials registries can identify unpublished studies and enable researchers to obtain and analyze the results, but cannot identify studies that have not been registered. The overview identified only 10 systematic reviews that reported having considered publication bias, and only two of these made a comprehensive, systematic search for missing studies.”

One of these systematic reviews reported significant publication bias, which the authors suggested was primarily due to under-reporting of studies with statistically non-significant effects and with negative effects. Clinical trial registries (included the World Health Organisation Clinical Trials Registry, the US government’s ClinicalTrials.gov and the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry) were searched but did not identify any extra studies.

Despite the above limitations, it is unlikely that a review of primary studies (rather than of systematic reviews) would have altered the findings. This is because the studies on homeopathy identified through this process were generally small and of poor quality (either poorly designed or poorly done). Due to the poor quality of the evidence base, the Homeopathy Working Committee had to apply caution when considering the results reported by studies. For some health conditions, this meant that no conclusion could be made on whether or not homeopathy was effective. For other conditions, this meant that NHMRC could not be confident that the results reported by studies were reliable.”

Let us sum up an abstract of the “limitations” NHMRC themselves identified in their methodology:

  1. As the overview only included systematic reviews, some individual studies of homeopathy may not have been considered
  2. To assess the quality of individual studies, the research group had to rely on the way that these were reported by systematic reviews.
  3. It was not possible to separate the evidence for clinical homeopathy (in which the homeopath chooses one or more homeopathic medicines to treat a particular health condition) and individualized homeopathy (in which the homeopath matches all the person’s symptoms to a single homeopathic medicine),
  4. It was not possible to make conclusions about the effects of homeopathy on each of the specific health outcomes.
  5. It was often difficult in studies to find the details of other treatments with which homeopathy was compared.
  6. It is also likely that some studies assessing homeopathic treatments have never been published.
  7. For some health conditions, this meant that no conclusion could be made on whether or not homeopathy was effective. For other conditions, this meant that NHMRC could not be confident that the results reported by studies were reliable.”

 All these are limitations of serious concern, which should have been properly attended and appropriately rectified before making any further “assessments” about homeopathy. Instead, NHMRC chose the comfort of ignoring these limitations by a sweeping remark: “Despite the above limitations, it is unlikely that a review of primary studies, rather than of systematic reviews would have altered the findings.”. They were so sure that nothing would alter their findings, as the ‘findings’ and ‘conclusions’ were pre-determined!

Use Of ‘Molecular Imprints’ For Prevention And Treatment Of Cervical Cancers

Uterine Cervical Cancer is the most common cause of cancer, as well as the   most common cause of death from cancer in women around the world.   It was estimated that 528,000 cases of cervical cancer occurred, with 266,000 deaths in 2012 alone. This is about 8% of the total cases and total cancer deaths.  About 70% of cervical cancers occur in developing countries.  In low-income countries, it is the most common cause of cancer deaths.  In developed countries, the widespread use of cervical screening programs has dramatically reduced rates of cervical cancers.

Cervical cancer is a cancer arising from the uterine cervix.  It is due to the abnormal growth of cells that have the ability to invade or spread to other parts of the body. No symptoms are seen in earlier stages of disease process. Later symptoms may include abnormal vaginal bleeding, pelvic pain, or pain during sexual intercourse.  While bleeding after sex may not be serious, it may also indicate the presence of cervical cancer.

According to studies, Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection appears to be involved in the development of more than 90% of cases of cervical cancers. Sametime, it is also true that most people who have had HPV infections, however, do not develop cervical cancer.  Other risk factors include smoking, a weak immune system, birth control pills, starting sex at a young age, and having many sexual partners, but these are less important.  Cervical cancer typically develops from precancerous changes over 10 to 20 years.  About 90% of cervical cancer cases are squamous cell carcinomas, 10% are adenocarcinoma, and a small number are other types.  Diagnosis is typically by cervical screening followed by a biopsy.  Medical imaging is also done to determine whether or not the cancer has spread.

The early stages of cervical cancer may be completely free of symptoms.  Vaginal bleeding, contact bleeding (one most common form being bleeding after sexual intercourse), or (rarely) a vaginal mass may indicate the presence of malignancy. Also, moderate pain during sexual intercourse and vaginal discharge are symptoms of cervical cancer. In advanced disease, metastases may be present in the abdomen, lungs, or elsewhere.

Symptoms of advanced cervical cancer may include: loss of appetite, weight loss, fatigue, pelvic pain, back pain, leg pain, swollen legs, heavy vaginal bleeding, bone fractures, and/or (rarely) leakage of urine or feces from the vagina.  Bleeding after douching or after a pelvic exam is a common symptom of cervical cancer

Infection with HPV is generally believed to be required for cervical cancer to occur.  Genital warts, which are a form of benign tumor  of  epithelial  cells, are also caused by various strains of HPV. However, these serotypes are usually not related to cervical cancer. It is common to have multiple strains at the same time, including those that can cause cervical cancer along with those that cause warts.

Cigarette smoking, both active and passive, increases the risk of cervical cancer. Among HPV-infected women, current and former smokers have roughly two to three times the incidence of invasive cancer. Passive smoking is also associated with increased risk, but to a lesser extent.

Long-term use of oral contraceptives is associated with increased risk of cervical cancer. Women who have used oral contraceptives for 5 to 9 years have about three times the incidence of invasive cancer, and those who used them for 10 years or longer have about four times the risk.

Having many pregnancies is associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer. Among HPV-infected women, those who have had seven or more full-term pregnancies have around four times the risk of cancer compared with women with no pregnancies, and two to three times the risk of women who have had one or two full-term pregnancies.

HPV vaccines have been developed to protect against between two and seven high-risk strains of this family of viruses and may prevent up to 90% of cervical cancers.  As a risk of cancer still exists, guidelines recommend continuing regular Pap smears even after vaccinations. Other methods of prevention include: having few or no sexual partners and the use of condoms.  Cervical cancer screening using the Pap smear or acetic acid can identify precancerous changes which when treated can prevent the development of cancer. Modern treatment of cervical cancer may consist of some combination of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy.   Five year survival rates in the United States by these treatment protocols are 68%.  Outcomes, however, depend very much on how early the cancer is detected.

Preventive vaccines are currently developed to protect against the two HPV types (16 and 18) that cause about 70% of cervical cancers worldwide. Vaccines that protect against more of the types common in cancers are expected to prevent more cancers.  For instance, a vaccine against the seven types most common in cervical cancers (16, 18, 45, 31, 33, 52, 58) is estimated to prevent 87% of cervical cancers worldwide.

HPV types 16, 18 and 45 contribute to 94% of cervical adenocarcinoma  (cancers originating in the glandular cells of the cervix). While most cervical cancer arises in the squamous cells, adenocarcinomas make up a sizable minority of cancers.  Further, Pap smears are not as effective at detecting adenocarcinomas, so where Pap screening programs are in place, a larger proportion of the remaining cancers are adenocarcinomas.

HPV vaccine ‘Gardasil’ contains inactive L1 proteins from four different HPV strains: 6, 11, 16, and 18.  Together, these HPV types 16 and 18 currently cause about 70 percent of all cervical cancer, and about 90 percent of all cases of genital warts. HPV types 6 and 11  are much less likely to cause cancer, but do cause genital warts.

Only a small percentage of women with cervical cancer in the developing world get diagnosed and treated in early stages.  Most cases are identified only after reaching an incurable stage.  HPV vaccinations may be effective to certain extent, but its cost is very high, making mass vaccination programs unaffordable to poor countries.

Currently the HPV vaccine is not recommended for pregnant women.  There have been reports of death in females after receiving the vaccine, even though such deaths were not linked to the vaccine beyond doubts. Additionally, there have been rare reports of blood clots forming in the heart, lungs and legs after getting vaccinated. There have been 22,000 Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports following the HPV vaccination in US alone, even though ninety-two percent were reports of events considered to be non-serious (e.g., fainting, pain and swelling at the injection site (arm), headache, nausea and fever). But 9 percent were considered to be serious (death, permanent disability, life-threatening illness and hospitalization).

The long-term effects of the vaccine on fertility are not known, but no effects are anticipated. Even though FDA has classified the HPV vaccine as a pregnancy Category B, meaning there is no apparent harm on the fetus in animal studies, and HPV vaccines have not been causally related with adverse pregnancy outcomes or adverse effects on the fetus, data on vaccination during pregnancy is very limited.  It has been advised that vaccination during the pregnancy term should be delayed until more information is available. If a woman is found to be pregnant during the three dose series of vaccination, the series will be postponed until pregnancy has been completed.

Risk of long term adverse effects of HPV vaccines also cannot be ignored.  Antibodies generated in the body in response to vaccinations may remain as ‘miasms’ for long periods, causing ‘off-target’ molecular inhibitions that may produce diverse kinds of chronic disease dispositions. In this circumstance, we have to think about more scientific, safe and cost-effective alternative ways for preventing and treating cervical cancers in the society.

It is very important to note that currently available HPV vaccines do not treat existing HPV infection or cervical cancer. HPV vaccines are used only to prevent HPV infection and therefore cervical cancer. They are recommended for women who are 9 to 25 years old who have not been exposed to HPV. However, since it is very unlikely that a woman will have already contracted all four viruses, since  HPV is primarily sexually transmitted.

Here comes the relevance of MIT approach to cervical cancers, considering the risks and limitations of HPV vaccines. Molecular Imprints of viral proteins of multiple strains of Human Papilloma Virus could be produced and used as prophylactic as well as therapeutic agents against this disease.

The HPV vaccines are based on hollow virus-like particles (VLPs) assembled from recombinant HPV coat proteins. The virus possesses circular double stranded DNA and a viral shell that is composed of 72 capsomeres. Every subunit of the virus is composed of two proteins molecules, L1 and L2. The reason why this virus has the capability to affect the skin and the mucous layers is due to its structure. The primary structures expressed in these areas are E1 and E2, these proteins are responsible for the replication of the virus. E1 is a highly conserved protein in the virus, E1 is in charge of the production of viral copies is also involved in every step of replication process. The second component of this process is E2 ensures that non-specific interaction occur while interacting with E1.  As a result of these proteins working together is assures that numerous amounts of copies are made within the host cell. The structure of the virus is critical because this influence the infection affinity of the virus. Knowing the structure of the virus allowed for the development of HPV vaccines.

Molecular Imprints could be prepared in a ‘water-alcohol’ matrix from these ‘hpv coat proteins’, especially L1 and L2 proteins which constitute every subunit of the HPV virus, by the process of homeopathic potentization.  These molecular imprints will have conformations exactly opposite to the conformations of functional groups of L1 and L2 proteins. Due to this complementary conformations, these molecular imprints can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for viral proteins, thereby preventing their interactions with biological molecules in human body. By this bio-molecular mechanism, HPV infection is prevented, and disease processes in already infected persons reversed.

According to MIT perspective, it is obvious from the above discussions that ‘L1 proteins’ extracted from four different HPV strains (6, 11, 16, and 18) and potentized above 12c will be the ideal homeopathic drug for prevention and treatment of  UTERINE CERVICAL CANCERS caused by Human Papilloma Viruses.

Of course, MEDORRHINUM 12C or 30C will play a major role in MIT protocol for cervical cancer treatment, since this homeopathic nosode is prepared from disease products containing a combination of infectious agents of gonorrhea as well as ‘figwart disease’ or human papilloma virus disease. MEDORRHINUM in potentized form will most probably contain molecular imprints of ‘hpv coat proteins’.  CARCINOCIN 30 also should be included, as it will contain molecular imprints capable of deactivating various chemical molecules synthesized by cancer cells

Homeopathic constitutional SIMILIMUM selected on the basis of mental symptoms and physical generals also should be included in this treatment protocol in potencies above 12C for a complete cure.

 

MIT Approach To The Treatment Of ‘Polycystic Ovary Syndrome'(PCOS)

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a term used to describe a set of symptoms expressed in a large percentage of women visiting doctors with various gynecological problems, which arise from hormonal imbalances. The name PCOD is used when there is ultrasonographic evidences for ovarian cysts. PCOS is the most common endocrine disorder among women between the ages of 18 and 44. It affects approximately 5% to 10% of this age group. It is one of the leading causes of poor fertility.

Signs and symptoms of PCOS include irregular or no menstrual periods, heavy periods, excess growth of body and facial hair, acne, pelvic pain, infertility due to anovulation, and patches of thick, darker, velvety skin. PCOS commonly appear associated with conditions such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, obstructive sleep apnoea, heart disease, mood disorders, and endometrial cancer.

PCOS is considered to be caused by a combination of genetic as well as environmental factors. Obesity, lack of physical exercise, and a family history of someone with such conditions are major risk factors. Diagnosis is mainly based on two of the following three findings- no ovulation, high androgen levels, and ovarian cysts detectable by ultrasound scanning. Differential diagnosis is required to rule out other conditions that produce similar symptoms, which include adrenal hyperplasia, hypothyroidism, and hyperprolactinemia.They try to alleviate symptoms by  lifestyle changes such as weight loss and exercises, and administration of ‘birth control pills’ to  regularize  menstrual  periods. Anti-androgenic drugs are used in certain cases. Various drugs and techniques are used to treat acne and to control excess hair growth.  Efforts to improve fertility include reducing weight, administering drugs, and in vitro fertilization.

Major signs and symptoms of PCOS include   menstrual disorders such as ooligomenorrhoea (few menstrual periods) or amenorrhea (no menstrual periods) and  infertility resulting from lack of ovulation.  Other common signs are acne and hirsutism (male pattern of hair growth). There may be heavy and prolonged menstrual periods in some cases. Androgenic alopecia with hair thinning or diffuse hair loss may also appear in certain individuals. Levels of androgens or male sex hormones are found to be raised in PCOS patients. There appears as a tendency towards central obesity and other symptoms associated with insulin resistance.  Serum insulin levels, insulin resistance, and homocysteine levels are higher in women with PCOS.

There is strong evidence that PCOS is a genetic disease.  The genetic component appears to be inherited in an autosomal dominant fashion with high genetic penetrance but variable expressivity in females; this means that each child has a 50% chance of inheriting the predisposing genetic variant from a parent, and, if a daughter receives the variant, the daughter will have the disease to some extent. The genetic variants can be inherited from either the father or the mother, and can be passed along to both sons daughters. Sons  may be asymptomatic carriers or may have symptoms such as early baldness.  and daughters show the signs of PCOS. In rare instances, single-gene mutations can give rise to the phenotype of the syndrome. Current  understanding of the pathogenesis of the syndrome suggests, however, that it is a complex multigenic disorder.

Obesity seems to play a big role in determining the severity of PCOS symptoms. PCOS has some aspects of a metabolic disorder, and its symptoms are partly reversible. Even though the name suggests that the ovaries are central to disease pathology, cysts are a symptom instead of the cause of the disease. Some symptoms of PCOS will persist even if both ovaries are removed; the disease can appear even if cysts are absent.. Gynecologists often see it as a gynecological problem, with the ovaries being the primary organ affected. However, recent insights show a multisystem disorder, with the primary problem lying in hormonal regulation in the hypothalamus, with the involvement of many organs. The term PCOS is used since there is a wide spectrum of symptoms possible, and cysts in the ovaries are seen only in 15% of people affected with the syndrome.

PCOS may be related to or worsened by exposures to certain drugs during the prenatal period, epigenetic factors, environmental impacts such as  industrial endocrine disruptors.

History-taking, specifically for menstrual pattern, obesity, hirsutism and acne is very important for diagnosing PCOS. Gynecologic ultrasonography, specifically looking for small ovarian follicles is also important. These ‘cysts’ are believed to be the result of disturbed ovarian function with failed ovulation, reflected by the infrequent or absent menstruation that is typical of the condition. Determining whether an elevation of the serum levels of androgens including androstenedione and testosterone is necessary for diagnosis. The free testosterone level is thought to be the best measure, with more than 60% of PCOS patients demonstrating supranormal levels. Glucose tolerance tests as well as testing fasting insulin levels are also necessary. Other causes of irregular or absent menstruation and hirsutism, such as hypothyroidism, congenital adrenal hyperplasia (21-hydroxylase deficiency), Cushing’s syndrome, hyperprolactinemia, androgen secreting neoplasms, and other pituitary or adrenal disorders, should be investigated and ruled out.

Polycystic ovaries develop when the ovaries are stimulated to produce excessive amounts of male hormones (androgens), in particular testosterone, by either one or a combination of the following (almost certainly combined with genetic susceptibility-  the release of excessive luteinizing hormone (LH) by the anterior pituitary gland, and through high levels of insulin in the blood in women whose ovaries are sensitive to this stimulus.

A majority of people with PCOS have insulin resistance and/or are obese. Their elevated insulin levels contribute to or cause the abnormalities seen in the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis that lead to PCOS. Hyperinsulinemia increases GnRH pulse frequency, LH over FSH dominance, increased ovarian androgen production, decreased follicular maturation, and decreased SHBG binding; all these steps contribute to the development of PCOS. Insulin resistance is a common finding among women with a normal weight as well as overweight women.

Adipose tissue possesses aromatase, an enzyme that converts androstenedione to estrone and testosterone to estradiol. The excess of adipose tissue in obese women creates the paradox of having both excess androgens which are responsible for hirsutism and virilization, and estrogens which inhibits FSH via negative feedback.

PCOS may be associated with chronic inflammation, with several investigators correlating inflammatory mediators with anovulation and other PCOS symptoms.  Similarly, there seems to be a relation between PCOS and increased level of oxidative stress.

According to MIT perspective, INSULIN 30 is the main homeopathic drug for treating PCOS, as the molecular imprints contained in that drug can reverse the harmful biochemical processes caused by hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance, which is the starting point of all abnormalities in hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis that lead to PCOS. Drug will have to be repeated twice every day, and continued for a long period.   Since PCOS is a metabolic syndrome involved with abnormalities in diverse hormonal pathways, PITUTRIN 30, ACTH 30, TESTOSTERONE 30 and THYROIDINUM 30 also should be administered in combination or alternation with INSULIN 30.

Better and faster results are produced if we include in this protocol  the homeopathic ‘constitutional’ similimum worked out on the basis of physical generals and mental symptoms expressed by the patient.

Indications of positive response to this highly scientific treatment protocol are observable by three months, as menstrual periods become regular, and male pattern hair growth begins to fade away. All symptoms gradually disappear within 6-12 months of starting medication. Homeopaths can confidently try this method, since there  are absolutely no chances for any kind of adverse effects from using drugs potentized above Avogadro limit.

 ‘Banerji Protocols’- A Rational Method Of Practice Theoretically Endorsed By MIT Concepts Of Scientific Homeopathy

I want to make it clear from the very beginning that I do not have any personal contact with the people working behind ‘Banerji Protocols’, or any kind of business interest in their ‘method’. We are absolute strangers. Whatever information I have about them and their method were collected from their websites as well as interactions with their followers who practice it. Actually, I have my own reservations and disagreements regarding the business strategy adopted by them. I would have been happier, if they made their valuable experience and knowledge freely available to the homeopathic community in the common interests of homeopathy, instead of promoting it merely as a private ‘commodity’ targeted for the market.

In spite of my above mentioned reservations, I hereby declare that I am whole heartedly supporting and recommending ‘banerji protocols’ as a rational and simplified method of practicing ‘using’ homeopathic drugs.  My support comes not from any material interest, but from my theoretical convictions that evolved from studying ‘banerji protocols’ in the light of   MIT concepts of scientific homeopathy.

The ‘Banerji Protocols’ developed and promoted by Dr. Prasanta Banerji Homoeopathic Research Foundation, Kolkota (PBHRF),  is a new method of treatment using homeopathic medicines recently becoming very popular among homeopaths all over the world due to its effectiveness and simplicity . According to this method, ‘specific’ medicines are prescribed for ‘specific’ diseases. Diseases are diagnosed using modern state of the art methods and tools. According to their view, modern diagnostic approaches incorporate and help in the selection of medicines so that ‘specific’ medicines could be easily prescribed for ‘specific’ diseases. This approach differs from classical homeopathy, where prescriptions are expected to be made on the basis of ‘totality of symptoms’, ‘mental symptoms’, ‘physical generals’, ‘constitutions’  and ‘miasmatic analysis’, giving least importance to diagnostic aspects.

This approach of prescribing ‘specific’ homeopathic medicines for a ‘specific’ disease, based on ‘diagnosis as well as symptoms’ is the mainstay of ‘Banerji Protocols’. On the basis of huge clinical experiences of three generations of homeopaths belonging to Banerji family, they have prepared elaborate treatment protocols for all the important diseases by preparing lists of  homeopathic ‘specifics’ based on diagnosis. Final selection of medicine for a particular patient is made from these ‘lists of specifics’, after considering the individual ‘symptomatology’ also. As such, ‘banerji protocols’ is a combination of ‘specifcs’ and ‘symptomatology’ approaches. With the passage of time and the availability of new diagnostic tools like ultrasonography, MRIs, cancer markers and other advanced tests, original treatment protocols were streamlined accordingly. PBHRF sources claim that the efficiency of this streamlining is reflected by the encouraging results of The Banerji Protocols.

In The ‘Banerji Protocols’ of treatment, mixtures of potentized remedies as well as frequent repetitions of the remedies are allowed to be freely used when required, which is never allowed or  practiced in classical homeopathy. This is a big departure from classical homeopathic approach, where ‘single drug-single dose’ concept is considered as an important ‘fundamental principle’. Banerji claims that the strategy of combination of potentized medicines is  based on years of ‘clinical experiments’ and ‘observations’ conducted at  PBHRF. According to their view, ‘mixing’ of drugs  have special advantages in treatment, so that the “aggravation due to drugs can be checked, side effects of the medicines can be abated, quick and uneventful recovery can be ensured in a much shorter time”.

In Banerji Protocols, specific homeopathic medicines are also used for supportive care. Homeopathic medicines prescribed on constitutional grounds are also used in supportive and palliative treatments for patients with malignant disease. It is obvious that this method is very flexible one, without the burdens of complex ‘principles’, ‘laws’ and ‘theories’. The Banerji Protocols of Treatment is claimed by its proponents to be scientific, logical and based on all modern diagnostic tools and is very realistic.

A very important point to be noted in this regard is that the proponents of ‘banerji protocols’ do not make tall scholarly claims about their ‘method’, or construct speculative ‘theories’ to justify their method. Being a ‘practice-oriented’ method, evolved from ‘practical experience, they do not try to answer the fundamental questions such as ‘what are the active principles of potentized drugs’ or ‘what is the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure’.  They frankly admit that their method is “based on years of clinical experiments and observations” only. Their method is practice-oriented and result-oriented. Nothing more, nothing less. There lies the strength and weakness of ‘banerji protocols’.

Viewing from MIT perspective, I am happy to say that ‘banerji protocols’ is fully endorsed by scientific knowledge of homeopathy, even though they are not bothered about such a theoretical endorsement.

Classical homeopaths raise objections against ‘banerji protocols’ on various points, accusing that the ‘protocols’ go against all ‘fundamental laws and principles’ taught by ‘masters’ and ‘stalwarts’. Their main objections are regarding the method of prescribing on the basis of ‘pathology and diagnosis’, defying the classical principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’. Another objection is that by using ‘multiple drugs’ and ‘frequent repetitions’, banerji protocol contravenes the principles of ‘single drug’ and ‘single dose’. ‘Mixing’, ‘combinations’ and ‘alternations’ of remedies are also considered to be contradicting the ‘fundamental laws’ of homeopathy. Other grave accusations are  that banerji protocol ignores the concepts of ‘homeopathic aggravations’, ‘drug relationships’, ‘suppressions’, ‘theory of miasms’, ‘constitutions’ and ‘directions of cure’.

Even though the proponents of banerji protocols are least bothered about these accusations leveled against them, concentrating only on ‘results’ and ‘cures’, I think MIT concepts have already answered them in most rational and scientific terms.  Understanding  the scientific explanations of homeopathy proposed by MIT will enable homeopaths to learn, explain and apply ‘banerji protocols’ more rationally, scientifically and effectively

What is MIT?

MIT or Molecular Imprints Therapeutics refers to a scientific hypothesis that proposes a rational model for biological mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics.

According to MIT hypothesis, potentization involves a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, where in the conformational details of individual drug molecules are ‘imprinted’ or engraved as hydrogen-bonded three dimensional nano-cavities into a supra-molecular matrix of water and ethyl alcohol, through a process of molecular level ‘host-guest’ interactions. These ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’ are the active principles of post-avogadro dilutions used as homeopathic drugs.

Due to ‘conformational affinity’, molecular imprints can act as ‘artificial key holes’ or ‘ligand binds’ for the specific drug molecules used for imprinting, and for all pathogenic molecules having functional groups ‘similar’ to those drug molecules. When used as therapeutic agents, molecular imprints selectively bind to the pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity and deactivate them, thereby relieving the biological molecules from the inhibitions or blocks caused by pathogenic molecules. According to MIT hypothesis, this is the biological mechanism of high dilution therapeutics involved in homeopathic cure.

According to MIT hypothesis, ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ means, diseases expressed through a particular group of symptoms could be cured by ‘molecular imprints’ forms of drug substances, which in ‘molecular’ or crude forms could produce ‘similar’ groups of symptoms in healthy individuals. ‘Similarity’ of drug symptoms and diseaes indicates ‘similarity’ of pathological molecular inhibitions caused by drug molecules and pathogenic molecules, which in turn indicates conformational ‘similarity’ of functional groups of drug molecules and pathogenic molecules. Since molecular imprints of ‘similar’ molecules can bind to ‘similar’ ligand molecules by conformational affinity, they can act as therapeutic agents when applied as indicated by ‘similarity of symptoms’.

No body in the whole history could so far propose a hypothesis about homeopathy as scientific, rational and perfect as MIT, explaining the molecular process involed in potentization, and the biological mechanism involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’, in a way fitting well to modern scientific knowledge system.

‘Single drug/multiple drug’ issue:

When you understand MIT, and start perceiving potentized drugs in terms of diverse types of ‘molecular imprints’ as the ‘active principles’ they contain, you will realize that all controversies over ‘single/multiple’ drug  issue leveled against ‘Banerji protocols become totally irrelevant.

According to MIT view, ‘similimum’ essentially means a drug substance that can provide the specific molecular imprints required to remove the particular molecular errors that caused the particular disease condition in the particular patient. Whatever be the ‘method’ by which the drug is selected, similimum is a similimum if it serves the purpose of curing the patient when administered in potentized form.

Since ‘multiple’ molecular errors exist in any patient in a particular point of time, expressed through ‘multiple’ groups of symptoms, he will inevitably need ‘multiple’ molecular imprints to remove them. If potentized form of a ‘single’ medicinal substance can provide all those ‘multiple’ molecular imprints, that ‘single’ drug substance will be enough. If we could not find a ‘single’ drug substance that contain ‘all’ the ‘multiple’ molecular imprints required by the patient as indicated by the ‘symptom groups’, we will have to include ‘multiple’ drug substances in our prescription. It is the constituent molecular imprints contained in our particular prescription that matter.

Important point is, we have to ensure that our prescription supplies all the diverse types of molecular imprints required for deactivating all the diverse types of pathogenic molecules existing in the patient, as indicated by the diverse groups of subjective and objective symptoms expressed by him. If we could find a single drug preparation that could supply all the molecular imprints required by the patient I am dealing with, we can use that single drug preparation only. If we do not find such a single drug, we have to include as many number of drug preparations as required, in order to provide all the molecular imprints needed to remove all the molecular errors in the patient.

‘Single/multiple’ drug controversy never bothers one who understands this scientific approach proposed by MIT, as we start thinking in terms of molecular imprints- not in terms of drug names. Actually, a drug becomes ‘single’,  if it contains ‘single’ type of molecular imprints only. IF a drug contains more than one type of molecular imprints,  it is a compound drug, even if it is known by a ‘single’ drug name, prepared from a ‘single’ source material, kept in a ‘single’ bottle, consumed as a ‘single’ unit for ‘drug proving’, or considered by ‘masters’ as ‘single’ drug.

When we consume a complex drug substance in crude form, it is absorbed into the blood as various individual chemical molecules contained in it. It is these individual chemical molecules that interact with various biological molecules. Different molecules act up on different biological targets according to the molecular affinities of their functional groups. Biological molecules are inhibited, resulting in errors in the biochemical pathways mediated by those biological molecules. Such molecular level errors in biological processes cascades into a series of molecular errors, which are expressed through various groups of subjective and objective symptoms.

It is obvious that what we consider as the symptoms of that drug substance  are actually the sum total of different symptom groups, representing entirely different molecular errors produced in entirely different biological molecules, by the actions of entirely different chemical molecules contained in the crude drug.

We have to remember, there is no such a thing called nux vomica molecule or pulsatilla molecule- only individual chemical molecules contained in nux vomica or pulsatilla tinctures. Each constituent molecule has its own specific chemical structure and properties. They act on different biological targets by their chemical properties.

Each individual chemical molecule contained in a complex crude drug substance acts as an individual drug. That means, nux vomica or pulsatilla are not single drugs as we are taught, but  compound drugs.      Classical homeopaths may find it difficult to accept this fact, as it contradicts with their beliefs as well as the lessons they are taught. But it is the scientific fact.

From scientific point of view of pharmaceutical chemistry, a drug is a biologically active unit contained in a substance used as therapeutic agent. It is the structure and properties of that chemical molecule that decides its medicinal properties and therapeutic actions. if such as substance contains only one type of biologically active unit, it is a single drug. If it contains different types of biologically active units, it is a compound drug.  It is obvious that most of the drugs we use in homeopathy – especially drugs of biological origin and complex minerals- contain diverse types of biologically active units, and hence they cannot be considered single drugs.

Molecular imprinting happens as individual molecules, and as such, potentized drugs prepared from a single drug substance will contain diverse types of molecular imprints representing the diverse types of individual constituent molecules contained in the substance. Those molecular imprints also act as individual units when applied in the organism. Hence, potentized drugs prepared by using a complex, seemingly single drug substance is actually a compound drug, containing diverse types of biologically active units, or  ‘molecular imprints’.

Issue of ‘frequent repetition of doses’:

Another objection raised by classical homeopaths against ‘Banerji protocols’ is regarding frequent repetition of doses. “Single dose and wait” is considered by many homeopaths to be the golden law of homeopathic prescription. According to them, repetition of doses at frequent intervals is said to be harmful.

MIT differs with Classical Homeopathy on this point also. I think many a excellent homeopathic prescriptions are spoiled only due to our ‘theoretical’ hesitation to repeat the doses in adequate intervals, and these failures are wrongly attributed to  ‘wrong selection of similimum’ or ‘wrong selection of potency’. We could have avoided such failures by repeating the doses frequently so as to maintain the drug action at optimum levels to produce  a complete cure.

My concepts regarding ‘repetitions’ come from the scientific understanding of potentization as ‘molecular imprinting’ and the active principles of potentized medicines as ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent drug molecules used for potentization. You cannot follow me without understanding the concept of ‘molecular imprints’.

‘Molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs act by binding to the pathological molecules having ‘complementary’ configuration, thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions. Same time, these ‘molecular imprints’ could be anti-doted or deactivated by  molecules or ions having complementary configurations. That means, ‘molecular imprints’ we introduce  into the body get deactivated by pathological molecules or other molecules having configurational affinity. Molecules and ions of vegetable alkaloids, enzymes, food additives, environmental toxins, infectious agents, bacterial-viral toxins and a host of other agents may antidote these ‘molecular imprints’. Hence, it is necessary to replenish the supply of ‘molecular imprints’ at frequent intervals to ensure a complete cure. That is my point in favour of frequent repetitions.

Homeopathic ‘aggravations’:

Classical homeopaths accuse that ‘banerji protocols’ do not address the issue of homeopathic aggravations properly. MIT has well studied rational explanations about the phenomenon known as ‘homeopathic aggravation’ also.  It is true that in many instances we experience such aggravation of symptoms after prescribing homeopathic medicines. Some homeopaths believe that aggravations occur due to wrong prescriptions, whereas some others consider it happening as part of curative process due to ‘exact’ prescriptions. Some homeopaths also try to differentiate between ‘medicinal’ aggravations which are harmful, and ‘homeopathic’ aggravations which are welcome.

As per MIT view, such ‘aggravations’ are not due to ‘prescribing wrong drugs’ or ‘exact drugs’, but due to prescribing drugs that cover only part of the ‘symptom complexes’ present in the patient. To follow what I say, one should be well aware of the concepts of ‘molecular errors’ underlying pathology, as well as ‘molecular imprints’ present in potentized medicines. As per our view, an individual will be having multitudes of ‘molecular errors’ caused by binding of diverse types of pathogenic molecules on different biological molecules. Each individual ‘molecular error’ may be expressed in the form of specific subjective and objective ‘symptom complexes’. If we select a drug as a similimum on the basis of some of the leading symptoms only, ignoring other symptoms, that similimum in fact covers only some of the molecular errors. The ‘molecular imprints’ contained in that similimum may remove those molecular errors only. But other molecular errors remain. The ‘symptom complexes’ representing those remaining molecular errors would become more expressive and come to the fore. In the absence of scientific understanding regarding the molecular processes behind this phenomenon, we happen to interpret these new expressions as ‘homeopathic aggravation’.

Most of us would have experienced some initial aggravations followed by complete relief. We should perceive ‘molecular errors’ not as singular or static events. A particular molecular error caused by a particular pathogenic molecule may result in cascading of new molecular errors. It is like a traffic block in a city. A small traffic block may cause cascading of traffic blocks, ultimately resulting in total failure of traffic system in the city. When a molecular error occurs in a particular biochemical pathway in the organism, it may affect other related pathways also. That is why diseases progress expressing trains of new symptoms. When we start removing these molecular blocks, there may be readjustments happening in all these related biochemical pathways, which may appear as aggravations of symptoms. That is part of normal curative process.

That means, when studying the phenomena of ‘homeopathic aggravations”, both chances will have to be considered; “re-adjustments’ happening in various biochemical pathways as part of curative process, as well as ‘appearing of residual symptoms’ because of prescription being partial.

When we follow the total cure method proposed by MIT, we prescribe a combination of drugs that would contain all the ‘molecular imprints’ required to rectify all the ‘molecular errors’ covering all ‘symptom complexes’ expressed by the individual. Hence, so-called ‘homeopathic aggravations’ are never experienced in total cure prescriptions.

Homeopathic case follow up consists of watching for residual symptoms and emerging symptoms, and re-adjusting prescriptions as indicated by them. After making a homeopathic prescription, whether it be ‘single’ or ‘multiple’, and ensuring that the doses are used in right potencies and repeated in optimum frequencies, the physician should see the patient at reasonable intervals and carefully watch how the case is progressing.

MIT advises to periodically watch for ‘residual’ symptoms that do not subside, as well as newly ’emerging’ symptoms. If a particular ‘group of symptoms’ remain in spite of frequent repetitions of doses for a reasonable period, that means our prescription failed to provide the particular ‘molecular imprints’ required to remove the molecular inhibitions underlying that particular ‘group of symptoms’. Repertorise using those ‘residual’ symptoms, find a similimum for them, and add it to the original prescription.

If new symptoms ’emerge’, and they are not subsiding within a reasonable period, that means some ‘hidden’ molecular inhibitions not covered by the original prescription has come to the forefront during the removal of some other molecular errors. Find a new similimum for these newly emerged symptoms and add it to the original prescription. We will have to continue this constant watch for ‘residual’ symptoms and ’emerging’ symptoms and adjust prescriptions all through the whole course of treatment, in order to ensure a total cure.

Please note, observation of ‘banerji protocols’ that “mixing of drugs  have special advantages in treatment, so that the aggravation due to drugs can be checked, side effects of the medicines can be abated, quick and uneventful recovery can be ensured in a much shorter time” fully agree with the theoretical stand taken by MIT concepts on this issue.

Concept of ‘complementary prescriptions’:

According to MIT view, a ‘single drug’ being 100% similimum for a patient is almost like an utopian concept. Nobody can find a drug that is 100% similimum for a given case. We can find only a ‘most appropriate’ similimum. Hence, offering ‘total cure’ for a patient with ‘single’ drug is practically impossible, whatever the claims are.

An individual will be having diverse types of ‘molecular errors’ in him, with diverse types of pathological conditions, expressed through different groups of subjective and objective symptoms. These molecular errors may belong to genetic, miasmatic, environmental, infectious, emotional, nutritional or such diverse causative factors.

When we match the symptom picture of a given patient with symptom picture of drugs in our material medica to determine a similimum, we are actually matching individual molecular errors in the organism with individual drug molecules contained in the drugs. A drug that contains maximum types of ‘molecular imprints’ matching to maximum types of molecular errors in the organism is considered to be ‘most appropriate ‘similimum. No drug would contain ‘all’ the molecular imprints required to rectify ‘all’ the molecular errors existing in a given patient. Hence, any similimum we select would be only a ‘partial’ similimum for the patient. As such, a ‘single’ drug can never ‘cure’ a patient in his ‘totality’.  The similimum we selected would remove only the molecular errors matching to the molecular imprints contained in it, and hence, it would offer only partial cure.

For a ‘total’ cure, we will have to select additional drugs that would contain molecular imprints matching to the remaining molecular errors, which could be selected on the basis of symptoms that are not covered by the first similimum.

Here comes the relevance of the concept of ‘complementary’ prescriptions, especially if the physician is averse to using multiple drugs in a ‘single’ prescription. The concept of ‘complementary prescriptions’ should not be confused with the concept of ‘complementary drugs’. Concept of ‘complementary drugs’ is based on the arbitrary theory that such and such drugs are ‘complementary’ to such and such drugs. It is not based on study of similarity of symptoms. But the concept of ‘complementary prescription’ is based on the real study of symptoms in the patient that are not covered by the similimum selected as the first prescription.

In my opinion, the existing concept of ‘complementary drugs’ should be replaced with a new concept of ‘complementary prescriptions’, which seems to be more scientific and logical.

There is no need of any kind of restrictions for the number of ‘complementary prescriptions’. If the first ‘complementary prescription’ is not enough to complete the cure, we can look for a second ‘complementary prescription’ on the basis of remaining symptoms. We can ensure ‘total cure’ for the patient through systematic application of this ‘complementary prescritption’ method. Whether the ‘complementary prescriptions’ are applied along with or after the first prescription, could be decided by the physician according to his perceptions.

‘Banerji protocols’ also utilize the strategy ‘complementary prescriptions’, even though without any theoretical explanation or justification as MIT do. But in this case also, their ‘experience-based’ approach is rational and very close to that of MIT.

‘Combinations’ of potentized drugs:

Another serious objection against ‘banerji protocols’ from the side of classical homeopaths is regarding ‘mixing’ or ‘combinations’ of potentized drugs. On the other hand, MIT says that it is permissible  for to use combinations of ‘molecular imprinted’ forms (potencies above Avogadro limit- 12c and onwards) of two or more homeopathic drugs selected on the basis of analysis of totality of symptoms, miasmatic study and biochemical evaluation of the individual patient.

MIT view is that  it is effective as palliatives to use ‘disease-specific’ combinations of ‘molecular imprinted’ forms (potencies above Avogadro limit- 12c and onwards) of two or more homeopathic drugs selected on the basis of common symptoms and biochemical evaluations of specific diseases. But such ‘disease-specific’ combinations will not offer ‘total cure’ for patients, without incorporating drugs selected on the basis of symptoms also. This approach also is very close to the method of ‘banerji protocols’ that makes ‘specific’ prescriptions based on ‘disease diagnosis’ as well as symptomatology..

I am talking on the basis of my concepts of ‘molecular imprinting’ involved in potentization. I perceive all crude drugs as combinations of diverse types of constituent drug molecules. I perceive even the so called potentized ‘single’ drug as combinations of diverse types of individual drug molecules contained in the drug substance used for potentization.

My stand on this issue is based on my understanding of diseases as multitudes of pathological derangement in the organism, caused by diverse of types of molecular inhibitions caused by different types of pathogenic agents, and therapeutics involves the removal of those inhibitions using appropriate molecular imprints.

I am talking on the basis of my understanding of ‘similia similibus curentur’ as: “Pathological molecular inhibitions caused by specific pathogenic molecules and expressed through a certain group of subjective and objective symptoms, could be removed by applying ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules that could create similar molecular inhibitions and symptoms in a healthy organism when applied in crude form.

That makes the difference between my views and classical homeopathy. I know, homeopaths trained and experienced in classical homeopathy cannot agree with my views on this topic.

Role of ‘Diagnosis’ in making homeopathic prescriptions:

‘Banerji Protocols’ is based on specifics determined on the basis of ‘diagnosis’, and as such, they give utmost importance to diagnostic techniques and tools. Since homeopathy is practiced on the basis of therapeutic principle of ‘Similia Similibus Curentu’, many homeopaths think that clinical diagnosis has no place in homeopathic practice.They consider these factors only of lesser value, helpful only for ‘patient satisfaction’ or ‘prognosis’.

MIT says that  we should perceive the information provided by modern technological advancements and laboratory investigations as part of collecting ‘objective’ symptoms, and learn to utilize them in the search for similimum.

All diagnostic tools provided by ‘modern technology’ are only extensions of physician’s sense organs, which help in making ‘enhanced’ observation of his patient’s symptoms. Similar to the ordinary spectacle that enhances the vision or stethoscope enhances the sounds, laboratory tests and sophisticated equipments ‘enhances’ our observation. As such, information provided by these tests and tools should be considered as ‘Objective Symptoms’ similar to any other objective symptoms, and can be utilized in finding similimum. Only problem is, since our drug provings were not conducted insuch a technologically advanced environment, they do not provide these types of ‘enhanced symptoms’. Due to ill-equipped drug- provings so far conducted, we have no a systematic knowledge of such symptoms now available in our materia medica. But, we can collect such clinical observations from daily practice, and enrich our materia medica.

I hope future drug proving protocols will incorporate modern technology, and collect these ‘enhanced observations’ also and add them to future materia medica compilations. Then, homeopathy will be in a position to utilize these information also in finding appropriate similimum.

I am saying lab investigations should be made part of drug proving protocol, and such information included in materia medica as ‘symptoms’, so that they could be used for finding similimum. That is why I said lab investigations should be part of ‘homeopathic case taking’, not part of ‘homeopathic practice’. I wanted to highlight that difference.

Information obtained from such investigations could be utilized as ‘Objective Symptoms’, I mean.  That means, we can make ‘homeopathic prescriptions’ based on lab investigations also, along with other symptoms

‘Similimum means ‘Similarity of Functional groups’:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issue of ‘Directions of Cure’:

Some simple observations of Hahnemann and Hering regarding the process of cure were later named by Kent as hering’s laws, and raised to the status of ‘fundamental laws’ of homeopathy. Our teachers, who were mostly kentians, promoted these ‘laws’ as an ‘essential’ aspect of cure, and propagated the idea that every genuine homeopathic cures should ‘obey’ these rules- if not, it will not be considered a ‘genuine’ cure!

The four ‘laws’ now known as ‘herings laws’ are actually some casual observations made by herinh regarding ‘order of cure’ while explaining the demonstrate the homeopathic curative process. No where he said these are ‘fundamental laws’ or ‘essential’ laws. According to available documents and historical evidences, heringr his great contemporaries never mentioned or considered ‘direction of cure’ as a ‘fundamental law’ 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. He taught to understand and apply these ‘laws’ in a mechanical way. He taught homeopaths to ‘follow ‘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 which rely more upon ‘hering laws’ than ‘similia similibu curentur’ in their methods of therapeutic applications.

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

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

Following are the four observations hering used to demonstrate that ‘curative processes happen in a direction just reverse to disease processes’, and later considered by KENT as ‘Hering laws of direction of cure’:

In curative process,

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

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

‘Curative processes happen in a direction just reverse to disease processes’- that is the sum total of Hering’s observations regarding ‘directions of cure’.The four ‘laws’ now known as ‘herings laws’ are actually the working examples he used to demonstrate this fundamental observation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously, ‘travelling’ 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 this ‘travelling’ 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 happen 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.

Classical homeopaths totally failed to comprehend the biochemistry involved in homeopathic therapeutics, and hence could not interpret the ‘directions of disease and cure’ in relation with the interactions of biochemical pathways.

Fear of ‘Suppressions’:

Fear of ‘suppression of disease’ that may happen from ‘improper’ use of homeopathic drugs is the most prominent symptom of any ‘classical homeopath’, which indicates severe deficiency of scientific knowledge regarding the biochemistry of life, disease and cure. This ‘phobia’ is ‘inherited’ through generations of homeopaths, from ‘teachers’ to ‘students’, and ‘gurus’ to ‘disciples’. Modern ‘Gurus’ spin fanciful ‘theories of suppressions’, write and sell heavy books on their ‘theories’, and fly around the globe to conduct ‘expensive’ seminars to ‘educate’ the homeopathic community for the sole purpose of saving humanity from grave dangers imposed by homeopathic ‘suppressions’.

Those who are severely afflicted with this ‘deficiency syndrome’ will hesitate to prescribe even a single dose of potentized drug to their patient, fearing it may ‘drive in’ the disease from ‘external parts’ to ‘vital’ internal organs if the prescription somehow happens not to be the ‘most appropriate similimum’. They would shudder with fear of dangers of ‘suppression’ if somebody says they have applied some external ointments on eczematous lesion on the skin. According to them, homeopathic drugs are so ‘powerful’ and ‘dangerous’ that an inappropriate or untimely dose of a potentized drug may even kill the patient, or create irreversible disabilities. ‘Better not to prescribe, than prescribing wrongly and causing suppressions’.

In ‘chronic diseases’, hahnemann was talking about the chronic constitutional effects of infectious diseases such as itch, syphilis and gonorrhoea. He thought that these chronic disease dispositions caused by infectious diseases were due to their ‘suppression’ through faulty allopathic medications and external applications. He called these ‘chronic dispositions’ as ‘miasms’. Actually, these chronic dispositions after infectious diseases were not due to any suppression, but the ‘off-target’ effects of antibodies formed against infections. Hahnemann could not understand this ‘antibody factor’ of chronic miasms. That is due to the historical limitations of scientific knowledge available during his period. ‘Historical limitations’ is different from being ‘wrong’.

Modern theories of suppressions are different. They are theorizing about suppressions caused by ‘improper’ application of homeopathic drugs. Those theories are different from what hahnemann considered suppressions.

Theories of suppression as ‘driving in’ of diseases to ‘inner vital organs’ by application of ‘wrong’ drugs is based on an exaggerated application of hering laws and a total misinterpretation of embryology. I was examining thse theoreticalfoundations of modern ‘theory of suppression’. Hering law is over extended, and ’embryological layers’ is mis-interpreted. Logical scrutiny shows that both these theoretical foundations of ‘theory of suppression’ are wrong. That is my point here.

Concept of ‘suppressions’ is based on unscientific understanding of disease, cure, potentization and ‘similia similibus curentur. Scientific awareness is the only way to free homeopaths from the persistent fear of ‘suppressions’, and enable them to make logical prescriptions without any hesitations and forebodings. Understanding the biochemistry of life, disease and cure is essential for this. Homeopaths should realize the exact process of molecular imprinting involved in potentization, and perceive potentized drugs in terms of constituent molecular imprints. They should also learn the molecular mechanism of homeopathic therapeutics as removal of pathological molecular inhibitions by the action of molecular imprints.  Homeopaths would then realize that no potentized homeopathic drugs can make any ‘suppression’ or ‘dangerous consequences’. If the selection of similimum was wrong, it will not act. If the selected drug is ‘partial similimum’, it would give partial cure. In that case, cure can be completed by using additional drugs, which are indicated by totality of remaining symptoms.

Are those ‘Laws’ and ‘Principles’ ‘fundamental’ and immutable?

‘Homeopathy  is taught as a closed system of eternally immutable ‘laws’, ‘rules’, ‘principles’ and ‘methods’ every ‘true’ homeopath is bound to ‘obey’. We hear ‘seven cardinal principles of hahnemann’, ‘hering laws’, ‘kents observations’ and many other ‘theories’ that rule the practice of homeopathy. Anybody violating or thinking beyond these ‘fundamental laws’ are considered to be ‘wrong homeopaths’. And they ask science to explain “every aspect” of homeopathy without “distorting” its “fundamentals”!

We should remember, no ‘masters’ so far knew what really happens during potentization. Nobody so far knew what are the exact active principles of potentized drugs. Nobody so far knew the exact molecular level mechanism by which the active principles of potentized drugs interact with the biological organism and produce a therapeutic effect. Only things our masters actually knew was the objective natural phenomena of ‘likes curing likes’ and ‘high dilution effects’.

Everything else were mere speculations. Speculations based on unscientific philosophy of ‘dynamism’ and ‘vitalism’. All ‘laws’, ‘rules’, ‘methods’ and ‘doctrines’ we consider as ‘cardinal principles of homeopathy evolved from these speculative theories. All ‘directions’ regarding ‘doses’, repetitions’, ‘single drugs’, ‘follow ups’ and everything else were formulated without clearly knowing the substances we are actually dealing with or how they actually work. They were based on misinterpreted ‘experiences’ of ‘stalwarts’ with historically limited scientific knowledge.

Once we acquire scientific knowledge regarding the exact processes involved in potentization, active principles of potentized drugs and the molecular mechanism of their therapeutic action, all the existing ‘methods’, ‘laws’, ‘rules’ and ‘principles’ are bound to change. New ‘principles’ and ‘methods’ will evolve. That means, we will have to discard, change or ‘distort’ many things so far considered as ‘fundamentals’ of homeopathy.

I am talking about ‘principles’ and ‘methods’ of homeopathic practice such as ‘dose’ and ‘repetitions’ on the basis of my scientific understanding of potentization as ‘molecular imprinting’, active principles of potentized drugs as ‘molecular imprints’, and homeopathic therapeutics as removal of biochemical inhibitions. My explanations cannot be expected to be strictly in accordance with what you consider inevitable ‘laws’ of homeopathy.

Acquiring a scientific understanding of the phenomena involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’, and applying that knowledge judiciously for curing the sick- that should be the only ‘fundamental rule’ that guide a homeopath.

‘Likes cures likes’ and ‘high dilution effects’ represent the objective part of homepathy, which are concerned with truthful observations of natural phenomena involved in the process of ‘cure’. This is the strong and rational aspect of homeopathy that have to be preserved, explored and advanced into more and more perfection.

The theoretical explanatory part of homeopathy, which is based on totally unscientific and irrational philosophy of ‘dynamism’ and ‘vitalism’ of eighteenth century europe, as well as the ‘rules’, ‘laws’ and ‘methods’ formulated accordingly, is the real stumbling block that prevents this wonderful therapeutic art from advancing into a scientific medical system.

We have to preserve and strengthen the rational objective aspect of homeopathy, and explain it in terms of modern scientific knowledge. We should show the audacity to discard its irrational and unscientific theoretical parts. Once we understand the real science involved in the phenomena of ‘likes cure likes’ and ‘potentization’, a whole new set of practical ‘rules’ and ‘laws’ would spontaneously evolve.

In the preface to the third edition of ORGANON, Dr Hahnemann made the following statement:

“In this third edition I have not refrained from making any alterations and emendations suggested by increased knowledge and necessitated by further experience.”

This statement is a fitting answer to those ‘dogmatic’ homeopaths who argue nothing could be changed or updated in homeopathy.

Hahenemann advises us not to “refrain” from making “alterations and emendations”, if “suggested by increased knowledge and necessitated by further experience.”

Many homeopaths talk about ‘seven cardinal principles of hahnemann’, and believe that without following these ‘cardinal’ principles one cannot be a ‘true’ homeopath.

Did hahnemann ever say there are ‘seven’ cardinal principles in homeopathy? Kindly verify for references from hahnemann’s original works. When we say homeopaths should ‘follow’ certain ‘cardinal principles of hahnemann’, we should inquire about the original reference where hahnemann said these are the cardinal principles.

Actually hahnemann did not make a ‘list’ of principles. He made some objective observations regarding the phenomenon of ‘cure’, and inferred that an objective ‘law’ is working under this phenomenon. He called it ‘similia similibus curentur’.

While experimenting with smaller and smaller doses of drug substances to avoid the bad effects of crude drugging prevalent in conventional medicine during that period, he noticed that even highly diluted drugs have medicinal effects, even though there existed least chance for medicinal substance to be present in them

Then he took up the task of explaining these two phenomena ( similia similibus curentur and high dilution effects) using the existing scientific knowledge available to him, thereby trying to build up a simple, safe and effective therapeutic system.

Since the scientific knowledge system was in its primitive stage of evolution during that time, it was difficult to explain these observed phenomena using existing tool-kit of science. In the absence of necessary scientific knowledge available for accomplishing this task, he was compelled to speculate using philosophical concepts such as ‘dynamism’ or ‘vitalism’. Actually, ORGANON represents his highly intellectual attempts to explain his fundamental observations regarding phenomena of cure.

In organon, he discussed many things, from ‘vital force theory’ to ‘mesmerism’. That does not mean everything he discussed are ‘cardinal’ principles of homeopathy. If you want to identify such ‘cardinal’ or ‘basic’ things of homeopathy, they are ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’. They are the ‘fundamental objective observations’ of natural phenomena. Everything else is philosophical speculations, which are bound to change as our scientific knowledge advances.

Actually, the ‘seven cardinal principles’ were the invention of some later interpreters- not of hahnemann. Somebody understood homeopathy that way- that is all. You can ‘filter’ any number of ‘cardinal’ principles from hahnemann’s works, according to your perspectives and understandings. If you want to see ‘vital force’ as cardinal principle of homeopathy, somebody else could say ‘mesmerism’ is also a cardinal principle of homeopathy. You can list ‘seven’ or ‘seventy’.

Somebody involved in the making of homeopathic curriculum for Indian universities happened to be influenced by this ‘seven cardinal principles’ and included it in the syllabus. Indian students were taught that to be a ‘true’ homeopath, they should ‘follow’ these ‘seven’ principles. If it was part of your syllabus, somebody should have asked the teachers for original references from hahnemann and verify whether hahnemann did say these ‘seven’ are ‘cardinal principles’ of homeopathy. That is the way inquisitive minds should work and learn more and more deep.

According to my analysis, the only ‘cardinal’ or ‘basic’ things in homeopathy are ‘two’ fundamental observations hahnemann made regarding the objective phenomena of ‘cure’. They are ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’. Everything else is totally unscientific speculations and theorizations made in an attempt to explain these ‘basic’ observations. There is nothing ‘cardinal’ in those observations. It is our duty to explain hahnemann’s ‘fundamental observations’ in terms of modern scientific knowledge system.

I would like to call ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ and ‘Potentization’ as fundamental ‘observations’ of homeopathy, rather than using the term ‘fundamental principles’. That would be more close to truth.

Hahnemann made two important observations regarding therapeutics 250 years ago:

  1. Diseases with specific symptoms can be cured by drugs that can produce similar symptoms in healthy individuals. He called it ‘similia similibus curentur’.
  2. When used according to ‘similia similibus curentur’, dug substances can act as powerful therapeutic agents even in high dilutions through a process of serial ‘dilution and succussion’. He called this process as ‘potentization’.

These two are the main ‘observations’ made by Hahnemann, which are known as fundamental principles of Homeopathy.

Hahnemann tried to explain these observations in terms of scientific and philosophical knowledge available to him in that point of time. Organon consists of these theoretical explanations and speculations. Since scientific knowledge was in its primitive stage at that time, Hahnemann’s explanations were bound to bear that limitations. ORGANON contains a lot of theorizations and speculations that do not agree with, or go against modern scientific understanding.

Equipped with modern scientific knowledge and its tools, we are now in a far better position than Samuel Hahnemann to explain the phenomena he observed 250 years ago. Now we can explain ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’ more scientifically, rationally and logically. With full respect the great genius of our master, we should be truthful and bold enough to discard those evidently unscientific theoretical speculations of ORGANON.

These two fundamental observations were based on experiences, experiments and logical evaluations of objective phenomena of nature done by a great intellectual person. but the ‘principles’ he used to explain these objective phenomena were unscientific, obviously due to the limitations of scientific knowledge available to him at that time. We should accept his observations, but judiciously discard or modify his unscientific principles.

Some people consider each and every word uttered by our ‘master’ as ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy. Some others would even include the words of other ‘stalwarts’ like Kent, Herring and the like also in the category of ‘fundamental’ principles.

All these ‘theories’ are only philosophical explanations, conjectures, interpretations, opinions and empirical conclusion based on personal experiences of ‘stalwarts’ and ‘masters’. They are not ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy.

If you understand the scientific meaning of ‘similia similibus curentur’ and ‘potentization’, and judiciously apply them for curing the patients, you are a ‘true homeopath’, even if you do not ‘follow’ the ‘seven cardinal principles’ invented by unscientific interpreters of hahnemann.

A ‘true’ homeopath is one who understands and applies homeopathy ‘scientifically- not one who learns homeopathy dogmatically and applies it blindly.

The main point I raise here is whether the concept of “seven cardinal principles” originally belongs to hahnemann or his later interpreters. Hahnemann said many things in his books, from ‘similia’ to ‘mesmerism’. Who decided only these ‘seven’ are ‘cardinal’ and others are not? What is the logic behind such a slection? Who did it?

Issue of ‘Drug Relationship’:

Drug relationship is a subject about which most homeo practitioners are very much worried and confused. Some practitioners very much rely upon ‘drug relationships’ even in deciding their treatment protocols. Concepts such as ‘complementary’, ‘inimical’, ‘antidotal’ etc. are frequently utilized in everyday practice. Some doctors even deviate from the theory of similimum, due to their over indulgence with ‘drug relationship’ protocols. When prescribing a drug based on its so-called complementary relationship to the earlier prescriptions, we forget to consider whether it is a similimum by totality of symptoms. Yet, we call it ‘classical’ homeopathy. When searching through the literature and authorities regarding drug relationships, it will be seen that no serious scientific studies have been done on this subject. Most of the drug relationships are proposed by empirical clinical observations of practitioners, and not corroborated by scientific studies or evidences. More over, practitioners who are not much bothered over this relationships between drugs swear that their experiences prove otherwise. Some homeopaths prescribe so-called inimical drugs even simultaneously or alternatingly, and get expected clinical results.

We have already seen during our previous deliberations that in homoeopathic potencies above 12C, there is no chance of drug molecules to exist. These preparations contain only hydrosomes or molecular imprints of constituent molecules of the drug substance subjected to potentization. Molecular imprints are only nanocavities formed by supra-molecular clustering of water and ethyl alcohol. Chemically, they contain only water and ethyl alcohol molecules. Even a given sample of homeopathic potency contains hundreds of types of individual imprints, representing the diverse types of molecules contained in the original drug substance. It is clear that they co-exist without disturbing or influencing each other in anyway, same time preserving their individual properties as molecular imprints of specific drug molecules.

  1. This clearly indicates that highly potentized homoeopathic preparations cannot chemically interact with each other, since they contain no drug molecules. Obviously, they are not likely to engage in any mutual interaction within or outside the organism. They can never antidote or destroy each other.
  2. Same time, the case of mother tinctures and preparations below 12c potencies may be totally different. They contain crude drug molecules, which can interact with each other due to their chemical properties. The concept of ‘drug relationships’ may be valid in the case of these low potencies. Low potencies may be more active than crude drugs, since they contain free molecules and ions.
  3. Low potencies and mother tincture of a drug may antidote higher potencies of same drug, due to the interaction with the hydrosomes which act as counteractive complementary factors to each other.
  4. Same way, low potencies and mother tinctures of a drug may antidote higher potencies of another drug that may contain similar constituent molecules, due to the interaction with the hydrosomes having counteractive complementary factors relationship. Obviously, drugs containing similar molecules may have more or less similar symptomatology during drug proving.
  5. Higher potencies of a drug may antidote the physiological effects of low potencies and mother tinctures of same drug, due to the interaction with the hydrosomes acting as counteractive complementary factors.
  6. Same way, higher potencies of a drug may antidote low potencies and mother tincture of another drug, that may contain similar constituent molecules, due to the interaction with the counteractive complementary factors contained in the higher potencies.

If there is similarity only between certain types of constituent molecules of two drugs, partial antodoting is possible. That means, molecules having configurational similarity only are subjected to antidoting by this way. Such drugs will have partially similar symptomatologies.

We should be aware of the possibility of dangerous chemical interactions that might result between the constituent drug molecules of different drugs, when we mix or administer two or more mother tinctures and low potency preparations together.

Role of ‘key-note symptoms’ in making homeopathic prescriptions:

A keynote symptom is a specific ‘symptom complex’ of ‘accessory symptoms’ that when appears associated with an abnormal basic symptom in a patient, specifically indicates a particular remedy. these keynote ‘symptom complexes’ are constituted by two or more very characteristic ‘accessory symptoms’ belonging to categories such as causations, locations, presentations, sensations, modalities and concomitants.

A Keynote ‘symptom complex’ becomes more useful in practice, when it contains minimum number of ‘accessory symptoms’ and it indicates minimum number of drugs- preferably SINGLE drug. In such cases, that drug could be prescribed very easily, and with full confidence.

Keynote symptom is a symptom, which if present in a patient, will directly lead us to a specific remedy. That symptom will work as a keynote in deciding a prescription for that case.

Most probably, a ‘keynote’ symptom is a ‘symptom complex’ that represents a specific molecular error produced in the organism by a specific pathogenic molecule. When same ‘keynote’ ‘symptom complex’ is also present in a drug, that shows the drug also contains a constituent molecule similar to that pathogenic molecule, which produced similar molecular errors during drug proving. Due to that similarity, molecular imprints of that particular drug molecules can bind specifically to those pathogenic molecules, there by removing the molecular inhibitions they produced in biological molecules.

‘Totality of symptoms’ in a patient means totality of all the diverse types of ‘symptom complexes’ expressed by the patient, representing all the diverse types of molecular errors produced by all the diverse types of pathogenic molecules.

‘Keynote symptom’ in a patient means a particular ‘symptom complex’ expressed by the patient, representing a particular type of molecular error produced by a particular type of pathogenic molecule.

When finding similimum by ‘totality of symptoms’, we are trying to find a drug that contains maximum number of diverse chemical molecules matching to maximum number of diverse pathogenic molecules that produced the diverse types of molecular errors as well as ‘symptom complexes’ in that particular patient.

When finding similimum by keynote method, we are trying to find a particular drug that contains a particular constituent molecule that is similar to a particular pathogenic molecule that produced a particular molecular in the organism and expressed through a particular ‘symptom complex’.

Keynote prescription tries to address a case by identifying a specific molecular error in the patient, where as totality of symptoms tries to address the case by considering maximum number of diverse molecular errors existing in the patient.

In keynote prescriptions, we select a similimum by considering only specific symptom complex representing a specific molecular error in the patient as a standard single unit, and identifying a drug that could produce symptom complex similar to it during drug proving.

Actually, a keynote symptom is a symptom, which if present in a patient, will directly lead us to a specific remedy. That symptom will work as a keynote in deciding a prescription for that case.

Use of Mother Tinctures:

I am not sure regarding the stand of ‘banerji protocols’ regarding the use of mother tinctures. MIT is of the strong conviction that using mother tinctures cannot be considered as genuine homeopathy, for obvious reasons.

We know that many homeopathic practitioners prescribe plenty of mother tinctures and  low potency preparations. They do very successful ‘practice’ also. But, I am a bit suspicious regarding the desirability of using mother tinctures and low potencies, especially in a routine way for long terms.

It may relieve some of the symptoms, of course. But such relief is allopathic- not homeopathic. Chances of emerging new pathological conditions really exist in such a treatment protocol.

We must not forget that the symptomatologies provided in our materia medica give the list of symptoms that can be generated in healthy persons by the use of these drugs in crude form.  Indiscriminate long-term use of mother tinctures containing plant enzymes, poisonous alkaloids, glycosides and various other phyto-chemical ingredients is an  unpardonable  crime even if it is done in the name of homeopathy. The drug molecules and ions contained in these tinctures might give temporary relief  by nutritional supplementation, or competitive relationship to pathological  molecules due to configurational similarity. But it is evident from their symptomatologies  that those molecules and ions are capable of creating dangerous pathological molecular inhibitions in various bio-chemic channels in the organism. We should never forget that the subjective and objective symptoms provided in our material medica were created by the molecular deviations happened in healthy individuals during drug proving. Hence in my opinion, it is ideal to treat patients using potencies above  12c, which do not contain any trace of the drug molecules of the original drug. If our selection of drug is correct, there is no any chance of failure in such a protocol. Other wise, it will have to be considered as identical to Ayurveda, Allopathy or Herbal treatment. Those who indulge in excessive use of mother tinctures, without bothering  about the constituent drug  molecules and their adverse long term impacts on the organism, are more hazardous to human health than our allopathic counterparts. I humbly request them to think over.

From our materia medica works, it may be understoodthat most of  those people who had participated in proving of  Hydrastis Canadensis developed symptoms of gastric ulcer and hyperacidity along with many other deep seated pathological conditions. Doctors who administer large doses of Hydrastis Tincture to relive gastric symptoms as part of homeopathic treatment should note this point . Of course, we may get temporary relief, by the way of competitive relationships with pathological molecules, due to configurational similarity of drug molecules and pathological molecules. The prolonged use of Hydrastis Tincture not only produce the symptoms mentioned in the materia medica,  but may even induce very serious genetic errors to happen. If  hydrastis is the similimum forthe patient, it will be effective in high potencies. This is real homeopathy.

Please do not be provoked when I say that who give Passiflora for inducing sleep, Rauwolfia for lowering blood pressure and Syzijium for high blood sugar in their tincture form, are not practicing ideal Homeopathy even if they may be wellk nown Homeopaths, producing results.  No homeopath with some common sense, who had carefully read the material medica of Alfalfa will dare to prescribe it as tonics to improve the appetite and general health of innocent children. It is evident from its symptomatology that Alfalfa is capable of producing diabetes, bulimia, and upsetting the normal functioning of kidneys.

Please read the provings of calc fluor and calc phos. They were the symptoms produced in healthy individuals by the action of those substances in molecular form. Symptoms cannot be produced without some molecular level changes in the organism. That means, molecular forms of those substances were capable of producing some harmful changes in biological processes. How can you think those drugs will not produce harmful effects in molecular forms. Fact is fact, what ever people think about them, or what are practiced so far.

We should remember that there was no exact knowledge regarding the long term evil effects of many drugs, when many of them were proved and their materia medica prepared. There was least knowledge about the genetic disorders they were likely to produce. It is found in Boecricke Materiamedica that Arsenic Bromide Mother Tincture is indicated for Diebetes. No physician with scientific awareness will even think of prescribing it today.Who will now dare to prescribe Ars iod 3x, Iodum 3x, Sulphur Q, or various compounds of Mercury and Lead only because they are found in our text books of Materia Medica?

We know of homeopaths who make their patients consume for prolonged periods, the mother tinctures of several drugs, including various patented combinations flooding the market in the name of Homeopathy. How can Homeopaths prescribe them without any prick of conscience? Those who love homoeopathy should take urgent initiative to prevent such tendencies either through awareness programs and campaigns, or through stringent legislational procedures.

How the mother tinctures differ from potentized drugs in their mechanism of therapeutic action, and why potentized drugs are more safe and effective than mother tinctures?

Not only potentized drugs, but mother tinctures and crude drugs also can act as ‘similimum’. But the molecular mechanisms of their therapeutic actions and ultimate outcome are fundamentally different from each other.

Drug molecules contained in mother tinctures and crude drugs ‘compete’ with pathogenic molecules having similar molecular configuration in binding to biological molecules and displace them, thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions. By this ‘competitive’ relationship to pathogenic molecules, mother tinctures and crude drugs can act as similimum and produce therapeutic results.

‘Molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs act by an entirely different molecular mechanism. Molecular imprints binds directly to the pathogenic molecules having configurational affinity and deactivate them, thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions. This is the molecular mechanism involved in the therapeutic action of potentized drugs.

Most notable difference is, drug molecules act as similimum by ‘competitive’ relationship toward pathogenic molecules, whereas ‘molecular imprints’ act by ‘complementary’ relationship.

Since crude drugs and mother tinctures contain drug molecules that can act upon biological molecules, they can also bind to various biological targets in the organism. Obviously, there is always chance for creation of new molecular inhibitions and drug-induced pathologies when we use crude drugs and mother tinctures. That is the draw back of using mother tinctures even if they are similimum.

Advantage of potentized drugs is that they do not contain any drug molecules, but only molecular imprints, which are only supra-molecular clusters of water and alcohol molecules. They can act upon pathogenic molecules only, not upon biological molecules. As such, potentized drugs cannot do any further harm to organism.

What will happen when ‘similimum’ is used in crude or ‘molecular’  forms? How their action will be different from that of potentized forms?

A drug is said to be similimum to a case when the symptoms produced by the disease in the patient is similar to the symptoms that drug could produce in a person without any disease. That means, the drug and the ‘disease-causing agents’ contain some ‘chemical molecules’ or ‘functional groups’ that are similar in conformations so that they could bind to similar molecular targets in the organism and produce similar molecular inhibitions that are expressed through similar subjective and objective symptoms.

When we apply ‘molecular forms’ of similimum in the patient, drug molecules compete with pathogenic molecules for binding to the same biological target molecules. According to the dynamics of biochemistry, such a competitive relationship of drug molecules and pathogenic molecules may result in the removal of inhibitions, if the affinity of drug molecules toward biological targets is higher than the affinity of pathogenic molecules. That means, crude forms of similimum may in certain instances cure the disease by competitive molecular mechanism.

It should be noted that the drug molecules cannot remove the molecular inhibitions if the they are overpowered by pathogenic molecules regarding their affinity towards biological targets so that the competition is not effective. This fact explains why crude forms of similimum fail in curing the disease in most occasions.

Another point to be noted that the crude drug substance contain diverse types of chemical molecules that can bind to various unexpected molecular targets in the organism and produce new molecular inhibitions in them. This fact explains the phenomena known as side effects and bad effects of drugs commonly experienced when using molecular forms of drug substances. That is why I keep on saying that using of mother tinctures and low potencies are undesirable and dangerous.

Similimum potentized above 12c contain no drug molecules, but only molecular imprints of drug molecules. When used as similimum, these molecular imprints act as artificial binding sites or artificial locks for the pathogenic molecules having similar functional groups. Due to this conformational affinity, they can selectively bind to the specific pathogenic molecules, and relieve the biological molecules from pathological inhibitions. This is the molecular mechanism involved in the therapeutic action of similimum in potentized forms. Since they do not contain any chemical molecules other than water and ethyl alcohol, they cannot produce any unwanted molecular inhibitions or side effects. That is why potentized drugs are said to be safe.

That is why we say only potentized drugs are genuine homeopathy, and safer than mother tinctures and molecular forms of drugs.

MIT approach makes homeopathic practice more rational and more scientific:

Once you understand and accept the scientific approach towards homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, instantly you start  experiencing the self-confidence it provides, the great empowerment and transformation it brings to your over-all outlook and practice as a homeopath.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, and practice it accordingly, you will realize that your whole erstwhile perceptions of homeopathy is undergoing a wonderful change- your methods, targets and approaches changing radically. You will realize that you are no more a ‘healer’ practicing a ‘belief healing system’,  but a proud scientific medical professional, capable of understanding and scientifically explaining your tools and principles to anybody. Your language becomes scientific, your thoughts become rational and your explanations becomes logical and convincing. You will no more have to talk about miracles, wonders, riddles and mysteries of homeopathy. Experience this change yourselves!

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you would realize that any individual patient coming to you will have diverse types of molecular errors in him, caused by diverse types of endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules, and as such, diverse types of molecular imprints will be required to remove all these multitudes of molecular inhibitions to effect a complete cure. In most cases, all these diverse molecular imprints required for the patient will not be available in a ‘single’ drug, and hence, we will have to select more than one drug according to similarity of symptom groups, and apply them simultaneously, alternatingly or serially as decided by the physician. In my opinion, there is no harm even if they are applied together.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, all your confusions over ‘miasms’ could be resolved by perceiving miasms as chronic disease dispositions caused by the off-target actions of antibodies generated against exogenous or endogenous proteins including infectious agents. It would help you in scientifically understanding and treating various types of chronic diseases including auto immune diseases

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that concepts such as ‘internal essence of drug substance’, ‘dynamic drug energy’, ‘drug personality’ etc are all scientifically baseless, and that the medicinal property of drug substance is decided by the structure and properties of constituent molecules, where as the medicinal properties of potentized drugs are decided by the 3-d configuration of molecular imprints they contain.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that when applied as similimum, potentized drug does not act as a ‘whole’ unit, but it is the individual constituent ‘molecular imprints’ that independently bind to the pathogenic molecules having configurational affinity, remove pathological molecular inhibitions and cure the disease. You will realize that you need not worry over single/multiple drugs issue any more.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that during ‘drug proving’, drug substance does not act as a ‘whole’ unit, but it is the individual constituent drug molecules that independently act up on the biological molecules, cause molecular inhibitions and produce symptoms.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that since molecular imprints do not interact each other, and since they act as individual units when applied as therapeutic agents, there cannot by any harm even if we mix two or more potentized drugs together, or prescribe them simultaneously- they will work.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that even so-called ‘single drugs’ are not really single, but combinations of diverse types of independent ‘molecular imprints’, representing diverse types of drug molecules, acting as independent units upon pathogenic molecules having configurational affinity and removing molecular inhibitions

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that ‘molecular imprints’ forms of drugs cannot interact each other, and as such, one cannot antidote another, or act inimical to each other.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you will realize that there is no chance of so-called aggravations, suppressions, provings or any other harm even if ‘wrong’ drug, ‘wrong’ potency or ‘untimely repetitions are used, if you are using only ‘molecular imprints’ forms of drugs.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics, you realize that selecting drug, potency, dose and follow up and getting cure are not a so much complex thing as we are made to believe.

Once you understand and accept homeopathy as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics,you realize no more ‘riddles and mysteries’ remain in homeopathy that could not be explained.

Only Molecular Imprints Therapeutics provides a sound explanation of homeopathy, fitting well to modern science and our every day experiences.

Once the scientific knowledge provided by MIT is incorporated into BANERJI PROTOCOLS as its theoretical foundation and its practical tools further streamlined accordingly, it will become more perfect as a most scientific and rational method of homeopathic practice ever evolved during the whole history of homeopathic practice. Actually, I feel that MIT has its closest practical counterpart in BANERJI PROTOCOLS, and BANERJI PROTOCOLS has its closest theoretical counterpart in MIT.

 

‘Quantum Dots Model’- Just Another Attempt By Bogus ‘Researchers’ To Fool Homeopathic Community!

Our respected ‘nanoparticle researchers’ of homeopathy have lately come with the claim that they have detected “QUANTUM DOTS” in potentized drugs, and started constructing ‘theories’ that homeopathic drugs act by the power of these mysterious ‘quantum dots’.
I would humbly suggest those ‘homeopathy scientists’ that they should at least consult some real scientists about this phenomenon known as ‘quantum dots’, before publishing this type of absurd ‘theories’!
I wonder why majority of our homeopathic community are behaving this much irrational. When somebody say they could detect some ‘quantum dots’ in potentized medicines while observed with nanoscience equipment, and ‘explain’ homeopathy with this ‘quantum dots model’, nobody asks a single question about it.
What exactly are these things called ‘quantum dots’? Why it is present in potentized drugs? Where from these quantum dots come in homeopathic drugs? What is the difference between molecules, nanoparticles and quantum dots?
Some body should have asked these ‘inventors’ to explain how these simple physical entities called ‘quantum dots’ are expected to retain the biological and medicinal properties of complex drug substances prepared from plant or animal sources, consisting of diverse types of chemical molecules.
Nobody asks such rational, natural and basic questions. Instead, everybody is delighted about this ‘detection of quantum dots’, and start theorizing about its ‘dynamic’ properties, ‘vibrations’, resonance’ and ‘quantum effects’! They start sharing this ‘wonderful’ research with their friends!
Please discuss with a person of science to know what really is these ‘quantum dots’, which our ‘homeopathic researchers’ are trying to mystify.
Scientists will tell you, ‘quantum dots’ are very tiny nanoparticles (2-10 nm in size) of elements or compounds displaying ‘semiconductor’ properties, especially those belonging to ‘metalloid’ class of elements in periodic table, such as silica, germanium etc.
Presence of ‘quantum dots’ in potentized drugs only indicates the presence of some particles of SILICA or other semiconductor elements.
Where from this SILICA comes in ALL samples of potentized drugs? Most probably by leaching from the glass and ceramic utensils used for potentization and trituration. That means, these quantum dots have nothing to do with the drug substance we use for potentization.
It is a very simple knowledge. Nothing to be researched or theorized about!
‘Quantum dots’ are tiny particles or nanocrystals of a semiconducting material with diameters in the range of 2-10 nanometers (10-50 atoms). That means, quantum dots are nothing but ‘very small’ nanoparticles. (size of nanoparticles is 10-100 nanometers, and that of quantum dots is 2-10 nanometers). Quantum dots were discovered by Alexey Ekimov at first in 1981 in a glass matrix.
Although some pure elements and many compounds display semiconductor properties, silicon, germanium, and compounds of gallium are the most widely used in electronic devices. Elements near the so-called “metalloid staircase”, where the metalloids are located on the periodic table, are usually used as semiconductors.
Our ‘homeopathy researchers’ should understand that what they detected in ultra-dilutions as QUANTUM DOTS are actually the SILICON particles detaching from mortars during trituration, and from glass vials during dilution and succussion . They will be most probably present in all homeopathic drugs. It is absurd to theorize that these SILICA particles or QUANTUM DOTS are the active principles of potentized drugs.
Homeopaths should understand, by saying homeopathic potencies contain “quantum dots” that can “influence genetic material”, our respected ‘researchers of homeopathy’ are doing a great disservice to homeopathy. By saying homeopathic potentized drugs can directly “influence genetic material”, they are opening doors for our enemies to attack homeopathy by raising the issue of genetic toxicity. Any drug that are claimed to “influence genetic material” will be considered by people as unsafe things potentially dangerous to living organisms.

Role Of ‘Serial Dilution’ And ‘Succussion’ In The Process Of Molecular Imprinting Involved In Potentization

We have learned that homeopathic potentization involves ‘serial dilution’ and ‘succussion’ or violent shaking.
 
Nobody so far scientifically explain what is the exact role of ‘succussion’ or ‘violent shaking’ in deciding the final outcome during homeopathic potentization, or why simple progressive dilution is not enough in homeopathic drug preparation.
 
We cannot potentize a drug by doing serial dilution only, avoiding the process of succussion. You cannot also potentize a drug by succussion only, avoiding serial dilution. We all know dilution and succussion are essential steps in perfect method of potentization. But we need a scientifically viable explanation.
 
I am trying to answer this question from the MIT view that potentization is a process of ‘molecular imprinting’. For molecular imprinting to happen, drug molecules have to be allowed to form ‘hydration complexes’ or ‘host-guest complexes’ by interacting with the water-alcohol molecules used as imprinting medium. This is done by mixing drug substances with the vehicle and allowing to form a uniform solution.
 
For preparing molecular imprints, we have to remove the drug molecules lying entrapped in the medium as ‘guest-host complexes’, and make the hydration shells empty. Succussion or violent shaking plays its role at this stage.
 
Our scientific study regarding the role of ‘succussion’ or violent shaking of drug solutions in the process potentization should begin with a deep study of hydrodynamics of the phenomenon known as cavitation.
 
Cavitation is the formation of bubble-like gaps in a liquid. Mechanical forces, such as the moving blades of a ship’s propeller or sudden negative changes in pressure, can cause cavitation. Violent shaking of fluids may cause cavitation. Skimming or separating butter from milk by violent agitation is an example of practical utilization of cavitation.
 
Put it in a different way, cavitation is the formation of vapor cavities in a liquid – i.e. small liquid-free zones (“bubbles” or “voids”) – that are the consequence of cavitational forces acting upon the cavitational liquid. It usually occurs when a liquid is subjected to rapid changes of pressure that cause the formation of cavities where the pressure is relatively low. When subjected to higher pressure, the voids implode and can generate an intense shock wave.
 
Cavitation happening in solutions of very low dilutions due to violent shaking done during homeopathic potentization will result in formation of nanobubbles. Due to hydrodynamic forces, drug molecules entrapped in the hydration shells of of water-alcohol medium will be adsorbed into the microfilms of nanobubbles. When the shaking is stopped and solution put to rest, these nanobubbles, along with the drug molecules adsorbed into it, will rise to the top layer of the solution. It will result in the removal of drug molecules from ‘host-guest’ complexes, leaving the free hydration shells as ‘molecular imprints’ in the lower layers of the solution.
 
By this process, drug molecules begin to concentrate in top layers, and the number of drug molecules gradually decreases in the lower layers of the solution. The upper layer that contains the remaining drug molecules are transferred to next bottle for making next higher potencies, and will be utilized for molecular imprinting the next bottle. As the serial dilution goes higher to approach Avogadro limit, lower layers will become completely free of drug molecules, and the drug molecules collected in top layers get transferred to the next bottle. The lower portions, devoid of any drug molecules, will be saturated with ‘molecular imprints’ only.
 
Phenomena of ‘cavitation’ and ‘nanobubble formation’ due to succussion plays a decisive role in the production of molecular imprints during homeopathic potentization, by removing the drug molecules from the hydrogen-bonded supra-molecular ‘vehicle-drug’ or ‘guest-host’ complexes formed in the solution. As such, ‘succussion’ is an inevitable part of effective ‘molecular imprinting’.
 
According to my view, this is the exact mechanism by which molecular imprints are prepared by ‘serial dilution’ and ‘succussion’ involved in the process of homeopathic potentization.
 
This view is corroborated by the IIT-B studies which says they could detect molecules of original drug substances floating in the ‘top layers’ of highly diluted drugs, which could be explained only by the phenomenon of ‘cavitation’, ‘nanobubble formation’ and rising of drug molecules to top layers due to succussion. Same time, their conclusion that these ‘nanoparticles’ seen on the ‘top layers’ are the active principles of potentized drugs is untenable, since it is not the ‘top layers’ only, but the ‘whole’ dilution up to the last drop is found to be therapeutically effective. Such a therapeutic activity of ‘whole’ dilution, even without any chance of drug molecule remaining in it could be explained only by ‘molecular imprinting’ as proposed by MIT.

Articles On How ‘Nanoparticles Researchers’ Are Misguiding Homeopathy

Articles On How ‘Nanoparticles Researchers’ In Homeopathy Are Misguiding The Community By Their Absurd ‘Inventions’ And ‘Theories’ (PDF)

‘Nanoparticle Research in Homeopathy’- An Easy Way To Become Instantly Famous As A ‘Homeopathic Scientist’!

‘Quantum Dots Model’- Just Another Attempt By Bogus ‘Researchers’ To Fool Homeopathic Community!

Nanoparticle Model Of Iris Bell And Mary Koithan For Homeopathy- Skyscraper On A Flimsy Foundation

‘Nanoparticle Theory Of Homeopathy’ – Does It ‘Debunk’ Criticisms, Or Make Homeopathy More Vulnerable To Attacks?

Did The ‘Nano-particle Theory’ Proposed By IIT Scientists Anyway Explain ‘Similia Similibus Curentur?

Discussion Between Dr. Rajesh Shah And Chandran K C On ‘Nanoparticle Research’ In Homeopathy

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

What Did The IIT-B Team Actually Prove About Homeopathy?

See How Misinterpretation Of A Great Scientific Work Leads To Wrong Conclusions

A Scientific Dialogue Between Dr. Sanjib Chattopadhyay And Chandran K C On MIT Hypothesis.

Positive Implications Of IIT-B Study In Explaining How  ‘Molecular Imprinting’ Happens In Dilutions Above Avogadro Limit

MIT Approach To Homeopathic Management Of ‘Fibromyalgia’

FIBROMYALGIA is a chronic miasmatic disease syndrome characterized by non-specific generalized body pain and an elevated painful response to tactile pressure stimuli.  Symptoms other than body pain may include extreme tiredness, sleep disturbances, memory disturbances, joint stiffness, dysphagia, numbness, tingling, muscular spasms, twitching, temperomandibular joint dysfunctions, palpitations, symptomatic hypoglycemia, functional bowel/bladder disturbances, cognitive dysfunctions, diminished attention span, depression, anxiety as well as many symptoms of  stress-related disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorders. Not all people with fibromyalgia exhibit all the associated symptoms.

Fibromyalgia is estimated to affect 2-8% of world population, with a female to male incidence ratio of 8:1, which means females are predominantly affected by this disease. The term ‘fibromyalgia’ derives from latin term ‘fibro’(fibrous tissues), combined with greek terms ‘myo’(mucles) and ‘algos’(pain).

The exact eitiology of fibromyalgia is still considered unknown, but is believed to involve multiple factors such as psychological, genetic, neurobiological and environmental. Generalized body pain, the central symptom of fibromyalgia, has been proven to be associated with some neurochemical imbalances and the activation of inflammatory pathways in the brain which results in biochemical abnormalities of pain processing. Fibromyalgia is classed as a ‘neurobiological disorder’, a disorder of pain processing due to abnormalities in how pain signals are processed in the central nervous system. Research evidences suggest that the pain in fibromyalgia results primarily from abnormal functioning of pain processing pathways. Hyper-excitability of pain processing pathways as well as under-activity of inhibitory pain pathways in the central nervous system jointly results in the pain sensation experienced by fibromyalgia patients. Some neurochemical abnormalities happening in fibromyalgia affect the biochemical systems that regulate sleep, mood and energy, which explain the concomitant symptoms of fibromyalgia.

Some references have included fibromyalgia in the list of autoimmune diseases, with cautious ‘qualifiers’ such as “a co-morbidity common among people with autoimmune disease, but with no evidence of being itself caused by autoimmunity”, and “disease is only caused by autoimmunity in only a fraction of those who suffer from it”. Immune-related aspects of fibromyalgia remain still under study.

According to MIT perspective, fibromyalgia has to be considered as a chronic ‘miasmatic’ syndrom. In this context, the concept of ‘miasm’ is used as “chronic disease dispositions caused by ‘off-target’ actions of antibodies generated in the body in response to invasions by endogenous or exogenous ‘alien protiens’ such as infectious agents, vaccines etc”. In the absence of a scientific understanding of miasms as ‘antibody-mediated diseases’, such diseases are presently classified in medical literature along with ‘autoimmune diseases’.

MIT considers fibromyalgia as a chronic disease condition arising from ‘residual effects’ of different kinds of ‘viral fevers’ that were characterized by severe generalized body pains, such as influenza, chikunguniya, chicken pox etc. Of course, vaccinations against these viral infections also would have similar ‘miasmatic’ effects, since vaccinations inevitably result in production of antibodies, which will be similar to the antibodies generated during actual infections. These antibodies remain in the body for long periods, and attack the enzymes associated with the expression of genes involved in the synthesis of various neuro receptors and neuromediators. Inhibition of such enzyme systems lead to faulty or diminished synthesis of neuroreceptors such as ‘dopamine receptors’ that are essential for maintaining healthy neurotransmission and ‘pain processing’ pathways. Breakdown in these pathways ultimately lead to a cascading effects upon various biomolecular pathways in central nervous system and neuroendocrine system, which are expressed through the mind and body symptoms of FIBROMYALGIA. Disruption of neuroendocrine pathways results in abnormalities of hormones under the direct or indirect control of growth hormone(GH), including insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-), cortisol, leptin and neuropeptide Y as seen in people with fibromyalgia. This explains the observation that people with fibromyalgia have alterations of normal neuroendocrine function, characterized by mild hypocortisolemia, hyperreactivity of pituitary adrenocorticotropin hormone (ACTH)  release in response to challenge, and glucocorticoid feedback resistance. It also explains  other abnormalities such as reduced responsivity of thyrotropin and thyroid hormones to thyroid-releasing hormone, elevation of prolactin levels with disinhibition of prolactin release in response to challenge and hyposecretion of adrenal androgens.

Kindly remember, functional analysis of the autonomic system in people with fibromyalgia has demonstrated disturbed activity characterized by hyperactivity of the sympathetic nervous system at baseline with reduced sympathoadrenal reactivity in response to a variety of stressors including physical exertion and mental stress. People with fibromyalgia demonstrate lower heart rate variability, an index of sympathetic/parasympathetic balance, indicating sustained sympathetic hyperactivity, especially at night. In addition, plasma levels of neuropeptide Y, which is co-localized with norepinephrine in the sympathetic nervous system, have been reported as low in people with fibromyalgia, while circulating levels of epinephrine and norepinephrine have been variously reported as low, normal and high. Administration of interleukin-6, a cytokine capable of stimulating the release of hypothalamic corticotropin-releasing hormone which in turn stimulates activity within the sympathetic nervous system, results in a dramatic increase in circulating norepinephrine levels and a significantly greater increase in heart rate over baseline in people with fibromyalgia as compared to healthy controls.

One of the most reproduced laboratory finding in people with fibromyalgia is an elevation in cerebrospinal fluid levels of substance P, a putative nociceptive neurotransmitter. Metabolites for the monoamine neurotransmitters serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine – all of which play a role in natural analgesia – have been shown to be lower, while concentrations of endogenous opioids such as  endorphins and enkephalins appear to be higher. The mean concentration of nerve growth factor, a substance known to participate in structural and functional plasticity of nociceptive pathways within the dorsal root ganglia and spinal cord, is elevated.  There is also evidence for increased excitatory amino acid release within cerebrospinal fluid, with a correlation demonstrated between levels for metabolites of glutamate and nitric oxide and clinical indices of pain.

Evidence of abnormal brain involvement in fibromyalgia has been provided via functional neuroimaging. Differential activation in response to painful stimulation has also been demonstrated.  People also exhibit neural activation in brain regions associated with pain perception in response to nonpainful stimuli in such areas as the prefrontal, supplemental motor, insular, and cingulate cortices.

Evidence of hippocampal disruption indicated by reduced brain metabolite ratios has been demonstrated by studies. A significant negative correlation was demonstrated between abnormal metabolite ratios and a validated index of the clinical. Correlations between clinical pain severity and concentrations of the excitatory amino acid neurotransmitter glutamate within the insular cortex have also been demonstrated using 1H-MRS.

A significant negative correlation between pain severity and dopamine synthesis was demonstrated within the insular cortex. A subsequent study demonstrated gross disruption of dopaminergic reactivity in response to a tonic pain stimulus within the basal ganglia with a significant positive correlation between the defining feature of the disorder (i.e. tender point index) and dopamine D2 receptor binding potential specifically in the right putamen.

Finally, reduced availability of mu-opioid receptors in the ventral striatum/nucleus accumbens and cingulate cortex has been demonstrated, with a significant negative correlation between affective pain levels and receptor availability in the nucleus accumbens.

 

All these established factors  justify the MIT observation that fibromyalgia is caused by alterations in biomolecular processes in central nervous system and neuroendocrine system, produced by inhibitions of enzyme systems associated with expression of genes involved in synthesis of neuro-transmitters and receptors of neuron synapses.

From MIT perspective, therapeutic management of fibromyalgia essentially involves deactivation of antibodies that are responsible for inhibition of enzymes associated with concerned gene expressions. This could be achieved by administration of ‘molecular imprints’ that can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for those antibodies, so that they could be deactivated and the biological molecules relieved from inhibitions.

Potentized homeopathic nosodes such as Variolinum 30, Influenzinum 30 etc are found to be very useful for this purpose. Potentized Chikungunia nosode is expected to be a very powerful homeopathic drug for fibromyalgia, as the chronic residual effects of ‘chikungunia’ is found to be symptomatically very similar to fibromyalgia symptoms.

PITUTRIN 30 and ACTH 30 are  very important drugs that should be incorporated into any homeopathic treatment plan for fibromyalgia, as they will antidote the hyper-reactivity of pituitary adrenocorticotropin hormone (ACTH)  release in response to challenge, and glucocorticoid feedback resistance.

All homeopathic drugs that have ‘generalized body pain’ and pain aggravation by pressure’ could be used to alleviate fibromyalgia pains. From my personal experience, I have found ARNICA 30 a very effective drug for this condition. ‘Multiple drug’ approach consisting of homeopathic similimum, potentized hormones and viral nosodes in frequently repeated doses will be a most ideal strategy from MIT point of view.