Chandran K C Explains Homeopathy As Molecular Imprints Therapeutics (MIT)

Displace ‘Blind Beliefs’ With ‘Scientific Knowledge’, If You Really Want To Make Homeopathy A Scientific Medical System

This article may seem to be some what provocative. Excuse me for that. Speaking hard truths may feel bitter and provocative. Ancient Indian scriptures warning me: “sathyam bruyal, priyam bruyal; na bruyal sathyam apriyam”. I know, I am speaking ‘sathyam apriyam’.

Most homeopaths are ‘believers’. For them, homeopathy is a sacred ‘belief system’. They ‘believe’ that ‘homeopathy is ultimate science’ and ‘our master’ is ‘greatest scientist of all times’. They ‘believe’ in master, ‘believe’ in organon’, ‘believe’ in ‘similia similibus curentur’, ‘believe’ in ‘vital force’, ‘believe’ in ‘dynamic drug energy’, ‘believe’ in ‘miasms’, ‘believe’ in ‘immutable fundamental principles’, ‘believe in ‘single drug-single dose’, ‘believe’ in ‘hering laws’, ‘believe’ in ‘drug relationships’, ‘believe’ in ‘words of stalwarts’, ‘believe’ in ‘teachers’ and ‘gurus’. This list of ‘homeopathic beliefs’ is fascinating as well as unending. They ask me: “do you believe in homeopathy?”

They hesitate to accommodate new knowledge. They never ask ‘why-what-how’ about their beliefs. They would never tolerate anybody asking such hard questions

Most of them prefer to be die-hard fundamentalists- homeopathic fundamentalists. Tougher than even those dreaded religious fundamentalists. They behave themselves like ‘faith-healers’ than scientific medical professionals and physicians. To talk logic, reason and science to such a closed-minded ‘believers community’ is a tough task indeed- and dangerous to some extent.

Without displacing our deep-rooted ‘blind beliefs’ with ‘scientific knowledge’, we cannot hope homeopathy to become a scientific medical system. Study, research, experiment, learn, know and apply- that is the way of science. Not blind believing and following.

One of the unshakable beliefs among homeopaths is regarding the ‘great damage’ that could be done to the patient by giving an ‘unnecessary’ dose of potentized drug, including untimely repetition of even indicated drug. Did anybody any body conduct any scientific experiments to verify whether this ‘belief’ is right or wrong? Never! They would claim, they had such ‘experiences’.

Some homeopaths have a wonderfully perverted sense of ‘cause-effect’ relationship. They consider every ‘before-after’ chronological relationship as cause and effect, and jump into queer conclusions. Once they give a ‘single’ dose of drug to the patient, everything that ‘follows’ that act will be attributed as the ‘miraculos effect’ of their ‘single dose’. Many ‘cures’, many ‘aggravations’, many ‘side effects’ are actually the product of this perverted understanding of ‘cause and effect’.

Once I heard a ‘teacher’ talking at a seminar. He was talking about the probable consequences of ‘unwanted repetitions’ of potentized drugs. He explained his experience of an incident of his middle aged patient having a serious heart attack after an ‘untimely’ second dose of lachesis 200, which was given for an eczema. First dose was given, and there was ‘miraculous’ improvement. after one weak, he happened to give a second dose, which was ‘untimely hurried’. That night, doctor got a phone call informing him that the patient was admitted in ICU following a massive cardiac arrest. ‘I was very sorry for that, because that cardiac arrest was due to the driving of disease to inner layer by untimely repetition of lachesis”- said the doctor.

It is common sense that a ‘cardiac arrest’ in a middle aged man is not that much ‘sudden’ as we think. There should be hyperlipidemia, atherosclerosis, narrowing of coronary arteries happening through years, which finally led to the blockage of arteries and heart attack. Why should a homeopath relate that ‘heart attack’ to a ‘dose of lachesis 200? Only logic is, that happened ‘following’ that dose!

We hear this type of incidents and experiences reported by homeopaths in their practice. Somebody said: “my patient got delirious attack’ after a dose ofBell200. Another homeopath argues: “A patient showed eruptions all over body after a dose of merc sol 200, that is a proof that homeopathy drugs have dangerous side effects”.

Why not these friends do some experiments by giving bell 200 or merc sol to a few more persons and watching the outcome before reaching this type of conclusions? At least on some pet animals?

Dear friends, ‘cause-effect’ relationship is different from ‘Before-After’ relationship. Kindly use some logical thinking and rational experiments before declaring foolish conclusions. That is scientific method.

Another unshakable ‘homeopathic belief’ is regarding the ‘dangers’ of ‘mixing’ two or more drugs. Did anybody ever conduct a scientific study to verify it? Never. But they ‘believe’ so. Remember, we are not even sure about the active principles of potentized drugs. We just ‘believe’ that our drugs contain ‘dynamic drug energy’, only because our ‘great master’ said so! Without knowing the active principles and their interactions, how can we say ‘mixing’ of drugs is harmful?

Homeopaths ‘believe’ in ‘vital force’ and ‘dynamic drug energy’, even though they know all the sciences they learned in schools and colleges do not justify those beliefs. They ‘believe’, only because they are expected to ‘believe’ all those absurd things as the ‘true followers’ of our ‘great master’. They are trained not to ask “why?”.

Take the ‘belief’ regarding ‘drug relationships’. Nobody ask whether any scientific studies were ever done on that subject. Without any scientific proof, we repeat what we were taught by our teachers or read in books- Drug A  will antidote Drug B, Drug C is complementary to Drug D, Drug X is inimical to Drug Y and so on, very well ‘proving’ from hundreds of daily experiences that all these things are utter nonsense!

Hahneman was a great philosopher, innovator, physician and visionary. But he was a human being- not a prophet or a god. He lived and worked in 18th centuryGermany. His works, ideas and theories would bear the historical marks of time-space he lived and developed his ideas- of course its limitations also. In spite of his great vision that transcends the boundaries of centuries to come, hahnemann also made a lot of speculations that are obviously unscientific in the present knowledge context.

Organon is a great work, unmatched in history of medical literature. But that does not mean each and every words of organon are ‘immutable’ truths. If you study organon with a rational and scientific mindset, you will see that there are a lot of unscientific ideas in organon, necessitated by the infantile state of scientific knowledge available to hahnemann 250 years ago. But homeopaths prefer to ‘believe’ organon is ‘ultimate science’.

We can learn it in two different ways- dogmatic way or creative way.

Most homeopaths prefer to study organon and other works of hahnemann in the dogmatic way. The teacher or his ‘words’ are considered to be the ultimate authority here. His words are the ultimate truth. Master is considered to be beyond any mistakes, a ‘know-all’ without any limitations. The learner’s only duty is to grasp what is spoken by the master. Questions should be asked only to clear any doubts regarding ‘master’s words- only to clearly understand the meaning of what he is saying. His theories should be discussed only to learn it ‘perfectly’. If you try to question the correctness of ‘master’s words it will never be tolerated. Only permitted relationship between the teacher and learner is ‘guru-disciple’ relationship. Here learning means ‘believing’ and ‘following’.

The other way of learning is ‘creative learning’. Here, the learning by itself becomes a creative process. The books, the ideas, the theories and even the teacher- all are tools for the learner in this creative process. Utilizing these available materials and tools, the learner creates his own ideas through this process of learning. In this process, he will have to discard what ever he finds incorrect or unfitting to the ever-growing knowledge system. Learner digests and assimilates the ideas he get from books or teachers. He asks question like ‘why-how-what’ regarding everything preached. He earnestly verifies the correctness of every idea before they are accepted. Every lesson is dissected, analyzed, verified and then synthesized in a new higher dimension. Creative learning involves creation of new ideas using existing ones.

Homeopathy can be learned either way- dogmatically or creatively. My method of learning is latter one. I prefer to call this method ‘dialectical learning’. I cannot copy the words of ‘masters’ and ‘quote them as ultimate truth. Since most of the concepts, ‘tenets’ and ‘doctrines’ of homeopathy still remain unverified in a scientific way, I need answers for ‘what-why-how” about them to satisfy my scientific mind. Dogmatic preachers and learners may find it difficult to follow or tolerate what I say about homeopathy. I beg to be excused.

According to my scientific approach, there are no unquestionable ‘basic tenets’ in homeopathy- as in any science. Accept nothing as ‘ultimate truth’, only because it was spoken by a ‘master’.

Learning Hahnemann does not mean merely reading and reciting Organon, Chronic Diseases, Materia Medica and other works written by him. We should read not only the printed lines, but read in between lines. I call it ‘Creative Reading’. Creating our ‘own’ ideas by reading what was written by hahnemann. We should use our ‘own’ brains, our ‘own’ logic, living in our ‘own’ space-time context. Do not be misguided by reading the works of ‘interpreters’, before you are ideologically well-equipped.

How should we learn the ‘master’ and his works?

1. Always keep abreast with modern scientific knowledge

Only by keeping ourselves armed with latest scientific knowledge as well as modern tools of scientific methods, we can identify what is scientific and what is unscientific in hahnemann’s theories and observations. Scientific world out look will keep us always on right path.

2. Read in between lines

Reading ‘in between lines’ means, understanding beyond the meaning of words we read.Readingis an interaction between the author and the reader. What is written in texts would reflect only fractions of author’s real thought process. Understanding his thought process is essential to grasp the real meaning of his words. There would be a lot of ideas lying hidden between lines, that could be read by an intelligent reader.

3. Creative Reading

‎’Creative reading’ involves the synthesis of new ideas through the process of reading, which were so far unknown to the reader and not said by the author. Here, reading becomes a creative process. Some ideas getting from the author acts like a spark that ignites the mind of reader, and leads to synthesis of new ideas. We should consciously build up a habit of ‘creative reading’.

4. Use our ‘own’ brains, our ‘own’ logic

We should “use our own brains, our own logic” while reading the works of hahnemann. Hahnemann is explaining his theories on the basis of his experiences and observations. He used his brain and his logic in doing so. We should ask ourselves ‘what-why-how’ of everything hahnemann said. This way of learning is called ‘dialectic’ learning, which is different from ‘dogmatic’ learning.

5. Live in our ‘own’ space-time context.

“Live in our ‘own’ space-time context”. Knowledge is evolving through space and time. Hahnemann was talking 250 years ago, sitting inGermany. That was his ‘space-time context’. He developed his concepts and theories utilizing the knowledge available to him in his ‘space-time context’. Human knowledge has evolved a lot there after. We know many things regarding phenomena of nature that hahnemann was not fortunate to know. Now we should learn hahnemann in the light of latest scientific knowledge available to us.

6. Do not be misguided by the works of ‘interpreters’

‎Do not be misguided by reading the works of interpreters. This is very important if you want to understand what hahnemann really said. Interpreters had done great damage to homeopathy and original teachings of hahnemann. Many people learn homeopathy using the books written by various authors who interpreted hahnemann’s teachings according to their whims and fancies. The most outstanding example is theory of miasms. IIf you read hahnemann’s ‘chronic diseases’ carefully, it would be very clear that hahnemann was talking about miasms as a ‘chronic disease dispositions caused by the infectious agents of itch, syphilis and gonorrhoea’. He did not hink about ‘miasms’ unrelated with ‘infectious materials’. But the interpreters made ‘miasmatic analysis a total mess, dragging even genetics and heridity into it. Now, most homeopaths learn ‘miasms’ from interpreters. We have lot of such examples where interpreters have totally misguided homeopathy. We should learn homeopathy from original works of hahnemann, using our own brains and logic, to keep ourselves not misguided.


  1. A homoeopath

    CCRH=Corrupt Cunning Rule of Homeopathy


  2. A homoeopath

    1.silicea if given to tuberculous patients may cause grave complications,
    2.It is believed that CAMPHOR is a universal antidote
    3. Red sand in the urine
    4. worms moving in the stomach.
    5.Conium maculatum shows effect on willis circle.(W.M Borick)
    6.Fundamentally drug proving it self unscientific.
    7.Caulophylum not proved on females but symptoms noted in materia medica
    8. Homeopaths and homeopathy full of untested hypothesis.


  3. A homoeopath

    You are also expecting something from CCRH. How ignorant are you Dr. Nambiar.


  4. A homoeopath

    6. Do not be misguided by the works of ‘interpreters’
    Your observation is right , the predictive homeopathy which is copied from embryonic physiology also belongs to same category. Most of the homeopathic doctors who have forgotten and do not know about embryology believe in such teachings. But what to do India is country of cheaters and ignorant’s.


  5. homoeopath

    Dr.Chandran Nambiar ,
    Your thoughts about homeopathy are fantastic.


  6. homoeopath

    Dr.Nambiar you are correct. Many homeopaths ‘believe’ that ‘mixing’ of two or more potentized drugs are extremely harmful. Did anybody do scientific studies to verify whether this belief is right or wrong?. It is organon of medicine that dictates not to give more than one medicine. Most of the homeopaths got very good results with single medicine and single dose.Without conducting proper research which is fundamental in nature about single dose and medicine what is the use of giving many medicines and arguing that they work. Homeopathic medicine acts through immune system too. When experiments carried out the invitro studies have shown that giving more that on medicine and even single medicine in other potency also stopped the immune signals and some times no reaction was found at all.
    Basing on this experiment it seems Hahanemann might be right in his fifth edition of organon.

    Dr.Nambiar there are so many unscientific parts in scientific homeopathy. (Scientific because found to be effective not because experimented in lab).

    The professionalism among homeopaths, the quality and standard of homeopathic education in the country and medical ethics among many homeopaths is lagging.
    Most of the homeopaths talk over the dais and in seminars various things but in practice they are for from truth. Most of the homeopaths lacking the vision about their science. Every body talks a lot but no body is really truthful.

    Dr.Nambiar now you talked about CCRH. This organisation is without any vision and goal. Without any quality control they experiment on cancer and AIDS but they never know and try to undertake research about the quantity of medicine present in a specific potency or the mechanism of action of homoerotic medicines. A minimum fundamental need urgently at present

    Displace ‘Blind Beliefs’ With ‘Scientific Knowledge’, If You Really Want To Make Homeopathy A Scientific Medical System. Your emotional title is too good. But where is blind belief among homeopaths about homeopathy ? there are only blind argumentativeness. Most of the popular homeopaths in this country are with full of double standers. Most of them are dependent on allopathy for their day to day survival but whenever they stand on dais they speak like most humble persons. Now some body may get a doubt if it is so why homeopathy is becoming popular? It is becoming popular not because of the contribution of homeopaths to the homeopathy and to the society but it is because, patients who is in need is in search of alternatives for his sufferings and allopathy scientifically under standing its limitations without losing hope in control of human sufferings.


  7. Kuldip Singh

    The article,”Displace Blind Beliefs…”is a fantastic article.Whatever is given in its contents is all very true, very logical, very convincing, it deserves a serious and thoughtful reading with unprejudiced mind.


  8. Chandran Nambiar

    Sir, can you say, by being ” teaching since decades and finding of old experienced teacher and practioner” will make such ‘beliefs’ scientific? Why nobody bother to verify such beliefs according to scientific method? Why not CCRH or such authorized bodies think on that lines?

    For centuries, not ‘decades’, humanity believed and taught that ‘sun revolves around earth’. But that belief was scientifically proved to be wrong!


  9. Chandran Nambiar

    We are taught that silicea if given to tuberculous patients may cause grave complications, even resulting in death. Did anybody conduct a scientific study to verify whether this ‘belief’ is right or wrong. I am not asking for random ‘experiences’ of some ‘masters’. Any scientific study? No! We never bother to do that, but continue believing and teaching it to next generation. Is it not ‘blind belief’?

    It is believed that CAMPHOR is a universal antidote, antidoting all other potentized drugs. During my forty years of experience with homeopathy, I am sure, it is a ‘blind belief’. Crude camphor and volatile oils may antidote certain potentized drugs having molecular affinity. But there is no any justification to believe that potentized camphor is by any way different from other potentized drugs. Nobody bothers to verify whether this ‘universal antidote’ theory is right or wrong, but we simply believe…


  10. Chandran Nambiar

    Sir, I did not say “all believers are unscientific”. I was pointing to various blind, unfounded beliefs among homeopaths. For example, we believe such and such drugs would antidote such and such drugs, or are inimical to such and such drugs, based on the ‘words of masters’. Did anybody conduct any scientific study on that ‘belief’? There are many homeopaths prescribing drugs and getting good results without any concern for ‘drug relationships’. Right or wrong, is not ‘drug relationships’ a ‘blind belief’? I am only saying we have to ‘displace’ beliefs’ with ‘scientific knowledge’.

    Many homeopaths ‘believe’ that ‘mixing’ of two or more potentized drugs are extremely harmful. Did anybody do scientific studies to verify whether this belief is right or wrong?

    We ‘believe’ homeopathic drugs act through nervous system and ‘mind’. Is that belief supported by scientific studies. In vitro studies using potentized drugs and biological molecules have proved that potentized drugs act even in the absence of nerves or nerve cells or ‘mind’. But we continue to ‘blindly believe’ that our drugs act upon nervous system and ‘mind’.

    We believe potentized drugs if taken without indications may ‘prove’ or even cause death. Any studies on that? Many doctors knowingly or unknowingly use drugs without indications. Nothing happens. But we continue to ‘believe’…

    Beliefs about suppression, single drug-multiple drugs, homeopathic aggravation, directions of cure, genetic inheritance of miasms… there are hundreds of such ‘blind beliefs’ among homeopaths. Is it wrong for me to say we should displace these ‘blind beliefs’ with ‘scientific knowledge’?


  11. dr.unnikrishnan

    dear nambiar, your views — blindbelief of homoeopath is not going to digest it easily by leading homoeopaths. but i do believe homoeopathy ,not the theory alone -it works wonderfully manytime&many cures occur -in clinical practice also. there are certain areas in organon may not applicable as because, cant say homeopath are not thinking as what-why-how? in their clinical homoeo are trying to project new views ,good sir!!! but cant say believers are non-scientific


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: