REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY

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

How To Safeguard Ourselves From Getting Confused By The Flood Of Nonsense Theories?


If we browse through various leading homeopathic websites, we come across hundreds of ‘research articles’ propagating diverse types of imaginative ‘theories’ and ‘hypotheses’ written in highly scholastic and ‘scientific’ language, claiming to unravel the riddles of homeopathy once and for all. The authors will be ‘scientists’ or ‘academicians’ so much revered by the homeopathic community for their high academic ‘authority’, ‘professional credentials’ and ‘institutional background’ that no average person would dare to question their wisdom. Most of them are ‘prominent faces’ and ‘representatives’ of international homeopathy.

Most funny part about these ‘knowledge explosions on internet’ is that most of us never read those article, or fail to understand even if we dare to read them. Nobody is interested in what is actually said in them. Nobody makes even a simple comment. Nobody verifies the claims made in those articles. Nobody tries to differentiate grains from pebbles. We simply wonder at this ‘great’ piece of knowledge, and go on broadcasting this ‘wonderful knowledge’ by keeping on posting these ‘links’ wherever we have access, in a desperate endeavor to ‘educate’ the whole community!

No wonder, in spite of all these ‘ground-breaking’ researches, theories and hypotheses being regularly broadcast, homeopathy still remains where samuel hahnemann left it 200 hundred years ago. Nobody could so far provide even a scientifically convincing answer to the basic question “how homeopathy works”. All these great authors only contribute their best in enhancing confusions among homeopathic community through their writings and seminars- that is all.

To safeguard ourselves from confusions being created by these ever-new flooding of ‘researches’ ‘theories’ and ‘hypotheses’, I would suggest to use following questions as touch stones for their primary evaluation whenever you are introduced to a ‘new theory’:

1. Does this theory scientifically and logically explain the exact processes involved in homeopathic potentization?

2. Does this theory scientifically and logically answer the question ‘what are the exact active principles contained in potentized medicines”?

3. Does this theory scientifically and logically explain the exact molecular mechanisms by which these active principles act up on the organism to produce a therapeutic effect?

4. Does this theory scientifically and logically explain ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ in a way fitting to modern scientific knowledge on one side, and to our homeopathic experiences on the other side?

If the answers for these FOUR FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS are found to be negative, simply dismiss those ‘theories’. They are nothing but hollow ‘scientific’ verbosity.

2 Comments

  1. Chandran Nambiar

    Reblogged this on DIALECTICAL HOMEOPATHY.

    Like

  2. Dr. Mrinmoy sasmal

    Dear,sir,you are absolutely correct.because when the question arises then the researcher,doctors,professors etc always said about kents observation,hearings law of cure,second prescriptions,various hypothetical languages which is not based on any scientifically backgrounds,provings or any scientific tongue.this hypothetical philosophy which is hard to swallow at first time for a new follower.but nobody clears that point .always say following books,it is tuff etc.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: