A Scientific Dialogue Between Dr. Sanjib Chattopadhyay And Chandran K C On MIT Hypothesis.
For a very long time, I have been waiting for a reasonable and science-based criticism of MIT hypothesis, Now, Dr. Sanjib Chattopadhyay , Associate Professor, PhD at Brahmananda Keshab Chandra College, Sodepur, .has came forward, raising some serious scientific questions about the viability of MIT concepts I proposed regarding scientific explanation of homeopathy. I am delighted to post his criticisms here, which he had actually posted on my page ‘REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY’. Hope for a meaningful dialogue.
Dr. Sanjib Chattopadhyay writes:
“I do agree with your opinion that a hypothesis should be erected from the available data before experimenting anything. However, I have something to comment on your opinion of ‘molecular imprinting’ concept:
1. MIT says: If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, there will not any single ‘molecule’ of original drug substance remaining in potencies above avogadro limit, if they are genuinely potentized.
Ans: Presence of single molecule cannot be proved even by most sophisticated spectrophotometer. Even radio-immuno assay methods have some limitations. In ultra low dilution the solute molecules remain so tightly entrapped by solvent molecules that the ordinary spectrophotometric data cannot reveal their existence. Only some alterations in hydrogen bond structure can be detected.
2. MIT says: If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, chemical analysis of high potency drugs and plain water-alcohol mixture will prove they have same chemical constitution.
Ans: Experimentally it has been proved that it does not occur. Both solutions possess much difference in their crystal water properties, detectable by Fourier Transform Infra Red spectrophotometer. It can sense alteration of hydrogen bond structures, which are specific for each drug. However, the detection of drug molecule (only applicable for drugs of mineral origin) requires Atomic absorption spectrophotometry and electron microscopic study, which the team actually did.
3. MIT says: If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, potentized drugs have therapeutic effects if used as per indications, but plain water-alcohol mixture will not exhibit any therapeutic effect.
Ans: If drug molecules remain hidden within the cluster of solvent molecule they can move interior of a cell and stimulate the minute proteins. In case of simple water-alcohol mixture it is not possible.
4. MIT says: If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, spectrometric studies will show that high potency drugs and plain water-alcohol mixtures are entirely different in their supra-molecular organizations.
Ans: There is a limitation of ordinary spectrophotometric data. It cannot sense element below a limit of detection. Also solvent-masked drug molecules remain hidden from the exposure of ordinary spectrophotometer, though it can be detected to some extent by atomic absorption spectrophotometer, because it burns away its solvent shield by acetylene flame.
5. MIT says: If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, in vitro and in vivo studies will prove that high potency drugs have biological properties that are reverse to those of their molecular forms (below 12c)
Ans: Certainly. Do you see any noticeable difference between Nux vom 6c and Nux vom 30c in curing the patients?
6. MIT says: If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, high potency drugs should be capable of antidoting or neutralizing the biological effects of molecular forms of same drugs.
Ans: There are so many evidences that prove that pre or post treatment of minute dose drugs (molecular or non-molecular) can decrease or nullify the effect of higher dose drugs. The best known example is Hormesis.”
I WILL ANSWER HIS ARGUMENTS POINT BY POINT:
POINT 1. Number of ‘molecules’ or ‘atoms’ in any given quantity of any substances will be limited by avogadro number, which is an accepted scientific fact. Otherwise, somebody will have to prove that either avogadro number is wrong, or, ‘new matter’ is continuously generated from nothingness by the process of potentization.
In ultra dilutions, where the substance is diluted millions of times above avogadro limit, where from you expect this unending supply of drug molecules you imagine to lay “tightly entrapped by solvent molecules”?
Even if some drug molecules remain in the whole volume of a solution, how could you imagine those “rare” molecules to be present in each and every drops or minute fractions of drops of potentized drugs used by homeopaths as ‘doses’? How could you imagine to explain the medicinal properties of each and every drops of ultradiluted drugs on the basis of these ‘drug molecules’ that may be only very rarely distributed in a large volume of diluted drug?
Sir, you said that “ordinary spectrophotometric data cannot reveal” the presence of drug moleciles lying “entrapped in solvent molecules” . If so, using what technology you actually observed those “hidden molecules”? Could you find the drug molecules lying hidden in each and every fractions of ultra dilutions?
You have said that “some alterations in hydrogen bond structure can be detected” in potentized drugs. How could you jump into the conclusion that these “alterations” are indications of “hidden” drug molecules? If ‘alterations’ could be seen in the ‘whole’ volume of potentized drugs, it is sure that it will not be due to “hidden” molecules, which even if present, will not be enough in numberst to be distributed in every part of the potentized drugs. Why cant you think these “alterations of hydrogen bonds” may be due to a rearrangement of water-ethyl alcohol molecules at their supra-molecular level, which indicates ‘molecular imprinting’?
POINT 2. My point was, ‘chemical constitution’ of plain water-alcohol mixture and ‘high potency drugs’ will be the same., since both will contain only water and ethyl alcohol molecules. I agree with your statement “both solutions possess much difference in their crystal water properties, detectable by Fourier Transform Infra Red spectrophotometer”. Difference in “rystal water properties” do not indicate any difference in their “elemental constitution”. On the other hand, it is a clear evidence for supra-molecular rearrangement of vehicle happening during potentization, which points to ‘molecular imprinting’.
POINT 3. If the therapeutic actions of high potencies were due to the “drug molecules remaining hidden within the cluster of solvent molecules”, It is very obvious that WHOLE volume of a given dilution will not be therapeutically effective. Homeopaths know very well that they get curative effects from using each and every minute fractions of a given volume of high potency drug. Anybody who knows there is a limitation for number of molecules in a given quantity of any substance knows very well that ‘drug molecules’ will not be present ‘everywhere’, even after diluting the substance millions of times!
POINT 4. There have been a lot published research reports demonstrating the difference in spectro-photometric studies of ultra dilution drugs and plain water-alcohol mixtures. Such a difference is an obvious indication for supra-molecular rearrangement happening due to ‘molecular imprinting.
POINT 5. Of course, sir. We already have a lot of in vitro and in vivo scientific studies to show “high potency drugs have biological properties that are reverse to those of their molecular forms”. I can provide reference links if you want.
POINT 6. Exact molecular mechanism of phenomenon of so called “hormesis” is still unexplained scientifically. Concept of hormesis is applicable only in effects of “small quantities” of toxic substances. It has no any relevance in homeopathic ultra dilution effects, which will not contain any ‘quantity’ of drug substance. I can give you reference links of scientific studies which prove ” high potency drugs are capable of antidoting or neutralizing the biological effects of molecular forms of same drugs”.
READ THIS FOLLOWING ARTICLE FOR THE REFERENCES I MADE IN ABOVE POINTS :
‘Analysis Of Some Important Scientific Studies That Indirectly Validates MIT Concepts’
Click to access analysis-of-studies.pdf
If you believe NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH has “proved” homeopathy, kindly answer this question:
If you believe NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH has “proved” homeopathy, kindly answer this question:
Molecular mass of CARBON is 12. According to AVOGADRO, 12 grams of CARBON will contain 6.022 x 10^23 molecules of carbon. Since one molecule of carbon contains 2 atoms, the number of total atoms in 12 gms will be double this number. Means, 12 gms will contain 2 x 6.022 x 10^23 atoms of carbon. (1204400000000000000000000)
If we are starting potentization by triturating 1 gm of carbon with 99 gms of sugar of milk, first potency will contain 100360000000000000000000 carbon atoms in 100 gms of CARBON 1C potency.
100 gms 2C potency will contain 103600000000000000000 atoms.
100 gms 3c potency wil contain 1036000000000000000 atoms
100gms 4c potency 10360000000000000
100 ml of 12C potency of CARBON will contain 1.04 carbon atoms.
100 ml of 13C potency will not contain even a single atom of carbon.
You may calculate 30C, 200C, 1M and CM if you want to know.
If you say ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of ‘ultra dilutions’ are NANOPARTICLES or ‘drug molecules entrapped in vehicle molecules’, you will have to explain where from these ‘drug molecules’ or NANOPARTICLES come in these ‘ultra dilutions’.
Remember, we are using not 100 ml, but fractions of drops as a homeopathic dose!
100ml of 12C will contain ONE atom of CARBON. Approximately, 100ml contains 1500 drops. Any ONE of these 1500 drops may carry this ONE ATOM. Remaining 1499 drops will not have carbon atoms in them. How can this ONE ATOM be present in EACH DROP used as homeopathic dose? Got it, sir?
Remember, NANOPARTICLES are supra-atomic formations, much larger than individual atoms.
If you believe in the “1% top layer” theory of our ‘nanoparticle researchers’, kindly explain what you think about the 99% that remains after the “transferring of 1% top layer to next level of potentization”.
Do you still think your theory of NANOPARTICLES or “drug molecules entrapped in vehicles” is right?
- Posted in: Homeopathy Articles
REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY 
Thank you Sir for your kind attention. Though I live at Sodepur, Brahmananda Keshab Chandra College is located at Baranagar, Kolkata-700108. Let us come to the topic.
We all know that Avogadro’s number is a large figure but we do not have proper idea how large it is. If we allot each molecule of 1 mole compound for every ten kilogram mass of earth they will fit together. Now if succussions are made between each steps of dilution they cannot be simply diluted away.
There is a misconception among some homeopaths that every drop of a potentized medicine is equally effective, but it is not always true. If every drop of intermediate potencies were utilized, the estimated volume of high potency medicine (e.g., 200C) obtained from single drop of original tincture would be much greater than the volume of earth. It is never possible. The pharmacists have to prepare potencies by succussion from a very small fraction of such an infinite presumptive volume. So that the efficacy of remaining portion of the medicine remains untested. Actually, the drug molecules lie in progressively smaller portion of the solution with the increase of potency. Suppose, up to third potency there might are 100 out of 100 drops contain drug molecules. From fourth to sixth potency 99 of 100 drops contains the same. From seventh to ninth potency 98/100 and so on, this follows a definite mathematical model. Here, the number of solute molecule does not fall proportional to dilution as ought to be. Lastly, a condition may reach, where 1/100 fraction of the solution may possess the original substance (drug molecules). If one tries to transfer a drop of such dilution to the next vial after rigorous succussion, all the solute molecules gaining much higher speed than the solvent molecules would rush to the next container along with the drop, like any gaseous substance. These molecules would not return to the original vial due to progressive attainment of non-homogeneity, preventing the dilution of solute molecules anymore. It does not mean that if the practitioner administers a medicine of 30th potency from the same vial to different patients it would not work at all, because there would be a ‘rich source’ of drug molecules left in properly potentized medicine, but if he does so for 1000 or higher potencies the chance of acquainting even single molecule would decrease. For that reason, in several homeopathic pharmacies fresh higher potencies are prepared from ‘back potencies’ (stock solution of the previous potency) for each patient in order to get better result. It was experimentally observed that when potencies are prepared indefinite times from a highly diluted back potency its efficacy decreases, which indicates finiteness of drug molecules in infinitesimal dilution.
The theory that a solution contains finite number of solute molecule was not known during Hahnemann’s time, but being a man of intuition he could realize the same. He did not prefer large-scale industrial production of infinite volume of medicine by the greedy apothecaries to increase their profit; possibly, he observed the incidents of failure of this procedure in curing patients. The following measures were taken by him to solve the problem:
Firstly, throughout his entire life, Hahnemann primarily used medicines that were centesimally diluted 3, 6, 9, 12 or 30 times.
Secondly, He used to prepare the medicine of his individual patients with his own hand to prevent repeated use from a single vial, and directed the practitioners to do likewise.
Thirdly, Hahnemann in most cases did not use liquid potencies, but kept milk of sugar as absorbent medium of the same, which might trap the medicine molecule from the diluent medium.
If potentization is made strictly following Hahnemann’s suggestion, the medicine cannot be non-molecular. You can make a simple observation for understanding such behavior of solute in a diluted solution. When a bottle of lemonade is freshly opened and drunk, there is a sharp taste of soda water. If one deeply occludes the mouth of the bottle with a thumb, shakes it vigorously, and quickly discards some part of the liquid in the same manner for four to five times, the sharpness of taste of the remaining part of the drink would fall significantly. Here the carbon dioxide molecules (solute) of soda water flow away very fast with the discarded volume higher than the expected number. Likewise, if you apply the same method for a potentized medicine i.e., succuss vigorously and discard a drop in a repeated manner for 50 times and lastly apply 51st drop from the fag end portion of the solution to a patient, its efficacy would decrease, as proved by real observation. You can also perform such experiment by yourself. It is needless to say that such a medicine would not be able to arouse symptoms in healthy persons or provers.
LikeLike
1. You said: “We all know that Avogadro’s number is a large figure but we do not have proper idea how large it is.”
What you exactly mean by this statement? Avogadro number is used to calculate the number of molecules or atoms in a given quantity of any substance. It is defined that 1 gram mol of any substance will contain 6.022×10^23 numbers of its molecules. 1 gram mol is the molecular mass of a substance expressed in grams. Since molecular mass of hydrogen is 2, 2 grams of hydrogen constitutes 1 gram mol of hydrogen, and it will contrain 6.022×10^23 number of hydrogen nolecules. Molecular mass of oxygen is 32, and hence 32 gms of oxygen will contain 6.022×10^23 oxygen molecules. Molecular mass of water is 18, and hence 18 gms of water will contain 6.022×10^23 h2o molecules. Molecular mass of carbon is 12, and hence 12 gms of carbon will contain 6.022×10^23 carbon molecules. In other words, 2 gms of hydrogen, 32 gms of oxygen, 18 gms of water and 12 gams of carbon will contain EQUAL NUMBER of molecules, which is a fixed number 6.022×10^23. It is obvious that number of molecules in equal quantities of different substances will be different depending upon their molecular mass. Larger the molecular mass, the lesser will be the number of molecules in a given quantity.
2. You said: “There is a misconception among some homeopaths that every drop of a potentized medicine is equally effective, but it is not always true.”
On the basis of which scientific study you made this statement? Actually, homeopaths use “every drop” of any drug they purchase, and they get expected result if the prescription was based on correct indications. Homeopaths never throw away any thing from the medicines they purchase. If you say it is due to “misconception”, you are bound to prove it through convincing studies and statistics.
3. You said: “The pharmacists have to prepare potencies by succussion from a very small fraction of such an infinite presumptive volume. So that the efficacy of remaining portion of the medicine remains untested.”.
Do you mean the “remaining portion” after “a very small fraction” of potentized drug is used for making higher potencies is not having any “efficacy”? Did you ever conduct any studies before reaching this conclusion? If you were right, only “a very small fraction” of any potentized drug sample will be therapeutically effective, and the remaining bulk will have to be discarded. It is never done. I wonder how could you get such a ‘misconception’ about homeopathic drugs?
LikeLike