Volume XIX- Selected Facebook Updates And Tweets Of Chandran K C On Scientific Homeopathy

Chandran Nambiar K C ♦ 02/06/2015 ♦ Leave a comment

Skeptics always ask for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) for proving the ‘efficacy’ of homeopathy.

According to their viewpoint, homeopathy is ‘ineffective’ and ‘fake’ if there are no enough RCTs to support it. Some enthusiastic homeopaths having no understanding of ‘molecular imprints’ and their biological mechanism, often fall in this trap and try to do RCTS, which inevitably result in ‘failures’.

Those friends should be made to understand, RCTs are useful only in proving the efficacy of ‘molecular forms’ of drugs. They are not applicable in verifying the efficacy of ‘molecular imprints forms’ of drugs used as ultra-dilutions of homeopathy.

Molecular imprints contained in ultra-dilutions act by a biological mechanism that is entirely different from the actions of ‘molecular’ drugs. Molecular imprints cannot exhibit any biological action in the absence of pathogenic molecules having conformational affinities.to the particular molecular imprints contained in the selected drug, that could be determined only by ‘similarity of symptoms’. That is why RCTs cannot be used to validate homeopathy.

Issue of proving the efficacy of homeopathy could be satisfactorily addressed only when scientists recognize this difference in biological mechanism of molecular imprints and molecular drugs, and agree to evolve newer methods of validation that are more perfect and more compatible with the peculiar biological mechanism of homeopathic cure.

—————————————————————————————————

WHAT OUR WORLD HOMEOPATHIC COMMUNITY DID TO EFFECTIVELY COUNTER THESE ARGUMENTS AGAINST HOMEOPATHY?

In early 2010, the UK’s Parliamentary Science and Technology Select Committee published a report into homeopathy and whether it should be funded by the government as part of the National Health Service.

I AM QUOTING FROM THE REPORT:

—Select Committee report, p. 47:

“”Overall conclusion- By providing homeopathy on the NHS and allowing MHRA licensing of products which subsequently appear on pharmacy shelves, the Government runs the risk of endorsing homeopathy as an efficacious system of medicine. To maintain patient trust, choice and safety, the Government should not endorse the use of placebo treatments, including homeopathy. Homeopathy should not be funded on the NHS and the MHRA should stop licensing homeopathic products.”

—Select Committee report, p. 9:

“”What is homeopathy? 9. Homeopathy is a 200-year old system of medicine that seeks to treat patients with highly diluted substances that are administered orally. Homeopathy is based on two principles: “like-cures-like” whereby a substance that causes a symptom is used in diluted form to treat the same symptom in illness and “ultra-dilution” whereby the more dilute a substance the more potent it is (this is aided by a specific method of shaking the solutions, termed “succussion”). It is claimed that homeopathy works by stimulating the body’s self-healing mechanisms.

10. Homeopathic products should not be confused with herbal remedies. Some homeopathic products are derived from herbal active ingredients, but the important distinction is that homeopathic products are extremely diluted and administered according to specific principles.”

—Select Committee report, p. 10:

“”14. In June 2009 the Guardian reported that the NHS had spent £12 million on homeopathy in the period 2005–08.16 According to the Society of Homeopaths, the NHS spends £4 million on homeopathy annually. It appears that these figures do not include maintenance and running costs of the homeopathic hospitals or the £20 million spent on refurbishing the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital between 2002 and 2005″.

—Select Committee report, p. 18:

“”47. Our expectations of the evidence base relevant to government policies on the provision of homeopathy are straightforward. We would expect the Government to have a view on the efficacy of homeopathy so as to inform its policy on the NHS funding and provision of homeopathy. Such a view should be based on the best available evidence, that is, rigorous randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses and systematic reviews of RCTs. If the effects of homeopathy can be primarily attributed to the placebo effect, we would expect the Government to have a view on the ethics of prescribing placebos.”

—Select Committee report, p. 18:

“”49. There appear to be two main concerns. The first is the principle of like-cures-like and the second is about how ultra-dilutions could retain characteristics of the active ingredient”.

—Select Committee report, p. 20:

“”54. We conclude that the principle of like-cures-like is theoretically weak. It fails to provide a credible physiological mode of action for homeopathic products. We note that this is the settled view of medical science”

—Select Committee report, p. 23:

“”70. In our view, the systematic reviews and meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that homeopathic products perform no better than placebos.”

—Select Committee report, p. 23:

“”77. There has been enough testing of homeopathy and plenty of evidence showing that it is not efficacious.

MY COMMENTS UPON THE SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT:

A. Select Committee report, p. 18:

“”49. There appear to be two main concerns. The first is the principle of like-cures-like and the second is about how ultra-dilutions could retain characteristics of the active ingredient”.

MIT has taken up the task of addressing these two “main concerns” in most scientific terms

B. Select Committee report, p. 20:

POINT 1. MIT provides a scientifically “credible physiological mode of action for homeopathic products”.

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.

POINT 2. MIT has shown that the homeopathic principle ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ Is not at all “weak” as the select committee report has observed.

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’.

THE PROBLEM IS, HOMEOPATHIC COMMUNITY FAILED TO PRESENT THIS MIT CONCEPTS BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE. HAD ANYBODY DONE IT, THE OUTCOME WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

—————————————————————————————————

As everything else in this universe, there cannot exist ‘immutable’ laws, principles , theories, or ‘methods’ in homeopathy also.

Once we acquire better scientific knowledge regarding the exact processes involved in potentization, exact active principles of potentized drugs and the exact 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 modify many things so far considered as ‘fundamentals’ of homeopathy.

————————————————————————————————

According to some ‘leaders of kerala homeopathy’, Chandran K C is only an ITCH on the body of homeopathy, and they advise their ‘followers’ to ignore that itch, as it will subside gradually. No treatment is required for this ‘minor’ ailment- they can continue their slumber without any worry!

They are asking their followers to avoid discussing MIT. If anybody mentions MIT on their groups, they are instantly removed.

As Dr Hahnemann said, ITCH is not that much simple. It is the MOTHER of all diseases! Creating ITCH using right prescriptions is essential for an ever lasting cure of chronic ailments. I am bringing the ‘long-suppressed’ itches of homeopathy out through MIT ‘prescriptions’. They are right!

The real problem with them is, they are more concerned about ‘defeating’ the person behind MIT, than even scientifically explaining homeopathy itself.

For ‘defeating’ MIT, they conducted some ‘nanoparticle research’, and started making ‘half-cooked’ bizarre theories about ‘quantum dots’ and their biological mechanism of action, hoping nobody knows what is this ‘quantum dots’! When hard questions started coming, they feign deaf and dumb!

It is for this purpose of ‘defeating MIT’ that they brought famous scientists such as G Madhavan Nair and Dr Rajashekaharan Pillai with big propaganda, hoping they would give some ‘scientific theories’ about homeopathy that would enable them to ‘counter’ MIT. To their utter despair, G Madhavan Pillai spoke nothing about homeopathy. Dr Rajashekaran Pillai made some casual comments such as “each homeopathic potency is a new molecule”. It was enough. Our leaders started propagating the NEW theory of homeopathy proposed by Dr Pillai. Very soon, they realized it will not hold for long!

This is a pathetic situation. I feel sympathy for these ‘leaders’.

————————————————————————————————-

What might have been the intention of Dr Hahnemann , when he first started working on ‘potentization’ of drugs? Was it for ‘enhancing’ the power, or, ‘reducing’ the side effects? ANY IDEA?

During hahnemann’s time, allopaths were using large quantities of mercury, arsenic, toxic chemicals, strong purgatives, blood letting etc as part of their treatments.

Actually, hahnemann wanted to quit medical practice practice due to his disagreements with this crude drugging, and started translating of medical books to earn his living.

When he accidentally invented the theory of similimum, he started using very small quantities of drugs to avoid bad effects of crude drugging he hated so much. First he used teaspoon fulls of tinctures. Then switched over to drop doses of tinctures, then half or quarter of drops, for fear of bad effects. Then he started diluting the tinctures. Observing that even very diluted tinctures have desired medicinal effects, he gradually increased the scale of dilutions.

Since he could not explain the medicinal properties of very diluted drugs any other way, he believed that some kind of ‘dynamic energy’ is released during the process of dilution. In earlier stages, ‘shaking’ was done only to mix the solutions thoroughly. Later, he started believing that it was this ‘shaking’ that released the medicinal energy, and he started working upon ‘potentization’ seriously.

———————————————————————————————–

Genius of Hahnemann made two important observations regarding a peculiar type of relationship between drug substances and diseases. 250 years ago:

1. Diseases with specific symptoms can be cured by using preparations made from drugs that can produce similar symptoms in healthy individuals. He called this phenomenon as ‘similia similibus curentur’.

2. When used according to ‘similia similibus curentur’, extremely diluted forms of drug substances can act as powerful therapeutic agents. He called this process of preparing ‘extreme dilutions’ 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.

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.

All other ideas that form the ‘theoretical system’ of homeopathy 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.

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.

We should accept his OBSERVATIONS, but judiciously discard or modify his unscientific PRINCIPLES.

—————————————————————————————————–

‘Antidoting’ And ‘Deactivating’ Of Potentized Homeopathic Drugs- A Scientific Explanation:

In Chronic Diseases : Para 142, Hahnemann describes the articles to be avoided during homeopathic treatment:

“For many easily perceived reasons, but especially in order that this delicate doses of medicine may not be interfered with in their action, the homoeopathic physician cannot in his antipsoric treatment allow the intermediate use of any hitherto customary domestic remedy, no perfumery of any kind, no fragrant extracts, no smelling-salts, no Baldwin tea, or any other herb teas, no peppermint confection, no spiced confections or anise-sugar or stomach drops, or liqueurs, no Iceland-moss, or spiced chocolate, no spice-drops, tooth-tinctures or tooth-powders of the ordinary kinds, nor any of the other articles of luxury.”

According to this statement of hahnemann, , the ‘delicate doses of medicine’ used in homeopathy may be ‘interfered with in their actions’ by “customary domestic remedy”, “perfumery”, “fragrant” “smelling-salts”, “Baldwin tea”, “herb teas”, “peppermint confection”, “spiced confections”, “anise-sugar” , “liqueurs”, “Iceland-moss”, “spiced chocolate”, “spice-drops”, “tooth-tinctures” “tooth-powders” etc. Kindly notice, most of the articles Hahnemann listed here are those which may contain VOLATILE OILS. That indicates a very important observation.

I have been wondering for long whether there exist any scientific basis for this advice made by Hahnemann. After studying the molecular structure of various volatile organic compounds including CAMPHOR, and understanding the mechanism of their interactions, now I think there could be some amount of truth in it, though it was somewhat distorted and far-stretched by hahnemann. Certain chemical molecules contained in these aromatic organic compounds may be capable of antidoting certain MOLECULAR IMPRINTS contained in a wide class of potentized homeopathic drugs- especially drugs of vegetable origin-, by deactivating their constituent molecular imprints by binding to them due to their conformational affinity.

Most aromatic organic compounds have a C=O moiety in its functional group. Such compounds are called carbonyl compounds, which also include aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acid, esters, amides, enones, acyl halides, acid unhydrides etc. Most of these substances are aroma compounds, which are responsible for the property known as fragrance and flavors.

Compounds that contain C-O bonds possess differing reactivity based upon the location and hybridization of the C-O bond, owing to the electron-withdrawing effect of hybridized oxygen. Certain medicinal properties of various vegetable substances and some animal products are mostly due to the presence of molecules having highly reactive C=O moiety in their functional groups.

In organic chemistry, functional groups are specific groups of atoms within molecules that are responsible for the characteristic chemical reactions of those molecules. The same functional group will undergo the same or similar chemical reactions regardless of the size of the molecule it is a part of. However, its relative reactivity can be modified by nearby functional groups.

The word moiety is often used synonymously to “functional group,” but to be more specific, a moiety is a part of a molecule that may include either whole functional groups or a parts of functional groups as substructures. The atoms of functional groups are linked to each other and to the rest of the molecule by covalent bonds. When the group of covalently bound atoms bears a net charge, the group is referred to more properly as a polyatomic ion or a complex ion. Any subgroup of atoms of a compound also may be called a radical, and if a covalent bond is broken homolytically, the resulting fragment radicals are referred as free radicals.

Camphor is a volatile organic aroma compound with chemical formula C10H16O, belonging to the class known as terpenoids. When kept open, its molecules would easily diffuse into the atmosphere.

Camphor is a cyclic terpene, having a C=O moeity in its functional group. Such compounds are called carbonyl compounds, which also include aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acid, esters, amides, enones, acyl halides, acid unhydrides etc. Most of these substances are aroma compounds, which are responsible for the property known as fragrance and flavors. Compounds that contain C-O bonds each possess differing reactivity based upon the location and hybridization of the C-O bond, owing to the electron-withdrawing effect of sp hybridized oxygen.Medicinal properties of various vegetable substances and some animal products are mostly due to the presence of molecules having highly reactive C=O moiety in their functional groups.

Drug molecules act upon the biological molecules in the organism by binding their functional groups to specific active groups on the complex biological molecules. Here, the functional groups of drug molecules called ligands, and the biological molecules are called targets. Ligand-target intercation is always determined by a ‘key-lock’ relationship due to complementary configurational affinities.

It is to be specifically noted that same functional group will undergo the same or similar chemical reactions regardless of the size or configuration of of the molecule it is a part of. However, its relative reactivity can be modified by nearby functional groups known as facilitating groups. That means, different types of drug molecules or pathogenic molecules having same functional groups and facilitating groups can bind to same biological molecules, and produce similar molecular inhibitions and symptoms.

Homeopathic principle of ‘similimum’ is well explained by this understanding. If a drug molecule can produce symptoms similar to symptoms of a particular disease, it means that the drug molecule and disease causing molecule has same functional groups on them. Obviously, similarity of symptoms means similarity of functional groups of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules. To be similimum, the whole molecules need not be similar, but similarity of functional groups is enough.

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

As said above, most of the vegetable and animal drugs contains diverse types of aromatic drug molecules and esters having C=O functional groups, which are also present on camphor molecules. Potentized homeopathic drugs would contain molecular imprints of this functional groups, which can be easily deactivated by crude camphor molecules as well as other aromatic molecules. Molecules of Volatile substances such as camphor would easily diffuse into atmosphere and nearby potentized drugs, and bind to molecular imprints of C=O functional groups they contain. It would result in deactivation of molecular imprints, which we call antidoting.

I hope, I have scientifically explained the molecular mechanism of the phenomenon of antidoting of potentized drugs by perfumes and strong smelling substances. Most perfumes contains esters, which have C=O functional groups.

Now it is obvious that CAMPHOR IS NOT A UNIVERSAL ANTIDOTE AS WE BELIEVE. Only MOLECULAR or crude forms and low potencies of CAMPHOR can ‘selectively’ antidote particular ‘molecular imprints’ contained in potentized drugs.

MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or or potencies above 12c of camphor cannot antidote any other potentized drugs. More over, even MOLECULAR forms of camphor cannot antidote ALL molecular imprints of potentized drugs, but only those individual molecular imprints which have conformational affinity due to the presence of C=O functional groups.

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.

Since ‘molecular imprints, the active principles of potentized drugs, are nothing but hydrogen-bonded supra-molecular formations of water-ethyl alcohol molecules into which the three-dimensional spacial forms are engraved as nanocavities, any physical or chemical influence that may destroy these formations will be capable of ‘deactivating’ potentized drugs. This include heat, strong radiations, chemical agents etc.

—————————————————————————————————-

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.

————————————————————————————————-

Unless you can answer the question where from the unending supply of “drug particles” come to be distributed in each and every drops of ‘ultra’ dilutions that are millions of times above Avogadro limit, all your ‘theories’ of ‘nanoparticles’ and ‘drug molecules entrapped in vehicle molecules” are simply absurd.

————————————————————————————————-

One homeopath from kerala messaged me: “Stop this nonsense. You are not qualified to discuss homeopathy. Do you think you are a new hahnemann?”

What is the “qualification” to “discuss” homeopathy?

If everything you read or hear simply fly over your head, or if you are ignorant about the topics being discussed, you are not “qualified” to discuss any topic!

I do not think there is any chance for a “new hahnemann” or “new einstein” here. I am proud to be Chandran K C, and will remain here as Chandran K C and continue not only to ‘discuss’, but REDEFINE HOMEOPATHY, even without any “qualification” or support from any ‘leader’.

————————————————————————————————-

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?

————————————————————————————————–

I know very well that I am a ‘pebble’, where as George Vithoulkas is a mighty ‘mountain’. But to be intellectually truthful, I cannot conceal my disagreements with his views about homeopathy. I cannot follow anybody blindly- even master Hahnemann.

I wanted to know, whether Vithoulkas ever express his views regarding what happens during potentization, by which medicinal properties of drug substances are transferred to potentizing medium?

I wanted to know, whether Vithoulkas ever try to answer the question what are the active principles of potentized drugs?

I wanted to know, whether Vithoulkas ever tried answer the question what is the biological mechanism of action of potentized drugs?

I think nobody serious about homeopathy can evade these three fundamental questions, answers of which will ultimately define his approach to homeopathy.

According to the NEW MODEL of Vithoulkas:

“1. Unless we understand the functioning of the human organism in its subtle levels we cannot hope to unravel the laws and principles governing human intelligence, human emotionality and the human physical body as well as their interconnection and interdependence.

2. Such universal laws should be searched for in an area far beyond the physico-chemical structure of the human body – this area, this realm that can be called a substratum of subtle formulative energies.”

He is trying to explain the ” human intelligence, human emotionality and the human physical body as well as their interconnection and interdependence” using a concept of “subtle formulative energies”! He has all rights to do that, if he stop claiming he is talking SCIENCE! There is nothing scientific in his “subtle energy”. We have been hearing about this “subtle energy” from all sorts of occult practitioners and spiritual healers. Nobody can make homeopathy ‘scientific’, by talking theories of “subtle energy”.

The specific statement “Epigrammatically I could say that the time for an Energy Medicine has arrived”, very clearly shows that George Vithoulkas is least interested in making homeopathy a SCIENTIFIC MEDICINE.

See how the NEW MODEL of Vithoulkas defines DISEASE:

“A disease (process of degeneration) will only take place if the vibrational frequencies of the stimulus (disease producing agent) and the organism (predispositions) coincide. Diseases are nothing else but the activation of the existing predispositions.”

Did you notice? Disease happens only when “vibrational frequency” of “disease producing agent” COINCIDES with the “vibrational frequency” of “predispositions of organism”. For him, DISEASE is all about COINCIDING of “vibrational frequencies”!

In his NEW MODEL, there is no role for biochemistry, molecular biology, immunology, genetics or any such knowledge- only “subtle energy” that is “communicated principally through the smallest particle-energy bodies that have not been defined yet”!

His views about the active principles of potentized drugs as ‘subtle energy’, and his ‘new model’ for disease and cure based on ‘resonance’ are basically contradicting all the modern scientific knowledge system.

It is very frustrating to see that he drags “prana, bioplasma, orgon, etc., etc.” into his NEW MODEL as a “substratum” for the activities of “subtle energy”, thereby alienating homeopathy completely away from the framework and paradigms of modern scientific knowledge system.

Due to his obsession with the ‘resonace model’, he is totally incapable of even thinking about a scientific model for the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure. Biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, molecular pathology and such modern scientific knowledge have no place in his ‘energy medicine’ theories.

Whatever sophisticated scientific vocabulary he uses, George Vithoulkas, the ‘living legend of homeopathy’, is basically a staunch proponent of the most unscientific ‘energy medicine’ theories about homeopathy, as demonstrated by his writings.

I strongly disagree with his ‘energy medicine’ approach to homeopathy, even though personally I have great respects for his comparatively rational approach towards most of the nonsense concepts and methods propagated by modern day ‘gurus’.

————————————————————————————————–

WITHOUT A SCIENTIFICALLY VIABLE WORKING HYPOTHESIS AS A SPRINGBOARD OF FURTHER ACTIONS, YOU CANNOT CONDUCT A GENUINE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. OUR ‘NANO-PARTICLE RESEARCHERS’ OF HOMEOPATHY TRIED TO DO IT WITHOUT SUCH A HYPOTHESIS, WHICH INEVITABLY LED THEM TO POORLY CONCEIVED EXPERIMENTS, INACCURATE OBSERVATIONS, WRONG INTERPRETATIONS, FOOLISH CONCLUSIONS AND TOTALLY ABSURD THEORIES.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. It is ‘a method or procedure consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of a proposed HYPOTHESIS.

The chief characteristic which distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself. Hypothesis is raised to the status of THEORY when the predictions based on hypothesis are confirmed. Hypothesis is discarded or modified when its predictions prove false.

Scientific researchers proposes a HYPOTHESIS as explanations for an unexplained but known phenomenon, and design experimental studies to test this hypothesis via PREDICTIONS which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Certain researches may encompass wider domains of inquiry that may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure.

A hypothesis is derived as a tentative answer to a naturally arising question regarding a known phenomenon. It is a conjecture based on the knowledge obtained while formulating the question.

To be considered scientifically viable, a hypothesis must be FALSIFIABLE, meaning that one can identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis through a NULL HYPOTHESIS; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested.

According to scientific method, PREDICTIONS, TESTING and ANALYSIS are the essential steps in the validation of a scientific hypothesis.

MIT proposes the following HYPOTHESIS as an answer to the question HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS. We have to PROVE it or DISPROVE it.

“Homeopathy is a therapeutic method of curing diseases by using ‘molecular imprints’ of drug substances, which in ‘molecular forms’ could produce ‘symptoms’ similar to those presented by the patient. ‘Similarity’ of drug symptoms and disease symptoms indicate that the drug molecules and pathogenic molecules have ‘similar’ functional groups, by which they could bind to ‘similar’ biological molecules, produce ‘similar’ molecular inhibitions that caused ‘similar’ molecular pathology which are expressed through ‘similar’ subjective and objective ‘symptoms’. Molecular imprints of ‘similar’ drug molecules can act as artificial binding sites for ‘similar’ pathogenic molecules due to complementary configurational affinity, thereby deactivating them and relieving the biological molecules from pathological inhibitions, which amounts to ‘cure’. This the scientific meaning of Similia Similibus Curentur.”

Essential part of this HYPOTHESIS that has to be proved or disproved first is that homeopathic potentization is a process of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING, and the active principles of potentized drugs are MOLECULAR IMPRINTS of drug molecules. This has to be proved or disproved according to scientific methods, to make homeopathy a legitimate medical science.

PREDICTIONS formulated for proving MIT HYPOTHESIS are:

1. 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.

2. If ‘molecular imprinting’ concept is right, chemical analysis of high potency drugs and plain water-alcohol mixture will prove they have same chemical constitution.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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)

6. 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.

THESE PREDICTIONS HAVE TO BE PROVED OR DISPROVED THROUGH SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS.

————————————————————————————————–

How can I convince you something, if you persistently hesitate to read anything I write? I regularly post at least one article everyday explaining my concepts of ‘molecular imprints’ and their implication in homeopathy. Without reading what I write, you are asking me to “prove”! I once again request you to take some time to read at least some of those articles.

How can I prove my scientific concepts of homeopathy to somebody who does not know or is not willing to learn supra-molecular properties of water?

How can I prove my concepts to somebody who does not know or is not willing to learn the subject matter of molecular imprinting technology?

How can I prove my concepts to somebody who does not know or is not willing to learn the modern biochemistry and molecular biology?

How can I prove my concepts to somebody who does not know or is not willing to learn advanced concepts of enzyme kinetics and molecular level pathology?

My request to those who ask for ‘proof for my concepts’ is, kindly update your basic knowledge in the topics I discuss. Then only you can follow these concepts. Then only I can ‘prove’ molecular imprints concepts to you.

Once you acquire the background knowledge and then read my articles, you will see that everything I say is simple ‘proved’ science, and only very little remains to be ‘proved’.

————————————————————————————————-

Let us examine what actually happens during potentization.

During trituration of crude drugs, and during early stages of dilution and succussion, individual molecules contained in the drug substance are liberated by breakage of inter-molecular bonds that held them together. By this process,drug molecules get ionized and more reactive, and even insoluble substances thereby become soluble in the water-alcohol medium. Triturations and lower dilutions are biologically more active than crude drugs and mother tinctures, due to these free molecules and and ions they contain.

Drug molecules are subjected to a process of ‘hydration’ when they are dissolved in water-alcohol mixture. Hydration takes place by the water-alcohol molecules arranging themselves around independent drug molecules, and forming a supra-molecular network around them through hydrogen bonding. These supra-molecular networks are called ‘hydration shells’. Hydrogen bonds of water molecules are normally weak, but presence of comparatively heavy ethyl alcohol molecules attached to them make the hydration shells more stable. A clathrate-like supra-molecular ‘host-guest’ complexes are formed, where drug molecules act as ‘guests’ and water-ethyl alcohol molecules as ‘hosts’. This is what happen during early stages of potentization.

During serial process of diluting and violent shaking, ‘guest’ molecules happen to escape from ‘guest-host’ complexes, and empty ‘hydration shells’ remains. Formation of new ‘guest-host’ complexes and generation of empty ‘hydration shells’ continues. Due to serial dilutions, the concentration of drug molecules is reduced by each stage, same time increasing the concentration of empty ‘hydration shells’. By the time potentization crosses 12c or Avogadro’s limit, the medium become totally devoid of all drug molecules, and will be concentrated by only empty ‘hydration shells’ representing diverse types of constituent drug molecules.

It has been reported to have observed that supra-molecular formations of water, being part of ‘clathrate’ complexes can maintain their network structures even after the ‘guest’ molecules are removed from them. More over, ‘clathrates’ are found to have behaving some what like crystals, and existing ‘clathrates’ can induce the formation of similar networks even in the absence of ‘guest’ molecules’. All these complex factors have to be taken into account when studying the molecular processes involved in potentization.

As such, homeopathic potencies above 12c contains only empty ‘hydration’ shells remaining after the removal of drug molecules from the ‘guest-host’ complexes formed during earlier stages of dilutions. These empty ‘hydration shells’ are actually supra-molecular clusters of water-ethyl alcohol molecules, carrying 3-dimensional nanocavities remaining after removal of ‘guest’ drug molecules. Actually, these nanocavities are ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules, which can act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules similar to the drug molecules in their molecular configurations. This ‘configurational affinity of ‘molecular imprints’ towards specific pathogenic molecules make them powerful therapeutic agents. Similia Similibus Curentur is logically explained in terms of these molecular imprints.

Since I consider molecular imprints as the active principles of potentized drugs, I do not subscribe to the idea that ‘higher’ potencies are more ‘powerful’, and I see no special benefit by using ‘higher’ potencies.

I think 12c is enough for completing molecular imprinting and removal of all drug molecules from the medium. What happens at molecular level during further potentization is still an open question for me. In supra-molecular chemistry, there is research going on regarding a phenomenon known as ‘induced molecular assembly’. That means, supra-molecular clusters acting as templates and inducing other molecules to form similar clusters. We know, ‘induced molecular assembly’ is involved in crystallization, clathrate formation etc. Even ‘prions’, which are misfolded proteins, multiply by ‘induced misfolding’. Antibodies, which are ‘molecular imprinted proteins’, also multiply by ‘inducing’ other globulin proteins to change configuration. Molecular imprints, which are supra-molecular clusters of water, may also multiply by the process of ‘induced molecular assembly’, where existing ‘molecular imprints’ may act as templates and induce formation of similar molecular imprints. It is only a possibility, which need in-depth study, which may provide us a rational way of resolving the riddle of high potencies. For the time being, I leave it as an open question.

Even though ‘molecular imprints’ may be formed in higher potencies through the process of ‘induced molecular assembling’, by no way that makes higher potencies more ‘powerful’ or ‘potent’. By 12c, all drug molecules will be removed from the medium, and medium gets saturated with ‘molecular imprints’. 12c will be ideal homeopathic. therapeutic agent. I see no special benefits by going ‘higher’. But, diluting medicines while administering by mixing with water may be beneficial, by increase the number of molecular imprints.

Triturations and low potencies containing original drug molecules act as ‘competitive’ factors towards pathogenic molecules in binding to biological molecules. But, ‘molecular imprints’ contained in potencies above 12c act as ‘complementary’ factors, binding directly to specific pathogenic molecules due to their configurational affinity. Obviously, low potencies and high potencies act therapeutically by different molecular mechanisms.

———————————————————————————————–

Only ‘molecular imprints’ can rationally explain following phenomena:

1. There is no chance for any single ‘molecule’ of original drug substance remaining in potencies above avogadro limit, if they are genuinely potentized.

2. Chemical analysis of high potency drugs and plain water-alcohol mixture proves they have same chemical constitution.

3. Potentized drugs have therapeutic effects if used as per indications, but plain water-alcohol mixturebdoes not exhibit any therapeutic effect.

4. Many spectrometric and thermoluminance studies have proved that high potency drugs and plain water-alcohol mixtures are entirely different in their supra-molecular organizations.

5. In vitro and in vivo studies have proved that high potency drugs have biological properties that are reverse to those of their molecular forms (below 12c)

6. Studies have proved that high potency drugs can antidote or neutralize the bilological effects of molecular forms of same drugs

———————————————————————————-

When ‘scientific research’ is done by those who have no any idea of basics of science and scientific methods, it will end up only as a funny joke! That is what now happens to our ‘nanoparticle researchers’ of homeopathy!

———————————————————————————–

Anybody have the right to do any ‘research’ they like, and make any theory they could ‘derive’. But they should not expect everybody to blindly believe everything they say, but be prepared to face hard questions from those who think rationally, and answer them to establish the theories. That is an inevitable part of scientific method. Our ‘nanoparticle researchers’ of homeopathy have pathetically failed in this regard. They conveniently ignore all inconvenient questions! According to our fiery GHF head Dr. Sreevals menon, asking questions is “destructive” to scientific research, and will not be “permitted”!

———————————————————————————-

Our respected ‘nanoparticle researchers’ say they detected QUANTUM DOTS in potentized drugs, and make BIG theories about their action on genetic substance. Why they fail to realize that these QUANTUM DOTS are nothing but simple SILICA particles leaching into our medicine from glass and ceramic utensils?

——————————————————————————–

Before making ‘nanoparticle theories about homeopathy’, at least try to get an answer to the question “where from this unending supply of nanoparticles comes in ultra dilutions”.

If it is by “carry over the whole nanoparticles from one step of dilution into next step” as IIT-B team say, what about the remaining part from which the “1% top layer” is carried to next level of dilution? Is it discarded?

We have to get an answer from some body!

———————————————————————————

This is a sentence from Business Standard, which quotes a prominent mumbai-based ‘GHF leader’ who conducted recent ‘global summit’ saying as follows:

“For years, homeopathy is stated to have been using the process of converting snake venom and poison from scorpions, spiders and wild bees into medicinal substances by transforming them into nano-particles that have proved safe and effective for patients.”

Can anybody “transform snake venom and poison from scorpions, spiders and wild bees” into NANO-PARTICLES? Did any ‘researcher’ ever detect ‘nanoparticles of snake venom’ in potentized homeopathic drugs?

If you do not know the answer, ask somebody who knows what really are ‘snake venom”, ‘nano-particle’ and ‘nanotechnology’.

————————————————————————————

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?

How these 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 potentized drugs? From the glass and ceramic utensils used for potentization and trituration.

It is a very simple knowledge. Nothing to be researched.

——————————————————————————–

The ‘nanoparticle researchers’ of homeopathy say they detected “QUANTUM DOTS” in potentized drugs, and try to theorize that homeopathic drugs act by the power of these ‘quantum dots’. I would suggest they should consult with some real scientists about this ‘quantum dots’ before publishing this type of ‘theories’.

‘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.

What our ‘researchers’ detected in ultra-dilutions as QUANTUM DOTS are actually the SILICON particles detaching from mortars during trituretion, 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 ‘savior of homeopathy’ is 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 labeling it as a dangerous thing. Any drug that can “influence genetic material” will be looked upon by people as unsafe things to be used as medicines.

————————————————————————————–

It is true that mother tinctures and crude drugs also can act as ‘similimum’ in certain conditions. But the molecular mechanisms of their therapeutic actions and ultimate outcome are fundamentally different from that of high potency drugs.

Drug molecules contained in mother tinctures and crude drugs may ‘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 forms 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 other molecular forms of drugs.

———————————————————————————

April 15th issue of malayalam journal HOMEO SHASTHRAM has reported that Dr Rajashekharan pillai, the great scientist and former ugc chairman, said in a homeopathy seminar in kerala that “each higher potency is a NEW MOLECULE, and hence it is wrong to say homeopathic potencies do not contain any drug molecule”. I would request anybody who witnessed that speech may kindly post the details of the new ideas he presented about homeopathy.

If he has actually said so, it is totally against the ‘nanoparticle theory’! Nanopartcles are not MOLECULES!

Now, our respected ‘leaders’ will have a hard choice between ‘nanoparticles’ of IIT-B scientists and ‘new molecules’ of Dr Rajashekharan pillai!

———————————————————————————–

Scientific advancement of homeopathy is impossible unless we could free homeopathy from the malignant influences of unscientific and superstitious concepts such as ‘vital force’ and ‘dynamic drug energy’. We should also relentlessly struggle to free homeopathy from pseudo-scientific theories such as ‘nanoparticle theory or ‘energy medicine theory.

———————————————————————————–

Our ‘homeopathic researchers’ always use ‘elemental’ or ‘mineral’ drugs such as ferrum, zincum, cuprum, carbon etc for their ‘nanoparticle studies’. They never use complex vegetable drugs, animal drugs or nosodes for their ‘nanoparticle’ research..

You know why? The answer will expose the hollowness of ‘nanoparticle theory of homeopathy’.

————————————————————————————

Our new ‘nanoparticle researchers’ say they detected nanoparticles of ‘vegetable charcoal’ in all samples of ‘vegetable and organic’ drugs they tested in ultra-dilutions.’ ‘Vegetable charcoal’ means CARBON.

And they came to the queer conclusion that these nanoparticles are the active principles of potentized drugs.

If all ‘vegetable and organic’ drugs act by CARBON NANOPARTICLES, why should we use different drugs? Is it not enough to use potentized carbon or CARBO VEG only?

Is it not absurd to say NUX VOMICA and PULSATILLA are similar, since both contain CARBON?

What is going on here, in the name of ‘homeopathic research’? Do you realize, you are making homeopathy a piece of mockery by this act?

————————————————————————————

Study the supra-molecular re-arrangement happening in water and ethyl alcohol mixture during potentization. Key to the scientific understanding of homeopathy lies there. Your search for ‘nanoparticles’ of original drug substances in ultra-dilutions is actually leading you to a wrong direction. You may detect some particles of ‘metallic elements’ remaining either due to contamination or improper potentization, but you can never explain the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure on that basis. Earlier you realize this truth, the better it will be for the future advancement of homeopathy.

———————————————————————————-

I fear those homeopaths who are over- enthused over the ‘nanoparticle discovery’ in homeopathic potencies, and sincerely believe that the ‘discovery’ has finally settled all questions of ‘scientific proof’ for homeopathy, have not carefully read the paper published by IIT-B team.

READ THIS PARAGRAPH FROM IIT-B PAPER:

“Another question that arises from our observations is how in spite of such huge dilutions the particles of the starting materials are retained even at 200c potency?

The answer to this question could lie in the manufacturing process itself. We perceive that during the succussion process, the pounding of solutions against a rubber stop generates numerous nanobubbles as a result of entrapment of air and cavitation due to generation of ultra-sound waves.

The particles of the starting material instantaneously get adsorbed on the surface of these bubbles and cavitations. This phenomenon could be similar to the mechanism of formation of Pickering emulsions, wherein the emulsified phase viz. air bubbles or liquid droplets are stabilized by a layer of particles.

This nanoparticle-nanobubble complex rises to the surface and can be within a monolayer once the total metal concentrations are well below 1 ppm. It is this 1% of the top layer of the solution which is collected and added to the next vessel, into 99 parts of fresh solvent and the succussion process is repeated. This transfer of the top 1% layer in each step will ensure that once we reach below a certain concentration i.e. well within a monolayer, the entire starting material continues to go from one dilution to the next, resulting in an asymptote beyond 6c.”

BEING SCIENTISTS, THEY CANNOT SHY AWAY FROM THE QUESTION “how in spite of such huge dilutions the particles of the starting materials are retained even at 200c potency”. Being scientists, they cannot say Avogadro number is not applicable to homeopathic dilutions, as our ‘homeopathic scientists’ conveniently do.

If ‘nanoparticles of starting materials’ are detected in a sample of material diluted to 200C which is much above avogadro limit, the first question naturally arising in the mind of a ‘scientist’ or a even a science-conscious person is “how in spite of such huge dilutions the particles of the starting materials are retained”. Being scientists, IIT-B team were bound to answer that question. They did it in the statement quoted above:

According to their view, during succussion, “the pounding of solutions against a rubber stop generates numerous nanobubbles as a result of entrapment of air and cavitation due to generation of ultra-sound waves”, and the “particles of the starting material instantaneously get adsorbed on the surface of these bubbles and cavitations”.

Then what happens? “This nanoparticle-nanobubble complex rises to the surface and can be within a monolayer”. “It is this 1% of the top layer of the solution which is collected and added to the next vessel, into 99 parts of fresh solvent and the succussion process is repeated.” “This transfer of the top 1% layer in each step will ensure that once we reach below a certain concentration i.e. well within a monolayer, the entire starting material continues to go from one dilution to the next,”

DID YOU UNDERSTAND THE EXPLANATION PROVIDED BY THE SCIENTISTS?

They said, nanoparticles of starting materials will be present only in the “1% of the top layer of the solution”.

They said, it is this top layer that is used for preparing the next higher dilution.

They said, “the entire starting material continues to go from one dilution to the next” during each stage of potentization.

Dear homeopaths, as per your knowledge are the IIT-B scientists right in saying only the “top mono-layer of the solution” is used to prepare higher dilution?

Dear homeopaths, Do you think the IIT-B scientists are right in saying “entire starting material continues to go from one dilution to the next”?

If they are right, the 99% solution remaining after transfer of “1% top layer” will not contain any nanoparticles.

Do you think the 99% solution remaining after transfer of “1% top layer” are discarded by the manufacturers?

——————————————————————————–

IGNORING DIFFICULT QUESTIONS BY FEIGNING DEAF AND DUMB IS THE MOST CONVENIENT STRATEGY TO COVER UP YOUR IGNORANCE AND PRETEND TO KNOW EVERYTHING!

MOST OF OUR ‘LEADERS’ OF HOMEOPATHIC COMMUNITY ARE MASTERS OF THIS ‘FIRE ESCAPE’ ART! EXCUSE ME, BUT I CANNOT AVOID TELLING THIS PAINFUL TRUTH!

———————————————————————————-

Following paragraph is quoted from the concluding part of original IIT-B study that detected ‘nanoparticles’ in homeopathic ultra-dilutions.

If you are not a person blinded by the euphoria of the nanoparticle ‘discovery, kindly read it carefully:

“Another question that arises from our observations is how in spite of such huge dilutions the particles of the starting materials are retained even at 200c potency?

Did you read it carefully? Could you understand what is said in it clearly?

it is obvious that the ‘scientists’ have a very perverted idea about the actual process of potentization and potentized drugs.

See what they said:

“nanoparticle-nanobubble complex rises to the surface and can be within a monolayer once the total metal concentrations are well below 1 ppm.”

“It is this 1% of the top layer of the solution which is collected and added to the next vessel, into 99 parts of fresh solvent and the succussion process is repeated.”

“This transfer of the top 1% layer in each step will ensure that once we reach below a certain concentration i.e. well within a monolayer, the entire starting material continues to go from one dilution to the next”.

If nanoparticles are present only in the 1% top layer of the solution, and if “the entire starting material continues to go from one dilution to the next”, how can they say these ultra dilutions act by nanoparticles?

If they are right, the homeopathic drug samples remaining after “transfer” of “1% top layer” to the next bottle will be therapeutically ineffective!

WHY NOT OUR LEARNED FRIENDS WHO ‘LEAD’ HOMEOPATHIC COMMUNITY FAIL TO ASK THIS QUESTION TO THE SCIENTISTS?

———————————————————————————-

One needs a reasonable level of knowledge in basics of modern biochemistry and pharmacodynamics to understand the scientific explanations of homeopathy provided by MIT. That is why the number of homeopaths who do not understand MIT is so high. Only very few people, especially if they hold high ‘qualifications’ and decorate some ‘leadership’ titles, will have the humility and magnanimity to admit their inability to understand something. Such people blindly oppose MIT and personally abuse its author only to satisfy their own inflated ego. I can understand.

———————————————————————————-

BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM INVOLVED IN ‘SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURENTUR’, AS ENVISAGED BY THE CONCEPTS OF MOLECULAR IMPRINTS THERAPEUTICS COULD BE SCHEMATICALLY EXPLAINED AS FOLLOWS:

Let BIOLOGICAL MOLECULES be represented by ‘M’, and PATHOGENIC MOLECULES by D.

Pathogenic molecule D bind to biological molecule M to form a pathological molecular complex MD. MD represents a pathological molecular error or DISEASE.

Therapeutic process involves with relieving of M from the inhibitions caused by D.

Let crude drug molecules be represented by D1. If D1 can produce symptoms in healthy organism similar to pathological symptoms produced by D, that means D and D1 has similar molecular conformation, so that they could bind to same biological molecules and create similar molecular errors in the organism.

We say D1 is similimum to D, which caused the disease MD.

Molecular imprints of D1 may be represented by ‘d’, with a 3D configuration complementary to D1.

If D1 is siimilimum to D, molecular imprints ‘d’ will be having strong complementary towards D also. That means, ‘d’ can act as ‘artificial binding site’ for D, and selectively bind to it.

When applied as a therapeutic agent, ‘d’ can specifically bind to D of the MD (pathological complex) due to comparatively stronger affinity to form Dd (pathogenic molecule-molecular imprint complex) , thereby relieving M from pathological molecular blocks.

TO SUM UP:

M (biological molecule) +D (pathogenic molecule) > MD (Pathology).

If D1 (drug molecule) is similimum to D (pathogenic molecule), and ‘d’ is ‘molecular imprint’ of D1 (drug molecule),

‘d’ (molecular imprint) will be complementary to D1 (drug molecule) as well as to D (pathogenic molecule).

When ‘d'(molecular imprint) is applied as therapeutic agent,

MD (pathological molecular complex) +d (molecular imprint)> M (free biological molecule) +Dd(pathogenic molecule-molecular imprint complex).

M (biological molecule) is free now (CURE)

Dd ((pathogenic molecule-molecular imprint complex) is now bio-degraded or eliminated from the system

This is the proposed molecular mechanism involved in homeopathic therapeutics.

———————————————————————————–

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, ‘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 disease symptoms 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.

—————————————————————————————

I seriously suspect a skeptic-big pharma conspiracy and ulterior game plan working behind the recent flare up of interest in ‘nanoparticle research’ in homeopathy. and the media hype around it.

Enemies of homeopathy know better than anybody else that ‘proving’ the presence of ‘nanoparticles’ of ‘metallic elements’ in potentized homeopathic drugs is the best way to ‘finish’ homeopathy for ever, since it will automatically raise the issue of ‘nanotoxicity’ and prove homeopathy is not safe, on the basis of which stringent regulations could be initiated.

If ‘starting materials’ are proved to be present even in ultra-dilutions, it will unquestionably prove that the fundamental theory of homeopathic ‘potentization’ is a lie.

If this detection of nanoparticles in homeopathic drugs was done directly by modern scientists or nanotechnology labs, homeopaths would have easily recognized the anti-homeopathic big pharma conspiracy involved in it. Since it is made to be done by fame-seeking homeopaths themselves by providing funds, lab facilities and publicity, homeopathic community fail to recognize the conspiracy involved in it.

Time will prove the truth, but homeopathy will have no time to defend or repair the damages.

If this ‘research’ is true, homeopathy has lost all its credibility and right of existence. I am sure, this ‘nanoparticle research’ is utter nonsense. Only thing to know is, who is behind this farce. Time will prove.

I suspect this conspiracy since doors of all ‘nanotechnology labs’ are recently widely open to homeopaths for nominal fees. Scientists so far attacking homeopathy have turned facilitators of this ‘homeopathic research’. Media, who where so far apathetic to homeopathy have suddenly turned ‘promoters’ of nanoparticle research in homeopathy. A new ‘homeopathic foundation’ suddenly comes into existence under the leadership of most money-minded and tainted persons of homeopathic community , and conducts a big global event to propagate this nanoparticle theory.

Homeopathic drugs will not actually cause any nanotoxicity. But enemies of homeopathy can now enhance their antihomeopathic propaganda raising nanotoxicity issue. They can accuse, homeopathy medicine contains very dangerous particles of lead, ars, mercury etc. They can prove homeopathic potentization is only a fraud. They can ask governments to initiate stringent regulations. They can ask homeopathic drugs should be tested and certified to ensure their ‘nanoparticle’ levels are in safety range.

I SMELL SOMETHING FISHY. TIME WILL PROVE THE TRUTH. BUT HOMEOPATHY WILL HAVE TO UNDERGO GRAVE DAMAGE BY THAT TIME.

———————————————————————————-

Here I am posting two slides presented at GHF summit regarding ‘nanoparticles study’ of AURUM METALLICUM.

Watch both slides carefully. It is said that potentized aurum met contains ‘nanoparticles’ containing Aurum, Aluminium, Silica, Pottassium, Ferrum, Cuprum, Indium, Hafnium, Sodium, Chlorine, Boron, Cobalt and Carbon, along with ‘Quantum Dots’.

Nanoparticles detected in Aurum Met contains Aurum in following ratios:

6C contains 2.82%, 30C contains 89.06%, 200C contains 12.14%, 1M contains 1.24%, 10M contains 24%, 50M contains 9.73 %, CM contains 6.58% of elemental aurum.

15.63% of ALUMINIUM is present in nanoparticles detected in Aurum Met 1M. But other potencies of Aurum met does not contain any ALUMINIUM.

Where from this aluminium came in aurum met 1m only, which was not present in 6c, 30c, 200c, 10m or cm?

See the fun.Nanoparticles detected in Aur met 1m contains only 1.24% aurum, where it contains 15.63% aluminium.

If ‘nanoparticles are active principles of AURUM MET 1M, does it act by 15.63% aluminium or 1.24% aurum?

If AUR MET 6C contains AUR 2.82% and CUPRUM 75.82%, which will be the active principles? CUPRUM or AURUM?

If AUR 200 contains AURUM 12.14%, POTTASSIUM 29.36%, CUPRUM 25.8%, and SODIUM 20.08%, how can you say AURUM NANOPARTICLES are the active principles of Aur Met 200?

If AUR MET 50M contains AURUM 9.73% , CUPRUM 53.27%, and COBALT 23%, how can you say it is AURUM MET? Rather callit and use it as CUPRUM MET?

If AURUM MET CM contains AURUM 6.58%. CUPRUM 35.36, and HAFNIUM 36.56%, is it appropriate to use it as AURUM?

Hope some ‘nanoparticles specialists’ would explain.

If you look into these two slides carefully, you will get a lot of things to laugh at!!

————————————————————————————

Most of those who support ‘nanoparticle theory of homeopathy’ think nanoparticles are formed by division of atoms during potentization.

Nanoparticles are particles between 1 and 100 nanometers in size. Although the size of most molecules would fit into the above outline, individual molecules are usually not referred to as nanoparticles. Nanoparticles are a bridge between bulk materials and atomic or molecular structures. Peculiar properties of nanoparticles arise from the fact that most of the atoms or molecules lie ‘exposed’ with free bonds.

‘NANO-PARTICLES ARE NOT SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES. THEY ARE NOT FORMED BY DIVISION OF ATOMS AS SOME HOMEOPATHS THINK, BUT BY A PECULIAR UNION AND ARRANGEMENT OF LARGE NUMBER OF SIMILAR ATOMS OR MOLECULES. NANOPARTICLES ARE ‘POLY-ATOMIC’ or ‘POLY-MOLECULAR’ STRUCTURES.

———————————————————————————

IIT-B scientists said they detected ‘traces of nanoparticles floating in the top layers’ of ultra-high dilutions. Present IISc study says the ultra dilutions are “filled with nanoparticles”.

Two questions have to be answered here:

If nanoparticles are present only in the ‘top layers’ only, how would you explain the fact that homeopaths use not the “top layers” only, but even the last fractions of drops, and they get curative effect? If nanoparticles floating the ‘top layers’ are the active principles, the bottom layers have to be ineffective!

If nanoparticles are “filled” in the whole volume of ultradilutions as IISc study claims, you will have to explain wherefrom this unending supply of nanoparticles come, even after million-fold dilutions. According to avogadro theory, number of molecules contained in one gram mol of any substance is limited to 6.022×10^23. That means, when dilution crosses that limit, there cannot be any particle of original substance remaining. Either avogadro theory has to be proved wrong, or potentization process should be capable of generating new material particles from nothingness.

HOPE SOMEBODY WOULD ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS.

———————————————————————————

If you cannot explain the molecular level biological mechanism by which the ‘nanoparticles’ act as the therapeutic factors of homeopathic medicines, your claims regarding detection of nanoparticles does not contribute anything positive in the scientific understanding of homeopathy.

———————————————————————————-

———————————————————————————

If anybody had discussed my points threadbare, and convinced me MIT is wrong, I would have accepted their views. This is not an issue of ego. I have been trying to evolve a scientific explanation for homeopathy. Whether it comes through myself or anybody else is not a serious question. Truth should be our first concern. The moment anybody convince me MIT is not correct, I am ready to leave it. Why should I stick on to a wrong idea? Please tell me, what is wrong about MIT, and why you are so much apathetic towards it.

———————————————————————————-

Those who have been reading my articles and posts regularly, and trying sincerely to understand the scientific explanation of homeopathy proposed by MIT, are very much convinced this is the right approach. Of course, their number is increasing day by day. But majority of homeopaths, especially the leaders of professional bodies, academicians and ‘spokespersons’ are persistently ignoring it, or showing a conscious apathy towards it. They prefer to write off me as an ‘alien’ and an irrelevant person. WHY SO?

———————————————————————————-

Supporters of homeopathy deny or fail to see the truth that the theortical system of homeopathy is mostly irrational and unscientific. Opponents of homeopathy deny or fail to see the real and objective truth involved in the phenomenon of homeopathic cure. According to my view, both approaches are wrong. We need a comprehensive and dialectical approach to this issue.

Homeopathic cure is a real and objective phenomenon, which has been so far explained by most unscientific theories.

———————————————————————————-

If a drug substance can produce in healthy individuals certain group of symptoms similar to that of a particular disease, that means, the drug substance as well as the disease-causing substance contain some chemical molecules having similar functional groups or moieties, so that they could bind to similar biological targets and produce similar biomolecular inhibitions. In homeopathy, such a relationship between drug and disease is called ‘similimum’.

In potentized form, such a ‘similimum’ drug will contain only ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent molecules. Molecular imprints can act as artifical binding sites for disease-causing molecules having conformational affinity. They selectively bind to the pathogenic molecules, thereby relieving the biological molecules from pathological inhibitions. This is the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure.

———————————————————————————–

‘Similia similibus curentur’ is an expression hahnemann framed to describe a real, objctive phenomenon of nature he observed regarding disease-drug relationship.

‘Similia similibus curentur’ means, potentized forms of a drug can cure a disease, if it can produce symptoms similar to the disease in healthy individuals when applied in crude forms.

In modern scientific terms, ‘Similia similibus curentur’ means, ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules can bind to pathogenic molecules and remove the bio-molecular inhibitions caused by them, if the original drug molecules used for preparing those molecular imprints have functional groups or moeities similar to those of the particular pathogenic molecules.

This scientific truth was so far not explained properly, and homeopathic theoreticians did a lot of damages to this wonderful healing art by talking all sorts of nonsense absurd theories about homeopathy.

Once you understand what is explained above, your theoretical and practical approach to homeopathy will become rational and scientific.

——————————————————————————–

According to my view, homeopathy is a very much real, objective phenomenon so far not properly explained in scientific terms, and which has been gravely damaged by diverse types of unscientific theories. This concept is the basis of my approach to homeopathy.

————————————————————————————

Purchase some samples of ‘ultra dilutions’from the market, pay Rs 5000 to a ‘nanotechmology lab’, get the samples tested for presence of ‘nanoparticles’! Go to the press and declare that you have proved ‘homeopathy is scientific’! Then go to a ‘global seminar’ and present a paper on your ‘research’.

Nothing done to ensure the samples you purchased were genuine ultra dilutions.

Nothing done to rule out contaminations.

No control samples tested.

Nothing done to prove these nanoparticles are the real active principles of potentized drugs.

Nothing done to prove that the samples from which nanoparticles are removed are therapeutically ineffective.

No questions asked about the various possibilities of ‘nanoparticles’ getting detected in the samples.

Nothing discussed how these nanoparticles can represent the medicinal properties of complex drug molecules.

Nothing discussed about the biological mechanism by which these nanoparticles act as therapeutic agents.

Nothing explained how this nanoparticles fit into the theory of similia similibus curentur.

HOW CAN YOU CLAIM THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, NOT A CHILD’S PLAY?

——————————————————————————–

One of the most quoted and most violated ‘cardinal principles’ of homeopathy is ‘single drug-single dose’.

Most homeopaths use multiple drugs in private, and publicly pose as ‘single drug’ prescribers, cleverly masking their ‘multiple prescriptions’ using phrases such as ‘intercurrent’, ‘complementary’, ‘antidote’, ‘anti-miasmatic’, or ‘layer prescriptions’.

Some ‘single drug’ prescribers would give a ‘single’ dose of say sulphur cm, and give plenty of biochemic salts or even biochemic combinations, and claim in public that they ‘cured’ the patient with ‘single’ dose of sulphur.

Some people would give large doses of mother tinctures along with ‘a single dose of single drug’.

Certain others would give a ‘single’ dose of selected similimum, and then frequent doses of ‘complementary’ drugs, for ‘relieving acute complaints’.

Prescribing ‘anti-miasmatics’ are also not considered as a violation of ‘single’ drug principles.

According to MIT view, even so called ‘single’ drugs are not really ‘single’, but contains diverse types of ‘molecular imprints’ that represent diverse types of chemical molecules contained in that drug.

————————————————————————————

I think many 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 similimum’ or ‘wrong potency’ selection.

We could have avoided such failures by repeating the doses frequently so as to maintain the drug action at optimum levels to effect a complete cure.

Molecular Imprints are the active principles of potentized drugs. These ‘molecular imprints’ bind to the pathological molecules having ‘complementary’ configuration, there by relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions and effect Cure.

Same time,these ‘molecular imprints’ could get antidoted or deactivated by by molecules or ions having complementary configurations. That means, ‘molecular imprints’ we introduced into the body get deactivated by pathological molecules or other molecules having congigurational 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.

———————————————————————————–

Some science-starved homeopaths believe potentized drugs act by ‘atomic power’. Even a high school level science student can realize the folly involved in this argument.

Atomic power is the energy released by the division of atoms into subatomic particles. You mean atomic division happens during potentization?

Do you know how much energy is required for atomic division? Do you think grinding with a mortar and pestle, or shaking a bottle will induce atomic division?

We know medicinal properties of drug substances arise from the molecular structure and chemical properties of constituent molecules.

In order to divide atoms and release atomic energy, first you have to divide complex molecules into constituent atoms. Do you think it is possible by grinding and shaking?

Do you know the chemical properties of molecules are lost when they are divided into atoms, and properties of atoms are lost when they are divided into subatomic particles?

Do you know, atomic enery released by the division of any atom coming from any molecule will be the same?

Do you know atomic energy cannot be stored in alcohol or sugar of milk for future use? Do you know energy will instantly dissipate into the environment the moment they are generated?

———————————————————————————-

I seriously suspect a skeptic-big pharma conspiracy and ulterior game plan working behind the recent flare up of interest in ‘nanoparticle research’ in homeopathy. and the media hype around it.

If ‘starting materials’ are proved to be present even in ultra-dilutions, it will unquestionably prove that the fundamental theory of homeopathic ‘potentization’ is a lie.

Time will prove the truth, but homeopathy will have no time to defend or repair the damages.

———————————————————————————–

Before declaring that homeopathic ‘ultra-dilutions’ are ‘filled with’ NANO-PARTICLES of starting materials, first you have to scientifically disprove Avogadro law regarding the number of molecules contained in one gram mol of any substance.

You will have to explain where from this unending supply of these nanoparticles come even after diluting millions of times! Can potentization duplicate particles, or generate new ones?

To a rationally thinking person, it is obvious that the starting material will exhaust once the dilution crosses avogadro limit, and if ‘nanoparticles’ are still ‘filled’ in higher dilutions, either the dilutions were not genuine, or it has nothing to do with ‘starting materials’.

————————————————————————————

I am inviting your attention to an article published in Times Of India regarding a recent ‘nanotechnology study’ of homeopathic ultra-dilutions.

See how the study was done as explained in the article:

“The medicines prepared by plant sources and organic substances were studied in the lab, and nano particles of vegetable charcoal were found in the tested homeopathy medicines.”

“The highly diluted form of homeopathy medicine used as pain relief was put on silicon vapour and left for drying for a day”.

“nano particles of vegetable charcoal were found in the medicines we tested,”

When ethyl alcohol (as potentized drugs) is put on silicone vapor and left in the open air, ethyl alcohol molecules get adsorbed into the silicone matrix. When this silicone vapor is subjected to spectrometric studies, we can detect the presence of carbon atoms being part of alcohol meolecules entrapped in it. Observation of presence of ‘carbon particles’ or ‘vegetable charcoal’ is a natural outcome of this process. It has nothing to do with any ‘scientific proving’ of homeopathy.

The carbon particles our ‘researchers’ detected by this experiment actually belong to the ethyl alcohol, not the ‘starting materials’ of potentized drugs.

This ‘study’ is a classical example of what happens when people ignorant in basics of scientific processes and methods engage in ‘researches’, which lead to strange interpretations and conclusions.

SEE THE TIMES OF INDIA REPORT:

“BENGALURU: For all those who think homeopathy is just placebo, here is new research that debunks that and upholds the effectiveness of the branch of medicine. The study reveals that homeopathy medicine contains nano particles of the resource medicine even in its highest diluted form. The two-year research was done by homeopathy practitioner Dr ES Rajendran, director of Vinayaka Mission Homoeopathic Medical College at the nanotechnology lab in IISc, Bengaluru. The medicines prepared by plant sources and organic substances were studied in the lab, and nano particles of vegetable charcoal were found in the tested homeopathy medicines. “This is a breakthrough and may open up vistas for advanced research in homeopathy. The study will be presented at the upcoming world homeopathy summit in Mumbai,” said Rajendran at an event organized by the Global Homoeopathy Foundation on Thursday.

How was the study done?

The highly diluted form of homeopathy medicine used as pain relief was put on silicon vapour and left for drying for a day. “I began the study in 2013. It has been a thrilling journey, especially when nano particles of vegetable charcoal were found in the medicines we tested,” Rajendran said. QUOTE It’s nanomedicine

Though homeopathy has cured innumerable patients around the world, the mode of action of the drug and the question about the content in high dilutions sealed its growth and development all along. This was one of the most difficult questions that homeopaths around the world faced. This study will settle controversies about the nature of drug material used in homeopathy drugs. Homeopathy may as well be considered a nanomedicine.

(Dr Sreevals G Menon, managing trustee of Global Homeopathy Foundation.)”

————————————————————————————

Detection of nanoparticles in homeopathic drugs is of any value as a ‘scientific proof’ for homeopathy, only if you could explain the biological mechanism by which those ‘nanoparticles’ act as therapeutic agents, and such an explanation should be fitting to the existing modern scientific concepts as well as ‘similia similibus curentur’.

————————————————————————————-

Detection of nanoparticles in homeopathic drugs is of any value as a ‘scientific proof’ for homeopathy, only if you could filter out and remove those ‘nanoparticles’ from your samples and prove that the remaining ’empty’ liquid is devoid of therapeutic properties when used as similimum.

———————————————————————————–

You take some plain water and ethyl alcohol (similar to the vehicles used for preparing potentized drugs) and repeat the same ‘nanotechnology’ experiments. You can detect some ‘nanoparticles’ in those samples also.

————————————————————————————

Detection of nanoparticles in homeopathic drugs is of any value for scientific interpretation, only if you could scientifically first disprove avogadro law regarding the number of molecules contained in one gram mol of any substance, since you claim that the ultra dilutions are ‘filled with’ nanoparticles of starting materials. You will have to explain where from this unending supply of these nanoparticles come even after diluting millions of times! To a rationally thinking person, starting material will exhaust once the dilution crosses avogadro limit, and if ‘nanoparticles’ are still ‘filled’ in higher dilutions, it will be due to contamination of the solvents, or due to the claimed dilutions not being done genuinely.

———————————————————————————–

Yes, I am “frustrated”. I am frustrated to see the homeopathic community getting fooled by fame-seeking and business-motivated ‘researchers’ who claim to have detected ‘nanoparticles’ of silica, carbon and metallic elements in samples of potentized homeopathic drugs. I am frustrated because, this ‘detection of nanoparticles’ is going to be utilized for framing an undefendable ‘nanotoxicity case’ against homeopathy in very near future, and enemies of homeopathy are going to celebrate it. I am frustrated with the dangerous inertia, shortsightedness and lack of scientific outlook of a major section of homeopathic community, especially its ‘leaders’ and ‘spokespersons’.

————————————————————————————

Some homeopaths say my ‘criticisms’ about ‘nanoparticle research’ arises from my ‘jealousy’ and ‘frustration’. They never address the real points and hard questions I raise, but conveniently ignore them.

I am ‘criticizing’ any ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ that I think are unscientific and irrational. I do it by logically discussing the specific points involved the subjects. I cannot avoid doing it, as I am involved in evolving a scientific understanding of homeopathy. I consider it as my duty. Whether it be ‘nanoparticle’, ‘hair transmission’, ‘dynamic energy’, ‘vital force’, ‘digital biology’, ‘radionics’, ‘reflexology’ or any other pseudoscientific theory, I will consistently expose them by raising rational questions from a scientific angle. If anybody think I am wrong, answer the QUESTIONS I raise and discuss the specific POINTS. If you cannot do it, kindly keep away from me, without researching about my ‘miasms’, ‘frustrations’, ‘jealousy’ and ‘psychology’.

———————————————————————————–

One ‘homeopathic researcher’ claims “medicines prepared by plant sources and organic substances were studied in the lab, and nanoparticles of vegetable charcoal were found in the tested homeopathy medicines.”

According to him, his research has proved the ‘scientific basis of homeopathy”! We have to believe “nanoparticles of vegetable charcoal” are the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of “Medicines prepared by plant sources and organic substances “. Does detection of some “particles” in a drug sample prove it is the active principle of that drug? Can anybody say, a few traces of ‘nanoparticles of vegetable charcoal’ can represent the medicinal properties of ‘vegetable and organic drugs’, which are actually due to the structural and chemical properties of highly complex molecules contained in those drugs? What does it mean? Does they mean, all ‘vegetable and organic drugs’ are equivalent to CARBO VEG?

————————————————————————————–

A post by Dr Shanthakumar on my page:

The following words on MIT are from a allopath who is interestingly studying Homoeopathy from eastern Europe there are many more with this view.

‘Well, Shantha, I think all, that you have sent me is quite deep, reasonable and is accompanied by a good base of medical data. It is all about the shift of Homeopathy – it needs to be transformed into a Medical Evidence-based science, which deserves its place among the other branches of Medicine. Certainly, all the prominent and clever classical homeopaths around the world are going to stick to gather and give all, that they can afford for this transformation.”

————————————————————————————

I would like to invite the attention of homeopathic community to following two separate reports now being widely circulated on various homeopathic groups. Both reports are about a research conducted by Dr E S Rajendran, in which he could detect “nanoparticles” in ‘ultra high’ homeopathic dilutions. According to both reports, he is going to present his invention in Global Homeopathic Summit to be conducted in Mumbai on April 10.

Kindly watch both reports carefully. In first report, it is claimed that the study was done by Dr Rajendran at IISC lab in Bangaluru. In the second report in malayalam, it is claimed that Dr Rajendran conducted the study at NanoScience Lab of MG University in Kerala. Both press conferences were presided over by Dr Sreevals Menon of GHF.

Why this contradiction regarding the name of lab? Hope Dr Rajendran or Dr Sreevals will come forward to resolve confusions. Where was the study actually conducted? At IISC lab, bangaluru or NanoScience Lab of MG University in Kerala? If the study was conducted at both labs, why they chose not to mention about the other study in both press conferences? Which study is going to be presented at GHF summit- Bangaluru study or Kerala study?

A similar study was conducted by IIT-B scientists in 2010 itself, and they ‘detected nanoparticles of metallic elements’. Ho could Dr Rajendran claim that his study is the first of this kind, without making any mention about IIT-B study, where as his work is only a replication of it?

Read the first report of Dr Rajendran’s study:

“Medicines prepared by plant sources and organic substances were studied in the lab, and nanoparticles of vegetable charcoal were found in the tested homeopathy medicines.”

According to this study, “nanoparticles of vegetable charcoal” are the ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of “Medicines prepared by plant sources and organic substances “. ‘Detecting something in a drug sample’ does not prove it is the active principle of that drug. Can anybody say, ‘nanoparticles of vegetable charcoal’ can represent the medicinal properties of ‘vegetable and organic drugs’, which are actually due to the structural and chemical properties of complex molecules contained in those drugs?

Wonderful funny research!

————————————————————————————

The question whether potentized drugs interact with biological molecules in a way different from their parent drugs is very important in the scientific understanding of molecular processes involved in homeopathic potentization and therapeutics.

There are many homeopaths who believe that during potentization, the medicinal properties of drugs are some way or other transferred to the potentizing medium, and hence potentized medicines can interact with human organism in the SAME way as the original drugs.

On the contrary, MIT proposes that potentization involves a process of ‘molecular imprinting’, in which the spacial configuration of drug molecules are imprinted into the medium as 3-D nano cavities, which can act as recognition sites towards original drug molecules or other molecules similar in configuration.

As per this view, potentized medicines contain only ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules, which are complementary in configuration to the drug molecules. When applied for therapeutic purpose, these molecular imprints bind to the pathogenic molecules, and not to the biological targets.

In order to prove this concept, we have to experimentally prove that potentized medicines can not interact with biological molecules in the same way as original drug molecules used for potentization.

Here I am reproducing a previously published report regarding such an experiment already conducted by a team of eminent scientists in Germany five years back. It is published in “The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. May 2006, 12(4): 359-365. doi:10.1089/acm.2006.12.359”

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2006.12.359

The team conducted this experiment to verify whether potentized HgCl2 (Mercurius corrosivus) affect the activity of Diastase and α-Amylase in a way similar to crude form of HgCl2.

Research team consisted of: 1. Claudia M. Witt, M.D. Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany. 2. Michael Bluth, M.D. Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany. 3. Stephan Hinderlich, Ph.D. Institute for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany. 4. Henning Albrecht, Ph.D. Karl and Veronica Carstens-Foundation, Essen, Germany. 5. Rainer Lüdtke, M.Sc. Karl and Veronica Carstens-Foundation, Essen, Germany. 6. Thorolf E.R. Weisshuhn Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany. 7. Stefan N. Willich, M.D., M.P.H. Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany.

Their objective was to test for a stimulating or inhibiting effect of high potencies of the homeopathic remedy HgCl2 (Mercurius corrosivus) on two sugar hydrolases- (α-amylase from hog pancreas and diastase extract from winter barley)

High potencies of HgCl2 were produced using stepwise dilution plus shaking. Controls included potentized solvent (aqua bidestillata), equimolar dilutions without shaking, and enzyme-free references. Tested were potencies with dilution factors 1:200 (CC) on diastase extract from winter barley, and 1:100 (C) on α-amylase from hog pancreas. Enzyme activity was colorimetrically determined by Lugol’s iodine-starch reaction.

An inhibiting effect of HgCl2 on enzyme activities was observed only in low potencies and dilutions (which contained molecules of HgCl2). Statistically significant differences between potencies and controls were not found in randomized and blinded experiments.

This experimental design provided independent reproducible results of cell-free in vitro assays.However, it did not indicate an effect of potentized HgCl2 on hydrolases. The researchers conclusion was that demonstrating potency effects may require additional experimental features.

MY INTERPRETATIONS:

Reported experiments and the results they obtained may help us in designing and conducting further in vitro experiments to prove the hypothesis put forward by MIT regarding potentization.

HgCl2 is known in homeopathy as Merc Cor.

Crude HgCl2 is a known inhibitor of glucose hydrolases such as diastase and α-amylase.

Reported experiments show that similar to crude forms, lower dilutions of this compound also inhibits the hydrolyzing activity of those sugar hydrolase enzymes. Obviously, these lower dilutions contain molecules of HgCl2, and hence the inhibitory action on enzymes.

Same time, these experiments clearly showed that higher potencies of HgCl2 have no inhibitory action on those enzymes. That means, highly potentized HgCl2 cannot ‘mimic’ the original compound as expected by some theoreticians.

This finding, though considered by the researchers as a set back to their expectations, has serious implications in proving the concepts of MIT regarding potentization.

This experiment proves that through the potentization process, the properties of original drugs are not transferred to the potenizing medium in such a way so as to enable it to ‘mimic’ the original drugs.

We homeopaths know beyond any doubt that potentized HgCl2 or Merc Cor produces expected therapeutic effects when administered on the basis of principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’. That means, potentized HgCl2 contains some active principles having specific biochemical properties. Since the present experiments have shown that potentized HgCl2 cannot ‘mimic’ the biochemical properties of original compound, a logical and scientific explanation regarding the real molecular mechanism involved in potentization as well as therapeutic action becomes very much necessary.

Only possibility is ‘molecular imprinting’, as proposed by MIT. Only ‘molecular imprints’ can act in accordance with ‘similia similibus curentur’, which means, potentized forms of drugs can cure diseases which are similar to the conditions produced by their crude forms.

Now, we have to repeat these in vitro experiment to verify whether higher potencies of HgCl2 can reactivate the enzymes already inhibited by lower potencies or crude forms of the same compound.

————————————————————————————-

Explanations of potentization in terms of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING as proposed by MIT implies a supramolecular rearrangement of potentizing medium, resulting in the formation of nanostrutures called as molecular imprints. Obviously, any study that indicates such a supramolecular rearrangement of potentizing medium could be considered as a strong evidence to endorse MIT concepts.

Tanmoy Maity (Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, Jharkhand 826004, India), D. Ghosh & C.R. Mahata (Department of Electrical Engineering, Bengal Engineering and Science University, Shibpur, Howrah 711103, West Bengal, India) has published a research paper regarding Effect of dielectric dispersion on potentised homeopathic medicines, which I think is of immense implications in our understanding of active principles of our drugs as ‘molecular imprints’ or ‘hydrosomes’.

This report is available on http://www.sciencedirect.com/…/article/pii/S1475491609001258

This paper reports dielectric dispersion occurring in potentised homeopathic medicines subjected to variable frequency electric field using an instrumentation method developed by the authors. Oscillations occur in the direction of electric field, and are usually termed longitudinal/acoustic-mode vibrations.

The test material was lactose soaked with homeopathic medicine. Multiple resonance frequencies, forming a frequency-set, were observed repeatedly for each medicine.

The team reports experimental results for three potencies of Cuprum metallicum (Cuprum met) in the frequency range of 100 kHz–1 MHz. Each exhibits a set of resonance frequencies, which may be termed as its characteristic set. As the frequency-set of each medicine is different from those of others, each medicine may, therefore, be identified by its characteristic frequency-set. This suggests that potentised homeopathic medicines, which are chemically identical with the vehicle, differ from one another in the arrangement of vehicle molecules.

According to them, these “experiments show that potentised homeopathic medicines, which are chemically identical with the vehicle, differ from one another in the arrangement of vehicle molecules”.

“Difference in arrangement of vehicle molecules” strongly indicates the presence of “supra-molecular clusters of water and ethyl alcohol, into which the three-dimensional configuration of drug molecules are imprinted as nanocavities” as proposed by the hypotheses proposed by MIT.

The observation that “the resonance frequencies frequency-set of each medicine is different from those of others” strongly indicates clusters of water-ethyl alcohol molecules specifically rearranged in accordance with the shapes of constituent molecules of drug substance used for potentization.

Such a re-arrangement of vehicle molecules strongly indicates the process of ‘molecular imprinting’ happening during homeopathic potentization. Present work discussed above is a decisive step in the scientific understanding of homeopathy.

———————————————————————————–

One of the questions listed to be proved as part of scientific validation of MIT concepts was, whether potentized drugs, devoid of any original drug molecules, differ from untreated diluent medium in its molecular level structure. If MIT is right, they should differ, since ‘molecular imprinting’ is envisaged as formation of hydrogen-bonded supra-molecular nano-structures of water-ethyl alcohol molecules.

An elaborate study conducted by a research group, even though without any idea of molecular imprinting involved in potentization, rightly observes that the homeopathic potencies and their original diluent medium differ from each other with respect to the number of H-bonded water species and their H-bonding strengths. I think this study contributes much in proving MIT concepts right.

Even though the authors could not understand the real process of “MOLECULAR IMPRINTING” involved in the phenomenon, their observation amply proves that the supra-molecular structure of potentized medicines differs from ethyl alcohol/water mixture, even though their chemical composition remained the same. That means, through the process of potentization, supra-molecular structure of ethyl alcohol/water mixture has undergone fundamental changes. Obviously, it is through these structural changes that the medicinal properties of drug molecules are transferred to the diluent medium.

This difference in the structure of potentized medicines from their original medium, the specificity of medicinal properties exhibited by potentized medicines, and the fact that potentized medicines exhibit medicinal properties just opposite to that of parent drugs can be satisfactorily explained only on the basis of “molecular imprinting’ as proposed by MIT.

This remarkable study regarding the variation in Fourier Transform Infrared Spectra of some homeopathic potencies and their diluent media, conducted by N.C.SUKUL, Ph.D., SUDESHNA GHOSH, M.Sc., A. SUKUL, Ph.D., and S.P. SINHABABU, Ph.D. It is published in THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, Volume 11, Number 5, 2005, pp. 807–812. The report is available at this link:http://www.homeopathy.org/research/basic/acm-2005-11_11.pdf

Published report reads as follows: “The aim of this study was to determine whether potentized homeopathic drugs and their diluent media differ from each other with respect to their Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectra. FTIR spectra of Nux vomica 30C, Lycopodium 30C, Santonin 30C, Cina 30C, Cina 206C, Cina 1006C, and their diluent media (90% ethanol and Ethanol) 30C were obtained in the wave number range of 2000–1000 cm_1 at 20°C. Potassium bromide powder soaked with the potencies, pressed into pellets, and air dried were used to measure the spectra. Because water structures in homeopathic potencies are thought to carry specific information on drug molecules and because O-H bending vibrational band (v2) exclusively belongs to water, the study was restricted to the bands in that wave number region. Alcohol has no absorption in the O-H bending region.

The potencies were found to differ from each other and their diluent media in the number of v2 bands, their wave number (cm_1), shape, and half-width (cm_1) of the bands.

The number and other characteristics of the v2 band represent the number of hydrogen-bonded water species and their hydrogen-bonding strength, respectively. The potencies and their diluent media therefore differ from each other in the number of hydrogen-bonded water species and their hydrogen-bonding strength. The observation that KBr pellets soaked with a potentized drug retains its specific spectral absorption properties simply confirms that medicated sucrose globules, used in homeopathic dispensing, are capable of retaining the therapeutic properties of the drug.

Drugs are prepared and stored in aqueous ethanol. Sucrose globules soaked with liquid potencies retain therapeutic properties of the drugs for a long time. Water also serves as a good medium but it does not keep the properties of a potency for long. It has been suggested that water structures in a potentized drug are responsible for carrying the information of drug molecules or particles present in the mother tincture. Ethanol molecules are thought to promote or to preserve water structures characteristic of a potentized drug.1A basic quality of a hydrogen-bonded solvent such as water is the hydrogen bond strength.

Physicochemical properties of the water in aqueous alcohol mixtures have been studied widely by such techniques as X-ray or light scattering, dielectric relaxation, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging et cetera. Among these methods, infrared (IR) spectroscopy is one of the most promising for the study of the distribution of hydrogen- bonding strengths of the water molecules in the mixtures because of the short time scale of measurements. There are two kinds of fundamental vibrations for molecules: (1) stretching, in which the distance between two atoms increase or decrease but the atom remains in the same bond axis; and (2) bending, in which the position of the atom changes relative to the original bond axis. Infrared radiation causes vibrational excitation of the molecular framework of a compound. In aqueous alcohol O-H stretching vibrational bands of water (v1 and v3) overlap the alcoholic O-H band. For this the IR spectra in the stretching region are of no use for studying hydrogen bonds of the water molecules in water/alcohol mixtures. In the region of bending vibrational band of water (v2), alcohols have no absorption bands. The purpose of the present work is to study v2 bands through Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy in 90% ethanol, Ethanol 30C, and some potentized drugs such as Nux vomica 30C, Lycopodium 30C, Santonin 30C, Cina 30C, Cina 206C, and Cina 1006C prepared in 90% ethanol. Conventionally vibrations are labeled in decreasing frequency within their symmetry type. The symmetric vibrations of H2O are labeled v1 for the highest fully symmetric frequency (3651.7 cm_1) and v2 for the next highest (1595.0 cm_1).7 FTIR spectroscopy provides simultaneous and almost instantaneous recording of the whole spectrum in the infrared region while minimizing background noise.

Nux vomica 30C, Lycopodium 30C, Santonin 30C, and Cina 30C were prepared by successive dilution (1:100 v/v) with 90% ethanol followed by succussion in 30 steps from the respective mother tinctures in this laboratory.8 Cina 200C and Cina 1000C, purchased from M. Bhattacharyya and Co. (Calcutta, India), were further diluted (1:100) and succussed with 90% ethanol in 6 more steps to prepare Cina206C and Cina 1006C. All of these potencies have the same absorbance (3.135) at 255 nm, showing similar concentrations of ethanol (90%). The purpose was to replace the manufacturer’s aqueous ethanol in Cina 200C and Cina 1000C with the ethanol in this laboratory so that the diluent medium (90% ethanol) of all the test potencies would be of the same quality. Ethanol was obtained from Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Calcutta, India). Sterile deionized and double-distilled water was added to absolute ethanol to prepare 90% ethanol, which served as the diluent medium of all potenties as well as the control.

FTIR spectra were measured at 20°C by a Jasco FTIR spectrometer (Jasco, model 420, Japan). The wave number resolution was 4 cm_1. Spectra were obtained in the wave number range of 2000–1000 cm_1. Potassium bromide powder (_150 mg) was soaked with 90% ethanol (_0.15 mL) or any of the six potencies tested. The drug-soaked powder was mixed thoroughly with a mortar and pestle, spread in thin film (1 mm deep) in a petri dish, and allowed to dry at 30°C (50% humidity). The powder was then pressed into small equal-sized pellets. The KBr pellets, which simulate sucrose globules soaked with a potency, were exposed to IR radiation in the spectrometer. Five pellets were prepared for each drug or the diluent medium, and the IR spectra measured.

Data were analyzed by one way analysis of variance. Different potencies and their diluent media (90% ethanol, Ethanol 30C) differ significantly (p _ 0.01) from each other with respect to the positions of bands in the wave number regions, their half-widths, and their absorption intensities except the wave numbers. ……..

Because all KBr pellets were prepared under similar conditions, it is quite unlikely that they have different amounts of water in them. In earlier work the present authors observed a marked variation in O-H bending vibration among 90% ethanol, Nux vom 30C (unsuccussed), and Nux vom 30C succussed.5 The results of the present study show that potentized drugs differ from each other and also from their diluent medium, 90% ethanol, in the number of v2 bands. The number of observed v2 bands should provide the number of water species with different hydrogen-bonding strengths.6 There may be a few more water species than those actually observed by v2 bands in the spectra. According to Mizuno (personal communication, June 2003), IR spectroscopy has superior power in that different water species are distinctive from each other, but it is very difficult to resolve the curve into components. Mizuno further observed that there was no linearity in the absorption intensities of different bands. Thus different potentized drugs have different water species with different hydrogen-bonding strengths. The v2 bands have different half-widths in different potencies. The broadening of v2 bands has been attributed to the distribution of hydrogen-bonding strengths and vibrational coupling.6 The v2 band of pure water has an unusually broad width of 82 cm_1 at half-maximum. The v2 band is found to be narrower with an increase in the alcohol concentration. The narrowing of the v2 band is considered to be caused by the weakening of the vibrational coupling as a result of dilution by the alcohol. The concentration of ethanol was the same (90%) in all the potencies tested. The variation in the half-width of the v2 band may thus be caused by influence of original molecules at the start of the dilution process and also by succussion. Previously the present authors observed that succussion caused blue shift of the v2 in Nux vomica 30C.In each column of Table 1 the band of different drugs showed either a blue or red shift. Blue shifts represent the formation of stronger hydrogen bonds among water molecules. This has also been confirmed by 1H-NMR studies. It has long been known in clinical practice that sucrose globules soaked with a liquid potentized drug retain all the therapeutic properties of the drugs. FTIR spectra of KBr pellets soaked with potentized drugs simply confirm the long-standing clinical observation.

Cowan et al. demonstrated that the three-dimensional structure of liquid water loses its memory of molecular arrangement through the H-bond network in about 50 fs. The work was based on O-H stretching vibrations of pure H2O. Pure water is not comparable to a homeopathic potency that is prepared by successive dilution and succession from a mother tincture and preserved in 90% ethanol. Ethanol molecules with large nonpolar parts can preserve or promote water structures specific to a homeopathic potency. The efficacy of a homeopathic potency prepared in pure water is very short-lived. An electrostatic component is usually the dominant force contributing to H-bonding. Succussion or any mechanical agitation would therefore make the H-bonding stronger in a homeopathic potency. In ethanol solution the sequential H-bond dissociation and reassociation occur between the same OH groups. In water the broken bonds probably reform to give the same H-bond. Dissociation is a rare event occurring only twice a day, that is, once for every 1016 times the H-bond breaks. Thus clusters can persist for much longer times. The relative proportions of different polymers of water preserved by ethanol are at dynamic equilibria of specific geometric configurations. It is assumed that this dynamic geometric configuration of water clusters in a collective way confers specificity on a potentized homeopathic drug. The homeopathic potencies used in the present study were prepared in 90% ethanol and soaked in KBr pellets. Here water structures were preserved by ethanol and their random.

Based on the study findings several conclusions can be drawn. First, in the FTIR spectra of aqueous alcohol mixtures O-H bending vibrational bands (v2) exclusively belong to water. Nux vomica 30C, Lycopodium 30C, Santonin 30C, Cina 30C, Cina 206C, and Cina 1006C differ from each other and also from their diluent medium, 90% ethanol, in the number of v2 bands, their wave-number (cm_1), their shape, and half-width (cm_1) in the FTIR spectra. Second, the number of v2 bands and other parameters of the same represent, respectively, the number of hydrogen-bonded species of water and their hydrogen bonding strengths. Thus the potencies and their diluent medium differ from each other with respect to the number of H-bonded water species and their H-bonding strengths. Third, KBr pellets soaked with potentized drug, such as medicated sucrose globules used in homeopathic dispensing, retain specific spectral properties of the drugs concerned. Finally, homeopathic potencies can be differentiated from each other by FTIR spectra with respect to the O-H bending vibrational band.”

————————————————————————————

Actually, the essence of Similia Similibus Curentur is all about the peculiar OPPOSITE relationship between crude drugs and their potentized forms- former ‘produces’ disease, and latter ‘cures’ the disease.

Only MIT has scientifically explained this OPPOSITE actions of crude drugs and their potentized forms.

Most of the current ‘theories’ homeopaths maintain that medicinal properties of crude drugs are just ‘transferred’ to the medium during potentization. What ever they call it, – ‘vibrations’, ‘electromagnetic signals’, ‘medicinal memory’, ‘dynamic power’, NANOPARTICLES’ or anything else, the basic idea is that potentized drugs can MIMIC the properties of original drugs. Everybody- from Benveniste and Montaigner to IIT-B scientists were trying to explain homeopathy with this “mimic” theory. Only MIT says potentized drugs act not as ‘mimics’, but as ‘antidotes’ or ‘artificial binding sites’ for original drugs as well as pathogenic molecules SIMILAR to them.

If potentized medicines were really ‘mimicking’ the medicinal properties of parent drugs, they should be able to produce biological effects exactly similar to original drugs. On the other hand, if potentized drugs are experimentally proved to be ANTIDOTES to original drugs, it will strongly vindicate MIT concept of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING involved in homeopathic potentization. If the concept of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING is right, potentized drug should act not as MIMICS of original drugs, but as OPPOSITES of original drugs.

It is obvious that the question whether potentized medicines can antidote the biological effects of parent drugs is of paramount importance in validating MOLECULAR IMPRINTS concept. According to the hypothesis put forward by MIT, potentized medicines contains ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent molecules of parent drugs. As such, these molecular imprints can act as artificial recognition sites for parent molecules, and bind to them, thereby preventing them from interacting with biological targets.

If this concept of ‘molecular imprint’ is correct, potentized medicines should be capable of antidoting or reversing of biological effects of their parent molecules. If we prove this point, it would be a big step in favor of ‘molecular imprinting’ concept put forward by MIT. I have two important research works here:

STUDY I:

Here I am reproducing research report regarding such a successful experiment published in 2001.

This historic experiment was conducted by a team consisting of Swapna S Datta, Palash P Mallick and Anisur AR Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh of Cytogenetics Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Kalyani, Kalyani-741 235, West Bengal, India and published online on 23 November 2001. Report may be read at this link:http://www.springerlink.com/content/b2t71744t426j5n4/

They proved through strictly controlled experiments that potentized homeopathic drug, Cadmium Sulphoricum, could reduce the genotoxic effects produced by cadmium chloride in mice. They used potentized Cadmium Sulph because they could not get homeopathic potencies of Cadmium Chloride. Since Cadium Sulph and Cadmium Chlor contains Cadmium, and Cadmium is the real genotoxic factor, such an experimental protocol is acceptable.

Through these experiments, the team could prove that both Cad Sulph-30 and 200 were able to combat cadmium induced genotoxic effects in mice. From the results of the reported investigation it is revealed that both Cad Sulph-30 and Cad Sulph-200 showed remarkable potential to reduce genotoxic effects produced by CdCl2. In the study the homeopathic drug apparently enhanced/activated the process of maintaining the structural integrity of chromosomes and sperm either protecting them from the destructive ability of CdCl2 in causing DNA damage or else, by enhancing the process of repair of DNA already damaged by activating specific enzyme systems to repair the damage. Even in the absence of a single original drug molecule both Cad Sulph-30 and 200 elicited spectacular ability of protection/repair to damaged chromosomes and sperm, a fact which would lead one to speculate that the drugs must have acted through the genetic regulatory mechanisms.

STUDY II:

We have another relevant study conducted by a team consisting of Philippe Belon, Pathikrit Banerjee, Sandipan Chaki Choudhury, Antara Banerjee,Surjyo Jyoti Biswas, Susanta Roy Karmakar, Surajit Pathak, Bibhas Guha, Sagar Chatterjee, Nandini Bhattacharjee, Jayanta Kumar Das, and Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh of Boiron Lab, 20 rue de la Libėration, Sainte-Foy-Lės-Lyon, France, and Department of Zoology, University of Kalyani, Kalyani-741235, West Bengal, India , published on December 26, 2005. Complete report is available at this link:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1375236/

This team undertook a study to find out whether administration of potentized homeopathic remedy,Arsenicum Album, alter Antinuclear Antibody (ANA) Titer in people living in high-risk arsenic ontaminated areas.

To examine whether elevated antinuclear antibody (ANA) titers reported in random human population of arsenic contaminated villages can be reverted to the normal range by administration of a potentized homeopathic drug, Arsenicum album, randomly selected volunteers in two arsenic contaminated villages and one arsenic-free village in West Bengal (India) were periodically tested for their ANA titer as well as various blood parameters in two types of experiments: ‘placebo-controlled double blind’ experiment for shorter duration and ‘uncontrolled verum fed experiment’ for longer duration. Positive modulation of ANA titer was observed along with changes in certain relevant hematological parameters, namely total count of red blood cells and white blood cells, packed cell volume, hemoglobin content, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and blood sugar level, mostly within 2 months of drug administration.

Thus, potentized Arsenicum album was proved to have great potential for ameliorating arsenic induced elevated ANA titer and other hematological toxicities.

Both these controlled scientific studies have proved beyond doubt that potentized homeopathic medicines can antidote or reverse the biological effects of parent drugs.

In the absence of original drug molecules, how could the homeopathic potencies exhibit such an action? The theory that potentized medicines ‘mimic’ the parent drugs is obviously disproved through these experiments. Only logical explanation we can provide for this phenomenon is the ‘molecular imprints’ of parent drug molecules being the active principles of potentized medicines. ‘Molecular imprints’ can specifically bind to the parent molecules, and thereby antidote or reverse the biological properties of parent molecules.

INDIRECTLY, THESE STUDIES STRONGLY SUPPORT IN PROVING THE “MOLECULAR IMPRINTING” HYPOTHESIS PROPOSED BY MIT REGARDING MOLECULAR MECHANISM OF POTENTIZATION AND HOMEOPATHIC THERAPEUTICS.

—————————————————————————————

One homeopath posted on my wall:

“I support “NANO particle theory”…..i cant understand your “molecular imprint theory”….

I liked that statement, as it is a genuine and humble admission of his failure in understanding MIT. He represents a major section of homeopaths who earnestly try to update their knowledge. I am sure, he will surely change his “support” once he understands “molecular imprint theory”.

———————————————————————————

If any body could detect nanoparticles of metallic elements in samples of high potency homeopathic drugs, it only proves either the samples used for experiments were not genuine ‘ultra dilutions’ as mentioned on the labels, or, the water and alcohol used for potentization were contaminated. NOTHING ELSE.

————————————————————————————-

Some friends believe “homeopathy has become scientific” by the “detection of traces of nanoparticles of metallic elements” in the upper layers of ultra dilutions”.

In order to prove homeopathy is scientific, we have to prove what are the ‘active principles’ of potentized drugs. If anybody ‘detected’ nanoparticles, they have to PROVE those nanoparticles are the active principles. That could be done by filtering out and removing the nanoparticles from homeopathic drugs, and experimentally proving that the remaining liquid ‘devoid’ of nanoparticles are therapeutically ineffective. Further more, they have to prove that these nanoparticles are present not only in “upper layers”, but in each and every minute fraction of our drugs, as we use not only the “upper layers”, but even the last drop as medicines.

You will have to explain why ‘nanoparticles of metallic elements’ are present not only in potentized drugs but in even plain water and alcohol. You have to explain why ALL homeopathic drugs contain ‘nanoparticles of metallic elements’, and you will also have to prove that those nanoparticles actually come from ‘original drug substances’, and not from contamination.

If you believe these nanoparticles are the the active principles of potentized drugs, you have to explain the BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM by which these ‘nanoparticles act upon our body and produce therapeutic effect. Any explanation we provide should be fitting to the existing methods and paradigms of modern scientific knowledge system.

————————————————————————————

We were using ARS ALB 30 in high dilutions even in infants, with the conviction that dilutions above avogadro limit will not contain any remains of original drug substance. That is why homeopathy was accepted as a SAFE medicine. Now, in their eagerness to become famous as ‘scientists’, our ‘homeopathic researchers’ are making theories to prove that potentized ARS ALB will contain ARSENIC NANOPARTICLES! And our ‘science-starved’ homeopath friends are celebrating these ‘researches’ as great achievements for homeopathy, saying that ‘detection of nanoparticles’ has ‘debunked’ the ‘placebo’ allegations against homeopathy! Actually, the ‘nanoparticle theory’ is debunking our claims about the ‘safety’ of homeopathy.

Are they working FOR homeopathy, or AGAINST homeopathy?

If potentized ARS ALB contains nanoparticles in quantities sufficient to produce a curative biological action, how can you say it will not initiate harmful processes also?

SEE HOW EVEN TRACES OF ARSENIC DAMAGES LIVING ORGANISM:

“Arsenic interferes with cellular longevity by allosteric inhibition of an essential metabolic enzyme pyruvate dehydrogenase (PDH) complex, which catalyzes the oxidation of pyruvate to acetyl-CoA by NAD+. With the enzyme inhibited, the energy system of the cell is disrupted resulting in a cellular apoptosis episode. Biochemically, arsenic prevents use of thiamine resulting in a clinical picture resembling thiamine deficiency. Poisoning with arsenic can raise lactate levels and lead to lactic acidosis. Low potassium levels in the cells increases the risk of experiencing a life-threatening heart rhythm problem from arsenic trioxide.[citation needed] Arsenic in cells clearly stimulates the production of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). When the H2O2 reacts with certain metals such as iron or manganese it produces a highly reactive hydroxyl radical. Inorganic arsenic trioxide found in ground water particularly affects voltage-gated potassium channels, disrupting cellular electrolytic function resulting in neurological disturbances, cardiovascular episodes such as prolonged QT interval, neutropenia, high blood pressure, central nervous system dysfunction, anemia, and death.

Arsenic exposure plays a key role in the pathogenesis of vascular endothelial dysfunction as it inactivates endothelial nitric oxide synthase, leading to reduction in the generation and bioavailability of nitric oxide. In addition, the chronic arsenic exposure induces high oxidative stress, which may affect the structure and function of cardiovascular system. Further, the arsenic exposure has been noted to induce atherosclerosis by increasing the platelet aggregation and reducing fibrinolysis. Moreover, arsenic exposure may cause arrhythmia by increasing the QT interval and accelerating the cellular calcium overload. The chronic exposure to arsenic upregulates the expression of tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-1, vascular cell adhesion molecule and vascular endothelial growth factor to induce cardiovascular pathogenesis.

Tissue culture studies have shown that arsenic compounds block both IKr and Iks channels and, at the same time, activates IK-ATP channels. Arsenic compounds also disrupt ATP production through several mechanisms. At the level of the citric acid cycle, arsenic inhibits pyruvate dehydrogenase and by competing with phosphate it uncouples oxidative phosphorylation, thus inhibiting energy-linked reduction of NAD+, mitochondrial respiration, and ATP synthesis. Hydrogen peroxide production is also increased, which might form reactive oxygen species and oxidative stress. These metabolic interferences lead to death from multi-system organ failure, probably from necrotic cell death, not apoptosis.”

I mean to say potencies above 12c will not contain any particles of original substance. I mean to say, active principles of drugs potentized above avogadro limit are ‘molecular imprints’, which act as artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules. Molecular Imprints cannot interfere in the interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands, and hence they cannot produce any harmful effect in our body. Homeopathic drugs above 12c are hundred percent safe, if potentization is genuinely done.

Dear homeopaths, are you aware, by arguing that you have ‘proved’ that potentized drugs contain nanoparticles of starting materials, you are actually framing a case against homeopathy, since it raises the serious questions of nanotoxicity?
If potentized ars alb contains nanoparticles of arsenic, potentized plumbum met contains nanoparticles of lead, or potentized uranium and radium contains nanoparticles of uranium and radium, it becomes a defenseless case against homeopathy, which will obviously prompt law makers to initiate stringent regulations.
Do you remember, we were so far vouching about the ‘safety’ of potentized drugs, arguing that they do not contain even a single particle of starting material?

I mean to say ‘nanoparticle theory’ is wrong. I mean to say ‘nanoparticle theory’ is harmful for homeopathy. It will give new weapons to the enemies to attack homeopathy.

————————————————————————————-

If potentized ars alb contains nanoparticles of arsenic, potentized plumbum met contains nanoparticles of lead, or potentized uranium and radium contains nanoparticles of uranium and radium, it becomes a defenseless case against homeopathy, which will obviously prompt law makers to initiate stringent regulations.

Do you remember, we were so far vouching about the ‘safety’ of potentized drugs, arguing that they do not contain even a single particle of starting material?

————————————————————————————-

Even if you could detect some ‘traces of nanoparticles’ in the samples of ‘homeopathic ultra dilutions’, you have to answer the following questions before declaring that you have ‘proved homeopathy’ and ‘debunked the allegations against homeopathy’:

1. Did you prepare the ‘ultra-dilutions’ under your direct personal supervision, in order to ensure that the samples you used were genuinely ‘ultra’?

2. Are you aware of the fact that the ‘market samples’ of ‘high potencies’ are not reliable for research purposes, as most manufacturers sell very low potencies with the label of ‘ultra high’ potencies due to their profit motives?

3. Did you use plain mixtures of water ethyl alcohol as controls, as it is common knowledge that any sample of water and alcohol may contain ‘nanoparticles’ of elements and other natural contaminants? Are you aware, you can detect some ‘traces’ of nanoparticles in any sample of alcohol or water when examined under ‘Field Emission Scanning Microscope’ or ‘Energy Dispersive Spectrometry’, even without any potentization?

4. Did you filter out and remove the detected nanoparticles from the samples after your experiments, and verify whether the remaining ’empty’ water-alcohol mixtures have no any therapeutic properties when applied as similimum?

5. Did you filter out the detected ‘nanoparticles’ from your samples after experiments, and use those ‘nanoparticles’ as similimum in the patients to ensure that those ‘nanoparticles’ are the real active principles of ‘ultra high dilutions’? It is very important to prove that those ‘nanoparticles’ are the real active principles of potentized drugs.

6. Did you think about the molecular level biological mechanism by which these nanoparticles said to be present actually act up on the human organism and produce a therapeutic effect? Did you explain anything regarding the BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM by which the ‘nanoparticles’ produce the therapeutic effects according to ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’?

7. Are you aware of the fact that ‘nanoparticles’ of ‘metallic elements’ cannot represent the biological and therapeutic properties of complex drug substances used as drugs, as such properties arise from the complex structures and chemical properties of constituent drug molecules?

8. Did you ever think how the ‘traces of nanoparticles floating in upper layers’ of ultra dilutions could be present in each and drops of our drugs, as we know from experiences that not only the ‘upper layers’ but even the last drop is therapeutically effective?

9. Are you aware, by arguing that you have ‘proved’ potentized drugs contain nanoparticles of starting materials, you are actually framing a case against homeopathy, since it raises the serious questions of nanotoxicity? If potentized ars alb contains nanoparticles of arsenic, potentized plumbum met contains nanoparticles of lead, or potentized uranium and radium contains nanoparticles of uranium and radium, it becomes a case against homeopathy. Do you remember, we were so far vouching about the ‘safety’ of potentized drugs, arguing that they do not contain even a single particle of starting material?

Kindly consider these questions with a rational and scientific mindset. Please understand, if you cannot provide a scientifically viable explanation for the BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM of homeopathic cure in a way fitting to the concept of Similia Similibus Curentur, your ‘detection’ of some ‘traces of nanoparticles’ in the ‘market samples’ of homeopathic drugs does not contribute anything in the scientific validation or ‘prooving’ of homeopathy.

————————————————————————————–

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.

———————————————————————————-

Responding to one of my facebook posts, one senior homeopath says that I am an “arrogant” and “haughty” person with “little knowledge”.

I am aware of the “littleness” of my knowledge. I am not a ‘learned’ person. I am not an academician, scientist or scholar. Not even a professional homeopath. I am only a lay man with very “little knowledge”.

I am of course proud of what ever ‘little’ knowledge I have, since I am very much sure that my knowledge is in the right direction.. I am proud that I have a rational and scientific world outlook that enables me to approach any subject with a scientific perspective. I am proud that I am persistently trying to update and enhance my knowledge. I never compromise with ‘theories’ and ‘practices’ that are obviously unscientific and superstitious, and hence some people will think that I am ‘arrogant’ and ‘haughty’.

————————————————————————————

I know homeopaths “are giving relief/curing to numerous sick souls with this science called homeopathy”. I have no any doubt on that. I have been witnessing thousands of such cures for the last 40+ years. But I do not think such cures are ‘proofs’ for the correctness of the unscientific theories of vital force and dynamic energy I call “garbage” and ask to discard. Such cures are the proofs for only the correctness of the concept of potentization and similia similibus curentur, which I call the “kernel” of homeopathy, and try to explain scientifically using MIT concepts..

————————————————————————————

Now it is an easy job for any fame-seeking homeopath to come into the limelight as a ‘scientist’ or ‘researcher’, and ‘publish a paper’ for ‘debunking the allegations against homeopathy’, by merely spending Rs 5000! IIT-Bombay and IISc Bangalore is leasing out their research facilities to anybody who want to use their ‘nanotechnology’ research lab.

Do as follows: Go to IISC with some samples of homeopathic ‘ultra dilution’ purchased from the ‘market’. Pay Rs 5000 to the lab. The scientists and technicians in the lab will do the rest for you. They will find out the presence of some ‘traces of nanoparticles’ in the samples of ‘ultra dilutions’ you provided. They will explain you how it was done using modern technologies such as ‘Field Emission Scanning Microscope’ or ‘Energy Dispersive Spectrometry’. Finished!

You can now issue press release about the ‘fundamental research in homeopathy’ you have done. You can now tell your homeopath friends that you have proved ‘homeopathy is scientific’. You can now declare that you have ‘debunked the allegations against homeopathy’.

Your homeopath friends will then take over. They will start posting on every facebook pages about your ‘fundamental research’ that proves homeopathy is not ‘placebo’. They will invite you to present ‘papers’ in their ‘scientific seminars’. You have become a ‘homeopathic scientist’!!

Are you aware, you can detect some ‘traces’ of nanoparticles in any sample of alcohol or water when examined under ‘Field Emission Scanning Microscope’ or ‘Energy Dispersive Spectrometry’, even without any potentization?

Did you ensure that the ‘samples’ of ultra dilutions you used for the experiments were genuinely potentized to ‘ulltra level’, as most manufactures market very low potencies in the label of ultra high potencies?

Did you verify whether the ‘samples’ lose their medicinal properties after the ‘nanoparticles’ were completely filtered out and removed from them? It is very important to prove that those ‘nanoparticles’ are the real active principles of potentized drugs.

Did you prove that the ‘traces of nanoparticles’ you ‘detected in your samples are the real ACTIVE PRINCIPLES of homeopathic drugs?

Did you explain anything regarding the BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM by which the ‘nanoparticles’ produce the therapeutic effects according to ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’?

———————————————————————————-

Almost 90% of all the homeopathic ‘philosophical’ literature available to us is ridiculously unscientific and irrational.

Only things that are scientifically valid and worthy of serious consideration in homeopathy are ‘molecular imprinting’ involved in potentization, and ‘biological mechanism of cure’ involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’. These two ‘principles’ constitute the most valuable inner kernel of homeopathy.

Everything else are relevant only as mere historical pieces.

————————————————————————————-

Through MIT, I am actually trying to retrieve the ‘scientific essence’ of homeopathy lying hidden in its voluminous unscientific theoretical ‘system’. It is a very difficult and tiresome task, exactly similar to retrieving a GOLD COIN lying hidden under a large heap of nasty garbage that is furiously ‘protected’ by battalions of poisonous flies roaming around!

————————————————————————————-

Some homeopaths use the term “unprejudiced’ as a convenient way of defending their unscientific theories and practices they believe to be homeopathy..

Whenever anybody questions any of the the unscientific things taught as homeopathy, they will say, our master has advised us to be “unprejudiced”, and hence there is nothing wrong in “investigating” and “experimenting” with hair transmission, radionics machines, reflexology, phototransmission, mp3 remedies and all such nonsenses.

“BE UNPREJUDICED” is the greatest self-defense of all occult practitioners.

DID HAHNEMANN ACTUALLY ADVICE HOMEOPATHS TO BE ‘UNPREJUDICED’ TO EVERY NONSENSE?

See Organon : Aphorism 6 : Sixth Edition, in which he uses the term “unprejudiced observer”:

“The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease”.

What does it mean? Does it mean a homeopath should be unprejudiced about allopathy? Does it mean he should be unprejudiced about similia principle? Does it mean he should be unprjudiced about proven principles of science? Does it mean he should unprejudiced about each and every nonsense ideas? Does it mean homeopaths should be OPEN-MINDED to every unscientific ideas people propagate?

If you read that aphorism carefully, you will realize that hahnemann was actually advising the homeopaths “not to make speculations about diseases” based on previous experiences of similar cases, but to “notice only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician”, that “these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease”. By this advice, hahnemann oonly wanted to say, homeopaths should not make prescriptions on the basis of conclusions drawn from “previous experience of similar cases”, but only by selecting a similimum using the “totality of symptoms” presented by each individual patient.

Hahnemann actually asks homeopaths to be UNPREJUDICED in their approach to diseases. He ONLY means, symptoms or “perceptible signs that represent the disease in its whole extent” should be used as the sole guide in selecting the similimum.

HOW CAN YOU USE THE TERM ‘UNPREJUDICED’ ALIENATED FROM THE ACTUAL CONTEXT IN WHICH HAHNEMANN USED IT? YOU ARE MISINTERPRETING AND MISREPRESENTING OUR MASTER’S ADVICE FOR YOUR ULTERIOR MOTIVES.

——————————————————————————–

I do not think all ‘prejudices’ are wrong, if they are arising from knowledge of a well-informed person. Only an empty-headed idiot can be 100% “unprejudiced”.

We observe and interpret anything new in the light of our previously acquired knowledge and life experience, and hence, all of us are bound to be more or less “prejudiced”.

We have to differentiate between rational prejudices and irrational prejudices- scientific prejudices and superstitious prejudices.

Off course, I have my own prejudices. They are RATIONAL prejudices arising from the scientific knowledge about this universe and its phenomena I have acquired so far, and based on my logical analysis of my objective experiences in life.

————————————————————————————–

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 alien pathogenic proteins acting as ‘guest’ molecules.

Scientists have already realized the fact that the much discussed pathogenic molecules known as ‘prions’ are nothing but disfigured protein molecules subjected to molecular imprinting.

Proteins, 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 pathogenic 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.

———————————————————————————–

I don’t think anybody can explain “every aspect” of homeopathy without “distorting” its “fundamentals.” We should not expect that ‘every’ aspect of homeopathic theory and practice could be ‘explained’ in terms of modern science.

Fear of ‘distorting fundamental laws’ arises from the fact that 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.”

Can anybody explain vital force’ in scientific terms? Can anybody explain ‘dynamic force’ and ‘drug energy’ in terms of modern science? NO. Because they have no SCIENCE in it! They are totally unscientific concepts being part of philosophy of DYNAMISM

Posted in: Homeopathy Articles

REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY

Volume XIX- Selected Facebook Updates And Tweets Of Chandran K C On Scientific Homeopathy

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Chandran K C

Our MIT Logo

Recent Articles

Similimum Ultra

Subscribe My Blogs

Recent Comments

My Tweets

REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY

Volume XIX- Selected Facebook Updates And Tweets Of Chandran K C On Scientific Homeopathy

SHARE THIS PAGE

Related

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Chandran K C

Our MIT Logo

Recent Articles

Similimum Ultra

Subscribe My Blogs

Recent Comments

My Tweets