Redefining Homeopathy Volume II

Message

Dr. Shrirang Dhole

Principal, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Institute of Homeopathic Medical Sciences, Amravati, Ex- DEAN, Maharashtra University of Health Science, Nasik, Maharashtra, India

"While Chandran KC points out plainly enough the astounding magnitude of Homeopathic Medical Science, especially in his writings on Organon Of Medicine In the light of value assuring quality understanding of Dr. CFS Hahnemann's sole desire to put forth the concept it deserves, it is a sad fact that most of the fellows spend too much time thinking of great things, writing of great men, telling a big project.. We decorate ourselves to celebrate what we think, what we have done, when we should put on sackcloth and ashes for things we have neglected.

Let us humble ourselves today by considering Dr. CFS Hahnemann, who has done great, lasting services to mankind by establishing the system of homeopathy and how we were neglecting it at our own whims and will. The trouble was that, we never took the trouble to get acquainted ourselves with the real conditions.

Fortunately, none other than Chandran KC is generous enough with the time and talent to properly study those things from which most of us indolently turn away. He is the only one who has written with fabulous symbolism, the most astounding articles on the neglected understanding of the science of Homeopathy.

The time has come, when order and unity must be evolved out of this chaos of theoretical teaching and practical method of understanding of skill mandatory in the system.

Redefining Homeopathy By Chandran K C has come into existence, the first attempt in the history of faculty and resource development, for healing on strictly scientific basis and in compliance with provisions of the scientific medical practice.

I invite the earnest co-operation in this great work, of all those who have awakened to the necessity for more rational living and for the radical reform in the healing methods through the quality and determined work by Chandran KC.

The author is freeing the world of Homeopathy at large from the curse of militarism (a philosophy or a system that plays greater importance), and making the science of Homeopathy safe. The more dangerous and permanent is the menace of unhealthy trinity of Ignorance, selfishness, and self-indulgence, the arch of enemies of Aude Sapere.

As they say, every cloud has a silver borders or otherwise these linings are dark .

Surely we can render a greater academic acumen by teaching, learning and training through Dialectical Homeopathy, a logical discussion of ideas and opinions. This book of Chandran KC provides a gentle exploration of a fundamental scientific concept in the mechanism of understanding the progression of metaphysics into Biophysics and vice- versa. This book also provides a step towards a deeper understanding of the therapeutic mechanisms associated with treatment.

The author has also focused on the prevalent turmoil and extensively covered the transparent mechanisms of Homeopathic system and its misappropriation.

Discussion and reasoning by dialogue, a method of intellectual investigation, specifically the socratic techniques of exposing false beliefs and eliciting the truth, and the platonic investigation of the eternal idea by Chandran K C in Dialectical Homeopathy is mind blowing. Valuable resources are introduced with an evidence base for the system of Homeopathy.

Dr. J.T. Kent, in Lectures on Homeopathy, Para 37 mentions: Things will grow brighter as minds are brought together and man thinks harmoniously perfect. The more we keep together the better, and more we think as one the better.

Wishing the Author many more jubilees to shower upon him and may become more stronger with time in the lives to come "

With all best wishes.

Message

Dr. Dharmendra Sharma

Professor and Principal,

Dr. D Y Patil Homoeopathic Medical College & Research Centre, Pune.

"Homeopathy, although a well established and world’s 2nd most popular system of medicine, is at the cross-roads from where from the right path is imperative now. Unless homeopathic students and physicians start learning homeopathy in a more scientific way, the skeptics will ensure that this system does not survive, and the tag of being a pseudoscience will be imprinted permanently with homeopathy.

This book on MIT by Chandran KC will quell many a myth related to homeopathy. It will not only help strengthen the understanding and explanation of working of Homeopathic Medicine for students and practitioners, but also prepare them with a more scientific mind to respond to the critics of Homoeopathy by explaining Homoeopathy in the light of Modern Science."

Best Regards

Message

Dr. Paramjeet Singh Ranu

Ex. Chairman: Punjab Homoeopathy Council, Ministry of Medical Education & Research (Govt. of Punjab); Ex. Member, Central Council of Homoeopathy, Ministry of Health & F.W. Dept. of AYUSH(Govt. of India).

I am fully satisfied with the article HOW HOMOEOPATHY WORKS.This is a real scientific reply to the LANCET REPORT 2005 which was published by a Scientist of Scot Land against Homoeopathy on the basis of Avogadro theory..I really appreciate the work done by Dr. Chandran ji and it is the need of the hour that this scientific interpretation of Homoeopathy should be and necessarily be conveyed without any delay to each and every student and their teachers of Homoeopathy in all the Homoeopathic Medical Colleges in the Country and Abroad so as to give a suitable answer to the Modern School of Medicine (ALLOPATHY) in this scientific age. This will end all the controversy raised by anti-homoeopathic forces in the world.

I congratulate Dr. Chandran ji for his efforts and work on this particular subject who has tried to give a best answer to the quiz in Homoeopathy.

Warm Regards.

Message

Dr. Shashi Mohan Sharma

Hahnemann College of Homeopathy, London, United Kingdom

Dear Chandran KC,

I am pleased to know that your book titled Redefining Homeopathy will be published soon. I am sure that many homoeopaths will understand the concept of MIT and thus use this information in their Homeopathic practice. All medical sciences are adding scientific knowledge and new researches to their systems, so I hope that your hard work and experience will be valuable addition to the healing art and science of Homeopathy.

My best wishes to all your readers and true followers of Dr Hahnemann.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Chandran K C

Pioneering a Scientific Revolution in Homeopathy

In late sixtees, a 20 year old zoology degree student already armed with the theoretical tools of dialectical methodology, accidently happened to fall into the great ocean of wonderful knowledge of homeopathy, started loving, questioning, learning, exploring, experimenting, and applying it in a way totally different from that of his predecessors. Later in his life, he even dared to quit his job in animal husbandry department under government of kerala, to dedicate his whole time and energy for homeopathy. ‘SIMILIMUM ULTRA HOMEOPATHIC SOFTWARE’ & the book, ‘REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY – as Molecular Imprints Therapeutics’ are the final outcomes of that life devoted for homeopathy for last forty eight years. He is 67 years now. He was the founder of the prestigious Kannur District Homeopathic Hospital Society, establishing a chain of hospitals and clinics for the promotion of homeopathy. Now, he is engaged in serious studies and research activities for proving his scientific explanations of homeopathy, which is expected to revolutionize not only homeopathy, but the whole medical science and pharmaceutical industry in the coming days

Email: similimum@gmail.com

Mobile: +91 9446 520 252

Address: KC House, Malappattam- 670631, Kannur, Kerala, India

FOREWORD

The book REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY presented here in three volumes is a compilation of 250+ blog articles and thousands of regular facebook posts written by the author during last few years. They were published periodically on the author’s personal Wordpress Blog titled ‘Dialectical Homeopathy’, as well as on the facebook group ‘Redefining Homeopathy’ constituted by over 40000 homeopaths as members and administered by the author himself. These articles actually represent long-term evolutionary process of self learning, research and meditative thoughts of an ordinary layman arising from his curiosity to know how homeopathy actually works, that ultimately led to some new ideas expected to be capable of redefining the theoretical and practical systems of homeopathy as a whole. Articles are reproduced and compiled as such, without much editing or modifications. Each blog article being written as an independent piece for promoting a certain aspect of original idea, there may be a lot of repetitions from previous blogs done for better clarity of ideas for those who read the blogs, which may kindly be excused.

Author is not a scientist, academician, scholar, professional homeopath, writer or anybody else with 'big credentials' or high education, but an old lay man, a retired government servant, who had accidentally happened to fall into the deep waters of the great ocean of homeopathic knowledge during his fiery teenage years, and was destined to live a whole life exploring the mysteries of that wonderful world with untiring enthusiasm and zeal.

Literary quality of these articles may not be that much professional, obviously due to the poor mastery of the author over English language. Only aim was to convey the thoughts and ideas using whatever little language skills he possessed. Actually, these writings were not intended to be brilliant literary works either, but only as a means of interacting with the readers. Author will be more than gratified even if he succeeded in making the readers understand what he wanted to say.

The book in three volumes and around three thousand pages is a bit heavy and voluminous, making it difficult for a relaxed reading. But it was unavoidable. When commenting about the important research works published by others that are much relevant in explaining the MIT concepts, original research papers and their sources were quoted in full, to help readers understand my points without the labour of searching for original papers. These lengthy quotes also have contributed in making the book somewhat bulky, but I hope readers will appreciate it since it provides a comfortable reading atmosphere. I want to express my deep gratitude to the researchers whom I have quoted extensively, and I know, my ideas would not have evolved into this much perfection without their path breaking research works.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am deeply obliged to Dr.Shrirang Dhole (Principal, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Institute of Homeopathic Medical Sciences, Amravati &Ex- Dean, Maharashtra University of Health Science, Nasik, Maharashtra, India), Dr. Dharmendra Sharma (Professor and Principal, Dr. D Y Patil Homoeopathic Medical College & Research Centre, Pune, Maharashtra) , Dr. Paramjeet Singh Ranu (Ex.Chairman: Punjab Homoeopathy Council, Ex.Member: Central Council of Homoeopathy) and Dr. Shashi Mohan Sharma (Hahnemann College of Homeopathy, London, United Kingdom). The constant support and love offered by these great stalwarts of homeopathic profession actually kept my morale and enthusiasm high even in hard times, without which I would have withered and lost long ago!

I also want to express my sincere thanks to all my homeopath friends as well as critics on facebook, twitter and Wordpress, who dedicated a lot of time for liking, reading, commenting, appreciating and criticizing my blogs and posts I put regularly on my pages through years. Without their regular feedback, my ideas would not have evolved to the present stage of perfection. Actually, it was their criticisms and intelligent questions that prompted me to keep on exploring more and more deeper into the areas that were actually unknown to me in the beginning.

I do not know how to express my heart-felt gratitude to Dr. Arif Hussain Mohammed, a young homeopath from Kerala with untiring enthusiasm to learn and achieve, who came into my life very accidentally after reading my blogs. Now he is for me like a son, my first follower, disciple and heir in MIT, and has dedicated himself in MIT research. If MIT finally wins, it will be due to his hard work.

Thanks to Mr. Finu Muhammed of FEDARIN Publishers, Kozhikode, Kerala, India, who has shown wonderful courage for taking the big risk of investing his hard earned money in publishing this huge work of an unknown author like me. Without his initiative and dedicated help, my dream of publishing this book would never have materialized.

I should also express my gratitude to management and staff of MIDAS PRINTERS, Kannur, whose skills and dedication made this book this much perfect and beautiful.

AUTHOR

10-April-2017.

INTRODUCTION

Time has come for a serious dialogue regarding  a scientific REDEFINING and rational rebuilding of the fundamental principles and methods  of  Homeopathy. Rebuilding of the whole system is essential, to emancipate this powerful therapeutic art from the clutches of unscientific, metaphysical and vitalistic ideologies. Modern scientific knowledge and its technologies have evolved into such a state of maturity that we can now at least attempt with their help to provide a scientific and satisfactory explanation for the centuries-old mysteries and riddles associated with this wonderful therapeutic system. Such a fundamental re-building shall obviously result in finally enthroning homeopathy  on its rightful status as the most advanced branch of modern medical science, unfairly denied for more than last two hundred years.

In this modern era of scientific enlightenment and technological advance, we can no longer hope to proceed further ahead with Homeopathy, without the help of a well proven and universally acceptable scientific THEORY an PRACTICE. We can no longer hope to depend merely upon certain set of somewhat mysterious ‘quotes’ and philosophical speculations inherited from our great masters and ‘stalwarts’. It is very important that Homeopathy has to be first of all dealt with as a subject of science, not as a religion or philosophy. Essentially, the principles of  Homeopathy have to achieve the right to be recognized as part of modern medical science. To begin with, it has to attain acceptability among the modern scientific community, at least in terms of methodology, and paradigms.

To be a legitimate branch of modern medical science, it is imperative that homeopathy should no more remain a mere collection of inflexible theories and dogmas. It should transform into a vibrant knowledge system, undergoing an endless process of re-inventing, learning, self-renewal, and advancement. It should be capable of proving its theories and propositions according to scientific method, to imbibe new ideas into its theoretical framework, and to discard obsolete ones mercilessly. To be scientific, approach of homeopathy towards the constantly advancing human knowledge should be dialectic, not closed or dogmatic.

Scientific knowledge constantly advances to ever new heights of perfection through an unending dialectic process of simultaneous assimilation of new ideas and negation of old ones. It is impossible for anybody to proceed with his intellectual quest without drawing resources from the treasures of knowledge amassed by the by-gone generations. No human genius can totally overcome the objective limitations imposed upon him by the space-time context of his life and activities. Development of human knowledge should be perceived in relation with this objective process of historical evolution. Man knows today much more than he knew yesterday.  Certainly he would know infinitely more tomorrow, than what he knows today. The knowledge of yesterdays, however great they might have been, were much incomplete than that of today. Tomorrow, human knowledge would be definitely more expansive and more comprehensive than that of today. The basis of scientific perspective of knowledge lies in realizing this fundamental historical perspective.

We should never forget the objective historical knowledge context of 18th century Germany, where Samuel Hahnemann lived and developed his novel therapeutic system. Two hundred and more eventful years have passed since it happened. It is not to be seen as a disrespect to say that Hahnemann’s thoughts and propositions were ‘historically’ confined  by the  limitations imposed by the infantile level of science and technology that were available to him. Even though the the objective essence of the therapeutic principle he developed is capable of transcending the boundaries of centuries to come, it would be unfair to evaluate his achievements and contributions detached from his objective time-space framework.

Human knowledge has attained much greater maturity of more than two centuries, compared with the knowledge environment that existed during Hahnemann’s period. It is an indisputable fact that we are privileged to have a much better idea about the diverse phenomena of this universe than Hahnemann. Hahnemann had developed homeopathy using the existing knowledge about the universe available to him. Naturally, it is bound to bear the limitations imposed by the objective historical and geographical context. Had he happened to live in this world 200 years later, the towering genius of Hahnemann would have presented to humanity a therapeutic system totally different, and much more advanced and scientific than what we now call Homeopathy. He would have definitely rewritten completely what we preach and practice as Homeopathy today.

All these facts underline the crucial relevance of a complete re-reading, redefining and rebuilding of the theory and practice of Homeopathy in conformity with modern scientific and historical context. Whenever we try to learn the ‘words’ of Hahnemann, we should be on the look out to understand what he would have said about those subjects, if he were elaborating them in the modern context. We should not take his ‘aphorisms’ as if they were ultimate TRUTH, unquestionable and beyond any scope of further revisions and improvements. We should honor the great master by following his teachings as valuable guide to tread forward, and not as lifeless dogmas.  This is the approach dialectical methodology teaches us.

Theory and practice of Homeopathy have been always a matter of endless controversy since its inception by Samuel Hahnemann two hundred years ago. Representatives of the so-called ‘official science’ were always in a state of undeclared war against it. Rather than being hailed as a possible new medical breakthrough to give better health for all, homeopathy has been ridiculed, ignored and systematically suppressed through centuries. We repeatedly hear about ‘successful" attempts by its opponents, to ‘disprove’ it ‘scientifically’, and time and again declaring it a ‘fraud, placebo, or pseudoscience’. In spite of all these  scorns, ridicules and ‘witch hunts’, homeopathy still exists and thrives all over the continents, alleviating pain and sufferings of millions. The rising acceptance of homeopathy not only by the millions of lay public, but by the heads of states, members of royal families, even some unbiased scientists and many other dignitaries all over the world, has produced a state of dilemma in the world of scientific community. Either all of these millions using homeopathic medicines had fallen victims to a successful global scale ‘medical hoax’, or the ‘learned scientists’  striving to disprove homeopathy, are being proved themselves wrong!

On the other side of the matter, most unscientific and absurd concepts and notions still dominate the mindset of many who ‘represent’ Homeopathy on international platforms.  They raise questions about the ‘scientificness’ of modern science, and engage in ‘scholarly’ discourses regarding the futility of science and scientific method! All sorts of ‘pseudo-scientific’, ‘spiritualistic’, ‘energy medicine’ theories are propagated, which ruin the scientific credentials of homeopathy. They mix up homeopathy with all those nonsense practiced under CAM umbrella. distance healing, hair transmission, pc resonance remedies, dream proving, meditation proving, reflexology, dowsing, radionics…. list of occult practiced and propagated in the label of homeopathy is really mind blogging.

Then there is a class claiming to be ‘classical homeopaths’. They declare themselves to be practitioners of what they call ‘True Homeopathy’. They are not real followers, but only worshipers of Samuel Hahnemann. For them, Hahnemann is omnipotent and omniscient like a God! They will not tolerate any attempt of additions or deletions to what the master has said regarding homeopathy two hundred years back. According to them, homeopathy is the ‘ultimate’  ‘scientific’ therapeutic system, ‘our master’ is athe ‘greatest scientist’ of all times, and all other medical systems are absolutely ‘unscientific’.

We also meet certain clever marketers who try to sell homeopathy maximum through their own private outlets, by assigning attractive trade labels, ‘methods’, ‘protocols’ and ‘packages’. Still another set of people strive in vain to make homeopathy ‘competent’ to ‘keep equal’ with modern medicine, by establishing commercially motivated corporate networks of high cost homeopathic practice, that alienate this medical system from common man. Making the scenario still worse and hopeless, all sorts of unscientific and unethical commercial patented formulations are flooding the market, in the guise of Scientific Homeopathy.

The  irony is that all these people of various colors and clowns are claiming themselves to be the  only ‘true’ disciples of a great Genius, who displayed the intellectual courage to  reform and re-write  his own ‘Organon of Medicine’  six times in his life time, as part of his unrelenting quest for truth and perfection. As this undeniable historical truth remains, it is a pity to note that people who claim themselves to be the ardent followers of the great Master, are shutting their doors on the face of all new knowledge and scientific enlightenment with such hideous tenacity.

Samuel Hahnemann, the great founder of Homeopathy, was born on 10th April 1755 in Germany. He died on 2nd July 1843. ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ or ‘Likes Cures Like’ is the expression of a universally applicable natural therapeutic law revealed to him as a result of his extraordinary observational skills and ardent study. Based on this fundamental observation of natural curative process hitherto unknown to humanity, Hahnemann laid the foundation for a new therapeutic system called homeopathy. A detailed theoretical frame work and practical tools for this new system of therapeutics were also developed during his later years.

The epoch-making observation of Hahnemann regarding the fundamental law of cure was of so much relevance and implications that it really deserved to be recognized in the history of human knowledge along with Newton’s Theory of Motion, Theory of Gravitation, or Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. It was a grave unpardonable historical blunder on the part of contemporary scientific world that such a recognition did not happen. Had it been possible for them to imbibe Hahnemann’s findings into the existing scientific knowledge system, the fate and course of modern medicine would have been entirely different.

Scientific knowledge of 18th Century Germany was in its early infancy, and obviously, could not recognize the importance of the new therapeutic law discovered by Samuel Hahnemann. The toolbox of contemporary science and technology was not sufficiently equipped to address this task. Naturally, they could not take up the task of assimilating Hahnemann’s findings and propositions, which presented much more complicated theoretical and practical issues that were beyond the boundaries of their mechanistic methodologies. This situation resulted in some sort of willful neglect and apathy from the part of mainstream scientific community towards Hahnemann and his discoveries. They miserably failed to comprehend the revolutionary content and epoch-making relevance of Hahnemann’s findings. Hahnemann, whose apathy towards the contemporary medical system and its professional community is well known, may also have chosen to keep himself aloof from mainstream science. His unrelenting ideological rebellion against the influence of mechanical materialism existing in the dominant medical stream may have led him inevitably into some sort of metaphysical and idealistic philosophical approaches, which dominated the contemporary non-scientific intellectual arenas. Inevitably, homeopathy was constrained to follow an independent parallel intellectual course, far removed from the mainstream science. Hence it is not really unexpected that homeopathy is reveling with burdens of philosophical speculations and theorizations, rather than a rational Medical Science. Even today, homeopathy is not able to free itself from the burdens of its vitalistic philosophy and superstitious irrational methods of application. Still homeopathy has not come to terms with modern mainstream Science.

As a simple and effective therapeutic system, free of any fear of unwanted side effects, homeopathy has already gained acceptability to a great extent during the by gone two centuries. The principle of ‘Similia Similibus Curenter’ has sufficiently proved its ‘right of existence’ through thousands and thousands of wonderful cures by homeopaths all over the world. But we cannot overlook the fact that we have not yet succeeded in explaining this principle scientifically enough, or proposing a scientific model for its biological mechanism of action. Even though modern physical sciences and biochemical sciences have accumulated a huge wealth of knowledge in recent years, unraveling even the minutest secrets of the phenomenon of life, homeopaths have not yet been able to recreate the fundamental principles of homeopathy scientifically and convincingly enough, by taking advantage of the those modern scientific advancements.

Homeopathy shall be duly recognized and respected as an advanced branch of modern molecular medicine, only when such a scientific recreation of its basic principles is attained. Until that happens, acceptance of our claim that homeopathy is a science will remain confined to the dream worlds of homeopaths only!

We should understand, whatever be the experiences, claims, anecdotes, and explanations of homeopathic community, men of science still consider homeopathy only as as ‘pseudo-science’. Wikipedia says: Homeopathy is a system of alternative medicine based on the belief in giving a patient with symptoms of an illness extremely dilute remedies that are thought to produce those same symptoms in healthy people. These preparations are often diluted beyond the point where any treatment molecule is likely to remain. Studies of homeopathic practice have been largely negative or inconclusive. No scientific basis for homeopathic principles has been substantiated.

Homeopathic theoreticians have been so far trying to explain the ‘modus operandi’ of potentized homeopathic medicines using one or other ‘hypotheses’ available or evolved by them. They go on spinning diverse types of fanciful ‘theories’ using ‘ultra-scientific’ jargon, that contribute only to make homeopathy a piece of unending mockery before the scientific community. Actually, nobody could so far even propose a scientifically viable ‘working hypothesis’ about the biological mechanism of ‘high dilution therapeutics’ involved in homeopathy, that could be presented as a reasonable candidate for verification according to scientific methods.

I think whether homeopathy works or not is no more an unanswered question as far homeopaths are concerned, even though skeptics go on asking it again and again as part of their efforts to discredit homeopathy. Nobody can reasonably interact with, or convince those prejudiced minds, whatever evidence or ‘logic’ we provide. According to my long years of experience with homeopathy, I am fully convinced that it works beyond any doubt. However, all those millions of  ‘clinical evidences’ we provide will be ‘verifiable’ or ‘acceptable’ to scientific community, only when we succeed in at least proposing a viable working hypothesis regarding the biological model for homeopathy that could be subjected to scientific experiments for proving ‘how it really worked’. Here I am trying to address the question ‘how homeopathy works’, since I consider it as the most vital point to be resolved first. To be recognized as a branch of medical science, I think we have to be successful in explaining the molecular mechanism of potentization as well as homeopathic therapeutics in a way fitting to the existing modern scientific knowledge system, and proving our explanations according to scientific methods.

I would like to entitle this emerging ‘REDEFINED’ scientific version as Dialectical Homeopathy, since this reclaiming is essentially achieved utilizing the theoretical tools of dialectical methodology. Dialectical Homeopathy is basically an innovative and positive enhancement of classical Hahnemannian Homeopathy, and as such, may be considered as its ‘dialectical negation’ at large. Historically, it represents a qualitatively higher stage in the natural evolutionary growth and maturation of Homeopathy. ‘Dialectical’ also indicates its readiness to open up to new ideas, and engage in creative dialogue with other scientific disciplines. It advocates to discard all forms of dogmatism existing in homeopathy. Whereas ‘Homeopathy’ is the ‘seed’, ‘Dialectical Homeopathy’ is the emerging ‘seedling’- that much similar, that much different.

Chapter 1. Redefining The Concept Of

‘Complementary Prescriptions’

100% similimum is a utopian concept. Nobody can find a 100% similimum for a given case. We can find only a ‘most appropriate’ similimum. Hence, offering ‘total cure’ for a patient with ‘single’ drug is practically impossible, whatever the claims are.

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

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

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

Here comes the relevance of the concept of ‘complementary’ prescriptions, especially if the physician is averse to using multiple drugs in a ‘single’ prescription.

The concept of ‘complementary prescriptions’ should not be confused with the concept of ‘complementary drugs’.

Concept of ‘complementary drugs’ is based on the arbitrary theory that such and such drugs are ‘complementary’ to such and such drugs. It is not based on study of similarity of symptoms. But the concept of ‘complementary prescription’ is based on the real study of symptoms in the patient that are not covered by the similimum selected as the first prescription.

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

There is no need of any kind of restrictions for the number of ‘complementary prescriptions’. If the first ‘complementary prescription’ is not enough to complete the cure, we can look for a second ‘complementary prescription’ on the basis of remaining symptoms. We can ensure ‘total cure’ for the patient through systematic application of this ‘complementary prescription’ method.

Whether the ‘complementary prescriptions’ are applied along with or after the first prescription, could be decided by the physician according to his perceptions.

Chapter 2. MIT Approach Makes Homeopathic Practice Simple, Safe And Result-Oriented

According to the rational view proposed by MIT hypothesis, 'molecular imprints' contained in drugs potentized above 12c cannot do any harm, and they cannot interact each other. Once you understand this scientific fact, making homeopathic prescriptions becomes very simple.

Collect all 'abnormal' symptoms, find appropriate similimums as indicated by various 'groups of symptoms' as well as by molecular pathology, use any number of indicated drugs in potency above 12c, repeat frequently until cure- that is all. No need of worries about ‘single-multiple’ issue, potency ‘selection’, drug relationships, ‘second prescriptions’, ‘miasmatic analysis’, ‘suppressions’ etc etc.

Any drug substance, whether it be allopathic or homeopathic, can do ‘harm’ in a living body only if it can interfere in the normal interaction between biological molecules and their natural ligands. As far as these normal interactions goes on unhindered, it means there is no ‘errors’ in vital processes- means, no ‘harm’.

If anybody say, homeopathic drugs potentized above 12c will do ‘harm’ if used without indications, they are expected to explain their views regarding the biological mechanism of this ‘harm’. They should explain, HOW these potentized drugs exactly interfere in the normal interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands. Mere quoting of ‘aphorisms’ is not enough for this. Explain in the language of scientific knowledge.

According to my opinion, potentized drugs above 12c cannot do any harm. I am not talking about my belief. I am also explaining why I think so, in scientific terms.Drugs potentized above avogadro limit contain only ‘molecular imprints’. These molecular imprints are the ‘active principles’ of potentized drugs.

Molecular imprints are supra-molecular congregations of water-ethyl alcohol molecules, into which the ‘spacial form’ of drug molecules are imprinted or engraved as three-dimensional nano-cavities. These nano-cavities have a conformation exactly complementary to the drug molecules used for imprinting. As such, molecular imprints will have a selective affinity towards those drug molecules as well as any other molecule having conformations SIMILAR to those drug molecules.

When potentized drugs are introduced into our body, these molecular imprints selectively bind to the pathogenic molecules having conformational affinity. We say, molecular imprints act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for the pathogenic molecules. Such a binding between pathogenic molecules and molecular imprints ultimately relieves the biological molecules from the inhibitions earlier produced by pathogenic molecules. This is the exact biological mechanism of homeopathic cure.

Molecular imprints may temporarily bind to some biological molecules, if there is any similarity of molecular conformations. But this binding will be very transient and weak, and hence, the natural ligands can easily displace them and interact with their biological targets. Biological ligands and their biological targets interact by their conformational as well as charge affinities, where as molecular imprints have only conformational affinity. That is why the binding between biological molecules and molecular imprints are easily displaced by natural ligands. That means, molecular imprints cannot prevent or interfere in the normal biological interactions between biological molecules and their natural ligands. In other words, drugs potentized above 12c cannot do any ‘harm’ even if used without indications.

You are free to disagree with my explanations. But you should be prepared to propose another viable model of biological mechanism of homeopathic drug actions, when declaring potentized drugs will do harm.

When I say homeopathic drugs potentized above 12c CANNOT do any harm, I am explaining WHY I think so, on the basis of a scientific model for its biological action. When you say homeopathic drugs potentized above 12c CAN do harm, I expect you too to explain WHY you think so, on the basis of some rational model for its biological action. Otherwise we cannot have a reasonable interaction.

Here I am not discussing what hahnemann ‘said’ or not said. I am discussing science. Do not quote aphorisms to argue with me. Aphorisms are not ‘ultimate proof’ for anything in science, but aphorisms themselves have to be explained in scientific terms and proved according to scientific methods. If aphorisms could not withstand scientific scrutiny, they will have to be moved to archives only to be used as historical reference materials in future.

Chapter 3. MIT Approach To Selection of Potency- Confusions Resolved!

Do not worry much about selection of potencies. Always use 12c-30c, until a better and more accurate way of molecular imprinting is evolved. If your prescription does not act properly or stop acting, and if you are sure you have selected correct similimum, use same drug, same potency from another sample obtained from another source. Collect maximum samples of 30c of same drug from different sources and mix them for better therapeutic result. It would be an eye opening experience, that would compel you to look into the whole 'potency question' from a different angle.

This opening statement may seem a bit controversial an unacceptable to most of homeopaths trained and experienced in classical ways of thinking. Kindly read the whole article and think over it logically before making any hasty conclusions.

A lot of confusions, controversies and phobias exist regarding the selection of potencies to be administered, after selecting the similimum. Everything is controversial in this area of applied homeopathy. Each homeopath has his own ways, and believes that only he is right.Young homeopaths get confused due to totally contradicting advices they get from their different teachers.

Once similimum is selected for a case through a process of exhaustive case taking, repertorization and material medica study, the next issue that bothers a young homeopath the most is the selection of potency, dosage and repetitions.

There are many laws, principles, theories and guidelines, given by different masters, most of them contradicting and conflicting with one another, which makes everything complex for a new comer.

Through hard experience, most homeopaths finally settle into a stage where they make their own ‘private’ ‘laws’ regarding potency, dose and repetition, which they will never expose to the homeopathic community, for fear of being ridiculed as deviation from principles. Everybody wants to appear to be belonging to that respectable class of ‘classical homeopaths’, pretending to be strictly following all the ‘immutable’  ‘cardinal principles’ of ‘pure’ homeopathy.

Please remember, all these 'laws' are made and practiced without even knowing what are the active principles of medicines we are using. Everything is pure speculation. Nobody knows what exactly happens during potentization. Nobody knows what are exactly the active principles of potentized drugs. Nobody exactly knows the molecular mechanism by which potentized drugs interacts with biological organism and creates a therapeutic effect. Nobody knows how lo potencies are different from high potencies. Everything is based on speculations. Dynamism, vibrational theory, Vitalism- everything explained as phenomena happening 'beyond science'.

I am trying to resolve the issue of potencies in the light of scientifically viable working hypothesis regarding homeopathic therapeutics and potentization.

The word 'drug potency' and 'drug potentization' is associated with the concept of 'dynamic drug energy'. As per this view, every drug substance has its 'inherent qualities', which exist as specific 'energy' of dynamic in form, and act up on the 'vital force' of organism by a dynamic way. This dynamic drug energy can exist free from 'material drug, substance and transferred into rectified spirit or sugar of milk through a process called 'potentization'. By this process, the 'dynamic drug energy' gettin freed from the drug substance moves to the potentizing medium and 'energizes' it. By the process of serial dilution and succussion, this dynamic energy could be 'raised' to new energy levels, and as such, it is believed that 'higher' dilutions are more 'potentized' and more powerful. This 'dynamic drug energy' carried by the 'potentized drugs' act upon the vital force and induces a 'healing process'.

According to the MIT concept I propose, I am explaining the process involved in potentization in terms of 'molecular imprinting'. It is not the 'dynamic drug energy' that is transferred into the medium during so-called process of potentization, but the three dimensional configuration of constituent drug molecules getting imprinted into the supra-molecular matrix of potentizing medium in the form of nanocavities, through a process of forming hydration shells. These nanocavities act as artificial binding sites or artificial 'key holes' for pathogenic molecules having configurational similarity to imprinted molecules. This concept scientifically explains the molecular dynamics of homeopathic therapeutics involved in 'similia similibus curentur' in a way fitting to the concepts of modern biochemistry, molecular pathology and therapeutics.

Obviously, the term 'potentization' reflects the vitalistic philosophy behind it. It would be ideal to use the term 'molecular imprinting' to explain the exact process in scientific terms.

Once you understand and accept 'molecular imprinting' as the real process involved in potentization, and perceive 'potentized' drugs in terms of constituent molecular imprints, all confusions regarding selection of potencies will be scientifically resolved.

According to my concept of ‘molecular imprinting’ involved in homeopathic potentization, the active principles of potentized drugs are ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent drug molecules. Since a drug substance constitutes diverse types of independent molecules in it, potentized drugs also would contain different types of ‘molecular imprints’ or hydrosomes representing those different drug molecules. These ‘molecular imprints’ acts in their individual capacity of configurational similarity by binding up on pathogenic molecules, producing a therapeutic effect.

As per this view, molecules of drug substances would be completely removed from the medium when the dilution crosses Avogadro limit. That means, even the smallest sized drug molecules will disappear above 12c potency. Hence, I proposed that 12c will be the ideal potency for therapeutic purpose, and further higher potencies will not be different from 12c in medicinal property. Since drug molecules will be absent above 12c, I presumed that there is no meaning in continuing potentization higher and higher. On that basis, I suggested to use 12C to 30c potency only. Mean time, we have to work up on developing a better scientific way of producing molecular imprints perfectly

According to me, there only two classes of drugs:

1. Molecular Imprints Forms- potentized drugs above avogadro limit, or 12c and above, containing only molecular imprints or hydrosomes.

2. Molecular Forms- low potencies below 12c and crude drugs which contain original drug molecules.

(Here, the specified probability range is calculated for molecules of lowest molecular weight, using Avogadro Number. Obviously, molecules of higher molecular weight may disappear from the medium at much earlier stages of potentization. Probability range of each individual class of molecules can be calculated using their molecular weight, Avogadro Number and proportions of dilutions).

Drug molecules and their derivatives, due to their gross molecular properties, can chemically interact with biological molecules and metabolites. This phenomenon is utilized when drugs are used as allopathic medicines.

When crude drugs and low potencies are applied as ‘similimum’, the ‘drug’ molecules contained in them, if having configurational similarity to the active groups of pathological molecules, may compete with the pathological molecules in binding to the target bio-molecules, and in that process, relieve the bio-molecules from pathological inhibitions. In this case, drug molecules act as ‘competitive molecular factors’  towards pathologic molecules. It should be understood that crude drugs and low potencies act in certain cases as therapeutic agents by this ‘competitive’ mechanism, when selected according to the principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’.

In certain situations, where there is real scarcity of certain molecules necessary for metabolism, crude substances and low potencies or mother tinctures will have to be used by their supplementary or nutritional value. This belongs to Nutritional Therapy, and should not be confused with homeopathy. Various minerals, vitamins, co-factors, micro-nutrients and amino-acid supplements belong to this category.

Drugs potentized above ‘Avogadro limit’ act by an entirely different molecular mechanism. ‘Hydrosomes’ or ‘molecular imprints’ formed during potentization are configurational complementaries of original drug molecules used as ‘guest’ for potentization. These ‘molecular imprints’ act as ‘counteractive complementary factors’ and bind to the active groups of pathologic molecules having configurational similarity to the drug molecules used for potentization. Thus the pathologic molecules are prevented from interacting with the bio-molecules, thereby relieving the molecular bocks and pathological inhibitions. The danger of drug molecules acting upon on off-target sites, with unfavorable consequences should be expected while using crude drugs and low potencies. If we want to practice real homeopathy, we should deliberately abstain from using medicinal preparations containing drug molecules.

We should also be aware of the difference between crude drugs and low potencies or triturations. Even though both preparations contain same drug molecules, their therapeutic properties are found to be different. In crude form, drug molecules are packed tightly, with their chemical bonds remaining saturated by  interacting with various other molecules or ions. Hence, they are not at all free to exhibit all their individual interactive potentials. Whereas in triturations and low potencies, the drug molecules are free or ionized, they can exhibit all their properties. Hence, pathogenic and therapeutic capabilities of triturations and low potencies are much higher to crude forms of same drug, whereas drugs of toxic nature are more toxic in crude forms than dilutions, due to their high concentration of molecules. We already know that various drugs which appear  comparatively inert in their crude forms become very potent medicinal agents in triturated forms. Differences between crude Siliciea and Silice 3x, crude Lyco and Lyco 3x etc. are examples for this phenomenon.

But many homeopaths, even those who were not reluctant to accept my ‘molecular imprint’ concept, invited my attention to their experience that when a drug in 12C- 30c potency acted for some time, a stage reaches where no further improvement is obtained. In such situations, they could create curative response by going to higher and higher potencies of same drug. My friends said that their experiences does not corroborate my suggestion that a drug in all potencies above 12c will be similar in medicinal properties.

I decided to take up this question seriously, and started working up on it. There were many instance where NUX 30 failed but NUX 200 acted. It was also correct that in some cases NUX 30 acted for some time and then came to a standstill, where repeating same potency did not succeed in evoking any response. Then NUX 30 or NUX 1m acted favorably.

There were another experience reported by some homeopaths, and verified by me. When NUX 1m failed, NUX 30 or NUX 200 acted. In my experiments on that lines, I noticed that when a case comes to standstill after a certain period of improvement after using NUX 1m, administration of NUX 30 or NUX 200 was also beneficial, instead of moving to still higher potencies.

Then I started experimenting on another lines. When NUX 30 failed to provide further improvement after a certain stage, I used NUX 30 from another sample obtained from another manufacturer. The result was wonderful. It acted!. I repeated this experiment with different cases, different drugs,  different potencies. Finally I came to the conclusion that it was not a question of going higher or lower, but changing of samples, changing of source of potentized drugs. I can now suggest my friends, if you fail with NUX 30, and your are still convinced that the similimum is NUX, use NUX 30 obtained from another manufacturer. It will work. Always keep maximum samples of same drugs in same potencies obtained from different sources, and try all of them before changing your prescription. I have also seen it beneficial to mix all those different samples together and keep as single drug. For example, you can collect NUX 30 from five different manufacturers and mix them together and keep labeled as NUX. And see the difference!

It is not at all realistic to imagine that the same drug sample of Nux Vomica used for proving is always used for preparing its potencies also. It may have been procured and prepared from another location, climate, environment, time and circumstances. All of these factors may necessarily influence their chemical constitution also. Contaminants and pollutants also differ with time, place and persons who handled it. Yet, we are obliged to call all these different samples as Nux Vomica, and use it as same drug.

In reality, samples of potentized Nux Vomica we get now from pharmacies are prepared from samples very much different from the samples used for proving it two hundred years back. It might not necessarily be the same contaminations and foreign molecules which happen to be mixed with the drug during procurement and potentization. Entirely new type of impurities and foreign molecules, different from proven samples, shall definitely get mixed with drugs while potentizing. Naturally, these contaminants and foreign molecules also get subjected to potentization along with original drug molecules. It is evident that the homeopathic potencies of Nux Vomica we get from pharmacies contain the potentized forms of these new contaminant molecules also. In other words, they are mixed with potentized forms of these unknown substances, entirely different from those were subjected to proving. We cannot ignore the fact that we are not using potencies of same drug, that have been proved earlier and recorded in the materia medica, eventhough we call it with same name. It is composed of an entirely different mixture, much more different in molecular structure from the one subjected to original proving. We use the potentized form of this new combination, on the basis of symptoms produced by another combination earlier, using the therapeutic principle ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’. Is not this realization somewhat emberassing? We have to provide convincing solutions to the ethical, theoretical and practical problems raised by this situation.

Logical explanation for this phenomenon is very simple. It is associated with the process of molecular imprinting happening in potentization, and the quality of crude drug sample used for potentization. Simply put, each sample of same drug in same potency may differ in their constituent molecular imprints. One sample may miss some ‘molecular imprints’ that may be present in another sample. Each sample provides only partial curative effect, according to the availability of ‘molecular imprints’ present in them. To get a ‘complete’ therapeutic action of a particular drug, we have to use different samples from different sources, one after other, or mixing together.

Then regarding so-called 'ultra-high' dilutions. If the process of dilution is done strictly as per directions given by Samuel Hahnemann, 99 ml alcohol/water mixture has to be thrown away to get 1 ml of 1c potency, which is used as the back potency for 2c stage of potentization. That means, to prepare 1ml of DM potency we will have to throw away 999999.999 litres of water/ alcohol mixture. Do you believe one lac litres of ethyl alcohol is thrown away by the manufactures while preparing 1 ml of homeopathic medicine in DM potency? If you claim that this is not thrown away but kept as various potencies, can you imagine the size of storage facilities required for each drug? Please remember, we have around 1000 drugs in homeopathy, which means 1000000000 litres of wastage of ethyl alcohol-water mixture! And also calculate the time, energy utensils, bottles and labor required for handling all this! Do you believe all this happening?

Every manufacturer claim that they use back potencies, and hence no wastage of alcohol happens. But somebody in the line has to do the job of raising 30c into 199c, 200c into 999c, 1m into 9999c and so on. If those people do it genuinely as per Hahnemannian method, they will have to bear all these wastage, and the cost of back potencies will be unimaginably high!

In the present atmosphere of profit-oriented pharmaceutical business managed by professional business administrators, we cannot be so naïve to believe that the manufacturers of homeopathic medicines would be so much dedicated to the philosophy of Hahnemann to bear such huge holes in their money bags. Remember, these same people are flooding the market with all sorts of unethical patented mixtures in the name of homeopathy, and bribing the homeopaths to market them, in their greed to amass wealth. How can we expect them to be so much sincere in the service of homeopathy only while preparing potencies? How much pathetic is the situation since there exist no any scientific mechanism to verify the exact identity and potency of a drug other than to trust the labels on the bottles! If somebody make an error knowingly or unknowingly in sticking a label to a stock bottle of back potency, can you imagine the consequences that will continue to haunt generations of homeopaths to come? We have to be consoled that potentized homeo medicines cannot kill human beings.

Believe it or not,if you closely monitor what is happening behind the walls of commercial homeopathic manufacturing units, you will lose all your trust in our ‘very high’ potencies. I had personally discussed with some retired supervisors and managers of certain famous production units, and they confessed some bitter truth.  After 30c, most units do not carry on potentization strictly as Hahnemann directed. A few additional shakes is given to 30c and marked as 199c, which is used as the back potency for 200c. Again with few additional shakes, and 200c becomes 999c used as back potency  for 1m. Over all, we can see that practically, in most cases, the difference between 30c and DM potency is only a four to ten stage dilution and a few additional shakes!. Finished! And we call it ‘ultra-high’ potencies!. Only consolation is that 30c is enough for optimum molecular imprinting to happen, and our drugs will work if used as similimum, since they contain ‘molecular imprints’, and that is enough. This shows that the difference between 30c and CM or DM is very narrow. Our talk about ‘very high’ dilution is practically meaningless. Most homeopaths and manufacturers will not tolerate my statement, because that may undermine the ‘sand hills’ of fame they have built in the name of ‘high potencies’.

Most homeopaths believe that administration of incorrect remedies and potencies may harm the patients. If that were the case, homeopaths would have been the greatest criminals in human history! They would have already harmed the whole human race by the time being through wrong prescriptions. Even you and me make many many wrong prescriptions everyday, believing that we are making correct prescriptions. Can anybody deny it with a sincere heart?

ALWAYS USE 12C-30C. IF IT DOES NOT ACT, OR STOP ACTING, AND IF YOU ARE SURE YOU HAVE SELECTED CORRECT SIMILIMUM, USE SAME POTENCY FROM ANOTHER SAMPLE OBTAINED FROM ANOTHER SOURCE.

COLLECT MAXIMUM SAMPLES OF 30C OF SAME DRUG FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES AND MIX THEM FOR BETTER THERAPEUTIC RESULT. IT WOULD BE A GREAT EXPERIENCE!

What is the optimum potency, as per MIT? Now I would say 'ALPHA MOLECULAR IMPRINTS'- I have explained this idea in a separate article

Chapter 4. Case Taking And Making Homeopathic Prescriptions For Acute Fevers

Making homeopathic prescriptions for fevers is a real challenge. Patients need immediate lowering of temperature. They are not willing to wait. Most homeopaths use mother tinctures and combinations in a desperate attempt to show' result. Many homeopaths advice their patients to go for allopathy or self medication with paracetamol.

Prescribing for fevers and bringing down temperature with potentized drugs is very simple if we know how to do it.

Case taking is the most the decisive step in prescribing for fevers. Never try to use 'specifics' or mother tinctures. Collecting symptoms and finding a similimum is most important.

CONCOMITANTS are most important symptoms in finding similimum for fevers. Look for concomitants symptoms in following regions:

Abdomen(Pains, flatulence, sensation)

Rectum- (Diarrhoea-Constipation, type and color of stools)

Back(pains, sensations)

Chest(oppression, palpitation, pains)

Throat(pain, swelling, hoarseness, peculiar sensations etc)

Tongue(color, sensations, taste, other peculiarities)

Respiratory(cough, asthmatic, expectoration etc)

Nose(coryza, stuffiness, discharges, sensations etc)

Head(Pains, peculiar sensations)

Stomach(nausea, appetite, thirst, vomiting, pains, desires-aversions)

Ears(pains, discharges, tinnitus, sensations, hearing)

Extremities(pains, numbness, cramps, coldness, peculiar sensations)

Eyes(lachrymation, discolorations, sensations, swelling, visual)

Face(swelling, discolorations)

Alternating symptoms, if any

Perspiration(increased, decreased, localized, offensive, other peculiarities)

Skin(eruptions, colors, special sensations, coldness)

Sleep(positions, dreams)

Urinary(frequency, stranguary, burning, color, sediments, odor)

Mind(mental abnormalities, fears, loquacity, anger, irritability, disposition)

Physical generals(paroxysms, dropsy, trembling, weakness- chill- chilliness, vertigo)

Modalities: Time modalities, Conditional modalities

Locations: Sides, peculiar body regions

Causations: Dietary irregularities, Exposures etc.

Collect maximum available symptoms under above FOUR categories. Even if you get minimum one prominent symptom each from all these four categories, a similimum could be worked out. Repertorize to find a similimum. It will bring down temperature if used repeatedly in 30c potency.

If we have a good repertory software, and know how to use its sphisticated tools, it is a matter of a few minutes. Repertorization will be over by the time case taking is finished, if we work out the case using tools for 'smart' ways of case taking and repertorization.

Years back, I had a wonderful experience with prescribing for fever. My 5 year old son was suffering from fever for days. In spite of all my desperate attempts, temperature did not come down even after ten days. At night, the temperature will go up to 103 F. Whole family was very much worried. For me, it was very hard to accept failure and take him to allopath. One night at 12 pm, I was sitting sleepless at the bedside of son, who was much exhausted and asleep. Suddenly, I noticed he was SLEEPING WITH LEGS CROSSED. Without awakening him, I separated his legs. Instantly, he would cross the lower limbs again. I tried to keep is legs apart many times, but he crossed limbs again instantly. I sensed some peculiarity in his behavior, and took KENT repertory and searched for an appropriate rubric. I failed to get one. Then I searched in Boericke Repertory, and could locate following rubric:

[Boericke]Nervous system : SLEEP : Position : Must lie : Legs [with] : Crossed:- Rhod.

I decided to try RHODODENDRON. But there was no RHODO available in my medicine chest. Finally, could locate an old plastic vial labelled RHODO 30, and there was only some powdery remnants sticking in its bottom. I added some cold water into vial, and gave it to my son, without awakening him. After ten minutes, to my wonder, the boy was perspiring, temperature was gone! Next morning, he was very much normal and playing.

IT WAS A WONDERFUL EXPERIENCE THAT TAUGHT ME A GREAT LESSON IN PRESCRIBING FOR FEVERS.

Chapter 5. Crataegus Oxycantha- A Biochemical Study From MIT perspective

CRATAEGUS is a drug commonly used by homeopaths as mother tincture and low potencies for cardiovascular diseases and hypertension. It is only very rarely used in potentized forms.

Active ingredients found in crategus include tannins, flavonoids (vitexin, rutin, quercetin, and hyperoside), oligomeric proanthocyanidins (epicatechin, procyanidin, and particularly procyanidin B-2), xidizin-C, triterpene acids (ursolic acid, oleanolic acid, and crataegolic acid), and phenolic acids (caffeic acid, chlorogenic acid, and related phenolcarboxylic acids). A lot of study regarding biological actions of these chemical constituents are required.

Proanthocyanidins contained in crategus suppress production of a protein endothelin-1 that constricts blood vessels. Endothelins are proteins that constrict blood vessels and raise blood pressure. They are normally kept in balance by other mechanisms, but when they are over-expressed, they contribute to high blood pressure (hypertension) and heart disease.

Endothelins are 21-amino acid vasoconstricting peptides produced primarily in the endothelium having a key role in vascular homeostasis. Endothelins are implicated in vascular diseases of several organ systems, including the heart, general circulation and brain.

Procyanidin B2 has been shown to inhibit the formation of the advanced glycation end products in the body, which are toxic. AGEs are formed inside the body by co-valent bonding of simple sugars with protein molecules. It is also formed in food articles when sugar is added to proteins and heated to high temperatures during cooking. BROWNING during cooking indicates this process. Aging play a role in the build up of plaques in artery walls. The formation and accumulation of advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs) has been implicated in the progression of age-related diseases such as Alzheimer’s Disease, cardiovascular disease, and stroke.The mechanism by which AGEs induce damage is through a process called cross-linking that causes intracellular damage and apoptosis. AGEs affect nearly every type of cell and molecule in the body, and are thought to be one factor in aging and some age-related chronic diseases. They are also believed to play a causative role in the vascular complications of diabetes mellitus. They have a range of pathological effects, including increasing vascular permeability, inhibition of vascular dilation by interfering with nitric oxide, xidizing LDL, binding cells including macrophage, endothelial, and mesangial cells to induce the secretion of a variety of cytokines and enhancing oxidative stress.

Proanthocyanidins have antioxidant activity by ‘oxygen radical absorbance capacity’. We know free radicals play a role in formation of atherosclerosis by oxidizing LDL molecules entrapped in blood vessel walls.

Studies show that proanthocyanidins antioxidant capabilities are 20 times more powerful than vitamin C and 50 times more potent than vitamin E.

Proanthocyanidins have been shown to optimize the production of nitric oxide in the artery walls so as to relax them and allow greater blood flow and reduced pressure.

Chlorogenic acid present in crataegus can slow the release of glucose into the bloodstream after a meal, and thus help in reducing blood sugar levels.

Presence Procyanidin B2 in crategus shows, it is a good remedy for preventing accumulation of advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs) implicated in the progression of age-related diseases, such as Alzheimer’s Disease, cardiovascular disease, and stroke.

It is obvious that bp-lowering, artery-relaxing and atherosclerosis-reducing properties of crataegus are related with the physiological actions of crude molecules.

Means, we use crataegus allopathically- not homeopathically. We cannot expect such actions from potentized Crataegus.

Potentized crataegus will be useful in low blood pressure, cardiac hypertrophy, etc

Chapter 6. Difference between High Potencies (Above 12c), Low Potencies (Below 12c) and Crude Drugs

On the basis of the concept of potentization as ‘molecular imprinting’