Redefining Homeopathy Volume III

REDEFINING

HOMEOPATHY

AS MOLECULAR IMPRINTS

THERAPEUTICS (MIT)

Volume III

Chandran K C

REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY

Volume III

By Chandran K C

Copyright 2018 Chandran K C

Smashwords Edition

Contents

Messages

About the Author

Foreword

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Explanatory Notes (881-2380)

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 – asMolecular 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: +919446520252

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 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 areligion 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.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

(881-2380)

881

Please do not hope to mask your intellectual inertia and lack of scientific knowledge by declaring ‘we practice evidence based medicine’. Please do not think that fundamental questions such as ‘what is the biological mechanism by which homeopathy works’, ‘what happens during potentization’, ‘what are the active principles of potentized drugs’ could be wished away as ‘irrelevant’ as far as you are ‘producing results’ in your practice. Anybody practicing occults and woodoo also argue the same way: ‘we produce results as per experience’. They also claim to be ‘evidence based practitioners’ in their own domains.

882

Homeopaths can practice ‘evidence based medicine’ only after making homeopathy a ‘scientific medicine’ by answering the fundamental questions about homeopathy- only as an extension of scientific homeopathy. Do not be under the false notion that you can fool the science-conscious community by mere play of words such as ‘evidence based medicine’ and ‘experience based medicine’.

883

If you do not know something, it is not a sin. But, hesitating to learn what you do not know is not only a sin, but a crime! when it is committed by people claiming to be physicians, it is an unpardonable crime.

884

Hahnemann actually initiated a revolution by declaring that morbid symptoms are not diseases, but only the outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease.

He made physicians to understand the importance of internal essence rather than its reflected picture. Same time, he demonstrated how this reflected picture could be utilized to identify the peculiarities of underlying internal essence, and to select appropriate remedial agents to correct its deviations.

885

Orthodox medical practice of hahnemann’s time was actually treating only the symptoms, based on mere ‘experiences’ and ‘speculations’ of physicians, without any scientific understanding regarding the actions, effects and dangers of crude drugs and methods they utilized. They considered symptoms as diseases.

It was hahnemann who for the first time taught physicians to look into the ‘internal essence’ of diseases rather than the ‘outward reflections’ or ‘morbid symptoms’, same time utilizing the ‘outward reflections’ as a tool for studying and manipulating the ‘internal essence’.

886

Remember, hahnemann was making his new therapeutic system 250 years ago, when modern biochemistry has not even emerged to inquire into the internal essence of disease in a scientific way. Nothing was known regarding the bio-molecular processes involved in the phenomena of life and disease. In such a knowledge environment, it was impossible for hahnemann to understand or explain what is exactly the internal essence of disease.

Only thing he could do was to explain it as affection of the vital force.

887

Similar chemical molecules can produce similar diseases by binding to similar biological molecules; molecular imprints of similar molecules can bind to similar pathogenic molecules and cure diseases produced by them.

888

Exactly, the concept of ‘similimum’ should be scientifically re-interpreted in terms of ‘conformational similarity of functional groups of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules’- not merely as ‘similarity of symptoms’. Similarity of of symptoms is only one of the many ways of identifying this conformational similarity.

889

Actually, we can make many excellent ‘homeopathic’ cures even bypassing the concept of ‘similarity of symptoms’.

So called ‘tautopathic’ prescriptions, where molecular imprints of modern chemical drugs are used to remove their bad effects, belong to this class. Many ‘specifics’ and ‘experience-based’ prescriptions are successfully used in day-to-day homeopathic practice ignoring the ‘similarity of symptoms’. Many of the potentized hormone remedies, biological products and nosodes are commonly used without any ‘matching’ of symptoms, but on the basis of peripheral knowledge only. Most of the ‘causational’ prescriptions never consider ‘similarity of symptoms’.

All of these various approaches work well in most occasions. Only those ‘well-proved’ drugs with complete materia medica of mental and constitutional symptoms could be used if we strictly follow the principle of ‘totality of symptoms’.

890

Even though Hahnemann explained "similia similibus curentur’ in terms of ‘similarity of disease-symptoms’ and ‘drug-symptoms’, I think it is inappropriate in modern knowledge context to reduce ‘similia similibus curentur’ to mean only ‘similarity of symptoms’, once we understand molecular level biological mechanism of disease and cure.

891

It is genuine ‘homeopathy’ if we are curing diseases by using ‘potentized’ or ‘molecular imprints’ forms of drugs, even if prescribed without strictly considering ‘similarity of symptoms’ in its ‘classical’ meaning.

‘Similarity of symptoms’ is only one of the many ‘practical’ ways of determining this similarity of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules.

892

Selecting similimum by comparing disease symptoms and drug symptoms is based on the idea that similar molecules can bind to similar bio-molecular targets and produce similar molecular errors in the organism, which will be expressed through similar symptoms.

893

There is nothing ‘un-homeopathic’ if you could find similimum by some methods other than comparing symptoms, such as knowledge of biochemistry or molecular pathology, if it is possible.

894

Put in modern scientific terms ‘Similia Similibus Curentur’ means, ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules can act as ‘artificial binding sites’ for pathogenic molecules having ‘similar’ conformation, and bind to them so as to remove the molecular inhibitions they produced up on the biological molecules.

895

The corner-stone of all skeptic arguments against homeopathy is that ‘similia similibus curentur’ is not a real ‘pattern’ existing in nature- but only an unreal imagination of hahnemann which was wrongly raised to the status of a ‘natural law’ and ‘followed’ by the homeopaths without questioning. Skeptics raise this argument to establish that homeopathy is a ‘pseudoscience’ and ‘faith healing’, since it is the method of pseudoscience to read out imaginary patterns of events from nature and make them ‘laws and principles’ of their theoretical ‘systems’.

896

If ‘similia similibus curentur’ is only an unreal and imaginary ‘pattern’, homeopathy ceases to exist. That is obvious, since whole system of homeopathy is founded on this ‘basic principle’.

There are two components involved in this ‘principle’- ‘drug symptoms’ and ‘disease symptoms’. This principle tries to explain a peculiar relationship existing between these components. Does such a relationship exist in nature, or is it only an ‘imagination’ of hahnemann? If there exist such a relationship, can we explain its molecular level mechanism in scientific terms leaving aside the ‘explanation’ provided by hahnemann within the historical limitations of scientific knowledge available to him during his period?

We have to examine this question from two angles. First, we have to verify whether there exist an ‘objective’ relationship between drug symptoms and disease symptoms which hahnemann observed and interpreted. Second point is, if such a relationship is real, whether the subjective ‘explanation’ or ‘interpretation’ of hahnemann about such an ‘objective’ phenomenon was right or wrong. Hahnemann might be right or wrong, or partially right. Even if he ‘explained’ it wrongly, that does not mean the objective’ pattern of events in nature he observed in nature do not exist. If the phenomenon is real and hahnemann explain it wrongly, we have to explain it rightly using the advanced scientific knowledge now available to us now- it should not inevitably lead us to the conclusion that the observed phenomenon does not exist.

897

In its elaborate sense, the term ‘symptoms’ incorporates ‘every’ subjective and objective expressions that could be observed or perceived in the individual, including the chemical processes as revealed by laboratory investigations as well as physical changes as revealed by modern diagnostic tools and gadgets.

898

SImilia Similibus Curentur explains the peculiar relationship between ‘disease symptoms’ and ‘drug symptoms’.

899

Drug symptoms means, symptoms representing the molecular level errors produced by the inhibitory actions of drug molecules upon the biological molecules in a healthy organism when drug substance is introduced into it.

900

Disease symptoms means, symptoms representing the molecular level errors produced by the inhibitory actions of endogenous or exogenous pathogenic molecules upon the biological molecules in a healthy organism.

901

When disease symptoms expressed by a patient appears to be similar to the known drug symptoms produced by any of the previously proven drug substance upon a healthy individual, that means, the molecular errors present in the disease as well as the molecular level errors produced by the drug substance were similar. That in turn means, same biological molecules were affected by the drug molecules and the disease-causing pathogenic molecules. Such a similarity of molecular error happens only when the pathogenic molecules and drug molecules have similar functional groups having similar molecular conformations, so that they could bind to same biological target molecules.

902

When disease-causing molecules and drug molecules are having similar molecular conformations, they will compete each other to bind to the biological targets, when both the pathogenic molecules and drug molecules work in the body simultaneously. Such a competitive relationship between drug molecules and pathogenic molecules may be utilized to remove pathological molecular inhibitions by applying similar drug molecules. Hahnemann was observing this competitive relationship between similar drug molecules and disease molecules while talking about ‘similia similibus curentur’, even though he could not explain the molecular mechanism behind this phenomenon, due to obvious historical limitations.

903

Even though similar drug molecules can remove molecular inhibibitions caused by pathogenic molecules and thereby cure diseases, there is always the chances of producing new inhibitions by drug molecules, which hahnemann observed as side effects and medicinal aggravations. In order to avoid this possibility, hahnemannn started to make drug substances more and more diluted, which led him to the invention of potentization. BY potentization, drug molecules are replaced by hydrosomes or molecular imprinted supra-molecular nano cavities, which can act as target specific artificial binding sites for pathogenic molecules due to the complementary conformational affinity. Since molecular imprints cannot produce molecular inhibitions in biological molecules, they never produce bad effects.

904

Similia Similibus Curentur is not anybody’s imagination as skeptics try to depict it. It is a real pattern existing in nature, that explains the competitive relationship in biological environment between drug molecules and pathogenic molecules having functional groups of similar conformations.

905

A few months back, a famous lady homeopath from US came and posted an article on my page, explaining her dispensing methods. After exhaustive case taking and repertorization she selects a similimum. Then she writes the name of drug on a piece of paper and places on a table. Then she would place a glass of water on that paper and keep it there for 30 minutes to ‘potentize’ the water with ‘medicinalenergy’. Then she would ask the patient to take this ‘energized’ water in teaspoon doses. She was practicing this ‘method’ for last 5 years with ‘miraculous results"!

I asked her in which language I should write on the paper, and whether abbreviation is enough. She got annoyed and started educating me regarding ‘fringe science’, ‘ultra-science’ and ‘energy medicine’. She used all sorts of scientific terms from quantum science to explain her theory, and told a lot about ‘unscientificness’ of modern science. It ended in a bitter encounter of words, and she quit cursing me!

906

During discussions on a homeopathic group regarding ‘active principles’ of potentized drugs, a homeopath posted: The ingredient in a remedy is electromagnetic energy. In trituration, we make nano-particles, which means electrons are rubbed off the molecule. Those electrons are negatively charged and also charge the lactose. The lactose dissolves in water, and so the water get charged. Succussion is the amplification of that electromagnetic charge.

When you say the electrons getting ‘rubbed off’ from the drug molecules, and ‘charge’ the lactose, and while the lactose dissolve in water the ‘water get charged’, and this ‘charge’ of water is the ‘ingredient’ of potentized medicine, acting as ‘electro-magnetic energy’, and ‘succussion’ is ‘amplification’ of that ‘charge’, a lot of questions will have to be answered.

1. How the simple ‘electrons’ ‘rubbed off’ from the ‘drug molecules’ carry the properties of complex drug molecules and transfer these properties to the lactose? According to your theory, only ‘electrons’ ‘rubbed off’ involve in activating the ‘lactose’. If so, ‘drug molecules’ have no role in this ‘charging’ process. Do you think ‘electrons’ ‘rubbed off’ from a complex molecule can represent the whole molecule, which contains different types of atoms?

2. Let us accept your theory of lactose getting charged by the ‘electrons’ ‘rubbed off’ from the drug molecules. ‘getting charged’ means, the energy level of lactose molecules are raised to a higher level. According to quantum understanding, any atom or molecules raised to a higher level would return to its ground energy state in a short time by radiating energy, once the ‘process of charging’ is stooped. If so, the lactose charged by trituration will lose its ‘energy’ it is kept for some time. Do you think triturated drugs will lose its medicinal properties if kept for some time?

3. When you say the ‘lactose’ dissolve in water and water also get charged, have you got any idea about the ‘nano-particles’ of drugs created during trituration? What would be its role, if water is getting charged by the ‘charged lactose’?

4. Now, coming to the ‘amplification’ of charges during succussion. How this amplification happens, and how can this amplification increase the medical properties?

5. What is according to you the mechanism by which this ‘charged water’ interfere in the biological process? If it is through ‘electromagnetic radiation’, is it necessary that the ‘charged water’ should be introduced into the body for therapeutic action? Why not this ‘electromagnetic radiation’ act up on the patient when kept nearby?

6. ‘Charged water’ also would return to ground level energy state by discharging ‘electromagnetic radiation’. That means, when potentized medicine would lose its medicinal properties by dissipating its extra energy when kept for some time. Do you agree?

7. When we keep two potentized medicines nearby in our pharmacy, both will be constantly discharging ‘electromagnetic radiation’. Would there be a chance for interacting of these ‘radiations? What if one drug absorbs the radiation coming from other? Or, do you think this EMR will work only when the medicine is inside the body of the patient?

8. Do you think the ‘electrons’ rubbed of during trituration and ‘charging the lactose and then water, can emit EMRs specific to those drugs? Remember, even a single drug contains diverse types of complex molecules. Do you say these electrons can impart the ‘charged water’ the ‘energy’ to emit nux EMRs, sulph EMRs and the like? By what mechanism?"

907

Many homeopaths believe that drug substances are converted to ‘energy’ during potentization. ‘Matter’ getting ‘converted’ to ‘energy’ during potentization is a concept widely propagated by people trying to establish that homeopathy is ‘energy medicine’. I would request them to seriously think over the point I try make out here.

908

No doubt, "matter is nothing but a package of energy as you say. But do you think matter can be ‘unpacked’ into energy by the simple process of ‘succussion and dilution’ involved in potentization? Do you know how much energy you need to break even the chemical bonds that holds atoms together in a molecule? ‘Converting matter into energy’ means not only breaking of chemical bonds, but breaking atoms into subatomic particles, and subatomic particles into ‘energy’. How can anybody imagine we can make atomic division happening through our simple process of potentization? Even if you make it to happen, how can this ‘energy’ you expect to preserve the ‘medicinal properties’ of drug substances? Do you know ‘medicinal properties’ of drug substances are related with the structure and properties at molecular level?

909

When matter is converted to energy, that energy will be same, whether you make it from sulphur, nux vomica or calcarea. Once you break the inter-atomic bonds within molecules, the atoms cannto preserve the properties of molecules from where they came from. An oxygen atom will have the properties of oxygen atom only, whether it come from nux, water or any other molecule. When you divide the atoms further into subatomic particles, protons and electrons will be same, irrespective of atoms they came from. If you further divide atoms to ‘release’ energy, the energy so produced will not differ according to the atoms it originated. With this primary scientific knowledge, how could yo imagine the ‘drug energy’ of complex substance to be preserved in the ‘energy’ produced by ‘unpacking’ of matter? Please remember, the medicinal property is decided by the molecular structure and chemical properties of drug substances, not by the universal ‘atomic energy’.

910

You know, water contains hydrogen and oxygen atoms. But the properties of water is not exhibited by hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen coming from water or any other source will have same properties. If hydrogen is divided into protons and electrons, they will not show any property of hydrogen. Protons coming from division of any atom will be similar in properties. If we further split these subatomic particles into ‘energy’, how can you expect that energy to show the properties of water?

911

Medicinal properties of substances are decided by their molecular level structure and chemical properties. That cannot be preserved in the ‘energy’ generated by division of that matter into subatomic level. This is primary scientific knowledge, even any high school student knows. But homeopaths prefer to forget all science they learned, in their eagerness to justify the unscientific theories they learned in the name of homeopathy. This is a very disappointing situation

For example, Atropine is a chemical compound with formula C17H23NO3 . It acts upon biological molecules and produce various molecular errors, expressed through certain groups of symptoms. But, if we divide that atropine into carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen, they will have properties entirely different from atropine. That is why I want to remind you, medicinal properties of drugs are determined by the structure and properties of molecules, not the ‘energy’ packed in them!

912

Pathogenic molecules produce diseases by binding their active functional groups to the specific biological molecules in the organism due to their molecular affinity, and producing molecular errors.

913

During drug proving, poisoning and crude molecular actions, drug molecules produce bio-molecular errors and symptoms in the healthy organism by binding their functional groups to the biological molecules.

914

When disease symptoms and drug symptoms appear SIMILAR, that means functional groups of pathogenic molecules and drug molecules were similar, so that they could bind to similar bio-molecular targets and produce similar molecular errors in the organism.

915

‘Molecular imprints’ of ‘functional groups’ of drug molecules contained in the potentized drugs can act as ‘artificial binding sites or ligand traps towards the similar pathogenic molecules, due to their complementary conformation.

It is now obvious that when using similimum as therapeutic agents, we are actually using molecular imprints of ‘functional groups’ of drug molecules to bind to the ‘functional groups’ of pathogenic molecules and deactivate them.

This observation leads us to some very important conclusions: What we actually need is the molecular imprints of biologically active functional groups. If we can prepare molecular imprints of all biologically active functional groups, and make them available as homeopathic remedies, we will not need all these thousands of different drug substances. We will require only a very limited number of drugs, which could be universally applied as per homeopathic indications.

916

A ‘single drug’ means a drug substance that contains ‘single type of biologically active molecules’. If a drug substance contains different types of biologically active molecules, it is not a ‘single’ drug- it is a compound drug. Nux vomica is a compound drug, sepia is a compound drug- all vegetable and animal drugs as well as most of the mineral drugs we wrongly consider single drugs are actuallycompound drugs.

917

Whether we call nux a ‘single’ drug or ‘multiple’ drug would not have been a matter of any consequence, if homeopaths abstained from making so much controversy over ‘single-multiple’ drug issue. We are compelled to point out that even nux is not a single drug in scientific sense, when they declare that ‘single drug’ is a ‘fundamental principle’ of homeopathy, and that anybody using more than one drug is not a true homeopath!

918

Hahnemann could not provide any scientific explanation for the phenomena involved in homeopathy, due to the historical limitations of knowledge environment available to him. That is understandable and acceptable.

But, what were those ‘faithful disciples’ of hahnemann doing for

explaining homeopathy scientifically all these 200 hundred years after hahnemann? Only making it appear more and more absurd by talking all sorts of ‘anti-scientific’ and ‘ultra-scientific’ nonsense ‘energy medicine’ theories that contradict all existing scientific knowledge system. By talking about ‘miracles’ ‘magics’, and doing occult practices in the name of homeopathy that no rational minded human beings can agree with.

919

Nobody so far bothered to evolve even a scientifically viable working hypothesis about homeopathy that could be presented as a candidate for verification according to scientific methods.

920

All those ‘newtons’, ‘ensteins’ and ‘gurus’ of homeopathy were only busy with amassing money by conducting seminars, propagating and marketing their branded ‘methods and principles’.

Our ‘research institutions’ were only interested in preparing fake projects, reports, bills and vouchers for ‘utilizing’ and sharing the huge funds they were allotted from public exchequers.

How can we blame scientific community for saying homeopathy is unscientific?

921

All vegetable and animal drugs, as well as most of the mineral drug substances we consider single, actually contain many different types of chemical molecules. When introduced into a living body, these chemical molecules act upon different biological targets as individual units in capacity of their chemical properties, thereby producing multitudes of molecular inhibitions and deviations in various biochemical pathways, and produce associated subjective and objective symptoms.

During potentization, these drug molecules undergo molecular imprinting as individual units, and hence, even a potentized drug we consider single will be actually a mixture of diverse types of molecular imprints representing diverse types of individual molecules.

When applied as a therapeutic agent, this individual molecular imprints contained in the potentized drug will act as individual units, and bind to different pathogenic molecules having configurational offinity.

Why can’t you realize the meaninglessness of this ‘single drug/multiple drug’ controversy?

922

According to scientific view, it is the number of biologically active chemical molecules contained in a drug substance that determines whether it is a single drug or compound drug. If it contains single type of biologically active chemical molecules, it is a single drug. If it contains differet types of biologically active chemical molecules, it is a compound drug. What somebody blindly believes, or what somebody wrote two centuries ago, cannot change this well-proven and universally accepted scientific truth. Dear homeopath, try to understand and accept undeniable scientific truths, and discard your foolish beliefs.

923

If you have no any idea about what ‘active principles’ you are actually giving to your patient when administering a ‘high potency drug’, and HOW they exactly work, how can you make ‘theories’ about its dose, repetition, number of drugs etc? Only on the basis of what ‘master did say’ or ‘did not say’ 250 years ago? Do you expect homeopathy can exist here for long, facing the scientific challenges of future successfully with this dogmatic approach, by feigning deaf, dumb and blind towards the questions raised by advancing scientific knowledge?

924

Read foot note of aphorism 276:

The praise bestowed of late years by some homoeopathists on the larger doses is owing to this, either that they chose low dynamizations of the medicine to be administered (as I myself used to do twenty years ago, from not knowing any better), or that the medicines selected were not perfectly homoeopathic.

This statement of hahnemann should be read by those who justify the use of mother tinctures by saying master also used mother tinctures. Hahnemann confesses, he used ‘large’ doses and ‘low dynamizations’ twenty years ago, ( means twenty years before he wrote 6th edition of organon), from not knowing any better. Please note, from not knowing any better!

Still not convinced of what was master’s views regarding mother tinctures?

925

‘How potentized drugs work’ is a question not yet answered, since they do not contain any drug molecules, and nobody so far knows what exactly are the active principles of potentized drugs. MIT hypothesis proposed by me is a serious attempt to resolve this riddle by scientific methods.

But there is nothing to prove in ‘how mother tinctures work’. They contain drug molecules with specific chemical properties, which can work exactly by the same biological mechanism as any molecular drug such as allopathic or ayurvrdic drug works.

926

I think ‘totality of symptoms’ does not mean ‘all symptoms’ of the patient. It actually means, ‘each symptom considered in its totality’. A symptom becomes a ‘total symptom’ when it is considered with its all available qualifying accessories such as locations, causations, sensation, presentations, modalities and concomitants. From this point of view, even a single symptom if considered with all its qualifying accessories may constitute ‘totality of symptoms’, which will be enough to decide a similimum for the patient.

927

Whether you use mother tinctures alone, mixed, or as ‘additional’ ‘supportive’ to the selected ‘similimum’ used in high potencies, what ever theories, aphorisms and principles you talk about, actually you are doing ‘very bad’ homeopathy. In fact, you are not doing homeopathy at all.

928

Do you ever use mother tinctures strictly following the similia principle, by working out as similimum by repertorizing using the totality of mental and physical symptoms? If not, how can you say it is a genuine homeopathic prescription? How can you expect our mother tinctures to act by a biological mechanism different from that of allopathic and ayurvedic tinctures, only because we put a label ‘homeopathic’ on our bottles.?

929

We use SYMPTOMS as indicators of pathological molecular errors existing in the individual, so as to identify the exact pathogenic molecules that produced those molecular errors, and then find the drug molecules that could produce SIMILAR molecular errors in healthy individuals, by a process of comparing and matching of drug symptoms and disease symptoms.

Once the drug substance containing the molecules similar to the pathogenic molecules are identified by a comparative study of their symptoms, we use the potentized form of that drug as therapeutic agent, in order to supply the appropriate molecular imprints that could bind to the pathogenic molecules and remove the molecular inhibitions they produced in the organism.

This is the most rational and scientific explanation of homeopathy. Kindly think over.

930

While a homeopath searches for a similimum for his patient by matching disease symptoms and drug symptoms, he is actually searching for appropriate molecular imprints that could act is ligand locks or ‘artificial binding sites’ to bind to the pathogenic molecules that produced the ‘molecular inhibitions’ in the organism and caused the disease condition.

This search is based on the knowledge involved in homeopathy that if the symptoms produced by drugs when applied on healthy individuals and the symptoms produced an a particular disease condition are similar, that means the particular drug substance contained some drug molecules that could bind to same biological target molecules which were attacked by the pathogenic molecules to produce disease condition, so that the molecular errors and their symptoms appear similar.

It further means, the drug substance as well as causative agents of disease contained some molecules having similar functional groups or moieties, so that they could bind to same molecular targets and produce similar molecular errors.

Molecular imprints of similar molecules can act as ‘artificial binding site’ for any molecule having similar configuration, since the molecular imprints will have a configurational complementary affinity towards those molecules.

This peculiar ‘drug-disease’ relationship is expressed by the dictum similia similibus curentur, which explains the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure.

931

‘Molecular Imprinting’ is the key word in the scientific understanding of homeopathic ‘potentization’ and ‘simila similibus curentur’.

932

First of all, I want to make it clear that ‘molecular imprinting’ concept I talk about has nothing to do with the ‘spiritualistic’ ‘water memory’ or such psudoscientific theories our ‘dynamic’ ‘energy medicine’ homeopaths promote.

933

Once you get the concept of ‘molecular imprinting’ in its right scientific perspective, everything about homeopathy will be rational, clear and simple. Then you will instantly see that homeopathy fits well into the scientific paradigms of modern biochemistry and molecular medicine.

934

Please google to learn the modern technology of ‘Molecular Imprinted Polymers’ and ‘guest-host’ molecular formations. Then learn supra-molecular properties of water, such as di-electric properties, hydrogen bonding, hydration shells, supra-molecular networks, polymer-like behaviors, clathrates, liquid crystals etc. You can understand what I mean by ‘molecular imprinting’ in water.

935

Take a little time to study supra-molecular properties of ethyl alcohol, and water-alcohol complexes. Understanding the molecular structure of oligosaccharides such as lactose and sucrose also will be useful.

936

Update your biochemistry from latest textbooks or internet, especially regarding proteins and protein inhibitions, and understand the ‘key-lock’ mechanism involved in ligand-target, substrate-enzyme, antigen-antibody and signal-receptor relationships. Now will be clear on the molecular mechanisms of pathologic molecular inhibitions and therapeutics. Try to understand homeopathic ‘drug proving’ from this angle.

937

Once you are clear on the basics, it will be easy for you perceive ‘potentization’ in terms of ‘molecular imprinting’, and potentized drugs in terms of ‘molecular imprints’ of constituent drug molecules. You will understand the real science involved in ‘similia similibus curentur’.

938

‘Similimum’ is the drug which in crude form produced ‘molecular errors’ similar to those of the particular ‘disease’ we consider. Similar molecular errors produce similar symptoms, and as such, homeopathy finds ‘similimum’ using ‘similarity of symptoms’. Potentized forms of ‘similimum’ contain ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules, which can bind to pathogenic molecules and act as therapeutic agent.

939

Perceive ‘drugs’ in terms of diverse types of independent ‘constituent drug molecules’, and potentized medicines as a mixture of independent ‘molecular imprints’ of these drug molecules. Perceive diseases as ‘molecular errors’ in vital processes, and ‘symptoms’ in terms of ‘symptom complexes’ representing ‘molecular errors’. You get a scientific understanding of Similia Similibus Curentur.

940

Similia Similibus Curentur means: Diseases with specific symptoms can be cured by potentized forms of drugs that can create similar symptoms in healthy organism if applied in crude form.

Same can be stated in a more scientific way: Pathological molecular errors can be rectified using ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules that can create similar molecular errors if applied in molecular form.

941

Diseases can be cured by potentized forms of drug substances that in crude form can create similar diseases in healthy individuals".

942

Since ‘diseases’ are molecular errors’ in vital processes, and potentized drugs are ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules, we can change this statement as follows: " Pathological molecular errors can be rectified by ‘molecular imprints’ of drug molecules that in crude form can create similar molecular errors in the healthy organism’.

943

Since similar ‘molecular errors’ created by pathogenic molecules and drug molecules exhibit similar ‘symptoms’, appropriate ‘molecular imprints’ for curing a disease can be determined by a process of observing and matching the ‘disease symptoms’ and ‘drug symptoms’.

944

Whether you select the drug on the basis of ‘totality of symptoms’, ‘multiple symptom complexes’, as ‘constitutional’ remedy, by singular ‘key note symptoms’, as ‘specifics’, as ‘tautopathic’ remedies, as ‘isopathic’ remedies, on the basis of biochemistry of ‘molecular pathology’, on the basis of ‘toxicological’ knowledge, ‘plant kingdoms’, or by any other principles or indications, if the selected drug contains appropriate ‘molecular imprints’ required to remove the pathological molecular inhibitions existing in the particular patient, that drug is ‘his’ similimum- may be perfect or partial. It will work.

945

In the absence of essential basic scientific knowledge and rational perspective, you will go on talking about ‘energy medicine’, vital force, dynamic drug energy, spiritual healing, vibrations, resonance, distance healing and such diverse unscientific and pseudo-scientific things, and continue to make homeopathy and homeopaths a subject of unending mockery and ridicule before the scientific community.

And of course, you will go on declaring homeopathy is the ultimate science far advanced than modern science, hahnemann is the greatest scientist ever lived, and aphorisms of organon are ‘immutable’ truths!

946

Scientific understanding of homeopathy, similar to any rational science of medicine, should be primarily based on the realization of ‘life’ as a ‘material’ phenomenon.

Living world represents a higher level of organization of same elemental factors existing in the non-living world, an advanced stage of its evolution that happened through millions of years.

947

‘Living organism’ is a highly complex and self-regulated material system that exists through ‘vital processes’ or metabolic processes, consisting of