Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1693155
Reply to the Letter: ‘Homeopathy and Nanomedicine: Alien Twins’
Publication History
02 June 2019
06 June 2019
Publication Date:
01 August 2019 (online)
Homeopathy Seen as Personalised Nanomedicine
Homeopathy and Nanomedicine: Alien Twins
I am thankful to the authors for their comments[1] on my recent article.[2] It seems that they, being pharmaceutical nanotechnologists and working in conventional biomolecular medicine, may have an inherent ‘plausibility bias’ against homeopathy.[3] The article ‘Homeopathy seen as personalised nanomedicine’[2] was an attempt to find a critical common platform, highly necessary for the advancement of homeopathy as an effective scientific method based on research findings. The action of nanoparticles (NPs) on biological systems is not based merely on their size and shape but also depends on their potential energy.
Content uniformity might be a necessary criterion in the pharmaceutical nanotechnology of conventional medicine. In homeopathy, the preparation of various medicinal potencies is not a linear process as adopted in the preparation of NPs in conventional medicine, a very recent innovation. The purpose, process and principles of nanomedicine in conventional pharmacology and homeopathy are entirely different, and hence not comparable. Therefore, the title of the article ‘Homeopathy and Nanomedicine: Alien Twins’ seems to be proper and justified in the context of comparing between nanomedicines, as it is evolving in conventional medicine and that of homeopathy.
Nanoscience and technology are budding sciences with potential to evolve in a multitude of directions. Therefore, any attempt to delineate nanoscience as a wholly developed and completely known subject would lead to faulty and premature conclusions.
It is a very important suggestion from the letter’s authors to combine electron microscopy (EM) with dynamic light scattering (DLS) or nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA). It is certain that combining EM with any of these techniques would assure double verification and reconfirmation of the results. The homeopathic method of drug preparation is not one tailored to ensure the uniformity of the size and shape of NPs in the drug solution. The two centuries of clinical experiences of homeopathic physicians show that the curative action of homeopathic medicines (HMs) does not depend on the size and shape of NPs. Moreover, a given HM does not always show remarkable heterogeneity in size and shape. For example, the study of Nat-m LM1–LM30 and 6c–CM showed a uniform size of NPs at around 1 to 6 nm[4] (except LM1 [1–14 nm]), which is only a negligible variation at nanoscale. It is meaningless to assume that the NPs of the drug materials, in all the dilutions of a multitude of HMs,[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and studied in different laboratories, are ‘nothing but contaminants’.
Finally, the finding of NPs in HMs is not the only reason to propose that homeopathy is a ‘personalised nanomedicine’. It is based on three reasons: (1) the universal presence of NPs in HMs; (2) the numerous facets of scientific evidence that HMs have the ability to initiate a variety of modifications in the genetic system;[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] (3) the fact that the homeopathic drug provings with 30C potency produce signs and symptoms in healthy human beings. It is a logical proposition to test whether the therapeutic effects of HMs are retained even after the removal of the particles present in drug solutions. Similarly, to test whether the same concentration of identical NPs, prepared by methods different from those used for HMs, has the same therapeutic outcome would be useful in shedding more light on to the therapeutic effect of HMs.
I wholeheartedly appreciate the suggestions given by the letter's authors to further fine-tune the research process related to potencies of HMs.