The Physics of Homeopathy: A Dialectic

The following is from a discussion of the physics of homeopathy subscribers to the Minutus homeopathy email list

To: minutus Homeopathy discussion
From: Jeff Tikari
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:44:28 +0530
Subject: [Minutus] Homeopathic Hydrosomes

For remedies potentised beyond Avogadro’s limit.

Active principles of potentized drugs are MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or HYDROSOMES, which are nanocavities engraved into water-ethyl alcohol supramolecular matrix through a peculiar process called POTENTIZATION. Potentization actually involves ‘host-guest’ molecular interactions exactly similar to that which is commonly utilized by polymer chemists in preparing molecular imprinted polymers. The only difference is, homeopathy uses water-ethyl alcohol mixture as the imprinting medium, whereas polymer chemists use polymers.
All potentized drugs contain diverse types of molecular imprints representing the diverse types of individual constituent molecules which are part of a drug substance used for potentization. By acting as ‘artificial key holes’, these individual molecular imprints can bind to specific pathogenic molecules that have the same conformational affinity; thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions that they are subjected to in diseased conditions. This is exactly the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure.

Extract from the writings of Chandran KC

Jeff Tikari check out (a must)


In a message dated 8/27/2013 9:45:27 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

Roger Bird writes:

Jeff, I love you. I appreciate your efforts. I want you to be happy. But I had trouble getting past the first two sentences because I was LOLing. What you said may even be true. But it won’t cut no ice with skeptics or ANY other materialistically oriented scientist or fan of science or even the general public. They are all going to say that it is nonsense and gibberish.

Since I believe you, sort of, I assume that such ‘imprints’ are how the etheric or transcendental energy of the homeopathic remedy stays connected to the water.

I’m sorry, I tried to read you comment again and burst out laughing. You have to say stuff that people can relate to. You can’t describe things that are on top of things that are made up of things all of which haven’t even been proven, accepted, or understood yet. It would be like trying to describe how to use the gmai l app on your android phone to Alexander Graham Bell. Bell might have been a brilliant scientist, but he would have been utterly lost the moment you said any of the words that I used to tell you what my example was going to be.

I live on both sides of my brain. I am a jack of many arenas of thought and the master of only one: philosophy. I frequent several physics forums and can understand most of what they say. So it is easy for me to know what the skeptics are going to think and say.

Are we still friends? I hope so. (:->)

Roger Bird

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:20 PM, John Benneth wrote:

Mr. Byrd,

I applaud Jeff Tikari for posting Nambiar’s work. Obviously you have very little understanding of science and even less of supramolecular chemistry. Material scientists with academic credentials of the highest orders have described the distinctions between the supramolecular materials used as medicine in homeopathy and their inert vehicles in a way that supports part of what Chandran Nambiar has described here (see Roy, The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy, Materials Research, 2005).

As early as Hahnemann, it was thought that [homeopathic remedies] “cannot be apprehended by specious a priori sophistry, or from the smell, taste, or appearance of the medicines, or from chemical analysis, or by treating disease with one or more of them in a mixture (prescription).” (Hahnemann, The Organon of Medicine, 6th edition)

But even though 19th century science did not afford the necessary terms, instrumentation and theory needed to explain the action of homeopathic action, Hahnemann’s opinion that it was a magnetic phenomenon still holds up under today’s tools.

Magnetic imprinting in water molecules, like that of ferro-magnetic recording tape, is still the only explanation offered for homeopathy’s mode of action by Hahnemann and modern material scientists. (The Indian transmission electron analysis misinterpreted structural memes for nano particulate of the original starting material in Chikramane, Why Extreme Dilutions Reach Non Zero Asymptotes: A Nano particulate Hypothesis Based on Frother Flotation )

Nambiar’s keyhole theory aside, magnetic imprinting fits both the observations by Benveniste and Montagnier and the structural analysis by Anagnostatos, Demangeat, Conte et al, Roy et al, and others . . and the orthodox literature on water.

Imprinting by H2O protic polarization around pneumatic cavitation was first described by Barnard when NMR analysis of supramolecular “homeopathic medicines” by Smith and Boericke at Hahnemann College in the ’60’s showed structural differences from their vehicles.

Whereas Nambiar’s “hydrosome” is probably a misnomer for hydrozoan and should be replaced by ‘clathrate’ and the pathogenic molecule binding to artificial keyholes appears to be his invention (which I don’t agree with) I could be wrong. Nambiar’s work reveals an admirable effort to explain the liquid aqueous structuring in homeopathic supramoleculars and their biological action, all in the teeth of ridicule. I believe he is also right in stating that “Potentization actually involves ‘host-guest’ molecular interactions exactly similar to that which is commonly utilized by polymer chemists in preparing molecular imprinted polymers. The only difference is, homeopathy uses water-ethyl alcohol mixture as the imprinting medium, whereas polymer chemists use polymers” except to note that water and alcohol are both polymeric substances that exhibit crystalline properties, and homeopaths have appeared to have unintentionally solved the problem of polymorphic transmogrification that has played havoc with the pharmaceutical industry. Conventional science has been slow to unable to borrow anything from homeopathy technology, not because of material discrepancies but because it would give credibility to a competing medical doctrine that has yet to be syndicalized by intellectual property rights..

So . . this is an extremely difficult subject involving pitfalls, egos and misnomers. If you don’t understand words LOOK THEM UP instead of just calling them technobabble. If you don’t understand something, ask questions. In ridiculing the investigation you are trolling, dissuading people from a delicate but necessary discussion that is of key importance to medicine, and making an eventual fool of yourself instead of your target.

So give everybody, including yourself, a break, why don’t you? Trying to please “skeptics,” i.e. jealouis blowhards, doesn’t move anything forward.

John Benneth

In a message dated 8/28/2013 10:19:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Elham writes:

Dear all,

Don’t want to be rude or anything but if you ever think a Homoeopath is going to solve the mystery of potentization you are mistaken. We will use its powers and let the skeptics shout and yell at us as much as they like, but we won’t solve its mystery. It will need science to advance much more and technology to advance much more and then there might be a slight chance that a scientist might come up with some explanation. In the meanwhile let us continue with our work that is curing the sick and let others worry about how Homoeopathy works.

Best regards


NEXT: Physics of Homeopathy Dialectic continues with the RESPONSE TO ELHAM

Don’t miss the next installment of this paradigm shifting discussion on the physics of homeopathy. It’s easy to  SUBSCRIBE to the John Benneth Journal, your only source for revelations by the Great Genius.

SUBSCRIBE NOW and help us meet our goal of 10,000 subscribers . .


4 comments on “The Physics of Homeopathy: A Dialectic

  1. tyy says:

    Ignorance is a bliss.


  2. Valeria says:

    AAaaaaHHHHhhhhhh… A Breath of Fresh Air!!!


  3. In year 1967-8, Barnard along with Stephenson come up with Imprint Theory which states that properties of original substance are transferred/imprinted on the carrier/solvent/diluent/vehicle (water-ethanol mixture)


    • johnbenneth says:

      Dear Nancy,
      Thank you for this critical piece of history. I was aware that Barnard, due to Smith and Boericke’s NMR work at Hahnemann College (1,2), was apparently the first to speculate on the importance of hydrogen bonding in homeoapthic preparations, but until now I did not know that he and Stephenson are credited with the primary physical theory for the action of homeopathic remedies. As far as I have been able to deduce the Imprint Theory is still concordant with current structural analyses.
      By the way, thank you for the best work to date in documenting the history of homeopathic research. (NB: Read Dr. Malik’s research at
      best regards,
      1.) Smith R, Boericke GW. Modern instrumentation for the evaluation of homeopathic drug structure. J Am Inst Homeopath 1966;59:263–280.
      2.) Smith RB, Boericke GW. Changes Caused by Succussion on N.M.R. patterns and bioassay of bradykinin triacetate
      (BKTA) succussions and dilutions. J Am Inst Homeopath 1968;61:197–212.


What do you think? Question? Answer? Please comment. Your thoughful reply will be appreciated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s