Research Article Open Access
Extending the Adaptive Network Nanomedicine Model for Homeopathic Medicines: Nanostructures as Salient Cell Danger Signals for Adaptation
Iris R. Bell1-4* Gary E. Schwartz5, Joyce Frye6, Barbara Sarter7, and Leanna J. Standish4
1Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ, USA
2Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine (Department of Medicine), University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ, USA
3University of Arizona College of Nursing, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
4Bastyr Integrative Oncology Research Center, Bastyr University, Kenmore, WA 98028, USA
5Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
6Fusion Medicine Collaborative, Philadelphia, PA, USA
7Bastyr University -San Diego, CA, USA
*Corresponding author: Iris R. Bell, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine, 1450 N Cherry, MS 245052, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA, Tel: +520-906-6767; Fax: +520-626-2030; email: @
Received: May 14, 2015; Accepted: June 114, 2015; Published: June 26, 2015
Citation: Bell IR, Schwartz GE, Frye J, Sarter B, Standish LJ (2015) Extending the Adaptive Network Nanomedicine Model for Homeopathic Medicines: Nanostructures as Salient Cell Danger Signals for Adaptation. Nanosci Technol 2(1): 1-22.
This paper examines the growing evidence supporting the adaptive network nanomedicine model for Homeopathic Medicines (HMs) and their actions. Multiple laboratories have identified nanostructures in homeopathically-manufactured medicines at low and high potencies. Replicated studies in mainstream pharmaceutical research and in homeopathy have also demonstrated elevated levels of elemental silicon and/or bioactive silica Nanoparticles (NPs) released from glassware during agitation or multiple homeopathic succussions. The model suggests that (a) very low potency HMs are complex mixtures of bulk, micro- and nanoscale forms of the medicine's natural source material made by prolonged mechanical grinding (trituration) in dry lactose; (b) low and higher potency liquid HMs made in glass containers are nanocomposite materials formed from source NPs, nanosilica-coated source NPs, adjuvant nanosilica and source-doped, coated, seeded or template nanosilica in colloidal solutions that can survive drying. We hypothesize that HMs include hybrid nanostructures of various sources, small sizes, shapes, surface defects, zeta potentials, and surface reactivity. HMs serves as individually-salient, sub toxic virus-like foreign danger signals. Nanosilica would help carry and amplify the fingerprint signal of co-occurring and adsorbed source material on its surfaces at higher liquid potencies. Cell Defense Response (CDR) network constituents that HMs modulate involve gene expression, cytokine release, cell signaling, and cell stress mediators. Once triggered, nonlinear endogenous amplification processes facilitate evolution of the therapeutic response over time.

Keywords: Homeopathy; Nanoparticles; Silica; Adsorption; Surface chemistry; Protein corona; Cell danger response; Danger- Associated Molecular Patterns (DAMP); Biological signaling; Adaptation; Hormesis; Inflammasome; Heat shock proteins; Oxidative stress; Cell stress; Cell signaling; Cytokines; Gene expression
HSPs: Heat Shock Proteins; AMPs: Antimicrobial Peptides; D-cells: Dendritic Cells; ERVs: Endogenous Retroviruses; LINEs: Long Interspersed Nuclear Elements; meDNA: Methylated DNA; dNTPs: Deoxynucleoside Triphosphates; CNS: Central Nervous System.
This paper articulates and expands upon a model based on the biological implications of the discovery of source and silica nanostructures in Homeopathic Medicines (HMs). The paper summarizes growing data on the nanotechnology aspects and findings for nanostructures in HMs and discusses ways in which these agents can act at the nanoscale in the body [1,2]. Substantial evidence indicates that nanomaterials possess unique capacities for triggering size-, shape-, and surface propertydependent biological responses, even at very low concentrations [3-7] (Table1). The present model may also have more general implications for exploring novel therapeutic mechanisms such as hormesis [7,8] for the field of nanomedicine and perhaps for evaluating effects of environmentally-relevant, low level nanomaterials in nanotoxicology [9-11].

Homeopathy is a traditional, albeit controversial, system of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) used worldwide, notably in India, Latin America, the United Kingdom, and Europe. The nature and mechanisms of action of HMs have stirred intense debate throughout the more than 200-year history of homeopathy's existence as a natural product-based system of CAM [12]. Preparation of HMs involves serial steps of dilution of plant, animal, or mineral source materials in dry lactose, ethanol/ water, or water using ratios of 1:10 (X potency series) or 1:100 (C potency series). Each dilution step is followed by extensive mechanical grinding in dry materials or "succussions" in liquid dilutions (i.e., 10 or more agitations/step via manual pounding on a hard but elastic surface or vortexing). For diagnosis and treatment, practitioners of individualized homeopathy obtain detailed clinical and personal/social histories to match a single HM's potential multi-system effects to a given patient's complex symptom and behavioral state or presentation pattern [13].

A number of homeopathic investigators continue to study basic science models involving structured water, but, with only rare exceptions [14], overlook the fact that (a) very low potency insoluble HMs are never diluted in any water at all and that (b) after preparation, even high potency HMs are often dried onto lactose sugar pellets for storage and administration. Nonetheless, data suggest that in liquid solution, the original solutes may induce nanostructure formation of the ethanol-water or water solvent [15-17]. Skeptics continue to insist (incorrectly) that the serial dilution processes of homeopathic manufacturing must theoretically remove any trace of the original source material by the 12C and 24X or higher potencies (i.e., bulk dilution to 10012 or 10,24 where Avogadro's number of molecules is 6 x 1023), thus rendering all HMs as presumptive biologically inert placebos [12].

Empirical data, however, only document removal of the bulk forms of the source material during homeopathic manufacturing at higher potencies [18]. Evidence for the persistence of nanoscale forms of the source material by itself and/or the more abundant nanosilica and/or other materials from the agitation of liquid solutions in their containers (typically, but not always glassware) via multiple succussions is growing for both low (e.g., 1X, 2X, 3X, up to 6X, 12X or 6C) and higher (e.g., above 12C or 24X) homeopathic potencies (Tables 2 and 3).

The ability of the HM NPs to survive serial dilutions likely depends upon the multiple succussions (agitation in liquid) that follow every dilution step. Studies demonstrate that succussions induce heterogeneous layering of source NPs in solution for collection in the "dilution" steps, perhaps via air bubble formation of various sizes [18]. No studies have yet examined the impact of different sampling procedures for transferring a measured 1/10 or 1/100 portion of the solution from one preparation step to the next. However, variability in materials and methods is one of multiple potential factors contributing to variability of the final product HMs [19]. Evidence also indicates that agitation of solutions can also embed source NPs into glassware, from which they can leach back into solution over time [20]. To make higher potency HMs, manufacturers usually resort to Korsakovian methods by re-using the same piece of glassware for every serial dilution/succussion step beyond certain potency, e.g., 15C-25C. Agitation per se also releases silicates and generates potentially bioactive silica NPs throughout the manufacturing process [21,22]. In contrast, the larger bulk form source materials are removed over serial dilutions and succussions [18].

In recent years, the empirical data on HMs support a testable, hypothesis-driven model based on the generation of source and silica and/or other container- and reagent-derived nanoparticles (NPs) in HMs during the manufacturing process [1,2,23,24]. In nanotechnology, grinding or ball milling of materials (comparable to the initial homeopathic manufacturing steps of trituration in dry lactose for very low potencies) as well as sonication and/or water jet treatment (comparable to homeopathic manufacturing steps of repeated succussions in water or water-ethanol diluents at room temperature for higher potencies), generate micro- and nano-sized particles of the original source material [20,25-29] (Table 3). Once generated, NPs in HMs could provide the forms capable of generating the unique electromagnetic, optical, thermal, and quantum mechanical phenomena previously reported in HMs [30-33].

silica and/or other container- and reagent-derived nanoparticles (NPs) in HMs during the manufacturing process [1,2,23,24]. In nanotechnology, grinding or ball milling of materials (comparable to the initial homeopathic manufacturing steps of trituration in dry lactose for very low potencies) as well as sonication and/or water jet treatment (comparable to homeopathic manufacturing steps of repeated succussions in water or water-ethanol diluents at room temperature for higher potencies), generate micro- and nano-sized particles of the original source material [20,25-29] (Table 3). Once generated, NPs in HMs could provide the forms capable of generating the unique electromagnetic, optical, thermal, and quantum mechanical phenomena previously reported in HMs [30-33].

In solution, silica NPs can both (a) adsorb trace amounts of other source materials such as plant, animal, and human proteins, minerals or metal NPs onto their large surface area [41- 44] and (b) use other materials, e.g., viruses, plant constituents, or chemical agents, as templates to imprint their structural and chemical information onto surfaces of silica nanostructures [45-48]. Surface-adsorbed materials modify silica NP bioreactivity [49], potentially carry the source material "fingerprint" [41,50-52], and could amplify the information of the original source [53-56] into higher potencies. Plant extracts can also biosynthesize silica or metal NPs from respective precursors in water [57], leaving trace bioactive specific plant materials on the resultant NP surfaces [58-60]. One study that needs independent replication reported that increasing the numbers of succussions will reduce the particle size of plant source materials into the nanoscale range [61].

The present paper proposes that the nanoscale versus bulk form of HMs makes a critical difference in understanding how these agents can interact with living systems. By their nature, nanoscale forms differ from bulk (conventional macro scale) forms of any given material with size- and shape-dependent immune, biochemical, electromagnetic, optical, and quantum properties [62-66]. At the nanoscale, particle size, shape, and surface charge as well as ionic constituents, temperature, and pH of the surrounding medium can markedly change the properties and effects of a given type of NP [17,43,62,67-69]. The factors that could particularly foster host adaptive responses encompass virus-like properties of certain NPs [36] and their ability to trigger the cell danger response pathways of the body as exogenous stressors or stimuli [70]. Some larger NPs can exert bacteria-like effects on living systems as well [71].
Unique features of nanomaterials: virus-like properties and adaptive responses
The nanoscale is the level of biological system organization where viruses (10-150 nm) [62] and virus-like nanomaterials occur [71]. At virus sizes, NPs activate biological activity in part via anti-virus Cell Danger Or Defense Response (CDR) pathways or networks in the body [36,70,71]. In particular, irregular surfaces and rougher virus-like surfaces on NPs, such as the type homeopathic mechanical grinding methods or ball milling would produce [72,73], tend to foster binding of biomolecules and cell uptake better than more perfect surfaces of modern engineered NPs [74,75]. Table 1 lists the virus-like characteristics of the most biologically-active nanomaterials.

In nanotoxicology, despite the same "doses" (e.g., in vitro 1 ug/ml, 10 ug/ml), a specific size range (60-120 nm) and zeta potential value (surface charge/stability, e.g., -37 to -41 millivolts) of diesel exhaust nanoparticles are more likely to trigger cytokine activation and protein expression in human immune cells whereas NPs of other sizes and zeta potentials do not trigger bioreactivity [70]. Finally, different surface coatings of zinc oxide NPs (e.g., triethoxycaprylylsilane or dimethoxydiphenylsilane/ triethoxycaprylylsilane cross polymer or uncoated) modify the adaptive responses of human olfactory cells by modulating manifestations of cell stress, inflammatory response (cytokine patterns), and apoptotic cell death [76].

The usual assumptions premised on composition (source material) and dose that are the primary factors for evaluating bulk form conventional pharmaceutical drugs are not sufficient and sometimes not readily applicable at the nanoscale for the "same" source material, including HMs. For instance, simply diluting a stock solution of fullerite carbon-based NPs will produce NPs with morphological properties different from those of the more concentrated stock solution [77]. One size NP of a given source material can exert different effects from another size NP of the same source material, e.g., 80 nm engineered calcium phosphate/ hydroxyapatite NPs are more effective at killing osteosarcoma cells than are 2 0 nm NPs of the "same" source material [78].

In triggering adaptive responses, nanoparticles are known to act on gene expression, cytokine release, and signaling pathways or networks as cell danger signals for the body, in part by activating Danger-Associated Molecular Pattern (DAMP) recognition receptors [79,80]. Endogenous response amplification to NPs is nonlinear and potentially multi-factorial [23], including but not limited to immune/inflammatory/metabolic mediator modulation [81], nervous system cross-sensitization [2], and adaptive changes of hormesis [82]. Nanomaterials are often inherently more potent than their bulk form counterparts [63,83], lowering doses needed for direct effects by orders of magnitude [84], and even lower for adaptive phenomena like vaccine immune responses [53,54,56,85] and hormesis [1,7,8,82].
Source and silica nanoparticles in homeopathicallyprepared medicines
Convergent evidence now points to the presence of nanostructures in homeopathically-prepared medicines made from natural, mineral and plant as well as synthetic drug sources (Table 2). In 2010, Chikramane, et al. [19] first reported transmission electron microscope images of source metal NPs, mostly less than 15 nanometers in size, in commercially-made HMs of gold, silver, copper, zinc, platinum, and tin at 6C, 30C, and 200C potencies. They confirmed the presence of the respective source metals using Inductively-Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES) up to the parts per billion ranges. Subsequently, these researchers demonstrated that trituration (mechanical grinding) in lactose followed by serial dilutions and succussions (violent agitation of the liquid solution inside glassware), i.e., the unique manufacturing methodology of homeopathy, leads to heterogenous accumulation and transfer of the metal nanoparticles in solution from one "dilution" step to the next, even though bulk forms of the material are removed [18]. Bulk forms of a material are inherently much larger than their nanoscale counterparts, and such differences in their forms can lead to the significant differences in properties as a function of size [64].

Other research groups followed with both electron microscopic and Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS) data showing the formation of nanostructures during homeopathic potentization procedures and/or using homeopathic mother tinctures (herbal extract concentrates) (Table 2). Consistent with a large body of non-homeopathic research in nanotechnology e.g., [27], one study of homeopathically-prepared test materials specifically reported that increasing the number of succussions produced progressively smaller and smaller sizes of nanoparticles of source plant extract materials down to approximately 14 nanometers (nm) [61].
Table 1: Virus-Mimicking Characteristics of the Most Biologically Active Nanoparticles (NPs).



Particle sizes in the range of viruses [36,70]

10-150 nm size range [62]

Virus-like particle surface defects from mechanical grinding (top-down processes [72]) or other manufacturing procedures increase bio-molecular binding and cell uptake [74,75]

Defects include cracks, fissures, roughness, folds, and pores [44,72,86]

Virus-like activation of cell defense response (CDR) mediator pathways/networks [36,81]

CDR changes involve cell metabolism; cell membrane stiffness; antiviral chemical release; autophagy; DNA methylation and histones to alter gene expression, endogenous nucleic-acid-related protection mobilization to produce genetic variants; cell-to-cell signaling mediator release including cytokines and eicosanoids; host behavioral changes [87]

Similarly, analogous to HM manufacturing processes, either prolonged ball milling (grinding) of rice husk ash or longer periods of sonication (agitation of a liquid) of waste eggshells will generate nanoparticles respectively, of silica or of calcium carbonate [26,27]. Sonication of a solution of sodium chloride or potassium iodide will both generate source nanoparticles and embed them into glassware [20]. Silicea, Calcarea Carbonica (CaCO3), Natrum Muriaticum (sea salt, NaCl), and Kali Iodatum (KI) are also all widely-used HMs. In nanomedicine research, extracts of source materials such as common plant-derived foods (carrot, ginger, grapefruit) [88,89] or tea [90] generate nanosized vesicles called exosomes that modulate gene expression, cytokine and other biological mediator release in animal or human cells. Exosomes are small sized membrane vesicles that can contain lipids, adhesion and intercellular signaling molecules, proteins and RNAs from their original source cell interior [91].

Meanwhile, other homeopathic investigators repeatedly found that agitation per se releases variable but readily measurable amounts of elemental silicon (which quickly generates silicon dioxide or silica on contact with oxygen) into solution from the inner walls of the glassware in the parts per million ranges (Table 3). The silica appears to be in the form of both larger sized and nanoscale particles with the capacity to interact with proteins and cause inflammatory and/or immune system activation [22,34,92]. Ives et al. [21] originally proposed a silica-based model for HMs. The latter group demonstrated that the homeopathic succussion-released silica stabilized acetylcholine esterase enzyme activity, similar to a finding recently replicated for modern engineered silica nanoparticles coated on their surfaces with polyethyleneimine [43].

Thus, whether or not source NPs make their way into a given dose of a homeopathic medicine, it is highly likely that biologicallyactive nanosilica and even larger silicate aggregates and/or other nanostructures will occur with each succussion step and persist in HMs at higher potencies during classical homeopathic manufacturing. The silicates are known to interact with salts, amino acids, and proteins, e.g., from plant extracts or animal fluids, to form aggregates of 3D gel networks [93]. Depending on pH and amounts of other materials in solution, various sizes of nanosilica can also form [93]. Apart from manufactured forms, biosilica with unique physical properties is well-known to form in the natural environment within single-celled organisms, higher plants [94], and primitive animals such as sponges [93], all of which are commonly-used source materials in homeopathic manufacturing.

Ives, et al. [21] also showed that repeated succussions will gradually lower the pH of a homeopathically-prepared solution from alkaline toward a more neutral buffered pH near 7. In turn, this group noted, studies show that this drift of pH values fosters conversion of precursor monomer silicates in a solution into nanoparticles forms of silica [95]. Thus, nanosilica is highly likely to be a key constituent of any homeopathicallyprepared potency in liquid solutions made in glass. At the same time, studies have demonstrated that silicates in water can shift between uncondensed monomers to colloidal nanoscale particle forms larger 3-dimensional silicate structures, depending on conditions in the medium [93]. Both doped nanosilica and the smallest sizes of silicon NPs, e.g., silicon quantum dots (e.g., NPs < 10 nm sizes) per se, offer potentially size-tunable semiconductor nanocrystals with (a) nontoxic delivery vehicle properties for
Table 2: Summary of studies on nanostructures reported in homeopathically-prepared medicines.



Homeopathically-prepared materials

Chikramane et al. [19]

Transmission electron microscopy, ICP-AES

Gold, silver, copper, zinc, platinum, tin up to 200C

Chikramane et al. [18]

Transmission electron microscopy

Gold up to 15C

Upadhyay and Nayak [96]

Scanning electron microscopy

Pulsatilla, Belladonna, Colchicum (plants) up to 15C

Demangeat [15]

Nuclear magnetic resonance

Silica/lactose up to 21C

Das et al. [59]

Transmission electron microscopy, zeta potential

Silver NPs biosynthesized by Thuja, Hydrastis, Phytolacca, Gelsemium plant mother tincture extracts

Barve and Chaughule [61]

Dynamic light scattering

Terminalia arjuna, Holarrhena plant mother tinctures

Stovbun et al. [97]

Dynamic light scattering

Phenazepam, Panavir (synthetic drugs)

Elia et al. [14,98]

Atomic force microscopy, fluorescence microscopy, FT-IR and UV-vis spectroscopy

Water in glassware up to 200C

Konovalov and Ryzhkina [17]

Dynamic light scattering, zeta potential, atomic force microscopy, microelectophoresis, conductivity, ultraviolet and EPR spectroscopy

Nanostructures triggered by highly diluted solutes (alpha tocopherol, ichfan C-10, potassium phenosan) interacting with external physical fields (geomagnetic, low frequency electromagnetic) and solution preparation procedures

Rajendran. [99]

Field emission scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive spectroscopy

Nanoparticles detected at all potencies evaluated, including plant derived Lycopodium 6C, 30C, 200C, 1M, 10M, 50M, and CM potencies but not in 90% ethanol (alcohol) controls. NP sizes ranged from 12 nm to 832 nm with varying observations of agglomerates at 6C potency vs. many clusters at extremely high potencies. All verum samples were sonicated prior to evaluation.

organic materials and various drugs on their surfaces and (b) small size-related quantum confinement-related fluorescence [100,101]. Similarly, homeopathically-prepared medicines have exhibited photo luminescent properties distinct from those of control materials in two different laboratories [32,50].

Notably, silica precursors can self-assemble around a virus, plant constituent, chemical toxicant, protein or other templates and/or form a stabilizing shell on the outside of core NPs in solution to form silica shell-source core nanocomposite [45,48,102-105]. Other constituents in the solution such as ethanol or salt concentrations and pH will modify the thickness and/or surface properties of the silica shell [69,103,106-109]. In homeopathy research, Elia et al. [110] have repeatedly demonstrated that raising the pH of homeopathically-prepared solutions to a highly alkaline level will increase the release of heat and specific conductivity significantly more than those of unsuccussed dilute control solutions. Investigators of the latter studies interpreted the heat release as an indication of disrupted order of the materials in solution. Cartwright [51,111] recently reported an essential role for silanol (Si-O-H) groups on the quartz glass surfaces and ions in solution rather than water in carrying the specific information of a given HM. As noted above, plant extracts can also biosynthesize silica NPs, leaving trace amounts of their plant material proteins, nucleic acids and other organic constituents on the surfaces of the resultant silica NPs [57,94].

Is there evidence for biological effects of remedy source-free HMs, but homeopathically–prepared control solutions containing only the silicates from the glassware (i.e. succussed)? In an in vitro cell culture wound injury/repair model for experimental wound closure healing, Hostanska et al. [112] recently showed that succussed "controls" were indeed biologically active, though less active than the plant source HM verum compared with unsuccussed solvent controls (Figure 1). Such data are consistent with the presence of bioactivity in the silica previously reported in the succussed "controls."

Homeopaths use silica and each of the four different plantderived HMs (Arnica montana 3X, Hypericum perforatum [St. John's Wort] 3X, Calendula officinalis [Marigold] 3X, Symphytum [Comfrey] 5X) in the verum combination homeopathic product studied by Hostanska et al. [112] for various clinical indications related to injuries and wound healing. Consistent with the homeopathic succussed control findings, a separate nanomedicine study recently demonstrated that silica NPs alone can significantly boost immunogenicity of a protein antigen in a combination formulation even when the silica NPs are not physically attached to the antigen [36]. The silica NP effects occurred only if the NPs were virus-sized (i.e., 50 nm rather than 1000 nm in size).

Independent of homeopathic research, conventional pharmaceutical investigators have replicated the observation that not only glassware, but also plastic, and stainless steel containers and tubing can all release larger and smaller particles into solutions that they contain, especially upon agitation, e.g., end-over-end rotation of a syringe with an air-water and silicone-oil-water interface or unsiliconized syringe with proteins in solution, vortexing or sonication [22,34,92,113,114]. In the case of borosilicate or soda lime glass, such particles include silica micro- and nanoparticles. In turn, any proteins or other substances in the solution form immunogenic complexes with the adjuvant particles. These complexes trigger immune reactions, even after filtering, at concentrations below the limits of detection with available instruments [22].
Waterjet abrasion per se, which is similar to homeopathic manufacturing methods such as succussion and/or fluxion (see Table 4), can break down contaminants in water samples into micro- and nanoscale structures [28,115,116]. Moreover, nanocontaminants in extremely low concentrations in stock reagent supplies can also serve as chemical catalysts for certain reactions [117,118].

The data imply that it should be possible to make HMs in plastic [119] or stainless steel containers, but their physical chemistry and biological properties would vary from those made with classical materials and methods in glass. Table 4 illustrates overlaps between homeopathic manufacturing and nanotechnology methods.

Nanosilica is an excellent drug delivery vehicle and serves as an immune stimulating adjuvant in oral vaccines [53,56,120-122]. Nanoscale forms of not only silica, but also conventional drugs, biologics, minerals, herbal extracts, and animal products are known for their small size-related enhanced bioavailability and bioactivity [38,123-126]. Common nanotechnology strategies for tuning the electromagnetic, optical and biochemical properties of NPs include coating the outer surface of a given NP with a
Table 3: Concentrations of Elemental Silicon Reported in Homeopathic Medicines and/or Controls Succussed in Glass.



Elemental Silicon Concentrations Measured (ppm)

Witt et al. 2006 (Germany)



Ives et al. 2010 (USA)

Up to 30C


Demangeat 2010 (France)

6C-21C pooled


Upadhyay and Nayak 2011 (India)



Note: A repeated succussion cycle lowers pH from a 1C to at least a 6C-8C, where the pH plateau at neutral acid-alkaline values in Ives et al. [21] for 7C and 8C potencies. Chikramane et al. [18] noted a plateau at 6C for transfer of metal source nanoparticles from lower to higher potencies. For other salts and ions, different glassware also releases measurable trace amounts of sodium, magnesium, aluminum, calcium, iron, and boron into HM solutions [21,35].
Figure 1: Wound closure effect of homeopathically-prepared substances (0712-1 = succussed solvent; 0712-2 = verum combination low potency HM containing measurable amounts of the source plant materials (4 different plant sources); 0712-3 = unsuccussed solvent). Confluent area = density of cells in wells without experimental wound areas (i.e., uninjured and untreated, representing 100% wound closure). From reference [112], per a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0.
nanofilm of another material. In many cases, the coating material for the NPs is silica (creating shell-core NPs). In addition, other strategies for modulating NP properties include adsorbing or doping the surface of given silica or other NP with plant material, serum proteins or trace amounts of another nanomaterial [127- 129]. Such procedures modify particle surface chemistry, which is the primary way by which NPs interact with each other and with living systems [44,88].

Nonetheless, skeptics could argue that (a) human beings regularly encounter nanoparticles of various natural and manmade sources in the environment without obvious therapeutic benefit; (b) the amounts of source material nanoparticles reported to date are extremely low and unlikely to exert conventional pharmacological effects. In short, what does finding nanostructures in HMs add to the field of homeopathy? In the present model, the answer relates to the HM providing a salient, individualized low intensity stress or danger signal to the recipient organism as a complex adaptive system [1,2].

Nanoscience research offers a helpful direction for addressing these objections. Recent nanomedicine and nanotoxicology studies indicate that the source and/or silica NPs in a given HM would be most likely to produce significant biological effects if the sizes fall into the range of viruses or smaller [36,70,71] (viruses range in size from 10-150 nm [62]). In addition, bioactive NPs may exhibit relative stability as indicated by certain zeta potential values on their surfaces [70]. Therefore, if NPs play a role in biological actions of HMs, testable hypotheses are that (a) their sizes would need to fall into the nanoscale range for viruses and (b) their surface zeta potentials would need to be sufficiently stable to convey their specific information in a low dose, viruslike manner.|

Sizes of NPs of conventional synthetic drugs are often somewhat larger than viruses (> 150 nm), though often smaller than 1000 nm [25,130,131]. Even micro-sized forms of drugs or natural products are known to exhibit greater bioavailability [63,132-134]. However, the nano-drug mechanisms of action are typically more pharmacological (relatively higher dose, direct ligand-receptor effects) than homeopathic (pulsed lower dose, stress adaptive signaling stimulus effects) in nature.

Are there virus-triggered biological mechanisms that nanoparticles are known to mobilize? Do those mechanisms map onto the repeatedly demonstrated ability of HMs to modulate gene expression patterns and release biological mediators such as cytokines and other endogenous signaling mediators in the body? To answer these questions, it is important to understand
Table 4: Homeopathic Manufacturing and Parallel Nanotechnology Methods.

Homeopathic Manufacturing Method

Parallel Nanotechnology Methods

Underlying Effects on NP Formation

Trituration of source material in dry lactose (manual grinding or ball milling)-very low potencies

Ball milling

Mechanical grinding of smaller and smaller particles off starting bulk source materials [27,29,135]

Serial dilutions and succussions in water or ethanol-water within glass containers – higher potencies in liquid


Dilution physically separates NPs as they form to protect reactive surfaces from inactivation by agglomeration [136], but leads to variability in UV-visible spectroscopic properties between batches [77,137]

Vortexing, sonication

Mechanical shearing of smaller and smaller particles off the starting bulk source materials [26]

Embedding formed source nanoparticles into inner walls of glassware via turbulence of liquid [20]

Release of silica micro- and nanoparticles from inner walls of glassware by agitation [22,34]

Fluxion (rarely used older method for continuous strong flow of water into the same glass container with the starting source material) – alternative manufacturing method for very high potencies in liquid

Water jet abrasion [28]

Mechanical shearing of smaller and smaller particles off the starting bulk source materials [26]

Embedding formed source nanoparticles into inner walls of glassware via turbulence of liquid [20]

Release of silica micro- and nanoparticles from inner walls of glassware by agitation [22,34]

more details of how nanomedicines differ from bulk materials from the same source.
Specific properties of nanomedicines versus bulk form drugs
Multiple specific properties of nanoscale versus bulk form materials can contribute to biological effects of HMs as nanomedicines.

• First, nano-forms are biologically more bioavailable and potent than bulk forms for direct pharmacological actions by orders of magnitude (10-1000x) [63,83,84,123,138].

o Silica and silica NPs from glassware or plant extracts could exert immunomodulating and immune adjuvant effects [53,120,139] as well as demonstrate the capacity for self assembly into stable nanostructures around viruses [45] or plant constituents [48] as templates. In addition, dozens of studies have shown that many different ethanolic plant extracts (e.g., Equisetum, Quercus, Salvia, Hydrastis, Thuja, Gelsemium, Phytolacca - source materials also used for making homeopathic plant-derived medicines) can biosynthesize nanoparticles from precursors in solution, including but not limited to silica, gold, silver, and platinum NPs [57,59,60,93,140,141].

• Second, unique to their small size, nanoparticles sizes, shapes, surface areas, surface charges and surface chemistry play a major role in determining the nature of particle interactions with cells and resultant biological activity [133,142-144].

o For some NPs, a factor as simple as coating the surface with lactose leads to improved uptake into cancer cells, but not normal cells [145,146]. Both lactose and silica nano coatings and shells can stabilize the reactive surfaces of NPs [102,145,147,148]. Lactose is a standard material used during dry trituration or grinding/milling of insoluble source materials in homeopathic manufacturing.

• Third, dilution from stock solutions in the laboratory or in the environment has unpredictable effects on NP properties [121].

o NPs are so reactive on their surfaces that they adsorb onto each other and other materials that they encounter. These adsorbed materials can dope and tune the properties of the nanostructure by altering its size and shape, decrease or increase its toxicity, and/or decrease or increase its surface reactivity and biological identity for a living cell [44,133,144]. In many cases, dilution increases available surface area on NPs by avoiding particle agglomeration and leaving smaller but more reactive particles. As a result, some diluted NPs can potentially be even more toxic than a more concentrated solution of the same NPs [77,136,137]. Smaller particles translate into much larger surface area available for adsorbing other materials [149].

• Fourth, key to the effects of higher potency HMs, nanoparticles can exert not only direct pharmacological effects, but also induce indirect, biological adaptive processes via modulation of gene expression and cell-signaling pathways [70, 71,81,76,79].

o Nanoparticles are known to activate the pathogenand danger-associated molecular pattern (DAMP) receptor recognition and mediator network [81,87,79,150]. The adaptive changes manifest via modulation of gene expression patterns, cytokine and inflammatory mediator release, immune system activation, neuronal effects [151], and biological signaling at the cell-to-cell level [81,76,80]. Cell uptake of silica NPs in the parts per billion (ppb) and parts per million (ppm) ranges occurs [152], and concentrations of various NPs in the ppb to ppm range can exert toxic effects on small organisms in the environment [153,154].

• Fifth, in contrast with ordinary bulk pharmaceutical drugs, NPs are uniquely able to generate aging [155], pH sensitivity [109,156], electromagnetic [157], photoluminescence [158-161], and quantum mechanical effects [162-165].

o These types of phenomena overlap a number of the seemingly unrelated basic science findings previously reported for HMs [30,32,33,50,98]. Even the variations in modern nanotechnology using mechanical manufacturing processes from ball milling and vortexing or sonication to water jet treatment of liquids are empirically shown to generate nanoparticles from larger bulk forms in a top-down manner [20,25,116,166]. Ethanol, the solvent used in a range of concentrations for some HM manufacturing processes, can modify the sizes and surface properties of resultant nanotechnology-generated silica and other NPs [67,166]. Lactose is one of a variety of sugars that act as reducing and/or capping agents to make and stabilize nanoparticles, thereby modifying their biological activity [145,167].

Finally, it is essential to distinguish four interconnected, but separate issues in this area. That is, (i) what is HMs; (ii) what emergent properties of HMs capture and carry the unique information; (iii) how does the specific salient HM/information interact with a specific living system for which it is well-matched or resonant; (iv)how does the body's response evolve over time after the initiating event of interacting with a salient HM? Logically, the nature of the homeopathic information from a given HM, if any, must arise from the nature of manufacturing process and its products.

Nanoparticles are far more than conventional biochemical or pharmaceutical agents in living systems [65,168,169]. A common misunderstanding of the nature of NPs is that the dose or concentration must still fall into range for direct pharmacological effects. On the contrary, identifying a nanoscale structure in HMs does not mean that the reported therapeutic effects arise from structural properties of NPs as simple end-organ ligand-receptor effects per se in the conventional pharmaceutical sense. Even in mainstream cancer nanopharmacology, for instance, ultrasound, magnetic fields, and light stimuli can activate certain nano-drugs to release their contents only after they migrate into the target tissue by passive uptake afforded by their small size [170,171].

NPs can also modulate immune activity. For instance, nanoscale vaccines are much more effective than conventional vaccines at triggering immune system responses against infection or cancer, typically at much lower antigen doses [172-175]. Biosynthesized nanosilver can induce neuronal differentiation by modulating oxidative stress and cell signaling pathways [151]. Notably, to modulate bio-reactivity of the host, biosynthesized NPs can carry trace residual components of the original plant or other biological material that generated the silica or metal NP into the interaction with the body.

Thus, nanomaterials act as stressors for cells and can affect biological systems across the adaptive networks of the body [176-179]. NPs can trigger systemic effects by (a) inducing release of nanoscale vesicles (Exosomes) from cells to initiate immune system reactions [168,169]; (b) activating intracellular inflammasome protein cascade and cytokine release [120]; (c) mobilizing interferon release [71]. Overall, these networks involve modulation of gene expression patterns, cytokine release, cell signaling mediator release, cell and mitochondrial stress responses [77,81]. The effects can cascade into nonlinear amplified responses [23].
Homeopathic medicine nanoparticles as salient systemic stressors
For homeopathic NPs in particular, the salience of the source material's properties to the integrative symptom pattern of the individual organism is a critical factor. A stressor specific for one system is not necessarily a stressor for another system. By analogy, a specific predator odorant as low as in the < 1 part per trillion range is most salient for and detectable by its prey [180]. In classical homeopathic practice, only HMs similar in capability for causing a symptom pattern to the total pre-existing symptom picture in a susceptible individual will elicit a clinical response (similia principle) [181,182]. Even then, the state of the recipient organism at the time of administration determines the direction of change to salient HMs [183]. HMs act most clearly in already previously-stressed cells or organisms rather than those at rest and may have no effect at all in unstressed recipients [184- 186]. Finally, some HMs such as Calcarea Carbonica (calcium carbonate) in potency initiate immune-modulation, but at the level of the intact host organism as a larger network or system rather than isolated cells in vitro [187].

A number of studies from independent laboratories support the hypothesis of homeopathic NPs as salient mild systemic stressors. As Khuda-Bukhsh et al. [188] have previously proposed and demonstrated in experimental skin cancer, HMs can modulate gene expression and signaling proteins in the body without needing to rely on pharmacological tissue-based end organ ligand-receptor effects per se. Others have also demonstrated complex gene expression patterns in response to specific HMs in potency such as Apis [189], Gelsemium [190], Arsenicum Album [191], or a combination of multiple common HMs (commercial product Canova [192]).

Wiegant and van Wijk [182] demonstrated hormesis, i.e., low dose reversal in direction of effects using a toxicity model system. The model evoked intracellular heat shock protein (chaperone proteins) stress responses to higher toxic levels of bulk form arsenic or cadmium. The biological stress response reversed towards normal by administering homeopathically-prepared forms of the "same" source materials. They also showed crosssensitization in which one agent could induce an effect, and the other, chemically unrelated material could modify the observed response [182,185,186]. In biology, cross-sensitization occurs via not only immune, but also non-immune processes [2,193- 197]. Separately, other homeopathic investigators have observed that various HMs can modulate cytokine release [187,198-200].

In short, understanding HMs as discrete, pulsed sub toxic doses of natural product nanomedicines [1] helps integrate seemingly diverse empirical observations into a cohesive understanding. That is, NPs in HMs modulate adaptive biological pathways to generate state-dependent bidirectional changes in living systems [183,201].

Low potency homeopathy is likely dominated by a role for the HM source material micro-sized and nanosized particles with greater bioavailability than their respective bulk forms [71]. However, high potency homeopathy is likely dominated by the amplified role of silica NPs modified by trace amounts of the source material NPs and/or, based on prior studies [114], any other materials used during manufacturing [21,51]. The other materials involved in making higher potency HMs can include specific borosilicate or soda lime glassware (or plastic) containers of various sizes and constituents, pipettes for dilution, distilled water, ethanol at various concentrations, and container stoppers (phenol caps, synthetics, rubber, natural cork) [35].

Furthermore, nanoparticles size and surface-related zeta potential can determine whether or not and to what extent a given NP exerts biological effects [70]. From nanoscale forms, homeopathic information for the organism could arise from a unique cell signaling effect [188], electromagnetic [98] and/or optical signal, and/or quantum mechanical effect (for very small NPs < 10 nm in size) on the interconnected, nonlinear dynamic networks of the body [202]. The specific objective correlates in the properties of NPs in HMs for the biological activity of those HMs remain an important and as yet unstudied question.

Despite the claims of skeptics, there is a substantial basic science and preclinical literature demonstrating that HMs at low and high potencies exerts biological effects different from placebos on cells, plants, animals, and human subjects [112,188- 190,192,198,200,203-215]. Multiple studies have demonstrated the ability of various nanomaterials to trigger the adaptive nonlinear dose-response phenomenon of hormesis at low doses [82]. Hormetic mechanisms also encompass both receptor and/ or cell signaling pathways [215].

Table 5 summarizes the variety of overlapping features of nanomaterials and HMs discussed above. Whatever the nature of the homeopathic signal from the HM NPs, Bell et al. [23] have elsewhere discussed multiple endogenous nonlinear amplification mechanisms by which complex adaptive systems such as human beings or animals can respond to a small, pulsed but salient signal [197], especially from a nanomaterial. Such processes include not only hormesis, but also stochastic resonance and time-dependent sensitization/cross-sensitization [23]. Other papers have outlined the evolving and self-organized nature of the reported changes in the recipient organism after an effective HM treatment using discrete intermittent doses, i.e., pulsed or spaced over time from one another [202,216-218].

Given the properties of nanomaterials, it is possible that the salient information conveyed from the HM to the individual organism sets the healing response in motion in multiple ways. Based on the evidence, the communication of the information could derive from the HM NP-generated biochemical, immunomodulatory, electromagnetic, magnetic, or optical/photon-based signals and/or from quantum mechanical phenomena [219].
Table 5: Overlapping Characteristics of Classical Homeopathic Medicines (HMs) and Modern Manufactured Nanoparticles (NPs) (see text for details).


HMs and NPs in sub toxic doses both show ability to modulate biological activity through changes in gene expression, signaling protein release, cytokine release, and/or oxidative stress patterns

Variability in physical chemistry, ultraviolet visible spectroscopy and bioactivity findings is common in both HMs and NPs as an inherent function of properties of the form rather than composition of the agent

HMs and modern NPs both exhibit susceptibility to aging in solution with resultant changes in properties; pH, temperature, salt  and ethanol concentration-dependent effects occur

adaptation: biological plasticity
In the Nanoparticle-Cross-Adaptation-Sensitization (NPCAS) model for homeopathy as adaptive network nanomedicine [1,2,23,220], the correct HM or simillimum uses low concentrations of Nanoparticles (NPs) as a biologically meaningful or salient danger signal, alarm, or threat to trigger health-promoting beneficial changes in the organism as a complex adaptive system [221,222]. Consistent with an adaptation or biological plasticity model, the physician-chemist founder of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann MD, originally postulated that the correct HM elicits the body's "counter-action" to the direct effects of the salient HM [223]. Recovery from disease emerges from the body's adaptive reaction to the mild stressor of the correct HM.

The indirect biological pathways of adaptation and crossadaptation in the body, rather than direct local end organ ligandreceptor pharmacological mechanisms would better account for the clinical phenomenology of homeopathic treatment (Figure 2). In specific, independent laboratories have found that different HMs play an immuno-modulatory role in specific biological models [187,224-226].

To maintain a focus on theory-driven testable hypotheses that arise from the present model, the remainder of the discussion will address potential biological mediation of the observed changes in living systems. One convergent conclusion from several different laboratories [187,192,211,227] is that HMs act by modulation of immune, inflammatory, and biological signaling, including
Figure 2: Conventional Pharmaceutical Medicine Focuses on Direct Local Ligand-Receptor Properties of the Agent (High Bulk Doses) whereas Homeopathic Adaptive Network Nanomedicine Focuses on the Individualized Stressor Properties of the Agent for the Organism as a Whole (Low Nanoscale Doses) to Initiate Adaptation.
changing gene expression patterns. In other words, rather than acting on local end organ tissue receptors per se, the NPs in HMs may act mainly via modulation of adaptive biological pathways in the body involved in the stress response (see Table 6). These interconnected pathways include immune, inflammatory, hormonal, metabolic, and nervous system mediation [228].

The diffuse network nature of the Cell Danger Response (CDR) system of the body provides a rational foundation for understanding the individual clinical response to an HM. Nanomaterials are one form of emerging exogenous danger signal for types of the endogenous Pattern Recognition Receptors (PRRs). PRRs initiate a dynamic and diffuse cascade of subsequent biological signaling events across the body [81]. Other types of PRRs include those that recognize Pathogen-Associated Molecular Patterns (PAMPs, e.g., viruses and bacteria), damageassociated molecular patterns (DAMPs or "alarmins," e.g., heat shock proteins - HSPs) and related nanoparticle-associated molecular patterns [81,87,79,179,229]. Nanoparticles tend to trigger responses related to viruses, whereas larger micro-sized particles affect responses related to bacteria [71].

The cell danger response is implicated in a wide range of acute and chronic diseases [87], including many conditions that homeopaths sometimes report treating successfully, e.g., viral and bacterial infections [210,227,230] and sepsis [231], tissue injury [183,232], various allergies [233-238], autoimmune diseases [239], fibromyalgia [240], traumatic brain injury [241], attention deficit disorder [242], autism [243], and cancer [244,245]. The body has evolved mechanisms involving endogenous DAMPs as biological signals that detect and signify nano- and micro-scale and molecular threats to its survival [79,81]. The threats can be microbial pathogens, tissue damage, certain endogenous mediators, nanomaterials, or endogenous homeostatic disturbances (e.g., inflammation, hypoxia, acidity, metabolic stress) [81] (Figure 3).

Immune and/or non-immune (metabolic, inflammatory, nervous system, hormonal) adaptive pathways participate in biological stress responses. One immunological example is IgEbased allergic adjuvant reactions to nanoparticles such as carbon nanotubes [246]. Apart from immune hyper reactivity, however, the threat does not have to be so intense as to kill the cell or individual organism [247]. Rather, even low dose, sub toxic levels of NPs can still elicit cell oxidative stress responses [80,248] and thus activate a cascade of endogenous "alarmin" signaling events throughout the body [71,249] (see also Figure 4).

Nanomaterials are among the types of exogenous stimuli that act as danger signals for dendritic cells in the immune system to respond with release of endogenous biological danger signals [81]. Furthermore, silica NPs can activate the intracellular inflammasome protein cascade, another component of the diffuse danger sensing and signaling biochemical network of the body [250]. Inflammasome activation induces cytokine release, e.g., interleukin 1b [251]. Other endogenous alarmins lead to purinergic signaling [252]. These extracellular signals are mediated by purine nucleotides such as ATP (adenosine triphosphate) and are also associated with intracellular inflammasome activation followed by extracellular cytokine release [253].

Endogenous mediators such as ATP can play one metabolic role when inside an intact cell, but an alarmin role when released outside a damaged cell [253]. Heat shock proteins, other mediators within the cell danger response network, are among the endogenous molecular alarmin signaling structures in response to cell damage or other types of biological threat. A series of previous studies by van Wijk and Wiegant [182,185,186,254] have repeatedly demonstrated that homeopathically-prepared materials can modulate heat shock protein activation patterns.

The important point in the current model for homeopathic medicines is that the danger signal triggers a complex nonlinear, self-regulatory cascade of endogenous mediator and modulator activation events [188,255]. These events constitute an adaptive response that tries to strengthen the organism against the danger [247]. It is the cross-adaptive or cross-sensitized [256] nature of the HM as an individual danger signal to the pre-existing pattern of maladaptation and dysfunction in the individual that leads to the actual reversal in direction of the response back towards the health [1,2,23,220]. Such a nonlinear process would be a type of individualized cross-sensitization (between the original large magnitude biological stressors causing disease and the small HM NP discrete pulsed signal), post conditioning hormesis [182,185,258], or oscillation from cross-sensitization
Table 6: Main Molecular Level Stress Response Pathways (Part of the Cell Danger Response System) and their Respective Inducers and Effectors in Human Cells [257]. Reprinted with permission.
Figure 3: The dendritic cell response to danger. (Reprinted under Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0 from reference [81].

(A) Exogenous danger signals include pathogen-associated molecular patterns, as well as exogenous particulate matter. Exogenous danger signals activate DCs (dendritic cells) directly via pattern recognition receptors, or indirectly though tissue damage (B) and homeostatic perturbations (C). (B) Inflammatory cell death as a result of tissue injury or programmed necrosis causes the release of endogenous danger signals (D) which also activate DCs. (C) Homeostatic perturbations such as those found in inflamed tissue (e.g., decreased pH, hypoxia) may also act as endogenous danger signals, influencing DC immune functions. (E) DCs integrate both exogenous and endogenous danger signals in order to orchestrate the appropriate immune response.
Figure 4: Functions of the acute Cell Danger Response (CDR) [87]: From cell stressor to systemic effects. Reprinted with Creative Commons 3.0 License.
The acute CDR includes 8 functional changes in cell structure, physiology, metabolism, and gene expression. These are: 1) shift cellular metabolism from polymer to monomer synthesis to prevent the hijacking and assembly of cellular resources by intracellular pathogens, 2) stiffen the cell membranes to limit superinfection and pathogen egress, 3) release antiviral and antimicrobial chemicals into the pericellular environment, 4) increase autophagy, mitochondrial fission, and mitophagy to facilitate removal of intracellular pathogens and biogenesis centers,5) change DNA methylation and histone modification to alter gene expression, 6) mobilize endogenous retroviruses and LINEs to produce genetic variations, 7) warn neighboring cells and distant effectors cells of the danger with extracellular nucleotides, H2O2, eicosanoids, metabolites, and cytokines, and 8) alter the behavior of the host to prevent the spread of infection to kin, and sleep patterns to facilitate healing.
[186,195,196,259-261]. Healing emerges in the recipient complex adaptive system as the restoration of homeostatic normal functioning and resilience to future stressors [202, 247,262] (Figure 4).

In turn, endogenous biological danger signals such as cytokines then carry and potentiate the message concerning existence of a salient threat danger to the rest of the body's defense systems, including the brain. Researchers now consider the pro-inflammatory cytokine interleukin 1a, for example, as an alarmin or marker of oxidative stress for various chronic conditions associated with inflammation [263]. The selfregulatory results of defense system pathway activation include complex modulation of inflammatory and anti-inflammatory events [228,264,265].

Notably, ingredients of several different single and combination homeopathic medicines increase and/or decrease certain pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines under specific conditions [192,198-200,266]. Determining the potential role of homeopathic medicine NPs as modulators of cytokine release, heat shock protein activation patterns and other components of the danger signal pathways is one of several appropriate experimental directions to pursue.

Immune/inflammatory and brain/neural pathways also communicate with one another bidirectional concerning exogenous threats [228,267]. Bell et al. have repeatedly demonstrated that sniffing individually-salient HMs versus double-blind placebos significantly changes quantitative Electroencephalographic (EEG) responses acutely and induces sensitization over time [205,206]. Thus, data indicate that sensory signaling and central nervous system sensitization can play a role in HM effects.

Taken together, the evidence indicates that when an HM dose at a given higher potency contains source material NPs in very small sizes [268] and adjuvant (amplifying) silica NPs from the glassware, it will be biologically more potent than (a) an HM dose at a low potency, i.e., higher concentration of larger sized, less reactive particles and residual bulk material; or (b) the same dose of source NPs lacking nanosilica as adsorbent, stabilizer and amplifier. Biologically, small NPs have extremely high bioavailability and unimpeded capacity to cross cell membranes [62,63].

Once in contact with physiological fluids, serum proteins will adsorb onto the HM nanoparticles surfaces and create a unique biological signature for the composite nanomaterial in the body per se (protein corona) [49,79,130,142,144]. Shape and surface chemistry variations of nanoparticles such as silica NPs modulate the nature of the unique protein corona that adsorbs to the NPs [142,269,270]. According to Walkey and Chan [144], it is necessary to characterize not only the NPs, but also the unique pattern of adsorbed proteins, i.e., the protein corona "adsorbome" that immediately attaches to the NPs on introduction to biological fluids, especially serum proteins [133,144]. This enables researchers to know the "biological identity" of the proteinnanocomposite structures that will develop on interaction with the body [269,271,272]. They propose that it is the biological identity, not the manufactured synthetic nanoparticle identity, which leads to the physiological response.

Considering homeopathy as a form of adaptive network nanomedicine [1] rather than conventional pharmacology leads to predictions consistent with clinical observations. For example, activating the CDR excessively with disease-fostering high intensity stressors overwhelms homeostatic/allostatic dynamics [228,264,265,273] and fosters the emergence of disease and sickness behavior (including fatigue) (Figure 4). Conversely, successful homeopathic treatment with individually chosen low dose, i.e., sub toxic levels of, NPs should reverse this process. HMs would achieve their effects by modulating the adaptive dynamics of the same pre-sensitized metabolic, immune, and neural CDR pathways back toward resilience and health (including the emergent effect of greater global sense of energy and well-being) [1,2,23,188]. Modulating the plasticity of the nervous system pathways per se may reflect quantum mechanical dynamics [274,275].
Clinically and experimentally, homeopaths report that HMs act best in an organism that is already sick or stressed [183,184,276]. In fact, to trigger a reversal in direction, the biological activity of salient HMs probably leverages the pattern of pre-existing large magnitude adaptations that the organism has already generated to the original severe stressor(s) (i.e., oscillation after pre-sensitization or post conditioning hormesis) [2,182]. Much research remains ahead on the adaptive cell danger response (CDR) and its postulated relationship to homeopathic treatment as a mild discrete but salient systemic cross-stressor to the original insult(s). Nevertheless, it is likely that a program of theory-driven research based on the adaptive network nanomedicine model for homeopathy will advance the field more rapidly than uncoordinated basic science studies [277].

Figure 4 shows the putative components of the acute cell danger response and pathways to sickness or to healing. Like NPs, (a) homeopathic medicines can modulate reactive oxygen species [278-281], heat shock proteins [185,254,282], and cytokine release [187,192,198,199,266] and trigger biological signaling cascades in cancer cells [187,188]; and (b) nanoparticles constitute an emerging type of danger signal for cells [81]. Consequently, further systematic examination of the effects of low dose HMs and their constituent NPs on the cell danger response pathway network is likely to be productive [257,282].

Understanding low and high potency homeopathic medicines as various types of nanomedicine opens the door to studying potential mechanisms of action [283]. Very low potencies would exert direct pharmacological and/or hypersensitivity effects related to enhanced bioavailability, drug delivery capacity and duration of action of natural source nanomaterials [284]. Higher potencies in water would bring about their effects as virus-like systemic stressors (i.e., indirectly), based mainly on source-modified silica nanomaterial properties. As salient nanoenhanced signals at higher potencies, the concentrations of the pulsed doses of a well-chosen HM can be very low and still trigger individual bio-reactivity in a state-dependent, nonlinear manner (cf., [203]).

In addition to small amounts of source material NPs, the more prevalent silica NPs would include source-doped nanosilica or silica-shell/source-core NPs, together acting as nanosilica-amplified immune adjuvant [36,53,55,56,121], sub toxic metabolic stressors [80,285], nanocatalysts [117,286], and/ or nanomaterial-induced exogenous danger signals triggering a cell danger response [253]. The clinically reported extended duration of evolving responses to a given HM dose [214] in multiple bodily systems across the organism [287] would reflect the interconnected self-organizing state of the organism and capacity for nonlinear amplification and change [202].

The nature of the specific signal from the homeopathic nanomaterial may emerge from the biochemical [284], electromagnetic [33,98,288], magnetic [289], photon [32,50], and/or quantum mechanical [30,290,291] properties of nanomaterials at different potencies and in various contexts [30,292]. Available evidence suggests that the nature of homeopathic medicines and their mechanisms of action on living systems are complex and multivariate. While any given study may have its limitations and flaws, the convergence of evidence surrounding the major observations on which this model is based is extensive.

Now the biological effects of homeopathic medicines are accessible for objective quantitative study with the sophisticated and highly sensitive tools and technologies of nanobiology. Examining whether or not the specific physical properties of the nanomaterials in HMs, e.g., certain sizes, shapes, surface areas, surface charges (zeta potentials), and/or adsorbents/ dopants, correlate with their effects in vitro and in vivo on subsystems involved in biological adaptation (cf. [49,65,70,76] ) is the next major empirical question for the present hypothesis-driven research model.
Conflict of Interest
Dr. Bell is a consultant to Standard Homeopathic/ Hyland's Inc, a US-based manufacturer of homeopathic remedies. This company did not finance the preparation of this paper or any of the research cited in the article.
Authors' Contribution
The authors discussed the overall conceptual approach presented in this paper. Iris Bell wrote the initial draft, and the co-authors edited the text, adding key points of clarification.
This work was supported in part by grants from the Lotte and John Hecht Memorial Foundation and Alter Med Research Foundation, and past grant from NIH/NCCAM T32 AT01287. Publication costs were supported by funding from the Dr. Prasanta Banerji Homeopathic Research Foundation and Open Health Systems Laboratory. The authors express their appreciation to multiple colleagues who have engaged in thoughtful online discussions and challenges of earlier versions of the concepts discussed in this paper.
Dr. Bell is a consultant to Standard Homeopathic/Hylands Inc, a U.S based manufacturer of homeopathic medicines. This company did not provide any financial support for the paper or its publication costs, and none of the homeopathic studies cited here utilized their products. This work was supported in part by grants from the Lotte and John Hecht Memorial Foundation, Alter Med Research Foundation, and NIH/NCCAM T32 AT01287. Publication costs were supported by funding from the Dr. Prasanta Banerji Homeopathic Research Foundation and Open Health Systems Laboratory.
  1. Bell IR, Schwartz GE. Adaptive network nanomedicine: an integrated model for homeopathic medicine. Front Biosci (Schol Ed). 2013;5:23277079.
  2. Bell  IR, Koithan M. A model for homeopathic remedy effects: low dose nanoparticles, allostatic cross-adaptation, and time-dependent sensitization in a complex adaptive system. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2012;12:191. doi: 10.1186/1472-6882-12-191.
  3. Braydich-Stolle LK, Breitner EK, Comfort KK, Schlager JJ, Hussain SM. Dynamic Characteristics of Silver Nanoparticles in Physiological Fluids: Toxicological Implications. Langmuir. 2014;30. doi:10.1021/la5036079.
  4. Ng CT, Yung LY, Swa HL, Poh RW, Gunaratne J, Bay BH, et al. Altered protein expression profile associated with phenotypic changes in lung fibroblasts co-cultured with gold nanoparticle-treated small airway epithelial cells. Biomaterials. 2015;39:31-38. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.10.063.
  5. Blinova INiskanen JKajankari PKanarbik LKäkinen ATenhu H, et al. Toxicity of two types of silver nanoparticles to aquatic crustaceans Daphnia magna and Thamnocephalus platyurus. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2013;2(5):3456-63. doi: 10.1007/s11356-012-1290-5.
  6. Lee KJ, Browning LM, Nallathamby PD, Desai T, Cherukuri PK, Xu XH. In vivo quantitative study of sized-dependent transport and toxicity of single silver nanoparticles using zebrafish embryos. Chem Res Toxicol. 2012; 25 (5):1029-46. doi: 10.1021/tx300021u.
  7. Iavicoli I, Fontana L, Leso V, Calabrese EJ. Hormetic dose-responses in nanotechnology studies. Sci Total Environ. 2014; 487: 361-74. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.04.023. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.04.023.
  8. Jiao ZH, Li M, Feng YX, Shi JC, Zhang J, Shao B. Hormesis effects of silver nanoparticles at non-cytotoxic doses to human hepatoma cells. PLoS One. 2014; 9 (7): e102564. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102564.
  9. Wu Q, Nouara A, Li Y, Zhang M, Wang W, Tang M, et al. Comparison of toxicities from three metal oxide nanoparticles at environmental relevant concentrations in nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Chemosphere. 2013; 90 (3): 1123-31. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.09.019.
  10. Zhang H, He X, Zhang Z, Zhang P, Li Y, Ma Y, et al. Nano-CeO2 exhibits adverse effects at environmental relevant concentrations. Environ Sci Technol. 2011; 45 (8): 3725-30. doi: 10.1021/es103309n.
  11. Kahru A, Ivask A. Mapping the dawn of nanoecotoxicological research. Acc Chem Res. 2013; 46 (3): 823-33. doi: 10.1021/ar3000212.
  12. Novella S, Roy R, Marcus D, Bell IR, Davidovitch N, Saine A. A debate: homeopathy--quackery or a key to the future of medicine? J Altern Complement Med. 2008; 14 (1): 9-15. doi: 10.1089/acm.2007.0770.
  13. Fisher P. What is homeopathy? An introduction. Front Biosci (Elite Ed). 2012; 4:1669-82.
  14. Elia V, Ausanio G, Gentile F, Germano R, Napoli E, Niccoli M. Experimental evidence of stable water nanostructures in extremely dilute solutions, at standard pressure and temperature. Homeopathy. 2014; 103(1): 44-50. doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2013.08.004.
  15. Demangeat JL. NMR relaxation evidence for solute-induced nanosized superstructures in ultramolecular aqueous dilutions of silica-lactose. J Mol Liq. 2010; 155 (2-3):71-9. doi:10.1016/j.molliq.2010.05.010
  16. Demangeat JL. Nanosized solvent superstructures in ultramolecular aqueous dilutions: twenty years' research using water proton NMR relaxation. Homeopathy. 2013; 102 (2): 87-105. doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2013.01.001.
  17. Konovalov AI, Ryzhkina IS. Highly diluted aqueous solutions: formation of nano-sized molecular assemblies (nanoassociates). Geochem Int. 2014; 52 (13): 1207-26. doi: 10.1134/S0016702914130072.
  18. Chikramane PS, Kalita D, Suresh AK, Kane SG, Bellare JR. Why Extreme Dilutions Reach Non-zero Asymptotes: A Nanoparticulate Hypothesis Based on Froth Flotation. Langmuir. 2012; 28 (45): 15864-75. doi: 10.1021/la303477s.
  19. Chikramane PS, Suresh AK, Bellare JR, Kane SG. Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective. Homeopathy. 2010; 99 (4): 231-42. doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2010.05.006.
  20. Kiel S, Grinberg O, Perkas N, Charmet J, Kepner H, Gedanken A. Forming nanoparticles of water-soluble ionic molecules and embedding them into polymer and glass substrates. Beilstein J Nanotechnol. 2012; 3: 267-76. doi: 10.3762/bjnano.3.30.
  21. Ives JA, Moffett JR, Arun P, Lam D, Todorov TI, Brothers AB, et al. Enzyme stabilization by glass-derived silicates in glass-exposed aqueous solutions. Homeopathy. 2010; 99 (1): 15-24. doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2009.11.006.
  22. Fradkin AH, Carpenter JF, Randolph TW. Glass particles as an adjuvant: a model for adverse immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins. J Pharm Sci. 2011;100 (11): 4953-64. doi: 10.1002/jps.22683.
  23. Bell IR, Sarter B, Koithan M, et al. Nonlinear Response Amplification Mechanisms for Low Doses of Natural Product Nanomedicines: Dynamical Interactions with the Recipient Complex Adaptive System. Journal of Nanomedicine & Nanotechnology. 2013;04. doi:10.4172/2157-7439.1000179.
  24. Bell IR, Schwartz GE, Boyer NN, Koithan M, Brooks AJ. Advances in integrative nanomedicine for improving infectious disease treatment in public health. European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2013;5. doi:10.1016/j.eujim.2012.11.002.
  25. Merisko-Liversidge E, Liversidge GG. Nanosizing for oral and parenteral drug delivery: a perspective on formulating poorly-water soluble compounds using wet media milling technology. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2011;63:427-40. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2010.12.007
  26. Hassan TA, Rangari VK, Rana RK, et al. Sonochemical effect on size reduction of CaCO3 nanoparticles derived from waste eggshells. Ultrason Sonochem. 2013;20:1308-15. doi: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2013.01.016.
  27. Salavati-Niasari M, Javidi J,Dadkhah M. Ball milling synthesis of silica nanoparticles from rice husk ash for drug delivery application. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen. 2013;16:458-62.
  28. Slíva A, Brázda R, Zegzulka J, Dvorský R, Lunáček J, et al. Particle Characterization of Nanoparticle Materials in Water Jet Mill Device. Journal of Scientific Conference Proceedings. 2010;2:45-48.
  29. Caron V, Willart J-F, Lefort R, Derollez P, Danède F, Descamps M. Solid state amorphization kinetic of alpha lactose upon mechanical milling. Carbohydrate Research. 2011;346. doi:10.1016/j.carres.2011.09.004.
  30. Walach H. Entanglement model of homeopathy as an example of generalised entanglement predicted by weak quantum theory. Forschende Komplementarmedizin/Research in Complementary Medicine. 2003;10:192-200.
  31. Belon P, Elia V, Elia L, Montanino M, Napoli E, Niccoli M. Conductometric and calorimetric studies of the serially diluted and agitated solutions. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2008;93. doi:10.1007/s10973-007-8580-z.
  32.  Lenger K, Bajpai RP,Spielmann M. Identification of Unknown Homeopathic Remedies by Delayed Luminescence. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2013;68:321-34.
  33. Montagnier L, Aissa J, Ferris S, et al. Electromagnetic signals are produced by aqueous nanostructures derived from bacterial DNA sequences. Interdisciplinary Sci Comput Life Sci. 2009;1:81-90. doi: 10.1007/s12539-009-0036-7
  34. Liu L, Randolph TW,Carpenter JF. Particles shed from syringe filters and their effects on agitation-induced protein aggregation. J Pharm Sci. 2012;101:2952-9. doi: 10.1002/jps.23225.
  35. Witt CM, Ludtke R, Weisshuhn TE, et al. The role of trace elements in homeopathic preparations and the influence of container material, storage duration, and potentisation. Forsch Komplementarmed. 2006;13:15-21.
  36. Wibowo N, Chuan YP, Seth A, et al. Co-administration of non-carrier nanoparticles boosts antigen immune response without requiring protein conjugation. Vaccine. 2014;32:3664-9. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.04.043.
  37. Al-Sadoon MK, Rabah DM,Badr G. Enhanced anticancer efficacy of snake venom combined with silica nanoparticles in a murine model of human multiple myeloma: molecular targets for cell cycle arrest and apoptosis induction. Cellular immunology. 2013;284(1-2):129-138.
  38. Badr G, Al-Sadoon MK, El-Toni AM, Daghestani M. Walterinnesia aegyptia venom combined with silica nanoparticles enhances the functioning of normal lymphocytes through PI3K/AKT, NF?B and ERK signaling. Lipids Health Dis. 2012;11:22336518. doi:10.1186/1476-511X-11-27.
  39. Badr G, Al-Sadoon MK, Rabah DM, Sayed D. Snake (Walterinnesia aegyptia) venom-loaded silica nanoparticles induce apoptosis and growth arrest in human prostate cancer cells. Apoptosis. 2012;18. doi:10.1007/s10495-012-0787-1.
  40. Sayed D, Al-Sadoon MK, Badr G. Silica Nanoparticles Sensitize Human Multiple Myeloma Cells to Snake (Walterinnesia aegyptia) Venom-Induced Apoptosis and Growth Arrest. Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity. 2012;2012:386286. doi: 10.1155/2012/386286.
  41. Lundqvist M, Stigler J, Cedervall T, et al. The evolution of the protein corona around nanoparticles: a test study. ACS Nano. 2011;5:7503-9. doi: 10.1021/nn202458g
  42. Christen V,Fent K. Silica nanoparticles and silver-doped silica nanoparticles induce endoplasmatic reticulum stress response and alter cytochrome P4501A activity. Chemosphere. 2012;87:423-34. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.12.046
  43. Tumturk H, Yuksekdag H. Acetylcholinesterase immobilized onto PEI-coated silica nanoparticles. Artificial cells Nanomed Biotechnol. 2014;3:1-5.
  44. Cao G, Wang Y. Nanostructures and Nanomaterials: Synthesis, Properties, and Applications. World Scientific; 2011.
  45. Cumbo A, Lorber B, Corvini PF, Meier M, Shahgaldian P, et al. A synthetic nanomaterial for virus recognition produced by surface imprinting. Nat Commun. 2013;4:1503.
  46. Peng Y, Xie Y, Luo J, Nie L, Chen Y, Chen L, et al. Molecularly imprinted polymer layer-coated silica nanoparticles toward dispersive solid-phase extraction of trace sulfonylurea herbicides from soil and crop samples. Anal Chim Acta. 2010;674:190-200.  doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2010.06.022.
  47. Yue CY, Ding GS, Liu FJ, Tang AN, et al. Water-compatible surface molecularly imprinted silica nanoparticles as pseudostationary phase in electrokinetic chromatography for the enantioseparation of tryptophan. J Chromatogr A. 2013;1311:176-182. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2013.08.086.
  48. Zhai C, Lu Q, Chen X, Peng Y, Chen L, Du S, et al. Molecularly imprinted layer-coated silica nanoparticles toward highly selective separation of active diosgenin from Dioscorea nipponica Makino. J Chromatogr A. 2009;1216(12):2254-2262. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2009.01.030.
  49. Saptarshi SR, Duschl A, Lopata AL. Interaction of nanoparticles with proteins: relation to bio-reactivity of the nanoparticle. J Nanobiotechnology. 2013;11:26. doi:  10.1186/1477-3155-11-26.
  50. Rey L. Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride. Physica A: Statistical mechanics and its applications. 2003;323:67-74.
  51. Cartwright S. Pyridinium-N-phenolates as molecular probes of serially diluted and agitated solutions: preliminary results. Homeopathy. 2014;103. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2013.10.012.
  52. Rao M, Roy R, Bell, IR. Characterization of the structure of ultra dilute sols with remarkable biological properties. Materials Letters. 2008;62:1487-1490.
  53. Mahony D, Cavallaro AS, Stahr F, Mahony TJ, Qiao SZ, Mitter N, et al. Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles Act as a Self-Adjuvant for Ovalbumin Model Antigen in Mice. Small. 2013;9(18):3138-3146. doi: 10.1002/smll.201300012
  54. Mody KT, Popat A, Mahony D, Cavallaro AS, Yu C, Mitter N, et al. Mesoporous silica nanoparticles as antigen carriers and adjuvants for vaccine delivery. Nanoscale. 2013;5(12):5167-5179. doi: 10.1039/c3nr00357d.
  55. Vallhov H, Kupferschmidt N, Gabrielsson S, Paulie S, Strømme M, Garcia-Bennett AE, et al. Adjuvant properties of mesoporous silica particles tune the development of effector T cells. Small. 2012;8(13):2116-24. doi: 10.1002/smll.201102620.
  56. Wang T, Jiang H, Zhao Q, Wang S, Zou M, Cheng G, et al. Enhanced mucosal and systemic immune responses obtained by porous silica nanoparticles used as an oral vaccine adjuvant: Effect of silica architecture on immunological properties. Int J Pharm. 2012;436:351-58. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2012.06.028.
  57. Perry CC,Keeling-Tucker T. Crystalline silica prepared at room temperature from aqueous solution in the presence of intrasilica bioextracts. Chem Commun. 1998;9(23):2587-2588. doi10.1039/A807404F.
  58. Okafor F, Janen A, Kukhtareva T, Edwards V, Curley M, et al. Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles, their characterization, application and antibacterial activity. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(10):5221-5238. doi:  10.3390/ijerph10105221.
  59. Das S, Das J, Samadder A, Bhattacharyya SS, Das D, Khuda-Bukhsh AR, et al. Biosynthesized silver nanoparticles by ethanolic extracts of Phytolacca decandra, Gelsemium sempervirens, Hydrastis canadensis and Thuja occidentalis induce differential cytotoxicity through G2/M arrest in A375 cells. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces. 2013;101:325-36. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2012.07.008.
  60. Chahardooli M, Khodadadi E,Khodadadi E. Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles using oak leaf and fruit extracts (Quercus) and its antibacterial activity against plant pathogenic bacteria. International Journal of Biosciences. 2014;4.
  61. Barve R, Chaughule R. Size-dependent in vivo/in vitro results of homoeopathic herbal extracts. Journal of Nanostructure in Chemistry. 2013;3. doi:10.1186/2193-8865-3-18.
  62. Buzea C, Pacheco II, Robbie K. Nanomaterials and nanoparticles: Sources and toxicity. Biointerphases. 2007;2. doi:10.1116/1.2815690.
  63. Armstead AL, Li B. Nanomedicine as an emerging approach against intracellular pathogens. Int J Nanomedicine. 2011;6:22228996. doi:10.2147/IJN.S27285.
  64. Roduner E. Size matters: why nanomaterials are different. Chemical Society Reviews. 2006;35:583-592.
  65. Murugan K, Choonara YE, Kumar P, Bijukumar D, du Toit LC, Pillay V, et al. Parameters and characteristics governing cellular internalization and trans-barrier trafficking of nanostructures. International Journal of Nanomedicine. 2015;10:2191-2206. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S75615.
  66. Silva T, Pokhrel LR, Dubey B, Tolaymat TM, Maier KJ, Liu X, et al. Particle size, surface charge and concentration dependent ecotoxicity of three organo-coated silver nanoparticles: comparison between general linear model-predicted and observed toxicity. Sci Total Environ. 2014;468-469:968-976. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.09.006.
  67. Yoo JW, Yun DS,Kim HJ. Influence of reaction parameters on size and shape of silica nanoparticles. J Nanosci Nanotechnol. 2006;6(11):3343-3346.
  68. Chang X, Duncan LK, Jinschek J, Vikesland PJ. Alteration of nC60 in the presence of environmentally relevant carboxylates. Langmuir. 2012; 28(20):7622-30. doi:10.1021/la3005272.
  69. Atalay S, Ma Y, Qian S. Analytical model for charge properties of silica particles. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2014;425:24776673. doi:10.1016/j.jcis.2014.03.044.
  70. Sarkar S, Zhang L, Subramaniam P, Lee KB, Garfunkel E, Strickland PA, et al. Variability in bioreactivity linked to changes in size and zeta potential of diesel exhaust particles in human immune cells. PLoS One. 2014;9:e97304. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097304.
  71. Rettig L, Haen SP, Bittermann AG, et al. Particle size and activation threshold: a new dimension of danger signaling. Blood. 2010;115(22):4533-4541. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-11-247817.
  72. DeCastro CL,Mitchell BS. Nanoparticles from mechanical attrition. In: Baraton MI. Synthesis, Functionalization, and Surface Treatment of Nanoparticles. Valencia, CA: American Scientific Publisher; 2002. p. 1-15.
  73. Ju-Nam Y, Lead JR. Manufactured nanoparticles: an overview of their chemistry, interactions and potential environmental implications. Sci Total Environ. 2008;400(1-3):396-414. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.06.042.
  74. Niu Y, Yu M, Hartono SB, Yang J, Hongyi X, Hongwei Z, et al. Nanoparticles mimicking viral surface topography for enhanced cellular delivery. Adv Mater. 2013;25:6233-6237.
  75. Xie X, Zhao W, Lee HR, Liu C, Ye M, Xie W, et al. Enhancing the Nanomaterial Bio-Interface by Addition of Mesoscale Secondary Features: Crinkling of Carbon Nanotube Films to Create Subcellular Ridges. ACS Nano. 2014. doi: 10.1021/nn504898p.
  76. Osmond-McLeod MJ, Osmond RI, Oytam Y, McCall MJ, Feltis B, Mackay-Sim A, et al. Surface coatings of ZnO nanoparticles mitigate differentially a host of transcriptional, protein and signalling responses in primary human olfactory cells. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2013;10:54. doi: 10.1186/1743-8977-10-54.
  77. Chang X,Vikesland PJ. Effects of dilution on the properties of nC. Environ Pollut. 2013;181C:51-9.
  78. Shi Z, Huang X, Liu B, Tao H, Cai Y, Tang R, et al. Biological response of osteosarcoma cells to size-controlled nanostructured hydroxyapatite. J Biomater Appl. 2010;25(1):19-37. doi: 10.1177/0885328209339396.
  79. Fadeel B. Clear and present danger? Engineered nanoparticles and the immune system. Swiss Med Wkly. 2012;142:w13609. doi: 10.4414/smw.2012.13609.
  80. Napierska D, Rabolli V, Thomassen LC, et al. Oxidative stress induced by pure and iron-doped amorphous silica nanoparticles in subtoxic conditions. Chem Res Toxicol. 2012;25(4):828-837.  doi: 10.1021/tx200361v.
  81. Gallo PM,Gallucci S. The dendritic cell response to classic, emerging, and homeostatic danger signals. Implications for autoimmunity. Front Immunol. 2013;4:138. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2013.00138.
  82. Iavicoli I, Calabrese EJ, Nascarella MA. Exposure to nanoparticles and hormesis. Dose Response. 2010;8(4):501-517. doi: 10.2203/dose-response.10-016.Iavicoli.
  83. Ahmad Z, Sharma S, Khuller GK. Chemotherapeutic evaluation of alginate nanoparticle-encapsulated azole antifungal and antitubercular drugs against murine tuberculosis. Nanomedicine. 2007;3:17652032. doi:10.1016/j.nano.2007.05.001.
  84. Shirali AC, Look M, Du W, Kassis E, Stout-Delgado HW, Fahmy TM, et al. Nanoparticle delivery of mycophenolic acid upregulates PD-L1 on dendritic cells to prolong murine allograft survival. Am J Transplant. 2011;11(12):2582-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03725.x.
  85. Neuhaus V, Chichester JA, Ebensen T, Schwarz K, Hartman CE, Shoji Y, et al. A new adjuvanted nanoparticle-based H1N1 influenza vaccine induced antigen-specific local mucosal and systemic immune responses after administration into the lung. Vaccine. 2014;32(36):3216-3222. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.04.011.
  86. Cao X, Deng W, Fu M, Zhu Y, Liu H, Wang L, et al. Seventy-two-hour release formulation of the poorly soluble drug silybin based on porous silica nanoparticles: In vitro release kinetics and in vitro/in vivo correlations in beagle dogs. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2013;48. doi:10.1016/j.ejps.2012.10.012.
  87. Naviaux RK. Metabolic features of the cell danger response. Mitochondrion. 2014;16:7-17. doi: 10.1016/j.mito.2013.08.006.
  88. Mu J, Zhuang X, Wang Q, Jiang H, Deng ZB, Wang B, et al. Interspecies communication between plant and mouse gut host cells through edible plant derived exosome-like nanoparticles. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2014;58:1561-73. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.201300729.
  89. Wang B, Zhuang X, Deng ZB, Jiang H, Mu J, Wang Q, et al. Targeted drug delivery to intestinal macrophages by bioactive nanovesicles released from grapefruit. Mol Ther. 2014;22:522-34. doi: 10.1038/mt.2013.190.
  90. Yi S, Wang Y, Huang Y, Xia L, Sun L, Lenaghan SC, et al. Tea nanoparticles for immunostimulation and chemo-drug delivery in cancer treatment. J Biomed Nanotechnol. 2014;10(6):1016-1029.
  91. Ludwig AK,Giebel B. Exosomes: small vesicles participating in intercellular communication. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2012;44(1):11-15. doi: 10.1016/j.biocel.2011.10.005.
  92. Gerhardt A, Mcgraw NR, Schwartz DK, Bee JS, Carpenter JF, Randolph TW, et al. Protein aggregation and particle formation in prefilled glass syringes. J Pharm Sci. 2014;103(6):1601-12. doi: 10.1002/jps.23973.
  93. Belton DJ, Deschaume O, Perry CC. An overview of the fundamentals of the chemistry of silica with relevance to biosilicification and technological advances. FEBS J. 2012;279:22333209. doi:10.1111/j.1742-4658.2012.08531.x.
  94. Perry CC,Keeling-Tucker T. Model studies of colloidal silica precipitation using biosilica extracts from Equisetum telmateia. Colloid and polymer science. 2003;281(7):652-664.
  95. Coradin T,Lopez PJ. Biogenic Silica Patterning: Simple Chemistry or Subtle Biology? ChemBioChem. 2003;4(4):251-259.
  96. Upadhyay RP,Nayak C. Homeopathy emerging as nanomedicine. International Journal of High Dilution Research. 2011;10:299-310.
  97. Stovbun SV, Kiselev AV, Zanin AM, Kalinina TS, Voronina TA, Mikhailov AI, et al. Effects of physicochemical forms of phenazepam and Panavir on their action at ultra-low doses. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2012;153(4):455-458.
  98. Elia V, Marrari LA, Napoli E. Aqueous nanostructures in water induced by electromagnetic fields emitted by EDS. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2012;107(2):843-851.
  99. Rajendran ES. Field emission scanning electron microscopic (FESEM) and energy dispersive specroscopic (EDS) studies of centesimal scale potencies of the homeopathic drug Lycopodium clavatum. American Journal of Homeopathic Medicine. 2015;108:9-18.
  100. Chinnathambi S, Chen S, Ganesan S, Nobutaka Hanagata, et al. Silicon quantum dots for biological applications. Advanced healthcare materials. 2014;3:10-29.
  101. Chen H, Zhen Z, Tang W, Todd T, Chuang YJ, Wang L, et al. Label-free luminescent mesoporous silica nanoparticles for imaging and drug delivery. Theranostics. 2013;3:650-657. doi: 10.7150/thno.6668.
  102. Chaikin Y, Kedem O, Raz J, Vaskevich A, Rubinstein I. Stabilization of Metal Nanoparticle Films on Glass Surfaces Using Ultrathin Silica Coating. Anal Chem. 2013;85. doi:10.1021/ac402020u.
  103. El Hawi N, Nayral C, Delpech F, Coppel Y, Cornejo A, Castel A, et al. Silica nanoparticles grown and stabilized in organic nonalcoholic media. Langmuir. 2009;25(13):7540-7546.
  104. Kaehr B, Townson JL, Kalinich RM, Awad YH, Swartzentruber BS, Dunphy DR, et al. Cellular complexity captured in durable silica biocomposites. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(43):17336-17341.
  105. Jackson E, Ferrari M, Cuestas-Ayllon C, Fernández-Pacheco R ,  Perez-Carvajal J,  de la Fuente JM, et al. Protein-Templated Biomimetic Silica Nanoparticles. Langmuir. 2015;31(12):3687-3695.
  106. Chang B, Zhang X, Guo J, Sun Y, Tang H, Ren Q, et al. General one-pot strategy to prepare multifunctional nanocomposites with hydrophilic colloidal nanoparticles core/mesoporous silica shell structure. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2012;377:22520713. doi:10.1016/j.jcis.2012.03.082.
  107. Wang JG, Xiao Q, Zhou HJ, Ping-Chuan S, Da-Tong D, Tie-Hong C, et al. Anionic surfactant-templated mesoporous silica (AMS) nano-spheres with radially oriented mesopores. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2008;323(2):332-337.
  108. Qiao ZA, Guo B, Binder AJ, Chen J, Veith GM, Dai S, et al. Controlled synthesis of mesoporous carbon nanostructures via a "silica-assisted" strategy. Nano Lett. 2013;13:207-12.  doi: 10.1021/nl303889h.
  109. Yang R, Wang F, Blunk RH, Angelopoulos AP, et al. Competing effects of silanol surface concentration and solvent dielectric constant on electrostatic layer-by-layer assembly of silica nanoparticles on gold. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2010;349:148-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2010.05.026.
  110. Elia V,Niccoli M. Thermodynamics of extremely diluted aqueous solutions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1999;879:241-248.
  111. Cartwright S. Pyridinium-N-phenolates as molecular probes of serially diluted and agitated solutions: preliminary results. Homeopathy. 2014;103(1):65.
  112. Hostanska K, Rostock M, Melzer J, et al. A homeopathic remedy from arnica, marigold, St. John's wort and comfrey accelerates in vitro wound scratch closure of NIH 3T3 fibroblasts. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2012;12:100. doi: 10.1186/1472-6882-12-100.
  113. Shomali M, Freitag A, Engert J, Siedler M, Kaymakcalan Z, Winter G, et al. Antibody responses in mice to particles formed from adsorption of a murine monoclonal antibody onto glass microparticles. J Pharm Sci. 2014;103(1):78-89. doi: 10.1002/jps.23772.
  114. Sacha GA, Saffell-Clemmer W, Abram K, Akers MJ. et al. Practical fundamentals of glass, rubber, and plastic sterile packaging systems. Pharm Dev Technol. 2010;15(1):6-34. doi: 10.3109/10837450903511178.
  115. Cabanillas ED. Micro and Nano Particles Produced by Waterjet Abrasion. Micro and Nano Particles Produced by Waterjet Abrasion. 2010;19:105-108.
  116. Ling TY, Pui DY. Characterization of nanoparticles from abrasive waterjet machining and electrical discharge machining processes. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47(22):12721-12727.
  117. Deraedt C, Astruc D. "Homeopathic" Palladium Nanoparticle Catalysis of Cross Carbon-Carbon Coupling Reactions. Acc. Chem. Res. 2014;47(2):494-503.
  118. Arvela RK, Leadbeater NE, Sangi MS, Williams VA, Granados P, Singer RD. A Reassessment of the Transition-Metal Free Suzuki-Type Coupling Methodology. J Org Chem. 2005;70. doi:10.1021/jo048531j.
  119. Bhattacharyya SS, Mandal SK, Biswas R, Paul S, Pathak S, Boujedaini N, et al. In vitro studies demonstrate anticancer activity of an alkaloid of the plant Gelsemium sempervirens. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2008;233:18997108. doi:10.3181/0805-RM-181.
  120. Winter M, Beer HD, Hornung V, et al. Activation of the inflammasome by amorphous silica and TiO2 nanoparticles in murine dendritic cells. Nanotoxicology. 2011;5(3):326-340. doi: 10.3109/17435390.2010.506957.
  121. Brandenberger C, Rowley NL, Jackson-Humbles DN, Zhang Q, Bramble LA, Lewandowski RP, et al. Engineered silica nanoparticles act as adjuvants to enhance allergic airway disease in mice. Particle and Fibre Toxicology. 2013;10:23815813. doi:10.1186/1743-8977-10-26.
  122. Demento SL, Eisenbarth SC, Foellmer HG, Platt C, Caplan MJ, Mark Saltzman W, et al. Inflammasome-activating nanoparticles as modular systems for optimizing vaccine efficacy. Vaccine. 2009;27(23):3013-3021. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.03.034.
  123. Prakash DJ, Arulkumar S,Sabesan M. Effect of nanohypericum (Hypericum perforatum gold nanoparticles) treatment on restraint stress induced behavioral and biochemical alteration in male albino mice. Pharmacognosy Res. 2010;2(6):330-334. doi: 10.4103/0974-8490.75450.
  124. Biswas A, Gomes A, Sengupta J, Datta P, Singha S, Dasgupta AK, et al. Nanoparticle-conjugated animal venom-toxins and their possible therapeutic potential. J Venom Res. 2012;3:23236583.
  125. Bhatte KD, Fujita S-I, Arai M, Pandit AB, Bhanage BM. Ultrasound assisted additive free synthesis of nanocrystalline zinc oxide. Ultrason Sonochem. 2011;18:20634118. doi:10.1016/j.ultsonch.2010.06.001.
  126. Knuschke T, Sokolova V, Rotan O, Wadwa M, Tenbusch M, Hansen W, et al. Immunization with Biodegradable Nanoparticles Efficiently Induces Cellular Immunity and Protects against Influenza Virus Infection. J Immunol. 2013;190(12):6221-6229. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1202654.
  127. Lankoff A, Arabski M, Wegierek-Ciuk A, Kruszewski M, Lisowska H, Banasik-Nowak A, et al. Effect of surface modification of silica nanoparticles on toxicity and cellular uptake by human peripheral blood lymphocytes in vitro. Nanotoxicology. 2013;7(3):235-50. doi: 10.3109/17435390.2011.649796.
  128. Hayashi Y, Miclaus T, Scavenius C, Kwiatkowska K, Sobota A, Engelmann P, et al. Species Differences Take Shape at Nanoparticles: Protein-Corona Made of the Native Repertoire Assists Cellular Interaction. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013;47(24):14367-14375.
  129. Izak-Nau E, Voetz M, Eiden S, Puntes VF, Duschl A, et al. Altered characteristics of silica nanoparticles in bovine and human serum: the importance of nanomaterial characterization prior to its toxicological evaluation. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2013;10:56. doi: 10.1186/1743-8977-10-56.
  130. Walkey CD, Olsen JB, Guo H, Emili A, Chan WC, et al. Nanoparticle size and surface chemistry determine serum protein adsorption and macrophage uptake. J Am Chem Soc. 2012;134(4):2139-2147. doi: 10.1021/ja2084338.
  131. Gaumet M, Vargas A, Gurny R, Delie F, et al. Nanoparticles for drug delivery: the need for precision in reporting particle size parameters. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2008;69(1):1-9.
  132. Sahu D, Kannan GM,Vijayaraghavan R. Size-dependent effect of zinc oxide on toxicity and inflammatory potential of human monocytes. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2014;77(4):177-191. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2013.853224.
  133. Simovic S, Heard P, Hui H, Peddie F, Davey AK, Lewis A, et al. Dry hybrid lipid-silica microcapsules engineered from submicron lipid droplets and nanoparticles as a novel delivery system for poorly soluble drugs. Mol Pharm. 2009;6(3):861-72. doi: 10.1021/mp900063t.
  134. Niwa T,Danjo K. Design of self-dispersible dry nanosuspension through wet milling and spray freeze-drying for poorly water-soluble drugs. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2013;50(3-4):272-281. doi: 10.1016/j.ejps.2013.07.011.
  135. Sun H, Miyazaki S, Tamamitsu H, Ken-ichi Saitow, et al. One-pot facile synthesis of a concentrated Si nanoparticle solution. Chem Commun (Camb). 2013;49:10302-10304.
  136. Mudunkotuwa IA,Grassian VH. The devil is in the details (or the surface): impact of surface structure and surface energetics on understanding the behavior of nanomaterials in the environment. J Environ Monit. 2011;13(5):1135-44. doi: 10.1039/c1em00002k.
  137. Chang X,Vikesland PJ. Uncontrolled Variability in the Extinction Spectra of C60 Nanoparticle Suspensions. Langmuir. 2013;29:9685-93.
  138. Brown CL, Whitehouse MW, Tiekink ERT, Bushell GR. Colloidal metallic gold is not bio-inert. Inflammopharmacology. 2008;16:18521546. doi:10.1007/s10787-007-0017-6.
  139. Xu L, Liu Y, Chen Z, Li W, Liu Y, Wang L, et al. Morphologically Virus-Like Fullerenol Nanoparticles Act as the Dual-Functional Nanoadjuvant for HIV-1 Vaccine. Adv Mater. 2013;25(41):5928-35. doi: 10.1002/adma.201300583.
  140. Judy JD, Tollamadugu P,Bertsch PM. Pin Oak (Quercus palustris) Leaf Extract Mediated Synthesis of Triangular, Polyhedral and Spherical Gold Nanoparticles. Advances in Nanoparticles. 2012;1(3):79-85.
  141. Elia P, Zach R, Hazan S, Kolusheva S, Ze'ev Porat, Zeiri Y, et al. Green synthesis of gold nanoparticles using plant extracts as reducing agents. International Journal of Nanomedicine. 2014;9:4007-4021.
  142. Mortensen NP, Hurst GB, Wang W, Foster CM, Nallathamby PD, Retterer ST, et al. Dynamic development of the protein corona on silica nanoparticles: composition and role in toxicity. Nanoscale. 2013;5(14):6372-80. doi: 10.1039/c3nr33280b.
  143. Skuland T, Ovrevik J, Lag M, Refsnes M. Role of size and surface area for pro-inflammatory responses to silica nanoparticles in epithelial lung cells: importance of exposure conditions. Toxicol In Vitro. 2014;28(2):146-55. doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2013.10.018.
  144. Walkey CD, Chan WC. Understanding and controlling the interaction of nanomaterials with proteins in a physiological environment. Chem Soc Rev. 2012;41(7):2780-99. doi: 10.1039/c1cs15233e.
  145. Sur I, Altunbek M, Kahraman M, Culha M, et al. The influence of the surface chemistry of silver nanoparticles on cell death. Nanotechnology. 2012;23:375102. doi: 10.1088/0957-4484/23/37/375102.
  146. Sur I, Cam D, Kahraman M, Baysal A, Culha M. Interaction of multi-functional silver nanoparticles with living cells. Nanotechnology. 2010;21(17):175104. doi: 10.1088/0957-4484/21/17/175104.
  147. Tavares Cardoso MA, Talebi M, Soares PA, Yurteri CU, van Ommen JR. Functionalization of lactose as a biological carrier for bovine serum albumin by electrospraying. Int J Pharmaceutics. 2011;414(1-2):1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2011.04.045.
  148. Vengala P, Dintakurthi S, Subrahmanyam CVS. Lactose coated ceramic nanoparticles for oral drug delivery. Journal of Pharmacy Research. 2013;7(6):540-545.
  149. What's so special about the nanoscale? [10/12/13].
  150. Fadeel B, Garcia-Bennett AE. Better safe than sorry: Understanding the toxicological properties of inorganic nanoparticles manufactured for biomedical applications. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2010;62(3):362-374. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2009.11.008.
  151. Dayem AA, Kim B, Gurunathan S, Choi HY, Yang G, Saha SK, et al. Biologically synthesized silver nanoparticles induce neuronal differentiation of SH-SY5Y cells via modulation of reactive oxygen species, phosphatases, and kinase signaling pathways. Biotechnol J. 2014;9:934-43. doi: 10.1002/biot.201400555.
  152. Hoop M, Paunescu D, Stoessel PR, Eichenseher F, Starka WJ, Grass RN, et al. PCR quantification of SiO2 particle uptake in cells in the ppb and ppm range via silica encapsulated DNA barcodes. Chemical Communications. 2014;50:10707-10709.
  153. Ramesh R, Kavitha P, Kanipandian N, Arun S, Thirumurugan R, Subramanian P, et al. Alteration of antioxidant enzymes and impairment of DNA in the SiO(2) nanoparticles exposed zebra fish (Danio rerio). Environ Monit Assess. 2012;185(7):5873-5881. doi: 10.1007/s10661-012-2991-4.
  154. Bar-Ilan O, Chuang CC, Schwahn DJ, Yang S, Joshi S, Pedersen JA, et al. TiO2 nanoparticle exposure and illumination during zebrafish development: mortality at parts per billion concentrations. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47:23510150. doi:10.1021/es304514r.
  155. Kuchibhatla SV, Karakoti AS, Baer DR, Samudrala S, Engelhard MH, Amonette JE, et al. Influence of Aging and Environment on Nanoparticle Chemistry - Implication to Confinement Effects in Nanoceria. The journal of physical chemistry. C, Nanomaterials and interfaces. 2012;116(26):14108-14.
  156. Pan GH, Barras A, Boussekey L, Boukherroub R, et al. Silica Cross-linked Micelles Loading with Silicon Nanoparticles: Preparation and Characterization. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2013;5(15):7042-7049.
  157. Lee SH,Choi Y. Electro-physical properties of composites with nano-sized oxides. J Nanosci Nanotechnol. 2013;13(11):7610-7614.
  158. De Luca A, Grzelczak MP, Pastoriza-Santos I, Liz-Marzán LM, La Deda M, Striccoli M, et al. Dispersed and encapsulated gain medium in plasmonic nanoparticles: a multipronged approach to mitigate optical losses. ACS Nano. 2011;5(7):5823-5829.
  159. Qin T, Gutu T, Jiao J, Chang CH, Rorrer GL. Photoluminescence of silica nanostructures from bioreactor culture of marine diatom Nitzschia frustulum. J Nanosci Nanotechnol. 2008;8(5):2392-8.
  160. Spallino L, Vaccaro L, Sciortino L, Agnello S, Buscarino G, Cannas M, et al. Visible-ultraviolet vibronic emission of silica nanoparticles. Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2014;16(40):22028-22034. doi: 10.1039/c4cp02995j.
  161. Shimotsuma Y, Sakakura M, Miura K, Qiu J, Kazansky PG, Fujita K, et al. Application of femtosecond-laser induced nanostructures in optical memory. J Nanosci Nanotechnol. 2007;7:94-104.
  162. Budich JC, Trauzettel B. Entanglement transfer from electrons to photons in quantum dots: an open quantum system approach. Nanotechnology. 2010;21. doi:10.1088/0957-4484/21/27/274001.
  163. Walter S, Budich J, Eisert J. Entanglement of nanoelectromechanical oscillators by Cooper-pair tunneling. Physical Review B. 2013;88: 035441.
  164. Yao P,Hughes S. Macroscopic entanglement and violation of Bell's inequalities between two spatially separated quantum dots in a planar photonic crystal system. Opt Express. 2009;17(14):11505-14.
  165. Berec V. Quantum Entanglement and Spin Control in Silicon Nanocrystal. PLoS ONE. 2012;7. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045254.
  166. Rao KS, El-Hami K, Kodaki T, Matsushige K, Makino K. A novel method for synthesis of silica nanoparticles. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2005;289(1):125-31.
  167. Katti KK, Kattumuri V, Bhaskaran S, et al. Facile and General Method for Synthesis of Sugar Coated Gold Nanoparticles. Int J of green nanotechnol. Biomed. 2009;1(1):B53-B9.
  168. Zhu M, Li Y, Shi J, Feng W, Nie G, Zhao Y. Exosomes as Extrapulmonary Signaling Conveyors for Nanoparticle-Induced Systemic Immune Activation. Small. 2012;8(3):404-12.
  169. Zhu M, Tian X, Song X, Li Y, Tian Y, Zhao Y, et al. Nanoparticle-induced exosomes target antigen-presenting cells to initiate Th1-type immune activation. Small. 2012;8:2841-8. doi: 10.1002/smll.201200381.
  170. Urban C, Urban AS, Charron H, Joshi A, et al. Externally modulated theranostic nanoparticles. Translational cancer research. 2013;2(4):292-308.
  171. Al-Rawi M, Diabaté S, Weiss C. Uptake and intracellular localization of submicron and nano-sized SiO2 particles in HeLa cells. Arch Toxicol. 2011;85:21240478. doi:10.1007/s00204-010-0642-5.
  172. Tan A, De La Pena H, Seifalian AM. The application of exosomes as a nanoscale cancer vaccine. Int J Nanomedicine. 2010;5:889-900. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S13402.
  173. Lugade AA, Bharali DJ, Pradhan V, Elkin G, Mousa SA, Thanavala Y, et al. Single low-dose un-adjuvanted HBsAg nanoparticle vaccine elicits robust, durable immunity. Nanomedicine. 2013;9:923-34. doi: 10.1016/j.nano.2013.03.008.
  174. Savage DJ, Liu X, Curley SA, Ferrari M, Serda RE. Porous silicon advances in drug delivery and immunotherapy. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2013;13:834-41.
  175. Bershteyn A, Hanson MC, Crespo MP, Moon JJ, Li AV, Suh H, et al. Robust IgG responses to nanograms of antigen using a biomimetic lipid-coated particle vaccine. J Control Release. 2012;157:21820024. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2011.07.029.
  176. Ahamed M. Silica nanoparticles-induced cytotoxicity, oxidative stress and apoptosis in cultured A431 and A549 cells. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2013;32:23315277. doi:10.1177/0960327112459206.
  177. Karmakar A, Zhang Q,Zhang Y. Neurotoxicity of nanoscale materials. J Food Drug Anal. 2014;22(1):147-160. doi: 10.1016/j.jfda.2014.01.012.
  178. Kodali V, Littke MH, Tilton SC, Teeguarden JG, Shi L, Frevert CW, et al. Dysregulation of macrophage activation profiles by engineered nanoparticles. ACS Nano. 2013;7:6997-7010.  doi: 10.1021/nn402145t. 
  179. Manke A, Wang L, Rojanasakul Y. Mechanisms of nanoparticle-induced oxidative stress and toxicity. BioMed research international. 2013;2013:942916. doi: 10.1155/2013/942916.
  180. Sarrafchi A, Odhammer AM, Hernandez Salazar LT, Laska M. Olfactory sensitivity for six predator odorants in CD-1 mice, human subjects, and spider monkeys. PLoS One. 2013;8:e80621. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080621.
  181. Bellavite P, Olioso D, Marzotto M, Moratti E, Conforti A. A dynamic network model of the similia principle. Complement Ther Med. 2013;21:24280484. doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2013.09.001.
  182. Van Wijk R, Wiegant FA. Postconditioning hormesis and the homeopathic Similia principle: molecular aspects. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2010;29(7):561-565. doi: 10.1177/0960327110369860.
  183. Bertani S, Lussignoli S, Andrioli G, et al. Dual effects of a homeopathic mineral complex on carrageenan-induced oedema in rats. Br Homeopath J. 1999; 88(3):101-5.
  184. Bousta D, Soulimani R, Jarmouni I, Belon P, Falla J, Froment N, et al. Neurotropic, immunological and gastric effects of low doses of Atropa belladonna L., Gelsemium sempervirens L. and Poumon histamine in stressed mice. J Ethnopharmacol. 2001;74:11274819.
  185. Van Wijk R, Wiegant FA. Postconditioning hormesis and the similia principle. Front Biosci (Elite Ed). 2011;3:1128-38.
  186. Wiegant FA, Spieker N,van Wijk R. Stressor-specific enhancement of hsp induction by low doses of stressors in conditions of self- and cross-sensitization. Toxicology. 1998;127(1-3):107-119.
  187. Saha S, Hossain DM, Mukherjee S, Mohanty S, Mazumdar M, Mukherjee S, et al. Calcarea carbonica induces apoptosis in cancer cells in p53-dependent manner via an immuno-modulatory circuit. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2013;13:230.
  188. Khuda-Bukhsh AR, Bhattacharyya SS, Paul S, Dutta S, Boujedaini N, Belon P, et al. Modulation of Signal Proteins: A Plausible Mechanism to Explain How a Potentized Drug Secale Cor 30C Diluted beyond Avogadro's Limit Combats Skin Papilloma in Mice. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2011;2011:286320. doi: 10.1093/ecam/nep084.
  189. Bigagli E, Luceri C, Bernardini S, Dei A, Filippini A, Dolara P. Exploring the effects of homeopathic Apis mellifica preparations on human gene expression profiles. Homeopathy. 2014;103:24685417. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2014.01.003.
  190. Marzotto M, Olioso D, Brizzi M, Tononi P, Cristofoletti M, Bellavite P, et al. Extreme sensitivity of gene expression in human SH-SY5Y neurocytes to ultra-low doses of Gelsemium sempervirens. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014;14:104. doi: 10.1186/1472-6882-14-104.
  191. Marotti I, Betti L, Bregola V, Bosi S, Trebbi G, Borghini G, et al. Transcriptome Profiling of Wheat Seedlings following Treatment with Ultrahigh Diluted Arsenic Trioxide. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2014;2014:851263. doi: 10.1155/2014/851263.
  192. de Oliveira CC, de Oliveira SM, Goes VM, Probst CM, Krieger MA, Buchi Dde F, et al. Gene expression profiling of macrophages following mice treatment with an immunomodulator medication. J Cell Biochem. 2008;104:1364-77. doi: 10.1002/jcb.21713.
  193. Avena NM, Hoebel BG. Amphetamine-sensitized rats show sugar-induced hyperactivity (cross-sensitization) and sugar hyperphagia. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2003;74:12543229.
  194. Ferris MJ, Frederick-Duus D, Fadel J, Mactutus CF, Booze RM. Hyperdopaminergic tone in HIV-1 protein treated rats and cocaine sensitization. J Neurochem. 2010;115(4):885-96. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2010.06968.x.
  195. Antelman SM, Caggiula AR. Oscillation follows drug sensitization: implications. Crit Rev Neurobiol. 1996;10:8853956.
  196. Antelman SM, Caggiula AR, Kocan D, Knopf S, Meyer D, Edwards DJ, et al. One experience with "lower" or "higher" intensity stressors, respectively enhances or diminishes responsiveness to haloperidol weeks later: implications for understanding drug variability. Brain Res. 1991;566:1814544.
  197. Anton S, Evengaard K, Barrozo RB, Anderson P, Skals N. Brief predator sound exposure elicits behavioral and neuronal long-term sensitization in the olfactory system of an insect. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:21300865. doi:10.1073/pnas.1008840108.
  198. Ramachandran C, Nair PK, Clement RT, Melnick SJ. Investigation of cytokine expression in human leukocyte cultures with two immune-modulatory homeopathic preparations. J Altern Complement Med. 2007;13(4):403-407.
  199. Porozov S, Cahalon L, Weiser M, Branski D, Lider O, Oberbaum M. Inhibition of IL-1beta and TNF-alpha secretion from resting and activated human immunocytes by the homeopathic medication Traumeel S. Clinical & Developmental Immunology. 2004;11:143-149.
  200. Oberbaum M, Spira RM, Lukasiewicz E, Armon Y, Samuels N, Singer SR, et al. Effect of Traumeel S on cytokine profile in a cecal ligation and puncture (CLP) sepsis model in rats. J Altern Complement Med. 2011;17:909-913. doi: 10.1089/acm.2011.0205.
  201. Calabrese EJ, Jonas WB. Homeopathy: clarifying its relationship to hormesis. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2010;29(7):531-6.  doi: 10.1177/0960327110369857.
  202. Pincus D, Metten A. Nonlinear dynamics in biopsychosocial resilience. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci. 2010;14(4):353-80.
  203. Witt C, Albrecht H. New Directions in Homeopathy Research. In: Essen, Germany: KVC Verlag; 2009.p.169.
  204. Bornhöft G, Matthiessen PF, editors. Homeopathy in Healthcare – Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2011.
  205. Iris RB Brooks AJ. Acute Electroencephalographic Effects From Repeated Olfactory Administration of Homeopathic Remedies in Individuals With Self-reported Chemical Sensitivity. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. n.d.;19.
  206. Bell IR, Lewis DA, Lewis SE, Schwartz GE, Brooks AJ, Scott A, et al. EEG alpha sensitization in individualized homeopathic treatment of fibromyalgia. Int J Neurosci. 2004;114:15370183. doi:10.1080/00207450490475724.
  207. Bell IR, Howerter A, Jackson N, Aickin M, Baldwin CM, Bootzin RR. Effects of homeopathic medicines on polysomnographic sleep of young adults with histories of coffee-related insomnia. Sleep Med. 2011;12:20673648. doi:10.1016/j.sleep.2010.03.013.
  208. Jager T, Scherr C, Shah D, Majewsky V, Betti L, Trebbi G, et al. Use of homeopathic preparations in experimental studies with abiotically stressed plants. Homeopathy. 2011;100(4):275-287. doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2011.05.008.
  209. Bellavite P, Conforti A, Marzotto M, Magnani P, Cristofoletti M, Olioso D, et al. Testing Homeopathy in Mouse Emotional Response Models: Pooled Data Analysis of Two Series of Studies. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2012;2012. doi:10.1155/2012/954374.
  210. Bellavite P, Marzotto M, Chirumbolo S, Conforti A. Advances in homeopathy and immunology: a review of clinical research. Front Biosci (Schol Ed). 2011;3:21622275.
  211. Burbano RR, Leal MF, da Costa JB, Bahia M de O, de Lima PDL, Khayat AS, et al. Lymphocyte proliferation stimulated by activated human macrophages treated with Canova. Homeopathy. 2009;98:19135959. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2008.11.011.
  212. Leal MF, Antunes LM, Lamarao MF, da Silva CE, da Silva ID, Assumpção PP, et al. The protective effect of Canova homeopathic medicine in cyclophosphamide-treated non-human primates. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012;50(12):4412-20. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.09.002.
  213. Oberbaum M, Glatthaar-Saalmuller B, Stolt P, Weiser M. Antiviral activity of Engystol: an in vitro analysis. J Altern Complement Med. 2005;11(5):855-62.
  214. Sukul NC, Bala, S.K., Bhattacharyya, B. Prolonged cataleptogenic effects of potentized homoeopathic drugs. Psychopharmacology. 1986;89(3):338-339.
  215. Calabrese EJ. Hormetic mechanisms. Crit Rev in Toxicol. 2013;43(7):580-606.  doi: 10.3109/10408444.2013.808172.
  216. Bell IR, Koithan M. Models for the Study of Whole Systems. Integr Cancer Ther. 2006;5:17101758. doi:10.1177/1534735406295293.
  217. Koithan M, Bell IR, Niemeyer K, Pincus D. A complex systems science perspective for whole systems of CAM research. Forschende Komplementarmedizin und Klassische Naturheilkunde. 2012;19:7-14. doi: 10.1159/000335181.
  218. Koithan M, Verhoef M, Bell IR, White M, Mulkins A, Ritenbaugh C, et al. The process of whole person healing: "unstuckness" and beyond. J Altern Complement Med. 2007;13(6):659-668.
  219. Bell IR, Sarter B, Koithan M, Banerji P, Banerji P, Jain S, et al. Integrative nanomedicine: treating cancer with nanoscale natural products. Glob Adv Health Med. 2014;3:24753994. doi:10.7453/gahmj.2013.009.
  220. Bell IR, Koithan M, Brooks AJ. Testing the nanoparticle-allostatic cross-adaptation-sensitization model for homeopathic remedy effects. Homeopathy. 2013;102:23290882. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2012.10.005.
  221. Gualtieri M, Skuland T, Iversen TG, Låg M, Schwarze P, Bilaničová D, et al. Importance of agglomeration state and exposure conditions for uptake and pro-inflammatory responses to amorphous silica nanoparticles in bronchial epithelial cells. Nanotoxicology. 2012;6(7):700-12. doi: 10.3109/17435390.2011.604441.
  222. Sandberg WJ, Lag M, Holme JA, Friede B, Gualtieri M, Kruszewski M, et al. Comparison of non-crystalline silica nanoparticles in IL-1beta release from macrophages. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2012;9:32. doi: 10.1186/1743-8977-9-32.
  223. Hahnemann S, Wenda Brewster O'Reilly. Organon of the Medical Art.  6th ed. Redmond, WA: Birdcage Books; 1843.
  224. Cesar B, Abud APR, de Oliveira CC, Cardoso F, Gremski W, Gabardo J, et al. Activation of mononuclear bone marrow cells treated in vitro with a complex homeopathic medication. Micron. 2008;39:17379529. doi:10.1016/j.micron.2007.02.005.
  225. Pereira WK, Lonardoni MV, Grespan R, Caparroz-Assef SM, Cuman RK, Bersani-Amado CA. et al. Immunomodulatory effect of Canova medication on experimental Leishmania amazonensis infection. J Infect. 2005;51(2):157-64.
  226. Patil CR, Salunkhe PS, Gaushal MH, Gadekar AR, Agrawal AM, Surana SJ. Immunomodulatory activity of Toxicodendron pubescens in experimental models. Homeopathy. 2009;98(3):154-159. doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2009.02.011.
  227. Smit E, Oberholzer HM,Pretorius E. A review of immunomodulators with reference to Canova. Homeopathy. 2009;98:169-76. doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2009.05.001.
  228. Karatsoreos IN,McEwen BS. Psychobiological allostasis: resistance, resilience and vulnerability. Trends Cogn Sci. 2011;15:576-84.  doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.10.005.
  229. Xue Y, Chen Q, Ding T, Sun J, et al. SiO2 nanoparticle-induced impairment of mitochondrial energy metabolism in hepatocytes directly and through a Kupffer cell-mediated pathway in vitro. Int J Nanomedicine. 2014;9:2891-903. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S60661.
  230. Frass M, Dielacher C, Linkesch M, Endler C, Muchitsch I, Schuster E, et al. Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients. Chest. 2005;127(3):936-41.
  231. Frass M, Linkesch M, Banyai S, Resch G, Dielacher C, Löbl T, et al. Adjunctive homeopathic treatment in patients with severe sepsis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in an intensive care unit. Homeopathy. 2005;94(2):75-80.
  232. Schneider C, Schneider B, Hanisch J, van Haselen R. The role of a homoeopathic preparation compared with conventional therapy in the treatment of injuries: an observational cohort study. Complement Ther Med. 2008;16:22-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2007.04.004. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2007.04.004.
  233. Reilly D, Taylor MA, Beattie NG, Campbell JH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC, et al. Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible? Lancet. 1994;344(8937):1601-1606.
  234. Riley D, Fischer M, Singh B, Haidvogl M, Heger M, et al. Homeopathy and conventional medicine: an outcomes study comparing effectiveness in a primary care setting. J Altern & Complement Med            . 2001;7(2):149-159.
  235. Rossi E, Bartoli P, Bianchi A, Da Frè M. Homeopathy in paediatric atopic diseases: long-term results in children with atopic dermatitis. Homeopathy. 2012;101(1):13-20. doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2011.09.003.
  236. Rossi E, Crudeli L, Endrizzi C, Garibaldi D, et al. Cost-benefit evaluation of homeopathic versus conventional therapy in respiratory diseases. Homeopathy. 2009;98(1):2-10. doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2008.11.005.
  237. Witt CM, Luedtke R, Baur R, Willich SN. Homeopathic Medical Practice: Long-term results of a Cohort Study with 3981 Patients. BMC Public Health. 2005;5:115.
  238. Witt CM, Ludtke R, Mengler N, Willich SN. How healthy are chronically ill patients after eight years of homeopathic treatment? - Results from a long term observational study. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:413. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-413.
  239. Gibson RG, Gibson SL, MacNeill AD, Buchanan WW. Homoeopathic therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: evaluation by double-blind clinical therapeutic trial. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 1980;9(5):453-459.
  240. Bell IR, Lewis DA, Brooks AJ, Schwartz GE, Lewis SE, Walsh BT, et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2004;43:14734789. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keh111.
  241. Chapman EH, Weintraub RJ, Milburn MA, Pirozzi TO, Woo E, et al. Homeopathic treatment of mild traumatic brain injury: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1999;14(6):521-542.
  242. Frei H, Everts R, von Ammon K, Kaufmann F, Walther D, Hsu-Schmitz SF, et al. Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. Eur J Pediatr. 2005;164(12):758-767.
  243. Lansky AL. Impossible Cure: The Promise of Homeopathy: Portola Valley, CA: R.L. Ranch Press; 2003.p.320.
  244. Prasanta B, Pratip B: "The Banerji Protocols. A New Method of Treatment with Homeopathic Medicine." Homoeopathic Links. 2014;27. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1368328.
  245. Banerji P, Campbell DR, Banerji P. Cancer patients treated with the Banerji protocols utilising homoeopathic medicine: a Best Case Series Program of the National Cancer Institute USA. Oncol Rep. 2008;20:18575720.
  246. Nygaard UC, Samuelsen M, Marioara CD, Løvik M. Carbon nanofibers have IgE adjuvant capacity but are less potent than nanotubes in promoting allergic airway responses. Biomed Res Int. 2013; 2013: 476010. doi: 10.1155/2013/476010.
  247. Milisav I, Poljsak B, Suput D. Adaptive response, evidence of cross-resistance and its potential clinical use. Int J Mol Sci. 2012; 13 (9): 10771-806. doi: 10.3390/ijms130910771.
  248. Yang B, Wang Q, Lei R, Wu C, Shi C, Wang Q, et al. Systems toxicology used in nanotoxicology: mechanistic insights into the hepatotoxicity of nano-copper particles from toxicogenomics. J Nanosci Nanotechnol. 2010; 10 (12): 8527-37.
  249. Pacheco PM, LE B, White D, Sulchek T. Tunable complement activation by particles with variable size and Fc density. Nano Life. 2013; 3 (2): 1341001.
  250. Hornung V, Bauernfeind F, Halle A, Samstad EO, Kono H, Rock KL, et al.  Silica crystals and aluminum salts activate the NALP3 inflammasome through phagosomal destabilization. Nat Immunol. 2008; 9 (8): 847-56. doi: 10.1038/ni.1631.
  251. Skeldon A, Saleh M. The inflammasomes: molecular effectors of host resistance against bacterial, viral, parasitic, and fungal infections. Front Microbiol. 2011; 2:15. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2011.00015.
  252. Naviaux RK, Zolkipli Z, Wang L, Nakayama T, Naviaux JC, Le TP, et al. Antipurinergic therapy corrects the autism-like features in the poly(IC) mouse model. PLoS One. 2013; 8 (3): e57380. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057380.
  253. Riteau N, Baron L, Villeret B, Guillou N, Savigny F, Ryffel B, et al.  ATP release and purinergic signaling: a common pathway for particle-mediated inflammasome activation. Cell Death Dis. 2012; 3: e403. doi: 10.1038/cddis.2012.144.
  254. Wiegant F, Van Wijk R. The similia principle: results obtained in a cellular model system. Homeopathy. 2010; 99 (1): 3-14. doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2009.10.002.
  255. Zanin-Zhorov A, Cohen IR. Signaling via TLR2 and TLR4 Directly Down-Regulates T Cell Effector Functions: The Regulatory Face of Danger Signals. Front Immunol. 2013; 4: 211. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2013.00211.
  256. Molino NM, Anderson AK, Nelson EL, Wang SW. Biomimetic protein nanoparticles facilitate enhanced dendritic cell activation and cross-presentation. ACS Nano. 2013; 7 (11): 9743-52. doi: 10.1021/nn403085w.
  257. Demirovic D,Rattan SI. Establishing cellular stress response profiles as biomarkers of homeodynamics, health and hormesis. Exp Gerontol. 2013;48(1):94-98. doi: 10.1016/j.exger.2012.02.005.
  258. Wiegant FA, Prins HA, Van Wijk R. Postconditioning hormesis put in perspective: an overview of experimental and clinical studies. Dose Response. 2011; 9 (2): 209-24. doi: 10.2203/dose-response.10-004.
  259. Antelman SM, Soares JC, Gershon S. Time-dependent sensitization - possible implications for clinical psychopharmacology. Behavioural Pharmacology. 1997;8. doi:10.1097/00008877-199711000-00006.
  260. Caggiula AR, Antelman SM, Kucinski BJ, Fowler H, Edwards DJ, Austin MC, et al. Oscillatory-sensitization model of repeated drug exposure: cocaine's effects on shock-induced hypoalgesia. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 1998;22(3):511-21.
  261. Kucinski BJ, Antelman SM, Caggiula AR, Fowler H, Gershon S, Edwards DJ, et al. Oscillatory effects of repeated morphine on shock-induced hypoalgesia and beta-endorphin. Synapse. 1998;30(1):30-37.
  262. Coffey DS. Self-organization, complexity, and chaos: the new biology for medicine. Nature Medicine. 1998;4(8):882-885.
  263. McCarthy DA, Ranganathan A, Subbaram S, Flaherty NL, Patel N, Trebak M, et al. Redox-control of the alarmin, Interleukin-1alpha. Redox biology. 2013;1:218-25. doi: 10.1016/j.redox.2013.03.001.
  264. Danese A, McEwen BS. Adverse childhood experiences, allostasis, allostatic load, and age-related disease. Physiol Behav. 2012;106:29-39. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.08.019.
  265. Juster RP, McEwen BS,Lupien SJ. Allostatic load biomarkers of chronic stress and impact on health and cognition. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2010;35(1):2-16. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.10.002.
  266. Siqueira CM, Costa B, Amorim AM, Castelo-Branco M, Takyia C, Zancan P, et al. H3N2 homeopathic influenza virus solution modifies cellular and biochemical aspects of MDCK and J774G8 cell lines. Homeopathy. 2013;102:31-40. doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2012.10.003.
  267. McCusker RH, Kelley KW. Immune-neural connections: how the immune system's response to infectious agents influences behavior. The Journal of experimental biology. 2013;216(1):84-98. doi: 10.1242/jeb.073411.
  268. Pasupuleti S, Alapati S, Ganapathy S, Anumolu G, Pully NR, Prakhya BM, et al. Toxicity of zinc oxide nanoparticles through oral route. Toxicol Ind Health. 2012;28:675-86. doi: 10.1177/0748233711420473.
  269. Laurent S, Burtea C, Thirifays C, Rezaee F, Mahmoudi M, et al. Significance of cell "observer" and protein source in nanobiosciences. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2013;392:431-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2012.10.005.
  270. Tao L, Hu W, Liu Y, Huang G, Sumer BD, Gao J. Shape-specific polymeric nanomedicine: emerging opportunities and challenges. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2011;236:20-9. doi: 10.1258/ebm.2010.010243.
  271. Lesniak A, Salvati A, Santos-Martinez MJ, Radomski MW, Dawson KA, Åberg C, et al. Nanoparticle adhesion to the cell membrane and its effect on nanoparticle uptake efficiency. J Am Chem Soc. 2013;135:1438-44. doi: 10.1021/ja309812z. 
  272. Lesniak A, Fenaroli F, Monopoli MP, Åberg C, Dawson KA, Salvati A. Effects of the presence or absence of a protein corona on silica nanoparticle uptake and impact on cells. ACS Nano. 2012;6(7):5845-57.  doi: 10.1021/nn300223w.
  273. McEwen BS. Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators: central role of the brain. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2006;8(4):367-81.
  274. Schwartz JM, Stapp HP,Beauregard M. Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: a neurophysical model of mind-brain interaction. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2005;360(1458):1309-27.
  275. Vithoulkas G, Muresanu DF. Conscience and consciousness: a definition. J Med Life. 2014;7(1):104-108.
  276. Baumgartner S. The State of Basic Research on Homeopathy. In: Witt C, Albrecht H. New Directions in Homeopathy Research. Essen, Germany: KVC Verlag; 2009. p.107-130.
  277. Platt JR. Strong inference. Science. 1964;146(3642):347-53.
  278. Das D, De A, Dutta S, Biswas R, Boujedaini N, Khuda-Bukhsh AR, et al. Potentized homeopathic drug Arsenicum Album 30C positively modulates protein biomarkers and gene expressions in Saccharomyces cerevisae exposed to arsenate. Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao. 2011;9(7):752-60.
  279. de Oliveira CC, de Oliveira SM, Godoy LM, Gabardo J, Buchi Dde F. Canova, a Brazilian medical formulation, alters oxidative metabolism of mice macrophages. J Infect. 2006;52(6):420-432.
  280. De A, Das D, Dutta S, Das D, Chakraborty D, Boujedaini N, et al. Potentized homeopathic drug Arsenicum Album 30C inhibits intracellular reactive oxygen species generation and up-regulates expression of arsenic resistance gene in arsenine-exposed bacteria Escherichia coli. J Chinese Integrative Med. 2012;10:210-227.
  281. Zilinskas J, Zekonis J, Zekonis G, Šadzevičienė R, Sapragonienė M, Navickaitė J, et al. Inhibition of peripheral blood neutrophil oxidative burst in periodontitis patients with a homeopathic medication Traumeel S. Med Sci Monit. 2011;17(5):CR284-91.
  282. Rattan SI, Deva T. Testing the hormetic nature of homeopathic interventions through stress response pathways. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2010;29(7):551-554. doi: 10.1177/0960327110369858.
  283. Bell IR, Sarter B, Standish LJ, Banerji P, Banerji P. Low Doses of Traditional Nanophytomedicines for Clinical Treatment: Manufacturing Processes and Nonlinear Response Patterns. Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. 2015;15. doi:10.1166/jnn.2015.9481.
  284. Chakraborti D, Mukherjee SC, Saha KC, Chowdhury UK, Rahman MM, Sengupta MK. Arsenic toxicity from homeopathic treatment. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 2003;41:14705842.
  285. Andersson-Willman B, Gehrmann U, Cansu Z, Buerki-Thurnherr T, Krug HF, Gabrielsson S, et al. Effects of subtoxic concentrations of TiO2 and ZnO nanoparticles on human lymphocytes, dendritic cells and exosome production. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2012;264:22842014. doi:10.1016/j.taap.2012.07.021.
  286. Badurová E, Raabová K, Bulánek R. One-pot synthesis of iron doped mesoporous silica catalyst for propane ammoxidation. Dalton Trans. 2014;43:24445947. doi:10.1039/c3dt52695j.
  287. Oberbaum M, Singer SR, Vithoulkas G. The colour of the homeopathic improvement: the multidimensional nature of the response to homeopathic therapy. Homeopathy. 2005;94(3):196-199.
  288. Del Giudice E, Preparata G. Coherent electrodynamics in water. In: Schulte J, Endler, P.C. Fundamental Research in Ultra High Dilution and Homeopathy. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1998. p. 89-103.
  289. Ventura C. CAM and cell fate targeting: molecular and energetic insights into cell growth and differentiation. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2005;2(3):277-283.
  290. Beauvais F. A quantum-like model of homeopathy clinical trials: importance of in situ randomization and unblinding. Homeopathy. 2013;102:23622260. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2013.02.006.
  291. Tournier A. Quantum coherence domains and nanoparticles - one and the same thing? Homeopathy. 2014;103(1):79-80.
  292. Walach H. Generalized entanglement: a new theoretical model for understanding the effects of complementary and alternative medicine. J Altern Complement Med. 2005;11(3):549-59.



Listing : ICMJE   

Creative Commons License Open Access by Symbiosis is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License