That is an interesting question--regarding the example of the AIDS nosode.

No doubt everyone is aware that as a remedy it probably would not be of much use for treating AIDS. (Just as everyone is aware that all the nosodes are not as effective as other remedies for treating their "respective" diseases).

But, if you were to read the AIDS proving notes and its effects on provers who are not suffering from AIDS at all, you can see just how useful and curative that nosode is for other, very real, very deep, illnesses. One prover in particular found the proving to be so curative--what would have become of that patient, had she never had the good fortune to stumble on that nosode? The answer is, she'd probably experience partial cure with a long, convoluted string of remedies which would produce a series of partial suppressions, ameliorations, aggravations, and at best, some form of health stability.

Tuberculinum and psorinum are so curative for so many people who don't actually have tuberculosis or scabies; carcinosin is also so curative for people who don't actually have cancer (just read Amy Lansky's article about her son's autism, and how carcinosin cured him).

In certain circles right now it is fashionable for people to put down nosodes. But if the nosode remedy fits the case, and it cures, the nosode is no more worthy of criticism or praise than any other remedy. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say; and if nosodes were really the "nothing remedies" some like to say they are, they would never have brought about such cure when used homeopathically.

If the whole argument focuses on the fact that they can't be used against their "respective diseases", then I agree; but that's isopathy--not homeopathy. I'm not an isopath.

Divina

Divina

__________________
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine