1) Salut Mesdames,

I read a good Ca-specialist-homoeo-doctor's Case in a medical journal recently, which I used for my seminar with Dr. Leela, and the author makes some good points on these nosodes ( which he sometimes uses for ca treatment, sometimes not, other doctors never ).

(1) You have to ask the manufacturer what their remedy is made from. Even where of the same type quality can differ considerably, and hence effectiveness ( as he experienced in that case, when he switched to another manuf.'s product, which clearly helped much better than the previous one, even at a much lower potency ).
If they refuse to give you the required information, then take that as a warning and leave it !

(2) When he prescribes according to symptoms and repertory, i.e. the traditional "Carc", then it has to be the very same stuff, from Breast Ca tissue, as Ricky pointed out, because that is what they had used for the proving.

(3) When he uses it according to a "Nosode-for-related-disease" approach, i.e. the Burnett tradition, you would probably get some result with any well-prepared Ca tissue remedy, but the best is to have one prepared from as similar a tissue to your case as possible, which sounds quite plausible, does it not ?
I vaguely remember that also Ramakrishnan pays attention to that, plus looking at type of ca in addition to locality, like Scirrhinum Nosode ( from liver ca tissue ) for "hard type" etc.

- What that dutch guy does, is quite different, as you have outlined. It is apparently based on a medico-philosophical concept, i.e. speculation, not a proving, plus quoting one's own good results, what everyone does for their own method. According to these ideas of "universal layers" it seems logic that he would use sort of a "de-individualized" "remedy", composed of "all the different facets of the phaenomenon Cancer in humans".
I would not call that "homoeopathy", going by principles and word origin. From what little I read about his method I remember that he thinks that clients will benefit from his approach AFTER they had been treated with "their individual remedy" ( just one ? ), in the traditional homoeopathic way, when many would not be considered really sick any more, but they are still far away from vibrant health and good vitality, as is apparently the norm in our societies.
So I prefer to be sceptic, unless I have learned more about that approach ( not my priority ), and above all have seen results, or reliable documentation, which show that this is indeed a valuable addition ( not substitute, if I got that right ). But I would certainly not rule out that he may have some success with it. I would then interpret that as some sort of "Psychosomatic Genus Pandemicus", far extension of Hahnemann's genus epidemicus concept. Such thing perhaps.

So if you are going to use any type of Ca nosode, you have to be sure what you want to use them for, or against, and based on what sort of concept/logic, and evidence.

Regards,Panthera

[ 13. February 2003, 10:35: Message edited by: panthera-non-onca ]