2) To Madame Tree-dweller:

No, I have not read any edition of ____Dr. R.'s book____. Just a summary of his approach from a good homoeo-journal, based on a seminar he had given a few years ago.

The Ca specialists school that I learned most from thinks that his method and dosing regime is "too brutal" ( their expression ), and since they have good experience with their own way too, that is more than the usual insisting on principles.
I am aware that he ( R. ) gives as a reason for this that Ca can be a very rapidly developing, energy-consuming "hyper-active" sort of disease process, so that a remedy dose can get "exhausted" quite quickly, and therefore such special method is required. And that he claims that he has never observed an aggravation from it. - I still prefer to doubt that. I would never deny he has success, and vast experience, but that is not going to convince me that his is indeed the OPTIMUM method to use.

As I keep pointing out he is by no means the only homoeopath in the world with good ____experience in Ca treatment____. Only he may be the one you know, as did people on that entertainment list "minutus" last year when that topic was discussed ( "...there seems to be no-one in the west..." - O NO, that is just your perception, nothing more...! ). But I won't get into the same tirade on marketing, language barriers and distortions again as on Monday...
Whom I have read, and plan to read in this field would be other authors from both India and Europe, plus the usual classics, and a few pages from his book included. ( Even at Hahnemann's Home place, I learned recently, there is going to be hosted a conference on homoeopathic Ca treatment this year, you see ? )

Now to ____Dosing____:
The modern authors whom I read so far in some detail all used - you guess what ?
...simple old-fashioned Hahnemannian Q potencies ! At least as long as the tumor is still there, later for chronic or so-called "constitutional" treatment they may switch to C potencies ( like C 200 ).
It is important to point out that this means following H.s organon description TO THE LETTER. Because even "mild" Qs can aggravate indeed, and that, with frequent doses, is what you certainly want to spare your patients of, do you not ?! So it is liquid always, 3d glass etc. The leading doc of that school in fact at one point wanted to give up Ca treatment alltogether, for his very limited results then, but decided to read H.s Org. and CD again ( after decades of practicing class. hom. ), most carefully, sentence by sentence, and actually taking him serious in every detail (!). And that helped, and now he has got good results, damned boring old-fashioned approach, but gets invited to every conference... so rare ...- Point is, one considerable improvement resulted when he discovered that before he had always aggravated his patients with too strong Qs, and when he turned damn-pedantically-strict Hahnemannian he did not any more, and they thanked him for it.
Plus it has to be noticed that also many manufacturers do not produce Qs acc. to the organon, but, as long established tradition use far larger / too large globuli and/or produce 1: 22 500 potencies, so it is no surprise results then are sub-optimum.

So that may also explain my reluctance to accept Dr R.'s innovation ( why stick to the 6th ed. organon if your own Kentian tradition is based on an outdated version of the textbook and you can develop something new ?! ).

I hope this post may provide some help,
and for now remain,
with kind regards - also to your squirrel children -
Panthera

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