3) Hello Ricky,

(1) "...he ( Dr R. ) uses ordinary Carc...." -

yes, that's what I also read in the seminar-write-up / journal article.
But the same source said explicitely that he makes a difference according to Ca case types, and often uses Scirrhinum instead.
And that appears to follow the logic of using nosodes much more, since he is NOT prescribing Carc after symptoms, i.e. on conceptual, nosological grounds, instead of "phaenomenological" as classical homoeopathy ( at least up to the CD publication ) would demand.

(2) To dosing:

(a) Did you actually try that regime on a person suffering from Ca ( or know someone reasonably well who did ) and observe with sober eyes what happened ?

(b) Does he anywhere say why he does not use Q potencies ?
My impression so far was that the reason for such a standardised dosology strategy may have simply been that he was woking in a large hospital setting and many more patients had to be attended to than would have been possible with other, more time-demanding methods, though I can't be sure about that. But some reason he must have had.

(c) The doc whose case I mentioned did sort of fuse different schools, and says he also used ideas from Dr R., but still the case described ( relapse Breast Ca after surgery, which means quite a dangerous condition, with bad prognosis if you look at statistics ) was handled with Q potencies, and I thought that was his general practice.

[ 13. February 2003, 10:36: Message edited by: panthera-non-onca ]