Recently, I posted a thread asking about the plausibility of using a "nosode" for a person that has MRSA in their system and giving that ,in potentised form, of course. I was kindly informed that I was really using wrong terminology, that I should be using word "Isode" instead.{Thanks, by the way, for correcting me} After thinking on this some more,I thought that it would be better to use an isode {Staphyloccus Aureas, isolated from this person's blood ,cultured in a lab, taken from this person, instead of a blood isode. I do believe that a "specific" bacterium taken from one person, permeated with the overall totality of that person, is different from the "same" bacterium taken form another person,especially due to the fact,that bacteria, viruses are very susceptible to mutation. Could the source of bacteria, diseased tissue from a single person, consequently used as an overall Nosode on different people,create variations in symptoms from a nosode taken from a another person? For example,if nosode taken from First person, had a hidden sycotic taint and one taken from Second person had a hidden psoric taint. By this logic,it would seem that an Isode would be more homeopathic to case than Nosodes from different people. I have also read that when an idem is potentised, the process itself changes the idem to a similar{very sorry I can't remember the source of this last statement -think it may have come from Hahnemann himself, but I can't remember} Please realize that this thread is nothing more than my own personal conjecture and most definitely should not be construed as fact. Hope those of you out there that are more advanced in their knowledge, are privvy to more modern facts than I am will comment on this thread. As always, Best regards, Fredric.