what's the difference?

__________________
Man, do not pride yourself on your superiority to animals. For they are without sin and you in your greatness defile the earth by your appearance on it and leave traces of you foulness after you. Dostoyevsky

I think that Carc.M has 15 nosodes in it (See Tinus Smits site) and Carc. Co has 10 nosodes but I stand to be corrected.

__________________
RSHom - Registered Homeopath

Tinus Smits' carcinosin comes from one lab--Dolisos Netherlands, I think. He's a stickler for that particular remedy because it fits better with his own philosophical approach--that we have universal "layers" which have to be addressed with "more universal" remedies. Hence he doesn't use lac humanum, for example; he'll use lac maternum (source from several nursing women, not just one).

He also uses a remedy called carcinosinum-cum cuprum, which should address the way the body stores and uses copper, and how this metal functions in tumour formation and growth.

It is a kind of chemical/function approach to cure.

I think there are many different types of carcinosinum remedies; in the past there used to be different cancer tissues made into carcinosin remedies, so that not all "carcinosin" remedies were made with breast tissue. Carc. co. may be one of those "specific cancer tissue" remedies.

__________________
Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.<br />C.G.Jung

This all just continues to get harder and harder. I'm sitting here reading Ramakrishnan's book and he makes no consideration for which Carc is to be used in his protocol. Now, wouldn't you think....he would think there was a difference and specify that?! The Carc that I am using for my cancer kitty on Ramakrishnan's protocol is from Dolisos, the only Carc I was able to purchase and get swift delivery. Oh man, is this the wrong Carc? Have to tell you....this is a very scary dosing schedule.....aside from exhausting for both the kitty and me!

Interesting book, though. Have any of you the newest printing, 2003? There seems a glitch in that the book (they sent me the 2001 edition) as it advises the amount of pellets used for the first dose (3) of the first round of one of the remedies but neglects to advise that the amount of pellets for the repeated dose should be upped to 5, as advised via email by his US representative. Have no idea what amount will be required for future (repeated) dosing. Maybe the newer edition covers that?

__________________
Sometimes on Earth, you can find something that resembles a little piece of Heaven. And sometimes on Earth, a little piece of Heaven can find you.

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 ]

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 ]

The co.in Carc co. stands for combined. This has 10 different nosodes. The standard Carc is from breast tissue only.

__________________
RSHom - Registered Homeopath

Having been on a cancer seminar with Dr R I know that he uses ordinary Carc. Re the 3 pillules - there has never been any suggestion of increasing this for subsequent doses. BTW his latest is to dispense with the teaspoon doses every 20 mins or so but to make up in a small mineral water bottle and just take a swig of the bottle for the 10 doses making sure there is some left in the bottle to refill for the following day!!The bottle is thown away after a week.

__________________
RSHom - Registered Homeopath

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 ]

Ricky, Q are LM potencies...

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com