Different situations...
Aph 59: "Important symptoms of persistent diseases have never yet been
treated with such palliative, antagonistic remedies, without the
opposite state, a relapse... occurring a few hours afterwards."
Replacing what *ought to have been there* (vitality to the organ) is
not "antagonistic"--and when necessary to save the patient from death,
would be hard to call it "palliative" either...
Should we also refrain from rehydrating fever patients?
What about a pt whose (for e.g.) thyroid gland has been destroyed,
whether by disease or surgery. Shall we tell them not to take
replacement hormones, on the theory that the simillimum should be able
to handle it? I was taught that, once the gland is destroyed, the
simillimum can *not* do the job. I have heard of thyroid sarcode doing
some good in the situation, tho doubt it could do the whole job, since
it would seek to stimulate an organ no longer able to respond. The
situation for Irene's cats is similar, except that the organ is not
*quite* destroyed yet, and the sarcode is evidently able to sustain it
to recovery. Pretty cool in my book, whether you call it "homeopathy"
or "a crucial addition which turns 'incurable' cats into 'curable'
ones". But additionally, it seems to me reasonably within the
definition of homeopathy--not to argue with Irene's description of it
as "nutrition".
That's the thing about a "holistic"
approach--those boundaries are just not all that clear, sometimes...