cancer

[Shannon Nelson]

I think the subject of "cancer" is larger than it might first look, for
several reasons. One reason is that "cancer" is sort of a catch-all phrase,
isn't it? There are so many different types of cancer, and tho they have
certain things in common (damage to the genes, proliferation of cells at the
expense of the organism), they can be very different in many ways -- more or
less aggressive; proliferative vs. destructive; tissues involved; various
things that worsen or improve them, and etc.

I was taught that cancer can result from *any* miasm, which makes sense to
me in view of the above -- destructive/ulcerative tumor seems more
syphilitic, whereas purely proliferative more sycotic, etc. At its root (or
part), cancer represents an extreme failure of the immune system. A well
functioning immune system *will* detect and remove cancerous cells. All of
us form these cells, but most of us do not give them the opportunity to take
root.
on 11/2/03 1:14 PM, VBLUES@aol.com at VBLUES@aol.com wrote:
Do you mean, substantial new knowledge about various types of cancer, or ???
What could H not have explained -- the development of a "new miasm"? I'm
not understanding why this is a problem...
Yes, the changing environment and etc. does affect the population disease
picture. But I don't know why you feel this runs counter to Hahnemann's
thinking?

Thanks,
Shannon