Cat with aggressive breast cancer LONG
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:47 pm
Irene-
Thanks for enlightening me on what a sarcode is and what a hormone is-
that is one sad portion that has been missing from my education.
When you are saying that Sarcodes are healthy tissue - are they pure
tissue? For example Brain or Pituitary or THyroid sarcode are they
JUST the tissue and they do not have any hormones and precursors of
hormones and traces of chemical substances in them? Are of these have
been removed from them somehow?
If there are no such substances in them, then what would be the
difference between any animal tissue - what would be the difference
between Pituitary and Hypothalamus for example? They are just glands -
right? You might have heard and probably used Pulmo Vulpis for
example- I have used it for Asthma . Wolf Lung- Do you think the
action of all lungs will be the same from different animals? If so
why, if not why? Since they do not have any physiological action why
would they be different when they are just lungs?
Let us assume that sarcodes do not have physiological action as you
said- then how do you know their indications?
In other drugs for example Lycopodium, Silica etc.which not have
physiological actions - all their therapeutic power is known only thru
provings. So shouldn't the indications of these sarcodes with "no
physiological actions" be known only thru provings?
So is not the only indication you have for using them based on Law of
signatures?
Hormones are different - their 'physiological" actions are known and
so by extension and analogy some of their pathological indications can
be worked out. Even with these, precise usage needs homeopathic
provings to bring out sensations, modalities and subtle shades of the
symptoms.
Whereas sarcodes (if they lack physiological action as you claim and
which I do not believe so) are prescribed like "a blood vessel
sarcode is to help build better blood vessel tissue"-
On similar argument can Blood 2x be given to improve "blood"? Would
that be a better way to treat anemia? Mind you I am not saying that
this would not work, it might. But it would work because inherently
there is physiological affinity there - and some substances in trace
quantities that would have tissular affinity.Without that how would it
act just on blood? and not on anything else?
But does it not look like allopathy? Is it a homeopathic blood
transfusion here?
If there is a sarcode made out of Tail ( Tail 1x) would that be given
for coccyx problems???Have you ever used to grow tails? Would a Lizard
Tail 1x work for growing Dog tails?
Hair 2x for growing Hair? ( Must be a big market for this out there)?
And all those junk mail I am getting ( and my wife is also getting)for
"male enhancement"- is absolutely not necessary - Now we know what to
use- Get a stallion and chop it off and make 1x
(Is this not happening in India, China and other places where they
kill tigers and rhinos for male virility?)
In its purest sense homeopathy does not have tonics. Low potency
sarcodes smack of that.The correct simillimum / constitutional remedy
is the tonic. That is why simillimum gives a "general sense of well
being" . Having said that I have used mother tinctures of medicines in
homeopathy - but I know that they have physiological action and what
they would do in mother tinctures and potencies.
Also the classifications such as sarcode, nosode, isode, kingdoms etc.
are mainly for "producing" the remedies. If all are proven correctly
and thoroughly there should not be any difference in prescribing -
because then we will be going by pathogenetic symptoms - not by where
anything came from. Even now that is how I practice mostly- I scarcely
care where something came from - but on strict indications. I do use
nosodes, hormones etc. but even there try to see a group of symptoms
to point there.
The difference between hormones and nosodes on the one hand and
sarcodes on the other is - hormones and nosodes have processes -
hormones set up reactions all over the place and create changes and
there are records of that from allopathy as well - effects and side
effects; nosodes are from diseases and so we know the systems that are
affected, bodily physiological processes that are affected.
Sarcodes on the other hand are structures. There are no processes, We
do not know what will happen when we give them. There is no allopathic
record even to fall back, even for pathological prescription.
Considering that you were so keen on using only repertories to arrive
at the medicine in FIP ( where I thought you should have a group of
medicines and not just one - since we can only try to arrive at a
group remedy in such cases and then pick out one based on individual
presentation), using sarcodes based on Law of signatures( may be there
is another rationale for this but I could not find it) comes as a
surprise.
Namaste-
I think there needs to be more sarcode discussion.
"work" or
fact in
functions.
cytokine
(if
failed
and
reaches
in a
which
potency
that!
not
Thanks for enlightening me on what a sarcode is and what a hormone is-
that is one sad portion that has been missing from my education.
When you are saying that Sarcodes are healthy tissue - are they pure
tissue? For example Brain or Pituitary or THyroid sarcode are they
JUST the tissue and they do not have any hormones and precursors of
hormones and traces of chemical substances in them? Are of these have
been removed from them somehow?
If there are no such substances in them, then what would be the
difference between any animal tissue - what would be the difference
between Pituitary and Hypothalamus for example? They are just glands -
right? You might have heard and probably used Pulmo Vulpis for
example- I have used it for Asthma . Wolf Lung- Do you think the
action of all lungs will be the same from different animals? If so
why, if not why? Since they do not have any physiological action why
would they be different when they are just lungs?
Let us assume that sarcodes do not have physiological action as you
said- then how do you know their indications?
In other drugs for example Lycopodium, Silica etc.which not have
physiological actions - all their therapeutic power is known only thru
provings. So shouldn't the indications of these sarcodes with "no
physiological actions" be known only thru provings?
So is not the only indication you have for using them based on Law of
signatures?
Hormones are different - their 'physiological" actions are known and
so by extension and analogy some of their pathological indications can
be worked out. Even with these, precise usage needs homeopathic
provings to bring out sensations, modalities and subtle shades of the
symptoms.
Whereas sarcodes (if they lack physiological action as you claim and
which I do not believe so) are prescribed like "a blood vessel
sarcode is to help build better blood vessel tissue"-
On similar argument can Blood 2x be given to improve "blood"? Would
that be a better way to treat anemia? Mind you I am not saying that
this would not work, it might. But it would work because inherently
there is physiological affinity there - and some substances in trace
quantities that would have tissular affinity.Without that how would it
act just on blood? and not on anything else?
But does it not look like allopathy? Is it a homeopathic blood
transfusion here?
If there is a sarcode made out of Tail ( Tail 1x) would that be given
for coccyx problems???Have you ever used to grow tails? Would a Lizard
Tail 1x work for growing Dog tails?
Hair 2x for growing Hair? ( Must be a big market for this out there)?
And all those junk mail I am getting ( and my wife is also getting)for
"male enhancement"- is absolutely not necessary - Now we know what to
use- Get a stallion and chop it off and make 1x
(Is this not happening in India, China and other places where they
kill tigers and rhinos for male virility?)
In its purest sense homeopathy does not have tonics. Low potency
sarcodes smack of that.The correct simillimum / constitutional remedy
is the tonic. That is why simillimum gives a "general sense of well
being" . Having said that I have used mother tinctures of medicines in
homeopathy - but I know that they have physiological action and what
they would do in mother tinctures and potencies.
Also the classifications such as sarcode, nosode, isode, kingdoms etc.
are mainly for "producing" the remedies. If all are proven correctly
and thoroughly there should not be any difference in prescribing -
because then we will be going by pathogenetic symptoms - not by where
anything came from. Even now that is how I practice mostly- I scarcely
care where something came from - but on strict indications. I do use
nosodes, hormones etc. but even there try to see a group of symptoms
to point there.
The difference between hormones and nosodes on the one hand and
sarcodes on the other is - hormones and nosodes have processes -
hormones set up reactions all over the place and create changes and
there are records of that from allopathy as well - effects and side
effects; nosodes are from diseases and so we know the systems that are
affected, bodily physiological processes that are affected.
Sarcodes on the other hand are structures. There are no processes, We
do not know what will happen when we give them. There is no allopathic
record even to fall back, even for pathological prescription.
Considering that you were so keen on using only repertories to arrive
at the medicine in FIP ( where I thought you should have a group of
medicines and not just one - since we can only try to arrive at a
group remedy in such cases and then pick out one based on individual
presentation), using sarcodes based on Law of signatures( may be there
is another rationale for this but I could not find it) comes as a
surprise.
Namaste-
I think there needs to be more sarcode discussion.
"work" or
fact in
functions.
cytokine
(if
failed
and
reaches
in a
which
potency
that!
not