Authors such as Compton Burnett, J.H. Clarke, and James Tyler Kent reported the use of a carcinoma nosode in cases of malignant disease. Despite these documented applications, the remedy has long been approached with considerable reservation by many practitioners, primarily out of concern that its use might accelerate, aggravate, or even provoke malignant processes.
This cautious attitude is explicitly expressed by Julius Mezger, who refers to the views of Douglas Foubister. Foubister regarded Carcinosin chiefly as a constitutional remedy, particularly in children, and considered its use in established cancer to be of doubtful value. He emphasized that the further its application is kept from manifest malignant disease, the more useful it becomes as a constitutional medicine.
However, the persistence of opposing views within homeopathy reflects less a theoretical contradiction than the central role of individual clinical experience in shaping therapeutic decisions. Comparable controversies have accompanied the use of Tuberculin in tuberculosis and Medorrhinum in gonorrheal disease. Remedies that some practitioners reject on principle are adopted by others on the basis of repeated personal observation and perceived clinical benefit.
Clinical experience supporting the use of Carcinosin in malignant disease is documented by several authors. Compton Burnett described a number of cancer cases in which Carcinosin was prescribed strictly according to the totality of symptoms rather than on pathological grounds, reporting sustained clinical improvement in selected patients.
Similarly, J.H. Clarke included Carcinosin among the remedies employed in malignant conditions, emphasizing constitutional indications and long-standing symptom patterns rather than the diagnosis itself. Clarke’s reports underscore the view that the nosode was not used empirically, but only when the remedy picture appeared clearly represented.
James Tyler Kent also referred to Carcinosin in the context of cancer, maintaining that the decisive criterion for its use lay in the correspondence between the patient’s symptom totality and the remedy picture. Kent’s position reflects a consistent methodological stance: the remedy is justified not by the presence of malignancy, but by similarity.
Later authors have echoed this experience-based approach. Clinical reports and discussions in twentieth-century literature describe cases in which Carcinosin was employed successfully when its constitutional indications were prominent, while also acknowledging instances in which it was deliberately avoided despite the presence of cancer. These later contributions further reinforce the observation that divergent attitudes toward Carcinosin arise primarily from differences in individual clinical experience, rather than from doctrinal disagreement.
Within homeopathy, no binding law of remedy application exists beyond the principle of similarity. Apart from this rule, there are no fixed prescriptions or prohibitions governing the use of medicines. Consequently, individual clinical experience—especially when repeatedly confirmed—assumes a decisive epistemological role. When the remedy picture corresponds clearly and consistently to the patient, the use of Carcinosin cannot be excluded on pathological grounds alone, even in cases of malignant disease.
Add comment
Comments