MELANOMA – Talks on Classical Homeopathy Part 3 – Discussion with Geroge Vithoulkas
Question: There is a very interesting case which I wonder if we could bring up about melanoma.
Answer: This was a patient who was basically treated for a petit mal epilepsy. [gave her Nat-m. and the petit mat epilepsy went away. I didn’t see her again for about five months. She came back in and said that a friend of hers had seen a mole on her skin. She went to a dermatologist and had it taken off; a biopsy revealed a melanoma. The mole had been there for a long period of time. Then they did a very wide excision of this melanoma. The petit mal epilepsy came back. What would that mean as far as direction?
George. This is what usually happens. She would be feeling better if she was taking milk. That is an interesting question to ask. In those cases, that get better with milk, they have a great desire for milk. When the gravity of the disease goes to the physical body completely and that is not allowed to the skin – it is suppressed. The melanoma is not a cancer. It is a malignant ulcer which if it is operated upon might cause a metastasis, usually to the brain.
Question: The fact that she got her petit mal epilepsy back is a good sign for her then?
George: Yes, that is a good sign. It shows the relationship between how serious the melanoma is. All melanomas are of the same intensity of malignancy; that is why doctors excise one melanoma and within three months the patient will have metastasis to the brain. They excise another one.
Question: Would you have recommended not to excise the melanoma?
Question: How would you perceive that?
George: I would treat myself. There is no difference between petit mal and melanoma. The idea is that malignant melanoma is a cancer and metastasis is evident. In this person, the petit mal and the melanoma the same thing. How long had she had it?
Answer: A long time. About 12 – 14 years. She is now in her late twenties. She has had petit mal since her teens. She got it when she was about 14 or 15, and she never had a grand mal.
George: And what source said that this was petit mal. Was it the diagnosis of a doctor only?
Answer: It was a neurologist.
George: Okay. Did the neurologist say that she had a scarring of the brain or what?
Answer: Electroencephalogram. CAT-scan was not done.
George: Was the diagnosis only by the symptomatology?
Answer: She had the electroencephalogram. And this did not show any disturbance.
George: You see now this is a case which l doubt whether it was just simple petitmal, unless I had this tomography showing exactly. An encephalogram is not enough to confirm a diagnosis. I suspect a tumor. The melanoma which presents now on the skin is related to a tumor situation which was a predisposition, with the tumor slaying in a boxed sort of situation, not exploding.
Answer: It must be a benign tumor.
George: Not necessarily. Not the way we see things. I know the way that you have been trained to see, but it is not the way l see. So this person, (and we will discuss it in a few years if we meet again) has a great possibility now of having petit mal, grandmal and then death, because the melanoma was removed. Now there is, of course, the fact that you have ‘ treated her with Nat-m., which interferes with the whole process. This would limit the possibilities of cancer and metastasis, but now comes the excision and perhaps antibiotics which would make the situation even worse. I am not talking about chemotherapy. They might have given antibiotics just for the inflammation. After a skin graft, you would not give antibiotics. But in this case they did give antibiotics. How long after the excision did she get the epileptic seizure?
Answer: She had the fit after they did the biopsy — right away.
George: That tells me that this case may be in trouble. If you again prescribe Nat-m., you may find that the melanoma appears again in another spot.
Question: Should that occur, how hasty are you going to be to say, “Oh, my God, there is this thing that has potential: I’d better prescribe fast now.” How urgent would your need to prescribe be now that a melanoma had appeared. Would you wait for the image to change?
George: It is a different thing if the melanoma appears after your prescription. Then you wait, you do not prescribe.
Question: Are you saying that the melanoma on the skin was a change in direction of health for her?
Question: You are saying that the brain lesion was being removed and went to the skin.
George: Sure. In spite of this being a melanoma. And l do not believe that all melanomas have the same prognosis. I do not believe that.
Question: So you think that that would not have spread ?
George: Yes. That would not have spread. Question :
What do you think would have happened ?
George: It would just develop to a certain stage and then disappear. If this was my patient, I would say, “This is a case for surgery.” If it is myself, I would not. For legal reasons only I would say surgery. I don’t believe at all that surgery would ever do anything for melanoma. I have seen cases where they have gone for surgery and in three months they are gone… And I have seen other cases of melanoma where the melanoma has stayed on and nothing has happened. I still have seen cases where a melanoma has been present for ten years and some skin specialist would want to remove it. The patient would say: “But I have had it for so many years”. And they take it and they take biopsies and within weeks the patient has gone. He was balancing for ten years and within three weeks after the excision he went to the next world. This is exactly the same situation. But we don’t have the courage to do it, not because of our convictions but because of the law. Everybody has seen these cases. Every Specialist, if you ask him, says, “Yes, I had a case and I told him to take it away and then I lost it”. Then you get some younger doctors with less experience and they say “Oh, you must take it away.” When he walks out of the hospital he is fine: Telephone him and find out whether it is fine after five years. If you telephone, you find no person.
Question: I would like to comment. I think in our allopathic training we are taught that these are statistical things. In a whole population of 100 melanoma cases, a high percentage is going to die within two to three years, but there is always a percentage who will not and these are the ones with the stronger vital forces. What we do homoeopathically, I think, is that we pull people out of the range of death into the range of health. We have to remember that it is not inevitable that every case of melanoma is going to die. This is a statistical statement, so we become absolute about
Response: Also the statistics indicate that the ones who are taken to surgery and given chemotherapy have a greater survival of a greater percentage. It is a long, complicated subject. The best statistician l know says that these statistics are artefacts and that the mortality rate from cancer has not changed since they started keeping records. The way that the statistics are collected, has changed.
Response: That is absolutely false for leukemia in children. There is a 75-85% survival rate now. Grade I Hodgkins is like that too.
George: What did you say?
Response: In leukemia in children, right now with the techniques that they are using, the ten year survival is very high. They may be wrecks mentally. I am not saying anything about the quality of their lives, but they are alive after ten years.
Response: Very few – but now it is 8% or more.
Question : The dogma is to treat. So how are you going to find patients who are not treated who have a melanoma nowadays ? How can they do a double-blind control study?
Response: There is surgery. There is just excision. There is chemotherapy.
Question: But how do they compare that with untreated patients? That is the ultimate question. What you are saying is that there is intervening and that there are ways that you can intervene without killing. I would think that even the ethics committee would not go for a study like that now, where you leave somebody untreated when we have such means. I think that that is where we go confused.
Question: I am interested in the remedy Abrot. in a case where the melanoma is excised and it moves to the petit mal and then comes back, or it is excised and the melanoma is subsequently found in the lung. Would Abrot. bring it to the surface?
George: No. Abrot. is the remedy which is considered with metastasis. The metastasis of a rhetunatic condition from the heart. There is only one right remedy if you go according to the symptomatology. In this case, stopping the petit mal syndrome and allowing it to come to the skin, contained a good prognosis. They did not have to take it away. Now I would be more afraid – the melanoma is not there.
Question: Is it possible that the melanoma could recur on another dose of Nat-m.?
George: You may try to give her Nat-m. again. Don‘t tell her that she may have a melanoma because she would attribute the melanoma to the Nat-m. Most probably that is what would happen. She would develop a melanoma at another spot.
Question: It is also possible that what comes back on the skin may not be a melanoma at all. I have seen other kinds of cancer, I haven’t treated melanoma that way – that have been removed, like squamous cell carcinoma, and instead they get a skin eruption or pimples in that area.
George: This is usually a soft melanoma. It is what is called the basal cell melanoma. It is less serious.
Response: But with a melanoma it would not necessarily do that
Response: I have a more healthy patient who had a squamous cell carcinoma on his forehead. They were able to excise it and he had a scar there when I saw him. When I treated him, it started growing again. He had it excised and then relapsed. He was a healthier person to begin with and so it came back as a squamous cell carcinoma. I didn’t feel comfortable telling him to leave it there.
George: What we are actually doing is blocking ourselves with the patients. We take them up to a certain extent and then we send them back again to where we started. This is natural. You cannot take the responsibility for such things, especially in America, where you have so many law suits so easily.