First Discussion

GA 314/1924-04-22/p041 ·1924-04-22 · English HighHigh alignmentThis translation's paragraph count matches the German original — the locus maps cleanly to the same paragraph in DE.
The speaker of this passage is not asserted. Q&A / discussion session: interleaves participants' questions with Steiner's answers. A given passage may be a questioner, not Steiner — confirm the speaker before quoting.
Record: unknown. How this text was taken down (shorthand transcript, listeners' notes or manuscript) is not on record here. Unknown is not an assurance of a stenogram: check the edition's own notes before resting an argument on one word.

We use the viscuminjection in a very specific way. Let us assume the case of an error in the diagnosis. That can be the case. Of course, one would not proceed prophylactically because one has diagnosed that carcinoma is in its early stages. As soon as the tendency is there, prophylaxis can no longer do any harm. But let us assume that an error has occurred. Now we inject seven times in a row; then we take a break. If there really had been an error, we would see it immediately, because a kind of carcinomatous tendency would have arisen that would immediately disappear when we did the second seven injections. We would not go any further. What would be created would be transformed again by a similar process. If one is careful, it is quite impossible to do any harm with Viscum treatment.

Read this passage in another edition
DEoriginalENEnglish
Raw JSON: /v1/steiner/en/ga/314/1924-04-22/p041.json
Cite: GA 314/1924-04-22/p041 · edition English