jegadeesh.kb
A true Hahnemannian to the core ,who only developed the science and art of homeopathy to the next stage ..He strictly followed the miasma theory had given us the foresight in using higher and   highest potencies. moreover he has developed the method of curing with mental symptoms. thank you. Dr.Jegadeesh.MD.{AM}
	Dr. Bimalananda Chatterjee
When we take a case, we may not get a complete or even partial picture of a medicine. But through case taking we get symptoms mixed with feelings and from there we have to take out only the uncommon peculiar characteristic symptoms which will lead us to correct prescription. Even two or three symptoms can do that. Dr. Kent's classic style may mislead us to prescribe wrong drugs on I feel like, as he has not seperated symptoms from its feelings where prescriptions are made on facts. The symptoms only.
	Dr. Monica Sharma
Hahnemans concept and practise was more symptom based while that of Kent was more picture and concept based and I believe taking inspiration from Kent, todays homoeopaths have taken it further more ahead in conceptualising the remedies, miasms and philosophy that we are far from Hahnemans teachings today!!!!!
	Dr. Aamir Mustafa
Dr. Kent was a good classical homeopath, absolutely he is follower Dr. Hahnemann. But during his practice he face many problems about then he amend their knowledge with Dr. Hahnemann concept. He introduce high potencies in homeopathy system, and new concept of patient diagnoses. He have individual style
	Pradeepkumar Shukla
Kent was a Hahnemannian??? Yes. Definitely, Kent followed Hahnemann's teaching in his practice but after years of experience based on accurate obseravation and interpretation of dynamic processes involved in disease and drug manifested by symptoms and signs and due to his own ability to grasp and develop various aspects of medicines, patient personality, pathology, generals, and particulr the final outcome is same "similar cures similar" but with Kent's individual style. He definitely differs at some points with Hahnemann but what Kent said was not devoid of experience and logic. Kent was well aware of Hahnemann's teaching and what Kent said on homoeopathy with his individual philosophical style is just another aspect of homoeopathy.
	Dr.Arunkumar Mengane
Yes, Kent was diffrent from Dr.Hahnemann, as kent was unawear(NOT READ) of sixth edition of hahnemann how he could be similar to Hanemann's philosophy........
	azam khan
The science of homeopathy is one of the most great full work of Dr Sameul Hahneman work in which he give the true nature of science. not just kidding of today science not science but provid diseas to the cosmos by there massmedia greediness(in the form of alopathic. so Dr kent was the true fallowe of hahneman like the true fallower of kent is vithoulkas of to day and homeopathy is the new science which have law and principls.
	Dr,khansaeed jadoon
Dr,, kent has hisown point of view his philospyh is a l;ittle different. kent has his own conceptions but he didnt revolt against the basic principals, how ever his writing are as intresting as a novel ,
	P.S.Narayana
Dr.Kent's path is an extention of Dr.Hahnemann's invention. In future somebody will restructure the philosophy of Dr.Kent.It is a process that never ends. The outcome should be effectiveness of medicine, which benefits the patients.
	Kaviraj
Kent gave a brilliant series of lectures on the 5th edition of the Organon, which stands among the Canon of homoeopathy as Lectures on the philosophy. He gave us his understanding of the fifth edition, which inserted the idea of simple substance - the supposed contagious material. It originated in his Swedenborghian worldview. Hahnemann himslef inserted alchemical and here and there some Masonic viewpoint in the Organon and Chronic Diseases. Each homoeopath and other scientist is bound to do so, since we are the product of out education and upbringing. While the simple substance really pointed to the vital force or the soul - subterfuge or simply equasion obvious from the Organon, I see it as an attempt to separate the soul from the immnuesystem which is what the vital force really is. I have done the same as Kent but used the above terms to denote the difference. Nothing wrong there.