I haven’t received your ezine since January 2006 I think. I resubscribed but they said my name is there. Maybe it’s AOL that blocking it as it does for some companies, so if you’re sending it, it’s not getting through. I do get your poll emails however.
I would like to continue receiving it. I usually don’t have the time to think of it myself and go on your website once a month.
Yes, we are having problems with aol. We are trying to work it out with them and hopefully the issue will get resolved soon.
Dear Dr Bhatia
Congratulations on such a lively, engaging and enterprising ezine! I very much enjoy reading it.
A few comments and some feedback then …
I found Nancy Siciliana’s response to my comments interesting for their evident defensiveness. I also found them confusing and frustrating as her reasoning seems to stray a long way from the question “was Kent a Hahnemannian?” and indulge in all sorts of speculation that isn’t really pertinent to a study of the bare facts. You were asking the question “was Kent a Hahnemannian?”, not “was Kent a good homeopath?” or “are Kentian methods successful?”. The fact that Kent made an enormous contribution to homeopathy is not in doubt, and there is no need to make some kind of apologist rationale for why he became enamoured of Swedenborg’s ideas. It’s a useful perspective that dovetails successfully with homeopathy, as has been proved over and over by Kent himself and practitioners who’ve followed his methods. But is it Hahnemannian? That’s another matter entirely.
Emotional or philosophical attachments to particular methods have no business intruding into such an analysis if it’s to be based in fact rather than opinion. To question whether or not Hahnemann might have approved of Kent had they been contemporaries is pure speculation. What is fact is that Hahnemann is on record as saying Boenninghausen’s methods (out of all of his students, including those who later took homeopathy to America) were closest to his own. What is fact is that Kent, after taking on board Swedenborg’s ideas, started criticising Boenninghausen’s approach as being un-Hahnemannian (while viewing himself as the closest to Hahnemann). What is fact is that the reasoning Kent employed when criticising Boenninghausen’s approach is reasoning derived from his Swedenborgian perspective, not the Organon. Personally, I don’t buy this speculative rationale that Kent was deliberately rubbishing Boenninghausen in order to promote himself. It doesn’t fit with what he wrote, or with how he comes across through the rest of his writings. If you read his criticisms over and over, it becomes apparent that Kent doesn’t actually understand Boenninghausen’s approach, and the reason he doesn’t understand it is that Boenninghausen is not working with a symptom hierarchy while Kent is. Kent goes on and on about the difference between general and particular symptoms because he has created a philosophical distinction between them. To Boenninghausen (and by extension, Hahnemann) that distinction did not exist.
This means that Kent’s methods were not as close to Hahnemann’s as he himself believed and promoted, and this is the reason I answered “no” to the survey. Whether or not that makes him un-Hahnemannian in any absolute sense depends entirely on your definition of Hahnemannian. It’s all a matter of degree.
I found reading the comments on whether/when do you explain to the patient the concept of Vital Force really interesting as the one assignment I failed on as a first year student, was grasping this thinking. Thankyou, Carole Bates
The response to your ‘little jest’ shows how valuable the e-magazine is for us. No doubt, you deserve a regular feedback for taking so much pains in the service of this great pathy. Your interactive and informative programme is like an experienced, knowledgeable and inspiring live teacher. Being a retired teacher and a layman learner, I get intellectual satisfaction, entertainment and practical knowledge which helps me serve my dear and near ones free of charge. In this age of stark materialism, your free service and diligence deserves our admiration, best wishes and hearty thanks.
You are doing great service for popularising homoeopathy.All the articles were very good. I liked the Quiz very much. Please keep it up.
Just wanted to let you know that your e newsletter is very well recieved in my circle. I pass on relevant articles to numerous friends. I read “Death By Modern Medicine” about a year ago and find myself continually going back to it as a reference when the whole issue of Big Pharma and Allopathy rear their ugly heads.
Keep up the fine work with your e newsletter……………..jb
Send us your feedback, views, comments and suggestions about various articles published in Homeopathy for Everyone and Hpathy.com in general to Dr. B at [email protected]. Your feedback is very important to us!