So far, so good. But contrary to what kevin says, I see that when soem are asked to ealborate on their choice, they do so, to the best of their ability. If I have a different idea as to what the remedy is, I post with reasining behind it, so does John Stanton and at times, GM. So the criticism is a bit inaccurate, to say the least. At the same time I agree with Kevin that the child is the focus of attention and should receive the prime attention. I again disagree with him about the parents, first of all, because it is an insult to loving mothers. One swallow does not a summer make. From the posts here, it should be clear to you Kevin, that the parents here do seek optimum help and with the experience of soem of us, we have helped quite a few people, if I may say so. The e-mails with thnks I recieve are for me enough proof that it is not as bad as you like to portray us. You know none of us personally, you barge in here with all kinds of critiquesm without having the benefit of knowing practitioners and their experience. If I would seek to retaliate - which is useless - I could cite your empathic warning against silica as exaggerated and out of proportion to the reality of this most wonderful remedy. But what is the use?
Faultfinding is easy, while constructive criticism can at all times be appreciated. The ladies have rightfully protested against the generalisation about parent's egos - maybe you would like to scrutinise your own.