Thankyou for your reply . i believe the goal of homeopathy is not to be right or scientific, it is to cure people in the easiest quickest way.Kent placed many rules on homeopathy to try to fit it into his religous beliefs and indeed did pronounce many people incurable because his belief systems did not allow him to cure them.He declared many other homeopaths as "mongrels".
You must be aware of the thousands of cases of "totality" remedies being given and their is no improvement untill that pateints "poison" is discoverd.
For example i know of someone who saw 5 classical homeopaths who all gave fundamental/constitutional remedies and missed the fact that he had a lot of mercury fillings and only after visiting a homeopath who had been trained in the so called "other methods" was he given hepar which totaly cured him.
Do you include this scenario in your evaluation of individual totality?
We have learned so much more about homeopathy since hahnermann and he himself was always updating his own understanding.
in his later writings he writes chronic diseases are seldom cured by a single remedy but may require several.
There is so much more to homeopathy than totality prescribing and we only give names to the different methods for strategic purposes.
My experience that the totality/constitutional or fundamental remedy will "cure" any organ is simply not true and a remedy that has a specific action on the poison or patholgy is needed, why is`nt this homeopathy? as you must know remedies can do specific tasks so why should we hide behind a lot of dogma and self rightousness and say this is not how hahnermann said it was.
if a child has never been well since the DPT
and dosen`t respond to any other remedy but DPT in potency would you class this as classical prescribing?