To me, all the edition have their own intrinsic value, as they display the development of though and science, as conceived by Hahnemann. I understand that each potency has its value in appropriate situations and that we cannot rely on the LM alone. If you read the book "in Search of the Later Hanemann,' you find that even though he had finalised his ideas on LM, although not necessarily fully written out, he kept using the other potencies as well. So we have to keep an open mind, but never neglect the laws. Hahnemann and Kent railed against the mixopaths, because they had found it does not teach you anything and it can be dangerous, especially if repeated oft and over long periods. This is exactly what is happening - look on the labels of the complexes:"5 drops every 3 hours for 1 week." Would make a beautiful proving. That is not homoeopathy, but allopathic quackery. I like being accused of being too Kentian, too Heringian or Hahnemannian. It gives me the confidence I am doing it right! It is a compliment to me. So yes *please*, try to call me that, which in their eyes in an insult. They are followers of Hughes and Dudgeon, who could not believe that anything over 30c could do anything. They misunderstand the aphorism that says: 'the dose can never be small enough.' But it is folly to be wise, where ignorance is bliss. However, if this is so, (the bliss of ignorance) why don't they look happier?