I'm curious about the predjudice repeatedly expressed against Kent's religious belief's and their influence on his homeopathic practice...if he produced cures, why is this a problem? If he did not produce cures, why has his work persisted?

If Boenninghausen's Repertory is 'truer',why does it seem to be lost in the background...often becoming valuable to the growing homeopath only AFTER he has gained experience using Kent's successfully?

Is there really a conflict in the end... isn't it a matter of each individual homeopath's ability to use a given tool? Or is homeopathy like religion - only one 'following' knows the truth REGARDLESS of results?
Denise

Isn't it true that Hahnemann himself never considered the exploration of Homeopathy finished?