March, 2006
11,000 copies |
| For Authors |
| Share your articles
and cases for publication in Homeopathy 4 Everyone,
the world's most popular homeopathic e-journal. The more
you share your knowledge and experiences with others,
the more we will grow collectively. Let us work together
for take homeopathy to the masses. You can make
a difference!!. Send your papers &
cases to editor@hpathy.com |
|
| |
This is your
Hpathy Ezine
To unsubscribe click
here.
|
Published by - Hpathy.com
|
|
| . |
|
| |
Participate
in the March Poll at Hpathy.
|
 |
Monthly Poll |
| |
There is an ongoing controversy that James Tyler Kent did
not follow Hahnemann properly. His approach towards Vital
Force (making it more spiritual and saying that it is present
in inanimate objects too), his use of very high potencies,
his use of dry doses based on 4th edition of Organon, his
assertion that the number of pills do not make any difference,
his inability to use liquid solutions as described in the
5th edition, comparing miasms with the 'original sin' etc
are some of the major areas where Kent differed from Hahnemann.
Do you think Kent was a Hahnemannian? Did he follow
Hahnemann's path or created his own philosophy?
- Yes, No, Can't say?
- Click
here to cast your vote & Share your views.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
