Andre Saine research refutes Hering's Law & Kent

[healthinfo6]

Andre Saine is a well known and highly regarded classical homeopath especially known for his historical research. He is lecturing this week at the International Hahnemann Congress in Germany. http://www.hahnemann-congress.org/

His finding that Hering's Law should not be one has been further supported by the Brazilian team MD team of Ubiratan and Maristela Adler, also lecturing at IHC, who utilize and praise Andre Saine's research in their paper entitled:

The harmful cure observed by Hering and Kent in contrast to Hahnemann's gentle restoration of health.

http://www.hahnemann-congress.org/02_bi ... 20cure.pdf and published in Homeopathic Links, 2006, 19(3):121-127.

Their conclusions:
Hering's "law of cure" cannot be justified upon Hahnemann´s premises, once according to Hahnemann internal and external symptoms should improve together, without a specific direction order. The only convergence point between Hahnemann and Hering's laws is the observation that the latest symptoms that have been added to a chronic disease are always the first to yield in an antipsoric treatment.
Misdirecting Hahnemann´s recommendations, Kent was careless with dosage, admitted as pathway to cure severe and long homeopathic aggravations, return of all past symptoms, exteriorizations and eliminations (which were considered by Hahnemann as organism defences against dose excess or incorrect prescriptions).
Hering and Kent did not follow Hahnemann´s principles and the harmful cure they observed was probably a result of their own procedures in Homeopathy, deviating from the objective of gentle restoration of health.

[Shannon Nelson]

What does Andre suggest should take the place of "Hering's
Observation" as guidance for differentiating between "progress
toward cure" versus otherwise? I would guess he is objecting to the
"law" part rather than saying the observation is altogether invalid?
Anyone know?
Shannon