Minutus

> > Following excerpt is from kent and I would be grateful if you tell us
why
him
to
Dear Chris,

Thanks a lot for answer.

Although everyone can analyze above excerpt in his own way but my analysis
is (may be it is wrong):

1- first why Kent was not successful in treating asthma cases before
understanding the miasm concept? because he treated asthma attacks not the
whole case.
2- why Kent changed Nat-s although it was doing well? this the main question
and the most difficult to answer.
If Nat-s was doing well and caused the return of old symptom (fig wart) then
why Kent changed Nat-s, as every homeopath knows that in this situation we
must wait and watch and changing the remedy can spoil the case, therefore
Kent has done wrong here! but from the text it is evident that Kent has
cured the case!
How can we illustrate it? IMO, Nat-s could cure the miasm which was
responsible for patient asthma and caused return of suppressed miasm (fig
wart, sycosis) and in this situation Kent has changed Nat-s to Thuja which
is the main antisycotic (anti-fig wart miasm) which could cure the patient.
In fact patient had complex diseases.
Of course as I said before this is my idea and may be wrong and would be
pleased to see other colleagues opinions.

Kind Regards,
Nader

> Dear Chris,

Hi Nader,
Yes, I agree. Treating by symptom-similarity alone in all cases neglects the
fundamental cause of disease.
Miasms became a very important part of James Kent's overall constitutional
prescriptions.

question
then
we
I was wondering, if James had access to LM posology whether he could have
taken the case further with Natr. sulph alone. I wonder if he was limited by
his use of Centesimals? You know, if he went too high there were significant
disturbances and no cure...which he writes about in his Philosophy Lectures.
In any event, the final symptoms did seem to indicate Thuja.
patient.

Can you say more about the patient having had a complex disease please?
Many thanks,
Chris