Reply to Lionel Milgrom
22 December 2017 (online)
I think Dr Milgrom is too sensitive and thinks I criticise all his work. In fact, I applaud his work yet still feel he should leave our predecessors out of it. When he says ‘…a small part of an article’ this may, in fact, from his perspective be true, but using Kent to support quantum arguments, models and proposals is no small thing.
Milgrom makes another spurious assumption when he remarks that I haven’t ‘read or digested’ his and others work. Not true, but what I should’ve included in my first letter was praise for his (and others) intensive and noteworthy endeavors. Nevertheless, while good in many respects, I do not feel it will ‘provide the intellectual fire power’ to convince the bio-medical community. What will convince those sorts is good writing, good scholarship and above all cured cases.
Finally, as Milgrom's challenge to offer ‘Kentian interpretations’ I have no use for such mind games. There is nothing wrong with using quotes to inspire but leave our ancestors where they belong, as pioneers and amazing personages who gave energy and love to the discipline we call homeopathy!