DR. ALFRED PULFORD: Dr. Roberts has given us a very, very fine paper and the reason I dont dare say much about it is that I think my own parallels it on another line. There is one thing I have always maintained, and that is that the proper time for the indication of the remedy is at the onset. That doesnt mean that you cant prescribe the remedy at any time, but it means that you must go to the root of the case. The symptoms, as Dr. Olds told us, are liable to change, but the root will never change, and no matter what grows on the tree, if you kill the root, the whole thing must die and so you have to go back to the first principle.
DR. H. A. ROBERTS: I am very glad that the paper brought out so much discussion. That is what I wrote it for, because it is in the discussions we get so much of the balance. In looking at things from different angles in that mirror that I spoke of, we all have our own ideas of how we can get at the remedy, but with me, in my lack of art in some ways, I have found the evaluation of the utmost importance.
Dr. Olds and Dr. Pulford have said that evaluations change, or values change. Our knowledge of valuations change. Valuations dont change. It is in the knowledge that we attain of them. Once a remedy is known, we can place it in its proper position, but many times a remedy, Gelsemium for instance, has come up in some of the Boenninghausens Repertory rubrics very frequently; in Allens revision, it has, for instance. It wasnt in the old repertory of Boenninghausen, because it wasnt proven, but here you get it in the highest valuation in many of the cases, and it is in that way that we change, but the valuation once established is always present. Our relationship to that valuation may change. I dont know how Kent did get at his valuation.
