For Pankaj Varma Only

Dear Pankajnarang

Though you said 'For Pankaj Varma only' your post talks about me.

This being an open forum, all people will read it, and if I keep quiet, it amounts to accepting your opinion about me.

It is not me and Rajiv only who despise these methods.

all well known homeopathic doctors, who have world wide reputation condemn these shortcuts.

As a sample,read this.

http://www.abchomeopathy.com/forum2.php/86171/

Murthy

Dear Pankaj Narang,

I am taking this liberty to intrude into this thread because you are sincerely keen to learn and you mentioned my name too.You had also sent a personal mail to me inviting me to chat with you online.I am very busy these days in finishing my thesis which i am doing at IIMC.Hence i refused the offer.But few of the things that i would like you to know if we ever chat in future are covered eloquently by Dr.Luc De Schepper, one of the greatest homeopaths in the world and whose books are a compulsory text book for all homeopathic students at most homeopathic colleges in the world.I hope you will learn a lot and enjoy this article.

I am sure Mr. Pankaj Verma would also enlighten you with his views.Have a nice time learning homeopathy.


Rajiv


The Real Danger to Homeopathy:
Pseudo-Homeopathy

November 1999, Homeopathy Today
by LUC DE SCHEPPER, MD, PhD, DIHom


At the dawn of a new millennium, homeopathy is in a unique position, with the power to rescue our current medical system from its morass of high-tech, suppressive, alienating and exorbitantly expensive measures. There is a groundswell of interest and involvement in alternative medicine in general and homeopathy in particular among both patients and allopathic practitioners. The most recent study by Dr. David Eisenberg of Harvard Medical School shows 70% of Americans seeking alternative treatment (and spending billions to pay for it out-of-pocket), while in another recent survey 49% of primary care physicians stated that homeopathy was the alternative modality they most wanted to learn about. Insurance companies are beginning to reimburse for alternative treatments like homeopathy, recognizing the long-term savings involved.

At this point the greatest threat to homeopathy comes not from allopathic practitioners or pharmaceutical companies but from self-professed homeopaths who do not follow the immortal laws and principles laid down by Hahnemann. Whether out of ignorance or laziness, or the desire to impress their patients with their gimmicks so that they can charge more money, these pseudo-homeopaths violate the most basic principle of homeopathy: to give a single remedy which covers the totality of the symptom picture. Some give three or four remedies within a single week; others give mixtures of several or even a dozen remedies at once. In so doing they harm the patient, which is bad enough, but worse still, they harm the profession and the reputation of homeopathy.

We are accustomed to patients treating homeopathy as the last resort; they often come to us after the harmful, suppressive, and invasive measures of allopathic medicine. In my own practice I find myself in the unenviable position of the absolute last resort: patients come to me after being mistreated by other homeopaths. Or other homeopaths refer patients to me when they are honest enough to admit that they can no longer follow a case. I have seen hundreds of such patients over the years who have suffered from bad homeopathy. In addition, I have heard about hundreds more from my patients. Like typical homeopathy patients, they become missionaries who zealously try to convince their families and friends of homeopathy, but too often they come back to me with sad stories of these people who have had bad experiences at the hands of homeopaths who did not know the most basic principles of homeopathy.

Typically these patients suffer aggravations lasting weeks or months while the homeopath offers no succor and even refuses to return phone calls. In other cases the homeopath actually suppresses the symptoms with the remedy and fails to recognize that the case is going in the wrong direction, thus setting the patient up for more suffering later on. In still other cases, superficial physical symptoms disappear, to be replaced by mental/emotional ones. Many of these people have suffered so much that they adamantly refuse to consider consulting another homeopath, and they warn others away from homeopathy. I am just one practitioner; if I have encountered so many of these patients, how many more must there be in this country?

With Hahnemann giving us such clear guidance, I am honestly puzzled at how people practicing in his name can deviate so far from his direction.

I have tried to find out the rationale for these practices of mixing and alternating remedies. Many practitioners delude themselves that there is no danger in these practices because the remedies are “harmless.” Apparently they think that since the remedies contain not one molecule of the original substance there cannot be any harm in giving several at once, and perhaps they follow the American belief that “more is better.” I know other such practitioners who are trying to create for themselves the prestige and status of allopathic physicians, imitating the lab coats and stethoscopes as well as the polypharmacy of allopathy.

But polypharmacy (giving many prescriptions at once) is harmful in homeopathy as well as in allopathy. Remember that the remedies bear a powerful force. If they can consistently cure the so-called “incurable diseases,” they must be highly active agents. Each remedy delivers an energetic “punch” to the Vital Force, and it is the secondary response of the Vital Force which acts against the illness and heals the patient. Giving too many remedies at once can leave the Vital Force punched down like a boxer staggering to his knees. In fact I have seen patients who have been given so many remedies by previous homeopaths that their Vital Force no longer responds to the single well-chosen remedy, which could have cured their case in the first place before they were rendered incurable by bad homeopathy.

The well-chosen remedy, the simillimum, delivers an energetic impact which exactly matches the symptom picture of the patient. Any other remedy will not be a perfect match, that is, it will have symptoms in its symptom picture which do not match the patient’s. These aspects of the remedy can stimulate the Vital Force to create new symptoms, called accessory symptoms of the remedy. It is only logical that if more than one remedy is given at once or in close succession, only one can be the simillimum and the others are likely to create accessory symptoms. For example, I have seen a mixture labeled “Grief” which has every grief remedy under the sun, from Pulsatilla to Nat mur. There is no way that one patient can need both these remedies; they cannot be both the weepy, needy, consolation-seeking Pulsatilla and the stiff-upper-lip, leave-me-alone Nat mur.

The result of these mixtures can be a tangled mess of symptoms which make it impossible for the homeopath to follow the case. I have seen these patients too. It is bad enough that we have to sort out the patient’s true symptoms from those induced by their allopathic medications. We should not have to sort out symptoms induced by our own colleagues! Speaking of difficulties following the case, mixtures and alternation of remedies bring about another problem which we see in allopathic medicine all the time. I have seen allopathic physicians give my patients several drugs, one of which might “cure” the case but all of which have serious side effects. The mixture achieves the desired effect (suppressing the symptoms, which they call a cure). Then the physician does not know which medication “worked” and which ones can be discontinued. As a result the patient is kept on the dangerous drug cocktail indefinitely, with drug interactions compounding the side effects of the single drugs. When remedies are mixed the same problems arise. If the patient aggravates it is difficult to tell which remedy caused the problem; if the patient is improving slightly, which remedy should be re-administered in a higher potency?

And just as in allopathic medicine, the interactions among the remedies can bring about harmful effects which the single remedies would not create. This can even happen when the remedies are alternated. Each remedy has a long duration of action, usually lasting weeks or months. Giving several remedies within a single week creates all the bad results of mixing remedies because their effects will overlap.

To make the problems arising from mixtures more clear, consider remedies made from chemical compounds containing more than one element, like our old friend Nat mur. If it were possible to remove the Natrum (sodium) element from the muriaticum (chloride), the proving results of each one separately would be entirely different from the combination. It stands to reason that adding further elements would change the proving picture again. Another justification for mixing remedies stems from a confusion over existing remedies like China sulphuricum or Calcarea silicata which seem to be mixtures. But these remedies were proven as such. Their indications are not invented by adding the symptom picture of China with that of Sulphur, or that of Calcarea with that of Silica. Provings were done on the compound itself so that it can be prescribed confidently according to Hahnemann’s principles. This type of proved compound in no way justifies creating new, unknown and unproven mixtures.

Another reason I hear for mixing and alternating goes like this: “The modern era, with its more complicated diseases, requires more than one remedy to cover the case.” Again, this answer betrays an ignorance of Hahnemann’s principles so beautifully and clearly laid out in Chronic Diseases and the Organon. He has given us powerful tools which enable us to clearly analyze even the most complicated case. True, we see more effects of medical suppression in modern times: allopathic medicine has much more powerful tools at its disposal, including antibiotics, chemotherapy, and radiation. And it is true that the miasms have become increasingly more powerful; sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) have become pandemic because of changes in sexual mores and because of the world wars, among other causes. At the same time STDs have become more effectively suppressed by antibiotics, thereby creating new miasmatic cases, while existing miasms are fueled by factors like mandatory vaccinations.

This does not stop us from a clear analysis of our patients’ cases, however. If we search the patient’s past medical history and family medical history to find the active miasm, we can give one of the remedies most strongly active against that miasm, thereby ensuring good results every time. If we have the patient create a timeline, marking different traumatic events as well as surgeries and medically-suppressive interventions and correlating these with the first appearance of different symptoms, we can determine which are the most recently-created symptoms and therefore which ones need to be addressed first.

I might mention an error I see even among my true colleagues, the real classical homeopaths who give a single remedy at a time. Too often they lump all the patient’s symptoms together, even those created by a long-ago grief or other trauma, and attempt the impossible task of finding a single remedy to cover the patient’s entire life. This is not what Hahnemann meant by the totality of symptoms. We must address the totality of current symptoms in the current layer, those created by the most recent trauma or suppressive act, before retaking the case and finding a different match for the previous layer (as Hahnemann explains in the Organon).

A final argument I hear is that we do not need to limit ourselves to Hahnemann’s principles because he was senile at the end of his life. I only wish that these Hahnemann-bashers could read Hahnemann’s Paris case books, as I have. They would see for themselves that far from floundering in the dark, as the Hahnemann-bashers claim, he was constantly experimenting to perfect and refine his system within the framework of the basic principles which he had so brilliantly laid down.

It was in the last years of his life that he experimented with the higher potencies (far beyond the 30C which many people claim was his limit) and he developed the LM potency, the crown jewel of his method. Those who read the Paris case books for themselves will also debunk the myth that alternation of remedies is acceptable because Hahnemann himself did it. Hahnemann had earlier experimented with alternating remedies, but discarded the practice. He did give some of his Paris patients two remedies, but only because they had traveled a great distance and he anticipated that at some point they would need to switch from one to the other.

I look forward to the time when Hahnemann’s case books will be available in English for all to read. In the meantime, all those who claim to be homeopaths should read and re-read, study and re-study, Chronic Diseases and the 6th edition of the Organon. I am shocked that whenever I talk to professional colleagues at conferences, I find that the great majority have never read the Organon even once! Each time I study this masterpiece I am astounded at how Hahnemann was able to anticipate the medical concerns of our modern world. On each re-reading I gain new insights which help me in my practice.

I also encourage my colleagues, all those who sincerely aspire to deserve the title of “homeopath,” to read the old masters—Kent, Hering, von Boenninghausen, Lippe—and the masters from the earlier part of this century—Farrington, Wright-Hubbard, Pierre Schmidt, Tyler, Compton-Burnett. Few if any homeopaths in the world today have the stature of our great predecessors. By studying their works, we find that they always adhered to Hahnemann’s principles. In everything they did they harked back to the master, never questioning his guidance and never accusing him of being senile. We also find that there is nothing new under the sun: the old masters and Hahnemann himself lamented the pseudo-homeopaths of their day, who were harming patients and ruining the reputation of our profession with their mixtures and alternations.

As practitioners we must remember, as I always tell my students, that we are not repairing refrigerators. We have our patients’ lives and health in our hands. We have a responsibility to educate ourselves in the laws and principles of homeopathy: we must know how to give a single well-chosen remedy, chosen by the totality of the symptoms, based on the proving picture of the remedy. We must educate our patients and the public that anyone who does not follow these laws does not deserve the title of homeopath. They may call themselves eclectics or anything else they want, but not homeopaths. In the words of Constantine Hering, one of our most revered masters, “If our school ever gives up the strict inductive method of Hahnemann, we are lost and deserve only to be mentioned as a caricature in the history of medicine.”

Dear Pankaj Narang,

I have lots of things to say backed by logic and scientific knowledge.
However, am little pressed for time ..coz of Diwali and some other pressing engagements.
Will, however, in good time give you and others lots of details which will counter these tall claims and misleading statements.

Best wishes,
Pankaj Varma

Contemporary world renowned doctors like Dr.Vijayakar, George Vithoulkus, David Little,Luc de scheppar etc.. can't be collectively wrong, even if you forget about Hahn.

They individually have treated thousands of cases,written books which are sold world wide,and conduct seminars world wide.

To brush off their teachings as 'Tall claims' and 'misleading statements' remind me of a frog in the well, which thinks what it sees alone is the world.

Murthy

When liquor was banned in Andhra Pradesh, people started drinking homeopathy medicines.

In Hydrabad a man asked me if I want to go to a bar (illegal) I went there out of curiousity.

Belladonna 1M, Arsinum 1M or whatever in all potencies was surved as liquor.

This went on for 4 years. And no known case of epedemic were noticed in Andhra Pradesh.

Same thing happened in Haryana when Bansilal banned liquor. My friends were drinking all potencies for couple of years.

Hi Kuldeep

It is possible that homeopathic liquid potencies were misused this way.

But, I remember you yourself telling very recently that,whether you take a drop, or a whole bottle at a time ,it amounts to a single dose.

You are correct, and that is the reason none of these people are affected.Moreover, a medicine which is not indicated, and which is taken casually in a single dose,does nothing.

Moreover, all the spicy stuff they would have eaten along with the drink would have antidoted even the single dose,any way.

Anyway, I will remember this in case prohibition is reimposed in A.P. : )

Murthy

So Murthy ...Kuldeep is proving that you are the 'frog' in the 'small well'.

Some people have a knack for putting 'their foot in their mouth '.

Don't worry Murthy ...you are not alone...many Americans think that George Bush is equally good at it !!

Pankaj Varma

Hi pankaj

Our posts crossed.

See my reply which is above yours.

I don't see anything which Kuldeep proved.

Can you ealborate?

Murthy

I repeat

A single dose of any medicine, casually taken,and which is antidoted in the process of taking itself,amounts to taking nothing.

Perhaps you people are not aware of it, and thought you caught me on the wrong foot.

You are sadly mistaken.

Murthy

Similum and Minimu is the wisest choice on the therapy point of view.

With minimum and similum one can wait and see the effect of the medicine, taste and learn its effects.

Aggravations word crept in homeopathy after Hahnamnn.

Similum and Minum requires a very dedicated patient as well a dedicated homeopathy.

India is the only country where homeopathy got so populor because hoempaths bend some rules. Patient must be cured or he would run away.

In other countries people go to homeopathy as a last resort.

If a similum and minum medicine is found, it works like a magic but it is hard to find. Utter cooperation of patient is needed.

In this internet age, some medicines have a certain known effects. That's how homeopathy is being used in these days.

For example: For all hpv infections Antimony Crudum is effective. For white tongue Antimony crudum is the entry point to treat.

Lycopodium is a composite remedy, it can be used as fireworks. It contains Phosphorous, Sulphur and much more.. so it is a great polychrest. Where Sulphur is indicated, Lycopodium would definetely work.

Pulsatilla contains Sulphur and much more.

Nux Vomica a master remedy, very high in Sulphur, Coppor, Cyanides and much more... Works on all cases.

Belladonna.... The greatest and most dengerous Narcotic in the world, works in the place of opium, canabis etc....

One must understand the picture of a materia also. Asking 200 questions to a patient and consulting reportery would also fails because patient is a three dimension matrix.

Bottom line is that take care of pain immidiately. Dont' tell patient to go find a classical homeopath or allopath but treat him.

Walking few steps with patient also works as a medicine, this gives patient a sense that he is taken care. Gradually one knows more about patient.

A factual correction please.

Aggravation word is used by Hann. himself.

§ 247 Fifth Edition

Under these conditions, the smallest doses of the best selected homœopathic medicine may be repeated with the best, often with incredible results, at intervals of fourteen, twelve, ten, eight, seven days, and, where rapidity is requisite, in chronic diseases resembling cases of acute disease, at still shorter intervals, but in acute diseases at very much shorter periods - every twenty - four, twelve, eight, four hours, in the very acutest every hour, up to as often as every five minutes, - in ever case in proportion to the more or less rapid course of the diseases and of the action of the medicine employed, as is more distinctly explained in the last note.


§ 247 Sixth Edition

It is impractical to repeat the same unchanged dose of a remedy once, not to mention its frequent repetition (and at short intervals in order not to delay the cure). The vital principle does not accept such unchanged doses without resistance, that is, without other symptoms of the medicine to manifest themselves than those similar to the disease to be cured, because the former dose has already accomplished the expected change in the vital principle and a second dynamically wholly similar, unchanged dose of the same medicine no longer finds, therefore, the same conditions of the vital force. The patient may indeed be made sick in another way by receiving other such unchanged doses, even sicker than he was, for now only those symptoms of the given remedy remain active which were not homœopathic to the original disease, hence no step towards cure can follow, only a true aggravation of the condition of the patient. But if the succeeding dose is changed slightly every time, namely potentized somewhat higher (§§ 269-270) then the vital principle may be altered without difficulty by the same medicine (the sensation of natural disease diminishing) and thus the cure brought nearer.1

1 We ought not even with the best chosen homœopathic medicine, for instance one pellet of the same potency that was beneficial at first, to let the patient have a second or third dose, taken dry. In the same way, if the medicine was dissolved in water and the first dose proved beneficial, a second or third and even smaller dose from the bottle standing undisturbed, even in intervals of a few days, would prove no longer beneficial, even though the original preparation had been potentized with ten succussions or as I suggested later with but two succussions in order to obviate this disadvantage and this according to above reasons. But through modification of every dose in its dynamiztion degree, as I herewith teach, there exists no offence, even if the doses be repeated more frequently, even if the medicine be ever so highly potentized with ever so many succussions. It almost seems as if the best selected homœopathic remedy could best extract the morbid disorder from the vital force and in chronic disease to extinguish the same only if applied in several different forms.


§ 248 Fifth Edition

The dose of the same medicine may be repeated several times according to circumstances, but only so long as until either recovery ensues, or the same remedy ceases to do good and the rest of the disease, presenting a different group of symptoms, demands a different homœopathic remedy.


§ 248 Sixth Edition

For this purpose, we potentize anew the medicinal solution1 (with perhaps 8, 10, 12 succussions) from which we give the patient one or (increasingly) several teaspoonful doses, in long lasting diseases daily or every second day, in acute diseases every two to six hours and in very urgent cases every hour or oftener. Thus in chronic diseases, every correctly chosen homœopathic medicine, even those whose action is of long duration, may be repeated daily for months with ever increasing success. If the solution is used up (in seven to fifteen days) it is necessary to add to the next solution of the same medicine if still indicated one or (though rarely) several pellets of a higher potency with which we continue so long as the patient experiences continued improvement without encountering one or another complaint that he never had before in his life. For if this happens, if the balance of the disease appears in a group of altered symptoms then another, one more homœopathically related medicine must be chosen in place of the last and administered in the same repeated doses, mindful, however, of modifying the solution of every dose with thorough vigorous succussions, thus changing its degree of potency and increasing it somewhat. On the other hand, should there appear during almost daily repetition of the well indicated homœopathic remedy, towards the end of the treatment of a chronic disease, so-called (§ 161) homœopathic aggravations by which the balance of the morbid symptoms seem to again increase somewhat (the medicinal disease, similar to the original, now alone persistently manifests itself). The doses in that case must then be reduced still further and repeated in longer intervals and possibly stopped several days, in order to see if the convalescence need no further medicinal aid. The apparent symptoms (Schein - Symptome) caused by the excess of the homœopathic medicine will soon disappear and leave undisturbed health in its wake. If only a small vial say a dram of dilute alcohol is used in the treatment, in which is contained and dissolved through succussion one globule of the medicine which is to be used by olfaction every two, three or four days, this also must be thoroughly succussed eight to ten times before each olfaction.

1 Made in 40, 30, 20, 15 or 8 tablespoons of water with the addition of some alcohol or a piece of charcoal in order to preserve it. If charcoal is used, it is suspended by means of a thread in the vial and is taken out when the vial is succussed. The solution of the medicinal globule (and it is rarely necessary to use more than one globule) of a thoroughly potentized medicine in a large quantity of water can be obviated by making a solution in only 7-8 tablespoons of water and after thorough succussion of the vial take from it one tablespoon and put it in a glass of water (containing about 7 to 8 spoonfuls), this stirred thoroughly and then given a dose to the patient. If he is unusually excited and sensitive, a teaspoon of this solution may be put in a second glass of water, thoroughly stirred and teaspoonful doses or more be given. There are patients of so great sensitiveness that a third or fourth glass, similarly prepared, may be necessary. Each such prepared glass must be made fresh daily. the globule of the high potency is best crushed in a few grains of sugar of milk which the patient can put in the vial and be dissolved in the requisite quantity of water.

Murthy

Murthy,
You have no answers for other points raised by Kuldeep ???

The important thing is ...for each materia...there are different rules regarding dosage, potency and repeating. The same rule does not apply.

You don't always get results by 'upping the potency'..as you have stated in one of your posts.

Sometimes ...we have got results by ' downing ' the potency.

Like Kuldeep has said somewhere....'take a piece of Thuja itself'.

Sajajad Akram has told one patient...'go back to the lower potency' ...for getting result.

Organon tired to make a general rule. It doesn't work many times.

Get out of the well !! See the world around !!

Pankaj Varma

Murthy...all theory...no practical.

Show us some skills in case taking and prescribing.

You have so much time...you are making excuses about time.

You just enjoy arguing !

Hi Pankaj

I don't see any other points to discuss in Kuldeep's posts.

They are all general in nature.

Yes.Lowering the potency is sometimes required.But, those cases are rare.

It is also there in the organon,repeated in chronic diseases.

There is nothing new you are telling me.

When you answer queries,we discuss the points that apply to majority of the cases.

Few exceptions, like what you have rised will be acknoweldged as and when they are brought forward.

Don't provoke me with your unnecessary comments.

You start an unnecessary fight with words like 'tall claims' and 'misleading statements' instead of discussing the subject.

You can't stomach if you are paid in the same coin.

You keep repeating the same words again and again, until we loose patience, and retaliate violently.

Why do you always invite trouble?

Murthy

Are you blind or what?

I have already started taking cases.

Go and find out.

Murthy

Murthy ,

For case taking and prescribing...I learn that you are diverting people to another friend's website ???

A classical homeopath ......Is that right ??

Pankaj Varma

Murthy,

Your words:
---------
'You can't stomach if you are paid in the same coin.

You keep repeating the same words again and again, until we loose patience, and retaliate violently.

Why do you always invite trouble? '
------------

When you donot have proper answers to my questions you write this type of comments to try to show yourself in great light.

People have the ability to see through what you are up to !!

Pankaj Varma

Hi Pankaj

Who is that friend? where did I recommend anybody's website?

Either show proof, or apologise.

You are the one who play all cheap tricks when you can't discuss on points.

Yes.every body is observing our duel.they are intelligent enough to come to their own conclusions.

Leave it to them.

Murthy

Materia Medicas are full of cases where 6c worked but higher dose failed and vice versa.

In 1810 Dr. John Martin Honigberger disciple of
Dr. Samuel Hahnemann visited India to treat the ruler of Punjab, Maharaja Ranjit Singh.
History books do not mention any perticular ailment but problem was severe).

Dr. John Martin Honigberger spent two weeks with Maharaja to know him better. He tried Dulcamara in high potency but it failed but stubbornly Dr. John Martin Honigberger didnt' give up on
Dulcamara and also he had limited variety of medicines. He found a local variety of Dulcamara in
Kashmir and tried 6C potency. Maharaja immidiately started recovering.

Above is from book:

Thirty Five Years in the East 1815-1850
by John Martin Honigberger

Yes.Kuldeep

Certain medicines work best in lower potencies and mother tinctures.

The best example is Cratageus.Another one is Viburnum opulus.

We will know these variations, partly as we master the materia medica, and partly by experience.

Murthy

Materia is Medica.
Later on keynotes were developed to shorten the process.

Otherwise if one goes to ten Classical Homeopaths with similar matrix of a patient all ten would arrive at ten different conclusion. This is the funnies thing.

Once I experimented this. I supplied an extreme detailed version of symptoms to 10 classics and they all gave ten remedies. Now who is holiest among all.

It is like taking Amitab Bacchan's horoscope to 10 famous astrologers without telling them his name. All would say that Saturn is bad, that's why poverty is not letting him go but in some time a window is opening and take a piece of antimony, bury it in some deserted place at saturday....

I did both experiments, one with classical homeopaths and other with astrologers. They fall in the same group.

What you say is possible.

Ten classical homeopaths may start with ten different prescriptions for the same set of symptoms.

The choice of the first medicine depends on their experience, and the priorities they give to the symptoms.

But, if they are really competent, all of them can cure the patient. That is the beauty of using a series of remedies.

You can fly nonstop from Hyd to Delhi.However, you can also first go to Bangaloe, then to Pune, then to Bombay and finally Delhi.

So, the variations in first prescriptions, by no means ,is a handicap for the defendents of classical homeopathy.

It is to be expected.

Murthy

A random walk theory.

Murthy...

If Dr. Samuel Christian Friedrich Hahnemann was still alive...he would have laughed at you ...so put a stop to all your stuff.

He wanted people to 'carry on with the journey'
.....not 'keep sitting at the rail station with the baggage and watch trains go by'.

Pankaj Varma