German New Medicine

[Dries]

Since you are all open minded people I am interested in your comments about the following:

Dr Hamer started his cancer research when he developed testicle cancer after his son was shot dead. He wondered if his son's death was the cause of his cancer. Subsequently he investigated and documented over 15,000 cases of cancer and always found the following characteristics to be present, which he termed the Iron Rules of Cancer.

The Iron Rules of Cancer

1. Every cancer and related disease starts as a DHS that is a Dirk Hamer Syndrome, which is a serious, acute-dramatic and isolating conflict-shock-experience. It manifests simultaneously on three levels, psyche, brain and organ.

2. The theme of the psychic conflict determines the location of the focus or HAMER Herd in the brain, and the location of the cancer in the organ.

3. The course of the psychic conflict correlates with the development of the HAMER Herd in the brain, and the course of the cancer in the organ.

At the moment of the conflict-shock a short circuit occurs in a pre-determined place of the brain. This can be photographed with computed-tomography (CT) and looks like concentric rings on a shooting target or like the surface of water after a stone has been dropped into it. Later on, if the conflict becomes resolved, the CT image changes, an edema develop, and finally scar tissue.

How specific and precisely located these brain lesions are may be seen from the following: After a professional lecture a doctor handed him the brain CT of a patient and asked to explain it. From this Dr Hamer diagnosed the patient to have a fresh bleeding bladder carcinoma in the healing phase, an old prostate carcinoma, diabetes, an old lung carcinoma and sensory paralysis in a specific area, in addition to the corresponding emotional conflicts.

Amazingly, Dr Hamer was able to show that at the same time as the concentric brain lesion appears also the target organ CT may show such a concentric lesion. According to Dr Hamer this happens instantly when the psychic shock hits the subconscious level and this same second is the start of cancer. However, also other diseases can be caused by the same mechanism. How severe a disease becomes may depend on other psychological, energetic and nutritional factors but its nature and location are determined by the content of the conflict shock.

Hamer believes that the correlation between key emotional shock events, the target brain areas and the related organs has developed as an adaptation of our human evolution from similar programs in the animal world. When we unexpectedly experience emotional distress, an emergency repair program is set in motion, a biological conflict program with the aim of returning the individual to normal. Such programs can even apply to families or other groups.

This quote comes from http://www.whale.to/cancer/last.html, a website that was already mentioned by ElecGeekMom in a comment on this forum. A comprehensive website that gets regular updates is http://www.germannewmedicine.ca/home.html
What is interesting about this theory (and different from most theories in medicine) is that it makes predictions that you can test yourself.

[Maddogkull1]

The problem with cancer is that, when you have it, your time is ticking. You want it out of your body. Alternative medicines are amazing, but if they don't work, you just wasted x amount of days, months, years trying something that does not work. People have been cured from cancer, from radiation and chemo. That is why people do it. Now some people will say, alternative medicines does heal cancer, the problem is the amount of studies done. I have heard great results from rife therapy, (I think that is the name) and Junglelords thread that he posted talking about the asparagus diet is interesting. The problem is, if it does not work, you wasted that amount of time, when you could be doing what your doctor told you to do. By that I mean getting chemo or radiation treatments. Even though mainstream treatments are horrible for your body, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

[Dries]

Now some people will say, alternative medicines does heal cancer, the problem is the amount of studies done.

15.000 cases are enough validation for me. The only remaining question is: is he a liar (or insane) or not. So far I have only seen evidence of the last option, for example people who discover that the 'iron rules of cancer' work in their own lives. Interestingly the German New Medicine can predict when alternative medicines and chemotherapy will work and when they will not. For example when the conflict that causes a tumor is already resolved the tumor will heal naturally and the alternative therapist or chemotherapist gets the credit, if the conflict is not resolved no diet or no amount of chemotherapy will cure the tumor.
If you are worrying about wasting time a good advice from Dr. Hamer is this (regardless of which medicine you choose): "inform yourself while you are still healthy"

[Maddogkull1]

so they are basically saying the conflict comes from emotional distress? What abot the carcinogens we intake everyday?

[ElecGeekMom]

"Association" with cancer does not imply "causation".

[Dries]

so they are basically saying the conflict comes from emotional distress?

Yes, almost. According to Dr. Hamer it starts with the biological conflict shock, which has to be unexpected and dramatic. This can be experienced for example when you loose your job or when a loved one has to go to the hospital. On a brain CT-scan the impact of the conflict shock is visible as a series of concentric rings. This starts the disease. The biological shock will usually cause a great deal of emotional distress also. But you can have emotional distress without getting a disease.

What we call diseases, including cancer, Dr Hamer calls "meaningful special biological programs". These programs are controlled by the body (the brain). The purpose of the special biological program is to help you resolve the conflict. Only when the conflict is resolved does the second part of the program starts, called the healing phase. Destressing or thinking away the emotional stress does not get you in the healing phase.

I know this sounds strange because it goes really against everything we have been told about disease.

[Maddogkull1]

There are people who are miserable with their lives, and they don't have cancer? What about them. A lot of people have problems, explain then a little kid getting leukemia. What kind of emotional distress causes that? ALOT of people get stressed, and have dramatic things happen to them, and they do not have cancer. You have to explain from all sides from the story.

[Dries]

According to German new medicine leukemia is caused by a self devaluation conflict. A child could experience this for example after falling off a swing and breaking a shoulder. However, Leukemia is already the healing phase. The ultimate purpose of the program is to strengthen the bone. Here is a testimony but not from a child: http://www.learninggnm.com/documents/sa ... onial.html

ALOT of people get stressed, and have dramatic things happen to them, and they do not have cancer. You have to explain from all sides from the story.

Ok in my opinion there can be several explanations:
-The dramatic thing is not experienced as a biological conflict
-It was a conflict shock but the resolution happens so fast that there are no visible symptoms
-It was a biological conflict shock but it causes a different disease than cancer
-It was a biological shock that causes cancer but the cancer is undetected or has already healed naturally

You could probably find more explanations yourself. I doubt that this satisfies you because giving explanations does not prove it is true. Predictions are better. According to GNM if you know the conflict and when it happened and if and when it was resolved, you can predict what symptoms you will experience in the healing phase and how long they will last. The severity of the symptoms depends on how long it took to resolve the conflict: the longer the more severe.
Remember this is not only about cancer. So everybody who was sick would have a first-hand experience of this. Have you experienced any diseases lately?

[Dries]

What abot the carcinogens we intake everyday?

As far as i understand it, Dr. Hamer has found for every cancer case he examined a corresponding biological conflict. So he has no need to suppose that there are substances that cause cancer.
However there are toxic substances that can make you sick or kill you so it is wise to eat a healthy diet and avoid environmental toxins.

"There is absolutely no proof that "carcinogenic" substances have a direct effect on an organ - without first going through the psyche and the brain."

Ryke Geerd Hamer

But why do scientists tell us that there are carcinogens? What sort of evidence is there? I haven't looked into this but is suppose the 'best' evidence would have come from the investigation of situations where people were exposed to large doses of the substances, as happens in accidents, wars or evil medical experiments. But these definitely cause conflict shocks so these could explain the cancers.

Other evidence comes from animal testing. According to the German New Medicine, animals get cancer the same way as humans. Some quotes from the webpage http://www.learninggnm.com/documents/carcinogens.html:

"…by using different kinds of animals in different protocols, experimenters can find evidence in support of virtually any theory. For instance, researchers have used animal experiments to show that cigarettes both do and do not cause cancer."
Barnard, Neal D., Kaufman, Stephen R., Animal Research Is Wasteful And Misleading,

Scientific American, Feb 1997, Vol. 276/2

The practice of animal experimentation and vivisection in the name of medical research is one of the darkest chapters in the history of mankind, and in the history of medicine in particular. The number of animals dying of torture through the practice of vivisection is estimated at around 500.000 a day world-wide. Through ruthless animal testing, medical science has assembled over 1000 alleged "carcinogens", proving only that researchers have found a thousand ways to distress animals with conflict shocks.

During the experiment, the helpless animals can suffer a number of biological conflicts: "attack conflicts", "death-fright conflicts", "existence conflicts", "territorial conflicts", "abandonment conflicts", "self-devaluation conflicts", and so forth - ALL causing CANCER!

[ElecGeekMom]

I like the call the traumatic shocks "NOOOOOOOOO! moments".

It's the reaction we see when something (or someone) that a person seriously and completely depended on to be a certain way, suddenly and irreversibly became null and void.

It would be like the traumatic death of a dream.

[Jarvamundo]

Hi Dries, welcome to the forum,

Specific psychotronic causality of cancer seems to be a stretch to me, and to open to human degree's of freedom of interpretation, as many events not explored by pshyco analysis would also effect a beings life. How would one make the determination of which events to ignore, thus identifying the specific trauma of 'causality'? ie... just about every child (pre xbox 360 generation) has fallen off a swing yeah? So why does billy get cancer? and not jane?

Once I realized from GNM that all of my recent illnesses were related to worth, I noticed that my emotional healing had the same theme and that all of my perceived messages from others were about feeling less or unworthy, which made my addiction to work understandable.

I would like to see studies in animals and I find it a bit difficult to see how you'd sit down with a lab rat and discuss it's emotional 'feeling of worth'.

However there are clear relationships to stress and illness, Dr Bruce Liptons on the biology of perception might be interesting for you: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6396723343# . Does stress impact ones immune system? I think clearly... could this open the immune system up for a cancer or illness to bloom? well ok yes...

But the key question remains for good science... Can the particular traumatic event be identified as the sole cause, and exclude all others? At which point in this large chain of events do you decide or identify causality of illness?

I see it hard to establish reproducibility, which is fundamental to good science.

[Dries]

I like the call the traumatic shocks "NOOOOOOOOO! moments".

It's the reaction we see when something (or someone) that a person seriously and completely depended on to be a certain way, suddenly and irreversibly became null and void.

It would be like the traumatic death of a dream.

Interesting! So reading Velikovsky's "Worlds in collision" and taking it seriously could cause a traumatic shock and possibly start a biological special program? Psychologically this would be experienced as an obsession with the idea, as David Talbott expresses in the film "remembering the end of the world"

This would explain why many people, after going to school, do not consider alternative theories about the world, even if they are better. It is a self defence mechanism that protects them from conflict shocks.

How would these kinds of conflict be resolved?

[Dries]

Jaravamundo, thanks for the welcome and your good questions.

How would one make the determination of which events to ignore, thus identifying the specific trauma of 'causality'? ie... just about every child (pre xbox 360 generation) has fallen off a swing yeah? So why does billy get cancer? and not jane?

It is true that the GNM does not explain why a similar situation gives a conflict shock to one person and not to another.

I find Bruce Lipton's work interesting. I watched another video some time ago but I will probably watch this one tonight. In the meantime here is a comment about Bruce Lipton's work from http://www.learninggnm.com/documents/un ... eases.html that might interest you:

The studies of Bruce Lipton, presented in "The Biology of Belief" (2005), are refreshingly science-based. Dr. Lipton, a trained cell biologist, demonstrates through scientific experimentation that the behavior of cells and the epigenetic expression of genes are indeed influenced by a person's beliefs and perception of the world. This translates into a profound shift from being controlled by our genes to the control over our genes. "From Victim to Master" quickly became the slogan of Epigeneticists.

Dr. Joe Dispenza ("Evolve Your Brain", 2006) introduces the "Biology of Change" by drawing on intriguing research from the emerging field of neuroplasticity. In accordance with the discoveries of the new physics of quantum mechanics, both Lipton's and Dispenza's findings corroborate, whether on the cellular or neurological level, that the mind is a powerful co-creator of our reality.

On the principle "the mind controls the genes" and "thoughts change the biology" both researchers conclude that beliefs and thoughts must also be the underlying cause of diseases. "A negative belief can make you sick" (Lipton) and "thoughts create disease" (Dispenza), they argue. At first glance, this seems reasonable. However, the beliefs-and-thoughts-cause-disease theory fails to explain why a person develops a very specific disease; why a heart condition, why a certain type of cancer, why a muscle disorder, why a skin rash, or simply a common cold. The theory is unable to explain why, for example, a woman develops breast cancer in the breast glands (glandular breast cancer) or in the milk-ducts (intra-ductal breast cancer), why the cancer is in her right or in her left breast, why the tumor grows fast or more slowly, and, furthermore, why not every woman who "believes" in breast cancer, rather who is indoctrinated with the fear of breast cancer, which is the vast majority of women, ends up getting the cancer. The claim that an illness is the result of a person's beliefs or thoughts does not account for the fact that non-congenital diseases, such as hepatitis, occur already in newborns. Furthermore, mammals and other species also develop illnesses, including many different types of cancers.

[starbiter]

It's a shame to present this as black and white. I believe in grey, except when it comes to black holes.





If you read the link below, it would appear bras are a significant factor in breast cancer.

http://www.all-natural.com/bras.html

[...]
Women who wore their bras 24 hours per day had a 3 out of 4 chance of developing breast cancer (in their study, n=2056 for the cancer group and n=2674 for the standard group).
Women who wore bras more than 12 hour per day but not to bed had a 1 out of 7 risk.
Women who wore their bras less than 12 hours per day had a 1 out of 152 risk.
Women who wore bras rarely or never had a 1 out of 168 chance of getting breast cancer. The overall difference between 24 hour wearing and not at all was a 125-fold difference.

me again

My English teacher in high school pointed out that two days prior to getting a cold, if we looked back, something was emotionally upsetting. This seems to work over many, many years. But we can probably find something upsetting every day, if we look. Especially if you need to deal with human beings. We are strange.

Tell your friends about the bra study, it could save a life. Camisoles are one answer.

michael

[Osmosis]

Anybody want to start this experiment??