German New Medicine

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Michael,

Did they do a similar study on cross-dressing men?

[Grey Cloud]

Anybody want to start this experiment??

Why not just finagle some statistics showing that women who wear diaphanous clothes live longer and healthier lives.

[ElecGeekMom]

No, it's not the wearing (or shunning) of bras that makes a difference. It might as well have been a study of fingernail polish or purses or hatpins, for all the difference it would make. It would make more sense to try to figure out what the mental and emotional leanings tend to be for a woman who wears a bra for X number of hours a day, and then see how those leanings could figure into a cancer scenario. But you would also have to delve into any emotional shocks that she experienced before the cancer was diagnosed.

Read the material at the two links that Dries presented in his post that initiated this thread. Look for the part where Dr. Hamer himself describes how the connections came to light. Find the part that describes the progression of an illness and its resolution.

After I spent a fair amount of time reading about Hamer's theory, and when I would hear in the news about someone's having been diagnosed with cancer or some other disease (or having died from a heart attack), I would refer to this page ( http://www.whale.to/cancer/last.html ) to see what emotional trauma was associated with their illness. Usually, it isn't hard to see a connection between their life situation and their illness.

I have even considered studying German so I could read his materials in the original language, but it's pretty hard to find time for that. Maybe when (or if) I retire, then I could tackle that.... If only he had written in French--then those 3 years of study would prove themselves useful!

I'm happy to see many of your inquisitive minds taking an interest in GNM. But you need to read up on it before you start speculating. Just sayin'

[ElecGeekMom]

How would these kinds of conflict be resolved?

Well, the first place I heard of Dr. Hamer's work was through a link on Dr. Mercola's site. In connection with that, mention was made of EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique; trying Googling "emofree"). I understand there are methods that are similar but which go by different names. They involve tapping on accupuncture points (trigger points) while voicing certain assertions. I'm not going to go into detail here. You'd just have to check it out for yourself.

And, yes, I have done it myself. I wasn't averse to trying it out because my dad was a physical therapist who specialized in pain control during his later years of practice. I've seen him use various modalities in treating "trigger points" to eliminate patients' pain.

[starbiter]

Hello EGM: I don't know how you can ignore a 125 FOLD increase. Did you read the link? I believe the study was redone. The authors seem sincere.

I don't think pink bras are the answer.

michael

[Grey Cloud]

Hello EGM: I don't know how you can ignore a 125 FOLD increase. Did you read the link? I believe the study was redone. The authors seem sincere.

I don't think pink bras are the answer.
michael

'Don't knock it till you tried it'.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi EGM,
I understand and have some sympathy for where Hamer is coming from but a couple of questions arise:
1. How does he account for people who experience a 'trauma' - and pretty much everyone does of one kind or another- and yet don't get cancer or another serious disease?
2. As I understand it, cancer rates are on the rise, in the West at least, and have been for a while now. Has there been a corresponding rise in 'traumas', or perhaps, what is considered nowadays as a trauma?

[Maddogkull1]

The reason is simple. In the west we eat potato chips/hot dogs, that have nitrates and carcinogens in it, in the east (Japan, china) Even though the air is more toxic (china at least) they eat food that is healthy. vegetables, fish, insects, starfish and not so much meat and carbs.

[ElecGeekMom]

Hi EGM,
I understand and have some sympathy for where Hamer is coming from but a couple of questions arise:
1. How does he account for people who experience a 'trauma' - and pretty much everyone does of one kind or another- and yet don't get cancer or another serious disease?
2. As I understand it, cancer rates are on the rise, in the West at least, and have been for a while now. Has there been a corresponding rise in 'traumas', or perhaps, what is considered nowadays as a trauma?

Hey GC,

You would have to read Hamer's exact descriptions. The traumas he has described have been sudden, severe, and the person has been in no way prepared for the shock at that instant. It's like a punch in the gut.

IMHO, cancer rates are on the rise because in the West we have created an insane fear of cholesterol. Since the human brain is made more than two-thirds out of cholesterol, if you're depriving yourself of this life-sustaining substance, your body is going to rob it from wherever it can to make up the lack. People who have low cholesterol may not tend to die of heart disease, but they are more likely to die from cancer, stroke, suicide, or violent death.

Then there's the issue of whether something that's been diagnosed as cancer might actually be something else, say, a fungal infection.

I can give you links to where I got these statements, but I have to be somewhere in 45 minutes and don't have time to list the material I've been spending the past 8 years studying.

It's just something to think about.

On the other hand, one could also ask why, if bras are so carcinogenic, don't *most* women come down with breast cancer? Or if nitrates (and there are higher amounts of nitrates in celery than in bacon) are so deadly, why don't all bacon eaters end up in cancer treatment?

I have gotten to the point where each new day's news reports that something is now considered to be a carcinogen simply leave me yawning. Yes, I know the intention is to drive fear ever deeper into our hearts...which can itself lead to illness...and more megabucks spent on healthcare...but I'll take a pass, thankyouverymuch.

[starbiter]

EGM said,

[...]
On the other hand, one could also ask why, if bras are so carcinogenic, don't *most* women come down with breast cancer?

me again,
Most women don't wear bras 24 hours a day. The women who wear bras 24 hours a day seem to get breast cancer 75% of the time. Imagine if Victoria's Secret could convince all woman that lingerie was required for sleep. Then all women might get breast cancer 75% of the time. Since bras have been in vogue, breast cancer has become an epidemic, according to "Dressed to Kill".

I'm not opposed to emotional stress causing a compromised immune system. But to think stress is the be all, end all of disease seems overstated. I believe the situation is grey.

michael

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Michael,
Depends on how one defines 'bra'. Women have been wearing something or other since way back when.
What percentage of women wear them 24/7? What about breast size?

[starbiter]

Hola GC: It seems bras go back about 100 years.

http://www.fashion-era.com/bras_and_girdles.htm

Prior to this, camisoles were the norm for modesty. Then lifting, separating, and cancer became more common.

According to the below link, when women stop wearing bras, the healing process is quite rapid.

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

michael

[StefanR]

Hi Michael,
Depends on how one defines 'bra'. Women have been wearing something or other since way back when.
What percentage of women wear them 24/7? What about breast size?

Back in the days, I remember it quite well, when wisdom was still alive, they what was good.
Egyptian and Minoan women were very healthy:
http://genemyers.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/egypt.jpg
http://www.nmia.com/~jaybird/ThomasBake ... scene.html


On a serious note, restricting bloodflow or the circulation of lymph-fluid is never a wise thing to prolong for too long a time.

[Dries]

I agree with Starbiter that the correlations in the bra study are impressive and that it is wise not to restrict the blood flow for a long time. But I wonder what kinds of cancers they found because not everything that is being termed cancer is what we normally think of as cancer (uncontrolled cell growth). Are they talking perhaps about Fibrocystic Breast Disease as in Starbiter's second link?

I also agree that Hamer's discoveries would be easier to accept had he only said that conflict shocks gave an X percent chance to cause a disease. But he did not and he backed it up with impressive evidence. If he is right we should be very thankful that he did so. No more daily probability calculations (if I do X i have 2% chance of getting cancer but if i do Y my chances decrease by 5%), no more fear (because the body heals itself), no more guilt (because we never chose to get a conflict shock).

IMHO there is a downturn about other theories that link diseases to the mind, like for example from Bruce Lipton. While for many people it can be very empowering and liberating, many patients will feel very guilty hat they caused a disease with their thinking.

[starbiter]

Hello Dries: I don't have a copy of 'Dressed to Kill" available at this time. I've looked at the book in the past. If my memory is correct,it's not a problem with blood flow. Blood has the heart pumping pressure through the circulatory system. On the other hand, the lymphatic system has no pump. It requires body movement for circulation. Hence the problem with restriction of movement, and constriction. Also, the lymphatic system runs through the chest.

I believe Fibrocystic Breast Disease [FBD] is the precursor of Breast Cancer. I don't think FBD is counted as Breast Cancer in this survey. The good thing about FBD, if this study is correct, is that it is easily treated. Just stop wearing a bra.

I'm still in favor of stress, and on the other hand placebo, being factors in disease. Human beings seem complicated. So don't wear a bra, and say Om.

michael