Anaximperator blog

Blogging against alternative cancer treatments

German New Medicine (GNM): Hamer House of Horrors

The notion that our emotional state plays an important role when it comes to developing or curing cancer is widespread, although scientific evidence does not support this.

A very scary perversion of this idea is the German New Medicine of de-licensed German physician Ryke Geerd Hamer. He claims that a sudden psychological conflict is the cause of all cancers, of which we can only be cured by solving the underlying conflict according to the principles of the “German New Medicine”.

Hamer rejects all conventional treatment including pain medication, as these will stand in the way of solving the emotional trauma. According to Hamer, cancer cannot metastasize; what conventional medicine calls metastases are new cancers, brought about by new emotional shocks, for example the shock of being diagnosed with cancer. Only if the emotional trauma has been solved, and only then, the patient is cured and the cancer will go away.

Biography of Hamer

Ryke Geerd Hamer was born on 17 May 1935 in Düsseldorf-Mettmann. He finished his medical studies in 1962. His specialization in internal medicine took Ryke Geerd Hamerhim ten years to complete instead of the usual five.

Contrary to claims on numerous web sites, Hamer never was a psychologist, a gynaecologist, a radiologist or an oncologist.

Likewise, he never was a head physician or head of a clinical department either. Between 1967 and 1976 he worked as a doctor in Heidelberg and tried to sell apartments in Hamburg.

He also invented a number of medical instruments, one of which is the ‘Hamer scalpel,’ a surgical instrument that later turned out to cause serious tissue damage.

Dirk Hamer Syndrome

August 17, 1978 Hamer’s son Dirk was shot on a yacht near Corsica. Some months later he died at the hospital. The perpetrator – Vittorio Emanuele, the son of the Italian king Umberto II – was never convicted for the murder.

Hamer claims to have developed testis cancer within two months after the death of his son; apparently Hamer doesn’t know that cancer usually takes years to develop. It seems these events caused him to devise the theories forming the framework of the ‘Germanische Neue Medizin’ – the German New Medicine (GNM).

The GNM is based on the five “biological laws of nature,”  which Hamer claims to have discovered. The first and most important law states that cancer (or any other illness for that matter) is always caused by an sudden emotional shock. In the case of Hamer himself this was the death of his son Dirk. Therefore he calls this shock a “Dirk Hamer Syndrome” or “DHS”.

Downright absurd is the notion that traumatic events are always visible on a CT scan in the location of the brain that corresponds with the organ where the disease manifests itself. Hamer calls this pattern a ‘Hamer focus.’ It has since been confirmed that these patterns are artefacts that are sometimes visible on CT scans. In the early 80s these artefacts were much more frequent than today, due to technical imperfections of the equipment at the time.

According to Hamer, cancer cannot metastasize. Instead, metastases are new cancers, caused by new shocks, such as the shock of being diagnosed with cancer and the fear of the ensuing conventional treatments.

The only way to cure cancer is by solving the underlying traumatic conflict. Conventional medicine such as surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, but also pain medication, must never be used, because this will have a negative effect on the healing process.

Interesting though is that Hamer himself was cured of his testis cancer by conventional surgery at Tübingen hospital.

In 1981 Hamer presents his theories at University of Tübingen, in an attempt to become a professor. His presentation, which is titled ‘The Dirk Hamer Syndrome and the iron rule of Cancer,’ is demolished and dismissed as pseudo science.

Victims

Undaunted, in the following years Hamer opened various illegal clinics in Germany. He treated large groups of patients, including his own wife Birgit who suffered from breast cancer.

Birgit died in 1985. Hamer claimed this was because she was sceptical about his GNM. Later he would maintain that he ‘cured’ her of breast cancer no less than five times.

By the end of 1985 charges were brought against Hamer because of the scandalous goings on in his private clinic in Katzenelnbogen. Less than a year later his medical licence ws revoked. However, to this day this hasn’t stopped Hamer from continuing to ‘treat’ patients and the number of victims of the GNM has reached frightening proportions.

Olivia Pilhar

Hamer’s best-known victim by far is Olivia Pilhar. Olivia was six years old when she was diagnosed with a Wilms’ tumour. During Hamer’s treatment, Olivia’s situation declined dramatically.

Relatives of Olivia eventually called in the authorities, at which the parents fled to Spain, together with Hamer and their daughter. In the mean time the tumour had grown to such a size that Olivia developed life-threatening respiratory problems. After intervention of the Austrian president and the Spanish police Olivia was returned to Vienna, where she underwent surgery and chemotherapy. She has been in good health ever since. Because of these events the parents received a suspended prison sentence. They support Hamer’s treatment to this day.

Michaeala Jakubczyk

The wife of Brussels street artist Gilbert Jakubczyk was 36 years old when a small lump was found in her right breast. Michaela waited very long before visiting a doctor and when she did, the cancer had already advanced considerably, although it was still curable.

The oncologist advised chemotherapy to shrink the tumour, followed by surgery. When she was halfway her chemotherapy, Michaela was referred on the internet – in a chatbox – to Hamer’s GNM.

Together with her mother, a fervent Hamer-believer, she visited Hamer in Spain and he advised her to stop the chemotherapy and cancel the operation: she should concentrate on the cause of her conflict instead.

Not long after that, she left her husband and moved in with her mother. Hamer had told her that a tumour in the right breast indicates a conflict with the partner and Michaela was made to believe that leaving her husband was necessary in order to cure her.

Followers of Hamer looked after Michaela in het mother’s house, until she started to deteriorate too much. In the end a doctor was called in who ordered that she be taken to a hospice straight away.

She was suffering excruciating pain and died on the 13th of November 2005, four days after she was admitted to the hospice and two days before her birthday. The staff said they had never seen anyone in such pain and misery and so eaten up by cancer. Her suffering beggars all description.

Since then Gilbert Jakubczyk has been devoting the greater part of his life warning people against the GNM, to prevent more cancer patients trusting their lives with this dangerous charlatan.

Olivia and Michaela are by no means the only victims, as is also evident from the number of complaints filed about Hamer in the course of time. Until this day, people continue to suffer and die a cruel, needless death because of this horrible quackery.

Hamer served numerous prison sentences for illegally treating patients: in 1992 and from 1997 until 1998 in Cologne and from 2004 until 2006 in France.

After his release he set up business in Spain and when things got too hot for him there he went into hiding in Norway. The total number of victims runs into the hundreds, and no cured patients are known.

See also: Corinne Thos, Hamer victim, dies at 41.

International Jewish conspiracy

Rebbe Menachem Mendel SchneersonHamer, who is obsessed with Judaism, has convinced himself that his GNM is suppressed by an international Jewish conspiracy.

He claims that Jewish scientists have stolen his GNM and are purposely hiding it from the rest of the world, which is evident from the fact that in Israel all Jews are treated with the GNM. (Believe me, they are not!) He says that in doing so the Jews have caused over 2 billion people to die needlessly from cancer.

He even wrote several letters to Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson to complain about this.

Hamer also claims that Rabbi Schneerson admitted to this ‘gross injustice’ perpetrated by the Jews and that he verified the GNM. Needless to say, the Rabbi did no such thing.

Hamer then made known that Germany’s ‘Chief Rabbi Dr. Esra Iwan Götz’ at a conference in Santegod, Norway, confessed to the genocide of the Jews on over two billion people by means of hiding the GNM from the world.

On the web site, we see the so called ‘Chief Rabbi’ in the process of placing his signature under this  shameful document.

But Germany has no Chief Rabbi, or no ordinary rabbi called Esra Iwan Götz either for that matter.

However, there does exist a man named Iwan Götz: a rabid anti-semite and convicted holocaust denier, as well as proud possessor of a number of other convictions and one of Hamer’s closest accomplices. This is the man in the photo on the website, posing as Germany’s ‘Chief Rabbi’ in the Santegod conference.

Followers

Sadly, in spite of his dangerous and frightening ideas, this deeply disturbed man has many followers. For unfathomable reasons though not all of his offspring received the master’s approval and consequently they too have been accused of ‘stealing’ his GNM, such as the Meta-medicine and the Biologie Totale.  (Not that this makes them any less dangerous though, being virtually exact copies of the GNM!)

The Canadian branch of the GNM however did receive Hamer’s personal seal of approval. Promoted by Caroline Markolin, they are actively trying to spread Hamer’s ideas in Canada, the USA and Europe.

Click here for all posts on German New Medicine on this blog

Sources:
The Death Sect
HaGalil
Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij

See also: Respectful Insolence on ‘Biologie Totale’

220 responses to “German New Medicine (GNM): Hamer House of Horrors

  1. Pingback: The Deadly Dangers of Magical Thinking « Anax blog

  2. jli July 28, 2009 at 4:13 pm

    For Hamer’s theory to be true, the following would have to be true as well:..

    As a pathologist I would like to add one more point to your list:
    The cells of the metastatic lesion would have to have to have features of the cells in the organ(s) in which the metastasis occur. In reality they have features of the cells of the primary tumor. I have elaborated a little on that point at http://www.123hjemmeside.dk/cancer_is_not_a_fungus/21160734

  3. Raju Salot August 1, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    my friend have hokines cancer

  4. beatis August 1, 2009 at 5:46 pm

    I suppose you mean Hodgkin’s disease? I’m very sorry for your friend. Survival rates for Hodgkin’s disease can be quite good though, see: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/hodg.html. I hope your friend has a good prognosis. I wish him all the best, and you too.

  5. Fingal August 9, 2009 at 7:29 am

    You guys have a dogma conflict. You counter Hamer’s assertions, which you characterize broadly, with your own equally broad assertions. There is a scientific approach to this kind of dispute, which is to cite *evidence*. This is missing in your response.

    I hadn’t heard from any Hamer-affiliated source that he blames Jews for anything. If this is true, it is of course disappointing.

    The issue of CT-scan phenomena being of the brain or of the machine is addressed specifically in Hamer’s book, and his claims of verification by the manufacturers of the equipment are specific and detailed. Your counter-assertions are not.

    Citing a few cases in which Hamer’s approach has ended in death is that ultimate horror: anecdotal evidence. How many horror stories could we come up with if we looked at every conventionally-treated person who died? No doubt there are statistics that could be presented, but you make no such attempt.

    Your rhetoric is skillful, but it is not science.

  6. beatis August 9, 2009 at 8:59 am

    @ Fingal,

    I quote:

    Your rhetoric is skillful, but it is not science.

    and

    There is a scientific approach to this kind of dispute, which is to cite *evidence*. This is missing in your response.

    Let me tell you what rule number is one in science: he who makes the claim must deliver the evidence.

    Until now Hamer has failed to deliver one single shred of evidence for his claims. But it has been shown beyond a doubt that Hamer’s theory is completely unfounded, see the last paragraph of this post.

    Hamer and his proponents claim to have cured over 50.000 people of cancer, but nobody knows their names and nobody has ever spoken to them. Where are they, why don’t they speak? Or are they perhaps so silent because they simply don’t exist?

    The issue of CT-scan phenomena being of the brain or of the machine is addressed specifically in Hamer’s book, and his claims of verification by the manufacturers of the equipment are specific and detailed. Your counter-assertions are not.

    I know this so-called ‘statement’ by Siemens. But since manufacturers of scan technology, as well as the Society of German Radiologists are still informing users on the occurrence of these artefacts in older scan technology, we can safely assume the statement in Hamer’s book is a forgery. Also, Hamer claims to have treated over 50,000 patients, yet he can only show no more than a few scans and we don’t even know to which patients they belong.

    Citing a few cases in which Hamer’s approach has ended in death is that ultimate horror: anecdotal evidence.

    There are well over a hundred known, registered victims. You label this ‘anecdotal evidence.’ Well, Hamer hasn’t been able to give us even one single ‘anecdote’ of a patient who was cured by his therapy.

    How many horror stories could we come up with if we looked at every conventionally-treated person who died? No doubt there are statistics that could be presented, but you make no such attempt.

    (bold by me) When you think this, you haven’t read this blog, for example this, which you can find in the blogroll.

    I hadn’t heard from any Hamer-affiliated source that he blames Jews for anything. If this is true, it is of course disappointing.

    Oh, it is true, see for yourself here and in the post. Given the idiocy of what he tries to make us believe about this Jewish ‘conspiracy,’ I find disappointing rather an understatement though.

    You guys have a dogma conflict. You counter Hamer’s assertions, which you characterize broadly, with your own equally broad assertions.

    Please substantiate this. If you can that is.

  7. anaximperator August 9, 2009 at 9:40 am

    For the life of me, I honestly can’t understand how anyone would believe such a load of crap. You must be really desperate to do so, but then, that is just what some cancer patients are. But what they need is sensible treatment, empathy, support and encouragement to go through it. What they definitely don’t need is dangerous idiots like this man.

  8. A Cancer Sufferers Carer August 31, 2009 at 6:23 pm

    Hi,
    I have been watching my beloved mum suffer so much from this wretched mans advice. Over the past few weeks i have watched her complain about her pain and itching and swelling and i give her a look and she says every time, “its ok its just healing lovey”.
    So how long does healing go on for??? Thats what i wanna bloody know cuz shes been healing for ooo about 12 months now and still NOTHING, JUST THE CANCER , i know in my heart the pain itching an swelling means its getting worse and before long she will die a painfull death if i can’t undo this wretched mans stupid ideas in her head. She found him in her desperation to find a natural cure and strangely enough (with a tone of sarcasim!) her cancer has progressively gotten worse in a very short period of time and is refusing conventional treatment. Before long i will be adding her name to his list of victims.
    Mr Hamer, i hope when you stand up on your judgement day, god strikes you down and makes you SUFFER the same pain as your victims, and my mother is almost one of them.

  9. beatis August 31, 2009 at 7:54 pm

    I am so very sorry, it must be total hell to see your mother suffer like that because of her belief in this criminal. God, this is awful.

  10. bebe September 3, 2009 at 6:23 am

    What do I tell my dear friend who has stage 4 melanoma in lungs, liver, spine, spleen, breast at age 30 something with a baby? She doesn’t want to spend her final days as an invalid caused by the harshness of biochemotherapy and so has chosen the gentler method of “integrative treatment”. Smoothies, flax oil, positive thinking and such. I suppose for the time being her days are nicer and who know what will happen. . . But this “integrative clinic” pushing the German New Medicine just seems like a pipe dream. Very very sad. . . .

  11. beatis September 3, 2009 at 7:14 am

    We have no problem with complementary therapies. It can soothe symptoms, improve health and – probably even more important – diminish fear. Thus, it can give people peace of mind and be very valuable in helping to cope them with very difficult circumstances.

    If I was stage IV and could only lengthen my life with a short time by doing heavy chemo I’d probably say no thank you as well.

    Our problem is with charlatans who make people believe conventional treatment is always the wrong choice, even with early stage cancers. I also have a problem with alternative healers making people with stage IV cancer believe they can still be cured easily, as long as they take the quack therapy. You’d be surprised at the amounts of money that are wrung out of people at the end of their lives. I’ve known people spending all their savings on completely useless treatments. What quacks like Simoncini, Hamer, Clark etc do is provide totally unrealistic hope whilst depriving the patient of thousand of dollars that may help their families after they have gone. It is about as low as you can get if you ask me.

    I am certain that Hamer is not interested in his patients. Most quacks are not. My opinion is that they are mainly driven by a callous, pathological vanity. And desperate people are an easy target for them to prey on.

    Honest complementary practitioners will never lie to cancer patients, like telling them that they don’t need conventional medicine. They will be honest about what the treatment will not do – which is to cure the cancer – and what it will do: ease symptoms, diminish fear, provide a sense of control and peace of mind. And: they will charge normal fees instead of tens of thousands of dollars. They will help and support their patients instead of abusing them.

  12. Pingback: Corinne Thos, Hamer Victim, Dies at 41 « Anaximperator blog

  13. Mauricio September 14, 2009 at 1:14 pm

    Chemo has cured people, and Dr. Hamer has cured people as well. Some, evidence that Dr. Hamer has killed people, but, Chemo has killed millions.

  14. anaximperator September 14, 2009 at 1:25 pm

    Dr. Hamer has cured people as well

    Hamer is one of the worst medical criminals the world has ever seen. Where is your evidence that he has cured people? And no testimonials please: evidence. As in: proof.

  15. Evolution September 23, 2009 at 12:28 am

    This video was shown on public German tv in 1997

    997 – Dr. Mendel lawyer of Dr. Hamer . “Neue Medizin” … Germanic New Medizine

    Der Bundesgerichtshof hat also in einer Entscheidung, die ich hier habe
    das von Wissenschaftlichkeit der Krebsbehandlung nach schulmedizinischer
    Art überhaupt nicht die Rede sein kann. Es ist eine Krankeit deren Herkunft
    wir nicht kennen, deren Entwicklung wir nicht kennen, deren Verlauf sie auch
    nicht positiv reproduzierbar beeinflussen können…. so der Bundesgerichtshof.
    …………………………………..
    The Federal Court (highest court) has in a decision, which I have here, quoted
    that the official cancer treatment by the traditional medical profession cannot
    be considered as science at all. It is an illness where we do not know where it
    comes from, we do not know the development, which cannot be positively influenced on a reproducable scale…. so said the Federal Court.

    [Beatis edit:] There is no such decision by the Federal Court, except in Hamer’s mind. We doesn’t he just show us this ‘decision’, so that we can ascertain right away that it is a fake.

    …………………………………………

    Und was die Erfolge der Schulmedizin betrifft kein Indiz für Effizienz
    schulmedizinierscher Krebsbehandlung gegeben ist. 1979 der Deutsche
    Bundestag. Punkt 1
    …………………………………
    What concerns the succes of the traditional medical profession there is no efficiency
    in the treatment of cancer. 1979 the German Federal Parliament. Point 1

    [Beatis edit:] Like I said, the federal court never made such a decision. But 1979…?? We have 2009 now, in case you forgot.

    …………………………………
    Punkt 2. Point 2

    Professor Abel, Biostatistiker an der Universität Heidelberg, wie gesagt, Spitzeninstitut
    der deutschen Krebsforschung. Der kommt also zum Ergebnis, dass über alle Krebsarten
    hinweg, über alle hinweg die Mortalität gegen 90% geht.
    D.h. 100 Leute werden schulmedizinisch krebsbehandelt nach Ablauf von etwa
    plus/minus 5 Jahren sind 90 davon tot.
    ……………………………………………….
    Professor Abel, bio statistic expert at the University Heidelberg, the top institut
    for the German cancer science. He comes up with a result, that considering all different
    kinds of cancer, that the mortality rate is about 90%.

    i.e. 100 people are treated with the traditional cancer treatment, after about +/- 5 years
    90 of them are dead.

    [Beatis edit:] This is complete nonsense and a vicious lie. Prof. Abel’s research concerned only metastasized – e.g. for the main part already incurable – cancers. The average cancer cure rate is now 60%, see: http://www.eurocare.it/Results/tabid/79/Default.aspx

    ………………………………………………
    Dr. Hamer hat ja in Österreich behandelt. Er hatte ein Zentrum in Burgau. Die
    dortige Patientenkartei ist gerade von der dortigen Ermittlungsbehörde beschlagnahmt
    worden… belief sich etwa auch 6 bis 7.ooo Patienten. Zeitraum 7, 8 Jahre, 9 Jahre bis
    heute. . Sämtliche Patienten sind aufgesucht worden von den österreichischen Ermittlungsbehörden.
    Von etwa 6.000 Patienten aus der Kartei haben die Polizeibeamten etwas 5.000 lebende
    Menschen angetroffen.
    Also ein unschätzbarerer Dienst am Werk Hamer’s. 70 bis 80% aller Patineten, die dort behandelt worden sind, haben nach vielen Jahren überlebt und das sind Zahlen, die erreicht die Schulmedizin mit herkömmlicher Krebsbehandlung schlicht und einfach nicht.
    ……………………………………………
    Dr. Hamer was working in Austria. He had a center in Burgau. The registry of the data of
    his patients was recently confiscated by the judiciary…. it included about 6 to 7,000 patients.
    Time span 7, 8, 9 years up to today. All patients were visited by the Austrian judiciary.
    Of the approx. 6,000 patients of the patients registry the police found approx. 5,000 patients
    to be alive.

    An incredible service for the work of Hamer. 70 to 80% of all patients, who where treated
    there have survived all these many years and these are numbers which the tradional medicine
    with the common treatment of cancer simply does not achieve.

    [Beatis edit:] O really? And when exactly would these policemen have checked on 6000 patients? And why does nobody know their names? And why have none of them stepped forward to speak on behalf of their saviour? And why have we never seen a court transcript in which it says that such a research was indeed carried out by the Austrian police?

    …………………………………………….
    My (Evolution) additional comment:
    We should take into consideration that most patients turn to orthodox medicine first…. which means operation, chemotherapy and radiation. When this is not successful, then they look for alternative methods

    [Beatis edit:] How convenient that conventional medicine cannot cure everyone with cancer. When Hamer’s torture fails – which it is certain to do – he’ll just go and blame conventional medicine, if the patient had this before. And when the patients turn to him right away, he blames them for not having tried hard enough to solve their inner conflicts or he blames their family or loved ones for not having supported the patient enough in following his ‘treatment’.

  16. beatis September 23, 2009 at 5:21 am

    @ Evolution:

    I replied to your comment by adding edits to it.

  17. Evolution September 23, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    The sufferings of tens of millions of cancer patients screams to heaven. There is hardly a family who has no family members who died of cancer.

    In the magazines and new papers we can always read. “After a harsh struggle he/she died of cancer.”

    I wonder why in my entire life I have never seen a movie or tv film where people who had cancer consulted a doctor of alternative medicine.

    I still remember the first president of our cancer society – hm she died of cancer herself!

    The stories I have been told by my own family, friends, associates about their loved ones were dying of cancer. Mere stories of horror…

    This problem is not solved by intellectual talk and a fight of words only by wisdom.

    Dr. Lorraine Day’s story of her own cancer and how she healed herself has very much in common with that what I found outlined by Dr. Hamer and others. She is now in her 70ies, strong, vital, sooo much alive.

    Here is her website:

    http://www.drday.com/tumor.htm
    http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/dr_day/testimonials.htm

  18. wilmamazone September 23, 2009 at 3:47 pm

    Dr. Lorraine Day’s story of her own cancer and how she healed herself has very much in common with that what I found outlined by Dr. Hamer and others. She is now in her 70ies, strong, vital, sooo much alive.

    Everyone can tell stories, but does that automatically mean that all stories are true, Evolution?
    When a story sounds like a fairy tale, meaning:too good to be true, it usually is!
    Dr. Day, Hamer, others, they are dreamers and liars.

  19. beatis September 23, 2009 at 4:47 pm

    @ Evolution:

    The sufferings of tens of millions of cancer patients screams to heaven. There is hardly a family who has no family members who died of cancer.

    So? How does this make Hamer’s therapy work?
    And you seem to forget: 40% of patients survive.

    In the magazines and new papers we can always read. “After a harsh struggle he/she died of cancer.”

    What’s your point?

    I wonder why in my entire life I have never seen a movie or tv film where people who had cancer consulted a doctor of alternative medicine.

    ???

    I still remember the first president of our cancer society – hm she died of cancer herself!

    Again: what’s your point?

    This problem is not solved by intellectual talk and a fight of words only by wisdom.

    No, this problem is solved by science.

    Dr. Lorraine Day’s story of her own cancer and how she healed herself has very much in common with that what I found outlined by Dr. Hamer and others. She is now in her 70ies, strong, vital, sooo much alive.

    Lorraine Day has been far from honest about her illness, to put it nicely: she has consistently left out essential information. Btw, the bump on her chest was probably a cyst. Maybe you should read this: http://quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/day.html

    Also, Lorraine Day and Hamer share an intense antisemitism. Perhaps that is the reason you are so impressed by them both? Or didn’t you know about ms Day’s twisted world views? http://goodnewsaboutgod.com/#who

    Here is her website:
    http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/dr_day/testimonials.htm

    I’m sorry if I should offend you, but are you a simpleton or what? Testimonials like those are completely worthless, they don’t mean a thing.

    Do you know why people like Day, Hamer, Simoncini and their ilk have to resort to these testimonials? Because that is all they can muster: they do not have a shred of evidence. All they have to offer is empty shells.

  20. Ronald September 26, 2009 at 7:17 pm

    First this: my mother got long cancer (after she went through some horrible examinations, one of which, she told me then, made her feel like she was drowning). The doctors told us that chemo could easily prolong her life for some years. So, of course we agreed. Five days later she died in the hospital. Nobody called this doctor ‘murderer’.

    Now, about 12 years later, I’m glad my girlfriend and I didn’t believe the nonsense written about Dr. Hamer and that we refused conventional treatment. Last thursday, three months after my girlfriend was told she had breast cancer (confirmed by screening and biopsy), another scan made clear there that the cancer in her breast was gone. The poor doctor insisted on taking a second scan, after he saw the scan that was taken three months ago (we also informed him about the biopsy report). The result was the same: no more malignant tumors in my girlfriend’s right breast.

    Of course we have the documents to prove this and you’re welcome to have them send to you (they’re in Dutch, but this shouldn’t be a problem in this computer age…).

    What really is stupid is to believe that the cancer industry hasn’t found anything better to ‘cure’ cancer – after almost 40 years and billions of dollars for cancer research – and keeps on mutilating, burn and poison people. They only use methods which, as all doctors know, cause cancer…

    Best wishes,

    Ronald

  21. anaximperator September 26, 2009 at 8:15 pm

    First this: my mother got long cancer (after she went through some horrible examinations, one of which, she told me then, made her feel like she was drowning). The doctors told us that chemo could easily prolong her life for some years. So, of course we agreed. Five days later she died in the hospital. Nobody called this doctor ‘murderer’.

    What kind of lung cancer – cell type – did your mother have? And what stage was it in, that is, how far had the cancer spread? What was your mother’s cause of death?

    Now, about 12 years later, I’m glad my girlfriend and I didn’t believe the nonsense written about Dr. Hamer and that we refused conventional treatment. Last thursday, three months after my girlfriend was told she had breast cancer (confirmed by screening and biopsy), another scan made clear there that the cancer in her breast was gone. The poor doctor insisted on taking a second scan, after he saw the scan that was taken three months ago (we also informed him about the biopsy report). The result was the same: no more malignant tumors in my girlfriend’s right breast.

    I can’t say anything that makes sense without the documents. The pathology report would be interesting. For example, what type of breast cancer was your girlfriend diagnosed with? Wat was HER2 status? Were hormone receptors present? How big was the tumour? What was the tumour grade? Were there any cancer cells found in the axillary lymph nodes (the lymph nodes under the arm)?

    And what kind of scan did your girlfriend have? Ultrasound does not consistently detect certain early signs of cancer, nor do mammograms. Only a biopsy can establish indisputably whether cancer is present.

    Of course we have the documents to prove this and you’re welcome to have them send to you (they’re in Dutch, but this shouldn’t be a problem in this computer age…).

    We would be interested.

  22. Ronald September 26, 2009 at 8:38 pm

    – Core biopsie (exteme gegevens):
    1. Rechts op 11 uur: invasief lobulair adenocarcinoma. Oestrogeen receptor Quick score 7, progesteronreceptor Quick score 2, HER2 score: 2+.
    2. Letsel rechts op 12 uur: infiltrerend carcinoma, E-cadherine negatief, dus ILA.
    – KST borst (exteme gegevens): Gekend maligne tumoraalletsel op 11 uur. Wat meer caudaal en mediaal in dezelfde borst is er een wat liniaire structuur van 3.8 cm die zich iets meer op de middellijn op 12 uur
    bevindt. Beide letsels werden reeds gebiopsieerd. Verder is er een 3de opvallende contrastcapterende structuur tegenaan en lateraal van de tepel op 9 uur, 3 mm diameter. Mediaal van de tepel is er een benigne afgelijnde ronde structuur van eveneens 3 mmo
    – Labo (exteme gegevens): CA 15.3 = 5.0 klE/I.

    BESPREKING:
    We zagen uw patiënte op de raadpleging voor een second opinion. Bij patiënte werd op screeningsmammografie een verdacht letsel ter hoogte van de rechter borst vastgesteld. Controle mammo-echografie en KST borst toonde een multifocaal proces met letsels op 9 , 11 en 12 uur.
    Core-biopsie van de letsels op 11 en 12 uur toonden een invasief lobulair adenocarcinoma. Er werden geen verdachte adenopathieën vastgesteld. Staging naar metastasen op afstand was negatief, zodat we kunnen besluiten tot een cT1 mNOMO letsel.
    Gezien de multifocaliteit en de totale diameter van alle 3 letsels tesamen lijkt ons een borstsparende behandeling niet mogelijk. Aangezien echter alle letsels in het bovenste buitenste kwadrant van de borst gelegen zijn, lijkt een sentinelnode procedure toch verdedigbaar.
    Aan patiënte en echtgenoot werd de aard van de pathologie en de noodzaak tot het uitvoeren van een mastectomie uitvoerig uitgelegd. Ook werd de sentinel node procedure aan hun uitgelegd.
    Patiënte zal zich tot u wenden voor verdere behandeling.

  23. wilmamazone September 26, 2009 at 9:17 pm

    @ Ronald

    We would like to see the authorized report in which it is confirmed that the breast cancer was not treated conventionally and disappeared 3 months after diagnosis.

    In the report of the second opinion it says:
    Patient will contact you for further treatment.

    When and why did you decide to ask a second opinion, only to ignore on both occasions the advice you received?

    And why this scan – part of conventional medicine – after 3 months?

    All in all: a peculiar story.

  24. beatis September 26, 2009 at 9:32 pm

    @ Ronald,

    Could you provide us with the report in which it says the untreated breast cancer has disappeared?

  25. anaximperator September 26, 2009 at 11:28 pm

    @ Ronald,

    Of course we have the documents to prove this and you’re welcome to have them send to you (they’re in Dutch, but this shouldn’t be a problem in this computer age…).

    Reading the above, I assumed you would provide a translation yourself.

    Google translation is very bad and although we are a very international lot here, we are not a translating agency.

  26. Me September 27, 2009 at 12:25 am

    but can his own translation be reliable?

  27. beatis September 27, 2009 at 6:57 am

    We have run it through google and improved it a little here and there. The documents will be evaluated by jli, our pathologist. He will spot irregularities at once, also the ones that are due to translation.

  28. wilmamazone September 27, 2009 at 7:06 am

    @Me

    Good question……supposing a truthful report in Dutch!
    I can’t even see that this document is authorized, can you Me?

  29. beatis September 27, 2009 at 7:21 am

    You’re quite right Wilmamazone,

    We can’t even see who the patient is. When I look at my oncology/pathology report, it states my patient number, name, date of birth, gender, adress, postal code and town of residence.

    It also says on which date the material was received by the pathologist and on which date the report was authorized. It also has the name of the pathologist who perfomed the examination and the sample number (every sample that is sent to the pathologist, is numbered separately).

    All these things are missing here.

    One of our regular posters sent me the report of the third scan, an ultrasound which is supposed to prove that the cancer has disappeared. Ronald van Looy sent her that through the mail (they came into contact on another forum). Given the earlier biopsy which showed cancerous cells, the doctor who did the ultrasound advised an mri scan. I’ve sent this report to jli as well. In this report there is a name, albeit only a first name. So it seems obvious this document was tampered with.

  30. jennyj0 September 27, 2009 at 7:49 am

    Hi all,

    Yesterday I received the document in the mail. What strikes me as extremely ODD is that it is not a scanned document (pdf file), but just a worddoc which can be tampered with: I can make alterations in it myself!!

    Why would a doctor send a worddoc straight from his computer to a client?? I know for sure that my oncologist would never do that. I received my onco file in hard copy and if I want to send it to people, I either have to copy it and send it through land mail as a hard copy, or scan it and send it via email as a pdf file.

  31. jli September 27, 2009 at 11:15 am

    Hi all.
    What Ronald posted is not a pathology report. It doesn´t even have the structure of a pathology report. The first few lines are something that could be extracted from a pathology report.

    And about the ultrasound examination: It is well known that lobular carcinomas are harder to see on ultrasound than for instance a ductal carcinoma. This is why the MRI-scan is recommended.

  32. beatis September 27, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    jli also emailed me this:

    […] a negative ultrasound is not a proof that it [edit: the breast cancer] has vanished. In fact there is an ongoing study on the use of MRI for local staging of these tumors [edit: lobular carcinomas]: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00610181.

    So aside from the possibility that it is a fabrication, he has not shown beyond reasonable doubt that the tumor has gone.

  33. beatis September 27, 2009 at 1:13 pm

    This is what I sent to jli to evaluate (sorry for any translation oddities, I quickly ran it through Google):

    – Core biopsy (Extreme [= external] data):
    1. Right on 11 hours: invasive lobular adenocarcinoma. Quick score 7 estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor Quick score 2, HER2 score: 2 +.
    2. Injury right to 12 hours: invasive carcinoma, E-cadherin negative, so ILA.
    – KST (MRI?) breast (Ext. Data): Known malignant tumor lesion in 11 hours. Some more caudal and medial in the same breast is a rather linear structure of 3.8 cm which is slightly more to the midline at 12 hours
    located. Both lesions were already subject to biopsy. There is a striking contrast 3rd capt structure ran against it and lateral to the nipple at 9 hours, 3 mm diameter. Medial to the nipple is a benign demarcated round structure also 3 mmo
    – Lab (Extreme [= external] Data): CA 15.3 = 5.0 kle / I.

    DISCUSSION:
    We saw your patient in consultation for a second opinion. By screening mammography patient was informed of a suspected injury to the right chest down. Control ultrasound and mammo-KST chest showed a Progressive lens process with injuries on 9, 11 and 12 hours.
    Core biopsy of the lesions at 11 and 12 hours showed an invasive lobular adenocarcinoma. There were no suspicious adenopathies. Staging for distant metastasis was negative, so we can decide on a CT1 mNOMO injury.
    Given the multifocality and the total diameter of all 3 lesions together it seems a breast-conserving treatment is not possible. However, since all lesions in the upper outer quadrant of the breast located, a sentinel node procedure still seems defensible.
    To patient and spouse was given detailed explaination on the nature of the pathology and the need to perform a mastectomy. Also, the sentinel node procedure was explained to them. Patient will return for further treatment.

    This is the report of his girlfriend’s “cure”:

    ULTRASOUND OF BOTH BREASTS (beatis edit: the ‘worddoc’)
    Ultrasound images brought by the patient were viewed first.
    In-depth study ultrasound: image can not be found again. Both breasts echoed by many rich fibroglandulair right breast tissue. Found on 10 hours a hyposonante bean-shaped shadow behind without Bright, nicely lined with a diameter of about 7 mmo probably cyst. Tumor processes not clear.
    In addition the left breast nipple in 10 hours is a small hyposonante Clear with a diameter of 5 mm, probably also cyst.
    Given the previous findings and positive biopsy, I think an MRI examination is indicated and should be performed.

    Jli’s replies are in the two previous comments, the first by jli himself and the second by me, in which I quote him.

  34. wilmamazone September 27, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    http://www.myspace.com/492475094

    Ronald van Looy became a member on 05.aug.2009 and we can read there (among other things):

    Status: Single

    quote on this site:

    I’m glad my girlfriend and I didn’t believe the nonsense written about Dr. Hamer and that we refused conventional treatment.

    Meanwhile, our Robert has a lot more to explain/to prove.
    Personally, I suspect he’s a liar/storyteller.

  35. anaximperator September 27, 2009 at 3:19 pm

    Hi Wilmamazone,

    And in the ‘pathology report’ (ahem) it says: patient and husband

    Now, what is the truth, I wonder??

  36. jli September 27, 2009 at 7:17 pm

    To recapitulate:
    A guy who is registered elsewhere as single enters this blog, and claims that his girlfriend was cured of breast cancer “the Hamer way”. He documents this with a word document of a pathology report (which is not a pathology report, and in which he is referred to as a husband) and another word document reporting an inconclusive ultrasound scan recommending that an MRI scan is done.

    If that is the case I think it is fair to regard this “testimony” as loony insufficient.

  37. beatis September 27, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    As Alice would have said: curiouser and curiouser.
    Alice

    Curiouser and curiouser!’ cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English); ‘now I’m opening out like the largest telescope that ever was! Good-bye, feet!’ (for when she looked down at her feet, they seemed to be almost out of sight, they were getting so far off).

    http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/grol/alice/won02.htm

    This might well have been called ‘The tale of the disappearing breast cancer’. But just like Alice’s feet, I fear that also the breast cancer was never gone after all.

    That is, if it was ever there to begin with.

  38. wilmamazone September 27, 2009 at 7:52 pm

    Somewhere else, on a very dubious site – a commercial one – we find Ronald again and there is not a single word about his girlfriend .

    Ronald Van Looy said, on August 07, 2009:

    I wonder how many people know about Dr.Hamer and his discovery about the cause of illness (if you’re one of the many who hasn’t yet heard of this, you might take a look here: http://www.germannewmedicine.com/

    And don’t worry, the name may sound a bit ‘Nazi-like’, however has nothing to do with racism or so (Dr.Hamer first named his invention ‘New Medicine’, but renamed it after many alternative therapies started to copy this name.

    What he discovered is that what we think of as disease-symptoms are really healing-symptoms. When I first read about it, I was blown away (in a positive sense, because everything fell in into place).

    Hope this may save some people of getting mutilated for no reason (by the so called ‘conventional medicine’).

    http://innerself.com/html/health/general/how-to-trigger-the-placebo-effect.html

  39. Ronald September 28, 2009 at 6:22 am

    The information I showed you was scanned from the paper documents given to me by the doctor (you can mail Dr. Merckx if you like, although he might not be too pleased about the fact that I’m showing his email address on the internet). I’ve removed my girlfriends last name and our address from the Word documents (scans) and you find this strange??? We’re not married (yet), but living together for almost 13 years now (I guess the doctor – actually a professor in Leuven – assumed we were married and called me ‘husband’ in her report).

    jli claims that ‘this is not a pathology report’, but he’s wrong (I swear on my mothers grave). Again, it’s a scan from the report the doctor gave to us.

    This is the last message I’ve put on here (just wonna help people by telling them what we’ve experienced ourselves). You can lead a horse to the water, but you can’t make it drink. There’s only hostility on here and I don’t need this.

    There’s two things certain for me:

    1. no way you are ever gonna admit that GNM is worth anything.

    2. it works…

    Best wishes to all honest people.

    Ronald

  40. beatis September 28, 2009 at 7:20 am

    I’ve removed my girlfriends last name and our address from the Word documents (scans) and you find this strange???

    As a matter of fact, yes, I think that’s strange. After all, it’s you who are set on proving that the ‘Hamer-approch’ works.

    1. no way you are ever gonna admit that GNM is worth anything.

    2. it works…

    It’s highly unlikely it will work, because the theory is based on assumptions for which there is no scientific basis whatsoever.

    jli claims that ‘this is not a pathology report’, but he’s wrong (I swear on my mothers grave). Again, it’s a scan from the report the doctor gave to us.

    Jli is pathologist/scientist. He has been so for many years. He would know what a pathology report looks like. He prepares them himself on a daily basis.

    But what is far more serious is that jli has also explained to you that the ultrasound scan made by dr. Merckx is by no means proof that your girlfriend’s breast cancer has disappeared. Dr. Merckx knows this too, for he advised an MRI-scan, since the biopsy showed presence of cancer. This does not seem to bother you at all. Persisting in not seeking adequate treatment for your girlfriend may cause her cancer to become incurable and this may cost her her life. Doesn’t that bother you in the least?

    Apparently you are so deluded by Hamer’s insanity that you are even willing to use your girlfriend as a guinea pig to prove him right.

  41. beatis September 28, 2009 at 11:18 am

    I believe he does exist, sorry I misspelt his name, it is Merckx:
    http://staatsbladclip.zita.be/staatsblad/wetten/2001/06/26/wet-2001035676.html. It is the 10th message.

  42. jli September 28, 2009 at 6:47 pm

    jli claims that ‘this is not a pathology report’, but he’s wrong

    Having issued thousands of pathology reports myself (Stopped counting years ago) I know how a pathology report is structured. I stand by my words that what you posted is not a pathology report.

  43. Justinia September 28, 2009 at 11:48 pm

    Quote Beatis
    “But what is far more serious is that jli has also explained to you that the ultrasound scan made by dr. Merckx is by no means proof that your girlfriend’s breast cancer has disappeared”

    Sorry to deter, but this comment really disturbs me…
    a very close friend of mine has recently had a 6 month checkup post finishing treatment of surgery, chemo and radiation for stage 3 breast cancer. Her check up involved a mammogram and an ultra sound.
    I found it very un-usual that an MRI was not done to rule out metastasis… if an ultra sound is not proof the cancer has disappeared then im very worried for her!

  44. beatis September 29, 2009 at 4:53 am

    @ Justinia:

    I’ll ask jli (our pathologist) to answer your question in more detail later.

  45. Ronald September 29, 2009 at 6:30 am

    Hi Justinia,

    I won’t go into the comments on my post here (completely useless, because of the biased lot on this site). For the last time though, I swear on my mother’s grave that all I’ve said on here is true.

    I only want to say this about your remark:

    it’s said that the yearly check-up (mammogram)
    reduces breast cancer victims by early detection. My girlfriend had a mammogram taken and later on they asked her to come in for an ultra sound because they vaguely saw something on her mammo that probebly was benign, but just to make sure they wanted to perform this ultra sound scan.

    Now, if an ultra sound can’t detect very small tumors, mammograms definitely can’t either. So what’s the point of this large-scale screening (mammograms) – beside the fact that it’s a big money machine. They’re taking yearly mammograms of all the woman older than 50 – my girlfriend is 51, that’s why even I refer to her as ‘my wife’ sometimes, because ‘girlfriend’ sounds so ‘girlish’…).

    By the way, did you know that 22% to 33% of early detected breast cancer disappears if you leave it alone? This information is in line with GNM, because many conflicts get resolved by themselves – work situations change; kids get hurt by accidents, but when they get out off the hospital their mother’s tumor disappears, etc.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/health/25breast.html

    The following link is from a Dutch site. It says that two Danish scientists wrote about their conclusion in the British Medical Journal (July 2009) , on the hand of comparative studies performed in the UK, Canada, Australia, Norway en Sweden: one of three woman with early detected breast cancer gets treated (surgery, radiation, chemo) for no reason, because their cancer would not lead to illness or dead (!).

    http://medischcontact.artsennet.nl/discussie/Nieuwsartikel/Veel-borstkankerpatienten-onnodig-behandeld.htm

    … and so the ‘discussion’ goes on and on and on…

    I’ll leave it here though. I have no desire to be treated like a retard (with all due respect to the handicapped) by people who are scared to dead by the joint efforts of Big Pharma/AMA/NCI (etc.).

    If my post only started one person to think for her-/himself, than it was worth the turmoil.

    Best wishes to you all.

  46. wilmamazone September 29, 2009 at 10:02 am

    Jli yesterday:

    I stand by my words that what you posted is not a pathology report.

    Strange on this report is the last quote:

    – Lab (Extreme [= external] Data): CA 15.3 = 5.0 kle / I.

    A bloodtest is no part on examination a biopsy and so not mentioned in that pathology report.
    Thats another/separate report.
    I have the strong feeling that the report is homemade by Ronald by stick together quotes from different sources.

    Information CA 15-3:
    http://www.labtestsonline.org/understanding/analytes/ca15_3/test.html

    quote:

    Is there anything else I should know?
    Levels of CA 15-3 are not usually measured immediately after breast cancer treatment begins. There have been instances of transient increases and decreases in CA 15-3 that do not correlate with the person’s progress. Usually, the doctor will wait a few weeks after starting treatment to begin monitoring CA 15-3 levels.

    CA15-3 levels have nothing to say by the first decision: amputation or breastsaving operation.

  47. jli September 29, 2009 at 6:11 pm

    Sorry to deter, but this comment really disturbs me…

    The words that disturbed you were made by the radiologist who did the ultrasound examination.

    It is difficult for me to be specific about your friends case. Also I´m not a radiologist, so I can only guess, based on what I know about pathology. An important thing about the patient presented by Ronald is that it is a lobular carcinoma. This type of cancer often infiltrate as cells in single rows that do not alter the structure of the surroundings. It looks like this in the microscope: http://radiology.uchc.edu/eAtlas/Breast/1681.htm . I imagine that this growth pattern is responsible for the difficulties in visualizing this type of cancer on mammograms/ultrasound. For comparison here is what a ductal carcinoma (much more frequent than lobular carcinomas) looks like: http://radiology.uchc.edu/eAtlas/Breast/1600.htm . It doesn´t surprise me if such diverse tumors have different appearances on ultrasound, but as I said, I have no working experience in radiology. But I think it is plausible that the answer to your question might have something to do with the cancer type your friend had.

    A bloodtest is no part on examination a biopsy and so not mentioned in that pathology report

    Absolutely true. And also the radiologically determined size of the tumors and various other information is not part of the examination of a core biopsy either. Not to mention that a pathologist does not discuss treatment options directly with the patients.

    His persistence that it is a pathology report indicates that he doesn´t understand what a pathologist does, and consequently doesn´t know what a pathology report is.

    So what does a pathology report consist of (in addition to data identifying the patient)?

    1) The macroscopic description:
    In this case it would be the size and numbers of the cores submitted for examination.

    2) The microscopic description:
    Description of the appearance of the cancer cells, and how they are arranged, providing the reason why a cancer is classified as it is. Danish breast pathologists would not do immunohistochemical stainings for various receptors at this point (that would be done on the surgically removed cancer), but if they did, this section of the report would be where the outcome of these stainings are mentioned.

    3) A conclusion (which might be incorporated in the microscopic description).

    This part:

    – Core biopsy (Extreme [= external] data):
    1. Right on 11 hours: invasive lobular adenocarcinoma. Quick score 7 estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor Quick score 2, HER2 score: 2 +.
    2. Injury right to 12 hours: invasive carcinoma, E-cadherin negative, so ILA.

    is the only thing that would be part of a pathology report. In Denmark the HER2 and estrogen/progesteron status would be performed on the surgically removed breast tumor – not the diagnostic biopsy.

  48. wilmamazone September 29, 2009 at 8:14 pm

    Thank you Jli for this information:

    In Denmark the HER2 and estrogen/progesteron status would be performed on the surgically removed breast tumor – not the diagnostic biopsy.

    That’s the same in the Netherlands, so why would that be different in Belgium?
    All this has -again- nothing to do with the first decision: amputation or breastsaving operation.
    Only after surgery -and again a report by a pathologist- are these outcomes important to know which treatment could be necessary.
    It is then the oncologist’s turn to give a advice.

    Ronald’s persistence that it is an authorised pathology report not only shows that he doesn’t understand what a pathologist does, but also that he doesn’t know enough about breastcancer/the examination to make up a convincing story.

    But fortunately for us:
    ‘a lie never lives to be old ‘

  49. jennyj0 September 29, 2009 at 9:20 pm

    Re Ronald:

    it’s said that the yearly check-up (mammogram)
    reduces breast cancer victims by early detection. My girlfriend had a mammogram taken and later on they asked her to come in for an ultra sound because they vaguely saw something on her mammo that probebly was benign, but just to make sure they wanted to perform this ultra sound scan.

    What’s wrong with that? What they did seems very sensible to me.

    Now, if an ultra sound can’t detect very small tumors, mammograms definitely can’t either. So what’s the point of this large-scale screening (mammograms) – beside the fact that it’s a big money machine. They’re taking yearly mammograms of all the woman older than 50 – [..].

    They can detect very small tumours. It’s seems that certain kinds of lobular breast cancers can present problems. I don’t see why this should be a reason to ban every kind of screening.

    By the way, did you know that 22% to 33% of early detected breast cancer disappears if you leave it alone? This information is in line with GNM, because many conflicts get resolved by themselves – work situations change; kids get hurt by accidents, but when they get out off the hospital their mother’s tumor disappears, etc. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/health/25breast.html

    Oh, if only that were true!

    Anyway, this is the study Ronald is referring to: http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/168/21/2311 On Science-Based Medicine David Gorski wrote an in-depth analysis of this study. It is not as simple as Ronald wants us to believe. But then, in real life it hardly ever is. David Gorski says – among other things – this:

    “In any case, the bottom line is that the matter of screening mammography is far more complex an issue than it is often portrayed to be. It’s a matter of balancing the benefits of detecting cancer at an earlier stage versus the risk of overdiagnosis. Moreover, it is quite possible that a significant proportion of breast cancers detected by mammography (although, I hasten to add, not cancers detected as palpable masses) may indeed regress. The problem is that we do not yet know enough to identify which tumors will progress and which may not. Even under the most optimistic scenario, in which Dr. Mahlen’s study is confirmed, four out of five breast cancers will progress and become life threatening. Those are not odds that I would want to mess with, unless someone can develop a predictive test that allows me to identify cancers that it’s safe to subject to watchful waiting to see if they regress. Unfortunately, there ain’t no such beast, but I’m optimistic that there may well be before my career comes to an end.”

    The following link is from a Dutch site. It says that two Danish scientists wrote about their conclusion in the British Medical Journal (July 2009) , on the hand of comparative studies performed in the UK, Canada, Australia, Norway en Sweden: one of three woman with early detected breast cancer gets treated (surgery, radiation, chemo) for no reason, because their cancer would not lead to illness or dead (!).
    http://medischcontact.artsennet.nl/discussie/Nieuwsartikel/Veel-borstkankerpatienten-onnodig-behandeld.htm

    Ronald is referring to this study: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/339/jul09_1/b2587
    There’s good article on the study, again by David Gorski on Science-Based Medicine; a long read but well worth it, as it explains in detail the intricacies of preventive screening: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=565

    In one of the comments to his article, Gorski says this:

    We do not as yet have a good way of knowing which breast cancers will or will not progress, Baum’s statement about advances in the understanding of breast cancer biology notwithstanding. Even if we accept Jørgensen and Gøtzsche’s estimate that 1 in 3 mammographically detected breast cancers are overdiagnosed and would, if never discovered, cause no harm, that still leaves 2 out of 3 such cancers that do threaten the lives of the women in whom they are found. Until we have better tests (be they in the form of genomic tests or other) that have a high predictive value for whether a given breast tumor will progress, we have no choice but to treat every woman with a mammographically discovered breast cancer. Not to do so risks letting a significant number of breast cancers progress and endanger the lives of women. Once we have a diagnosis of breast cancer, we are ethically obligated to treat it, because the potential harm from not doing so is great. Consequently, until we have such tests, the rate of overtreatment will almost certainly be very close to the rate of overdiagnosis in breast cancer.”
    [Edit: bold by Beatis]

  50. beatis September 29, 2009 at 9:37 pm

    Ronald,

    Would you please link to research in English? This is an international blog and you can’t expect people to read Dutch or to run your texts through babel fish or google all the time.

    Thank you.

  51. wilmamazone September 30, 2009 at 6:10 am

    quote Ronald:

    They’re taking yearly mammograms of all the woman older than 50

    That’s -again- not true storyteller!

    http://www.cm.be/nl/100/infoenactualiteit/enquetes_en_onderzoeken/borstkankerscreening/index.jsp?ComponentId=3206&SourcePageId=7542

    Borstkankerscreening in België

    Om de twee jaar worden vrouwen tussen 50 en 69 jaar uitgenodigd voor een gratis mammografisch onderzoek. Het is bedoeld om eventuele borstkankers vroegtijdig op te sporen.
    [Every two years women between 50 and 69 years of age are called for a free mammographic examination. These are held to trace breast cancers in an early stage.]

    So: preventive breastcancerscreening is also in Belgium every two years like everywhere else.

  52. wilmamazone September 30, 2009 at 6:57 am

    Ronald:

    If my post only started one person to think for her-/himself, than it was worth the turmoil.

    Oh oh, I got tears in my eyes, what a good person you are! Always telling the truth and doing perfect homework.

    You are a hair-raising liar and nothing else.
    Only came here for clandestine advertising Geerd Ryke Hamer THE false prophet.

    Ronald:

    I’ll leave it here though. I have no desire to be treated like a retard (with all due respect to the handicapped) by people who are scared to dead by the joint efforts of Big Pharma/AMA/NCI (etc.).

    I understand that you slink off now with your tail between your legs.
    Too many people on this site already think for themselves and noticed in no time what a cheat and a liar you are.

  53. jli September 30, 2009 at 3:13 pm

    I understand that you slink off now with your tail between your legs.

    You mean like this guy? http://www.stmoroky.com/sirrobin/song.htm

  54. beatis October 1, 2009 at 5:15 pm

    Ronald emailed me a number of documents, among which the ‘complete’ pathology report. I’ve forwarded them to jli and asked him to assess them.

    The documents that Ronald sent are medical documents. However, there is no pathology report among them.

    Ronald sent them in a format which is not accepted by any internet translators. So we will have to go by the medical terms, which for the greater part are international.

    We do not know who the patient is. We do know however that in one of the documents the patient is advised to undergo a mastectomy and axillary node dissection, because of invasive lobular carcinoma. It also says that patient and husband want a second opinion.

    The medical documents date from 29 and 30 June 2009. There is also an ultrasound dated 19 June 2009.

    The last document is the report by dr Merckx of an ultrasound done on 24 September.
    Given the earlier biopsy (of which we have no pathology report) in which cancer cells were present, dr Merckx advises an MRI exam.

    There is no evidence that the breast cancer has disappeared. This cannot be established by means of an ultrasound. Hence probably dr Merckx’ advice to do an MRI exam.

  55. jli October 1, 2009 at 6:41 pm

    The documents that Ronald sent are medical documents. However, there is no pathology report among them.

    Absolutely true. Ronald should be ashamed of himself to “swear on his mothers grave”, that what he posted above was the pathology report.

  56. beatis October 1, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    Among the documents he sent me through email was no pathology report either. In the documents are references to a ‘biopsy report,’ but the biopsy report itself is not there.

    We can go on like this for ever, but as far as we can see there is no definite proof that the cancer has gone.

    I am also curious if there is any follow-up. Normally you have to return for regular check-ups for at least ten years. Or is this perhaps different for ‘Hamer’ patients? And if there is a follow-up programme, where is this done? In a GNM (Hamer) clinic? Or in a mainstream hospital?

  57. Pingback: Science-Based Medicine » The “Iron Rule of Cancer”: The dangerous cancer quackery that is the “New German Medicine”

  58. Pingback: Hamer On Metastasis: Slam Dunk « Anaximperator blog

  59. Pingback: Video of Hamer Victim Corinne Thos Removed « Anaximperator blog

  60. polaron December 21, 2009 at 3:58 pm

    I would like to thank you for putting this up – you are performing an invaluable public service. These people who prey on the desperate victims of cancer are simply evil, and their cruelty needs to be exposed.

  61. beatis December 21, 2009 at 4:08 pm

    Thank you very much for your comment! It makes a wonderful change from the usual vicious rants that we get here from the quacks and their followers.

  62. Thomas Xavier December 23, 2009 at 8:32 am

    We translated our german resources on Hamer to english. They are available on http://www.esowatch.com/en .
    If you dig a little, you will find an interview with nurses which worked for Hamer. It is first hand proof his ideas dont work.

  63. Piero January 1, 2010 at 12:27 am

    I find my name identify by your program obtained from another comments in another blogs about this theme.These unauthorized intrusion proves that the stablishment controls and obviously manipulate information and you are conspiring against the true, so no sense to make comments here, you rebunked like lawyer anithing,and people are manipulated in the adress you like, very funny.

  64. beatis January 1, 2010 at 8:15 am

    I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

  65. Deb February 2, 2010 at 3:22 am

    My mother died on January 28th, 2010. She followed the crap thinking of GNM until the end. She wasted away and died in agony – believing right until the end that she “had no cancer” because she had dealt with her emotional trauma.

    I normally don’t believe in capital punishment but I do with that dangerous killer – Hamer.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Hamer was a relative of Adolph Hitler and this is his way of killing frightened and vulnerable people.

  66. Thomas Xavier February 2, 2010 at 9:10 am

    Dear Deb,

    my condolence to you. This is a particular tragic loss. Would you care to contact me with details about what happened? We maintain a list of Hamer victims and would like to add your mother. My email is xavier@esowatch.com
    Thank you.

  67. beatis February 2, 2010 at 9:21 am

    Dear Deb,

    I am very sorry to hear about your mother and the horrible way her life had to end due to this sick business of GNM. I wanted to refer you to Esowatch, but I see it has already been done.

    My heart goes out to you and your family.

  68. wilmamazone February 2, 2010 at 9:25 am

    My heart also goes out to you and your family Deb.

  69. Bill February 2, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    I do not have a dog in this fight so as a casual observer I’d just like to say that the owners of this blog are clearly not taking an open-minded approach. If you were you would NOT attack when someone attempts to provide what you’ve ASKED for. You may have desired additional information but you wouldn’t try to acquire it in the fashion you have done here.

    Just because a remedy doesn’t work EVERY time does not make it invalid. There isn’t a single conventional medicine that works every time either but that doesn’t negate the fact that some of them have merit.

    And just for the record, if I were one of the people that used GNM successfully, I CERTAINLY wouldn’t be posting in this blog to provide the proof you insist on after seeing how you treat people. So you are creating your own self-fulfilling prophecy by driving away the people you actually want to hear from.

    If anything, after reading this blog, I am more interested in researching GNM because what you provide here is of no value.

    …waiting to see if you attack the casual observer as much as everyone else.

  70. beatis February 2, 2010 at 5:17 pm

    Just because a remedy doesn’t work EVERY time does not make it invalid.

    No, it doesn’t. But then, we never said so to begin with; you are putting words in our mouth and are misrepresenting our position. This is a logical fallacy called the straw man argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    I’d just like to say that the owners of this blog are clearly not taking an open-minded approach.

    Open minded? Towards a theory for which there is not a shred of evidence? Towards a theory that cannot boast even one survivor? Towards a theory that is riddled with factual errors? Why?

  71. Pingback: Marion Lost Her Father To The German New Medicine Of Ryke Geerd Hamer « Anaximperator blog

  72. Joakim May 4, 2010 at 3:06 am

    http://cancerucan.blogspot.com/

    this is pretty interesting, what do you think about it?

  73. beatis May 4, 2010 at 6:49 am

    Ms Burns’s story on her “terminal cancers” is incomplete at best. It also has quite a lot of factual errors. But the worst part is that we have no way to verify what exactly happened: there are no scans, no copies of diagnostic reports by her doctors, no lab reports, nothing. We have only her word, and given the extreme unlikeliness of the events, one would like to see some verifiable, technical evidence that could back them up. In the way it is presented now however, her story is completely meaningless.

    Another thing that strikes me is that this site was created with the specific purpose of selling a number of alternative therapies for cancer. It is a commercial site, not a site that it is designed to give reliable scientific medical information.

    Ms Burns also says that she is not allowed by the Cancer Act 1939 to say that it is possible to heal from cancer. That is not what the Act says however: the Act says that you are not allowed to advertise (i.e. make commercial claims for) unproven treatments for cancer – like the ones Ms Burns is advertising. Therefore, in order to protect the patients, public statements with regards to curing cancer are by law restricted to medical professionals in a non-commercial setting.

  74. Joakim May 4, 2010 at 10:46 am

    Call her up and ask for her medical history then, if she has it she would probably be happy to give it away, to ignore this as unlikely just because you havent asked for proof is stupid.

  75. beatis May 4, 2010 at 11:39 am

    If she really has the best interest of cancer patients at heart, she would have presented reliable evidence to begin with. In not doing so, she has made her website a waste of space and an insult to cancer patients.

  76. Joakim May 4, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    So that of course makes it impossible?

  77. beatis May 4, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    We did not say impossible. We said that neither GNM nor Tullio Simoncini have delivered any evidence for their claims, with regards to the underlying theory as well as with regards to their alleged cures.

    I’ll spell it out for you:

    There is no evidence whatsoever that cancer is a fungus, nor is there any evidence that cancer is caused by psychological trauma, as Hamer claims.
    There is evidence though that cancer is NOT a fungus and that is it NOT caused by psychological trauma.
    There is no evidence that cancer can be cured with baking soda or by solving a supposed psychological conflict.
    There is no evidence that either Ryke Geerd Hamer or Tullio Simoncini ever cured anyone of cancer.
    There is no evidence that any of the GNM’s offspring, such as the metamedicine, ever cured anyone of cancer.

    Please read Nescio’s comment well, as he makes an excellent proposition by which Simoncini or any other altmed practitioner can create credibility to their claims.

  78. Joakim May 4, 2010 at 7:33 pm

    Okay, but doesnt solve the mystery with this mysterious woman

  79. anaximperator May 4, 2010 at 7:59 pm

    I don’t see any mystery there.

  80. Joakim May 4, 2010 at 8:30 pm

    It’s very open minded of you as this blog says to just ignore stuff

  81. wilmamazone May 4, 2010 at 9:42 pm

    Ms Burns’s story is only a tall story Joakim and you be blind to that all.

  82. Joakim May 4, 2010 at 11:07 pm

    Okay, so thats the dogma you’re living with, not even interested in the “proof” if there’s any.

  83. beatis May 5, 2010 at 5:15 am

    Well, your dogma seems to always disregard reliable evidence in favour of some story that appeals to you.

  84. wilmamazone May 5, 2010 at 7:32 am

    There are thousands of stories about curing cancer and I saw almost all of them and the swindle can be recognized because they all show an established pattern.

  85. beatis May 5, 2010 at 8:25 am

    And the pattern is: make big, far reaching claims, never provide any evidence and consistently portray scientists and mainstream doctors as narrow-minded fools.

  86. Joakim May 5, 2010 at 10:32 am

    Okay, but you still didn’t want to see her evidence if there was any.

  87. beatis May 5, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Here’s the deal: we’ll send her an email asking her to provide us with solid evidence for her claims.

    We will forward the email to you, as well as the reply, which will be published on this blog. We will present the evidence to the MD’s/scientists attached to this blog, forward their replies to you and have them published on this blog as well.

  88. Joakim May 5, 2010 at 10:56 am

    And I don’t take it as absolute truth just because i’ve read about, but i dont judge it at the surface without knowing anything about it which is downright ignorant and beyond stupid imo.

  89. beatis May 5, 2010 at 11:08 am

    but i dont judge it at the surface without knowing anything about it

    Neither do we Joakim; we happen to know what we are talking about.

  90. Joakim May 5, 2010 at 11:47 am

    Yet you almost disregarded it until i pushed you on the point.

  91. beatis May 5, 2010 at 11:53 am

    We discarded what?

  92. Joakim May 5, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    You don’t have enough self awareness to see your own actions? I said I pushed you on the subject of Fiona on Cancerucan, you rationalized about it even before asking about the truth of it and you did ask only because I pushed you too it, not a really open minded attitude, maybe it’s fake, maybe it’s not, but you cant decide before you’re certain so dont rationalize about it.

  93. beatis May 5, 2010 at 7:36 pm

    I hate to be the one saying: I told you so. But she did tell us what I expected her to: that she has no intention of providing any evidence, that she feels she has no obligation to anyone, that she has no intention of influencing anyone, that maybe one day she may decide to give the information to people who ask her nicely, but certainly not to me and that she hopes that one day I will open my mind to the magic and mystery of life.

    Well, to me, science offers all the magic and mystery I need, and I read fairy tales for amusement only. But sadly, not all tales are equally amusing.

    Over the years, I have written many emails to many people who tell stories like these, asking them to give us some evidence for their miraculous claims, like scans, or blood tests, or an official diagnosis etc. But they never do and the answer is always the same: they have no intention of telling anyone what to do, I should just have more faith and open my mind more to miracles and magic. This is just the umpteenth reply of its kind. I’m not surprised, albeit a bit said for receiving the same lame excuses again.

    Obviously, Ms Burns’s unsubstantiated cancer miracle story is nothing but an advertising tool.

    Yuck.

  94. Joakim May 5, 2010 at 10:14 pm

    Are you psychologically ill?

  95. Joakim May 5, 2010 at 10:20 pm

    This is the mail, it was forwarded to me also,

    Maybe you should try, -“Yes, that’s what i mean, may i see it please?” Instead of just making ridicilous conclusions on her answer. Seriously . . .

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: anaxbeatis
    Date: 5 May 2010 14:29
    Subject: Re: Enquiry from website
    To: Fiona Shakeela Burns

    Dear Ms Burns,

    Indeed I mean things like scan reports, blood test results, pathology reports etc.

    It seems like a missed opportunity that you choose not to provide any evidence for your claims, it could make your story so much more convincing!

    And yes, I do think you have something to prove. You are trying to convince cancer patients that they can be cured with alternative treatments only and I think that is very dangerous advice. In my opinion you have the moral obligation to provide reliable evidence for your claims, it is the least you can do. I think it is pity that you have chosen not to do so.

    Well, I guess I’ll just have to wait for your book.

    Good luck and best wishes.
    Beatis

    On 5 May 2010 13:43, Fiona Shakeela Burns wrote:

    Hi Beatis

    Thank you for your email.

    I am wondering what kind of evidence you are after? – maybe scan reports? I
    have MRI scan reports, blood test results documenting tumour markers, biopsy
    result showing cancer of the cervix. I have xrays showing a lung full of
    fluid.

    I have kept all of the evidence that I had cancer and it is all going in to
    my book!

    I do not have anything to prove – if I can inspire people to know that
    bodies can heal, that is great.

    I wish you well on your healing journey,

    Best wishes

    Fiona Shakeela Burns

    On 5/5/10 12:02, “anaxbeatis@gmail.com” wrote:

    > Enquiry from: Beatis
    >
    > Email: anaxbeatis@gmail.com
    >
    > Send Newsletter:
    >
    > Enquiry
    >
    > Dear Ms Burns,
    >
    > On your blog Cancerucan I read about your miraculous recoveries – by means of
    > alternative therapies only – from leukemia and ovarian/cervical cancer, both
    > of which were diagnosed as incurable by the medical profession.
    >
    > Your recoveries are truly impressive, but also highly unlikely. So unlikely in
    > fact that it seems very hard to believe.
    >
    > No doubt you will understand the great impact of your story for cancer
    > patients, such as myself for example. Given this, I’m sure you will only be
    > too happy to provide other cancer sufferers with reliable evidence for your
    > claims, since they fly in the face of everything that is known about both the
    > cause of and the cure for cancer.
    >
    > Yours,
    > Beatis
    >
    >

  96. anaximperator May 5, 2010 at 10:21 pm

    Sure she is. We all are here. Don’t tell me you didn’t know that all people who don’t fall for stories like Ms Burns’s, or Hamer’s, or Simoncini’s, or any other quack’s for that matter, are psychologically ill!

  97. anaximperator May 5, 2010 at 10:24 pm

    Anyway, joking aside, I seriously think you need help, if you are in any way planning to put your fate in the hands of Ryke Geerd Hamer or the proponents of the meta medicine.

  98. beatis May 5, 2010 at 10:30 pm

    @ Joakim:

    Maybe you should try, -”Yes, that’s what i mean, may i see it please?”

    I did, to which there was a second reply by Ms Burns, which I summarized here and forwarded to you. Perhaps you should check your mail.

    I must say I don’t find Ms Burns particularly interesting. She has nothing substantial to tell us.

  99. Joakim May 5, 2010 at 10:43 pm

    Except that she says she’s a survivor of a terminal cancer disease that the medical profession can’t heal and the only thing that stops you from getting her report is an apology and being nice?

    Your conclusions about her very funny indeed especially with this at the top:

    # Philosophy of Science for Beginners

    Start following your own claimed philosophy before you start judging others, it’s really hypocritical.

    Anax: Im not sick and Im just studying out of curiousity.

  100. beatis May 5, 2010 at 10:57 pm

    I don’t care what she says, for as long as she doesn’t substantiate any of it, it’s just empty talk.

  101. anaximperator May 6, 2010 at 5:38 am

    Except that she says she’s a survivor of a terminal cancer disease that the medical profession can’t heal and the only thing that stops you from getting her report is an apology and being nice?

    Excuse me??!

    Joakim, in case you forgot, Beatis did all your work for you, you obviously being too lazy or too uninterested to even contacting this woman and ask her to substantiate her story. You should be ashamed of yourself and YOU first of all are the one who owes an apology, to Beatis.

    The other one who should apologize is Ms Fiona Burns herself, to all cancer patients, for telling such blatant lies only to peddle her useless alternative BS.

    Until this woman does not come up with any evidence, I will consider her a liar.

    Why don’t you just challenge Ms Fiona Shakeela Burns to put her money where her mouth is and show us her true colours, when you are so convinced she is telling the truth?

  102. wilmamazone May 6, 2010 at 7:08 am

    Until this woman does not come up with any evidence, I will consider her a liar.

    Me the same!

  103. Joakim May 6, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    -“Even though I’m acting like a bitch, I dont know why people dont do what I tell them to do.” There’s no value here.

  104. beatis May 7, 2010 at 8:02 am

    -”Even though I’m acting like a bitch, I dont know why people dont do what I tell them to do.”

    Oh but I do know. The reason is that they simply can’t deliver. Otherwise they would have been sure to post all the evidence there is to begin with. But because there isn’t any, there’s nothing left for them to do but scold us for not believing in “miracles” and sulk because we haven’t asked them nicely enough.

  105. keolalani May 23, 2010 at 7:22 pm

    RE …

    For Hamer’s theory to be true, the following would have to be true as well:
    – anyone with cancer has always suffered sudden emotional trauma prior to diagnosis of the cancer;
    – anyone who has suffered sudden emotional trauma always develops cancer;
    – no cancer patient has ever been cured with conventional therapy.

    With all due respect, I doubt #2 and #3 would have to be true.

  106. beatis May 23, 2010 at 7:57 pm

    According to Hamer, cancer is always preceded and caused by (sudden) emotional trauma.

    With regard to #2, I think you may be right, because when one succeeds in solving the emotional conflict, the cancer will go away or even not develop – according to Hamer that is.

    I’ll amend it a bit. Thanks!

  107. keolalani May 23, 2010 at 8:58 pm

    Thanks for the looking.

    What I sought to say – irrespective of Ryke Hammer – is that #2 does not necessarily follow #1 even if #1 were true.

    Nor would #3 be true in any regard. Should GNM be effective, it does NOT mean that conventional therapy (or collaborative therapies) might not be effective in their own realms.

    On the preventive end of things, I imagine anyone of us would like to see the agony, cost and jeopardy experienced w/conventional cancer therapy one day eradicated from the face of the Earth. Which makes me wonder of the efficacy of cancer research when so little attention is paid to the known hazards of chlorine in water – be it via drinking, showering or swimming.

    Yet alas, that is a different conversation.

    Best regards
    K

  108. Edmond lotea August 3, 2010 at 9:08 pm

    Hi Beatis

    I am interested in who writes your check.

    It appears to me that your convictions are paid for by someone. Who is that someone?

    I am an Alternative practitioner and I enjoyed the spartan like behavior on this site. I found it very informative and neglectful of some fundamental truths like THE BODY HEALS ITSELF. I learned that in medical school ( ooops I mean Chiropractic school). I don’t want to confuse the two because one of them teaches health and the other teaches drug peddling. We erroneously call drug care health care.
    I am curious if all comments are submitted. Maybe I will visit again to verify.

  109. Edmond lotea August 3, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    Hi again,

    I would like to add that clinically the work of these physicians is valid. I see miracles everyday and would love to set up some sound clinical trials. The challenge is that the funding for Alternatives is minimal and the other conventional therapies are grossly financially supported. It is sad that innocent patients are the loosers and bottom line pharmaceutical companies keep making gains. When will the public realize that these pharma companies are businesses and not healers. Their interest is only the bottom line.

  110. beatis August 4, 2010 at 6:15 am

    @ Edmond Lotea:

    How can you know the work of “these physicians” is clinically valid when there have been no clinical trials at-all and we don’t even have one verifiable case history?

    Neither Ryke Geerd Hamer nor Tullio Simoncini – and most other quacks for that matter – have ever made the least attempt to test their theories in a sound clinical setting, nor have they presented us with decent and verifiable case histories.

    BTW, the funding for alternatives is by no means minimal, which this article or a simple search in pubmed will show you.

  111. Jasmina August 6, 2010 at 10:56 am

    Excellent comments Edmond.
    For owner of this site:
    Do you know what is survival rate with conventional medicine and what with Dr Hamer’s approach?
    Results speak for themselves. Lets talk about results and solid figures.
    Do you know number of clients that Dr Hamer worked with and how many were still alive after 5 years? You better find it out and compare with mainstream stats.
    I use Dr. Hamer’s approach and have excellent results with people that were sent home with no hope for the future. Results matter! Removing blockages of self healing is all that is required. That is a birth given ability, just remove blockages and life is back.
    Sometimes that sudden and traumatic event is not what one would classify that way, but we never know what meaning one’s mind attached to certain situation. Sometimes it is unbelievable what one’s mind can create. BTW, more you use those principles, more you can see and feel, and better you become in guiding somone out of deep end in their cancer journey.

  112. beatis August 6, 2010 at 11:05 am

    @Jasmina,

    Do you know what is survival rate with conventional medicine and what with Dr Hamer’s approach?

    Survival rate with conventional medicine is close to 60%. Survival rate with Hamer’s approach: zero.

    Do you know number of clients that Dr Hamer worked with and how many were still alive after 5 years?

    No, I don’t know anyone who has survived Hamer’s treatment. Actually, I only know people who have not survived it.

    You better find it out and compare with mainstream stats.

    And where can we find these numbers? Real numbers that is, not made up by Hamer himself.

  113. Jasmina August 6, 2010 at 11:47 pm

    For the start I use GNM and have great results with people that were sent home with words that conventional medicine has nothing else to offer.
    It is interesting that I know many more of those that did not survive poisoning and burning approach.
    If you are not paid by somone to spend time discrediting such revolutionary discoveries and if you want to contribute from your heart, it pays to look much deeper into what GNM has to offer. And related to statistics – please read the book “Chemotherapy heals and the earth is flat”.
    About real numbers? – lets talk about real numbers with chemotherapy and radiation and what is survival rate after 5 years. After what period of time is 60%, after few months up to a year? We should be talking about long term results, like 5 years after the treatment. It is one digit number!
    Dr Hamer had over 90% survival rate among thousands after 5 years. If you are focusing only on those that died using GNM, why you do not expose cases where people died from conventional approach. You would probably write for the rest of your life. I know so many cases where if left alone, people would be still ok today as they were already in healing stage. Chemo killed them, lack of life force killed them.
    And it is important to understand that not everyone will survive healing stage. Small percentage will not as their body is not any more fit for life, they are too weak. It is not to blame Hamer because somone did not survive healing stage. Chemo and radiation would kill them even quicker.
    There is a place for conventional approach with cancer, but surely not with burning and poisoning.

    Scientist Mc Gill Cancer Center in USA sent a questionnaire to 118 oncologists and asked them which of the 6 usual therapies they would use on themselves. 79 responded, and 58 of the 79 doctors said they would never undergo chemotherapy because in the first place it is ineffective and secondly it is much too toxic (From Chemotherapy heals cancer and the world is flat, Lothar Hirneise, pg 187)

    One day I will visit this place again in hope to find more constructive conversation, not the blog dedicated to discrediting genius discoveries that are helping many in this world.

  114. beatis August 7, 2010 at 6:59 am

    For the start I use GNM and have great results with people that were sent home with words that conventional medicine has nothing else to offer.
It is interesting that I know many more of those that did not survive poisoning and burning approach.


    It is interesting as well as disappointing that you don’t back up your claims at-all. As is usually the case with quacks, we are expected to believe you on your word only.

    After what period of time is 60%, after few months up to a year? We should be talking about long term results, like 5 years after the treatment. It is one digit number!


    The survival rate of nearly 60% is based on a period of 5 years. The 10-year survival rates are only marginally lower.

    I must say I am appalled that you don’t know this. How on earth can you advise people on how to cure cancer when you don’t even know these basic facts??

    Dr Hamer had over 90% survival rate among thousands after 5 years.

    You keep saying that, but Hamer has not been able to show even one case of a patient cured by using his treatment.

    I know so many cases where if left alone, people would be still ok today as they were already in healing stage.

    I don’t believe a word of it. Why don’t you show us some evidence.

    Scientist Mc Gill Cancer Center in USA sent a questionnaire to 118 oncologists and asked them which of the 6 usual therapies they would use on themselves. 79 responded, and 58 of the 79 doctors said they would never undergo chemotherapy because in the first place it is ineffective and secondly it is much too toxic (From Chemotherapy heals cancer and the world is flat, Lothar Hirneise, pg 187)

    As for doctors not wanting to use chemotherapy, you might want to read this article on this blog.

    It seems to me you are seriously deluded.

    One day I will visit this place again in hope to find more constructive conversation, not the blog dedicated to discrediting genius discoveries that are helping many in this world.

    Surely you can’t mean Hamer, for he is one of the biggest quacks that ever lived.

    Somehow I have the feeling you are not interested in a “constructive conversation” at all, but merely come here to promote your own little quackery business.

  115. wilmamazone August 7, 2010 at 7:59 am

    Somehow I have the feeling you are not interested in a “constructive conversation” at all, but merely come here to promote your own little quackery business.

    Me the same. You are actually no more than a chatterbox Jasmina!

  116. beatis August 7, 2010 at 9:00 am

    I couldn’t agree more.

    What I find particularly worrying is that this person thinks she is qualified to treat cancer patients when she doesn’t even know the most basic facts regarding cure rates of conventional cancer treatments. God knows what dangerous nonsense she may be feeding her patients.

  117. Fleur August 26, 2010 at 6:58 pm

    Oh, you people are so funny. How much does Big Pharma pay the author of this blog to spout out this bullshit? And wheres the blog titled “The Dangers of Conventional Cancer treatments”?

    If you seriously support people getting the brutal radiation treatment for their cancer then you’ve got the blood on your hands of all the people who needlessly died from radiation. And we all know by now that the whole cancer industry is a fraud set up to make money.

    Someone please make these greedy profiteers end. Please stop killing people. I don’t want to live in a world like that. Just stop.

  118. jli August 26, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    wheres the blog titled “The Dangers of Conventional Cancer treatments”?

    Such a blog is unneccesary, as conventional medicine is open and honest about risks. You can convince yourself of that by checking out where your sources found that information (I assume that this is not something you figured out yourself).

    And we all know by now that the whole cancer industry is a fraud set up to make money.

    I think we all know how you have reached that conclusion.

  119. That Guy August 27, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    Yes, healthcare costs money, I know, I know, sometimes I forget, we have it free here (we pay for it, it’s Social Security after all).

    But yes, it DOES cost money, that’s no big secret, no conspiracy.

    Costly procedures demand money, people need that pesky thing called money. It’s easy to understand that nobody is willing to lose money.

    It’s pricy for a reason. And this reason it’s not one super secret conspiracy everybody knows about -what a secret, even I know it-.

    Sorry, but those disclaimers are there for a reason, if you don’t have guarantees, take what you have for granted.

    I know it’s crude and primitive for a man or woman to try and make a penny, he should starve and provide everything for free…

  120. beatis August 27, 2010 at 9:44 pm

    We don’t expect people to provide everything for free. We do expect people to be honest about what they are offering though.

    It strikes me as rather odd when someone who makes a living selling medical treatments tells us that mainstream medicine can’t be trusted because they make a living selling medical treatments.

  121. David November 23, 2010 at 8:09 pm

    I have lost three close family memebers to cancer, two of them followed the “traditional” chemotherapy and radiations, and only became weaker, and weaker, and eventually died from starvation (they couldn’t eat any more) suffering great pains to even breathe. The third one was following natural methods and her tumor was shrinking, but one of her sisters (my aunt) kept pushing her to take allopathy, and eventually she died from an overdose…

    As for your statement that cancer takes years to develop, one of them had checkups every four months, and from one to the next she had nothing and then a baseball sized tumor. Just a few days before she died, and even though a coupe of doctors said it was useless to do so, another doctor recommended a new session of chemo and radiations “to see if they would help” of course the bill was huge and I’m sure this “doctor” got a huge check for his sale.

    On the other hand, my grandmother, is from a small town and wants nothing to do with medicine, and has survived three tumors.

    I don’t know but it seems the pharmaceutical companies are doing a good job here trying to spread anti-alternative sentiment

  122. Ikaruga November 29, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    I’m very sorry for your losses, David.

    I’d like to tell you a little something, I had H. Pilory, a real bad case -I think I mentioned this earlier actually-, and I followed standard treatment, it only made the symptoms easier to carry on with, one day, however, I was healed through pretty advanced metaphysical healing, and the symptoms are gone, the doctors were amazed at my recovery, and now I can have my glass of bourbon every now and then. This is an amazing story, and I know it is unbelievable to some, but I want you to understand something, cases such as mine are RARE, EXTREMELY RARE. Thousands of people have searched miracle healers to no avail during their whole lives, a small ammount of people, sometimes refered to as “the crazies” have indeed being cured of their maladies by extraordinary means.

    But this is extraordinary, out of the norm, and cannot be proven or validated. We can’t just give de docs “Hocus Pocus 101 vols 1, 2 and 3” and expect them to start healing people magically, because success cannot be validated. Success by chromotheraphy has been validated, and it was an alleged occult practice just some months ago.

    In this blog, the crewmen, are interested in what is known to work, and can be proven to work, it is called scientific methodology. Here aswell they show you why something can’t possibly work, explaining you what the alternative treatment really does.

    I could tell you about MMS wich is another alternate treatment to cancer among other things, what is MMS? You go to a pool, and you are swimming on it. Do you think that is going to heal you? If that were the case, nobody who went swimming would get sick ever.

    As for the pharmaceutical companies, I am still waiting for my first check, they just wont pay, man.

  123. beatis November 29, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    Ikaruga, is your email address valid?

  124. Ikaruga November 29, 2010 at 7:14 pm

    Yes, I think it is. If it ends in @gmail.com it is.

  125. Ikaruga December 4, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    Well I was expecting mail, you sure know how to break hearts😦

  126. beatis December 4, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    Mail is in progress. 🙂

  127. beatis December 4, 2010 at 5:51 pm

    And has just been sent.

  128. Francesca December 4, 2010 at 8:55 pm

    After receiving a diagnosis of advanced brain, lung and liver cancer 3 months with no hope of a cure my uncle and his family chose (at a friend’s suggestion) to visit a “doctor” who practiced New German Medicine. This doctor happily took their money each week, told them he could be cured, if only he would resolve any “past conflicts” he had in his life and read the book about New German Medicine. Well, the sicker my uncle became the more the doctor told him he was healing. He died this past Tuesday…a day after his doctor told him he was improving. While there was never any hope for my uncle – these so-called quack doctors may actually end up killing someone by preventing them from receiving life saving conventional treatment. My hope is that anyone who receives a cancer diagnosis thinks twice and does their research before choosing this ridiculous alternative therapy.

  129. Ikaruga December 4, 2010 at 11:52 pm

    Answer sent, be specific on what else you want, or go rogue😛

    I’m really getting sick of GNM, day after day more cases appear, the fact that there’s nothing guaranteed 100% and it is so feared makes it worse, I’m hoping we gain some ground with this, people should be aware of what might be going on.

    It’s just sickenning.

  130. Ron June 6, 2011 at 7:31 am

    At the core of this argument is whether or not healing can occur through the management of emotion. The debate about Dr. Hamer is simply a pointed attack at one individual who believes this can happen and who shares his more specific understanding with people who want to decide for themselves between “traditional” and “alternative” approaches.
    Beatis seems to believe there is no evidence to support the notion healing can occur as a result of emotional management and that he/she has the right to dictate what information is available for people to hear about and choose from.
    As for the evidence point of mind-body physiological connection, perhaps you should read up on the evidence that does exist.
    Psychoneuroimmunology dates back to 1911 when Walter Cannon, Physiology Professor, Harvard, showed that subjecting a dog to emotional stress impacted its digestion (causing it to stop) in his paper The Mechanical Factors of Digestion.
    In the 1960s, Dr. George Solomon observed psychological patterns in people with rheumatoid Arthritis, published in a paper Emotions, Immunity and Disease.
    In 1975, there was an extremely radical proof point in work done by Robert Ader and Nicholas Cohen who were researching the long term conditioning of rats (ala Pavlov’s response). In this experiment, rats that had been conditioned with a combination of saccharin-laced water and cytoxan later demonstrated immune system suppression and even death when just given saccharin-laced water!
    The linkage showing the mechanics of emotion to body function materialized in work done in 1981 by David Felton who discovered nerve networks leading to blood vessels and immune system cells, as well as the thymus, spleen and near clusters of lymphocytes and macrophages and mast cells, ALL which control the immune system. That work was followed in 1985 by Candace Pert who showed how neuro-peptide specific receptors in the brain and immune system created a close association between emotion and immunity.
    A practical verification of this in humans was demonstrated in human studies by Richard Davidson, University of Wisconsin, in conjunction with Princeton University. In his study, he had one group focus on only positive emotions while another group focused only on negative emotions. Both groups were then given flu vaccines which are designed in invoke the immune system to generate anti-bodies. Those who focused only on negative emotions had significantly lowered anti-body levels than those who focused on positive emotions.
    Finally, there is this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJ31KKXBKk Here we have a Stanford University professor who explained the placebo effect in which he uses a brain scan to show the physical results of how brain processing of pain was dramatically reduced, purely by the perception that the patient was receiving a powerful pain killer (in reality a placebo).
    On a more anecdotal level, I’ve seen many cases of stressed people developing acne and other issues that resolve themselves when they resolve their stress.
    So yes, there is significant evidence that emotions can and do affect health.
    Allopathic practitioners have for years conditioned the public to fear cancer, and fear even more the consequences of not being treated with radiation and chemicals. That condition permeates “education” in schools and “news” that takes millions of dollars in advertising money from big pharma to advertise drugs. Those fears could easily play into adverse physiological results for someone diagnosed with a serious disease that may have stemmed from an earlier serious emotional trauma.
    So it seems quite plausible that:
    1. A strong emotional reaction could cause physiological symptoms
    2. A strong positive emotional reaction could result in healing
    3. People who have a strong conditioning to fear cancer and other diseases, who receive on-going negative reinforcement by those who criticize a choice of alternative approaches, may actually have difficulty healing through the alternative approach.
    4. Many of the positive results of traditional approaches may be as much from the placebo effect as from the chemicals, radiation, and surgeries being pushed on the patients by a medical industry that is economically out of control as a result of corporate greed.
    Of course big pharma and the witch hunters here would have people believe that only cutting, cooking and titrating can “fix” an inherently flawed body while conveniently ignoring the high rates of related infections, adverse drug effects and death associated with these traditional approaches. Approaches that have been shown to be the third leading cause of death in the JOURNAL of the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000.

    There are apparentely 2,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery, 7000 deaths/year from hospital medication errors, 20,000 deaths/year from other hospital errors, 80,000 deaths/year from hospital infections and 106,000 deaths/year from non-error, adverse effects of medications.
    YES that was 106,000 deaths/year from NON-ERROR adverse effects of medications. Do we see any big pharma CEOs, researchers, or doctors being persecuted for these deaths? What about the other 100,000 other deaths from mistakes and infections resulting from the environments of traditional medical approaches?
    And what about my good friend who was poisoned by chemo doctors? In a relapse of leukemia, the “good doctors” at Sloan-Kettering gave her high doses of chemo. They said “You’re young and your body can take this. We have to do this to stop the leukemia.” The toxins destroyed her lungs. She ended up bleeding from her lungs for weeks before dying from the chemo (not the leukemia). Shall we jail them for their radical beliefs? Should we have denied her the right to choose chemo as her option?
    So Beatis, if you don’t want to take an alternative approach, I support your choice whole heartedly. While I think there is a massive level of information manipulation by big pharma and a miss-guided/arrogant belief that man can make chemicals that work better than nature, I won’t stand in your way to pursue the treatments you clearly seem to believe in. So get off your high horse and stop trying to deny people the right to learn about or choose an alternate approach for themselves. Denying anyone of information to evaluate on my own is tantamount to Nazi book burning and you don’t own anyone else’s body.

  131. beatis June 6, 2011 at 8:43 am

    At the core of this argument is whether or not healing can occur through the management of emotion.

    No. At the core of this argument is (sic) whether or not Hamer’s claim that his treatment cures cancer with a success rate of over 90%, is true.

    BTW, 99,9% of your comment is not related to cancer at all, so I wonder why you bring it up, other than perhaps as an attempt to impress your readers with the sheer amount of words you post.

  132. Ron June 6, 2011 at 9:19 pm

    So do you dispute the mind has the power to affect the health of the body? Or will you continue to dodge that?

  133. Ron June 6, 2011 at 9:23 pm

    Also, I am interested in your position on the right of people to choose their care path vs. being forced to accept care they disagree with. Would you like it if you were forced to take a GNM approach if that happened to be the predominant opinion of others even if you didn’t believe in it?

    And please do rationalize why you so easily dismiss 206,000 deaths per year from traditional medicine approaches that are documented by the medical industry?

  134. beatis June 6, 2011 at 9:48 pm

    So do you dispute the mind has the power to affect the health of the body? Or will you continue to dodge that?

    No, I don’t dispute that. I never “dodged” it either, like you insinuate. You on the contrary have continuously dodged the question about the evidence that Hamer’s therapy cures cancer.

  135. beatis June 6, 2011 at 9:50 pm

    Also, I am interested in your position on the right of people to choose their care path vs. being forced to accept care they disagree with.

    As far as I’m concerned people should be perfectly free to choose the treatment they want, but on the basis of complete and correct information about efficacy and safety. Freedom of choice is only possible by virtue of adequate information.

  136. jli June 7, 2011 at 7:04 am

    So do you dispute the mind has the power to affect the health of the body? Or will you continue to dodge that?

    The placebo effect is well known, and it is not even controversial. But cancer is not a placebo sensitive condition. It will not even make a cancer shrink, which is a minmum requirement if you want to prove that it just might work.

  137. Pingback: Doubts | germannewmedinvestigation

  138. tcm July 28, 2011 at 1:59 am

    Hamer has never opposed surgery and completely supports down grading symptoms. If there is a life threatening occlusion in which a vital organ is being compromised he would be the first to perform surgery. I don’t know what you are trying to prove here. YES HAMER IS A THREAT TO OUR MEDICINE. He sincerely wants to see people well and not poisoned and sick. What people do with his information is what they do with it. OUR body and minds are inseparable. YES we lose people. People die. Look at the statistics and the facts friend.. Hamer is shedding light on the faults of Pasteur’s fraudulent germ theory ((the foundation of western medicine)).

  139. Pingback: “Big Pharma wants us sick so they can make money.” Cult thinking and irrational conspiracy theories go hand in hand. | Cesspool of Madness

  140. John Ericsson September 28, 2011 at 6:50 am

    Good luck with your karma beatis, Zionist pig!

  141. beatis September 28, 2011 at 7:54 am

    Thank you John Ericsson, for so unambiguously showing us your true colours .:mrgreen:

  142. Pingback: Oktober Borstkankermaand met bij ons: het andere gezicht van borstkanker « Cryptocheilus Weblog

  143. Ronald Van Looy October 5, 2011 at 5:06 am

    A lot has happened in my life since publishing my ‘story’ on this site. For one thing, I almost completely stopped writing comments on sites like this because it’s pretty useless to try to go against the biased ‘residents’ on it. Just came across ‘anaximperator’ again when looking up some more information about GNM and out of curiosity started reading the comments posted here since my last visit. Nothing has changed, it seems, still the same closed minded approach of Beatis and the lot…

    Concerning ‘my case’, I’m happy to inform you that she’s still in perfect health more than 2 1/2 years after the mammography was taken which triggered the whole conventional charade. Wonna make something clear (again), but will not go in discussion anymore, because it’s of no use (here).

    The reports I’ve sent to Beatis (with only certain private information, like names, addresses, made unreadable – although, if they really wonna find out the truth, the names of doctors/hospitals/etc. were still there, so they could contact them about this) came straight from the computer of our family doctor (which was linked to a network that doctors use to send/receive reports, etc., to each other). I don’t know if they are the original so called pathological reports, but it’s what our doctor had on his computer. Also, the ultrasound reports were given to us by the doctor/radiologist (Merckx). In short, all the papers I’ve scanned in and sent to Beatis came straight from doctors (not the oncologist, because we haven’t seen him, luckily, since we ‘thanked’ him for his services (shortly after we found out about GNM).

    What I still find most interesting is the information about the real (lack of) contribution of chemo to the 5-year survival chances of adult cancer patients (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849) and the fact that not 1:100.000 ‘spontaneous remissions’ appear, regarding breast cancer, as conventional medicine ‘informs’ (warns) us, but atleast around 30 percent (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/health/27canc.html). Also about how trustworthy conventional investigation techniques are: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/05/17/doctors-amazed-girl-grows-new-kidneys/ (This girl grew two new kidneys and still, numerous scans didn’t show them, as Dr. Prasad Godbole, a pediatric urologist at Sheffield Children’s Hospital who operated on Angel said: “I was surprised we had one (duplex kidney) in Angel because none of the previous X-rays had shown that. Sometimes you could miss it but I was surprised because looking at all the previous X-rays there was no suggestion of this. Her kidneys are working fine,”

    I could go on, but it’s all right there on the internet and in books, so if you’re really serious about finding the truth about your heath, start doing some work for yourselves!

    If doctors ‘believe’ GNM works, why should it not be worth to investigate it for yourself? (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/09/08/a-new-view-of-cancer-german-new-medicine.aspx). And don’t be fooled, MD. Mercola is, by far, not the only doctor who has serious doubts about converntional medicine… There’s, for instance, this doctor Schwartzenberg who wrote a book about it (‘Krebs – heilende Krankheit?: Konfliktlösung statt Chemo und Skalpell’). Anyway, anyone really interested in finding out the truth about this subject will have to do more reading than what’s offered on this (biased) site.

    Good luck to you all!

    Ronald

  144. beatis October 5, 2011 at 8:34 am

    What I still find most interesting is the information about the real (lack of) contribution of chemo to the 5-year survival chances of adult cancer patients (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849) and the fact that not 1:100.000 ‘spontaneous remissions’ appear, regarding breast cancer, as conventional medicine ‘informs’ (warns) us, but atleast around 30 percent (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/health/27canc.html).

    The number of 30 percent is highly debated, as no doubt you know – but somehow fail to mention here. But apart from that, we have asked you before on what grounds we can assess whether a cancer tumour will spontaneously dissappear or whether it will continue to grow and metastasize. This is essential information for deciding whether treatment should be started or not, but neither you nor anyone else has got the slightest idea if a cancer will spontaneously remiss or not, so not treating cancer because it might spontaneously remiss but probably won’t, is dangerous as well as plain stupid.

    Also, the ultrasound reports were given to us by the doctor/radiologist (Merckx). In short, all the papers I’ve scanned in and sent to Beatis came straight from doctors (not the oncologist, because we haven’t seen him, luckily, since we ‘thanked’ him for his services (shortly after we found out about GNM).

    The oncologist is essential when it comes to diagnosing cancer, cancer cannot be diagnosed with mammograms and/or ultrasounds alone. The papers you showed us were incomplete and the so-called pathology report wasn’t a pathology report at all. There is no basis whatsoever to your story, as we have already explained here. Your claiming your girlfriend was cured of cancer without conventional treatment makes you a liar, since there never even was a proper cancer diagnosis to begin with.

    Also about how trustworthy conventional investigation techniques are: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/05/17/doctors-amazed-girl-grows-new-kidneys/ (This girl grew two new kidneys and still, numerous scans didn’t show them

    Yet you and your girlfriend seem perfectly happy to base all your decisions on just these conventional investigation techniques.

  145. wilmamazone October 5, 2011 at 10:48 am

    Beatis:

    The oncologist is essential when it comes to diagnosing cancer, cancer cannot be diagnosed with mammograms and/or ultrasounds alone. The papers you showed us were incomplete and the so-called pathology report wasn’t a pathology report at all. There is no basis whatsoever to your story, as we have already explained here. Your claiming your girlfriend was cured of cancer without conventional treatment makes you a liar, since there never even was a proper cancer diagnosis to begin with.

    I saw all the papers that Ronald Van Looy showed and confirm that there is no basis whatsoever to his story.Ronald Van Looy is a liar and imo a stupid one.

  146. jli October 5, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    Ronald Van Looy is a liar and imo a stupid one

    And quoting Mercola does not strengthen his arguments one bit either.

  147. wilmamazone October 5, 2011 at 5:09 pm

    jli:

    And quoting Mercola does not strengthen his arguments one bit either.

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/category/cancer-cures/

    Chemotherapy doesn’t work? Not so fast…

    “CHEMOTHERAPY DOESN’T WORK!!!!!”

    “CHEMOTHERAPY IS POISON!!!!”

    “CHEMOTHERAPY WILL KILL YOU!!!!”

    I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve come across statements like the ones above, often in all caps, quite frequently with more than one exclamation point, on the websites of “natural healers,” purveyors of “alternative medicine.” In fact, if you Google “chemotherapy doesn’t work,” “chemotherapy is poison,” or “chemotherapy kills,” you’ll get thousands upon thousands of hits. In the case of “chemotherapy kills,” Google will even start autofilling it to read “chemotherapy kills more than it saves.” The vast majority of the hits from these searches usually come from websites hostile to science-based medicine. Examples include Mercola.com, the website of “alternative medicine entrepreneur” Dr. Joe Mercola and NaturalNews.com, the website of Mike Adams, where you will find cartoons like this one, which likens the administration of chemotherapy to a Nazi death camp:……

  148. Renate October 5, 2011 at 5:35 pm

    How would those alternative medicine supporters like it if we made some simular cartoons about alternative medicine? At least they would be more or less true.

  149. beatis October 5, 2011 at 5:52 pm

    Mike Adams’s cartoons are too disgusting and despicable for words and they clearly show what kind of man he is: gross, cruel and deceitful.

  150. Renate October 5, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    Yes, those cartoons are realy disgusting, so you know who you’re up against. People who compare modern medicine with the lowest scum on earth. Wouldn’t it be time to stop being nice? Just thinking about it.

  151. wilmamazone October 5, 2011 at 6:31 pm

    Ronald van Looy:

    And don’t be fooled, MD. Mercola is, by far, not the only doctor who has serious doubts about converntional medicine…

    Don’t be fooled indeed:
    http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercola.html
    FDA Orders Dr. Joseph Mercola to Stop Illegal Claims

    http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/08/mercola_still_lying.php
    Mercola—still lying after all these years

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/for-shame-dr-oz/
    For shame, Dr. Oz, for promoting Joseph Mercola on your show!

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/9-reasons-to-completely-ignore-joseph-mercola-and-natural-news/
    9 Reasons to Completely Ignore Joseph Mercola

  152. beatis October 5, 2011 at 6:53 pm

    And don’t be fooled, MD. Mercola is, by far, not the only doctor who has serious doubts about converntional medicine

    Joseph Mercola is not a medical doctor, he is a DO: doctor of osteopathy.

  153. jli October 5, 2011 at 7:10 pm

    I know I understated a little bit regarding Mercola (ups – I did it again).

  154. jli October 5, 2011 at 7:25 pm

    How would those alternative medicine supporters like it if we made some simular cartoons

    I think it would strengthen their persecution complex. And we don’t have to, because reason is on our side. That being said, it does feel relieving to see some satire once in a while. Perhaps you’ll like this one: http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2010/10/handy-alternative-therapy-flowchart.html
    And I find this one hilarious too: http://cectic.com/098.html

  155. Renate October 6, 2011 at 6:39 am

    I agree, making such negative cartoons would be counterproductive, but still I’m getting sick and tired of seeing those cartoons from the supporters of alternative medicine. They are not funny and I think they are not meant to be funny. They are meant to hurt and to make people fear real medicine. They are mere propaganda, like some movies made in Hitler Germany.
    The cartoons you refer to, are funny, but they are only meant for the people who are already against alternative medicine. Just like this one:

    The problem is, those cartoons don’t really help to convince people. We can laugh about them, but that’s all. Having reason on our side doesn’t really help either. Lots of people don’t see the difference between reason, and false reasoning. The promotors of alternative medicine keep playing the underdog-card. Making negative cartoons strengthen their feeling the underdog.

  156. jli October 6, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    Well occasionally a serious cartoon surfaces. This one is a good educational one on the MMR-vaccine controversy. But I doubt it will have an impact on the fanatics.

  157. Renate October 6, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    A very good cartoon indeed. Alas it won’t have any impact on the fanatics and I’m affraid it won’t lessen their influence on people who are more or less positive about alternative medicine. I think they are far more influenced by the scary cartoons, the supporters of alternative medicine produce.
    We all know the arguments, like science have had it wrong several times, or look at the winner of the Nobelprice, who was originally laughed at by his colleagues.

  158. jli October 6, 2011 at 7:15 pm

    I am not sure the fanatics will be influenced by the scary cartoons – They already believe in the nonsense. But it cannot be ruled out that they can persuade some into believing in these things.

    I don’t know if you have already read it, but here is a good article on mechanisms that are at play when people become fanatic supporters of alt med.

  159. Ronald October 7, 2011 at 3:36 am

    Besides the usual attacks of the less significant parts of my comments and the method of showing minor inaccuracies as a way to dismiss everything I told here as one big, and dangerous, lie (1 yearly mammograms, Ronald said, and it’s 2 yearly mammograms in Belgium, so if he ‘lies’ about this, his whole story has to be false too – and he talks about his girlfriend, but in the documents they call her his wife, see? All lies! And with this lies he’s killing people who believe his story!…).

    Also now, where’s the reactions to the study that shows the uselessness of chemotherapy? I showed this study on other sites (got deleted many times🙂 and one of the major arguments is that it’s an older study (chemo works fine now…), but then I ask: ‘around 1999 they were also telling cancer patients that chemotherapy was a success, which it wasn’t, so how many people got poisoned for no reason then?’ By the way, I read on this site that only 1% of cancer cells might metastasize, because the rest gets killed by the immune system. Aren’t they doing a great job then in helping cancer to metastasize by ruining the immune system by means of chemotherapy?

    Anyway. Another thing I hear all the time is that there is no placebo effect regarding cancer. So how about this study then? Interferon Gamma-1b Compared with Placebo in Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199804303381804#t=articleDiscussion).

    Now I should really leave it at that – I’ve noticed that there are almost no comments from normal visitors on this site anymore, only the ‘house crew’ that keeps guarding their convictions like a pack of wolves.

  160. beatis October 7, 2011 at 5:42 am

    @Ronald

    Another thing I hear all the time is that there is no placebo effect regarding cancer. So how about this study then? Interferon Gamma-1b Compared with Placebo in Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199804303381804#t=articleDiscussion).

    Did you understand this study at all? Or did you even read it?? Because this is what the authors say about the outcomes (my bold):

    These data with low-dose interferon gamma-1b provided the basis for our phase 3 study, which was designed to determine whether interferon gamma-1b prolongs the time to disease progression and prolongs survival. Unfortunately, no statistically significant differences were observed between the interferon gamma-1b and placebo treatments.

    Nowhere does it say that cancer reacts well to placebo. As far as I can see, the only outcome is a statistically insignificant effect of interferon gamma-1b in the treatment of metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, compared to a placebo (= a substance known to be ineffective).

    (…) the method of showing minor inaccuracies (…)

    Presenting a “pathology report” which isn’t a pathology report does not constitute “minor” inaccuracies.

    We have asked you repeatedly to provide reliable evidence that Hamer’s Germanic New Medicine cures cancer, but until now you have failed to do so. Ranting against standard medicine doesn’t help.

  161. Renate October 7, 2011 at 6:02 am

    jli, on October 6, 2011 at 7:15 pm:

    I am not sure the fanatics will be influenced by the scary cartoons – They already believe in the nonsense. But it cannot be ruled out that they can persuade some into believing in these things.

    I don’t know if you have already read it, but here is a good article on mechanisms that are at play when people become fanatic supporters of alt med.

    No, fanatics aren’t influenced by scary cartoons, just like we aren’t influenced by the scary cartoons made by the supporters of alternative medicine. But the people who are thinking of using alternative medicine for such live-threatening diseases like cancer and having perhaps some distrust to regular medicine, like written in the article you refered to (I can’t say reading scientific texts in English is my strong point) can be influenced by the harsh cartoons presented by the fanatic supporters of alternative medicine.

  162. cryptocheilus October 7, 2011 at 10:23 am

    Here’s another recent example of a GNM alt-med peddler…

    2002 hatte der Angeklagte eine Frau mit einer Krebserkrankung »behandelt« und ihr von klassischen medizinischen Methoden abgeraten. Als Anhänger der Neuen Germanischen Medizin bzw. der »Biologie Totale« (Biologisches Dekodieren) verfolgte er den Ansatz, dass eine Krebserkrankung auf einen inneren Konflikt zurückzuführen sei, den es zu lösen gelte […]

    So hatte er einen Patienten davor gewarnt, durch klassische medizinische Behandlungen in eine Stress-Spirale zu gelangen.

    Einer anderen Frau hatte er versprochen, sie werde geheilt, wenn sie seiner Behandlung folge. Entscheide sie sich allerdings für eine Chemotherapie, werde sie sterben.

    so habe der Mann dem sichtbaren Verfall der Patientin zugeschaut und sie auf unmenschliche Weise leiden lassen. Dabei hatte er der Familie erklärt, die Schmerzen seien Teil des Heilungsprozesses und ein Zeichen dafür, dass der Tumor sich auflöse.

    http://www.grenzecho.net/ArtikelLoad.aspx?mode=all&aid=2cb485ab-050d-46b2-b6ca-ab334c748533

  163. jli October 7, 2011 at 10:32 am

    Also now, where’s the reactions to the study that shows the uselessness of chemotherapy?

    As you say, chemotherapy (and the newer targeted therapy) has improved outlooks. But even on its own terms, your interpretation of the study isn’t supported by the data. The study has already been analysed on this blog.

  164. Simon War January 21, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    you really are a bunch of ars**oles. I mean really!!
    After practicing water fasting for over 20 years with patients almost always recovering I can say you are complete and utter fools and no amount of argument will persuade you otherwise.
    I fully expect this note to be deleted considering the name calling but what you write amounts to much the same – You really are prejudiced, egotistical, delusional, statist,dupes who have nothing but a diminshed capacity for reason and suffer cognitive dissonance in the extreme.
    There – I feel better now🙂

  165. jli January 22, 2012 at 11:08 am

    Well – If it helps you feel better to launch insults at people who disagree with you then so be it.

    You are right that we are not easily persuaded by someone who charges money from cancer patients for telling them that they will be cured by not drinking water once in a while.

    But you are incorrect that no argument will persuade us otherwise. All we need is:
    1) Evidence that the cancer was there (using reliable tests).
    2) Evidence that water fasting was the only treatment used
    3) Evidence that the cancer went away (using reliable tests)

  166. beatis January 22, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    There there now, Simon, you know you shouldn’t skip your pills, it gets you all over-exited!

  167. jli January 22, 2012 at 4:09 pm

    But pills are hard to swallow without water.

  168. beatis January 22, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    I sometimes swallowed a pill with apple sauce when I was little, but of course there’s water in apples too. Very difficult, water fasting!😆

  169. jli January 24, 2012 at 7:27 pm

    The water fasters certainly have a problem. Those who believe that water fasting means not drinking water have a problem swallowing pills for the reason we mentioned. The water fasters who believe you can drink all the water you want, but not ingest anything else will violate the fast by ingesting pills. As if those problems aren’t enough, other altie proponents (Selling supplements and food containing diets) also discourage water fasting. There sure are lots of things to make a water faster grumpy.

  170. Leo August 2, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    I’m really glad I found your blog. Why? Because I am researching Dr Hamer for my fiancee who has been given a prognosis of having maybe two months to live by the hospital doctors.

    For some reason I trawled through the comments until I came to those of Fiona Shakeela Burns, someone whose story you attempt to make others believe is no more than an advertising ploy of a charlatan or at best a deluded woman.

    The reason I am so pleased to have come to your blog is that I know Fiona personally. She lives three miles away in the city of Bristol, England, UK. I knew her when she was diagnosed with cancer, accompanied her on hospital visits, and know of her various approaches to treatment.

    I also know her today as a woman in radiant health who only wants to share her experience for the good of others. There are scores, if not hundreds of people in Bristol who know her personally, know what she went through, and would attest to the truth of what I am saying.

    So when I read your atrocious responses to her and the flagrant way you attempt to put her down, it confirmed to me two things:

    1 This blog and everything negative written about Dr Hamer is not to be trusted. Because if you so blatantly publish lies and promote such gross misunderstanding about a women whom I know well, how can I possibly trust anything else you say?

    2 I will now continue to explore the teachings of Dr Hamer and maybe one day I will produce my fiancee of living proof that the principles work. But of course you will discount that because just presenting a living, breathing human’s testimony will not count as “scientific”.

    As a suggestion, meant helpfully, I would encourage you to inquire into your motives for writing this blog. What’s the payoff for you in attempting to drag people down? What self-identity do you imagine for yourself in so doing? And what are you frightened of?

    I doubt you will publish my post. But in case you do, I hope it serves as a lighthouse to all others who find it. I have no axe to grind either way, just an open mind and a willingness to explore, listen and learn.

    written in the spirit of kindness,

    Leo

  171. beatis August 2, 2012 at 2:26 pm

    You seem just as big a quack as Ms Burns.

    I find her stories extremely unbelievable. No doubt she is a nice woman and genuinely believes what she is telling people. But that doesn’t make it true.

    First of all, CA 125 is not sufficiently reliable in itself as a cancer diagnosis. A number of other factors can cause a high level of CA 125, such as pregnancy, menstruation and benign growths such a cysts. Surgical removal and examination by a pathologist of a growth is essential to find out if it is malignant or benign. As far as I know, this was not done. So Ms Burns diagnosed herself with cancer, while it may well have been benign cysts, then “cured” herself with alternative treatments and during this time the what well may have been cysts disappeared of their own – which they often do.

    It is very common for benign ovarian growths to dissappear without treatment and I have never heard of them developing into cancer.

    She also claims:

    My oncologist told me that I needed to have a full hysterectomy and have my appendix removed and omentum, followed by chemo and radiotherapy. He said that if I followed his recommendations that I had a 20 to 30 percent chance of being alive in 5 years and a 10 percent chance of being alive in 10 years time.

    No oncologist would ever tell a patient they have cancer and advise a treatment plan without a biopsy and pathological exam having been performed.

    As for the rest of her story, I just find it very hard to believe that as well. I’ll get back to that later.

  172. jli August 2, 2012 at 6:21 pm

    First of all, CA 125 is not sufficiently reliable in itself as a cancer diagnosis. A number of other factors can cause a high level of CA 125, such as pregnancy, menstruation and benign growths such a cysts.

    Very true. This site is informative on the fuss about CA 125: http://www.usask.ca/cme/articles/ovarian/index.shtml
    It says among other things:

    CA 125 is a protein that is produced in response to irritation of the surfaces of the body cavities. Anything that irritates the peritoneal cavity, the pleural cavity, even the pericardial sac, will cause an elevation of the CA 125……….

    Some of us are aware of someone who had an elevation of CA 125 on a screening test and was subsequently found to have an ovarian cancer. But much more frequent are those who have an elevation on screning, but no reason is found after numerous investigations and untold anxiety to the patient.

    An elevated CA 125 is to expected if you have a partially collapsed lung caused by accumulation of fluid in the pleural space – just like Ms. Burns had. The same applies to CEA.

    my diagnosis? Cervix adenoma carcinoma

    No such diagnosis would appear in a pathology report.
    An adenoma is a non-cancerous tumour while a carcinoma is a cancerous tumour.

  173. thefriendonline August 2, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    Your reply is exactly what I expected. “You are as big a quack as Ms Burns” is such an unintelligent and unconscious response, and by this personal attack on my character you condemn yourself by your own words to the realm of people who make broad sweeping judgements based on no knowledge whatsoever. Your own attitude is that which you so vehemently condemn in others.

    Angry, frightened, judgmental people always condemn others for what lives in themselves but are blind to, or in other words unconscious of. You would benefit greatly from taking a long look in the mirror of truth.

    What you will find, beneath whatever is hurting you so much to cause you to act the way you do, may surprise you in the best possible way …

    When you are ready to dive into truth, let me know. Until then I wish you well and will not engage further with this blog, for I must focus my energies in more constructive ways.

    I truly wish you well and that you find peace and happiness,

    Leo

  174. beatis August 2, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    @jli

    my diagnosis? Cervix adenoma carcinoma

    No such diagnosis would appear in a pathology report.
    An adenoma is a non-cancerous tumour while a carcinoma is a cancerous tumour.

    I wondered about that too, but she probably meant to say cervical adenocarcinoma.

    Hers is such a weird and implausible story that I don’t know what to make of it; if anything, Ms Burns could well be suffering from an overactive imagination. But joking aside, the worrying thing is of course that she thinks she is qualified to treat cancer patients.

  175. beatis August 2, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    @friendonline

    I looked at your website and I see only quackery.

    I’m not frightened, but I am angry and judgmental when it comes to practitioners who deceive their patients, intentionally or not.

  176. jli August 2, 2012 at 7:50 pm

    …….she probably meant to say cervical adenocarcinoma.

    Exactly – That is what it would read, if she got the diagnosis from a pathology report or some other medical record. Her use of the words adenoma carcinoma is a strong indication, that she has a poor grasp of what cancer is. And consequently shouldn’t be trusted by people with cancer.

  177. Rich October 12, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    beatis, was somebody you know killed by GNM that has caused you to be so against it? maybe you said earlier in the thread, but if so, I missed it. would be interested to know your back story…

  178. Rich October 12, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    sorry, never mind. I now see there is a link with your backstory. sorry for the stupid post.

  179. my friend x November 7, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    Hi everyone, wow reading all your posts,
    At the moment my friend is following the GNM prog, she has stage 3 breast cancer and lesions in her spine, its been just over 2 years since diagnosis which i think is great. however we’ll never know what the result would have been if she went down conventional treatment? maybe she’d be fully recovered and getting her life back instead of going thro a very painful process (literally). Or maybe the surgery and chemo would have been to much for her, i feel the agressive rate of chemo could kill you however cancer can be so furious and reach stages of incurability so fast the doctors have to try, and this is all we have in hospitals! and at no time do they promise anything and they promote alternaitve therapys aswell, but not for treating the cancer, to help with the symptoms and fear/relaxation. i have chosen to support her wish in the way she is wants to go about it , i cant say i would be confident to do the same.
    i have many families members that are alive today because of conventional cancer treament that i cant ignore, but at the same time i know of many that have lost their ife.. i feel prevention needs the spotlight, the funding especially in young woman like my friend.
    I really do agree that we need walking evidence of alternative therapys, we see conventional results everyday..
    when someone is looking at all their options you have to remember quality of life, cancer can be so awfully isolating and physically debilitating, nurses are trained to look after you, alternative therpaies mean you have to do it on your on at home most of the time, youll prob get too sick to work and alternative therapies cost my friend atleast 400 a week, honeslty thats more stressful then cancer..
    Support is so important and you will find people will think your being silly for risking your life as a test subject.

    Eg. Two people with the same type of cancer wont have the same exact conventional treatment program. its always thoroughly checked and monitored and given lots of nutrionist thru drips if needed.

    So why would you follow someones word, on alternate therapies regarless if what their saying is true, you are made up differently, i wouldnt risk it without a trianed onochologist..

    Anyone thinking of doing GNM you need to be open mined, the so called conflicts trying to fix them honeslty how do you heal a broken heart? some things take time and cancer gives you none. The conflicts he refers to may be the cause, but healing from such conflicts? really?

    thats all sorry guys for such a long post. xox
    p.s alternative therapies dont offer support for family and friends scared too death reading forums every night😦

  180. Renate November 7, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    Be openminded, but not so openminded that your brains fall out. And I don’t want to risk my brains falling out, to be openminded about GNM.

  181. Linda November 12, 2012 at 11:04 am

    When I first heard/read about GNM I thought what a load of crapola! you’ve got to be kidding me! It was only the fact some good friends of mine, two sisters, daughters of two doctors (specialists) introducing me to it, that I bothered to keep an open mind. I was very, very skeptical at first. But hearing from my friends parents (being medically trained) that GNM is the only thing that has ever made sense to them in their whole career, made me start to think, if doctors question the medical paradigm they are working in after 40 or so years, surely it’s because they have reason to?! Well on talking to these doctors more, I have learned some pretty frightening things about mainstream medicine. Basically that medical school brainwashes doctors and warps their minds into cult-like thinking that the answer to everything is drugs. Big pharma rules medical schools (medical schools are funded by pharmaceutical companies, talk about conflict of interest!). Is it any wonder doctors do not know anything about real healing but only know how to hand out drugs, drugs and more drugs?! Also it stunned me as I started trawling the web and also textbooks, looking for evidence that viruses (pathogenic ones) actually exist! And do you know that I canNOT actually find any evidence of this!? True! I’ve looked. Dr. Stefan Lanka a microbiologist and virologist has spent most of his career researching exactly this, and the only evidence he has been able to come up with regarding “viruses” is that they are actually beneficial to their host! They play an important part in the healing phases of all diseases. And the same for bacteria. Incidentally the use of antibiotics makes it impossible for an organism to complete the healing phase of a disease. Over a period of 2 years I have studied and studied about GNM, learned that there have been over 30 verifiable studies done into its claims, all which have revealed that GNM is completely proveable, and the University of Tubingden in Germany have produced independent verifiable results of GNM being evidence-based. Not only is it evidence-based, but it is consistent in all the rules it applies. The same rule applies for all patients. e.g. there are rules about left and right handedness which will implicate which side of the body a patient is afflicted with a particular disease – these rules are always the same, ever change, never an exception to the rule. It makes us understand that there is nothing random in nature. Everything is perfect, every biological process is meaningful. The body does not just constantly make random errors and mistakes. And germs are NOT the cause of disease. These are the fundamental paradigms that conventional medicine rests its laurels on, however (that disease is exogenous in nature, germ theory explains the origins of disease, disease happens randomly and without reason or logic). But GNM shows a completely different side to all of this. Incidentally, the idea of exogenous origin of disease and “germ theory” were the ideas of one scientist, Louie Pasteur, and his colleague at the time, Bechamp, was doing research that was moving in the opposite direction. Bechamp’s research was dumped because it did not appear to be as lucrative to an emerging pharmaceutical industry as Pasteur’s claims. After-all, if disease is endogenous in nature, how could we justify the manufacture of expensive “germ fighting” medicines like vaccines and antibiotics? GNM is inline with the ordered, logical and methodical way in which our universe is arranged. Nature is not chaotic and random. Neither is the human body, nor is the development of disease. There is a special biological meaning behind everything. Also, it is imperative to remember that you cannot separate psyche-body-organ. Nothing happens in isolation. Everything goes back to the brain, the master control centre of every other process in the body. This is why the concept of a “specialist” on a particular part of the body or organ or system, is ridiculous, and in fact, very dangerous. As these doctors rarely or ever acknowledge the idea of the body working as a whole, but focus on a single part. True healing can never happen if we continue to cling to the outdated and frankly, very dangerous idea, that this Cartesian model of breaking the body down into parts and treating everything individually, is actually progressive to medicine! It is actually a very archaic method of approaching health and disease. GNM requires patience and discipline to understand. It takes time to learn the principles. But for all of you on this blog who are doing nothing but reading quack websites and bashing GNM without really knowing anything about it or doing absolutely zero research for yourselves, can I encourage you to stop doing that. Such attitudes are negative and don’t help anybody who might be searching for the truth. GNM when practiced correctly, can be amazing. Not only that, it is so liberating. To find out the truth: that the body doesn’t make mistakes, that there is a meaningful biological program in place that can explain everything that goes on, is liberating. It really means we can take back control of our own health be the masters of our own lives, the way it was always meant to be. We are at a point in time where we really do need to be the authors of our own health. Doctors are stuck in an outdated and archaic system. As I’ve learned from my friends’ parents (off the record, of course), is that even if doctors DO realise that the system is inherently flawed, bias and based on out of date and one-sided theories, what can they do about it? We have seen what happens to those in the science and medical worlds who dare to step outside of conventional thinking – they risk committing career suicide! So in other words, don’t expect to hear the truth from them, even if they knew and wanted to tell, their hands are basically tied. It’s up to us, the individuals, to self-educate, and learn from our own experiences. I personally have seen family members and friends suffer at the hands of chemotherapy, needlessly, painfully, and still die horrible deaths! I continue to wonder what might have been had the knowledge of GNM been available to them!

  182. beatis November 15, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    @ Linda

    The amount of nonsense and misinformation in your comment is truly mind-boggling. Correcting it would take us several hours and even then it would probably be a wasted effort, since you don’t strike me as susceptible to even the most basic scientific reasoning to begin with.

  183. jli November 15, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    I think you are right beatis. I will just post this link, and that’s it: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL890EE1A63AF7665B

  184. Linda November 16, 2012 at 1:45 am

    @ beatis
    That is just about the response I would have expected from you too, so thanks for not disappointing! I did have the sense to read through this blog in its entirety before I chose to post, and see that you like to berate those who disagree with you, and particularly those who make claims about the pharmaceutical industry being corrupt and profit-driven. I guess your pay cheque has to come from somewhere. That’s okay. Completely understandable.

  185. Linda November 16, 2012 at 1:48 am

    @ jili
    Have you even watched House of Numbers? you do realise that they ADMIT that there is no standardised test for HIV around the world? i.e. you can quite literally test negative in France, then fly to New Zealand, and test positive. Seriously? You’d think for such a high-profile “disease” that at least they could get the testing accurate?

  186. beatis November 16, 2012 at 8:28 am

    Modern HIV-testing is highly reliable and accurate but, as any test, not perfect.

    Due to the so-called HIV window period, people may have a falsely negative first test and still test positively some time later. This is why people with negative tests who are at high risk for HIV exposure should be retested in two to three months.

    There is overwhelming scientific evidence that HIV causes AIDS, notwithstanding the fact that some people can be HIV-infected for years without ever developing AIDS. There were also people in history who were immune to the bubonic plague, but that doesn’t mean that yersinia pestis does not exist or does not cause the plague.

    There is no evidence whatsoever for Hamer’s theories on the cause of and the cure for cancer and he has never been able to present even one cancer patient who was cured by his GNM or went into remission. I think Mr Hamer is a very disturbed and dangerous man, who preys on cancer patients in order to feed his megalomania.

  187. Linda November 16, 2012 at 8:51 am

    @beatis
    is that why in the house of numbers documentary, they get the people they are testing to fill in a questionnaire asking whether they are gay or have ever engaged in gay sex? LOL. then openly admit that this can impact the test results! LOL even more. you mean to say that the test results are based upon what someone fills in on a questionnaire? um… if a test is scientific, what someone writes on a form is hardly going to be significant, is it? the truth is, a patient’s condition will decline VERY quickly as soon as they are put onto AZT. that is what kills them. nothing else. HIV does not exist.

  188. beatis November 16, 2012 at 9:14 am

    you mean to say that the test results are based upon what someone fills in on a questionnaire?

    Please show me where I said that. The answers in the questionnaire are merely helpful in determining the likelihood – not certainty! – of a false negative test result.

    the truth is, a patient’s condition will decline VERY quickly as soon as they are put onto AZT. that is what kills them. nothing else. HIV does not exist.

    Sadly, HIV does exist and AIDS still does kill. Mr Leungs’ shameful lies and distortions are a grave insult to everyone who succumbed to this horrible disease, as well as to their loved ones and the scientific community.

  189. Linda November 16, 2012 at 10:26 am

    @beatis
    i mean that @jili referred to a youtube channel regarding AIDS-denialism – one of the linked videos was house of numbers – which I’ve watched more than once, and they tell people they need to fill a questionnaire regarding their sexuality and sexual history – one of the main themes of that questionnaire focuses on whether they are homosexual or or have ever been. and one of the women testing at one of the testing centres they were filming at, when asked, said that it really “makes a difference” to the results what someone writes on that questionnaire – indicating that if they admit on the form that they are or have engaged in homosexual relations, they could somehow have a higher likelihood of testing positive. the sheer inconsistency with that alone, being ANYthing but scientific, is what I’m talking about. how can blood test results be influenced by what someone writes on a piece of paper? I’m not saying YOU said that, but you did say that there is overwhelming evidence that “HIV causes AIDS”. then watching this documentary, it seems that the testing process for an HIV+ diagnosis is anything but scientific. I can only imagine the amount of false positives that are given… and the amount of unnecessary medication given as a result. GNM is pretty specific about the complex web of psychological and biological conflicts that cause someone to succumb to the disease that is AIDS. but it has absolutely nothing to do with the HIV “virus”. One more thing I will add, is that even the idea of having “antibodies” to a “virus” is completely inconsistent in itself. Let’s say I get tested for antibodies to rubella, and my results say that I am positive, and therefore have so-called “immunity to rubella”… that is considered a good thing. Great, in fact. Especially during pregnancy! It’s like that for pretty much any medically-relevant (i.e. so-called pathogenic) virus. Wait for it… EXCEPT for HIV. If you have HIV antibodies, you are HIV positive. BAD!!! Any other virus, GOOD!!! Science is supposed to be black and white. No grey areas. But I’ve never seen such a massive inconsistency in my life with the testing and diagnosis of so-called HIV.

  190. beatis November 16, 2012 at 11:08 am

    GNM is dangerous nonsense.

    Frankly, I don’t see any point in trying to have a sane discussion with someone who doesn’t know – or perhaps I should say: doesn’t want to know – the first thing about viruses and retroviruses.

  191. Linda November 16, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    @beatis
    LOL. Isn’t that ALWAYS the way? I just pointed out something VERY black and white, a question that just BEGS an answer, and what do you do? Throw it back in my face and accuse me of believing in dangerous nonsense! Great. But I’m the one coming up with the scientific reasoning here, not you.

    The only dangerous nonsense was that under taken by Gallo and Montagnier when they decided for whatever reason NOT to follow the correct scientific method in identifying and isolating the “HIV virus”, and then presenting their incomplete “findings” to the world (and incidentally, at the same time, creating a media storm, a big name for themselves, lots of funding, and Nobel prizes to boot), and the world accepting that as Gospel without question.

    You fail to even attempt to address even my most basic question: why are antibodies to any virus in medicine a good thing, except when it comes to HIV?

    Some people (not necessarily you) might be interested in reading this article by biophysicist Dr. Eleni Papadopulos, a leading HIV/AIDS researcher from Australia, it’s quite a read but here is the crux of it:-

    CJ: And do retroviral particles band at a characteristic point?

    EPE: Yes. In the sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.

    CJ: So, examination with the electron microscope tells you what fish you’ve caught?

    EPE: Not only that. It’s the only way to know if you’ve caught a fish. Or anything at all.

    CJ: True. Did Montagnier and Gallo not do this?

    EPE: This is one of the many problems. Montagnier and Gallo did use density gradient banding but for some unknown reason they did not publish any EMs of the material at 1.16 gm/ml which they and everyone afterwards call “pure HIV”. This is quite puzzling because in 1973 the Pasteur Institute hosted a meeting attended by scientists some of whom are now amongst the leading HIV experts. At that meeting the method of retroviral isolation was thoroughly discussed and photographing the 1.16 band of the density gradient was considered absolutely essential.

    CJ: But Montagnier and Gallo did publish photographs of virus particles.

    EPE: No. Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs of a few particles which they claimed are a retrovirus and are HIV. But photographs don’t prove particles are a virus and the existence of HIV was not proven using the method presented at the 1973 meeting.

    CJ: And what was that method?

    EPE: All the steps I have just told you. The only scientific method that exists. Culture cells, find a particle, isolate the particle, take it to pieces, find out what’s inside and then prove those particles are able to make more of the same with the same constituents when they’re added to a culture of uninfected cells.

    CJ: So before AIDS came along there was a well tried method for proving the existence of a retrovirus but Montagnier and Gallo did not follow this method?

    EPE: They used some of the techniques but they did not undertake every step including proving what particles, if any, are in the 1.16 gm/ml band of the density gradient, the density that defines retroviral particles.

    CJ: But what about their pictures?

    EPE: Montagnier’s and Gallo’s electron micrographs and every other electron microscope picture published up until March this year are of unpurified cell cultures. Not the gradient. Before March this year, no one had ever published a picture of a density gradient.

    CJ: Which is what we need to do to prove isolation of retroviral particles?

    EPE: Yes.

    http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjinterviewep.htm

  192. beatis November 16, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    You fail to even attempt to address even my most basic question: why are antibodies to any virus in medicine a good thing, except when it comes to HIV?

    Because retroviruses behave differently from “regular” viruses.

    Discussion on HIV/AIDS is now closed, you can go and troll elsewhere if you like.

  193. Marc Stephens Is Insane November 16, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    The crackpot Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos is NOT a doctor of any kind and she has never been one. Her highest degree is a Bachelor of Science in nuclear physics. She has no medical education or credentials whatsoever to be discussing HIV/AIDS, let alone the common cold. She has been rejected as an “expert witness” because she has no credibility in anything to do with health sciences.

  194. Linda November 17, 2012 at 8:14 am

    http://learninggnm.com/documents/mouth_lump.html
    Why is it such a crime for people to have health freedom through something as simple, natural and logical as knowing German New Medicine? Quite right, if this woman had gone to an allopathic physician, they would have diagnosed her with tongue cancer and started operating. I guess her knowledge saved her from all of that, and good on her. People that say GNM doesn’t work, have probably spent very little time even attempting to learn what it is all about. Perfectly aligned with nature, no randomness. Everything is logical and ordered. We live in a logical, ordered world and universe. Why would the nature of health and disease be any different? Doesn’t make sense.

  195. beatis November 17, 2012 at 8:53 am

    If I had gone to an allopathic physician, he would most likely have diagnosed ‘tongue cancer’,

    Why would an “allopathic physician” have done that if the lump wasn’t cancerous?? This story is too ridiculous for words and if you really believe this kind of pathetic nonsense I’m afraid you are beyond help.

  196. Linda November 17, 2012 at 9:07 am

    I read somewhere earlier on this blog that if Hamer’s GNM has cured so many cancer patients, where are they all? Well, they can all be found on his website. They are not fake testimonials either. I personally know one of the GNM doctors (and yes he’s a REAL doctor!) who features his case studies on the site frequently. I know that he doesn’t publish fake case studies. Everything is documented, the cases are all based on real people, real conditions, real appointments, real followups, and real and complete healings and recoveries not just from cancer but many other chronic illnesses too. Honestly if more people knew GNM, it would turn the conventional medical word on its head, completely. Even understanding basic stuff like why we get the flu in winter (believe me it has nothing to do with the elusive “flu” virus), would change the way people perceive disease, illness and healing symptoms, forever! The liberation and freedom that comes with the knowledge of GNM is priceless. Finally, something that puts the control back in the hands of everyday people to be able to confidently take care of their own health, instead of running to the GP or specialist to “fix us when we’re broken”. I have to ask, why wouldn’t someone want that knowledge? Why wouldn’t someone want to have total control over their health like this? What are people really scared of? And why has Hamer been so heavily repressed? I mean think about it, there are a million people out there claiming they have “the” cure for cancer. Why aren’t they all being repressed, de-licensed, clinics raided, patient medical records confiscated, exiled to a foreign country, like what they’ve done to Dr. Hamer? It’s because they are all still practicing “old” medicine following the old paradigm (just doing it in a natural way). So it’s not really much of a threat to the establishment… but this new paradigm is a huge threat. It is scientific. It works. It requires next to no drugs, and very rarely even any surgeries (with a few exceptional cases). Imagine what all the “-gists” would do? If this stuff gets out, there would be no more need for specialists at all, ever! Just a skilled surgeon to deal with trauma/emergency procedures from accidents, and that’s all. Every other ward of the hospital could be shut down tomorrow with GNM. Gee. I wonder why they want to shut him down. As with anything, when you really want to know the truth, it’s not hard. Just follow the money…

  197. Renate November 17, 2012 at 9:20 am

    Health freedom? Preying on desperate people and selling them the nonsense that GNM is? That has nothing to do with health freedom, but with freedom for criminals, who are allowed to sell anything, which they pretend can cure things.

  198. beatis November 17, 2012 at 10:15 am

    Mr Hamer claims to have cured over 40,000 patients. Yet there are no 40,000 testimonials on Ms Markolin’s website. Other problems with these testimonials:
    – they are all anonymous;
    – they are not supported by reliable medical and scientific documentation such as an official diagnosis;
    – so: no proof there ever was cancer and so-called patients making up their own “cancers” and then claiming to have been cured of them by GNM.
    An example of this is this testimomial on non-hodgkin lymphoma. No diagnosis was of non-hodgkin lymphoma was ever made, so how do we know “Mike” suffered from it? Because of his symptoms? His symptoms can be caused by any number of ailments, including the flu or the common cold and a diagnosis of non-hodgkin lymphoma can only be made on the basis of a biopsy:

    Many of the symptoms of non-Hodgkin lymphoma are not specific enough to say for certain if they are being caused by cancer. Most of these symptoms can also be caused by non-cancerous problems, like infections, or by other kinds of cancers.

    For example, enlarged lymph nodes are more often caused by infections than by non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Because of this, doctors often prescribe antibiotics and wait a few weeks to see if the nodes shrink.

    If the nodes stay the same or continue to grow, the doctor may then advise a biopsy. Either a small piece of a node or, more commonly, the entire node is removed for viewing under the microscope and for other lab tests.

    A biopsy may be needed right away if the size, texture, or location of the node or the presence of other symptoms strongly suggests cancer. But a delay in diagnosis of a few weeks is not likely to be harmful unless it is a very rapidly growing lymphoma.

  199. beatis November 17, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    @Renate

    When people talk about “health freedom”, what they often really mean is freedom for the quack to deceive his patients ad lib.

  200. Marc Stephens Is Insane November 17, 2012 at 9:41 pm

    I noticed on the website that Linda provided in the post concerning the “swollen tongue anecdote” that of the ten key GNM salesmen (“teaching team”) around the world, only one is a real doctor (the representative in Mexico). There are a couple of chiropractors and a naturopath (of course), a PhD in literature, a former scuba diving equipment dealer, a radiology technician, a massage therapist, and a home economist.

    Beatis, why are these people permitted to teach and practice medicine without a license? They even use the word “medicine” their name: can’t they be stopped by any laws in place?

    I’m dismayed to see a disproportionate representation of GNM believers here in my own country of Canada. I understand there’s a French spin-off of GNM that has taken hold here in Quebec.

  201. beatis November 17, 2012 at 9:55 pm

    Beatis, why are these people permitted to teach and practice medicine without a license? They even use the word “medicine” their name: can’t they be stopped by any laws in place?

    I’m sure they’re not permitted, but it seems the authorities have more pressing matters to attend to than protecting people from quacks.

    I’m dismayed to see a disproportionate representation of GNM believers here in my own country of Canada. I understand there’s a French spin-off of GNM that has taken hold here in Quebec.

    Yes, that’s right, we warned against them on this blog. It’s very depressing.

  202. Marc Stephens Is Insane November 17, 2012 at 9:58 pm

    While catching up on this thread. I read a series of posts from this past summer from someone named Leo. He was researching GNM for his wife, and he also seemed very impressed by Gerson’s therapy, as he was friends with Fiona Shacklee and believed her success was due t(in part?) to Gerson.

    I am very sad to report that Leo’s wife has died (it’s on his website). I sincerely hope he didn’t waste her last few months on GNM or Gerson, and I send him my condolences.

  203. Marc Stephens Is Insane November 17, 2012 at 10:22 pm

    Holy quackers! i just read your post about Biologie Totale as well as Orac’s post from a few years ago. I had never heard about it until now, when I started reading about GNM.

    Interestingly, the guy behind BT is no longer allowed to practice medicine in France (see Simoncini, Geier, Wakefield, Lanctot and a raft of other embarassments to the medical profession.) Nevertheless he has trained over 7000 people in BT, most of whom had no medical backgrounds or education.

    There’s a series of BT workshops scheduled in the New Year in Poland, Russia and Israel. From their website, here’s what you learn in only THREE DAYS–you can cure three kinds of cancer!!! And MS!!! And this is only level one of BT, which is almost identical to GNM. Three days–who needs med school?

    Main themes developped in Total Biology Level I :
    •Dr. Hamer’s findings.
    •Sources of the Total Biology of the Living Creatures.
    •Law of Reality Ambivalence (duality).
    •The Iceberg analogy in Total Biology.
    •Everything is a survival program mode.
    •The three level rocket.
    •Disease: the brain’s best solution to stay alive as long as possible.
    •The ways we get sick.
    •The brain, a breaker box.
    •DHS (Dirk Hamer Syndrome).
    •Biological Invariant.
    •Stomach cancer.
    •Real, Imaginary, Symbolical and Virtual.
    •Digestive biological invariants.
    •Multiple Sclerosis.
    •Resolving the conflict(s).
    •Liver cancer.
    •Two phases to disease.
    •Four keys to the piano of biology.
    •Embryology layers.
    •Programming and Triggering conflicts.
    •Breast cancer.
    •Felt experience (the ways we experience a trauma: some examples).
    •Mini-Maxi Schizophrenia.
    •Conflict of the diagnosis/prognosis.
    •Conditions for healing.
    •Biological cascade.
    •Project-Purpose.
    •Genealogy: circulation of the family memories.
    •Stages of grief.

  204. jli November 18, 2012 at 5:43 pm

    …. something as simple, natural and logical as knowing German New Medicine

    Even if it sounds simple, natural and logic, it may still be completely wrong, and demonstrably so.

    We dealt with this in another post, where we compared what GNM predicts we should see when we take a closer look at cancer, and what we see in the real world: https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/debunkinghamer-on-cancermetastasis-slam-dunk/

    The facts are, that:
    1) Cancer cells are not normal cells
    2) Cancer cells can enter the bloodstream, and being transported elsewhere forming cancers at other locations (Metastases).
    3) The fetal germ layers are not barriers – metastases occur in organs from other germ layers than the primary cancer.

    So the predictions of GNM are inconsistent with reality.

  205. MV June 12, 2013 at 9:47 pm

    I just read the entire discussion….very interesting indeed.
    A very cynical approach could be : People who believe NGM deserve a Darwin award. They are removing themselves from the human gene pool by their own stupid actions and believes.They are not adapted to the challenges of our life. Survival of the smartest/fittest. But that’s very cynical. I know. I would rather see NGM disappear forever.

  206. Kathy Aitken October 4, 2013 at 10:39 am

    A friend of mine has been espousing GNM for the past few years, seemingly believing that it contains ‘the truth’ as to why we become ill. Fortunately, although she has various health issues, she does not have cancer. I have tried to communicate my misgivings about it but without success. Having just reread some of the information about it as revealed on this site, I feel even more against it than I was before. Dangerous hogwash!

  207. Gabriel December 23, 2013 at 2:38 am

    I read all posts – FYI – I am a nuclear physicist and also have basic notion of general medicine. I know personally 3 people who had cancer (stomach cancer, liver cancer and breast cancer) and they been cured with alternative medicine, and amazingly enough – all method they used are “unscientific” according to current medical trend. Plant therapy, Homeopathy, Chinese Medicine, German Medicine etc – are ALL considered unscientific, “lacking evidence”. All of them tough consider human being as a whole and try to link causes and effects. I am amazed to see how much denial of individual cases I witnessed here – and how you treat all personal testimonials as “funny stories”, and made Ronald to feel like a liar. But, excuse me, all you proponents of allopathic medicine – what are the real causes of cancer, my friends? Just genetics? All the money spent on last 40 years did not produce yet a valid cause? That is because is easier to sell drugs and chemotherapy and wash your hands being covered by medical profession error insurance! There are thousands of medical errors causing harm or even death to patients – but you prefer to attack alternative therapies – who at least do not harm patients.

  208. JLI December 23, 2013 at 5:12 pm

    I read all posts – FYI – I am a nuclear physicist and also have basic notion of general medicine.

    I am a doctor (a pathologist to be specific) working in a taxpayer financed health care system. I have coauthored 57 scientific articles published in peer reviewed medical journals, and a few more have been accepted for publication. Most of these are about the scientific cancer research I am involved in. I have co-supervised 7 (if I recall correctly) phd students (All projects related to cancer), and peer reviewed some 30 scientific articles for medical journals (I stopped counting long time ago), and I also have a basic notion of nuclear physics.

    I know personally 3 people who had cancer (stomach cancer, liver cancer and breast cancer) and they been cured with alternative medicine, and amazingly enough – all method they used are “unscientific” according to current medical trend.

    Your statement that this happened isn’t enough to make it credible. There are plenty of things that can be wrong with anecdotes. Sometimes it can be very hard to spot – especially if you don’t know what to look for. Here is a good article explaining what to look out for.
    I’ll sum up a few main points:

    1) Sometimes it isn’t even cancer.
    2) Sometimes the cancer has been removed as part of the diagnostic procedure.
    3 The advocated treatment may have been used in addition to conventional treatment.
    4) The cancer might not have been cured after all
    5) It may be pure fabrication

    Plant therapy, Homeopathy, Chinese Medicine, German Medicine etc – are ALL considered unscientific, “lacking evidence”.

    Many drugs that are in use as chemotherapy are essentially plant substances. Here is a list of many plant derived important drugs. On this blog we have posts explaining the evidence of absence concerning homeopathy and GNM as useful replacements of conventional medicine. If you have read all the posts as you said, you should know this.

    . I am amazed to see how much denial of individual cases I witnessed here – and how you treat all personal testimonials as “funny stories”, and made Ronald to feel like a liar.

    He was given a chance to provide documentation. He claimed he was able to provide the pathology report. Well – He wasn’t. End of story.

    But, excuse me, all you proponents of allopathic medicine – what are the real causes of cancer, my friends? Just genetics? All the money spent on last 40 years did not produce yet a valid cause?

    Cancer is a collective term for approximately 200 different diseases. Every cell type in your body can (in principle) develop into its own type of cancer. On top of that individual cancer cells in every cancer are also different from one another. On top of that, the cancer cells interact in very complex ways with the surrounding normal cells. So it is not all that surprising that we don’t have, and most likely won’t find a single cure for all cancers. And it is not surprising, that there is not one single cause.
    The most frequent cause is simply being alive. A recent series of studies found that only about 42% of cancers are attributable to lifestyle or environmental factors.
    Only about 10% of cancers are hereditary – if that is what you mean by gentetics.

    I disagree with you that the last 40-50 years of cancer research hasn’t resulted in anything useful. For example you could take a look at how progression has been made in the treatment of childhood cancers. Children are not part in screening programs, so what you see is not just a consequence of earlier detection.

    That is because is easier to sell drugs and chemotherapy and wash your hands being covered by medical profession error insurance! There are thousands of medical errors causing harm or even death to patients – but you prefer to attack alternative therapies – who at least do not harm patients.

    You are confusing deaths due to adverse events with preventable deaths. For example, failing to treat curable cancers with chemotherapy would reduce the number of deaths due to complications of chemotherapy. But the number of deaths due to cancer rises, and those people who did not die from a chemotherapy related complication will still die.

    Some of the alternative therapies are directly harmful, but the danger with most of them is that they delay proper treatment. A cancer does not all of a sudden pop out of the blue. By the time it is diagnosed it has been underway for a very long time, and it will keep on growing (and spreading) until treatment. Systematic follow up of cancer patients who decide to forgo conventional treatment unfortunately show that alternative therapies do not work as advertised.

  209. Confused March 2, 2014 at 10:25 am

    Hello to all,

    I am a bit confused with Hamer’s theories. I believe 90% that he is an illusionist and 10% that he might be right.
    So I have some questions which I cannot answer by myself:

    Why did the university of Tubingen refused to test Hamer’s findings? It would have make no harm to do so.

    It is also strange the conversation below on a court (the conversation below must be 99% original because it happened on a court between the judge and Prof. Voigt and it should be written down somewhere officially)

    “Judge Dr. Iber asked the Dean:

    ‘Professor Voigt, you are saying that Dr. Hamer could be right and you also admit that it would be possible to scientifically test the accuracy of his findings within one to three days! But if his New Medicine is correct, then you must approve it!’
    Prof. Voigt: ‘Yes!’.

    Dr. Iber: ‘Now I am at a loss. Professor Voigt, you are saying that Dr. Hamer could be right and that you could test that within a short period of time. So why don’t you test his findings?’.

    Prof. Voigt: ‘We don’t want to know, whether Hamer is right!’ …

    Dr. Iber: ‘What? You don’t even want to find out, whether Dr. Hamer’s “New Medicine” is correct? This is a post-doctoral thesis. You are legally obliged to test it!’

    Prof. Voigt: ‘That is incorrect. We are only obliged to perform the proceedings (I didn’t understand this as my English are not so good). We are not interested in whether Dr. Hamer is right!’ …

    Dr. Iber: ‘In other words, you don’t want to find out, although it would be an easy procedure to do so and although you are bound by law to test his findings and although it would have far-reaching consequences?’
    Prof. Voigt: ‘No, we don’t want to know. And I will always vote against Dr. Hamer, no matter what he writes!’

    On the other hand it is also strange that finally that judge decided against Hamer

    -Something else also strange is:

    “A cancer treatment according to Dr. Hamer’s findings offers a 92% chance of survival! These statistics for German New Medicine’s remarkable success rate was delivered by a public prosecutor. When Dr. Hamer was arrested in 1997, the police searched his patients’ files. Subsequently, one public prosecutor was forced to admit during the trial that, after five years, 6,000 out of 6,500 patients with mostly ‘terminal’ cancer were still alive.”

    It is also very easy for someone to investigate if the above is true because it should be written somewhere official, the arrest of Hamer the police investigation, the trial with the public prosecutor etc.
    If these are true then the story changes in favor of Hamer.

    On the other hand it’s also strange why none of these 6000 alive patients didn’t appear anywhere.

    Also:

    Dr. Hamer’s findings have been verified over twenty times. Some verifications were deposited with a notary.

    Examples:

    December 9th, 1988: University of Vienna, signed by:
    Dr. Elisabeth M. Rozkydal, General Physician
    Prof. Jörg Birkmayer, Specialist for Laboratory Medicine
    Dr. Franz Reinisch, Specialist for Internal Medicine
    Doktor Fritz Eberz, Intern

    May 12/13, 1990: Verification at medical doctors conference in Namur (Belgium), signed by 16 M.D.s

    Juni 24th, 1992: Medical Faculty of the University of Düsseldorf, signed by:
    Prof. Dr. E. A. Stemmann, head doctor of pediatric clinic in Gelsenkirchen, Germany
    Dr. Elke Mühlpfort, pediatrician

    September 8/9, 1998: Verification by the University of Trnavská (Slovakia), signed by: Prof. MUDR. J. Pogády, DrSc, Professor of psychiatry and Chair of the committee; Prof. MUDR; V. Krcmery, DrSc, Dean of the Faculty; Doc. RN Dr. Josef Miklosko, DrSc, Pro-Rector of the Faculty of Science.

    With the “Verification of Trnava” we have a document, signed by ten academic scholars, that clearly puts Dr. Hamer’s findings on the origin, development and healing of diseases on a publicly acknowledged level. Since 1998 Dr. Hamer’s discoveries have never been disproved, only criticized as not being in accordance with the common view, i.e. with the theories and hypotheses of standard medicine

    If these papers and verifications exist, which should be but even though its easy to investigate the authenticity of these papers, then again the story changes in favor of Hamer.

    Also:

    “On December 16, 1986, Professor Voigt, Dean of the Medical Faculty of the University of Tübingen was asked in court, whether Dr. Hamer could be right with his “New Medicine”. Prof. Voigt affirmed this, adding: ‘Conventional medicine knows practically nothing about cancer!’ The Dean was also asked, if it is correct what Dr. Hamer claims, that the New Medicine could be scientifically reproduced and tested within just one or two days. Prof. Voigt: ‘If in one, two or three days, I am not sure, but in principle he is right!’. Asked if he could remember that he had promised Dr. Hamer back in 1981 that the New Medicine would be tested as to its scientific accuracy, Prof. Voigt answered: ‘It is correct that I promised that, however, the Medical Faculty rejected the evaluation of the thesis. That is why I could not keep my promise!’ The committee rejected his work (150:0 votes with no abstention)!”

    This is also very strange and it cant be a lie because it occured on a court, so it should be documented somewhere officially.

    So from all the above there are 2 scenarios.

    Either Hamer is true and someone is trying to hide his story or Hamer is an illusionist and he is passionated with his theory causing many deaths that could at least be lengthen with some chemotherapies.

    All answers would be more than welcome and appreciated.

    Sorry for my English as may not be correct in some points.

  210. beatis March 2, 2014 at 2:15 pm

    All these papers are forgeries. Until now, Hamer has failed to deliver any proof whatsoever that his GNM is effective against cancer or any other disease. He claims to have cured 6000 people of cancer, but nobody knows who they are and there are no records of them anywhere. I also find it weird that Hamer expects the university to test his theories; he should have done that himself, but apparently he expects others to do his work for him.

  211. Confused March 2, 2014 at 4:41 pm

    How can these papers are forgeries? They appeared on the court as evidence so they should be there and anyone can investigate them, if they are forgeries then Hamer should be convicted for forgery too, but noone in opposittion mentioned in the court, or any other court case, anything about forgery.
    Hamer claims that he tested his theories by curing 6000 people and expects from the university to also test his theories to confirm that, but for strange reason Prof. Voigt (university of Tubingen) doesn’t want even to bother with Hamer’s 3 days test.
    I think that Hamer’s theory has a base and maybe is a strong theory but I also believe that Hamer’s obsession killed lots of patients so, only this as a fact made doctors not wanting to believe anything of what he says.
    After his conviction he wasn’t able to prove his theory because he had orders from the court not to bother with his theory again.
    Before his conviction he claims he cured 6000 patients but for a strange reason noone of these patients appeared anywere.
    I don’t cancel Hamer’s theories because I generally believe that the mind, good will and happy mood can sometimes,very rarely, cure irreversible diseases or injuries.

  212. beatis March 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm

    Hamer’s theories have been DISPROVEN by science many times. They are 100% nonsense. The only thing the university was sentenced to do was to repeat the habilitation of Hamer for technical reasons. During a change of the internal system they mixed up the panel that had to decide upon Hamers “work”, so the court ordered them to repeat. The judge didn’t say or write anything about the content or the “verification” of Hamers habilitation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryke_Geerd_Hamer Besides, a verification of a habilitation does not constitute scientific proof in any way. He made the whole thing up, just like he made up the “confession” of Rabbi Schneerson that the jews are keeping the GNM from humanity, that in Israel nobody with cancer is treated with chemoterapy or radiation but always and only with his GNM and that no one in Israel ever dies of cancer. Hamer is a total crackpot and a very dangerous one at that, because of his personal charisma and the fact that he was trained as a doctor, which impresses many people even if his license was taken away years ago.

  213. Pingback: NMG – Il veleno contro Hamer | B[log]3

  214. RICK SIMPSON June 16, 2014 at 6:17 pm

    My name is Rick Simpson. I have been providing people with instructions on how to make Hemp Oil medicines for about 8 years also,i have provided my oil to so many countries,collection of patients,caregivers, doctors, dispensaries, corporations, and activists that advocate for the use of cannabis extract medicine to treat serious diseases such as cancers, heart disease, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s, and other disorders worldwide.
    In aggregate, the movement has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that cannabis extracts can eliminate various types of
    cancers in humans, and can control diseases that traditional pharmaceuticals are ineffective against.
    The results have been nothing short of amazing. Throughout man’s history hemp has always been known as the most medicinal plant in the world. Even with this knowledge hemp has always been used as a political and religious football.
    The current restrictions against hemp were put in place and maintained, not because hemp is evil or harmful, but for big money to make more big money, while we suffer and die needlessly. Look at a proposal such as this; if we were allowed to grow hemp in our back yards and cure our own illnesses, what do you think the reaction of the pharmaceutical industry would be to such a plan? Many large pharmaceutical companies that still exist today sold hemp based medicines in the 1800′s and early 1900′s. They knew then what I have recently found out. Hemp oil if produced properly is a cure-all that the pharmaceutical industry can’t patent.
    I have come with a brand new plan of making this hemp oil sufficient for people who are beyond reach.For all cancer patients that lives in the Europe,Asia,Canada and USA, contact me on: XXX for your oil.
    This is a miracle oil that guarantee you a total eradication.Do not play with your cancerous disease,use the hemp oil and bounce back to life…health is wealth.

  215. beatis July 4, 2014 at 11:37 am

    @Rick Simpson:

    This is a miracle oil that guarantee you a total eradication.Do not play with your cancerous disease,use the hemp oil and bounce back to life…health is wealth.

    There is no evidence whatsoever that hemp oil can cure cancer, or any other disease for that matter.
    See also Cancer Research UK on cannabis for brain cancer.

    Selling useless remedies for life-threatening diseases like cancer when you can and should know better makes you a regular snake oil salesman.

  216. Woo Fighter July 4, 2014 at 4:49 pm

    Why are you allowing Rick Simpson’s off-topic SPAM? He is clearly only here to sell his useless oil, not to discuss GNM.

    Hey Rick: any evidence for the outrageous claims you make? And I don’t mean your “Run for the Cure” videos. I mean real science. Real evidence. Otherwise you’re playing with people’s lives and are probably responsible for several deaths.

  217. beatis July 7, 2014 at 10:34 am

    @Rick Simpson

    The current restrictions against hemp were put in place and maintained, not because hemp is evil or harmful, but for big money to make more big money, while we suffer and die needlessly.

    As far as I know, 22 states have now legalized medical marijuana for patients with various ailments, including cancer, Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s and rheumatoid arthritis (albeit it still without compelling evidence), so it seems your point is moot.

  218. Pingback: Recursos para desenmascarar a Hamer y la Nueva Medicina Germánica | La mirada escéptica

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: