Anaximperator blog

Blogging against alternative cancer treatments

German New Medicine (GNM) and what Hamer Doesn’t Tell You: Six Stupid Questions on Cancer Metastasis

Caroline MerkolinThere is a website called ‘Learning German New Medicine.’ This website was built by Caroline Markolin, a Canadian Hamer proponent and is said to have received the master’s official approval. The website is the GNM’s learning zone, so to speak.

In the navigation on the left there is a tab called ‘Standard Theories’. When you click on that, you’ll see a tab on ‘Metastasis.’  The greater part of this page is filled with long, rambling and incoherent arguments of which I can make neither head nor tail, although I fear that it is exactly this pompous incomprehensibility which will impress a lot of people.

Six Questions

At the bottom of the page, Hamer tells us to ask ourselves six “common-sense questions” on metastasis.

Hamer common sense questions

I have no idea why he would post these questions on the website and then not answer them. What’s the point? Unless he thinks the questions speak for themselves in such a way that everyone will understand at once, even without the answers, what a farce conventional medicine is. But I’m afraid that’s not the case.

And since he won’t tell you the answers, we’ll just go and do it ourselves.

Question 1:

Hamer question 1 metastasis

Most cancer cells don’t survive the process of metastasis to begin with. It is estimated that approximately 99% is destroyed by the immune system during metastasis. It is even more unlikely for a chance cancer cell in the blood to survive a transfusion procedure. But if it should survive this, it will yet be destroyed by the receiver’s immune system.

Not every person who has had cancer is eligible for donating blood. Eligibility depends on the type of cancer and treatment history. If a person had leukemia or lymphoma, including Hodgkin’s Disease and other cancers of the blood, they are not eligible to donate.

Other types of cancer are acceptable if the cancer has been treated successfully and it has been more than 12 months since treatment was completed and there has been no cancer recurrence in this time. Lower risk in-situ cancers including squamous or basal cell cancers of the skin that have been completely removed do not require a 12 month waiting period.

Precancerous conditions of the uterine cervix do not disqualify a person from donation if the abnormality has been treated successfully. See: blood eligibility guidelines of the American Red Cross.

Question 2:

Hamer question 2 metastasis

Cancer cells may spread to regional lymph nodes near the primary tumor. The lymphatic system is the most common pathway for this initial dissemination of tumours. Localized spread to regional lymph nodes near the primary tumour is not normally counted as metastasis, although it is seen as a sign for a worse prognosis.

The bloodstream serves as a pathway to more distant regions in the body. This is by no means an easy process though. Cancer cells have to surmount numerous obstacles to successfully metastasize and most of them are destroyed during this process.

It is difficult for cancer cells to survive outside their region of origin. Before they can succesfully settle elsewhere, they must not only survive their hazardous journey, but they must also again undergo a number of DNA mutations. Thus, to be able to metastasize successfully, cancer cells prefer locations with similar characteristics as their region of origin. These make it easier for them to settle and grow elsewhere in the body and it also explains why they don’t just settle anywhere – in the blood vessels for example.

Question 3:

Hamer question 3 metastasis

See answer to the previous question. All organs contain blood. Lymphatic system and blood stream serve as pathways.

Question 4:

Hamer question 4 metastasis

They do,  when they can. But when the adjacent tissue is not suitable (see answer to question 2), they will try and find locations that are suitable. Cancer cells are opportunistic, in that they will try to settle in the locations which will give them the optimum chance for survival.

Question 5:

Hamer question 5 metastasis

Via the aorta and the carotid artery cancer cells can reach the capillary vessels in the brain, where they can then form metastatic tumours.

Question 6:

Hamer question 6 metastasis

Some cancers are more prone to metastasize than others. It is unusual for brain cancer to metastasize outside the brain. People can live for years with benign brain tumours, but grade III and IV brain cancers tend to grow very fast, they also have a high recurrence rate, which means heir prognosis is not good. What they seem to lack in capacity to metastasize, they fully make up for with growing speed.

Who would ask questions like these?

For a lay person with only very limited knowledge of cancer, the above questions are by no means stupid. But for a man who claims to have been head of an oncology department for many years (which is not true btw) and poses as the authority on cancer, they are of a truly mind-boggling stupidity.

34 responses to “German New Medicine (GNM) and what Hamer Doesn’t Tell You: Six Stupid Questions on Cancer Metastasis

  1. Pingback: German New Medicine: Hamer House of Horrors « Anaximperator blog

  2. jli September 27, 2009 at 7:48 pm

    Those questions are indeed stupid. At least if they are asked by someone who is supposed to know about cancer biology. One might get the impression that the concept of entrance of cancer cells into the blood/lymph stream is only a guessing game. The fact is that it is nothing of the sort. It is a quite common observation in routine pathology. Sometimes it is even visible on the radiologic examination. Conventional medicine has of course asked what the significance of this observation is. What has been established, is that the demonstration of “vascular invasion” by cancer is correlated to the risk of presence/development of metastasis.

    It is tempting to ask: If demonstration of vascular invasion is not an important factor in development of metastatic disease, why is the correlation between demonstration of vascular invasion and development of metastasis so strong?.

  3. Dr Victoria Hertz September 26, 2010 at 12:32 am

    Now that you have criticized a few aspects of the German New Medicine, perhaps you can tell us all EXACTLY WHAT DOES CAUSE CANCER???

    And HOW EXACTLY DOES IT “METASTASIZE”?

    We are all waiting with bated breath for your enlightened response. But then, you believe that poisioning the body with toxic chemicals is healing. NOW, THAT’S CRAZY!!

    Dr. Hamer believes that the body knows exactly how to heal or the human species would not have survived. Therefore, true healing should be centered on discovering what is blocking this NATURAL healing ability. I have found that the emotional shock conflict underlying a disease is always exactly as he says. Regardless, we must find new (or old) ways of healing (not just treating) disease. Allopathic medicine (drug, cut, burn) is unsustainable because it is too expensive and anti-nature, BUT VERY PROFITABLE! It’s expertise should be confined to trauma medicine, and surgery, as a last result.

    One day this will be known as the Dark Ages of medicine and will, I pray, go the way of blood-letting, which was widly used by the early Allopaths. It will never be successful until it recognizes humans as spiritual energy beings. That is the energy of the future– quantum energy healing.

  4. evenarsenicisnatural September 26, 2010 at 2:14 am

    “Dr.” Hertz – please go fornicate yourself and STFU.

    *sigh* too many quacks, so little brain power…

  5. beatis September 26, 2010 at 9:25 am

    @ “Dr” Victoria Hertz:

    Now that you have criticized a few aspects of the German New Medicine, perhaps you can tell us all EXACTLY WHAT DOES CAUSE CANCER???

    And HOW EXACTLY DOES IT “METASTASIZE”?

    Please read first and then ask questions.

  6. peter December 5, 2010 at 4:08 am

    we are like infants believing we know all….. open your mind and let go of the beliefs of your past. albert also stated imagination is much more important than knowledge . Maybe not true if your lead modality is Ad,,,,,,,,, you can’t Ad your way out of Ad

  7. Ikaruga December 5, 2010 at 4:54 pm

    —Maybe not true if your lead modality is Ad,,,,,,,,, you can’t Ad your way out of Ad

    What?

    Are you talking about Aa, AA, Ab, AB, bA, etc?

  8. wilmamazone December 6, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=8745
    Published by David Gorski

    Death by “alternative” medicine: Who’s to blame? (Revisited)

    I hate stories like this. I really do. I hate them with a burning passion that makes it hard for me to see straight when I first find out about them.

    In fact, you might even say that stories like this are a major part of the reason why I do what I do, both here and elsewhere. They’re a major part of the reason why I’ve recently branched out into public speaking, something that used to terrify me beyond belief but that lately I’ve become at least competent at–sometimes even not bad at all. Sadly, the story I’m about to tell is one I’ve told before, most recently at the Lorne Trottier Science Symposium, where I gave a talk on cancer cure “testimonials,” although at the time I gave the talk the story’s outcome, although predictable, was not yet known.

    Now it is.

    The woman to whom I refer is named Kim Tinkham, who was diagnosed with breast cancer over three and a half years ago. Regular readers may recall that Kim Tinkham achieved fame not long after that when she was featured on The Oprah Winfrey Show in an episode about The Secret, an episode I discussed posts entitled The Oprah-fication of Medicine and On the nature of “alternative” medicine cancer cure testimonials. I don’t want to discuss the utter nonsense that is The Secret in any detail here. However, for those unfamiliar with this particular bit of New Age woo, it’s important to point out that The Secret’s “Law of Attraction” takes the germ of a reasonable idea (namely that one’s attitudes and wishes influence whether one gets what one wants in life, something that’s been known for millennia) and goes off the deep end of woo by proclaiming that, in essence, you can get anything you want by wanting it badly enough and thinking positive thoughts. Basically “The Secret” is that you have the power to “attract” good to yourself by thinking happy thoughts (hence “the law of attraction,” which, according to Secret adherents always works). It’s an idea that resonates in so much of “alternative medicine,” such as German New Medicine or Biologie Totale. Of course, the implication of “Secret” thinking is that, if you don’t get what you want, it’s your fault, an idea that also resonates with so much “alternative” medicine, where a frequent excuse for failure is that the patient either didn’t follow the regimen closely enough or didn’t want it badly enough.

    quote:

    In constrast to science-based practitioners, who are forced to be honest and admit the limits of their knowledge, it’s “practitioners” I consider to be quacks who “know” what causes cancer and lack the humility to admit the limits of their knowledge. Many of them focus on The One True Cause of Cancer, as Hulda Clark did when she declared a common liver fluke to be the cause of all cancer or when Robert O. Young declares that all cancer is caused by “excess acid,” which “spoils” cells and that the cancerous tumor is the body’s reaction to the cells “poisoned” by acid. In other words, such “practitioners” are always in error, biologically speaking, but never in doubt. In their arrogance of ignorance, they exude the confidence that patients like Kim Tinkham seem to need and flock to answers that are simple, neat, and completely wrong.

    quote:

    The reason, it appears to me, is that Tinkham (and women like her) just want to believe that someone knows what’s wrong with them and how to fix it. Knowing how to fix it isn’t enough; they want an answer to the question, “Why me?”

    quote:

    Finally, I wonder what we as science-based practitioners can do to reduce the number of Kim Tinkhams being victimized in the future by dubious pratictioners. It’s too late for Tinkham, but it’s not too late for others. Ms. Tinkham has spoken over and over again about how she didn’t like the feeling of “being rushed” and how she wanted to “take control.” Doctors offered her options, but they were not options she liked. So she found others, ignoring that they have no science to support them and no evidence to suggest that they do anything to treat cancer. Even for an intelligent woman, the siren song of quackery can be strong. I’ve written about this question before in a post entitled Death by “alternative” medicine: Who’s to blame?, in which I asked: How much are we as a profession responsible when cancer patients seek out quackery rather than effective medicine? The comment thread still holds the record, I believe, for the longest comment thread in SBM history, with over 600 comments. I don’t know the answer, but I do know we need to do a better job at assuaging the fears of someone like Kim Tinkham.

    Kim Tinkham has every appearance of being a lovely and vibrant woman who was only 50 years old when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Potentially, she could have had another 30 or 40 years in front of her, but that’s all gone now. Even in spite of her bad decision, one must note that, after her diagnosis, Tinkham continued to run her own business, edited a local newsletter, and won the First Annual Civility Star Award. She did not have to die, but she is going to die soon. It didn’t have to be this way, but it is.

    That is the price of quackery.

    Quacks are only too happy to provide that answer.

  9. wilmamazone December 6, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    Sorry.
    ‘Quacks are only too happy to provide that answer’ should have come after
    “Why me?” in the quote before.

  10. Branislav January 5, 2011 at 7:49 pm

    Before tou write ANYTHING about New German Medicine ,,fraud”, think about chemotherapy hoax and millions and millions of dead. They died in pain, burned inside, they were killed, not by cancer, sort of speak.
    Cancer ,,treatments” do NOT cure that disease and that’s the reason why doctors are more affraid of cancer than patients! I heard, here in Belgrade, Serbia, conversation between two doctors, oncologist, when they say that ,,chemotherapy is the race between killing the patient and killing the tumor”. Obviosly, it’s just the question who will die first. Offently, at the autopsy, pathologist found NO cancer! Think, really, what kill than that poor people??? So called cures, off course, and for what? For money.

    In these few minutes, while i was write this, 50 people died od cancer, all across the world, all under ,,care” of conventional medicine.

  11. anaximperator January 6, 2011 at 9:18 am

    Sure.
    *Sigh* *Yawn*

  12. Branislav January 6, 2011 at 10:41 am

    Or, to simplify, just click on this link: http://fiocco59.altervista.org/ALLEGATI/MORGAN.PDF
    and read what ONCOLOGIST say about chemotherapy success.

  13. wilmamazone January 6, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    @ Branislav
    It’s wise to click on this link also:
    https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/only-3-percent-survive-chemotherapy/

    Is It True That Only 2 Or 3 % Of Cancer Patients Survive Chemotherapy?

  14. Branislav January 6, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    OK. So, contribution is 8 percent, not 2 or 3. BIG success in almost 40 years war against cancer (humour).

    Withour further discuss, face it:

    Chemotherapy and other therapies don’t work in pacients with metastatic cancer. Simply, cancer is incurable at that stage (at least, for conventional medicine, not for cannabis hehe).

    Chemotherapy is relatively effective just in cases Hodgkin’s lymphoma, leukemia, testicular cancer and breast cancer (all, just in early stage). It is NOT EFFECTIVE in following cancers: lung, prostate, brain (Hydrazin-sulfat or Segydrin has 63 percent complete success rate in Glioblastoma multiforme, using Chemo in this case is f***** luxury), stomach (response rate – 8 percent in stage I !), large intestine, liver, kidney, bladder. Simply, it doesn’t work, it has major impact on quality of life (negative) and it probably make your life shorter, miserable and painfull.

    Write some text about Cannabis as alternative cancer threatment and Rick Simpson who made hemp oil and give it to people for free.

  15. Branislav January 6, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    What should people do when doctor say there is no cure? Well, i’m confident that all we need for healing is inside us. Even i we have cancer, i’m certain, we can win. Make stronger your immune system, quit smoking, quit with coca-cola bullshit, ,,go to the air”, practice, swimm, go to bed at 8:00 pm, chahge food habits, enjoy your life. Cancer diagnose isn’t death sentence.

    What is a fact, patients offten go through major trauma. First, when confront diagnose, second, with the threatment, third, waiting for results, that produces great stress. In cancer’s etiology, stress is one of the key elements which increases danger of getting cancer. There is no way that just a little more serious case can get well in that way.

    We fought cancer…and cancer won!
    http://www.newsweek.com/2008/09/05/we-fought-cancer-and-cancer-won.html

    Read carefully. It’s time to wake!

  16. wilmamazone January 6, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    Branislav you’r not even wrong:
    https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2010/01/03/personality-and-cancer/
    No Link Found Between Personality Traits, Positive Thinking, Depression and Cancer

    Many people are convinced that a positive attitude is helpful – if not essential – to survive or ward off cancer.

    The belief that we can control illness and even death with our mind has great appeal, because it makes us feel as though we are in control of our life events.

    The downside is that when we are not doing so well – for example when we are hit by cancer – we have only ourselves to blame for our misery.

    But how true is it that we are the main custodians of our own well-being?

  17. Branislav January 6, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    There is a flip side of that coin.
    http://www.livescience.com/health/080829-happy-thoughts.html

    Unfortunatelly, i found no direkt link for BMC cancer issue where original text regards emotions and deseases can be found.

    On the other hand, ,,other well-documented cases of cancer SRs involve major changes in the patient’s attitude towards life. One researcher looked at 18 cases of cancer regression and noted ‘a marked favourable psychosocial change one to eight weeks before the shrinkage in their tumours’. These changes included religious conversion, reconciliation with a long-hated mother, a sudden marriage and the death of a long-hated husband” (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/01/prweb332593.htm).

  18. beatis January 9, 2011 at 11:08 am

    No less than 18 cases reviewed…
    *Nuff said*

    But seriously, there is no evidence whatsoever that a positive attitude in itself is an instrumental factor in curing cancer. So there is no need to lambast cancer patients for being depressed or anxious and add to their misery by telling them that they might die if they are not always happy, upbeat and positive – apart from the fact that it is completely unrealistic to expect cancer patients to be happy and positive at all times; only an idiot would expect this.

    But as I have experienced myself, there are lots of idiots about.

    Idiots whom I only knew by face, slapping me on the shoulder in passing me in the shopping mall, while yelling: you stay positive, mind you!! Idiots asking me how I felt and when I said I was okay but tired, telling me I really should stop complaining because being positive was 90% of my cure; idiots asking me why I wanted to draw attention to myself wearing a shawl instead of a wig; idiots asking me if I felt very mutilated and unattractive with one breast; idiots asking my husband what it was like sex-wise “with a woman like that”; idiots telling me that someone they knew with cancer was dead within 6 weeks – now how is that for cheering a person up?

    Idiots telling me I had developed cancer because of being so “materialistic”, after I’d been stupid enough to tell them I had bought a new blouse for Christmas; idiots not wanting to come and visit me because chemotherapy makes you “radioactive”; idiots telling me to quit my conventional treatment as “this would only kill me”; idiots telling me homeopathy cures cancer; idiots telling me standard medicine can’t cure metastatic cancer but cannabis can, all without a shred of evidence and presented with a smugness I find unbearable to this day.

  19. Ikaruga January 11, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    “idiots telling me standard medicine can’t cure metastatic cancer but cannabis can”

    Well meaning ones, nonetheless, they just wanted you to hit the pot and feel relieved, lol.

    Speaking of cures and helpers, what do you guys know about Cuba’s new developed injectable?

  20. Branislav January 18, 2011 at 8:51 am

    ,,WE” think that is alternative shit :)))

  21. Branislav January 18, 2011 at 8:36 pm

    Translated letter from the University of Trnava

    Letter of confirmation:

    On September 8 and 9, 1998, seven patients with over 20 individual diseases were investigated at the Oncology Division of the Hospital of the University of Trnava.

    Present were:

    the Vice-Chairman of the University of Trnava,
    the Dean of the Faculty of Treatment Methods and Social Science of the University of Trnava, and a total of 10 teachers and professors.

    (The medical protocols prepared by Dr. Hamer for these cases are available).

    The object of the investigation was to verify the New Medicine system scientifically.

    This proved to be the case.

    Some 100 facts can be established for each disease according to the rules of the “New Medicine”. While all 100 facts could not be established given the shortage of investigative findings, the facts that could be established showed that the natural laws of the “New Medicine” were all fulfilled.

    The undersigned therefore conclude that from the proof in two testing conferences, there is a high probability that the system is well founded.

    We have the greatest respect for Dr. Hamer’s human, ethical and untiring treatment towards patients in his new holistic approach. In view of all these factors, we are of the impression that the “New Medicine” should urgently be followed up and put to use.

    Trnava, September 11, 1998

    Signed:
    Prof. MUDr J Pogády, Dr Sc, Prof. for Psychiatry
    Chairman of the Commission
    Prof MUDr V Krõméry, Dr Sc Dean of the Faculty
    Doc RNDr J Mikloško, Dr Sc, Vice-Chairman of Research

    From their site. As we know, University of Trnava approves methods of NGM.

  22. beatis January 18, 2011 at 9:10 pm

    The University does not issue these “verifications;” the letter is a fake and was made up by Hamer himself.

    That anyone would believe something so ludicrous is beyond me.

  23. Branislav January 19, 2011 at 7:31 am

    Type ,,University verification” in Google. Yoy will find several examples of University verification forms:

    Bowie State University – verification, Trine University – Verification , Northern Arizona University-Verification of Eligibility, COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY VERIFICATION FORM PDE 338 C, Millersville University – Verification, LIBERTY UNIVERSITY’S VERIFICATION POLICY etc.

    Letter is NOT fake, these are real people and real verification (as you can see, Universities all across the world do issue verification).

  24. beatis January 19, 2011 at 6:55 pm

    Hamer presents this “verification” as proof of the efficacy of his GNM. However, that is never done through verifications. If a scientist wants to prove that his treatment is effective, he conducts scientific research which he publishes in scientific journals and subjects to peer review. Hamer has never done that.

    If you had read what it says in the links you gave, you would have seen that these are very different verifications than the one Hamer faked.

  25. Dr. John March 2, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    This site should be banned because of a) Stupidity b) Lies and C) deformation

    Just lean Hamer natural laws and then compare with this bull shit of your mainstream chemo friends. It is a fact that 97% of cancer patients die from chemo not from cancer. Just read and study first before you trash out such bull shit her.

  26. beatis March 2, 2011 at 5:52 pm

    It is a fact that 97% of cancer patients die from chemo not from cancer. Just read and study first before you trash out such bull shit her.

    That’s not a fact, it’s woo fiction. Contrary to you, we did read and study and even wrote an article about it, which is here.

  27. Markos May 7, 2011 at 12:51 pm

    Hello, i would like to ask the writer of this pos some questions.

    1. You say : “It is even more unlikely for a chance cancer cell in the blood to survive a transfusion procedure. But if it should survive this, it will yet be destroyed by the receiver’s immune system.”

    Question: Where is the scintific proof for this claim??? And even if there was one, what if the receiver had a compromised immune system – e.g due to an illness

    2. You say : – ” Most cancer cells don’t survive the process of metastasis to begin with. It is estimated that approximately 99% is destroyed by the immune system during metastasis ”

    Question : If the immune system has the capability of destroying cancer cells why then ALL the doctors of the world don’t try by all means to ENHENCE IMMUNE SYSTEM’S POWER in order to absolutely minimize chances of metastasis? Why then the standard treatmens are Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy that are KNOWN to compromise immunes’s system power? Isn’t this the opposite of what should have been done ??

    3. You say : – ” The bloodstream serves as a pathway to more distant regions in the body. This is by no means an easy process though. Cancer cells have to surmount numerous obstacles to successfully metastasize and most of them are destroyed during this process.
    It is difficult for cancer cells to survive outside their region of origin. Before they can succesfully settle elsewhere, they must not only survive their hazardous journey, but they must also again undergo a number of DNA mutations ”

    Question : What are these numerous obstacles that cancer cells have to surmount and WHY don’t doctors do whatever they can to make this obstacles MORE, STRONGER, BIGGER and un – bypassable? – excuse my Language i am not british. – And why then the patient is subjected to chemotherapies, radiation and multiple scannings that burden his already delicate organism with more radiation, which is known to cause D.N.A mutation to ALL human cells ???

    Last question: The cancer survival rate worlwide may be 2%, or 3%, or 8%, or even 10%… I cannot be sure about that, i am not e statistics expert. However, this leaves us with the rest 90% of people who get cancer and don’t survive. Moreover, most of them live their last 1-5 years of life in a truly compromised way, loosing hair, feeling deppressed, aiching all over, visitings hospitals more often than their bathroom, under continuous scanning and agony, fatigued and afraid, and then they die. And this is happening again and again for the last 50-60 years. I have seen many patients terrified in the prospect to undergo one more a chemo saying ” if i have to feel like this again i d rather die”. So my question is: Do we consider this a success in bringing health and upgrading peoples quality of life? Do we consider ths a success in treating and curing Cancer? WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF CONTINUING TO DEFEND THIS WAY OF TREATING CANCER PATIENS WHEN IT NEVER DELIVERED A CURE NOR A BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR FELLOW-PEOPLE?

    What is the reason for you, doctors and experts to maintain the same regime and mentality for such a long time, for something that apparently DOESN’T WORK?

    Thank you.

  28. wilmamazone May 7, 2011 at 5:52 pm

    @Markos:

    Last question: The cancer survival rate worlwide may be 2%, or 3%, or 8%, or even 10%… I cannot be sure about that, i am not e statistics expert. However, this leaves us with the rest 90% of people who get cancer and don’t survive.

    https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/only-3-percent-survive-chemotherapy/
    Is It True That Only 2 Or 3 % Of Cancer Patients Survive Chemotherapy?

  29. beatis May 7, 2011 at 6:49 pm

    If the immune system has the capability of destroying cancer cells why then ALL the doctors of the world don’t try by all means to ENHENCE IMMUNE SYSTEM’S POWER in order to absolutely minimize chances of metastasis?

    Trust me, they would if they could, but our immune system is not a matter of a, b, c and Bob’s you uncle. It is a very complicated, interrelated system where lots of things influence each other and lots of things can go wrong. You can read more about it in this article.

    Why then the standard treatmens are Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy that are KNOWN to compromise immunes’s system power? Isn’t this the opposite of what should have been done ??

    You can compare it to a house on fire. You can do lots of things to prevent a fire from breaking out, but once it’s out, prevention can’t help you any more and you have to take stronger measures.

    Moreover, most of them live their last 1-5 years of life in a truly compromised way, loosing hair, feeling deppressed, aiching all over, visitings hospitals more often than their bathroom, under continuous scanning and agony, fatigued and afraid, and then they die.

    No they don’t. Most of them remain cancer free for the rest of their lives and completely regain their quality of life.

  30. Ikaruga May 19, 2011 at 4:25 am

    -why then ALL the doctors of the world don’t try by all means to ENHENCE IMMUNE SYSTEM’S POWER in order to absolutely minimize chances of metastasis? –

    When they tell you to lead a healthier, more calm and balanced life they are telling you so.

    An ethical doctor wants as less possible pills inside YOU because in manufacturing toxic materials are used, and this is not healthy, so this is the reason behind telling you, please do carry a healthy life, else you will suffer.

    That is a good place to start🙂

    -If one becomes carereless with physical health (i.e. smoking, drinking, eating mostly meat -I rarely if at all eat it- one will have poor physical health because of his doings.

    -If one develops habits such as worry, quarreling, anger, etc. One will have poor mental health.

    They are telling you not to do that, listen, they gave you the remedy already, no need to look for a magic pill while we seek for our own demise! (there are magic pills, but come on…)

  31. Allycat July 13, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    Would just like to say, my mother was being treated by a supposed “German New Medicine” approach and experts, she died of multi-organ failure secondary to breast cancer (no you don’t die from cancer, you die from the effects cancer has on your body, in my mother’s case not enough oxygen getting to her organs due to severe anaemia). Im sure some poor misguided person will try and tell me she was doing it wrong or try to come up with some excuse as to why this nonsense theory didn’t cure her cancer, but facts are facts, she put her faith and lots of money into it (after all thats what its all about for them, ripping off the vulnerable) and lost her life.
    Anyone who supports this quackery should be ashamed of themselves . Sometimes cancer just cant be cured, even by conventional methods, thats life, all I know is from my perspective, the odds are better from conventional methods. Conventional medicine practitioners have never claimed to be able to cure cancer, hence why when there are no traces of cancer in your body after treatment your said to be “in remission” not cured, they will freely admit they don’t have all the answers, unlike this Dr Hamer who truely believes he has all the answers. Just read through the supposed “testimonials” on the GNM website, theyre either by Anonymous (sorry who? Im not going to believe Anonymous, as far as Im concerned that could be GNM staff or this twit Dr Hamer himself writing it), they were never medically diagnosed with cancer, just made a presumption they had cancer and in a couple of the cases theyre dead. Oh and the disclaimer is pretty off putting, I wonder why they needed that disclaimer on there? There is no point in anyone replying to this post either, you wont win, GNM is a load of rubbish thats that.

  32. gyula balogh April 5, 2012 at 8:51 pm

    hey people i ask you a much simpler question,if metastasis exist than lets say
    somebody has a stomach cancer with liver metastasis then we would see stomach
    cells growing in the liver.there is NO cancer cells,even if the produce tumor what is nothing else
    then extra tissue,they always just an extra cells of the organ itself.This is where all the doctors
    and the public have been tricked by the pharma,cancer is the simple attempt from the body to
    grow extra tissue on a organ or tissue and by growing,it increaeses the function of it meaning
    for example stomach cancer equals bigger function equals more stomach acid….
    without cancer i wouldnt have been evolution,fish would never be able to grow legs and lung
    etc etc….cancer isnt a sickness its a function,but the pharma tranformed it into a very big business
    more developed healthcare,more screening more cancer,more radiation,chemo and deaths…

  33. jli April 6, 2012 at 6:31 am

    … say somebody has a stomach cancer with liver metastasis then we would see stomach cells growing in the liver.there is NO cancer cells,….

    The fact is, that cancerous stomach cells are different from normal stomach cells. And the stomach cells in a liver metastasis are cancerous stomach cells. Not normal stomach cells. This was known before Big pharma came into existence.

    Besides not all stomach cells secrete gastric acid. (whatever you believe that would be useful for in the liver). Stomach acid is secreted from a cell type called parietal cells. This was known before big pharma even came into existence.

    Cancers originating from parietal cells (gastric parietal carcinoma) are extremely rare. So if the body wanted to produce more stomach acid, making a cancer is an ineffective way of doing so.

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: