De-licensed German physician Ryke Geerd Hamer claims he can cure cancer without surgery, radiation or chemotherapy.
He states that cancer is always caused by an (unexpected) emotionally traumatic event – which he calls a “biological conflict” and the only way to cure it is by solving this “conflict” through a special protocol of his own invention.
It isn’t exactly rocket science to establish that he is very wrong, both about the cause of cancer and the best way to treat it.
If Hamer is right, then cancer and emotional trauma are always causally related. But science shows that this is not the case:
The reality is that cancer cells just don’t give a hoot about what we think or how we feel.
If you want to find out about the things that really help to prevent cancer, you can click here. And if you should ever be diagnosed with cancer, then please, please stay away from people like Hamer and their ilk.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Psiram/Esowatch
Anaximperator blog 
Pingback: Canadians Beware! Biologie Totale: Hamer’s New German Medicine in Canada « Anaximperator blog
You haven’t understood what Hamer’s work is actually about.
It’s a clichee that the result of his work is “conflict causes cancer”, but it’s very far away from what he actually discovered.
Then you disagree with Carolin Margolin who teaches this, and who was trained and is approved by Hamer himself. This is what she learned directly from Hamer.
What you say is far from what i’ve learned watching some DVDs about meta medicine, its much more specific than that and the symptons arent always cancer but can be almost anything, theres a torrent up on thepiratebay explaining things more thoroughly if you dont mind spending some time examining it
We have spent ample time with the German New Medicine and all its offspring such as the meta medicine. Impressive though it may seem to you, until now they have failed to deliver even the least bit of evidence for their claims. Furthermore, their theories lack all plausability and also they have failed to deliver any proof of all the “cures” they claim to have brought about.
Yet you got this wrong obviously from someones view who doesnt even know very much about it
Why? Because we don’t agree with you?
Yesterday I saw a DVD about Snowhwite and now I know for sure that there exist at least seven dwarfs on our world.
Well, can’t argue with that!
😆
Thats just outright childish. Meta medicine says that depending on your conflict shock, your symptoms can be very different from just “cancer”, you can get eczema, acne, bowel issues etc etc.
I’ve learned something else entirely from what you’ve claimed to have studied so it pretty much destroys your credibility for me. And without credibility in the eyes of those you’re supposed to help, how can we trust you’re not full of shit? You’re just feeding people into it. Good luch with that.
Things are not so because someone says they are. Things are so because there is evidence for them.
It is not enough that Meta Medicine “says” this or that. I can say all manner of things as well – all of us can.
You can start a website tomorrow telling people you were cured of incurable cancer by running around your house ten times a day with leeks bound on your back. But your saying so doesn’t make it so, nor does it make it likely; only the evidence your provide can do that.
Without evidence, all claims remain meaningless.
Yes and thats not what this discussion is about now is it? Your claim in this blog says something that the theory in question does not.
@Joakim
There’s no difference between your DVD and mine. Both pure fantasy.
It’s just outright childish that you directly believe yours.
You’re the one who just feeding people into a lot nonsense.
Mr. Hamer is -proven by scientists- talking through his hat. A dangerous character!
Or should I ask you now what the obvious remedy is for one of the dwarfs?! He is sneezing all day.
I don’t know what to believe, I didn’t get here to this very serious and open minded site to be ridiculed by this. Trying to help people, you’re doing a very lousy job. And I’m not feeding people into alot of nonsense, I am just studying it out of curiousity and I’m here just to get another point of view about this and you don’t even have the factual things about the thing you’re harassing right so how can anyone take you seriously?
How can you say we don’t have “the factual things??” Have you even read the information on this site?
Even if it were true that psychological trauma is the only cause for cancer – for which there is no evidence whatsoever – it does not necessarily follow that only psychotherapy would cure it.
There simply is not a jot of evidence for all this, on the contrary even. Following psychotherapy – in whatever form, including the meta medicine form – to treat cancer while forgoing standard therapy is a very dangerous thing to do for any cancer patient.
Currently almost 60% of patients are cured of cancer. Alternative treatments can’t boast to even a mere fraction of this.
I am deeply saddened and infuriated by the lies that are told on the internet about miracle cures for cancer. Surely we deserve better than that.
I also find it an insult to the many doctors and scientists who try their utmost every day to combat this horrible disease.
@ Joakim,
You say:
Here is what the meta medicine says:
http://www.metamedicine.se/what-is-meta-medicine/
This is directly copied from Hamer’s GNM and it has been debunked years ago, as you can read on this blog. In short: it is utter nonsense.
Then they give an “example”:
There is no – and I repeat NO – evidence whatsoever that this is how a breast cancer develops or should be cured – or any other kind of cancer for that matter. No known fact confirms any of the meta medicine’s claims regarding the development of breast cancer. And, just like I said, they literally tell us on the website that for the cancer to be cured, the psychological conflict must be solved.
I also would like to know how they account for the various kinds of breast cancer, such as receptor status: estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2/neu, or how they account for inflammatory breast cancer. The answer is simple: they don’t, they just ignore these facts and pretend they don’t exist.
In the section on lung cancer and TB – which is also without any factual basis btw – they say this:
Now there’s a straw man if ever I saw one! I have never heard any doctor or scientist talk about hot or cold diseases and I’m sure nobody else in medicine has. These terms date from ancient Chinese and Greek medicine and can also be found in the middle ages, but they have had no part in modern medicine. What they write here is just a pathetic piece of gobbledygook.
They also say:
However, they do not link to any research. No surprise if you ask me, for research indicates no such thing at all.
Then they say:
I wonder how they found this and where the evidence is for these finds. Why don’t they just provide links to the the groundbreaking research that proves their finds, so we can see for ourselves? Why is that so hard to do? Why do we have to believe everything they say at face value? Given that it is about cancer, diabetes and other life threatening diseases, why can’t they even be bothered to provide us with the relevant research??
Is it perhaps because there isn’t any research or because the research shows nothing of the sort?
http://www.metamedicine.se/what-is-meta-medicine/meta-medicine-basic-overview/
The Meta Medicine is not even wrong; it is so full of factual errors and so at odds with all known scientific facts that we can hardly even begin to correct it. The same goes for Hamer’s German New Medicine, Tullio Simoncini’s baking soda and countless other dangerous nonsense aimed at cancer patients.
Meta Medicine practitioners claim to work alongside doctors, but in many cases they try to persuade their clients to break away from mainstream medicine and rely on alternative therapies – such as theirs – only.
The worst-case scenario is that patients lose invaluable time, which may cost them their life. The best-case scenario is that they are coerced into wasting a lot of energy and money on a completely unfounded therapy.
-Prostate cancer is a manlihood conflict, basically what happens is that man, the standard story, how old is he by the way?
– 70.
– Ehm, retired from work, age 65? And the woman has gone through the menopause? And after she has gone through the menopause she becomes, reacts more in a male way, still female but she reacts in a more masculine way, and the man, having been the boss in their own workplace comes home and suddenly there is another boss, he’s no longer the man so what the prostate does is that it enlarges to produce more of the seminal fluid in order for he to be able to profligate and be more of a man, it also increases the amount of testosterone for him in the system as a byproduct of that he feels more manly, therefore more capable to be able to deal with the issue in hand, usually the wife, ehm and if you speak to men who have had prostate cancer and I do, I do alot of work with prostate cancer and has had great sucesses with it as well, is that that is the issue and the say they go through the shock and suddenly they feel more manly, do you know what they do as a therapy?
– Apart from chemo and cutting it out?
– Yes, hormone therapy, guess what they give them? Oestrogen and suddenly they go all feminime, I’ve one particular client, lovely lovely guy, very masculine, he took this stuff and now he’s very feminime, nothing wrong with being feminime is that he just got touch with his feminime side but.
– Been through this process where his friends, all his friends have had it so it was kinda expecting to get it.
– It can be created as well, 5% of all cancers are created from belief, we believe.
– He also said, his friends noticed that when after they’ve had all these various therapies, medical procedures that they’re, become inpotent, so he’s like, id just rather die, now and can you just hurry up the cancer and kill me. So there’s another process going.
– There you go, so he could even end up with something like a lung cancer if he’s not careful, so you’ve to clear that decision right away.
– He’s getting bad chest all the time.
– Get in there right away, you’ve got to take out that beliefsystem.
—-
Pretty damn logical to me, from that point of view they’re presenting it in.
And this was infuriating, and not impossible from a animalistic point of view.
Joakim,
I’m done talking to you. You don’t take in a word we are saying but come up with a completely ridiculous piece of nonsense on prostate cancer instead, the stupidity of which is nothing short of deeply offensive to men, women and medicine alike.
Okay, it’s meta medicines answer to prostate cancer, straight from the DVD
I find it pathetic. Is this meant to scare people away from standard treatment or what? Many prostate cancers do not need to be treated with hormones at all. Many can be left completely untreated because they are very slow growing and many can be treated perfectly well with either radiotherapy or surgery.
Can’t you just chuck out this DVD and buy a nice movie instead?
O btw, I’ll eat my hat if this video isn’t a hoax. I’m sure Hamer never did such an experiment.
And of course, it goes against all scientific evidence, its a completely new system going against more or less everything taught in conventional medicine, just because it isn’t aligned to the current scientific medical proof doesn’t necessary make it wrong. There are obviously more than one way to solve a problem, and if you’re so scared to trample on peoples feet discussing science it’s not for you obviously, because that’s what it does, it will always go against the beliefsystems of people.
And I find it pretty funny that you claim that just because you haven’t heard about or seen an article explaining something yet doesn’t make it impossible, just unexplainable atm.
It gives answers why things are going the way they do and in this case in a very logical and explainable way.
Understanding Prostate Cancer
Treatment Options:
http://www.pcf.org/site/c.leJRIROrEpH/b.5802089/k.B8D8/Treatment_Options.htm
So – you expect us to accept a highly implausible theory, for which there is no evidence at all and that has been shown many times to be wrong, as true, and at the same time expect us to disregard all proven facts?
You expect us to favour a treatment for cancer that can show not a single cured case over treatments that which will cure almost 60% of cancer patients?
On what basis should we do that?
Sure it gives answers. But the point is whether these answers are the right answers. Something may seem perfectly simple and logical but it may still be wrong. The MM has the scientific and moral obligation to find out whether their theories are correct. There are high risks at stake: the current standard treatments for prostate cancer are very effective and they had better be absolutely right if they make patients forgo standard treatment in favour of MM.
I want more proof too, I just mailed them about it, but we live in an age where almost all research is funded by the pharmacycompanies too.
And no I don’t find that theory implausible at all, i find it pretty amazing from a perspective i believe conventional science is completely ignoring, and i dont think thats very good.
Conventional science has not discarded it. Conventional science has reached other conclusions.
What Hamer and MM do is look whether a cancer patient has ever had a psychological trauma. And guess what: they all have! No surprise – this is life you know. Also, provided you look hard enough, you’ll bound to find something or other. But how does this prove that the “trauma” caused the cancer? Correlation does not equal causation you know.
What they also should have done is look at how many people with psychological trauma develop cancer. And guess what: some do and some don’t. They should also have looked at how many people without any psychological trauma develop cancer. And guess what: some do and some don’t.
Yes, they have reached different conclusions in a completely different framework, that doesnt make any necessarily right, conventional science has the upper hand here because they work on the symptoms directly and meta medicine works on what they believe cause the symptoms.
Yes, it’s true that alot of people with trauma probably don’t develop cancer and that’s not really what it’s about, because meta medicine says that its just a specific kind of trauma that starts in example prostate cancer, as a biological program. Not just some random effect. And it’s here, this is a very important point where you’ve got it wrong, this is the fundamentals of meta medicine.
Where is the research? They say there is research proving their claims but they don’t show it nor do they link to it. I would like to see for myself what this research shows.
Me too actually
GNM has the research. GNM can back up their claims. Is there a gutsy university out there willing to risk funding from mainstream traditional medicine who will authenticate it? There is a lot to GNM. Let’s find out the truth? Julie
Really? Then where has it been published?
Please show us.
But you just said GNM has the research and can back up their claims. What’s the point of “authentication” if everything has been proven beyond a doubt?
What is the point of wasting money “finding out the truth” if there already is research that backs up Hamer’s claims?
A policeman with a radar gun is the proof that your car is doing 180kmh.
If the policeman’s not there and only your own speedometer shows 180kph, does it mean that your friends are right to doubt that you were really going that speed at all?
In some cases I guess it’s worth getting ticketed…
An institution such as a university is GNM’s policeman and would give us the ticket for 180kph that we want to see
Otherwise how can you or I know that GNM’s 180kph is any truer than we do now? You don’t believe; I do… An independent body has to verify it.
And despite a court order, no university will help. Perhaps you can see scans of the court orders etc online?
Maybe the universities won’t help because they need commercial funds to stay in business?
Without the proof, all I can know – and all you can know – are our own experiences.
Which are so subjective. You’ve seen sad loss. I’ve had my stepfather returned to me, almost from the grave.
At least you’re here still – all any of us can do is our best.
Warm wishes, Julie
O for Pete’s sake Julie, Hamer’s GNM is so full of nonsense that one hardly knows where to begin debunking it. It’s gobbledygook and not even wrong, aimed at deceiving people whose fear and despair has made them gullible. In my opinion, Hamer is a dangerous man who preys on patients suffering from serious diseases like cancer in order to feed his megalomania and pathological vanity.
There has not been any proven case of cancer cured by Hamer’s GNM, not a single one. That should tell you something.
Would you like for me to see if I can arrange for you to meet my stepfather? I use GNM myself, not in extreme ways – as in for cancer – but in lots of small ways to keep myself in very good health. Which for years I found impossible – I was diagnosed with fibromyalgia amongst other things – which are all gone. I would be happy to meet you?
In your frustration and accusations I think I can hear a great deal of fear from you? Nearly losing your life is pretty terrifying – I was there myself, but from an accident. Makes it very difficult to be objective and open. That you care enough to be having this conversation with me is proof you care – and for that I thank you. Have a great day, Julie
My suggestion is that all the GNM believers and Meta believers contact The Teaching Company and order “Your Deceptive Mind” and marvelous course on the way we humans think.
Your suggestion is noted with the scorn that it deserves. Your style of thinking had men thinking the world was flat and following Hitler. I’m sad for you that you think so little of your amazing mind.
Alternative therapies have never been shown to be effective in any way when it comes to curing cancer – or mental disorders either for that matter.
German New Medicine simply cannot be wrong (at least as theory, but I’m sure its more than theory) because it integrates the ancient concept of mind-body interaction, or what is called in modern times: psychosomatic medicine. It is extremely dangerous to view our bodies mechanically without the influence of the spirit and soul. Hence, the disease is the symptom of the painful soul. You may treat the material body in a mainstream way but if soul does not heal the material body has no chance to heal, it will only move the symptom (pain) to another organ.
German New Medicine has been proven to be wrong on many levels; it’s nothing but gibberish.
What is your background education, Beatis. Are you competent to discuss this theory on the basis of your specific knowledge. No one who is educated in biology and/or medicine shouldn’t say so easily that GNM is nonsense and gibberish. These are general accusations which say nothing about your particular understanding of the science behind the GNM.
As for me, I graduated molecular biology at the Faculty of natural sciences.
Hamer uses lies and deception to “prove” his claims and the “science” behind GNM has been proven to be pseudoscience many times: there is not even the slightest indication that cancer is caused by a sudden emotional trauma, nor is there any indication whatsoever that it can only be cured by “removing” these so-called traumas. Until now, he has given zero evidence for his claims.
Do you personally believe that any disease may be caused by emotional trauma.
And please, tell me about your education.
You can read all about my education and the education of the other blog members in the About section.
What I believe or not believe is irrelevant, what matters is knowledge derived from scientific data.
But you must believe in something, so, I may conclude that you believe in scientific data, in a way that you never question them. Moreover, you are against everyone who dares to question scientiific data. And, may I notice, your claims that GNM is gibberish are without proof also.
I believe the scientific method is the best way of acquiring knowledge about phenomena that occur in the world we live in, and part and parcel of the scientific method is the constant challenging of data, in order to correct and expand what knowledge we have.
A lot of scientific research has been done to find out if psychological trauma, e.g. stress, stimulates cancer or negatively influences cure rates and there is no evidence that it does. Hamer’s claims on cancer metastasis too are such blatant nonsense that calling them gibberish is actually quite complimentary.
Why “must” I believe in something?
No, you may not conclude such a thing.
No, I’m not, I’m against everyone who makes claims regarding cancer (and other illnesses for that matter) that they cannot support with good evidence.
http://www.anxietycare.org.uk/docs/biologicaleffects.asp
This is not an academic article, but I find it extremely helpful for illustrating the mechanism of stress. Diagram shows how internal and external stressors (which are non-material stimuli) enter our body and materialize into the sequence of events which impair our health. From that stage on, everything is possible. We respond individually, according to our individual weaknesses.
Please note the Note at the right side saying: The fear response takes place in milliseconds, before a person is consciously aware of threat or danger. Does not Hamer say the same thing – we are not aware of the threatening event that initiates the process of becoming diseased. In the experimental study you can follow up only what is measurable, and you have to be pretty sure that you are measuring the right thing. What if contemporary science stil hasn’t discovered what should be measured as a material parameter of non-material emotion/stressor. And above all, body is not a mechanism, machine, there is no simple input-output relation. If we do not know what is going on it ‘s no proof that it does not exist. Things are existing whether science has proven them or not. Human mind is limited as compared to the wisdom of creation. It is not wise to deny the existence of the phenomena that could not be confirmed by today scientific knowledge. That’s why you have to be religious even as a scientist. If you are searching for exact proof in order to take the fact seriously maybe you will end up trying to put your fingers on Jesus’ wounds.
My moto is Beware of the Truth Keepers. And today science is pretending to be the only true mediator between Man and Creation. So, I open wide my mind and my eyes before I’m ready to believe a so called scientific fact.
Yes it can (and it is). If the predictions made by the theory are wrong, the theory can be discarded.
Then you have no excuses for not understanding the concept of falsifiability. And you have no excuse for not understanding why the GNM theory is a wrong theory after reading this post: https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/debunkinghamer-on-cancermetastasis-slam-dunk/
Nobody said it was.
It’s no proof that it does exist either, which is what Hamer has to prove and which he failed to do.
Ah yes, I have invisible elves living in my garden and although they cannot be confirmed by today’s scientific knowledge I think it is not wise to deny their existence!
You talk like a zealot.
Science is pretending no such thing, religion pretends to be that.
Thanks for the link with immunostaining images. However I saw a cancer cell in vein which is a large blood vessel. If you agree, the cancer cell must have entered the vein through very, very tiny vessel-capillary. Please compare the size of a cancer cell to a capillary diameter. Or, there is some special mechanism where cancer cell forces a capillary to open wide. True, there is a ongoing process in tumor growth called angiogenesis, i.e. de novo forming a local blood system in order to supply enough nutrients for rapidly growing tissue, but still these are ordinary blood vessels not desiiigned to accept an object large as a cancer cell.
I mean, if it was me seeing a cancer cell in the bloodstream my first question would be how on earth it overcame the capillary barrier. I found no academic article explaining this mechanism.
@ Ljubica Fillipovic
People who only see as far as the ends of their noses usually don’t find very much.
Here’s an academic journal devoted to research on cancer metastasis.
And here the process of cancer metastasis is explained for laymen.
“Ah yes, I have invisible elves living in my garden and although they cannot be confirmed by today’s scientific knowledge I think it is not wise to deny their existence!”
You hit the point! Of course that you have invisible elves in your garden, but it is impossible for you to see them because you are looking exclusively through your eye-sight. But your child may have seen them. And if one day a little one come to you saying Mommy, a talked to an elf named Gvido, you know, the one that lives beneath our weigelia bush down in the garden … I guess you would take your youngster to the diagnostic center and have all those CT, NMR and other examinations to confirm that something wrong went in his/her mind.
There was a period when my twin daughter had seen the angels flying in the room. I did not try in any way to tell her she is hallucinating, I just enjoyed her experience and was a little bit jealous why do angels not appear to me. This is because of my scientifically programmed mind which I’m trying to get rid of.
@ Ljubica Fillipovic
I think you are missing the point however. Trying to convince cancer patients to undergo an implausible and unproven treatment – whose alleged successes exist only in the mind of its inventor – and to forgo standard treatments of which there is abundant proof that they offer the best chance of survival, is not just ludicrous, it’s also criminal.
Not necessarily. Cancer cells have invasive capablities. I have seen cancer infiltrating walls of larger veins. But the point of the photo is, that it shows you that cancer can spread to structures of other germinal layers (In this case endoderm to mesoderm), which GNM predicts is impossibe.