Anaximperator blog

Blogging against alternative cancer treatments

German New Medicine (GNM) and Debunking Hamer on Cancer Metastasis: Slam Dunk

Ryke Geerd HamerRyke Geerd Hamer, inventor of the German New Medicine, claims that there is no such thing as cancer metastasis.

Hamer also claims that cancer does not spread through the bloodstream.

However, these claims can easily be checked out, and that is just what jli, our pathologist, has done in this post.

The first has to do with cancer spreading through the bloodstream. Hamer claims that this never happens. According to him, metastatic tumours are in reality new tumours arising in the affected organ. He says that a major argument against the “spread of cancer cells through the blood stream hypothesis” is the fact that  “no one has ever observed live cancer cells in the blood stream”.

One might suspect that he never read any pathology reports while working as a conventional oncologist. And apparently, he also didn’t read any of the numerous scientific articles describing the significance of vascular invasion by cancer cells. In the photo below you can see for yourself what this phenomenon looks like.

Hamer metastasis 1 vasculair invasion of cancer cells

Vascular invasion of cancer cells

This is an example of the microscopic appearance of vascular invasion. In the middle you can see a vein with cancer cells inside. The transportation of cancer cells through the blood stream is a real and commonly observed phenomenon.

Another opinion of Hamer that can easlily be checked is that immunohistochemical examination of a metastasis is useless because as he puts it: “…this procedure does not identify metastasizing cancer cells but only proteins, released from a tumour”.  And he believes that a webpage about “Atomic Force Microscopy” backs him up on this view. Needless to say the website says nothing of the sort. In fact, immunohistochemistry clearly identifies proteins within the cancer cells and thus shows us where the metastatic cancer cells originate from.

To understand how immunohistochemistry really works you only have to know two things:

1) Cancer cells try to imitate the normal cells of the organ they originate in – including the production of structural proteins characteristic  of the cell type in question.
2) These structural proteins can be detected through immunohistochemistry.

The photo below is a microscopy photo from a large bowel cancer, where you can see the adjacent normal cells on the left, and the cancer cells that try to imitate them on the right.

Hamer cancer cells imitating normal cells

Cancer cells imitating normal cells

An important structural protein in normal large bowel cells is a protein called “cytokeratin 20”. If the pathologist looks at an immunohistochemical staining for “cytokeratin 20” he sees positive reaction in the cancer cells as well as in those normal cells the cancer imitates. It looks like the photo below. The brown color shows where cytokeratin 20 is present. Again the normal cells are on the left, and the cancer cells are on the right.

Hamer immunohistochemical staining for “cytokeratin 20

Immunohistochemical staining of cancer cells

Now let’s make this fact useful. The photo below is a microscopy photo of a core biopsy from a liver metastasis without the use of immunohistochemistry. The cancer cells are at the top of the picture, and the normal liver cells are at the bottom.

Hamer core biopsy liver metastasis 1

Core biopsy of liver metastasis without immunohistochemistry

A pathologist has no trouble in telling which cells are normal and which cells are cancerous, but based on this alone it is not possible to tell where the cancer comes from. Immunohistochemical staining for cytokeratin 20 staining on the biopsy looks like this photo:

Hamer core biopsy liver metastasis 2

Core biopsy of liver metastasis with immunohistochemistry

It shows that the cancer cells contain the same structural protein as the cells of the large bowel (and the cancers that originate from them). And sure enough this patient did turn out to have a large bowel cancer.

So, in conclusion:

1) Cancer cells do appear in the blood stream
2) Immunohistochemistry does show cancer cells
3) Cancer cells have features of the cells from which they originate – and this is readily seen through immunohistochemistry.

163 responses to “German New Medicine (GNM) and Debunking Hamer on Cancer Metastasis: Slam Dunk

  1. Johannes9126 December 11, 2009 at 7:48 am

    Not to forget the possibility of finding the metastasis first and then finding the primary tumor AFTER immunohistochemistry by simply examining the originating organ.

  2. anaximperator December 12, 2009 at 8:36 am

    You are quite right!

    I cannot for the life of me understand how someone who claims to be a specialist on cancer – as Hamer says he is – can spout such utter nonsense. It just boggles the mind.

  3. Andrew August 14, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    I’ve found some good debunking material on Hamer’s theory: google “Histology of Breast Cancer Metastasis”.

  4. Andrew August 14, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    In most cases you don’t need immunohistochemistry to identify from wich organ a metastasis comes from. You just have to observe the cell shape and cell histologic organization.

  5. JennyJo August 14, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    Andrew, thanks very much for your comments. Is this the information you mean?

  6. Andrew September 7, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    Yeah, it is. Watch the last page of the document. There you will see clearly that the cell shape and histologic organization of brain metastasis of breast cancer and corresponding primary tumor are EXACTLY THE SAME, even with two distinct marker (the first is a anti estrogen receptor marker, the second I don’t remember). I showed this stuff to a New Medicine scholar and he answered the document probably has been fabricated !!

  7. beatis September 7, 2010 at 6:49 pm

    I showed this stuff to a New Medicine scholar and he answered the document probably has been fabricated !!

    That is so infuriating! What in the world is wrong with these people?? It seems they are completely fact-resistant, no matter how much evidence they are presented with, they’ll just ignore it. It boggles the mind.

  8. JAdri October 7, 2010 at 8:24 pm

    beatis, you showed this stuff to a New Medicine scholar, and you say these people. This is called generalization. C’mon… how better you are then?

    I am, myself a New Medicine scholar as well, in learning and testing phase. I would not say I could accept everything Hamer says, this is why I test it for myself. I sit together with volunteers I do not know and talk to them about their diseases. I am through 100+ case studies and in all cases, 100%, I found the exact emotional shock just as Hamer stated previously.

    I have a case, 29 year old woman, right-handed who called me, because she has had lymph node pain in her right armpit since 3 days. I asked here if she solved any conflict “self-degradation, pull back regarding parner” 3 days before. She said, exactly… she failed to express her emotions to a beloved one for 2 months and right after she did, the pain came. We discussed that the PCL phase will last 2 months with worst symptoms after 1 month for 3-4 days. It was so, and guess what? After 2 months she got symptomless.

    30 year old woman with celiac disease, forced to keep gluten free diet for 17 years. After calculating with Hamer’s model we found the conflict had to happen at the age of 10, last for 2 years, since she had the crisis symptoms at the age of 13. Guess what, she indeed had the starvation conflict, when visiting relatives: for the first time, she starved of foods she did not like for one week and was worrying for 2 years before getting off this conflict. Based on Hamer’s model we found she should not suffer from celiac disease anymore, although conventional medicine said so. She started eating gluten content food again, and her blood test has been negative since then (1 year).

    And this is just 2 of the 100+ cases, and in many of these conventional medicine failed. I do not say conventional medicine would be good for nothing, as they have several great discoveries, but also ignore many-many important aspects of health and humar organization. Why Hamer says there are no cancel cells flooding in the blood, hell, I don’t know. But I know, taking randomly 100+ cases, the DHS was found 100%. It was there. If it was 2-3 cases, I would say it was a co-incidence. But 100% as a novice, well, that made me think about looking deeper into New Medicine.

    So, you blame and blitz Dr. Hamer for talking about what he does not know exactly, but actually, and that’s what really sad, you do the very same, instead of checking one by one all the statements of GNM.

  9. beatis October 8, 2010 at 5:41 am

    @ JAdri

    beatis, you showed this stuff to a New Medicine scholar, and you say these people. This is called generalization. C’mon… how better you are then?

    Andrew showed it to a GNM-scholar. But how is referring as “they” to a group of people who all hold the same beliefs a generalization? Are there any GNM-practitioners who contest GNM-principles then??

    But I know, taking randomly 100+ cases, the DHS was found 100%.

    Something you choose to call a DHS was found. There isn’t a shred of evidence that the kind of conflicts labelled “DHS” by GNM-practitioners are the cause of their patient’s cancer.

    I know, taking randomly 100+ cases, the DHS was found 100%. It was there. If it was 2-3 cases, I would say it was a co-incidence.

    No, it is not a coincidence, it is done by you: you point out these so-called “conflicts” as the cause of cancer or any other disease. You’d have a hard time finding a life without any form of “conflict” or other, but apparently you don’t understand a basic concept like the difference between correlation and causation. I find that very worrying in someone offering medical treatments.

    When someone is diagnosed with a disease such as cancer, you go and look for a “conflict” until you have found one. You then say this caused the cancer, for which you have no evidence at all. But even worse: you then claim the cancer can only be cured with GNM, for which you have no evidence at all either. In doing so, you delay or stop people from getting treatment that could cure them, which means you may cause their cancer to become incurable. This makes you a very dangerous person to be around cancer patients, or any other patients for that matter.

    Hamer’s theory is completely unfounded and completely unproven.

    In my opinion, you should be ashamed of yourself for believing and wanting to practice such dangerous nonsense.

  10. wilmamazone October 8, 2010 at 5:59 am

    In my opinion, you should be ashamed of yourself for believing and wanting to practice such dangerous nonsense.

    In my opinion too!

  11. JAdri October 8, 2010 at 7:02 am

    beatis, you wrote: “How is referring as “they” to a group of people who all hold the same beliefs a generalization?” – how many of them you asked what they accept and do not accept from, let’s call it, the theories from Hamer?

    And then: “Something you choose to call a DHS was found.” – well, Hamer has quite a detailed definition with five criterias. Have you at least, heard of what this five criteria is? And have you heard that even Hamer states, any of these five is not present, then it is not a DHS, just a simple conflict which does not cause disease? Most people fail understanding GNM when they deny or are unable to understand the difference between everyday conflicts and so called DHS, biological conflicts.

    “You’d have a hard time finding a life without any form of “conflict” or other…” – which is true, but again, you may want to read again that any conflict where the five criterias are not present at the same time does not cause any disease, and this information is coming from Hamer directly.

    “…but apparently you don’t understand a basic concept like the difference between correlation and causation.” – which, in fact is many times the problem with conventional medicine as well. Very much of the conventional medicine statements are accepted as evidence only because they were repeated so many times that noone looks deeper into them anymore and noone questions them, but in fact they were never prooved, just correlated.

    About correlation and causation… The neighborhood kid is crying. I ask him why. He says his dog bit him. The cause of his pain is the dog – this is what conventional medicine says, the teeth shapes on his hands call evidence on that the cause is the dog bite. What GNM says, let’s look deeper, why did the dog bite him? Because he took away the bone it was eating. Who is the cause then? The boy.

    “I find that very worrying in someone offering medical treatments.” – name at least one GNM scholar who offers any kind of medical treatment. I would, in your shoes, deeply think them over, because it may cause many troubles in the future. This may sound brand new to you, but it is a fact: the whole concept of GNM in my country is that no GNM scholar offers any treatment to any of the patients. All we do is that we ask them to consult with a conventional doctor first (surprised?), then explain them the disease background based on Hamer’s method, then let him decide what he thinks about it and what kind of treatment he chooses based on information he heard at both sides. Should he walk out the door and say he takes chemotheraphy, no problem!

    “When someone is diagnosed with a disease such as cancer, you go and look for a “conflict” until you have found one.” – look, how sure you are, but you have never ever took part of any of my discussions. Aren’t you full of preconceptions?

    There was a case where a girl asked me why she has red spots on her skin and we found that the type of conflict she solved was like she was missing someone to hug. She told me that she met a friend the night before and indeed she missed her friend for a long time… and what I told her was that it is far not enough to be a DHS, just miss someone and produce symptomps, we need to find an unexpected emotional shock where the five criterias are present at the same time. Then it suddenly got clear for her that her friend told her a week ago that she is moving abroad, she thought she would never see this friend again and it was really shocking, like a kind of lightbolt. Well, the difference between regular conflicts and biological conflicts, DHS does not seem big… but in fact it is huge. I really wonder how one can criticise GNM without apparently knowing the difference between a regular emotional conflict and a DHS.

    “You then say this caused the cancer, for which you have no evidence at all.” – I then say… Again, you have a preconception based on… what? What I do in fact (and not in your dreams), I never say that the conflict is the cause, but I ask the patient what he or she thinks that it may be. Huge difference. I tell him or her what Hamer says. The patient says others told him or her something else, then I say, correct, and you have the choice to decide which one, conventional, alternative, GNM you accept as an evidence for your disease and you can choose whatever therapy you want. And they choose. Few of them conventional, most of them alternative, few of them GNM. And that’s all right. It is called: free will…🙂

    There was a case where a lady approached me that her mother is suffering from a brain tumor and was unconscious… and the doctor was shouting at her that the mother needs a surgery and my friend is crazy! She called me what to do, because I know GNM and my advice was below:
    – Try to get in touch with the doctor again and reestabilish trust.
    – Try to discuss why the surgery is needed, what will happen, are there any alternative solutions, what may happen if surgery is not performed.
    – If you still do not trust him, consult with 2 other doctors.
    – Then you decide based on all this information what you do.
    – Once your mother recovers, we can discuss about conflicts.

    “But even worse: you then claim the cancer can only be cured with GNM…” – what do I claim (especially now that you know what I do exactly)? And who talks to me about lies? C’mon… That’s not a simple lie. That’s a libel.

    “In my opinion, you should be ashamed of yourself for believing and wanting to practice such dangerous nonsense.” – and you may want to be ashamed of yourself for talking into the air with full of preconditions, without any proof, not even trying to ask before forming an opinion. I understand you are trying to protect conventional medicine against misleading information, but it seems like you do it so blindly, that you cause more harm on the other side simply by not knowing what you are exactly criticising.

    Doing the same in a medical practice helps a whole lot to fill up statistics with mistreatments and misdiagnosis coming from the doctor’s ego, totally lack of humility. I can only hope you do not do the same when it comes to real medical treatments and your sally on Hamer and GNM only comes from your intention in helping people in their healing. May I advise to you to be precise not only when talking about conventional medicine, but when talking about GNM as well, otherwise many people will think Chuck is more than right.

  12. beatis October 8, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    I tell him or her what Hamer says. The patient says others told him or her something else, then I say, correct, and you have the choice to decide which one, conventional, alternative, GNM you accept as an evidence for your disease and you can choose whatever therapy you want.

    You prefer not to call this “treating patients”. Fair enough.

    Instead of treating patients, you “just” talk to them and present the GNM as a possible line of treatment, equal to conventional medicine. But GNM is by no means equal to conventional medicine. There is not a single shred of verifiable evidence that Hamer is correct about the cause of cancer or about the cure, nor is there any verifiable evidence of even one patient having been cured of cancer – or any other disease for that matter – by means of the GNM.

    I understand you are trying to protect conventional medicine against misleading information

    I am trying to protect vulnerable patients to treatments that rob them of any chance of survival.

    Presenting the GNM to patients as an equal and reliable alternative to conventional medicine is in IMO extremely misleading and dangerous.

  13. beatis October 8, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    @JAdri

    About correlation and causation… The neighborhood kid is crying. I ask him why. He says his dog bit him. The cause of his pain is the dog – this is what conventional medicine says, the teeth shapes on his hands call evidence on that the cause is the dog bite. What GNM says, let’s look deeper, why did the dog bite him? Because he took away the bone it was eating. Who is the cause then? The boy.

    This to me is just sophistry.

    And then: “Something you choose to call a DHS was found.” – well, Hamer has quite a detailed definition with five criterias. Have you at least, heard of what this five criteria is? And have you heard that even Hamer states, any of these five is not present, then it is not a DHS, just a simple conflict which does not cause disease? Most people fail understanding GNM when they deny or are unable to understand the difference between everyday conflicts and so called DHS, biological conflicts.

    As far as I know, a conflict has to answer to 3 criteria to be called a DHS. The 5 criteria you mention apply to the “5 biological laws of nature” that Hamer claims to have discovered and of which the “Iron Rule of Cancer”, which tells us about the DHS, is the first one. Do correct me if I am wrong.

    There was a case where a girl asked me why she has red spots on her skin and we found that the type of conflict she solved was like she was missing someone to hug.

    I wonder how you two “found” this.

    Then it suddenly got clear for her that her friend told her a week ago that she is moving abroad, she thought she would never see this friend again and it was really shocking, like a kind of lightbolt. Well, the difference between regular conflicts and biological conflicts, DHS does not seem big… but in fact it is huge. I really wonder how one can criticise GNM without apparently knowing the difference between a regular emotional conflict and a DHS.

    And how in the world does this prove that her friend going abroad caused the girl to have spots??

    Good God.

  14. JAdri October 8, 2010 at 10:27 pm

    “Do correct me if I am wrong.” – OK. There are 5 criteria of the DHS. A conflict has to answer 5 criteria to be called a DHS.

    – dramatic (puts one out of normal routine)
    – unexpected (surprise, one cannot prepare for it)
    – conflict (one cannot accept the situation)
    – isolative (emotion and feelings are strangled in one)
    – highly acute (conflict situation not solved for a while)

    DHS is like a lightbolt, like a kick in the stomach, takes one’s breath away. DHS is something initiated by an outer circumstance. It is an emotional shock, one short moment. If one is simply thinking about death and fears it, it is not a DHS. If someone is told (unexpectedly) he has cancer and may die, that may be a DHS, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be a DHS. It is only a DHS in case all five criteria are valid at the moment of the shock.

    beatis, I apologize for not yet reacting to your further thoughts, but I am on a business trip right now. I will definitely come back later to you… till that time, I wish you a pleasant weekend.

  15. beatis October 8, 2010 at 11:09 pm

    Thanks for wishing me a pleasant weekend. Same to you.

    Hamer’s theory flies in the face of everything we know about cancer. The fact also remains that Hamer has not been able to deliver any evidence for his theories about the cause or the cure of cancer or any evidence of even one patient who was cured by his treatment. Considering this I think it’s pointless and a waste of time to discuss his theories any further.

  16. evenarsenicisnatural October 9, 2010 at 12:48 am

    JAdri –

    Just a wall-of-words and nothing to say.

    Hamer and GNM are worthless woo – scamming the desperate for their money, giving false hope, and destroying chances for treatment/recovery.

    That criteria list is just another vague bunch of garbage, just like a horoscope or the patter of a ‘fortune teller’.

  17. wilmamazone October 9, 2010 at 7:40 am

    Just a wall-of-words and nothing to say.

    Indeed!

  18. JAdri October 11, 2010 at 12:01 am

    “Hamer has not been able to deliver any evidence for his theories about the cause or the cure of cancer or any evidence of even one patient who was cured by his treatment. “

    In fact he did. Remember, he had testicle cancer, diagnosed ~30 years ago.

    My best friend had colon and liver cancer and he healed only by using Dr. Hamer’s guidance, 6 years ago. No operation, no chemo, no radiation. All papers (diagnosis) available. And no problem, you can leave him out of the statistics, so you can cosmetic up your conventional numbers.

    There is no benefit out of ignoring the truth, unless you receive an interest on each and every portion of chemo or chemical medicine you sell.

    Instead of trying to repeat back what you have learned at the university, you could really show some conventional evidences which are more than statistics and correlation. That would have helped more… IMHO.

  19. beatis October 11, 2010 at 6:37 am
    “Hamer has not been able to deliver any evidence for his theories about the cause or the cure of cancer or any evidence of even one patient who was cured by his treatment.”

    In fact he did. Remember, he had testicle cancer, diagnosed ~30 years ago.

    Hamer cured his cancer with standard medicine.

    His methods failed to cure his wife of breast cancer.

    All known cancer patients of Hamer died of their cancer or have deteriorated to such an extent that their prognosis has been seriously compromised. Here are two recent examples of both:
    http://tinyurl.com/2wuvzf9
    http://blog.esowatch.com/?p=2217

  20. JAdri October 11, 2010 at 9:07 am

    I asked for pure evidence instead of statistics and correlation, but all I received is 2 cases against GNM.

    I do not doubt people who tried to understand GNM died (yet, they could have died also because of not applying properly GNM, we do not have the information available in such details), but I can also show people with proper conventional cancer diagnosis, not taking chemo and radiation (anyway, even Hamer says, operation may be needed in justified cases, which means he does not throw out conventional treatment on the window entirely), healing from cancer years ago, still alive.

    beatis, you say: “Hamer cured his cancer with standard medicine.” – they you may also have the information what kind of standard therapy he used curing his cancer. Can you please, share?

    People treated with standard, conventional medicine die in many cases as well – which experience is not brought up against conventional medicine, it is just brought up to show the other side.

    Bringing up only those who could not be cured and silencing the success stories of GNM is quite an one-sided approach. Pros and contras are on both sides. That’s why our team has doctors, physicians, pharmacist,… in our team, who use conventional treatment (like an operation or a medicine when pain is unbearable) when neccessary, yet realized taking GNM into consideration they can reduce the cases when it is neccessary and prevent those life-threatening situations where intensive use of standard medicine is used today.

  21. JennyJo October 11, 2010 at 9:33 am

    Where can we see all this evidence about all these cancer patients Hamer is supposed to have cured?

    All we have is evidence about patients who died.

  22. beatis October 11, 2010 at 9:44 am

    JAdri,

    beatis, you say:

    “Hamer cured his cancer with standard medicine.”

    – they you may also have the information what kind of standard therapy he used curing his cancer. Can you please, share?

    You don’t seem to know very much about your hero.

    Hamer was treated for his testis cancer with surgery, he tells us so himself on his website (my bold):

    Selbst als man mir sagte, dass ich Krebs habe, träumte ich nachts immer nur von meinem DIRK. Damals wurde ich operiert, heute würde ich mich mit Sicherheit nicht mehr operieren lassen, nachdem ich die EISERNE REGEL DES KREBS kenne.

    http://www.neue-medizin.de/html/ein_vermachtnis.html

    You also say:

    People treated with standard, conventional medicine die in many cases as well – which experience is not brought up against conventional medicine, it is just brought up to show the other side.

    None of the blog members have ever denied that people die of cancer despite conventional medicine. However, the current state of affairs is that an average of close to 60% of cancer patients survive for 10 years or more. There is no evidence that GNM does any better than 0%.

    Apart from that, Hamer’s theory as to the cause of cancer has been proven to be incorrect.

    Why should we have to follow a treatment that is not only highly implausible but also has not been able to present any verifiable evidence of efficacy instead of conventional medicine, which is able to cure almost 60% of its patients?

    Where is the reason in that?

  23. That Guy October 11, 2010 at 11:34 am

    You all have it wrong, magic kung fu will cure cancer in the future.

    The cure is there, I’m like totally sure about it. Better than GNM, 100% guaranteed.

  24. JAdri October 11, 2010 at 4:09 pm

    “Where can we see all this evidence about all these cancer patients Hamer is supposed to have cured?” – it depends what you accept as an evidence.

    When my friend, after diagnosed with cancer, showed his new diagnosis to the psychican (who can look up in the system that my friend did not take the operation, chemo nor radiation), he told my friend he was lucky for being misdiagnosed for the first time. (???)

    Which means, even showing the evidence, conventional physicians did not even pay attention. And again, I do not say they are evil and they do not care… they may care, but they are overloaded with daily work. But I am OK to call this a correlation only, as long as you are not blind to realize that what you call evidence on the other side, is nothing more than a simple correlation either.

    Myself, I believe the diagnosis and labor numbers I have seen. What you believe to be an evidence, who knows? You even do not share what would be an evidence for you, how should I then know where can you see that?

    “All we have is evidence about patients who died.” – that is no evidence, just a correlation. That patient may have died even taking chemo and so on… and also it is no evidence the patient died because he applied GNM. He / she may have died because of applying GNM improperly.

    “Hamer was treated for his testis cancer with surgery…” – I still do not see the point here. Did he take chemo? Did he take radiation? Even Hamer says continuously that in some cases (not all the cases) operation is accepted by GNM as well, but in consideration with the specific phases of the SBMP.

    Did you know that a thyroid cancer renews if the patient has not solved his conflict and does not renew if the patient solves his conflict (according to GNM)? So simple. And no risk to test along with standard treatment.

    What harm would it do to solve that specific conflict, take the operation and see if that 60% can be even more or not? Conventional medicine could simply test what happens if the specific conflict is solved, to be on the safe side, still apply the standard treatment.

    There are many ways GNM could be integrated without giving up the standard treatment and taking any risk to see if those numbers they claim to be theirs get better or not, still standard medicine does not do so. And that’s what makes people think and distrust conventional medicine.

    “There is no evidence that GNM does any better than 0%. ” – instead of asking more details about my friends who healed from cancer, you are again so sure there is 0% evidence. Well, that’s an attitude…😉

    That kind of attitude almost lead to mistreatment of one of my relatives. She had a heart attack and was diagnosed with low cholesterol level (below the normal values). It was written there on her diagnosis. Yet, the physician wanted her to take a medicine against high cholesterol level.

    When asked how in the world he thinks to make her take medicine against high level when she has low, the answer was: “People with heart attack always have high cholesterol level.” But she did not! It was right there on the paper, and it is the minimum(!) to make another labor test to check if there was any mistake in the previous numbers – and if still low level diagnosed, revise their misbelief on people with heart attack always have high cholesterol level.

    I wonder how many people die, because physicians are sometimes just as blindly sure about their hypothesis as you are now about evidences on the conventional side and no evidence on GNM side. I would be very much afraid to be treated by such a superficial and irresponsible physician.

    “None of the blog members have ever denied that people die of cancer despite conventional medicine.” – but all those stories on standard way mistreated patients are well kept in silence. Should you want to be unbiased, you may also have a few words on those cases.

    I think even the brightest evidence was shown you, you would not believe it. And you would find a nice excuse why not to accept it. Any time I bring up a case, which could be tested easily if you even tried to look inside, you try to close the argument ASAP, by leading the discussion away with some more conventional correlation and statistics (but still no evidence).

    Have a great day! And a cancerless life.

  25. anaximperator October 11, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    it depends what you accept as an evidence

    No it doesn’t. There are clear criteria for what constitutes evidence, but it’s obvious you haven’t got a clue about that.

    What harm would it do to solve that specific conflict, take the operation and see if that 60% can be even more or not? Conventional medicine could simply test what happens if the specific conflict is solved, to be on the safe side, still apply the standard treatment.

    Then Hamer should have conducted such a study. But instead he has been insisting that his patients do not take conventional therapy, claiming this would hinder their cure.

    “There is no evidence that GNM does any better than 0%. ” – instead of asking more details about my friends who healed from cancer, you are again so sure there is 0% evidence. Well, that’s an attitude…

    One unverifiable anecdote is not evidence.

    I think even the brightest evidence was shown you, you would not believe it.

    O, but we would, but the problem is that there’s nothing there.

    You appear completely clueless with regard to all things medical and scientific. I think it’s sickening that someone with you level of ignorance should feel qualified to treat cancer patients – or any other patients for that matter.

  26. wilmamazone October 11, 2010 at 5:43 pm

    You appear completely clueless with regard to all things medical and scientific. I think it’s sickening that someone with you level of ignorance should feel qualified to treat cancer patients – or any other patients for that matter.

    Collecting stamps something for you JAdri?

  27. beatis October 12, 2010 at 10:54 am

    @JAdri


    All we have is evidence about patients who died.”

    – that is no evidence, just a correlation. That patient may have died even taking chemo and so on… and also it is no evidence the patient died because he applied GNM. He / she may have died because of applying GNM improperly.

    No, it’s not correlation. These patients died because they stopped or didn’t even start the conventional cancer treatment that might have saved their lives and they did so at Hamer’s urgent advice. There are many more examples than the two examples I just gave you.

    I wonder if you have read this blog at all with regard to Hamer and his Germanische Neue Medizin; I get the strong impression you haven’t. So I suggest you do some reading first: https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/category/german-new-medicine-gnm/

  28. JAdri October 12, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    beatis, I did not want to come back to the blog anymore, but I would like to highlight a couple things you still misunderstand about GNM.

    I don’t know how many times I need to tell you, that GNM (as it was originally discovered) never ever said conventional medicine may not be neccessary.
    Even Hamer says operation may be neccessary, even in the healing phase (he himself advises to remove cancer bigger than 9 cm, otherwise the healing phase would be too much painful, may be even dangereous).
    Even Hamer says medicine may be neccessary, even in the healing phase (he himself advises that in the epileptoid chrisis of the coronary artery PCL phase cortizon injection may save patients’ lives).

    So please, stop referring to GNM as denying all kind of conventional treatment. This is something some GNM scholars may say (and yes, they may say so), and you treat it immediately as an evidence.

    We have to find your conflict,’ said the therapist, ‘then all will be better and I will help you find your conflict.’

    Jesus Christ, how a GNM scholar can say it is all about finding the conflict, that’s all?! First evidence on GNM was misused by the therapist. It is not GNM’s fault, but the therapist’s.

    The therapist should have known that after finding the conflict, it has to be solved and after solving it, he must have had informed the patient about what symptoms are to be expected, how long it will take, he may have pain and he may think about his treatment in advance.

    …you are told you gave him cancer…

    Second evidence that GNM was misused by the therapist and/or the patient.

    GNM never said a situation or anyone else can give cancer to one. GNM says only the patient can give himself cancer by feeling a way about a situation. If one is fired from his job, he can have liver cancer if he feels like he is going to starve, he can have bone cancer if he degradates himself, and he will not have cancer if he doesn’t feel like he is in conflict.

    He could not stand on his feet at all and suffered horrendously, but according to the therapist this was all a normal part of the cure, because for them the pain is an essential part of the healing process.

    Although pain is a normal part of the PCL phase (the phase which comes after solving the conflict and it takes exactly as long time as the CA phase when he was in conflict), suffering horrendously from pain is not normal! And again, an evidence that the therapist misused GNM.

    The therapist should have warned Marion’s father in advance what kind of pain to be expected for how long time, and what are the possibilities to reduce pain. And yes, even GNM says operation may be needed, and yes, even GNM says medicines may be needed, only you say that GNM says it’s not needed. Pretty strange… but it’s up to you what you say.

    Then one day he said he wanted to be separated from us, he explained that he had to leave us in order to be cured, because this would never happen if he stayed with us … (But in reality it was only the words of the therapist…)

    And that’s the biggest mistake and misusement of GNM a therapist can ever done.

    Even a newbie GNM student knows that the SBMP of the “kidney collecting duct” (I apologize, I do not know the English / word) is one of the most dangereous SBMPs on Earth, therefore, each and every patient who wants to heal from cancer should have his loving family around to avoid the conflict of loneliness which is the most dangereous conflict phase of all, especially running together with any other SBMP in PCL phase (and here it was the case: 2 SBMP in PCL phase: prostate and bones).

    For such an advice the father to be alone in the PCL phase, any GNM scholar would have been banished from GNM forever!!!

    Some people (patients and therapists) think applying GNM is so simple they solve the conflict and that’s all. But actually it is not. A standard, conventional physician can apply GNM well, but anyone layman wants to apply GNM needs to learn basic anatomy, histology, blood analyzing.

    Who said (I tell you: you said so) GNM is not taking the great basis of conventional medicine? It is based on that. Even Hamer says it is based on that. Even he applies some type of conventional treatments.

    I understand you are shocked on Marion’s story, because it is a shocking case! But after waking up from the first shock, it is obvious that GNM was misused, and whoever was the therapist and the patient, they knew GNM only superficially, though they claim they used GNM. No, they did not. They used something they believed was equal to GNM.

    Raging against GNM because some people misused it, would be equal to that the inventor of Aspirin would be put on trial because I take 50 pills just because I believe taking Aspirin is good for health. Aspirin could be then banished… the sad thing, it would not be Aspirin’s fault that people cannot use it.

    beatis, I really do not want to argue with you not your blogger fellows. I never wanted to convince you about GNM – but I wanted you to think about what I wrote, especially then many times you claim to statements about GNM which are not true, just read in a newspaper or a patient’s daughter claims… and you believe every single word she says is right. Which does not mean she would lie, she would not. But not knowing what GNM is, telling all those things seem like GNM is what she thinks it is… but in the end of the day, it may even have very few to do with GNM.

    I think it would be wise to set up what GNM really says before arguing with statements you believe GNM says (but actually does not). I don’t think you would be interested, so I stop here and let you believe whatever you want to believe (it makes no harm to me, not even if you are mistaken). About GNM, about me, if you feel better, let it be.

  29. evenarsenicisnatural October 12, 2010 at 10:01 pm

    FFS JAdri, stop this crap already.

    All this “method” does is to dupe the desparate out of their money while sacrificing their health – PERIOD.

  30. JAdri October 13, 2010 at 8:24 am

    All this “method” does is to the desparate out of their money while sacrificing their health – PERIOD.

    That’s why all information is available free of charge (in my country) and there is a whole team to whom the inquiring can turn to for free.

    evenarsenicisnatural, you made me laugh, thank you!🙂

    beatis, thank you for the discussion. Although we do not agree nor come to any common (even partial) conclusion (because being against GNM starts with the assumpation of GNMers being villain money-hungry frauds instead of people experienced something that worked with the will of helping) , it was good to learn your viewpoint and arguments.

  31. evenarsenicisnatural October 13, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    Pssst, missed a word in the quote – “DUPE”

    Oh wait, that’s you, JAdri.

    Willful ignorance and stupidity for $1000, Alex.

  32. Dr. Sylar October 13, 2010 at 9:58 pm

    Hi Bloggers! After checking the very website you linked starting this article:

    “Hamer claims he can cure cancer without any form of standard treatment…” (beatis on another post)

    “But even worse: you then claim the cancer can only be cured with GNM.” (beatis)

    “But instead he (Hamer) has been insisting that his patients do not take conventional therapy…” (anaximperator)

    But, in fact:

    Surgery on a tumor is recommended, if vital nerves, arteries or pathways of supply or elimination are affected…” (Dr. Hamer)

    Medication can certainly alleviate or eliminate symptoms, or prevent complications that arise during the healing phase. […] Sympathicotonic medication is, however, recommended in the case of an intense healing phase with potentially serious complications, particularly during the epileptoid crisis.” (Dr. Hamer)

    “DISCLAIMER: The information in this document does not replace professional medical advice.” (same document)

    Source for what Hamer said can be found here (same website you linked): http://learninggnm.com/documents/GNM%20Therapy%20English.pdf

    I may misunderstand something and surely I am confused, but aren’t surgery and medication standard or conventional treatments?

  33. Lishui October 14, 2010 at 12:57 am

    The photos do not show cancer cells.

    Cancer cells don’t “try” to do anything, let alone “imitate” other cells. Cancer cells are normal tissue, growing much faster or larger than normal. That’s all they are. They aren’t invasive or “trying” or having “evil intent.” All these notions are just descendants of the ancient “evil spirits have got into him” philosophy of medicine, which likes to avoid any possibility that the body, brain, and psyche might be something more than a piece of machinery.

    It is untrue that the cancer cells in the bloodstream (if that’s what they are) are proved to have originated somewhere else. The cells of the entire body produce the same proteins because they are all made from the same DNA and RNA – the protein-producing components of any cell.

    However, if you could show a cancerous liver cell floating in the bloodstream (not cancerous blood cells) … (as opposed to cancer cells versus cancer cells or proteins versus proteins)… that would disprove Dr. Hamer’s claim that such a thing hasn’t been observed. Dr. Hamer didn’t say that Immunohistochemical staining for cytokeratin 20 hasn’t been observed. What he said was that cancer cells have never been observed disconnecting from one part of the body, floating in the arterial blood stream to another part of the body, landing, and starting a new tumour. This article certainly doesn’t show that happening either.

    His work cannot be simplistically tossed out. There is a university post-doctoral thesis that supports all of his claims, and the legal onus is on that university to disprove his theories. The university refuses to publicly do so, because it cannot.

    Lastly, cancer business is just about the biggest industry out there. That is the real threat of GNM. When you have a loved one who recovers fully from pancreatic cancer after a $175 consultation and several months of follow up phone calls, personal visits to your bedside, and being treated like a human being with real value instead of a terminal cancer patient, you start wishing that people wouldn’t do this kind of blogging and attacking just for their own personal traffic ratings. The most expensive part of our GNM treatment has been the CT scans, and that money goes to the radiology clinics, not the GNM therapists.

    It is very sad that thousands of people die of cancer every day needlessly. Especially when there are answers and good people trying to get those answers out there… your attacks fall on deaf ears because the rising tide of GNM practitioners can poke holes in the logic quite readily… but it still hurts that you would deliberately prevent people from getting real help if you could.

    sad.

  34. JAdri October 14, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    Dr. Sylar, wow! Simple and clear. Nothing to add for the time being.

    “Dr. Hamer didn’t say that Immunohistochemical staining for cytokeratin 20 hasn’t been observed. What he said was that cancer cells have never been observed disconnecting from one part of the body, floating in the arterial blood stream to another part of the body, landing, and starting a new tumour.”

    Lishui, that’s the point. Those who argue with Dr. Hamer should first ascertain what he exactly said, and stop raging against what they believe he said. Until then it makes no sense to write blog posts like this. The writer only ruins her own trustworthiness (and does not recognize all I want to do is to prevent her from this).

    It is also funny when I asked looking into the medical diagnosis and reports would be an evidence enough, all I got was some emotional sortie instead of “You DO have those? Is there a way to have a look?” Of course those kind of documents are very much confidential and personal so that one will not scan them and upload to Picasa, if that’s what these folks are looking for.

  35. beatis October 14, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    @ Lishui

    The photos do not show cancer cells.

    Are you a pathologist?

    @ JAdri

    Let’s see what Hamer writes.

    ABOUT SURGERY
    “Surgery on a tumor is recommended, if vital nerves, arteries or pathways of supply or elimination are affected, for example an obstruction of the bowels, the bile ducts, or the trachea. This occurs in 15-20% of these cancers, and these are also the only cases where a tumor may lead to complications.

    This means that Hamer will let at least 80% of tumours stay where they are, thus giving them ample opportunity to grow and metastasize and eventually become incurable. Once they are blocking organs or start bothering the patient, in most cases the cancer has become too advanced to be cured.

    Encapsulated tumors, which could not be decomposed because of the absence of the necessary microbes at the time, might be removed surgically, if they cause discomfort to the patient.

    There is no such thing as an “encapsulated” cancer tumour. All cancerous tumours have the capacity to spread, albeit some faster than others. I wonder though how Hamer assessess whether a cancer is “encapsulated”, since he does not perform biopsies.

    However, the surgeon should only remove as much tissue as is needed. Since cancers do not “metastasize”, cutting deeply into healthy tissue is unnecessary.”

    This is exactly what surgeons standardly do: only remove as much tissue as is needed. To prevent metastasizing however, the tissue margins need to be clear of cancer cells; that is why any tissue removed during cancer surgery should always be examined by a pathologist.

    And yes, Hamer does allow medication, but he makes so many caveats that effectively his patients are barred from receiving any medication that will improve their condition, relieve their suffering or slow the growth of their cancer.

    Given Hamer’s opinion on what constitutes the “healing phase of cancer” and the effects of medication on this “phase”, as well as his ideas on pain medication in general and morphine and other analgesic medication in particular, his patients are bound to suffer extreme discomfort and ultimately excruciating pain.

    As for metastasis, Hamer states:

    However, there has never been an observation of live cancer cells in the blood or lymph fluid of a cancer patient. Only antibodies have been identified, and these do not prove the presence of viable, “metastatic” cancer cells

    This is simply not true, live cancer cells in the blood or lymph fluids are being observed on a daily basis.

    And your reply to Lishui:

    What he said was that cancer cells have never been observed disconnecting from one part of the body, floating in the arterial blood stream to another part of the body, landing, and starting a new tumour.”

    Lishui, that’s the point.

    Well, no, that’s not the point.

    Hamer wrongly assumes that the only way to know that metastasis actually exists is to follow each an every individual cancer cell in detail in its entire journey from its original tumour to the organ where it eventually settles. This assumption is so out of touch with reality, it’s not even wrong.

  36. Dr. Sylar October 14, 2010 at 5:37 pm

    Thank you for your response, beatis, although you addressed them to JAdri.

    “Hamer claims he can cure cancer without any form of standard treatment…” (beatis on another post)

    “Surgery on a tumor is recommended, if vital nerves, arteries or pathways of supply or elimination are affected, for example an obstruction of the bowels, the bile ducts, or the trachea. This occurs in 15-20% of these cancers, and these are also the only cases where a tumor may lead to complications.” (Dr. Hamer)

    15-20% is not equal to without any. Without any is 0%.

    I am very much disappointed, because instead of simply admitting: “OK, I admit I did not remember, hereby I correct what I have said previously…” you keep diverting the attention away from you providing misleading info.

    You can tell us tales about your beliefs on GNM, but it will not change the fact that you provided misleading info and did not even try to revise it.

    You asked Lishui if he / she is a pathologist.

    Please, provide proof on “jli” being a pathologist. All you refer to is a site without any name nor contact, not even mentioning where this gentleman got his education nor what are his references. There is a photo that can be anyone, there are a few articles, but not a name, not a bio. Until you can proove your fellow is a pathologist (and it is not only you claiming so), I have not any reason to accept these photos as evidence on what you say.

    I apologize for being cautiosness, but in the anonym world of internet anyone can say whatever he / she wants to say, and even you are not an exception. I just want to make sure whether I can trust those I am talking with or not.

  37. Ikaruga AKA That Guy October 14, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    Hey Dr. Sylar, I do have a question.

    Why does GNM blame the patient for his/her illness?

  38. beatis October 14, 2010 at 6:22 pm

    @ Dr. Sylar

    Quoting you:

    “Hamer claims he can cure cancer without any form of standard treatment…” (beatis on another post)

    “Surgery on a tumor is recommended, if vital nerves, arteries or pathways of supply or elimination are affected, for example an obstruction of the bowels, the bile ducts, or the trachea. This occurs in 15-20% of these cancers, and these are also the only cases where a tumor may lead to complications.” (Dr. Hamer)

    and

    15-20% is not equal to without any. Without any is 0%.

    This may be a matter of interpretation.

    Firstly, curing cancer without any form of standard treatment is not the same as curing all cancers without any form of standard treatment.

    Secondly, I don’t get the impression that Hamer thinks it’s necessary to remove a cancerous tumour completely. It seems he only wants to perfom surgery “on the tumour” to stop it from blocking organs, vital nerves etc., and isn’t bothered at all with clear tissue margins and things like that.

    The aim of standard treatment is to surgically remove the tumour as early as possible, with tissue margins being clear of any loose cancer cells that have started drifting already, in order to stop metastasis.

    If possible, in standard medicine, patients are of course also operated when their vital organs are being blocked by a tumour. But it definitely is not standard procedure to operate only when organs have already been blocked by the cancer.

  39. beatis October 14, 2010 at 6:26 pm

    Hey Dr. Sylar, I do have a question.

    Why does GNM blame the patient for his/her illness?

    And why does GNM also blame them if the treatment isn’t successful?

  40. beatis October 14, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    @ Dr. Sylar

    I know I seem to be annoying sometimes, but I still did not get a clear and honest explanation on the topic I brought up.

    You did get a clear and honest explanation. That it isn’t what you want to hear is another matter.

  41. Dr. Sylar October 14, 2010 at 6:41 pm

    Hello Ikaragua! This is a valid question and although I decided not to answer any questions before mines get answered, I take an exception here.

    GNM does not blame anyone, especially not the patient. GNM helps to understand the patient is responsible, but not to blame.

    Why the patient is responsible for the illness? Because the type of illness forms from the emotional content of the conflict and it depends on the personality of the patient. The same situation can rise several types of emotions in people. Being fired from a job can feel like “This is really a grime!” – colon, or “I am not good enough…” – bones, or “I hate that stupid boss!” – liver duct. Still, not all emotional conflicts end up in illness, only those where the 5 criterias JAdri mentioned are valid at the same time.

    Since the patient is the only one who can feel somehow about a situation and noone can feel or not feel for him / her and noone can change the type of feeling he / she has, he / she is the only one who has powers about his / her feelings, he / she is responsible. Still you can blame the boss who fired him / her, if you like, but it does not help the patient turn back the illness process.

    In the end of the day, it shows how important it is to solve our emotional conflicts ASAP. If this is the only one thing you consider from GNM, you did more for your health than the rest of the people. And that is for free.

  42. Dr. Sylar October 14, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    Dear beatis, I still did not get any proof on “jli” being a pathologist, so may you please, excuse me if I refuse to answer your thoughts until we clarify this question. It is a very important point in order to clarify the trustworthiness of your post, although you try to ignore it.

  43. JennyJo October 14, 2010 at 6:48 pm

    Why yes, God forbid illness should strike at random, without any regard for our personalities, our diets or our attitudes!

  44. wilmamazone October 14, 2010 at 6:52 pm

    You did get a clear and honest explanation. That it isn’t what you want to hear is another matter.

    Indeed!

  45. beatis October 14, 2010 at 6:58 pm

    I don’t “try to ignore” anything.

    You can show jli’s writings on this blog to a legitimate cancer pathologist of your acquaintance and ask whether they are correct.

  46. wilmamazone October 14, 2010 at 7:05 pm

    Did we already get any proof that there is a Dr. Sylar at all?!

  47. beatis October 14, 2010 at 7:24 pm

    Nope, none whatsoever.

  48. jli October 14, 2010 at 7:33 pm

    @ Lishui

    The photos do not show cancer cells.

    Yes they do. And the first photo even shows them in a vein (ie. in the blood stream). If you don´t believe that those cells are cancer cells – what do you think they are then?

    Cancer cells are normal tissue, growing much faster or larger than normal.

    Then it should be easy to just show that cancer cells under the microscope look exactly like normal cells. And if cancer cells don’t look like normal cells we just have to dismiss that part of Hamers theory don’t we?

    Dr. Hamer didn’t say that Immunohistochemical staining for cytokeratin 20 hasn’t been observed….

    As it says in the post he claims that immunohistochemistry doesn´t show metastatic cancer cells. As explained in the post Cytokeratin 20 is present in the cells lining the large bowel, and the cancers that arise in them. And also in metastases from these cancers. Since cytokeratin 20 is not present in cells from the normal liver, I think it is illustrative to show cytokeratin 20 in cells in a liver from a patient who turns out to have a cancer of the large bowel.

    The cells of the entire body produce the same proteins because they are all made from the same DNA and RNA – the protein-producing components of any cell.

    That a gene is present doesn´t mean that it is expressed. Think about the consequences if all cells produced the same proteins. Then take a look at your self, and at least consider the possibility that the cells you are made of are different, and contain different types of proteins according to the jobs they have in your life.

    However, if you could show a cancerous liver cell floating in the bloodstream (not cancerous blood cells) …

    How would that convince you more than cancerous large bowel cells floating in the bloodstream??? And since you don’t accept that the cells shown are cancer cells, how could you accept that something you were told were cancerous liver cells actually were cancerous liver cells?

    @ Dr. Sylar

    Please, provide proof on “jli” being a pathologist…..I have not any reason to accept these photos as evidence on what you say.

    You may believe whatever you want. If the microscopy photos above weren’t taken by me, then where do they come from?? You are free to search for them on the internet if that is where you think they were found. And if you accept that they came from me, then you must accept that I have access to:
    1) The microscopy slides that were photographed.
    2) A microscope with a camera attached.

    And as to the question of whether the photos show what is explained: I am for questioning what is told by authorities (including Hamer). Therefore I challenge you to check out pathology resources on the internet to see if what is presented here is consistent with what you can find elsewhere. If you choose not to do that, but simply choose to accept Hamers idea, and reject the possibility that the above photos show what is explained, you are not being very open minded – in my opinion.

  49. Dr. Sylar October 14, 2010 at 9:07 pm

    Hi beatis! Thank you for answering my question, in return, I answer yours.

    “And why does GNM also blame them if the treatment isn’t successful?” (beatis)

    Also? As I already clarified above, noone blames the patients for being ill. By the way, GNM cannot blame anyone since GNM is a discovery and only humans can blame others.

    Who to be responsible for unsuccesful healing always depends on the specific case. If the patient is told to consult a physican about treatment in the epileptoid crisis and he / she does not, then of course he /she is the responsible one. If the consultant advises not to consult a physican, then of course he / she is responsible for improper briefing. It always depends, beatis, you cannot generalize.

    Even JAdri highlighted he / she is suspecting the therapist to make fatal mistakes when treating Marion’s father, so he / she did not blame the patient (assuming that all Marion said about what the therapist said was true). That it is not what you want to hear is another matter.

  50. anaximperator October 14, 2010 at 9:21 pm

    By the way, GNM cannot blame anyone since GNM is a discovery and only humans can blame others.

    My, you do have a way with words!😆

    And actually, it was JAdri who said that when the GNM didn’t work, the patient probably did not follow the protocol well enough.

    Mainstream doctors don’t add insult to injury and hold people “responsible” for their cancer, nor do they hold them responsible when the treatment fails.

  51. Dr. Sylar October 14, 2010 at 10:13 pm

    You are very much a pleasant “disappointment” for me, jli.

    “If the microscopy photos above weren’t taken by me, then where do they come from?” (jli)

    It does not make sense for me who made those photos, I do not even care if you downloaded them from the internet. All I want is to verify what you are explaining about them is true or not. I do not trust the internet so I will go for beatis’ idea of consulting pathologists (including GNM experts) IRL.

    BTW, I never refused the possibility of what you say could be right.

    Yet, it does not contradict with Dr. Hamer’s claims, that the metastasis* on the organs follows the very pattern of the DHS conflicts.

    * so called metastasis, whatever it is (may be also what you claim it is)

    Beatis was the one who told JAdri if it makes any sense to catch each other on words. I experienced in the last 2 years that regardless metastasis exists the way that you described it, I always found the conflict pattern. JAdri claims the same. Still, what I see, this argument is going on about wording. And what’s the point?

    It is not a question of which one of us is right, but accepting that all of us says the truth, how can it be that we are all right at the same time? :o)

  52. Dr. Sylar October 14, 2010 at 10:25 pm

    “And actually, it was JAdri who said that when the GNM didn’t work, the patient probably did not follow the protocol well enough.”

    When you come up with a comment like that, ignoring JAdri also said the therapist could have made a mistake, I might think that most probably you did not learn to read properly in elementary school… :o)

    “Mainstream doctors don’t add insult to injury and hold people “responsible” for their cancer, nor do they hold them responsible when the treatment fails.”

    When a surgery is performed, I have to sign a declaration that I take all responsibility for the operation. Let’s assume the surgery fails to save my life. I have a written declaration that all responibility is put on me.

    Bad example. Think about another one.

  53. beatis October 14, 2010 at 10:56 pm

    @ Dr. Sylar

    When a surgery is performed, I have to sign a declaration that I take all responsibility for the operation. Let’s assume the surgery fails to save my life. I have a written declaration that all responibility is put on me.

    Oh that is complete nonsense!

    In certain situations, i.e. medical trials, patients may be asked to sign an “informed consent” form. The purpose is to inform patients of everything that the treatment involves and all possible risks that it entails, so that they can make a balanced decision on whether to proceed with the treatment or not.

  54. Dr. Sylar October 14, 2010 at 11:42 pm

    “The purpose is to inform patients of everything that the treatment involves and all possible risks that it entails, so that they can make a balanced decision on whether to proceed with the treatment or not.”

    Which in practice means it is always the decision maker who takes the responsibility for the consequences of his / her decision. So in the end of the day, the fact is that responsibility is passed on to the patient, it is just the wording so nice that he / she does not recognize what it is really about.

  55. beatis October 15, 2010 at 8:34 am

    Before there was such a thing as “informed consent”, doctors and scientists could carry out experiments and perform operations on patients without having to tell them a thing about what they were doing. Because people had no idea what was happening, they couldn’t refuse either. Only much later they or their relatives found out what had been done to them.

    President Obama just recently apologized for an experiment conducted in the 1940s in which prisoners in Guatemala were deliberately infected with a sexually transmitted disease without their knowledge.

    I have undergone various invasive treatments. I was told in depth what they entailed, but never had to sign anything. The only time I was asked to sign an informed consent form was when I took part in a medical trial, and this was the same for my fellow patients.

  56. beatis October 15, 2010 at 8:40 am

    @ JAdri, Lishui, Dr. Sylar:

    You have had ample opportunity to express your views on the GNM and your criticisms of the articles on this blog concerning Hamer and his GNM and your questions have been answered extensively.

    However, you have not presented even the slightest evidence that Hamer is right about either the cause of cancer or on how to cure it.

    Hamer claims his “Germanic New Medicine” can cure over 98% of cancer patients. If this is so, then one might expect cancer patients treated with conventional therapy and GNM to do better than cancer patients treated with conventional therapy alone. A good prospective cohort study is the least he could have done, being the great scientist he claims he is.

    What he also could have done is a case-control study, in which over a sufficiently long period of time a substantial group of cancer patients and an equally substantial group of people without cancer are compared for the occurrence of the so-called DHS. If a “DHS” occurs in both groups in equal measure, we know a “DHS” as the cause for cancer can be ruled out. If it should turn out that a DHS prevails in the group of cancer patients, then Hamer could do further research.

    But he has done nothing of the sort and neither have his proponents.

    As you can read in the comments section, this blog is not a soapbox for advertising dubious health products that oppose the purpose of this blog.

    Therefore, unless either of you present some decent evidence for Hamer’s claims, from now on your comments will be held in moderation before posting.

  57. Dr. Sylar October 15, 2010 at 10:08 am

    “Before there was such a thing as “informed consent”, doctors and scientists could carry out experiments and perform operations on patients without having to tell them a thing about what they were doing.” (beatis)

    You are right about that, as one side of the coin. On the other side, it also means the patient takes the responsibility.

    “President Obama just recently apologized for an experiment conducted in the 1940s in which prisoners in Guatemala were deliberately infected with a sexually transmitted disease without their knowledge.” (beatis)

    By what what exactly you want to say? One one side they did not know what happens to them, right. On the other side, do you think an apology is equal to taking the responsibility?

    “The only time I was asked to sign an informed consent form was when I took part in a medical trial, and this was the same for my fellow patients.” (beatis)

    You and your fellows are lucky then.

    A lady here had a 2 cm stomach cancer. She signed the so called “informed consent” – after the surgery she had no stomach anymore. She would have never agreed to remove the whole stomach if she was informed it may be part of the surgery. Guess what happened when she went for justice? Nothing.

    The statements of “~what the doctor considers necessary as a treatment” does not exactly describe what it exactly means. Therefore “the doctor considered it necessary” is always the “good excuse”. It all depends if the doctor informs you properly – if not, the form is still protecting him / her.

    “However, you have not presented even the slightest evidence that Hamer is right about either the cause of cancer or his theories on how best to cure it.” (beatis)

    JADRI RAISED A FRIEND OF HIS / HER HEALED FROM COLON AND LIVER CANCER WITHOUT ANY SURGERY NOR CHEMO NOR RADIATION AND HE / SHE ASKED WHAT DOCUMENTS YOU ACCEPT AS A PROOF / EVIDENCE. YOU AND YOUR FELLOWS DID NOT EVEN SHOW THE SLIGHTEST INTEREST TO FIND A WAY TO LOOK INTO THOSE DOCUMENTS. And that’s very strange… What did you expect? That he / she will upload confidential and personal documents scanned on Picasa, or?

    “…what he also could have done is a case-control study, in which over a sufficiently long period of time a substantial group of cancer patients and an equally substantial group of people without cancer are compared for the occurrence of the so-called DHS. If a “DHS” occurs in both groups in equal measure, we know a “DHS” as a cause for cancer can be ruled out.” (beatis)

    Oh Dear, again it turns out that you are not familiar with even the slightest basics of GNM. I am very much disappointed, beatis.

    Dr. Hamer says DHS is the cause of cancer and many more diseases.
    – cancer is caused by a DHS (always)
    – other diseases are caused by DHS as well (like a runny nose)

    Which means, you can find the DHS in every cancer cases. You will also find it for example in the case of a runny nose. Of course, not everyone with DHS will have cancer, because in case the conflict does not take a long time and is not so much intensive, you will experience different symptoms. Not a larynx cancer, just a larynx inflammation.

    Hamer provided several case studies on cancer cases where he found the DHS 100%, because cancer is always a result of a DHS.

    He will not provide the case study you are desperately looking for (that cancer is the only disease DHS causes), because DHS not only causes cancer, but many other diseases.

    All cancer disease is originated from a DHS, but DHS causes not only cancer but many other diseases (depending on the intensity and durability of the DHS being active). Just like every beetle is an insect, but not all insects are beetles. If you solve your DHS ASAP, you are the lucky one who can prevent the syptoms to develop into cancer. I hope I have helped you understand GNM basics.

    “If it should turn out that a DHS prevails in the group of cancer patients, then further research would be warranted.” (beatis)

    Beatis, it turned out many times that in each and every cancer case the DHS prevailed. That is what the University of Trnava and many other proove. And yes, their advise was that further research to be done.

    It seems like we are starting to get on the same page…? Beatis, you really cannot imagine how much you help when you finally define what exactly you mean by an evidence. Then it turns out that you still misunderstand GNM, but these are not big things, we can clarify (like the beetle-insect thing in GNM) quite quickly. But for that, you really need to express what your basic concerns are.

  58. Ikaruga October 15, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    I doubt conflict does give such an illness, such individuals capable of making their body sick by just being negative about themselves should be extraordinary and not very widespread, mostly because that would be energy work and that is something you train to achieve in the majority of cases. Also, not necessarily would be the specified organs related to a “duct”, it would vary from patient to patient, as the energy bodies are different in each person, indeed each patient would generate a new cancer in a new place for the same reasons another patient would generate a completely distinct aliment from the same stimuli. Therefore, I have decided to cal bull****

    That’s a lot of metaphysics involved in here, I think my magic kung fu guy -as presented earlier- is better than this.

  59. beatis October 15, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    I think my magic kung fu guy -as presented earlier- is better than this.

    That might very well be so!:mrgreen:

  60. jli October 15, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    All I want is to verify what you are explaining about them is true or not. I do not trust the internet so I will go for beatis’ idea of consulting pathologists

    Okay – that’s fair.

    Yet, it does not contradict with Dr. Hamer’s claims, that the metastasis* on the organs follows the very pattern of the DHS conflicts.

    As explained in the post, reality conflicts with Hamers claims that:
    1) Cancer cells are just normal cells
    2) Cancer cells do not enter the blood stream
    3) Immunohistochemistry does not identify metastasising cancer cells.

    Also the fact that a pathologist without knowledge of any “DHS-conflict” by examining a liver biopsy can report that there is cancer elsewhere in the body and often where that cancer is, should indicate that things are a bit more complicated than what Hamers idea says.

  61. beatis October 15, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    Sorry jli, but Dr. Sylar explicitly told you not to come up with liver cells showing up in the breast – or vice versa.

  62. jli October 15, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    Yes – but that was in the other thread😀
    And as polite as I am, I followed his request, and only adressed cancer cells detectable in the bloodstream.

  63. Dr. Sylar October 15, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    Beatis, I also clearly addressed my question to Jli (not to you) in that thread.😀 Anyway I am happy to see you folks joke and smile. The shortest way between two (or more) people is a smile.🙂

    Jli, I agree that it is more complicated, and I am pretty much sure a blog is not the right forum to do deeply in such discussions. Still, I have a few things to clarify, questions from my side, maybe some concerns.

    May I again suggest to have this discussion further in private? I do not want to bother beatis with her 3-letter-boogey publicly in her blog…🙂

  64. beatis October 15, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    Oh dear, I had no idea that it’s you who decides to which comments I, being the blog owner, am allowed to reply.

  65. beatis October 15, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    May I again suggest you deliver some evidence for your claims? If you can’t, then please feel free to go trolling somewhere else.

  66. beatis October 15, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    Yes – but that was in the other thread😀

    Ah yes of course, so silly of me!

  67. Dr. Sylar October 15, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    Being thoroughbred does nothing to do whether you are a blog owner or not. Of course you are allowed, anyway, this is your sandbox, dear. You are also allowed to moderate this comment out and I am anyway, sure you will do so.

  68. Dr. Sylar October 15, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    JAdri offered to deliver evidence and asked what kind of docs you need as an evidence.

  69. beatis October 15, 2010 at 6:01 pm

    No, JAdri offered information on a single case, which I could “look up in the system”.
    ??

    A single case or a few cases don’t make evidence, because one cannot make valid generalizations for large numbers of patients on the basis of only one case or a very limited number of cases.

  70. Dr. Sylar October 15, 2010 at 6:30 pm

    Beatis, I apologize if I was rude or insulting with you, but I felt very much uspet for the way you treated JAdri. I am pretty much sure I owe you this. The rest I will write you via e-mail not to overload your blog with comments.

  71. beatis October 15, 2010 at 6:39 pm

    @ Dr. Sylar

    Interesting as the documentation on this colon/liver cancer cure might be, at the very best it would warrant decent research, on lots and lots more patients than just one. As I said before, one single case can never be used to make valid generalizations for large groups of patients.

    I am sure you understand this.

    Therefore, our viewing the documentation of this case is pointless.

    What Hamer should have done long ago is put his theories to the test; to put them to rigorous and repeated tests and have others as well put them to the test and then see if they hold up.

    But he has never done this, he has never presented any evidence and yet he claims his treatment yields far better results than conventional treatments.If this were really true, he would be able to show it to the world, his studies would have been peer reviewed and his findings would have been confirmed and therefore his theories proven to be correct. (Part marked with emphasis added Sat 2:13 PM)

    That this is not the case should be food for thought to himself and his followers.

  72. beatis October 15, 2010 at 7:30 pm

    @ Dr. Sylar

    Please stick to the subject from now on.

  73. jli October 16, 2010 at 8:09 am

    Jli, I agree that it is more complicated, and I am pretty much sure a blog is not the right forum to do deeply in such discussions.

    If that means that you now agree that GNM does not satisfactorily explain the appearance and behaviour of cancer, then I think you have actually learned something. And maybe others who read it will have learned something too.

    Still, I have a few things to clarify, questions from my side, maybe some concerns.

    If you ask questions with an attitude of wanting to learn/understand instead of wanting to argue/rant, you are most welcome, and no one will scorn you.

    May I again suggest to have this discussion further in private? I do not want to bother beatis with her 3-letter-boogey publicly in her blog

    I prefer to stay anonymous, and respect your rights to stay anonymous too. And again the things you might learn from me could be relevant to others.

  74. beatis October 16, 2010 at 8:21 am

    3-letter-boogey

    Huh? What is a “3-letter-boogey??”

    BTW, I agree with jli: having the discussion on this blog has the advantage that other people can read it and be informed as well.

  75. jli October 16, 2010 at 9:13 am

    Huh? What is a “3-letter-boogey??”

    I haven’t got the slightest idea, but in the context it doesn´t sound like a nice thing.

  76. Dr. Sylar October 16, 2010 at 9:54 am

    Beatis, Jli, I used the phrase “3-letter-boogey” to replace GNM when she put me on moderation. She said she does not want to hear anymore about GNM – so I thought I find a replacement. Actually I called it her boogey because I thought it was a funny phrase. I didn’t mean to cause any harm with that, but I tried to solve the tension that we had between us, by the time.

  77. beatis October 16, 2010 at 10:00 am

    @ Dr. Sylar

    Ehm, I believe I did not say I don’t want to hear anymore about GNM. I said I expect you to back up any claims with decent evidence, as this blog is not meant to be a soapbox for the promotion of dubious health therapies.

  78. Dr. Sylar October 16, 2010 at 10:23 am

    “If that means that you now agree that GNM does not satisfactorily explain the appearance and behaviour of cancer…”

    In fact I always agreed. I never questioned that cancer cells can float in the vein. Moreover, in the GNM community in my country, we have a huge forum for questions to be clarified about GNM and conventional medicine!

    I just simply did not mention this fact for the first time, because you attacked on GNM with such a hostility that I did not want to put the horse under you. In fact the truth is between what you and a GNM fataric would say and I already wrote it to Beatis in e-mail yesterday.

    GNM can be separated to 2 parts:
    – A describing part, the 5 Biological Natural Laws (quite simple part).
    – A treatment part, which also include the view on the metastasis.

    Beatis can confirm that I wrote her, the describing part (including DHS) was confirmed. Exactly the way Beatis asked: test one person, then test more, if still true, furthe rresearch. This was exactly what the University of Trnava confirmed and many more. They tested it on 5-20 patients and found 100% correlation. The 5 Biological Natural Laws, DHS, 2 phases, germ layers, and so on.

    Well, the treatment part is another thing, but we do not apply it. Of course, we take into consideration many of Dr. Hamer’s advise, but those are the ones which would not do any harm anyway. Like drinking coffeine in case of a headache – it was something I experienced working a long ago before I got acknowledged about GNM. And since GNM is not only describing cancer, but a simple flue as well, I enjoy many of the advantages like I can exactly predict what symptoms, when, how intensive, and for how long time. I can exactly predict (after solving a DHS) if my flu will take 3 days, 2 weeks, 1 month… and if 1 month, I can prepare for medication 2 weeks in advance of any signs of the 39-40 Celsius fever would come. And that’s the WOW part.

    About metastasis: I am very happy to be here, Jli and learn about how metastasis is working, I was always curious about such discoveries, my favourite series was The Human Body when I was at the age of 5-10.

    I always admitted that floating cancer cells can be in the bloodstream, but from my point of view, it made no sense. (Huh, I explain it, because I do not want to seem like anyone who ignores metastasis.) Because, anytime a cancer case is GNM consulted, it turns out that they have a DHS for each and every metastased cancer.

    So how the cancer cells in the bloodstreem decide which organ to choose next? What is the pattern they follow? Why don’t they metastase on an organ close to them, why do they float to a distant one?

    What I personally say about metastasis when I talk about GNM, I always say: “Regardless how a metastasis is formed in the body, my case studies and many more show that they follow the pattern driven by the DHS.”

    I don’t know what Dr. Hamer added to GNM in the recent 30 years, but what we accept as GNM and apply here is the original one, the 5 BNLs that are confirmed.

    What I also told Beatis in my e-mail is that GNM “followers” come here ranting, because the entire GNM is called crap, although the describing part was confirmed many times.

    So the truth in fact is, the basics of GNM is confirmed.

    The rest… we can argue on the rest and even GNM consultants do so, because they want to clarify the question marks as well, just like you.

    In my country, many standard physicans study GNM and what we do, we sit together on a regular base to exchange our experiences. We learn from each other. They also learn a lot of things from us. And that’s how it goes.

    Jli, thank you for the opportunity. I clarified a few things with Beatis via e-mail and so far I am OK with it. I am sure will remain your reader and will constructively be part of your discussions.

    All that made me upset was that you called something entirely crap (generalizing) instead of looking into it and saying, well, many things in GNM are confirmed, and yep, there are also ones which are not.

    * * *

    OFF: I am curious about the placebo effect, you refer to it in many of your articles. But do you have anything about it as a complete post? What is it exactly, how it works,… etc. I do not want to ask questions about it here.

  79. Dr. Sylar October 16, 2010 at 10:28 am

    “I said I expect you to back up any claims with decent evidence, as this blog is not meant to be a soapbox for the promotion of dubious health therapies.”

    Yep. I think by the time we already clarified, that I was always talking about the describing part already confirmed. It is important to separate that in GNM, because most of the GNM consultants do not make any therapies at all, they just help the patient understand how their illlness will proceed and they (I myself) leave the therapy part to those who are experts in handling symptoms.

    IMHO, the whole argument was going on because we simply misunderstood each other. Also it took me a while that you mean GNM = GNM therapy and I mean GNM = describing part. That’s why I had the impression you are not open to any opinion different from yours.

  80. Dr. Sylar October 16, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    Jli, may I answer your thoughts under “About me” here about GNM and metastasis.

    “What we need to know is what to look for to determine if circulating cancer cells will die without causing any problems, or will settle down somewhere along the blood stream forming a metastasis.”

    Jli, that’s what I am talking about as well. That’s what my question was about, that a liver cell appearing on the lung for example, just floated there, attached (and this is what I claim is not yet prooved) or just grow because of any other reason. Even GNM consultants do claim that cancer cells may float in the bloodstream in the PCL phase when the cancer decomposes (actually heals). This is what my trainer, Flora told me almost 2 years ago.

    (Actually she said after a student raised that his physican friends told him there are cancer cells in the bloodstream: “I do not know why Dr. Hamer claimed there are not, he must have had the reason for that. However, if you think logically, a lung cancer is being decomposed in the healing phase, fungi decomposes it. Well, what happens to the decomposed cancer cells? They must be transferred away from there to be deplenished from the body. Bloodstream and lymps look to me the most logical transportation way. Yet, this is *my* opinion only and you may think whatever you want.” – and Flora is originally an economic scientist. GNM trainees love her a much and also physicans because she does really a lot to make peace between GNM and conventional medicine in our country.)

    Are we on the same page? Or at least approaching…?

  81. beatis October 16, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    OFF: I am curious about the placebo effect, you refer to it in many of your articles. But do you have anything about it as a complete post? What is it exactly, how it works,… etc. I do not want to ask questions about it here.

    Here’s information about the placebo effect:
    http://www.skepdic.com/placebo.html
    and here as well, very interesting article imo:
    http://www.merseysideskeptics.org.uk/2010/04/the-power-of-the-placebo-a-skeptical-view/#more-593

    A very thorough and fascinating book about the placebo effect is Meaning, Medicine and the ‘Placebo Effect’ by Daniel Moerman.

  82. Bram Hengeveld October 16, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    Dear dr. Sylar,

    I’m very interested in GNM! Thank you for responding on this downright overskeptical blog! I have one question though:

    Beatis can confirm that I wrote her, the describing part (including DHS) was confirmed. Exactly the way Beatis asked: test one person, then test more, if still true, furthe rresearch. This was exactly what the University of Trnava confirmed and many more. They tested it on 5-20 patients and found 100% correlation. The 5 Biological Natural Laws, DHS, 2 phases, germ layers, and so on.

    You got some references? So I can begin with the question whether there were 5 or 20 patients. And, could you write to me to, using this blog, so more people can benefit from it?

  83. Dr. Sylar October 16, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    Dear Bram Hengeveld,

    Thank you for your inquiry. The document I am referring to is the verification of the University of Trnava. BTW, I have looked it up for you: it was 7 patients and 20 diseases.

    This document can be found @
    http://learninggnm.com/documents/trnavadoc.html

    This is the page that this blog also refers in the beginning of the post.

    To be precise regarding the arguments of this document, Beatis came up with the idea of it being a fake document under this post, I am waiting for any kind of evidence on that claim, here:

    https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/ph-balance-and-cancer/#comment-3031

    When talking about GNM, I believe it is very important to separate the GNM basics (5 Biological Natural Laws) from the rest appendix (like what kind of treatment to be used in the PCL phase). The Trnava doc is about the 5 BNLs only.

  84. jli October 16, 2010 at 4:43 pm

    In fact I always agreed. I never questioned that cancer cells can float in the vein. Moreover, in the GNM community in my country, we have a huge forum for questions to be clarified about GNM and conventional medicine!

    The post and what has been explained is based on what is explained at Caroline Markolin’s site, which is often presented as an authoritative site on GNM. Allow me to bring a few direct copy-pasted quotes:

    secondary cancers cannot be the result of cancer cells spreading by way of the blood or lymph system to other organs, because under no circumstances are cancer cells able to bypass this well-established biological system.

    …. there has never been an observation of live cancer cells in the blood or lymph fluid of a cancer patient.

    I am glad that you express unequivocally disagreement with her on that point.

    I just simply did not mention this fact for the first time, because you attacked on GNM with such hostility…

    You shouldn’t confuse analysis with hostility. When I am confronted with an idea I ask myself if the claims made can be confirmed or discarded. I already showed you were the information that GNM rejects the possibility that cancer cells can enter the bloodstream came from. Another testable claim I stumbled upon on the Markolin site is about the formation of lung cancer:

    The moment the death-fright impacts in the brain, the lung alveoli cells, in charge of processing oxygen, immediately start to multiply, because in biological terms the death-panic is equated with not being able to breathe. The biological purpose of the cell proliferation – the lung cancer – is to increase the capacity of the lungs so that the individual is in a better position to cope with the death-fright.

    As a pathologist I have examined a lot of lung cancers. Because of actual working experience I know for a fact that lung cancers do not increase the capacity of the lungs (on the contrary). And except for at very rare type (alveolar cell carcinoma) they are not made of alveolar cells. When statements such as those are inconsistent with reality I really feel I should speak up, and that is what I have done.

    About metastasis: I am very happy to be here, Jli and learn about how metastasis is working

    I am happy if my comments have clarified a thing or two for you.

    Because, anytime a cancer case is GNM consulted, it turns out that they have a DHS for each and every metastased cancer.

    My guess is that a psychological phenomenon known as confirmation bias is at play here.

    So how the cancer cells in the bloodstreem decide which organ to choose next? What is the pattern they follow? Why don’t they metastase on an organ close to them

    They just follow the blood stream. And they do metastasise to nearby organs. But I understand that the term “distant” metastasis can be a bit confusing.

    Jli, may I answer your thoughts under “About me” here about GNM and metastasis.

    Yes – This would be the correct place to do that.

    That’s what my question was about, that a liver cell appearing on the lung.

    You won’t find normal liver cells in/on the lung. But some patients with a type of liver cancer known as hepatocellular carcinoma will have metastatic lesions made of cancerous liver cells.

    Are we on the same page? Or at least approaching…?

    I have seen you distancing yourself from what is explained at the Markolin site, and you have stated that:

    Well, the treatment part is another thing, but we do not apply it.

    which I interpret as you agree that solving inner conflicts is not suitable as a replacement for surgery/radiotherapy/chemotherapy as treatment of cancer.

  85. wilmamazone October 16, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    Dear mister Hengeveld,

    There were seven/7 patients:
    http://germannewmedicine.ca/documents/Trnava%20English.pdf
    quote:

    On 8 and 9 September 1998, seven patients were seen at the Saint Elisabeth Institute of Oncology at Bratislava and the Oncology Unit of the Hospital at Trnava, respectively, in the presence of the Deputy Vice Chancellor of the University of Trnava, the Dean of the Faculty of
    Nursing and Social Science, and ten other Professors and Lecturers.

  86. Bram Hengeveld October 16, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    Dear wilmamazone. How did you came up with that information that fast?! Thanks a lot.

    It all makes sense now, especially since ten other Professors and Lecturers were present. That’s quite a statement on the scientific merits of dr Hamer en dr Sylar. Back in 1998 I’ve never seen so much Professors and lecturers being present at a conference on which a paradigm shifting was put through the process of scientific testing.

    Perhaps dr Sylar could tell me/us how dr Hamer’s theories were tested? Because it doesn’t say so in the information you provided.

  87. wilmamazone October 16, 2010 at 5:22 pm

    Back in 1998 I’ve never seen so much Professors and lecturers being present at a conference on which a paradigm shifting was put through the process of scientific testing.

    All of them not capable to write more than a testimonial? Strange!

  88. Dr. Sylar October 16, 2010 at 6:07 pm

    “The post and what has been explained is based on what is explained at Caroline Markolin’s site, which is often presented as an authoritative site on GNM.” (jli)

    Personally I do not know how accurate Caroline Markolin’s GNM site is, I do not even read that site. I try to stick to original documents from Dr. Hamer as much as possible. The problem is that when one meets GNM and finds out it is working, often claims his / her own hipotheses in the name of GNM – which is very dangereous IMHO: it harms GNM and harms patients.

    “I am glad that you express unequivocally disagreement with her on that point.”

    I do. And I confirm I disagree with her claims on that specific point and the GNM consultants I know aslo share my disagreement (at this very point).

    “Because of actual working experience I know for a fact that lung cancers do not increase the capacity of the lungs (on the contrary). And except for at very rare type (alveolar cell carcinoma) they are not made of alveolar cells.” (jli)

    Dr. Hamer claims these SBS (Special Biological Programs) are to ensure survival: like when a mouse suddenly sees the cat and has to flee. Nature does not expect any single living being to be in a life-threatening situation for a long time, like months or years. These DHS situations are solved in a few seconds or minutes in a normal case. The problem is, when a DHS situ occurs for months, years… then the tissue keeps growing and results in an organ condition that is more hindering than advantageous. Like cancer.

    It is not common in the animal world that an animal has a DHS for days, weeks, months. But people can emotionally hang on their conflicts for a long time. A friend of mine broke up with his girlfriend 1 year ago and she is still not over him. So cancer is a result of an uncontrolled DHS, and yes, you are right, when the condition is so severe, it no longer serves survival. Nay!

    “When statements such as those are inconsistent with reality I really feel I should speak up, and that is what I have done.” (jli)

    You are absolutely right. But the claim that cancer is in order to help one’s survival is just a dangereous simplification of Dr. Hamer’s claims, whoever says so. What Dr. Hamer claims is that in case the DHS situ occurs for a short while, the change on the organ tissue truly helps survival. But when the DHS is not solved for a long time, it can cause trouble and death as well, being uncontrolled. So saying every disease has a meaning and it is survival is a (dangereous) simplification only of what Dr. Hamer originally claimed.

    “My guess is that a psychological phenomenon known as confirmation bias is at play here.” (jli)

    It is not that simple that I find the type of conflict and that’s all.

    My mentor Flora had larynx inflammation between the middle of October and the middle of December with a severe epileptoid crisis for 3 days in the middle of November, 2009. Larynx inflammation is the PCL phase of a “scare conflict” talking about a right-hand woman in normal hormonal stage. So she was looking for a DHS that happened in the middle of August.

    Actually she was threated that she will be denounced (not for GNM, but for something completely different, like parking in the wrong place) exactly in the middle of August. She raised the possibility of several other cases where she was scared (when her vacation was deconfirmed,…) but she checked all these cases and found not all the 5 DHS criterias were applicable.

    It is the easiest to doublecheck the 2nd BNL on diseases which are already over. If you have a PCL phase of 2 months, you have to search for the DHS exactly 2 months before the first PCL symptoms arise. And yep, you may be scared many times during your life, but no such event is applicable if it happened 2 days before or 2 years before.

    The more severe symptoms one has the more severe DHS is the cause. In case of cancer we are looking for something really severe. Yet, I need to emphasise that severe means something that the patient feels severe. If a wife cheats on the husband, some people feel like it is a severe conflict for them, some not. A close relative dying is most probably a severe DHS (to be precise, source for DHS… because one has to supress their feelings about the situation, otherwise it will not be a DHS, even if a relative died).

    I do not write it as evidence, I just want to highlight that it is not so simple that we find a special type of DHS in the past… actually, GNM is not so simple at all that it seems to be on sites like Caroline Markolin’s one. But on the other hand, lay people would not understand GNM as it is in reality.

    “You won’t find normal liver cells in/on the lung. But some patients with a type of liver cancer known as hepatocellular carcinoma will have metastatic lesions made of cancerous liver cells.” (jli)

    Where will they have those lesions? In the bloodstream, right? So you say that there is no way to find cancerous liver cells in/on the lung, but cancereous liver cells in/on the liver and cancereous lung cells in/on the lung? I just would like to understand in order to clarify.

    “I have seen you distancing yourself from what is explained at the Markolin site…” (jli)

    Yep, but I was never on the opinion that cancereous cells do not flow in the bloodstream, that is why I was wondering (and JAdri as well), where that information comes from and how in the world can it be associated with GNM.

    “…which I interpret as you agree that solving inner conflicts is not suitable as a replacement for surgery/radiotherapy/chemotherapy as treatment of cancer.”

    Absolutely, but each and every GNM consultant I know (and I know many) claims so, that solving a DHS is just one part of the process! Solving the conflict is not a treatment! It is just the first step one can do, and all it does, it switches the SBS from CA to PCL phase.

    Let’s take lung cancer for example. If one has a fear-from-death conflict, because he is told someone wants to kill him, for example… and he is in that conflict stage for a year, and it is a DHS (the 5 criterias are all applicable for the conflict) according to GNM he will have lung cancer and it will get worse and worse, because his DHS is still active.

    Then, after 1 year of CA phase he solves this conflict. According to GNM, the cancer will stop growing and TBC mycobacteria will “disassemble” the cancer. The patient can expect exactly 1 year of lung inflammation and TBC symptoms, which will be the most intensive after 6 months (so the TBC) symptoms will intensify for 6 months and soften in the second 6 months.

    That happens if one does not apply any treatment. But who in the world would not apply any treatment when he knows he is looking forward to one year of TBC…?? I believe that would be simply suicide. If I was that specific patient, I would definitely take a surgery (but not chemo nor radiation).

    Let’s assume our patient does not solve his DHS. He gets the treatment of surgery, chemo,… whatever. And gets cured. But if the DHS stays active in the meanwhile, his cancer will renew. And renew again and again until he solves his DHS consciously or spontaneously. That’s what GNM says.

    And that’s why it says solving the DHS is the first important step in the healing process. And solving a DHS does not replace any treatment in the PCL phase, but it ensures the disease will not renew during the treatment (therefore helps any treatment be more effective).

    I hope I also helped to understand what GNM is really about, and if it is not what you were aware of, I am very much upset about any misleading info going back and force in the internet.

  89. wilmamazone October 16, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    The originial document is in German.
    Concerning content: abominable quality ánd on a lousy piece of paper.

    I also believe in the Easter bunny.

  90. wilmamazone October 16, 2010 at 6:35 pm

    I hope I also helped to understand what GNM is really about, and if it is not what you were aware of, I am very much upset about any misleading info going back and force in the internet.

    I hope that I don’t upset you too much, but there is no Dr. Hamer. He lost his medical licence on April 8, 1986.
    All about Mister Hamer:
    http://www.esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Ryke_Geerd_Hamer

  91. beatis October 16, 2010 at 6:48 pm

    @ Dr. Sylar

    I quote you:

    IPersonally I do not know how accurate Caroline Markolin’s GNM site is, I do not even read that site. I try to stick to original documents from Dr. Hamer as much as possible. The problem is that when one meets GNM and finds out it is working, often claims his / her own hipotheses in the name of GNM – which is very dangereous IMHO: it harms GNM and harms patients.

    Caroline Markolin is Hamer’s protégée and her site, which is a translation of Hamer’s German site, received the master’s blessing. You may expect it to be accurate on Hamer’s GNM.

    (…)But the claim that cancer is in order to help one’s survival is just a dangereous simplification of Dr. Hamer’s claims, whoever says so.

    Hamer says so:

    Auch sind sie (cancer diseases) nichts Bösartiges mehr, sondern werden verstehbar mit Hilfe der Entwicklungsgeschichte des Menschen, als Sinnvolle Biologische Sonderprogramme (SBS) der Natur. In der Germanischen Neuen Medizin ordnet sich alles nach diesen entwicklungsgeschichtlichen Kriterien und fünf “Mutter Natur” abgelauschten Naturgesetzen wie von selbst.

    http://www.neue-medizin.de/html/krebs.html

    You have been asked several times to back up your claims with decent evidence but until now you haven’t done so; all you do is here is promote Hamer’s quackery and this blog is not the place for that.

  92. wilmamazone October 16, 2010 at 6:58 pm

    You have been asked several times to back up your claims with decent evidence but until now you haven’t done so; all you do is here is promote Hamer’s quackery and this blog is not the place for that.

    There is no decent evidence. ‘Dr’ Syler is only a mouth piece.

  93. Dr. Sylar October 16, 2010 at 7:14 pm

    “Perhaps dr Sylar could tell me/us how dr Hamer’s theories were tested?” (Bram Hengeveld)

    I did not read the test documentation myself, therefore I will not be the right person to answer what they exactly did as a test. That could be explained by those who were present or could be watched on the video they made. Either those tests confirm GNM or not, detailed documentation is to be available.

    “You have been asked several times to back up your claims with decent evidence but until now you haven’t done so; all you do is here is promote Hamer’s quackery and this is blog is not the place for that.”

    If the test of Trnava failed, there should be a scientific documentation on that (more than unsigned PDF files and anyonym blogs like EsoWatch) and we haven’t seen that as an evidence on the other side, either.

  94. JennyJo October 16, 2010 at 7:23 pm

    Sylar,

    I think it would be wise if you should educate yourself on what constitutes scientific evidence, for none of Hamer’s “verifications” fall into that category.

  95. wilmamazone October 16, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    If the test of Trnava failed……..,

    Oh my goodness! There never was a test of Trnava on the first place.
    Play deaf or what?

  96. jli October 17, 2010 at 8:01 am

    Personally I do not know how accurate Caroline Markolin’s GNM site is, I do not even read that site.

    But you linked to the site yourself a couple of posts ago.
    If anyone is close to Hamer himself it is her:

    …..she met and studied under Dr. Hamer who became, and continues to be her personal tutor and mentor. Since 2002 Caroline is an approved full-time German New Medicine® teacher, giving German New Medicine presentations, seminars and workshops ….

    And apparantly Hamer and Markolin are deeply concerned about people not adhering strictly to the philosophy as presented on the Markolin site:

    Dr. Hamer is deeply concerned about the ongoing plagiarism and corruption of his discoveries.He therefore wants to inform the public, and particularly those seeking medical support based on GNM, that there is no association of any kind between German New Medicine® and those groups and individuals listed…..

  97. beatis October 17, 2010 at 8:11 am

    Personally I do not know how accurate Caroline Markolin’s GNM site is,

    Well, we do.

    I do not even read that site.

    We have, very thoroughly in fact. I have also read his whole German site.😦

    Yet for some reason Dr. Sylar sees fit to continuously lambast us about not being well-informed on the writings of Mr Hamer.

  98. Bram Hengeveld October 17, 2010 at 8:44 am

    Ohw my god. Until ‘dr’ Sylar backs up his claim that he is indeed a dr in a field that has anything to do with medicine, his title should be removed from his answers, because it could give the impression he has anything going for him on this topic. Which he clearly hasn’t.

    I’m not very sorry to say so Sylar, but I was being dishonestly sarcastic. I’m not interested at all in your bullshit on GNM. In fact, I despise it. There is nothing good in what you do.

    I jusy wanted you to bring out some ‘honest’ stoopid. On october 16, 2010 at 7:14 pm you provided. For what it’s worth, ‘thank you’.

    But you seem to be so incredibly stupid that I want to scream. To be sure to point out the severity of your napalm grade buring stupid* I’ll first quote my own question:

    Perhaps dr Sylar could tell me/us how dr Hamer’s theories were tested?

    It was a question based on a remark previously made by Sylar claiming he wrote to beatis about confirmation of some of Idiot Hamer’s bullshit on cancer. Then Sylar goes on to state:

    I did not read the test documentation myself, therefore I will not be the right person to answer what they exactly did as a test. That could be explained by those who were present or could be watched on the video they made. Either those tests confirm GNM or not, detailed documentation is to be available.

    So, putting forth a doctor-title, while describing a bogus remedy, Sylar actually dares to state that poor old Sylar doesn’t know how it has been tested, while stating that what he doesn’t know confirms GNM? (or at least the part of it that he’s defending) That kind of stoopid makes my head spin.

    And Sylar adds to the giant heap of stinking dumb-assery:

    If the test of Trnava failed, there should be a scientific documentation on that (more than unsigned PDF files and anyonym blogs like EsoWatch) and we haven’t seen that as an evidence on the other side, either.

    Look, perhaps it’s the fact that you are a ‘doctor’ in some unknown field and I’m educated as a nurse but: If you refer to tests on Trnava, YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INFORMATION.

    Don’t bring the bullshit that it isn’t debunked by evidence ‘on the other side’. GNM has NOTHING going for it and you certainly aren’t helping. There is no evidence on GNM’s side, and if there is, you claim not to know it. For F*ck’s sake, how is ‘the other side’ supposed to debunk non-existing evidence?

    Now put your money were your mouth is or shut th F*** up. You’re a disgrace to anything human.

    *Napalm Grade Burning Stupid = (TM) Orac

  99. Dr. Sylar October 17, 2010 at 9:52 am

    Jli, you did not answer my questions.

    I asked (slightly with different words) whether a liver – lung metastasis occurs in the body, can you confirm:
    – You find cancer cells on the liver (I know yes, but I need you to confirm)
    – You find cancer liver cells in the bloodstream (the one you named)
    – What I want to know whether the lung has” lung or liver cancer cells?

    Thank you in case you come back to me on those.

    Don’t blame me for driving away the subject when my ontopic questions are not answered but everyone is jumping on the offtopic ones.

  100. beatis October 17, 2010 at 9:59 am

    Don’t blame me for driving away the subject when my ontopic questions are not answered but everyone is jumping on the offtopic ones.

    All your questions have been answered except one or two, which is not surprising seeing the huge amounts of text you have posted here.

    I think you owe our readers an apology for repeatedly claiming that Hamer’s theories have all been “confirmed”, when in fact you have no idea whether they are and can’t provide any evidence for your claim either.

  101. Dr. Sylar October 17, 2010 at 10:04 am

    Just to clarify what I mean by original Dr. Hamer documents: the ones he published himself. The internet is not a reliable source for me in most of the cases. I myself could set up a webpage and claim I am Caroline Markoline. I could even put her photo there. I hope you understand what I mean.

    Regarding my name, I don’t really care what you believe. If it helps you understand me, you may believe I am a milkman, a she, a gay, whatever. I use this nickname consistantly, so that you can see it’s mee again.

  102. jli October 17, 2010 at 10:12 am

    Okay – the order of events is:
    Sometimes people get cancer in the liver. This cancer is made of abnormal (cancerous) liver cells – not normal liver cells. These cancerous liver cells may enter the blood stream. The blood stream transport them elsewhere in the body, for instance the lungs. In the lungs those cancerous liver cells settle down (Can’t pass through the capillaries), and form new tumors (metastases) consequently made of cancerous liver cells.

    At other times people get cancer in the lung. This cancer is again made of abnormal “lung cells”. And as above the cancerous lung cells may enter the blood stream and transported elsewhere (for instance the liver), where they form new tumors (metastses) made of cancerous lung cells.

  103. wilmamazone October 17, 2010 at 10:16 am

    I use this nickname consistantly, so that you can see it’s mee again.

    Your real name is Pinnokio?

  104. beatis October 17, 2010 at 10:17 am

    @ Dr. Sylar

    The internet is a very reliable source for finding scientific studies. Virtually all scientific research is registered in Pubmed, so one would be able to find any studies by Hamer via PubMed.

    Many studies can be seen in their entirety and for the others there are abstracts given. Names and contact address of the researchers are always made public as well, so that anyone can ask them for more information.

    So, with regard to finding information on scientific studies, the internet is a reliable source. The problem here isn’t that the internet is not reliable, but that Hamer himself is not reliable.

  105. beatis October 17, 2010 at 10:27 am

    I have fulfilled the gruelling job of reading Hamer’s German website in its entirety.

    But then again, I myself could set up a webpage and claim I am Ryke Geerd Hamer. I could even put his photo there.

    I hope you understand what I mean.

  106. Dr. Sylar October 17, 2010 at 10:36 am

    Jli, thank you very much for your explanation, that again helps me a lot to understand standard medicine about metastasis.

    In my understanding, what is not yet confirmed is that the cancereous cells in the bloodstream simply leave the body (with urine for example), or those are the ones that attach to the second organ? With other words, is it confirmed that the cancereous liver cell on the lung is there because it floated there in the bloodstream, attached and formed tumor, or it is possible that the liver tumor simply forms on the lung because of any other reason not yet known?

    Beatis, thanks for sharing Pubmed. What I meant, anyway was that anyone can claim he / she is Caroline Markoline or Dr. Hamer and set up a webpage, I could do that myself, then you could refer to it (like now), which does not mean you are referring to what GNM really is. I am just asking, because in my original documents – I have not yet found a word about metastasis, yet.

  107. Dr. Sylar October 17, 2010 at 10:38 am

    “But then again, I myself could set up a webpage and claim I am Ryke Geerd Hamer. I could even put his photo there.” (beatis)

    We are on the same page. You are referring to GNM pages in your posts that are not confirmed source of GNM.

  108. beatis October 17, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Which “original documents” do you mean?

  109. beatis October 17, 2010 at 10:42 am

    Then where would the GNM pages be that are a confirmed source of GNM?

    Are you suggesting Hamer’s German site is a fake?

  110. jli October 17, 2010 at 10:42 am

    I myself could set up a webpage and claim I am Caroline Markoline. I could even put her photo there. I hope you understand what I mean.

    Yes – but why did you refer us to that webpage as a credible source of information in your own post then???

  111. Bram Hengeveld October 17, 2010 at 11:05 am

    Sylar is giving us a crash course in Intellectual Suicide?

    This would’ve been fun if it weren’t so deeply tragic that it is in fact concerning GNM.

  112. Dr. Sylar October 17, 2010 at 11:11 am

    Beatis, I am not here to “advertise”. Remember? Think out of the box and try outside internet (the one I studied from is a printed one). Just a hint.

    Jli, should you scroll back my comments, you will realize that I was always referring to the same page you quoted, because of the very same reason I wrote to Beatis one line above. I believe – but correct me if I am wrong – in case I made several studies, but did not ask for habilitation, it makes no sense to look into them, since that is what you accept as an evidence only.

    May I suggest to stick to my questions about metastasis? Please.

  113. beatis October 17, 2010 at 11:14 am

    The Trnava story continues…

    I just knew I had read it somewhere, and here it is: a letter form Hamer to the pro-rector of the University of Trnava and the dean of the faculty of health, prof. Krcmery, titled: “The dream of Trnava”.

    In this letter, Hamer refers to the letter of prof. Krcmery to the Slovakian consulate in which the professor said there never was a “verification”:

    Sie, Herr Dekan Prof. Krcmery
    („Herr Hamer, hier tobt ein Orkan gegen Sie von wütenden Medizin- professoren aus Österreich und Deutschland und Medienredakteuren”)
    schrieben sogar am 5.1.99 an den slowakischen Botschafter in Wien, die Verifikationsurkunde befinde sich gar nicht im Archiv der med. Fakultät, habe auch keine Ausgangsnummer (Evenienznummer), eine Urkunde, die Sie selbst 5 mal auf 5 verschiedenen Originalen unterschrieben haben. Das war hart am Rande eines Rufmordes, da Sie doch genau wußten, daß alles korrekt abgelaufen und unterschrieben war. Außerdem ließen Sie (was Sie gar nicht durften) verbreiten, ich sei durch die Habilitationsprüfung durchgefallen. Auch das stimmt nicht, denn das Habilitationsverfahren befindet sich ja z.Zt. „im Widerspruchsverfahren”, weil die Abstimmung grob fahrlässig, d.h. – zuerst 2:1 für mich – dann aber gegen alle demokratischen Regeln wiederholt wurde – bis sie 2:1 gegen mich ausfiel.
    Von einem fairen Habilitationsverfahren konnte also bisher keine Rede sein.

    So there is such a letter by prof. Kcrmery as mentioned on the EsoWatch website.

  114. beatis October 17, 2010 at 11:24 am

    Sylar,

    Don’t you see what you are doing?

    1. The verifications Hamer shows us, are NOT GIVEN in universities nowadays;
    2. Prof. Krcmery himself said the Trnava verification does not exist;
    2. Consequently, the Trnava verification is a fake.

    It doesn’t matter whether we talk about a verification in the form of a PhD or in any other form, the point is that Hamer’s theories have NEVER been verified in any way, form or shape whatsoever.

    And now you suddenly come up with printed text, that somehow contains the only truth about Hamer’s writings. Although we don’t have that text, nevertheless you expect us to believe on your word only what is in it.

    I asked you before and I ask you again now: do you think Hamer’s German website is a fake?

  115. beatis October 17, 2010 at 11:25 am

    Sylar,

    You linked to the Markolin site to back up your claims. You can’t talk yourself out of that.

  116. Dr. Sylar October 17, 2010 at 11:29 am

    “I asked you before and I ask you again now: do you think Hamer’s German website is a fake?” (beatis)

    I do not think it is a fake, but I reserve all rights to doubt if it is truly Dr. Hamer’s site until I can verify. I am neutral to any site on the internet and think they may or may not be credible. Does this answer your question?

    About the printed publication, which I trust to be Dr. Hamer’s, I will come back since I gave it back to my mentor and I need to ask her for the exact title and availability. Can we agree on that?

  117. Dr. Sylar October 17, 2010 at 11:31 am

    “…nevertheless you expect us to believe on your word only what is in it.” (beatis)

    The same with me, regarding you saying you know EsoWatch team is checking and doublechecking everything. I do not say I do not trust you, as I mentioned above, I am neutral and handle EsoWatch as an opinion, not an evidence until it turns out if it is credible or not.

  118. Ikaruga October 17, 2010 at 11:32 am

    Bram Hengeveld

    The thing is, GNM seems more metaphysic on its basis than anything else, but it’s metaphysics going wrong.

    Doesn’t make sense in that field either.

  119. beatis October 17, 2010 at 11:43 am

    No Sylar, you are not neutral at all. You question everything that does not confirm your own ideas, even Hamer’s own German website which has the trademark of the Germanische Neue Medizin (for it is a registered trademark), but expect us to believe at face value your words based on a mysterious printed document that we cannot see for ourselves.

    It wouldn’t surprise me at all if you question the credibility of Hamer’s German website because it proves the existence of prof. Krcmery’s letter about the non-existent Trnava verification.

    But of course I could be wrong on that.:mrgreen:

  120. beatis October 17, 2010 at 11:44 am

    Doesn’t make sense in that field either.

    QFT

  121. jli October 17, 2010 at 11:55 am

    it is possible that the liver tumor simply forms on the lung because of any other reason not yet known?

    No it isn’t. The sequence of events is well documented, and totally expectable from anatomical/physiological point of view. A normal cell in the lung does not magically on it’s own turn into a cancerous liver cell.

    May I suggest to stick to my questions about metastasis? Please.

    What Hamer/Markolin explains about metastasis is essential in GNM. Anyone who disagrees with them, disagrees on a very important aspect of GNM. If you disagree with what they explain, you disagree with GNM. I think you need to find out if you really deep down believe that GNM is true. And you have to do that by comparing what you believe is GNM with what Hamer/Markolin – the worlds highest authorities on GNM, believe.

    ….in my original documents – I have not yet found a word about metastasis, yet.

    That is a very big flaw in your original documents. It is the metastasis that make cancers the horrible diseases that they really are.

  122. Dr. Sylar October 17, 2010 at 11:58 am

    “…your words based on a mysterious printed document…” (beatis)

    I repeat, I claimed I had given it back to my mentor so I cannot pull the exact name out of my pocket put promised to come back with it. Shall I take your attitude as a “no”, do not mention the exact title and more details later? I am OK, but do not blame me later for not having the answer for your question.

  123. beatis October 17, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    Title and other relevant documentation is ok. But how am I to know it is the real thing?🙂

    I am OK, but do not blame me later for not having the answer for your question.

    We have only asked you to provide us with real evidence for Hamer’s theories.

    I believe we have done quite a lot more when it comes to backing up our claims than you.

  124. Dr. Sylar October 17, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    Jli, again thank you for your answers.

    “Anyone who disagrees with them, disagrees on a very important aspect of GNM.” (jli)

    I disagree. As I mentioned before, I can agree with GNM and standard medicine at the same time and it is not a contradiction.

    One one hand, I accept cancer cells can float in the bloodstream and can metastase, on the other hand, I accept metastasis on the organs follow the pattern of the DHS (and I say when cancer keeps metastasing in the same organ, according to GNM it is because the DHS is not yet solved).

    I did not find any claims on metastasis in the 5 Biological Natural Laws. Whatsoever opinion Caroline or Dr. Hamer have on that is a conclusion, made based on the 5 BNLs. He recognized he can find the corresponding DHS in case of metastase 100%. Which does not mean that metastatis does not exist, it would be a wrong conclusion. The right conclusion is that it may follow the pattern of the DHS. This is where myself as well found 100% correlation. And the wording truly makes sense.

    I agree with you on that in such a case, Dr. Hamer should revise the wording of those conclusions. We did, for ourselves, because we stick to the 5 BNLs as much as possible. We do that because we found them 100% accurate. And yes, when we hear such a statement that someone claims GNM claims no such thing as metastasis and a physican claims so, simply applying the 5 BNLs(!) we can find the agreement quickly. Combining GNM with standard.

  125. beatis October 17, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    I don’t understand how can you agree with a theory that says that cancer cells cannot metastasize and at the same time agree with the reality in which cancer cells do metastasize??

    (and I say when cancer keeps metastasing in the same organ, according to GNM it is because the DHS is not yet solved).

    Does that mean, according to your philosophy, that when the “DHS” is solved, the cancer will not metastasize or stop metastasizing?

  126. Bram Hengeveld October 17, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    We did, for ourselves, because we stick to the 5 BNLs as much as possible. We do that because we found them 100% accurate.

    You’re again going to refer to things you haven’t read DOCTOR Sylar? Or have you done research yourself, DOCTOR? Perhaps for your DOCTORate? How are we supposed to believe you? It’s not like you gave any reason to do so whatsoever…

    But then agian: NO test in the world is 100% accurate. You, presenting yourself as a DOCTOR, should know that. You know: specificity, validity, those kinds of things.

    But, since we are on the topic of being neutral (oh… the eufemism) on believing things on the interwebz: what is your degree in? It’s called: putting you money were your mouth is. I really have a hard time believing you have one, and if you do, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t have anything to do with medicine.

    That isn’t too hard a question, now is it DOCTOR Sylar? Generating a bit of credibility, since you’ve pretty much have lost every bit you may have had.

    I would also advice you to start using something like citeulike.org, in case you’re forgetting other very important pieces of information. Perhaps you can call your ‘mentor’? Do a bit of service to a world that is really missing out on 100% accurate testing.

  127. jli October 17, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    I disagree.

    But it is a mainstay in GNM. It is a deduction they make from the 5 BNL’s. If you don’t believe it, why don’t you ask them. There is a contact form on the website.

    I accept metastasis on the organs follow the pattern of the DHS.

    They follow the pattern of the bloodstream (and lymph stream and body cavity as well). You don’t really need DHS to explain the pattern of metastasis.

    I agree with you on that in such a case, Dr. Hamer should revise the wording of those conclusions.

    But he can’t do that without giving up his idea of the 5 BNL’s. And again try to write them directly through the website for verification of this very important point.

  128. Dr. Sylar October 17, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    “I don’t understand how can you agree with a theory that says that cancer cells cannot metastasize and at the same time agree with the reality in which cancer cells do metastasize??” (beatis)

    As long as you are unable to – at least assume – that cancer is caused by a DHS, you will not understand it.

    – I agree with cancer cells do metastaze. (standard)
    – I do not agree that they do not. (GNM)
    – But I agree they follow the pattern of the DHS when metastazing. (GNM & standard together) – it is the HOW and WHY question, nit the WHAT.

    “Does that mean, according to your philosophy, that when the “DHS” is solved, the cancer will not metastasize or stop metastasizing?” (beatis)

    It depends, which germ layer we are talking about.

    Entoderm and old mesoderm: yes. But ALL DHS needs to be solved. If one has cancer on lung and liver as well, then both needs to be solved. And one more important point: the patient has to avoid any further DHS. It will stop metastasing, yet the patient is looking forward to a sometimes painful PCL phase which needs treatment like surgery or medication.

    New mesoderm and ectoderm: cancer occurs in the PCL phase, but the good news is, in case all DHS solved and any further is avoided, it can be exactly told how long the PCL phase will take and where exactly – and where only – to expect cancer. The PCL phase can be again painful and sometimes needs treatment like surgery or medication.

    But that needs a very deep consulting with the patient to be sure that all DHS was explored and there is none left that the patient is not talking about. That’s why the honesty of the patient is the key success factor. And that’s why GNM consultants in my team work together with physicans and pharmacists, to ensure they can get their standard treatment if necessary.

    The main problem in practice is though, patients who come to a GNM consultation, already refuse the possibility of any standard treatment. And then a consultant can say considering a surgery and consulting with a physican would be essential, they decide based on their free will not to take it. I have seen many cases like that and believe me, it is really strange for me, too.

    Imagine a patient with lung cancer. He solves his DHS. He is looking forward to a 2 year PCL phase, TBC and lung inflammation, as his DHS was active for 2 years. Then he consults with the oncologist. He says, OK, he would like to take a surgery, but no chemo. The oncologist tells him the pros and contras and risks of his decision. The patient decides on his own responsibility.

    The main problem I see here is not that some people consult a GNM consultant, recover from their illness without standard treatment, but others who only conclude: “He did not take standard treatment and he healed! I can do that, too!”, because it is not that simple. Each and every case needs a thorough exporation. I have never met 2 cases which were exactly the same. Never.

  129. Dr. Sylar October 17, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    “But he can’t do that without giving up his idea of the 5 BNL’s.” (jli)

    Yes, he can. At least, he could, if he wanted to. (And that’s my opinion, you can confront it with yours.)

    You say cancer metastases to similar tissues. What I learnt about the germ layers that similar tissues belong to the same germ layer. But the 3 BNL says the same germ layer has similar DHS as well.

    For example, ovary and bones are both new mesoderm (according to GNM). Both DHS are self-devaluation, but the ovary is related to feminity (I am not feminine…) and bones are related to severe self-devaluation (I am totally worthless), and the bone affected is in aspect of it’s function: head intellectual (I am stupid and worthless…), feet step movement (like: I am a horrible dancer…).

    That’s why I think the GNM approach on metastasis could be reconsidered without giving up the 5 BNLs. But that’s something to be discussed with Dr. Hamer, this blog is not the right forum for it.

  130. Dr. Sylar October 17, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    3 BNLs —> 5 BNLs I mean.

  131. beatis October 17, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    – But I agree they follow the pattern of the DHS when metastazing. (GNM & standard together) – it is the HOW and WHY question, nit the WHAT.

    But standard medicine does NOT think mets follow the pattern of DHS! And it has dangerous consequences to think that mets behave in such a way.

    Entoderm and old mesoderm: yes. But ALL DHS needs to be solved. If one has cancer on lung and liver as well, then both needs to be solved. And one more important point: the patient has to avoid any further DHS. It will stop metastasing, yet the patient is looking forward to a sometimes painful PCL phase which needs treatment like surgery or medication.

    New mesoderm and ectoderm: cancer occurs in the PCL phase, but the good news is, in case all DHS solved and any further is avoided, it can be exactly told how long the PCL phase will take and where exactly – and where only – to expect cancer. The PCL phase can be again painful and sometimes needs treatment like surgery or medication.

    But that needs a very deep consulting with the patient to be sure that all DHS was explored and there is none left that the patient is not talking about. That’s why the honesty of the patient is the key success factor. And that’s why GNM consultants in my team work together with physicans and pharmacists, to ensure they can get their standard treatment if necessary.

    And all this without a shred of scientific evidence.

    BYW all cancer patients need standard medicine.

    I think all this is just a sick way of preying on desperate patients only to feed your vanity and perhaps your wallet as well.

  132. jli October 17, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    You say cancer metastases to similar tissues. What I learnt about the germ layers that similar tissues belong to the same germ layer.

    This is also inconsistent with reality. Let me give you a few examples:
    – Metastasis of breast cancer (Ectoderm) to lymphnodes in the axilla (Mesoderm)
    – Metastasis of lung cancer (Entoderm) to brain (Ectoderm)

    And furthermore some tumors (teratomas) are made of elements from all three germ layers. This shouldn’t happen, but it does.

    That’s why I think the GNM approach on metastasis could be reconsidered without giving up the 5 BNLs. But that’s something to be discussed with Dr. Hamer, this blog is not the right forum for it.

    Well – again. Here is the link.

  133. Dr. Sylar October 17, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    Beatis, not all of them and not all form of standard treatment. As I told you just before, every case needs to be handled as a brand new one. It was you who told me that generalization is dangereous, so stop asking me to do so.

    BTW, a lot of people who look for “alternative” ways do so, because they are already disappointed in standard medicine. Should there be no “alternative” ways, they would not take specific standard treatments either. And if you do not respect their free wills, fine.

    Jli, GNM says all those have their own DHS. That’s how it can happen (from one germ lay to another).

    BTW, teratomas remind me of dermoid vesicle. Do you have any info on dermoid vesicles? It is an interesting topic IMHO, from any point of view (standard, alternate, whatever – I am curious about the standard here).

  134. wilmamazone October 17, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    But that needs a very deep consulting with the patient to be sure that all DHS was explored and there is none left that the patient is not talking about. That’s why the honesty of the patient is the key success factor. And that’s why GNM consultants in my team work together with physicans and pharmacists, to ensure they can get their standard treatment if necessary.

    That’s why the honesty of the patient is the key success factor.
    That’s why the honesty of the patient is the key success factor.
    THATS WHY THE HONESTY OF THE PATIENTS IS THE KEY SUCCES FACTOR.
    THATS WHY THE HONESTY OF THE PATIENTS IS THE KEY SUCCES FACTOR
    Everyone can read this now, perhaps even without glasses.
    This is so ridiculous/completely nuts and humanly disgraceful!
    There isn’t an atom of common sense in Hamer en Co. and the only right conclusion is that this are mentally disturbed persons.
    Keep them away from yourself and/or your loved ones

  135. Dr. Sylar October 17, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    “…not all of them and not all form of standard treatment.” —> and that’s why we work in team with the physicans, because they are the ones who determine the treatment. If the patient wants any. But if they do not take any despite the advice, you can do nothing. (Just for clarification.)

  136. Dr. Sylar October 17, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    Wilma, the physican decides if the treatment is necessary or not, not the GNM consultant – and the patient decides if he takes the advice from the physican.

    So simple that even you may understand it sometime.

  137. JennyJo October 17, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    and not all form of standard treatment.

    SheBeatis did not say that.

    And yes, all cancer patients need standard treatment, either to be cured, or to slow the progress of their disease of for effective pain medication.

    And if you do not respect their free wills, fine.

    Oh I respect their free wills, but I do not respect you lying to them. And that is what you do with your stories of DHS all the other Hamer quackery.

    That’s why the honesty of the patient is the key success factor.

    No it’s not. What is a key factor is that they get effective (= standard) treatment as soon as possible. They certainly don’t need you to make them feel guilty when their cancer can’t be cured.

  138. beatis October 17, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    BTW, teratomas remind me of dermoid vesicle. Do you have any info on dermoid vesicles? It is an interesting topic IMHO, from any point of view (standard, alternate, whatever – I am curious about the standard here).

    Go and find out four yourself for a change.

  139. wilmamazone October 17, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    And that’s why GNM consultants in my team work together with physicans and pharmacists, to ensure they can get their standard treatment if necessary.
    Serious physicans and pharmacists ( with license) working together with lunatics and they ‘advise’ together standard treatment is necessary or not?

    Tell a tall tale again. What’s up next?

  140. beatis October 17, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    New avatar. In honour of Benoît Mandelbrot.

  141. Dr. Sylar October 17, 2010 at 6:40 pm

    “Beatis did not say that.”

    I know. I did. Read again and you will see for yourself, I quoted myself.

    “…and they ‘advise’ together standard treatment is necessary or not?”

    Advise is done by the physican/pharmacist (alone). Read again, you too.

    My next tale is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dislexia

  142. wilmamazone October 17, 2010 at 7:17 pm

    Advise is done by the physican/pharmacist (alone). Read again, you too.

    In my counrtry a (real) pharmacist never gives advise about cancer treatment and more over: is not authorized to do so.

    Advise is given by a medical team from the hospital.

  143. jli October 18, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    GNM says all those have their own DHS. That’s how it can happen (from one germ lay to another).

    That is not what GNM says. GNM says, that different DHS’es can result in different tumors made of cells of the location they occur. In no way can cells from one germ layer cross the barrier to another. If this happens (and it demonstrably does), the BNL’s have been proved wrong without a shred of doubt. That is why Hamer and Markolin steadfastly claim that eg. a breast cancer (ectododerm) cannot enter the bloodstream (mesoderm) and be transported to and form metastasis in the liver (endoderm). If you haven’t done so already you might like to verify this through the contact page on the Markolin site.

  144. Bram Hengeveld October 18, 2010 at 7:30 pm

    LOL!

    So often a quack knows less about ‘their’ specialty than a well-educated quackwhacker.

  145. Carla Muth October 19, 2010 at 5:13 am

    WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT CAUSES CANCER????? You are all confident that the GNM is quackery, but no one has offered any other proven cause of cancer. I am eargerly awaiting to be enlightened.
    Thanks!

  146. beatis October 19, 2010 at 6:13 am

    https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/see-this-images-of-cancer/

    http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/about-cancer/causes-symptoms/causes/what-causes-cancer

    You are all confident that the GNM is quackery, but no one has offered any other proven cause of cancer.

    There are many proven causes of cancer, but GNM is not one of them. GNM and all other treatments based on GNM are proven quackery ineffective and factually incorrect.

  147. jli October 19, 2010 at 11:56 am

    You are all confident that the GNM is quackery.

    I don’t think I used the word quackery, but unbiased analysis of the implications of GNM show beyond a shred of doubt that the implications of GNM are wrong. We are not talking absence of evidence here but evidence of absence. If you can’t see that after reading the above, we have no choise but to conclude that you are unable to step out of your box. And judging form the contents of your web site, a conspiracy theorist might conclude that you have financial reasons to keep on denying demonstrable reality.

  148. beatis October 19, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    My thoughts entirely.

    BTW, it was me that used the word quackery. I mean that in the sense as defined by Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch:

    The promotion of unsubstantiated methods that lack a scientifically plausible rationale. Promotion usually involves a profit motive. Unsubstantiated means either unproven or disproven. Implausible means that it either clashes with well-established facts or makes so little sense that it is not worth testing.

  149. jli October 19, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    If that was what Carla meant by quackery, then she was correct:mrgreen:

  150. kodo November 17, 2010 at 10:47 am

    Very interesting to see Hamer claims confronted to the opinion and work of a pathologist. I know I,m a bit late, but I would apreciate if jli could answer a pair of questions.

    Somebody told me once that respect to Hamer claims is truth that cancerous cells had never been observed in arterial blood, but they are observed only in veins after the operations. I don’t know if there is some truth in this, or if it is of any importance (given the difficulties of actually see a cell floating in the arterial blood far away of a tumor, I suppose that is better to look for other evidence, like that presented by jli).

    But what I don’t really understand, and I would like to, is why when a tumor is detected can be clasified as a metastases even in absence of other tumors in the body. Reading an spanish scientific article about cancers of unknown origin I realize that there are cancers that are belived to be metastases, but is unknown from what part of the body the cells came from. Then, how can a pathologist, or a team of experts, decide if a given tumor is a metastases or a primary tumor? Are there characteristics that only metastases have, regardless of the place where the primary tumor came from?

    Sorry for my english, I probably made mistakes. And thanks a lot for your time.

  151. jli November 17, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    Hi Kodo.
    Your english is just fine.

    You can think of the bloodstream as a one way street. The blood travels in one direction. A cancer cell (or group of cancer cells) entering an artery will only be transported until it reaches a capillary that it cannot pass. If it enters a vein it will follow the blood stream out of the affected organ, and be transported to other locations.

    Cancers have properties in common with the cells they are derived from. We can determine if the cancer cells in a liver for example are derived from liver cells, or cells outside the liver. Sometimes the detectable properties are common to several cell types. That makes it difficult to tell exactly where the primary cancer is. But you can still tell, that the properties of the cancer cells have nothing in common with liver cells.
    Hopes this clarifies things a bit for you.

  152. kodo November 19, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    Indeed, your answer helped me a lot.

    Althoutght, i have only one more question. I’m use to read that, like you clearly say, the cells of a metastases have the characteristics of the cells of primary tumor. Therefore, the words of Dr. Griguère, from McGill University Health Centre (Montreal), in an article about Gleevec, confused me:

    “Cancer doesn’t become deadly until it spreads, or metastasizes, and many cancers follow a particular pattern.
    Breast-cancer cells, for example, often move to the bones. This is quite a feat, since they first have to morph from breast cells into bone cells, Dr. Giguère says. He and his colleagues are trying to figure out how they do it — what makes them different from the cells in the bulk of the tumour, which stay in the breast?”

    I can’t but suppose that he means that the cells must mutate again to acquire some functions or some chemical signals receptors similar to that of the new organ, what allows them to install there a colony and create the metastases. If this is at least an acceptable simplification, I’m satisfied. But I just would like to know if he is talking about a different case.

    I know that this questions are almost technical, and indeed quite useless to know for a non-scientist, but being confronted with claims such of the GNM forces sometimes to educate oneself in order to be sure to understand a bit the field and educate and inform people in doubt or deluded. I have heard the argument that the formation of metastases trough blood migration is not possible cause one class of cell cannot morph completely into another type while navigating in the blood…so I used to ask myself: but they DO that?!

    Once again, thanks for your time and interest.

  153. jli November 19, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    Hi again Kodo.
    This part is absolutely wrong:

    …first have to morph from breast cells into bone cells

    If a group of cancerous cells in bone were bone cells, the diagnosis would be bone cancer (osteosarcoma). Metastatic breast cancer cells look exactly like the cancerous cells in the breast. That is why we know that it is a metastasis and not a concurrent bone cancer. I can’t imagine what he meant, but if the quote was given to you by a GNM proponent it is without a shred of doubt an example of misrepresentation.

    I know that this questions are almost technical, and indeed quite useless to know for a non-scientist,

    I don’t think so. The more you understand, the better you are able to see why we know that nonsense is really nonsense. I am only happy to answer your questions if I can.

  154. kodo November 22, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    OK, just to clarify, I was going to include the source but I forgot, is this press article:
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/archives/the-end-of-chemo-one-magic-pill-may-hold-answer/article859250/page3/

    The thing is that since I heard the GNM claims about metastasis, I wondered if this morphing from one type of cell to another actually happens in the metastasis, because this is what GNM defenders often says that say conventional medicine. Usually I read that this do not happen and that the cells of metastasis are the same of the original tumor. Nevertheless, I found also this quote.

    I have read also, both in a scientific article and in a popular science book (“Cancer: the evolutionary legacy”, by Mel Greaves) that when a metastasis in the bones occurs, cancer cells can activate a type of bone cells that “eat” the bone tissue… OR the cancerous cells themselves obtain this function. That’s why most bone metastasis consist in… I don’t know how to say better… bone ulceration.
    Then, it seems that a migrating cell must also imitate the cells of the tissue where it settles. So, to my understanding after reading that even when that words in the article may not be very exact, the cells can change some of it’s functions or obtain new functions.

    Anyway, the important point is that the if cells can still be unequivocally recognize trough histopalogy as cells from other tissue, or even from a determined tissue. I think you let this point clear from your part.

  155. jli November 23, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    Thank you for the link. You did quote the article correctly. Sometimes journalists misunderstand what they are being explained. That is the only explanation I can think of. I did a small search on Gigueres scientific publications regarding cancer on http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
    And there are no articles by him on cancer cells morphing into other cells.

    …that when a metastasis in the bones occurs, cancer cells can activate a type of bone cells that “eat” the bone tissue… OR the cancerous cells themselves obtain this function.

    It makes sense that cancer cells use some mechanism in the body to “make room” for themselves.

    Then, it seems that a migrating cell must also imitate the cells of the tissue where it settles.

    That is where the wrong conclusions are drawn, as you have correctly understood. The cancerous cells replace the cells of the other tissue. They don’t morph into them.

  156. connect-the-dots February 16, 2011 at 10:11 pm

    I read through this and it seems to prove pretty well that cancer does matastasize, and that is a key to taking this German New Medicine seriously.

    What about the DHS leaving imprints on the brain? The website of Dr. Hamer’s protegee claims 100 percent accurate diagnosis of DHS based on the brain scans. If this is true, perhaps some other approach to dealing with the cancer could be devised other than just leaving the tumor to dissolve by itself, assuming no metastasis.

  157. jli February 21, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    I read through this and it seems to prove pretty well that cancer does matastasize, and that is a key to taking this German New Medicine seriously.

    It is a key to dismiss German New Medicine out of hand.

    What about the DHS leaving imprints on the brain?

    These “imprints” are so called artefacts.
    Brain scans are carried out on cancer patients every day. So if Hamers idea that imprints were present, they would be detected.

  158. Pingback: Is it possible to mis-diagnose metastasis of colon adenocarcinoma to lung as primary lung adenocarcinoma? - medical research papers

  159. Mrodz October 8, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    As far as I understand and have read about GNM there is constant mention of this “conflict theory” in relation to animals in the wild. Why not test on rats first?! Why the insistence on immediately putting this to test on humans, on providing “clinical” treatment? How many clinics have Hamer and GNM followers opened and practiced in? Wouldn’t that money and effort be better put to use in testing on lab rats or something? Since 1981 this theory has been floating around and there are still no in depth detailed research trials with control groups and the whole nine yards. Steve Jobs was into new forms of medicine, I’m sure someone can find the proper financing to test it out in a safe controlled environment. Until then it’s utter crap in my opinion, but I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt and consent to further study in a safe and controlled way.

  160. jli October 9, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    Why not test on rats first?!

    I think it would be difficult to induce a specific emotional trauma in rats and resolve it again.

    But we can make observations on human cancers, and check out if they behave as predicted from the theory.
    By direct observation we see readily that:
    1) Cancer cells are not normal looking cells
    2) Cancer cells can metastasize (this post elaborates on this) – also to organs from other germ layers

    Others have looked into if emotional stress could cause cancer, and the answer was no: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/100/3/213.full.pdf+html

    So the theory is demonstrably wrong without putting patients at risk in a trial.

  161. Pingback: Andreas Moritz – Radiodoktorens kræftguru | Alternativ behandling af kræft

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: