New Medicine (a side track topic)

Mighty Midget · Post by **Mighty Midget** » 22-06-2007 14:32

Since there seems to be an interest in GNM, I thought that maybe that called for a new topic where we can discuss different schools of medicine.

Here's an English site on German New Medicine (GNM).
http://www.newmedicine.ca/index.php

I haven't read it all, but the little I have read proves nothing really new to me, that the psyche and it's power to heal and cause illnesses is way underrated in modern medicine.

Here is Wiki's entry on Hamer (the inventor of GNM) OBS Please bear in mind that anyone can write for Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryke_Geerd_Hamer

So: Feel free to discuss this GNM and/or other schools of medicine.

BTW: This thread is NOT a thread for flaming or spamming. Thank you for your attention

Post by **DavidM** » 22-06-2007 15:15

GNM says...we basically have cancer all the time. Caused by psychologic trouble (kid died, lost job, girlfriend 'taken over' by someone else, being told you are dead sick...) and if you keep driving yourself crazy with it for a long time (9months+) you are likely to die.

We have depressions all the time, but solve them quickly. Then we have a flu, fever or whatever and say we are ill and go watch the doc. Actually this fever (Etc) is just the time after your healing, and everything is perfect.

When you go visit the doc, he will make up a disease for you and give you drugs....pharma industry getting rich.

In case of cancer Chemo therapy is what really kills you. It's very expensive (costs like 250,000€ for a year per person) so you can tell why it's being propagandized and how they have the money to do so.

If all people would know whats going on, trusting the self healing, all doctors, pharmacy, hospitals, animal experiments would go to hell, no money would be made, people wouldnt be sick.
They better go visit a spiritual master...the best they can do, because it's about being happy at any moment, no matter what the circumstances are, so you don't even get a reason for depression and cancer.

If you break a leg or have a serious acceident, school medicine is the right thing, eh? That's beyond self healing obviously and needs to be operated. But most of the whole health INDUSTRY can go to hell.

And to be an evil nazi and anti semite (blah blah) I'll say...only jewish doctors are allowed to use the GNM. (This is very deep there.... this topic).

edit: fucking ignore wikipedia...makes me sick to see this brainwashed pro-jewish propaganda (no, im not anti jewish at all! but the truth most be spoken)

edit2: the wiki entry about dr hamer is good in terms of antisemitism. it shows what he's being accused of and his point...so everybody can see that it's nothing to do with semites or so.

This part is silly: "According to the latest data the number of reported Hamer's victims exceeds 130"
Because if you count the victims of chemo therapy...you'll be in huge million numbers of dead people. only 130 dead is pretty damn fucking good!

i havent read the rest of that article, just these parts mattered to me.

Post by **DavidM** » 22-06-2007 20:42

Reading deeper and deeper into certain "diseases".

Getting lung cancer by smoking is basically bullshit. You get lung cancer because you know it can happen and because you "know" its unhealthy.

They have been penetrating 1000 hamsters with smoke for a long time, and none of them had lung cancer.
They did the same with mice, and most of them had.

The reason the school medicine ignores: hamsters live in the underground and aren't afraid of smoke or fire cuz they don't know it.
Mice know that, and think it's bad (because fire is hot you think smoke is bad...)....so...

shocking and relieving.
the more i read into it, the more things suddenly make sense.
school medicine has no clue why cancer happens.
we just generally know you can smoke forever and it doesnt matter, or some get cancer pretty early...but biology isn't that random. The difference is all in the mind and the psyche.

(smoking still sucks, you still put poison into your body...)

DoMmeh`` · Post by **DoMmeh``** » 22-06-2007 23:01

i dont think you can smoke forever and it doesn't matter...there are some toxic things in it I think...but i know you meant it refering to the cancer thing...

and I think the theory that they just get cancer because they're afraid of it is just 1 theory. maybe the hamsters aren't affected by it because the "toxics" in a cigarette dont affect them because they produce something against it....biology is a very very very very big topic I think and the human tries always to reach deeper into it etc by researching but you cant solve "the riddle of live"
hm i somehow cant express myself or that what I want to say you have to assoziate lot of things >_> gg.
what im tryin to say is, if you just read it its no arguing for me. the argument leaves enough space to make evrything around it...its just a project interpreated in 1 way. maybe you could have interpreted the result of this project with the mice and hamsters in a complete other way.. i think there is SO MUCH we didnt found out yet 'bout our body (meaning the smalles smalles smallest, unimaginable smallest cell and chemical things there and reactions etc.) and the body of animals etc^^

the way you explain things is in my opinion too easy. don't know why but it all sounds so easy to me that i think even media can't grow this to such a bad thing....i just can`t imagine that its just all that easy..."hey cancer doesnt exist. its only cause you think youve got it you get it.." finished....sounds like its not enough to me dunno why...not cause of facts but maybe feelings prevent me from believing this..

and I got a question, generally...

if you know such things like the human cant affect global warming in any way even if he wanted,
9/11 WERE controlled demolitions and all the stuff the government is into refering to this conspiracy the usa is developing,
cancer doesnt exist,
aids doesnt exst,
how is it possible not to publish this ? i dont think that 1 man has that much power (like springer) that he can "control" person by media that much because then the world wud end up in a mess oO
why cant you do something against it....i know you can by ignoring it since it doesnt affect you directly but if such things are so easy to be proven etc how is it possible they dont become common knwoledge ?

how are people able to let 1000 of people die becuase of no adäquate reason ? (ok apoart from there is no adaquate reason i can answer that myself^^)

or hmm...i dunno how to express myself, i dont know why merkel or so shud propagate tings they know that arent true (plz dont understand this the way only the words describe it) like global warming or the africa things or cancer ? whereas cancer is the main argument here..oo

gettin late, werid post lol don't know if you understand 1 point of me ^^

Post by **DavidM** » 22-06-2007 23:30

i edited above (that smoking is still bad, just that lung cancer from smoking is bullshit). it wasnt about the hamsters being all happy...it was only about lung cancer. and cancer comes all from a DHS (psychological conflicts....bad things that happen in your life)

domi: http://www.pilhar.com
grab dich tief in die seite ein. dann lies die gegenseite, und dann komm her und red darüber.
dein "geschussel" ohne einsicht bringt hier leider rein gar nix

sorry, aber so isset

du kennst die ganzen basics dessen nicht. ich kann nur sagen, ich war sehr skeptisch! aber alles was ich las hat meine erfahrungen in der wirklichkeit wiedergespiegelt, und auf einmal machte alles sinn. und die schulmedizin die totaler humbug ist von vorne bis hinten, machte so auch noch mehr sinn als vorher. die gegenseite hat mich auch noch viel mehr darin bekräftigt das alles wahr ist.

also: lies -> vergleiche mit deinen erfahrungen
und ich schwöre dir, du wirst die welt mit ganz anderen augen sehen.

Post by **DavidM** » 23-06-2007 02:14

Very good German Docu with Dutch Subtitles from 1984 with Dr Hamer and lots of patients. This is all about cancer:
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid= ... Ryke+hamer

Post by **DavidM** » 23-06-2007 13:20

Short, shocking and unbelievable in our media manipulated world: no virus will do you any harm!

The official english page about it is: newmedicine.ca
I don't know how good it is, I'm using 3 very good German ones (it originates from German Dr Hamer, so its more famous here I guess).

The sooner you read into it, the happier you will be.

Short story about cancer: depending on where the cancer is, you can tell what the original psychologic problem is. For a woman breast cancer is related to something with her mother or her kid (accident, dead or other). If the depression over it keeps up, you develop cancer. If you solve the conflict it's gone in a few days.
Hamer can exactly tell WHEN the shock was and WHAT KIND.
If you have a fear of dead conflict, you get lung cancer for example.
All his prognoses have been 100% correct about these things.

I can tell, seeing all this, my experience with cancer among friends or family make sense.
A friend lost her daughter and got breast cancer for example.
Someone was suddenly leaving his dog (!) alone all day, so the dog got testicle cancer. Because for men the equivalent to the breast are the testicles. So if they have a kid/parent conflict, its growing there. This means he is like a mother for the dog, and he's missing him. If he would just have stayed more with the dog, he would have been fine again....giving up his job...hm..

Post by **DavidM** » 23-06-2007 14:54

So read deeper into it, and check if it starts making more sense.
Im reading 3 days non stop now, just because it's so amazing and I can't stop. Been going from sceptical to amazed.

You've been doing your head in over potential cancer....which could create it (lung cancer or leucemia in this case).

So it's 3 things that cause the cancer.
-A sudden shock
-About something that really depresses you so much that you wake up with that thought and go to bed with it again
-You can't talk about it at that time, you are isolated

Anyway, go deeper into it, and compare with experiences from your life again, if they make sense then.
Then you'll see why cancer research is somewhat none sense. We can heal cancer at any time without big money.

BunnyS · Post by **BunnyS** » 26-06-2007 15:01

Yeah my point is from my own experiences it doesn't all fall into place like it has for you. So I'm still very non convinced

but each to their own etc

Post by **DavidM** » 28-06-2007 00:03

Today my GF was at the pathology with her class. She asked the doctor how cancer appears. She said they don't know exactly and blah blah.

Later when all were gone and my gf was alone with her, she asked again. She mentioned the new medicine and Doctor Hamer...and she seemed surprised. Then she slowly came out with the truth. These doctors know it, but if they publically say that, they would lose their job.
But even more shocking, she says they put cancer people into a chemo therapy if they ask for it, even tho it's bad.
....but they don't tell em the truth. Its about lives, and people think about their bank accounts.

Well well....so?

But people don't believe it.
The rather believe the lies they were told 100 times than the truth they haven't heard before.

Messy · Post by **Messy** » 28-06-2007 01:06

Alright, I'm going to just rush in and use what little I know and have read, on top of my experiences and opinion on several relevant topics to tell you what I think about all of this.

Before I ramble on I'd like to say - and this is indeed the point I'm trying to make - that I don't 'agree' or 'disagree' on Hamer's theory. I won't be so stupid as to barge in and state that this theory is true or false: None of us (and that includes sir Hamer) can claim to know.

From my opinion dr. Hamer's theory (or more specifically his 'proof') suffers somewhat from the 'Discovery Channel fallacy': Meaning all he does is dig for positive proof, always finding truth in any casus.
Right away when reading his theory I thought of my father. Having died from liver and blood cancer (leukaemia) and being in a bad state as he was - his life being a long downwards spiral I won't go into here - it didn't seem all to odd for me to see a relationship between one's mental suffering and physical health.

Do examples like this prove Hamer's theory? No

However, at the same time I can think of two examples from my life where I have experienced (coincedentally) women whom I - ironically - both admired for living such a remarkably satisfactory and carefree life; until they were diagnosed with cancer. How can Hamer's theory be true if people living a happy life suddenly get diagnosed with cancer, I thought.

Do examples like this disprove Hamer's theory? No

Still, reading on, it's mentioned these illnesses require the person to most of all not talk about what's troubling them.

This, of course, is ideal for examples I just gave: It's hardly difficult to look for even the tiniest hint of mental suffering; especially when pushed in a certain direction with theories as 'Cervical cancer indicates problems with sexual assault or abuse'. Now I won't go into details of the person I talked about...But with some thinking I could easily make this plausible.

So what we have here is eventually a theory that is plausible - especially trying to analyse what might have worried people that are now dead, leaving us free to guess away - but at the same time very hard to prove or disprove.

My opinion on Hamer's theory is that the more specific he gets, the more I doubt a lot of what he says, eventually causing me to not be able to read on.
I do, however, think that the notion of a mind-body relationship in health and disease is definitely something underestimated in western medication, and that modern doctors viewing there patients as just casi, lists of symptoms that need to be eradicated, is not helping these people feel more helped or understood - thus stalling the healing process provided the mind does have something to do with it.

Now what's bothering me, is that from a 'Hamer-esque' point of view it's easy to view western medicine as incorrect or at least 'incomplete' in it's approach; but the same counts for Hamer's theory from western medicine's point of view: How can there be a correlation between wildly (and infinitely) growing mutated cells and feelings? I.e. is there a chemical relevance between hormones and other substances released while experiencing all sorts of stress and that which causes the cell's DNA to mutate and the substances needed for cells to keep splitting (which cancer supposedly has unlimited amounts of)?

I'm just openly wondering what a chemical analysis (even just hypothetically) would add to this discussion..

Post by **DavidM** » 28-06-2007 01:18

A little comment about what a 'theory' is.

It starts with a hypothesis. Anything you claim is one......

Everytime you fail falsifying the hypothesis it gets more likely.
The evolution theory (creationists say "its just a theory") couldnt be falsificated yet. So the more failed falsifications, the better the theory. Hamer's THEORY still prevails after 25 years. One falsification, and it would be gone.

About the exact chemical reactions there...I have no clue. That's the stuff in his texts that I just don't understand...I don't know the words and I'm not enough of a scientist. So I'm judging by the rest.

But it's not DNA/gen mutating stuff, as we are always told. It's just new cells of whatever organ.
The so called breast cancer creates more mammary gland cells, so the breast produces more milk because of that.
All 'cancers' are good for something.
Everything is an SBS as he calls it. Ein Sinnvolles Biologisches Sonderprogramm. As in: usefull biological special program.

All I can tell.
So read deeper into it if you care, and tell me about all cases you can compare it with in reality. Mostly people you can directly talk to. For others it's so vague and unclear and you have no idea if something happened here or there in their past.

Messy · Post by **Messy** » 28-06-2007 01:30

It's true that a darwinistic approach - as you're employing - to theories seems reasonable, and this approach being popular and 'working' so far kind of makes it prove itself.

However, please remember that western medicine seems to 'work' for us way better than that; and using such a theory of science on GNM kind of creates a landslide for western medicine!

Of course, we'd be asking ourselves what this means: Obviously the fact it seems to work for us can be interpreted in multiple ways..Does it 'work' for us in the sense that it makes most people healthy hence us becoming satisfied with this approach, or does it 'work' for us in the sense that it makes most people rich hence us becoming satisfied with this approach?

That said, this opens up a whole new problem: Which is more important to us?

Post by **DavidM** » 28-06-2007 01:44

The guy is German, and that's mostly where it's being talked about I guess.
I only know this one english site (first post), but I didn't look for more.

Need to compare with RL. I compared 10-15 cases and it was always right. So...

Everybody need to do this until they believe it.
Funny is if you compare school medicine cases in RL.....it just shows how much bullshit it is :s
Random treatment...just sell the guy something, and make him feel good about it. Job done.

BunnyS · Post by **BunnyS** » 28-06-2007 13:47

Well like I have mentioned before, what classes as a "emotional shock" and so on. If the main point is about isolation during a tuff time then it's hard to pin point it surely ? As the people suffering from shock or emotional distress who are isolated and don't want to talk about it ... aren't going to talk about it ?

In one case I know of someone got cancer shortly after loosing their partner to cancer. The theory he could easily apply. Deep impact on the person for loosing the person they love etc. The thing is the person they lost ... didn't (as far as I know) have any major problems at the time. In fact quiet the opposite they had good news coming in about births in the family and so on. Of course the argument will be how can I truly know ? So I went to another source someone who has first hand of cancer etc and asked him. after giving him a summary of the theory and asking if it applies to either him or people close to him that have also suffered from it. He replied "no none at all personally but other people I know may have been stressed before it started". He also said that every doctor he has every seen (western obv) has said they don't know what causes cancer.

Goes back to was Messy was saying that western medicines is too fixated on easing the symptons rather then preventing illness altogether which is more like the eastern approach.
Also I wonder, if it's all about hiding the cure and making money from the drugs and treatment such as Chemo therapy and so on why haven't they done it in the past with other things ? eg:

Tb killed thousands and thousands before it was understood and treatable, if it was about money surely they would have hidden that as well ? Why would they find cures for some and tell us and not others ?

Also just because the theory hasn't been disproved completely it doesn't automatically mean it's more likely to be true as there is still questions without answers in the theory. Can't prove or disprove it either way imo