|
Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer's German New Medicine® (VIII)
Some background on the decade-long persecution of
Dr. Hamer & the suppression of German New Medicine
by Healing Cancer Naturally © October 2006
Copyright Notice
The decade-long persecution of Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer's German New Medicine® is a brilliant (though far from shining) example of
how the medical establishment has been dealing with their “black sheep” (or rather great and ground-breaking pioneers) possibly for centuries (for other examples see History of Alternative Cancer Treatment).
It has now been decades that the conventional medicine establishment and particularly orthodox oncologists have largely
avoided dealing with Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer's "German New Medicine®". In fact (and on the contrary), the medical powers that be seem to have done everything in their might to both ignore and
actively suppress his well-substantiated scientific findings from the very start of their publication.
When Dr. Hamer first presented his research results to the German University of Tübingen as a post-doctoral thesis (October 1981), he
expected to have his findings tested (evaluated) on equivalent cases. Instead, the University committee (apparently an unprecedent occurrence) refused to assess his thesis. Moreover, Dr. Hamer was
given the ‘choice’ to either deny his findings or to see himself dismissed from the clinic he was working at.
After consistently refusing to renounce his findings on the origin of cancer and although his scientific work had never been disproved, he
was finally deprived of his medical license in 1986 via court sentence.
Press and other media have kept attacking Dr. Hamer and his work, with accusations ranging from “self-proclaimed miracle healer”,
“charlatan”, “cult leader”, to “criminal” who tried to deprive cancer patients of the orthodox treatments that “would save their lives”. There were even repeated attempts to put Dr. Hamer into psychiatric
confinement. Dr. Hamer also had to endure prison terms on various specious accusations, with the most recent one spanning September 2004 to February 2006 when he was finally released.
The following texts give a further small impression and illustration of what Dr. Hamer and his discoveries have been up against for a long
time. These articles have been copied from germannewmedicine.ca where you can read up on some of the issues surrounding Dr. Hamer and the German New Medicine in greater detail in addition to the
information featured by Healing Cancer Naturally.
Statement by Bavarian Cancer Society re German New Medicine
published in the Passauer Woche newspaper, March 8, 2006:
”German New Medicine“ (GNM) is the abstruse and pseudo-scientific
doctrine of an outsider, which has been developed and propagated by the former medical doctor Dr. med Ryke Geerd Hamer, and is apparently the result of the dramatic death of his son Dirk that caused
Hamer’s testicular cancer a few months after his son’s passing.
Recent epidemiologic studies clearly show that there is no increased risk of developing cancer with people who suffer from depressions or
from severe psychological stress (Source: Dalton et al. 2002 and 2004).
There is also no evidence that people with a so-called ”cancer personality“, that show certain characteristics and attitudes would be
at greater risk of developing cancer (Source: Schwarz et al 2001).
Hamer claims that the cause of every disease, including cancer, is always a ”biological conflict“, a serious dramatic shock, which he calls
a ”Dirk Hamer Syndrome“, and which typically shows as a “Hamer Focus“ (German: Hamerscher Herd) on a computer tomogram of the brain. Hence, the resolution of the underlying conflict
(”conflictolysis“) is said to be the prerequisite for the natural healing process in every phase of an illness such as cancer. Cancer is, according to Hamer, a ”Meaningful Special Biological Program“ and
already part of the healing process itself. Chemotherapy is viewed as a pseudo-treatment that stimulates the cancer growth and is seen as equal to exorcism.
Regretfully, there have been some cases where patients, who blindly turned to his absurd teachings (Hamer promises a 95% success rate with cancer), died despite of a curable disease, like testicular cancer,
by depriving themselves from the conventional, allegedly Jewish“, treatment. Several deaths that could have been avoided are documented in Germany as well as in France.
Hamer’s doctrine is irrational and is lacking in scientific or empirical evidence; based on the aforementioned fatalities, it has to be considered as extremely dangerous.
The potential legal consequences for medical doctors, who on the basis of this method discontinue or stop conventional treatments, is to be charged with negligence in providing medical assistance or to
possibly lose their medical license.
In 1986, Hamer himself was stripped of his medical license. But, he continued to practice illegally. Since December 2004, he has been
imprisoned in France for a 3 year term for the illegal practice of medicine. He is facing other jail sentences in Austria as well as in Germany. The Bavarian Cancer Society expressively warns patients
not to trust into this kind of treatment.
All available judicial means must be generated to stop any further dissemination of this doctrine.
Prof. Dr. med. Reiner Hartenstein,
President of the Bavarian Cancer Society
Dr. Hamer’s reply to Prof. Reiner Hartenstein
Dr. med. Mag. theol. Ryke Geerd HAMER
Apdo. De Correos 209
Camino Urique 69
29120 Alhaurin el Grande
ESPANA
Tel: 0034 952 595910
Fax: 0034 952 491697
Herrn
Prof. Dr. med. Reiner Hartenstein
President of the Bavarian Cancer Society
Nymphenburgerstr. 21a
D-80335 München
May 17, 2006
Re: Your article in ”Passauer Woche“ of March 8, 2006
Dear Professor Hartenstein,
This letter is in response to your statements in the Passauer Woche of March 8, 2006, on behalf of the Bavarian Cancer Society.
In your article, published under the heading: ”The president of the Cancer Society on German New Medicine“, you write that ”German New Medicine (GNM) is the abstruse and pseudo-scientific medical doctrine of an outsider“.
I would like to point out that you can only call GNM abstruse and pseudo-scientific, after having falsified my findings by reproduction on the next patient’s case, as it is customary in natural sciences. But
you have not done this.
Given the aforesaid, I must request, with all due respect, that you unconditionally withdraw your unqualified statement.
Recent epidemiologic studies clearly show that there are no increased cancer cases to be found in people with depressions or who suffer from extreme psychological stress (Dalton, et al. 2003 and 2004).
You are alleging something that I have never claimed. If you had read my books (I am sending you my latest two ”Krebs und alle sog. Erkrankungen. Kurze Einführung in die Germanische Neue Medizin”
and „Einer gegen alle”) you would understand that there is no causal link between cancer and depression, and that depression is in most cases only an accompanying symptom of a so-called cortical
constellation. Also, if you knew the difference between the ”stress tonus“ (sympathicotonia) of the conflict-active phase of every Meaningful Special Biological Program (MSBP) and general
non-specific daily stress, you would understand that an increased level of stress is not at all related to the development of cancer.
What more could you expect from me, as a serious scientist, than
that I am prepared to have my findings tested and have my discoveries put to the scrutiny of a medical faculty.
Back in September 1995 – during the time of the ”Olivia Case“ - I
offered Prof. Becker (surgeon), then Dean of the Medical Faculty of the University of Tübingen (Germany), to demonstrate my findings on a random number of patients from his clinic in front of all 700
lecturers and professors of the Faculty. That verification conference was scheduled for October 19, 1995, per handshake.
One week later, the Dean’s secretary informed me that the Dean
could not keep his promise, because the Faculty did not permit him to conduct the verification conference. I can assure you that this is exactly how it all took place.
Please feel free to ask your colleague Prof. Becker about the matter. There is also a written correspondence on this subject.
What more do you want me to do?
What more scientific evidence can I provide you with, in order not to be called a charlatan and not to have German New Medicine slandered as ”abstruse“ and ”pseudo-scientific“?
To this day, not one of your colleagues has contended that conventional medicine comprises some 5,000 unproven hypotheses. German New Medicine, on the other hand, does not have a single hypothesis.
In natural science – and don’t we medical doctors want to be scientists – any scientific method that can be verified with any given patient’s case, is considered to be correct. In contrast, a method like
conventional medicine that comprises 5000 hypotheses that cannot be reproduced on any patient’s case, is in fact an abstruse and pseudo-scientific doctrine (please refer to the evaluation of Prof. Dr.
Niemitz, University of Leipzig (”The New Medicine a new natural science“).
Prof. Niemitz’s concluded: ”Based on the criteria of natural science, the New Medicine, given today’s scientific understanding and today’s
best knowledge must be declared as being correct“ (Leipzig, August 18th, 2003).
For the benefit of our poor patients, of whom, to the best of my knowledge, up to 1,500 are dying unnecessarily every day, I extend
to you the following offer:
I would like to invite you to come to Alhaurin, Spain, accompanied by two or three professors who know German New Medicine, and
who share your confidence. I am prepared to demonstrate in front of a video camera the biological laws of GNM on any number of patient’s cases, i.e. to verify them, so that you won’t have the slightest doubt.
We should be able to accomplish the verification process within two or three days. Even Prof. Voigt, former Dean of the Medical Faculty of the University of Tuebingen stated on December 16, 1986, before the
Administrative Court of Sigmaringen, Germany, that it would be easily possible to verify within two or three days whether the New Medicine is indeed correct. One year after (1987) the judge (Dr.
Diem) stated in writing: ”There is unanimity amongst the contending parties of the lawsuit that it is only possible to verify the correctness of the New Medicine through reproduction on the next patient’s case“.
I propose Dr. Willibald Stangl, M.D. to act as referee. Dr. Stangl is president of the Medical Officer Association of Lower Austria, a sworn court surveyor, and absolutely integer.
It should be in your interest and in the interests of our patients that this evaluation will take place.
One again, I invite you to come to Spain. Unfortunately I cannot go
to Germany at the present, because I am afraid to be indicted again on some alleged charges. But, I can assure you that we will hold a genuine verification conference supervised by several professors of
natural science so that the scientific accuracy of the testing is ensured.
I propose the dates July 8 and 9, 2006.
I will take care of arranging the location as well as accommodation.
With kind regards,
Dr. Hamer
No further interactions seem to have ensued betweed Dr. Hamer and Prof. Hartenstein.
Also read a letter Dr. Hamer sent after his release from prison in
February 2006.
|
