This is a lecture given by French doctor Michel Henrard on Dr.Hamer's theory about the origin of cancer and other diseases. The lecture is very long, but it's worth reading. I post it here for informative purposes only. If you have some disease, don't attempt any alternative or conventional treatment by yourself; seek the help of a trained and certified professional physician.
Introduction
There is a lot to say about the discoveries of Dr. Hamer and I would like to pass on to you a maximum of notions in one night. This conference is thus inevitably vulgarised. I structured it supposing that people did not know his work, in order to make it comprehensible for all.
I will start with the 4 principal biological laws he put forward, being largely sufficient to judge the importance of his discoveries. But his entire work, still growing, explains 5 of them including different rules. It is though not essential, nor even possible to take them up in the frame of a succinct reading. Next, I will briefly summarise the consequence of those laws from the point of view of diagnosis and of therapeutics. In the third part, I will tell you about real-life situations experienced by my patients. I will slightly distort those cases, not in the essence though, since there are probably in the audience people whose case I will elaborate or persons knowing these patients. We will then make a break, whereafter I will try to answer all your questions.
Before entering the core of the subject, I would like to make two introductory remarks. The first one is meant to avoid a misunderstanding, because, even if Dr. Hamer’s work is not well known yet, its starts to spread though, and proportionally to this progression, misunderstandings are installing. For this reason, I would like to precise that his work and his discoveries are not a curing method as such, nor a therapeutical method to be opposed to other therapies; even if it has important and incalculable consequences on therapeutics. The work of Dr. Hamer is in fact an explanatory system of disease, of all diseases whatsoever, from the most benign to the most malignant ones. It is, of course, not an explanation of the life and death phenomenon, since this goes far beyond medicine to open on to philosophy and metaphysics, but it is an explanation on everything that may occur inside the human body during a disease. I am telling you this in order to avoid frequent questions such as: which result do we get with the Hamer method? Which percentage of cure do you get with this method compared with this or that other method of alternative medicine, etc.? These questions do not make sense and you will understand why as the evening progresses.
The second introductory remark is this one : the contents of this work may be, on the one hand, very easily comprehensible from an intellectual point of view, but, on the other hand, very difficult to assimilate and to practice by the patient as well as by the doctor. I would like to explain this obvious paradox in two or three minutes. Why easily understandable from an intellectual point of view? Because these laws are simple, logical, coherent and a summary would be easily accessible for an adolescent. This discovery, however, is very difficult to assimilate for two reasons.
First, because when approaching disease this way, one does not only consider the symptoms of the organs, but also the psychic, emotional life and the life-experience of the diseased. When, questioning a patient, in the relation one will build up with him, one will enter his life, the intimacy of his history and sometimes even his secret garden. There is an implication in this medical approach that does not exist in classical medicine, which generally only considers the body . It is absolutely essential but all the patients can not accept this involvement. It is easier to say : “Doctor, I have a sciatica or, my digestion is bad ; I have a cancer at that organ”. But the canvass Dr. Hamer has worked out is to discover the causes and the process leading to it and consequently to investigate in people’s more personal life. It is also not always evident for the doctor to put the indispensable questions and to shake them up, emotionally speaking.
The second reason, evenso important, is that the conclusions to which we will come when following these discoveries of the biological laws he put forward, are very different from the conclusions of classical medicine, often at 180 degrees. This will extremely upset all the established ideas, our whole medical culture, and all the dogmas one thought to be acquired and often create an important confusion with the patients. I will certainly not throw a stone at any doctor who, having went through these works, is absolutely not willing to engage in this path because it will make him question most of his beliefs. At this stage, I would like to give you a small insight of those differences by means of three intentionally chosen examples.
- One may very well accept to consult someone with whom a cancer was discovered and to whom a surgical operation, radiotherapy and even chemotherapy was proposed; thus, a case considered serious. One applies the biological laws and after having done this work, as I will explain you, one may come to the conclusion that all that has to be done to treat this person is equal … to doing nothing! Nor surgery, nor radiation, nor chemotherapy. This because he does not have an evolutive cancer and that there is nothing to worry about. The only thing to be done is to explain things thoroughly to the person and to reassure him. It is evident that there is more to it than a slight difference between this doing nothing and what that person was bound to undergo for therapy ; it are two radically opposed ways. This scenario is, however, not seldom at all.
- Another example : classical medicine teaches that leukaemia is a blood cancer, a particularly severe cancer, the classical therapy of which being consequently incisive : repetitive chemotherapy that will often culminate in a bone marrow transplantation. When following the biological laws, however, one easily understands that, on the contrary, leukaemia is a remarkable biological mechanism foreseen by nature : a mechanism for curing a blood disease anterior to leukaemia. If one then persists, by means of very powerful therapeutic means, to fight against the curing that is vital for the individual, what will be the consequences? I let you draw your conclusions. Here, once again, we completely disagree with the dogmas and the classical therapeutical attitudes of medicine.
- A last and even stronger example to show you the difference of wavelength between the two conceptions : the symptoms and the diseases, the pathologies presented by someone who is seropositive or labelled as an AIDS-patient. Those symptoms have nothing to do neither with the HIV-virus nor with immune deficiency. This is an unacceptable discourse : say this to a doctor! Since more than ten years they are studying the subject in the four corners of the planet, trying to understand the role of this HIV-virus and its final culmination in AIDS. The practical result equals zero, but by following the biological laws, the symptoms of an AIDS-patient can be explained at the same level as those of a cold, an eczema, haemorrhoids, a cancer or multiple sclerosis.
All the pathologies are explained and understood by means of the same laws, following the same reasoning and with the same approach. It is a considerable simplification of the entire medicine but a conception absolutely overturning all the dogmas, all our taboos at the level of cancer, metastases, the dogma concerning the evolutive diseases, the dogmas on contagion, vaccines, etc. I would say that almost everything is being reconsidered. That is also the reason why this message is so difficult to pass and why a lot of patients can not accept it. Everybody can accept the fact that there is a relation between mind and disease. It will even be said : someone with a better mindset has more chances to get out of this or that disease. And then there are the idioms : he fretted himself into a fever, he worried himself sick, etc. But the canvass of Dr. Hamer goes farther beyond. It is going to re-create all the links existing between the precise and personal life-experience of a patient and the symptoms he presents, and this in all the pathological cases. With the exception of course of the genetic diseases, being physical defects, and of those clearly due to external aggressions : physical traumatisms due to accidents, intoxication, radiation such as the Chernobyl phenomenon, etc. But next to those affections provoked by external agents, all the diseases are a consequence of our history, of our life-experience. It was worth its while to precise the paradox because the patient might find himself seated between two stools, with two completely different discourses. When considering yourself, what would you do if a cancer were diagnosed? What would you do if leukaemia were diagnosed with your child? My goal is to inform you of the discoveries allowing choosing by trying to gain a maximum of information, and not only those we are being submerged with through the media.
1st law: the origin of the diseases:
Dr. Hamer christened the first law THE IRON LAW OF cancer. I insist on keeping up with a large part of his jargon and on keeping up with the designation that he gave to his laws. First of all, why Law? Because his work is entirely empirical. It are not theories, nor hypotheses. He has drawn his conclusions from a strict observation of constantly repeating facts. Considering one of the introductory remarks made at the start, I do not ask you to believe me tonight, but to check by yourself, which is one of the conditions allowing to assimilate his works. Why iron? Because iron is a particularly powerful alloyage and because this law, being the first one he discovered and the pivot of his entire work, it was particularly verified. Why cancer? Because he started his research with cancer but he went on with all the other affections. One could as well say : the Iron Law of all diseases.
What does this iron law teach us? That in every pathological process a triad of elements must be taken into account, this triad being : psychism, brain, the whole of the other organs; three elements always functioning synchronically. But the birth of a disease starts in the psychic element. This means that there is a problem at the psychic level and that it will react on the brain. The brain, being the computer managing the whole of the organs, the disturbance at the level of the brain will provoke a disorder somewhere inside the body . Thus, it starts in the psychism, but since all three elements work synchronically, as soon as the psychism is affected, at the same second, if one lived a drama or an emotional shock, a disturbance occurs within the brain and immediately, at the same time, has a repercussion within the organs. Let us not forget this notion of synchronisation : it is important and we will come back to it.
First precision : what is exactly going on within psychism, because the following question is often put : who does not have worries, difficulties and yet not everybody is ill? It is evident that the little worries of everyday life do not make us ill. A very particular scenario is needed, the different parameters of which I am going to explain. Dr. Hamer gave this disease-starting element the term of biological conflict, an expression the importance of which justifies a rather complete development.
Conflict is a very generic term. It concerns a problem of opposition, antagonism, tension, etc. and addresses elements as varied as nations, generations, individuals, materials, etc. The adjective “biological”, however, limits its impact to our health situation… since, tonight, we are talking about disease. Let us consider the different characteristics in detail.
- Let us first say what it is not, i.e. multiple disagreements, tensions, quarrels all being part of our daily life and inevitable since we all have different characters. Let us rather talk about “psychological” conflict and we do not need psychology and its rules to understand the biological conflicts. On the other hand, though, we can not do without what is disturbed at the psychic level.
- It is not either the result of an accumulation of problems or difficulties that we can finally not manage anymore, nor – to take up an often used expression – the last straw that breaks the camel’s back. It is the whole difference with a “back drop” that does not make us ill, as we endure it, and we often do it since a long time. To take up the straw metaphor, I would rather say that the conflict would consist in putting the whole bale of straw on the camel’s back : be he loaded or not, in both cases, his back would break! Let us now look at the precise conditions of a biological conflict.
- It started of course with an event painfully experienced at the psychic level. But this experience must have taken the aspect of a shock, of something unexpected : have an unavoidable and de-stabilising side. Dr. Hamer describes this as a contrary effect in front of which one can only react with one’s psychic resources of the moment. (Note : Dr. Hamer gave this shock the name of DHS, the initials of the Dirk Hamer Syndrome, in memory of his son Dirk, whose tragic death was at the origin of his own cancer). In other terms, it consists in a breaking point compared with our daily life rhythm that will leave traces in our psychism of a non-solved problem that we will hark back later on, looking for a solution. I will take a simple image to help you understand this notion of shock. If I tell a person in the audience : when you will go out of here, you will meet a great friend of yours that you have not seen for six years. You will be inclined to jump in his arms, filled with joy ; but I warn you, he is going to insult you. And supposed I succeed in convincing that person. When she goes out, she will have been able to anticipate the event and there will be no shock. If, though, she goes out and does not know, she goes to meet that friend and expresses her joy : “I am so happy to see you, it has been years…”. But she is interrupted by the answer : “Get out of my way, I do not want to see you, I’ve seen enough of you!”. The person might make it a conflict of feeling rejected because what has happened to her is painful and totally unpredictable. Being de-stabilised at that moment, she can not manage this experience by means of a reaction and an attitude usual with her.
- The conflict should also be involving for ourselves and consequently that the shock is not only experienced as a stroke of fate, we could not have changed anyway. The best example I can take to make you understand this aspect is mourning : one of the sufferings human beings may experience as one of the most important. And who, in his life, has not known of will never know one day the decease of a cherished being? The disease, however, one is going to develop after a conflict is proportional to the intensity of that conflict. If mourning were a conflict, everybody would develop a severe disease. There is, however, only a slight minority of persons developing one, after e.g. the decease of their partner. One has to feel partly or totally responsible for the death of someone to have a conflict, because then, on feels involved. It is this personal implication that enhances a feeling of being torn apart within oneself and that prompts one to find a solution to the conflict by means of a continuous harking back. In this harking back, isolation is a worsening factor. When one has the opportunity to talk about one’s problem, to express it, to throw on the table a large part of the emotions one experiences, one has more chances to lessen the conflict. But that is true for any kind of state of mind and the shock at the origin of the conflict itself is always experienced in isolation.
- Finally, one should add that the content of the conflict has to be something important, even vital I should say. This vital function may, however, be only very slightly affected, what will only entail a very minor conflict. This allows us to understand that, when looking for the conflict within someone, the vital axis having been affected in him, should be found. An example of a vital axis is the feeling of one’s own value. If a human being does not have a feeling of his own value anymore, he will not be able to live any longer since he will not be able to act anymore. Consequently, to develop a devalorisation conflict, this axis must be affected. I will, however, not develop a devalorisation conflict when my wristwatch has been stolen, because it is not vital for me. The stake must be sufficiently important to feel divided, opposed within oneself, so that it is harked back continuously and that one searches a way to get out of it.
As soon as the conflict has started, what is happening synchronically at the three levels of the triad? We already talked about the psychic level : it is the painful harking back of the conflict in search of a solution. It has two consequences on the nervous system. The first one is what is called a state of stress in classical medicine. This means that the person confronted with his conflict is going to connect his nervous system essentially to what is called the orthosympathetic state. It works according to a balance, a sine curve, which, in normal conditions, keeps us active and attentive during the daytime, and engenders a number of modifications within our organism, helping us to recover, during the nighttime. We thus pass from a state of activity and sometimes even of a certain non-conflictual combativity, to a well-deserved rest! As soon as the conflict starts, the nervous system will be in alert for a longer period of time than usual and will not enable this normal recuperation that everyone has every night before going to sleep. There will consequently be a series of alterations such as for example a greater state of irritability, more restlessness, and a higher tension. The person will eat less, loose weight and, if the conflict is important, even have an increase of certain hormonal secretions, adrenaline, cortisone, etc. These physiological disorders are not specific to a particular conflict. It is only what is called stress in medicine. And this stress is fortunately foreseen by nature, because, if it were not, the person would not be able to solve his problem. Notwithstanding these unpleasant occurrences, this state is not absurd in itself. On the contrary, it gives the person the physiological means within his body allowing him to act, to further fight in order to find a solution.
The second consequence on the nervous system is affection within a precise area in his brain, the localisation of which being dependent on the type of conflict. Do not ask me what is exactly going on inside the affected cells in that part of the brain, I do not know. On this, theories and hypotheses can be elaborated. It can only be observed and, as I told you, there is no theory whatsoever. It is purely empirical, but an empirism that is never at fault. In each disease, one finds a conflict and a cerebral modification. (Note : a modification, which is detectable by scanner). Now, each area, each localisation within the brain manages one organ in particular and, consequently, the organ that will be affected depends on the affected part of the brain. What will determine the disturbed cerebral area is the subjective colouring of the conflict, the way the conflict was experiences.
(Note: According to Hamer theory, the following image is a brain scan of a patient with breast cancer (cancer of mammary glands) in the right breast:
According to Hamer's theory, every patient of breast cancer with right mammary carcinoma (i.e. a cancer affecting the mammary glands, not the ducts) will have a visible cerebral modification (known as Hamer Herd) in the same place as shown in the above scan. Read Hamer's explanation on breast cancer in this link.
Another example: According to Hamer's theory, every patient with a lung adenocarcinoma will have a visible Hamer Herd like this (in this specific brain localisation):
Read Hamer's explanation on lung cancer in this link.
Note that each kind of cancer has a specific Hamer Herd (visible brain modification in a brain scan) in a specific part of the brain. This makes Hamer's theory empirically testable: you only need to verify if, in every kind of cancer, there is a corresponding Hamer Herd in the specific brain localisation predicted by Hamer).
I will refer to a very pedagogic example Dr Hamer often cites: the one of a woman who learns, unexpectedly of course, that her partner has been unfaithful. To find out about her marital misfortune is just the event. If she enters into a biological conflict, because it means a lot to her, the essential question, the clue to understand the pathology she is going to suffer, is to know her personal experience, her subjective experience of the conflict. How did she live this shock? I will invoke some possibilities. The woman would live, what is called in our jargon, a nest conflict i.e. the destabilisation of the family, of the cocoon, of the home and she can already see her children driven from pillar to post and her home crumbling away. The experience will touch the lateral part of the cerebellum and she will develop a breast pathology eventually labelled cancer if the conflict is important. But she could as well experience it in a totally different way. She could as well not see her nest destroyed but have a conflict of sexual frustration, as the intimate intercourse with her partner was good. At that moment, the impact at the brain level will be the left peri-insular part of the brain, being a totally different region managing the functioning of the uterine cervix and thus, this woman will develop a pathology of the uterine cervix. The pathologies are also proportional with the duration and the intensity of the conflict. If she had a small nest conflict that only lasted two or three months, she will only have a small tumour that will stop. If the conflict lasts for more than two years, she will have a tangerine-size tumour. As such, if the sexual frustration conflict is very important, one could arrive at the diagnosis of cancer. But the experience could still be different : not seeing the destruction of her home because she did not believe very much in this home ; not living this sexual frustration because sexuality was already unexisting with her husband or because she had a lover herself or anyway, it was not that what was important. She could experience it as something disgusting, a filthy trick from her husband. This will target another part of the brain and develop pathology of the digestive tract ; she will e.g. develop a colitis or another affection of the colon. She can still experience something else : a devalorisation. If my husband goes with someone else, it means that I am not worth much. The link with the brain in this case is the cerebral marrow managing the bones and the pathology will thus be osseous. One could give some twenty possible conflicts for one same event with, consequently, some twenty different pathologies. Without a biological conflict, there would not be any disease, but the woman might experience several conflicts at a time with the corresponding affections.
All this is a matter of subjectivity and one may not foresee how the person will react. If it is important to know what happened in someone’s life, because something must have happened for the person has developed a conflict, it is even more precious to understand how he experienced the conflict, since that is what is going to determine the brain area. And that is what Dr. Hamer has highlighted. He codified, on more than 10,000 cases, each localisation in the brain corresponding to each type of conflict. And not to the events! He has never said that every misled woman was going to develop this or that pathology, that every man having lost his job was going to develop this or that disease. He highlighted a relation that I never caught at fault, between the experience one has to look for while discussing with the patient – and that is not always that easy – an area of the disturbed brain and the affection of an organ. He thus established the triad circuit for all conflicts. It infinitely more precise than a smoggy relation such as having a good state of mind or not, bothering about something or not…
I would also insist on the fact that in order to understand a conflict and the experience of the shock that enhanced it, one has always interest in looking for the most “fundamental” experience, for the core of what the patient has lived. That is the reason why Dr. Hamer often presents the conflict in animal terms, because it still is the easiest way to understand it. A conflict is not something idealised. It always is something emotional, rather fundamental emotions vital for the one experiencing them. It is not vital for someone to realise this or that professional project for example, but failing its realisation might be vital in that he feels de-valorised. It is this de-valorisation aspect that has to be considered and not an a posteriori and more intellectualised “judgement” of failure. One has to look for the emotion that really disturbed him, far beyond the events and there we will always encounter psychic and always basic resents : fear, de-valorisation, disgust, rejection, threat, rivalry, hindrance, blemish, depossession, etc. Those emotions are finally the same as for animals, the brain of which is far close to ours, and the biological laws evenso apply to the animal reign. With the human being though, the psychic sphere is much more extended and the possibilities to develop a conflict are far more frequent. But as far as the brain and the body are concerned, it all happens in the same way with man and animal.
Let us take someone who develops a territory conflict. With an animal, the territorial concept is simple. It is an area he is going to mark by means of defecation or miction and he might develop a conflict if some other animal enters his territory or touches one of his females, if he is a ringleader. With man, however, the territory is a much more extended concept. It is his action field ; it is his entire liberty that ends where someone else’s liberty starts. Human territory, on the one hand, comprises his private sphere, his partner, his children, the objects he owns, even his car. A man might develop a territory conflict for example because his wife has left him – she deserted his territory – and its manifestation will often be a lung cancer. While a woman will most often develop a nest conflict having a repercussion on her breast. And if his car was very important for the representation of his territory, a scratch in this vehicle might as well enhance a territory conflict! Next there is the whole socio-professional extension, someone’s job. He might as well develop a territory conflict because he was fired from the company he worked in. For a territory conflict in particular, there are slight gradations : the threat of the territory, its intrusion, its marking, the boundary quarrels, the conflict of having to fight to protect it, etc. Each of these gradations affects a different area in the brain, with the corresponding pathology. From the moment a conflict of threat or of de-structuring of the territory exists for example, the target within the brain is identical for man and animal and the pathology will be the same: a bronchial pathology. If the conflict consists in having to fight to regain or protect one’s territory, the target is the same, be it for a street sweeper, an astrophysician or a yogi, it does not matter ; be it for a deer, a mouse or a dog, it does not change : it is the same target, the same relay to the brain: a heart attack followed by an infarction. The difference between man and animal lies in the psychic level. Man’s psychism, as I told you, being more extended, has more reasons to develop a conflict than the animal living rather according to his instinct where the stake is more limited : eat, protect his territory, his offspring. As far as the domesticated animal is concerned, he lives more conflicts as he shares the human individual’s life and all the relations it enhances.
2nd law: the two phases of the diseases:
Once the conflict has started and with it the disease, it will be the history of the conflict that will arbitrate the evolution of the disease. This leads us to the second law : THE LAW OF THE TWO PHASES OF THE DISEASe. In this case there is no particular jargon to clarify. This second law teaches us that in each disease, from the mildest to the most severe, two phases have to be considered. The first one starts with the onset of the conflict, and we have seen the modifications at the three levels of the triad psychism-brain-organs in the first law. The second one starts only when the conflict has been solved, but that happens sooner or later in most of the conflicts, hence the importance of both phases. We will consider the nature of the symptoms at the organ level in each one of the phases in the third law. Let us examine now the second part of what we may already call a “complete disease”.
When the conflict is being solved, one is not rid of it as such. One lived a conflict during which an organ was damaged : small damages if the conflict was slight or short, important damage if the conflict was important or lasted long. Well, we are going to repair now! All this is foreseen by nature and this second phase being the reparation is as implacable, as natural, as spontaneous, and as mathematically predictable as the first. And it still acts on the three levels of the triad.
I) At the psychic level, the person feels relieved but also exhausted, a fatigue in proportion with the intensity of the conflict. If one experienced a conflict during six months, one may feel so exhausted that in the end, it may sometimes be labelled as a depression. It is not a real depression. It means more exactly “ leave me alone, leave me in peace, I have had my part of worries these last six months, if I could momentarily go to a deserted island..” That is what an animal often does. He hides in his hole, in his cavern to repair all the damage having accumulated during the first phase. The human being, however, is forced to stay operational or become operational as fast as possible.
II) The nervous system is now going to connect especially to the rhythm complementary to the one of the awakening system that is called the state of vagotonia, hence the need to compensate rest. He will need to sleep more, he will regain appetite at the same rate as the appetite he lost before, and the levels of cortisone and adrenaline are going to lower, etc.
The area of the brain that was specifically disturbed in its functioning during the first conflictual phase will also restore itself. Here already problems may arise because the repair of the cerebral centre involves an oedema, a congestion which means a faster blood flow and, hence, a swelling of the site that was affected, a swelling entailing a compression at the origin of various symptoms. There is also the intervention of the glial tissue, and at this stage some explanations on the brain composition are necessary.
The brain does not only contain nervous cells as such, called neurones. The major part is what is called glie, a tissue subdividing into different cell types whose role is to nourish the brain, repair it, being in fact the entire logistic system. Within the restoring process, one observes a proliferation of the glial cells at the site where the conflict affected the brain. If the conflict was very important and very long, this reparation may take a spectacular extent. One may detect enormous stains ; visible by scanner, with a clear mass encircled by dark rings, or simply one large dark mass. That is where the drama may start, because medicine is going to consider this as a brain tumour where it only is a repairing process one should be happy with since it testifies of the solution of a conflict. And if the pathology during the conflict phase is a cancer, this “brain tumour” will be considered as a metastasis! The person in his recovery phase will find himself in an even worse state than before. If you were told that you have a cancer with metastases within the brain, it means that your cancer is thus not cured but, on the contrary, in a severely advanced stage. Result : you enter into a much more dramatic state of mind than when you initially consulted for your first cancer. I here introduce the notion of iatrogenous impact i.e. provoked by medicine that I will develop later on.
(The story that follows may be past, but I would just like to leave the theoretical aspect of the conference for a while in order to illustrate a first live example that will already give you an outline of the practical approach the biological laws arrive at.)
Among all the patients I have seen affected with a brain tumour, I receive a person who had consulted a first neurologist and who clearly found a brain tumour evidenced by scanner, at least what is called tumour in classical medicine. The neurologist said : “It is not really within my competence, but the best thing to do is to radiate the tumour.” The patient being naturally worried, goes for another advice with a second neurologist : “The better treatment in this case is not the radiation of the brain, it will cause side effects. We will simply remover this brain tumour.” Even less reassured, he consults a third neurologist : “No problem, Sir, your tumour is well limited. The treatment I propose is the following : first we will perform some preliminary radiation, next we will excise the tumour and then perform a second radiation.” The patient gets even more panicky and decides – genuinely! – to consult a fourth doctor. Some days before going to this fourth consultation, he comes to see me. I have only seen him twice and I do not know what happened to him afterwards. I ask him to tell me his story and the precise period when this brain tumour was discovered. He explains that some six months ago, he was subject to epilepsy crises. At that moment, he had his brain scanned and he shows me the scanning results, and they told him he had a brain tumour. I considered the case and I said to myself : six months ago he was affected by epilepsy. Now, the epilepsy crisis is generally situated atop of the oedema. I put aside the details, but such an oedema must have taken one year and a half to take form and reach that stage. By all means minimum between six months and one year. Thus, if it took six months to one year to arrive at the summit of the oedema, this means that his conflict lasted between one and two years. I am working out the calculation and simply ask the patient : “I would just like to put a question to you. What terrible drama did you live two to three years? ». The patient looks at me with his eyes wide open : “Not one of the neurologists I consulted has ever asked this to me.” I say : “No, nobody will ask you this, but I would like to know which drama you lived two and a half, three years ago.” That is where he changed aspects. He was somewhat startled. A moment of silence followed and he told me : “Doctor, you do not know what it means to enter your son’s room and to see him hanged!”. I answer that I can understand it by looking at his scanning results and ask him when he re-started a normal life after this horrible drama. I ask him when he started going out again, invite friends, go to the movies, smile, etc. in order to have the tangible parameters because a person’s psychism is not measurable and in order to know its state, numerous questions have to be asked on his attitude, his reactions, his thoughts, etc. He confirmed that during one and a half-year it had been a real nightmare for him. That he could not stop thinking of it and that, progressively, in a few months, he took up a normal life again. Hence the solution of the conflict : the oedema starting and reaching the critical stage with epilepsy. I explained all this to him saying there was no danger, that this was the recuperation process. Fortunately, the tumour – between brackets – was really visible, not too badly situated, and the patient showed only tremor in one leg or one hand, I do not remember. So I told him : “There is nothing more to do than wait. Within six months or one year, the oedema will have sufficiently reduced and you will have no disorders any more». I have never seen him again. He must have consulted other more convincing neurologists, I presume. I just wanted to give you an example of a brain tumour.
III) Let us proceed with the third level of the triad. The organ depending on the brain centre is not going to remain with the damage accumulated during the conflictual phase and will also repair. We will see in the third law the nature of the symptoms occurring during both phases. What has to be done her is to precise that the organic reparation occurs spontaneously, biologically as foreseen by nature and that the recovery is consequently not due to medicine. You will tell me : “What is the use of medicine then?” It helps to relieve, and most often in the second phase, because this phase is generally more uncomfortable at the organ level than the first. We will see it later on in the third law. The therapeutical part of medicine is useful to help the patient go through this second phase, by soothing the pain and the different symptoms it might present, but it will not cure them. The cure is not the object of medicine because the origin of the disease is a life experience, and it is not a drug, nor a technical intervention, that is going to cure a life experience. Considering this approach, the doctor considerably looses his power. He is not a healer anymore but someone who can comfort and help to cure by assisting the patient in solving his conflict if this is not done already. When proceeding like this - we will come to it later as far as the therapeutical level is concerned - in front of a patient, the first thing to know is whether he is in the first or in the second phase. If he is in the second phase, he needs explanation, reassuring and, in the process of soothing, each therapeutic is a priori possible. One may use the usually employed means. The allopath will use allopathy, the homeopath will use homeopathy, the acupunctor will use acupuncture, etc. but this will only serve to help the patient go through this reparation phase which is, in about eighty percent of the cases, much more painful to go through than the first phase. (Note : both phases are approximately equal as far as duration is concerned, except, of course, if re-stimulation occurred during the second phase.)
What I would also like to tell you is that when solving a conflict, a lot of scenarios are possible. You may live a conflict very well limited in time, having lasted, for example, a few days, a week, two months non stop, and which is then clearly solved in a couple of days or in one week. In this case, you will have two clear-cut phases. The first one involving the stress symptoms and the damage installing in the organ, the second, very precise one : the relieved patient is weary, tired, from all the reparation symptoms. That is the scenario of the acute diseases : angina, bronchitis, cystitis ; most of the time a conflict and the accompanying pathology that do not last too long. But things are not as simple as re-stimulation may occur during the reparation phase. Here we make three steps forward, on step backward and we start all over again. One may also be confronted with several conflicts one of which being still active while the other one is solved, what makes it more difficult to evaluate. Some new conflicts may appear while solving one. Everything is then more complex as far as the symptoms are concerned. The conflict may also be what is called in balance i.e. that with the wear and tear of time, or because an individual has more or less, however not completely, adapted to his conflict, one faces a conflict not frankly active, not frankly solved. The image of the balance is a very good expression of this equilibrium that may be more or less weak and precarious. There is a variability of symptoms : I feel my shoulder but only from time to time and not really hard. While a severe crisis of periarthritis where the shoulder is completely “frozen” and very painful during two or three days. But after a fortnight, on may drive again, meaning a conflict that started at a very precise moment, completely and rapidly solved, giving a brutal, short pathology but with a fixed term. Finally, the balance may be so little evident, at the limit of the equilibrium that one speaks of a conflict in latency : nor neither active, nor solved but as put in the refrigerator, in the archives. The person evacuated the emotional content of the problem he had in the past. For example, he had a conflict while soliciting a professional promotion, and felt de-valorised, hindered. Later on, he says to himself : “To hell with it, it is not important any more!”. The conflict becomes latent because he does not think of it any longer, but it could blaze again if another possibility for promotion comes up and he decides to climb into the ring again.
Let us compare two extremely opposite scenarios. A conflict may be solved in an express way : if you are afraid to be short of money because you are extremely indebted, the conflict will be solved at the precise moment you won the sweep stake or you receive a registered mail informing you that you have inherited. No need for personal work such as decision taking or opinion change, the events are taking care of it. If, however, a conjugopathy is concerned – I mean a problem within the couple – this kind of conflict may sometimes take weeks or even months to be solved, with highs and lows, re-stimulation. A couple may solve a problem it had during one year and take weeks to solve it progressively to finally come to the durable solution. At the rate of solving problems, corresponding symptoms appear and when the conflict is completely solved, there will be a speeding up of the second phase symptoms that will stop as soon as the reparation has come to an end.
3rd law: the nature of symptoms in the two phases:
With this third law, we are going to understand the nature of the symptoms in each of both phases of the complete disease. Dr. Hamer called it THE ONTOGENETIC SYSTEM OF TUMOURS AND EQUIVALENTS. Let us first explain these rather dull terms. System : because this law brings a first coherent and simplifying synthesis of all the diseases. Ontogenetic : ontogenesis is the development of tissues in utero during the entire embryogenesis, and he made a link between the different pathologies the tissues could present and the embryonic origin of these tissues. Indeed, each of our organs – or, more exactly, each of our tissues, since an organ may contain several different tissues – derives from one of the three main embryonic layers. Tumour : because, at the start, his research was essentially focused on tumours and cancers ; but applying it to the other affections too, he completed with: and equivalents. Such as for the iron law, one could say ontogenetic system of the diseases.
What does this third law teach us? Simplifying somewhat, there are three kinds of modifications that may occur within a tissue during the conflictual phase. The tissue is going to proliferate, destroy itself, or stop functioning ; in the latter case, there is only a functional breakdown without proliferation or destruction. It are the three possible scenarios of damage within an organ, and the rest is only a matter of gradation. So, in other terms, an acne pimple is a proliferation as is a breast or an intestinal tumour. A gastric ulcer, on the other hand, is destruction, as is bone demineralisation. Diabetes is a functional breakdown. This is also true for the paralyses in multiple sclerosis where neither proliferation nor destruction occurs, be it at the level of the muscle or at the level of the brain. Each tissue reacts in its own way and one may thus foresee the type of pathology according to the tissue affected. The bone in a conflictual phase, for example, always starts a destruction process. There may be variants according to the gradation and the intensity of the conflict. It might be either the demineralisation of one bone or of the whole of a large part of the skeleton, what is sometimes called osteoporosis ; or a more precise spot, a moth-eaten bone, taking the structure of a sponge ; or even else a large cavity. But it always concerns a destruction process during the conflictual phase!
To be more complete on these three types of modification in the conflictual phase, let us add a technical precision that is though not indispensable for the comprehension of the lecture. The tissues proliferating during the first phase are directed by the most archaic part of the brain, i.e. the cerebral truncus and the cerebellum as well as the mesencephalic part subjacent to the diencephalon. The tissues which, on the contrary, proceed to destruction during the conflictual phase, are directed by the newer part of the brain : the cerebral marrow and the telencephalon. This allowed us to make the link between the tissue types, the modification types, and the relay to the brain and the kind of conflicts. But entering into the details of all this would be much too long.
During the spontaneous reparation phase, after the solution of the conflict, the tissue modifications will be, roughly speaking, the reverse of what happened during the first phase. The tissues having proliferated are encysted or destroyed by the microbes. Those having been destroyed are reconstructed again : the ulcers will be filled and healed ; the “holes” will be filled up by proliferation, which will thus be tumours. One sees here that the tumour phenomenon may exist in both phases. Those having gone through a functional breakdown will start functioning again. (Note : the restarting will often set on after a temporary worsening of the functional deficiency due to the oedema in the brain centre we talked about in the second law). In both first reparation methods, there will often be microbial intervention. This will be the object of the fourth law on their role in the diseases. Let us illustrate the universality of this natural system by means of some examples of current diseases, which will enable us to measure again all the differences as compared to the classical conceptions.
1. In bone pathology, nature is going to repair the destruction by operating a proliferation where something was missing. So “parrot bills”, seen in case of arthrosis, called osteophytes, prove that the person developed a destruction process at that spot in the past, after having lived and solved a de-valorisation conflict. And, according to the part of the skeleton affected, one may know in which field she was de-valorised. During the bone demineralisation process, there is no pain but the reparation makes the bone swell, the peripheral part of which being abundantly innervated, thus provoking the pain. Consequently, someone suffering from an arthrosis crisis is in a reparation phase. This is what has to be explained to him. If you want to know how long the crisis will last, consider the duration of the conflict and you will be able to tell people how long it is going to last. Without this comprehension, the patient who suffered some arthrosis crises at the age of 35 or 40 will tell himself that he is following the path of his uncle or of his grandparents who underwent surgery or were handicapped. He will think that he is becoming a victim of this evolutive disease, said to be degenerative. But arthrosis is not at all an evolutive disease.
I would like to put a word in brackets about a widespread cliché, which is a carrier of anxiety, as are much others. There is not one disease evolutive in itself except the genetic diseases. An evolutive disease is a disease where the conflict started one day and has never really stopped, or has often relapsed, or came into balance. One may suffer one or two arthrosis crises in one’s life … or even ten. One may be subject to eczema one week … or during thirty years. One may be tied to one’s bed struck by an attack of multiple sclerosis during a whole year and then walk again as anyone else does. One may die of one single “cancer” or recover from half a dozen. The history of a pathology will always follow the history of a conflict. The genetic diseases, however, start from birth onwards, and ever since they follow a programmation set on at fecundation ; it is not a matter of conflict. But do not talk to me about a genetic disease starting at the age of 20 or 40! I have had several of these cases. There might be a predisposition, consisting in having certain genes staying “locked up” for a long time ; but if one states that they are unlocked at the age of 40, I claim that there has been a life experience before the age of 40. And, each time, I found, in the patient’s history, a conflictual resentment consistent with these so-called delayed genetic diseases.
I will end this first example not by evoking those needless worries anymore, but the tragic consequences the absence of comprehension of the mechanism and of the origin of the diseases may entail. If the de-valorisation conflict was very important, but solved, the reparation consecutive to the much more important bone destruction, will not take the form of a simple and small outgrowth but that of a real tumour that bears the risk of being diagnosed as a bone cancer. I will come back later to the incoherences of the classical concept of cancer, but you can already imagine here what the consequences are. The patient will experience his violent pain as the proof of his cancer – evolutive by definition – and will see his moral sink more and more when he could better endure it if he knew that, on the contrary, it is the token of his recovery. As to the treatment, he may expect the worse i.e. the amputation of a repairing bone!
2. Other example, the lung. It contains two essential tissues : the whole of the bronchi and the tissue of the pulmonary alveoli where the gaseous exchange takes place. It are two different tissues considering their embryonic origin and their conflict. Let us take the bronchi, the conflict of which is the threat of the territory and the relay to the brain is situated at the level of the telencephalon. During the conflictual phase, bronchial destruction, ulceration occur and during the reparation phase, these ulcers are mended as one would mend a pothole in the road or mend a crack in the wall with plaster. When nature mends though, it is often in excess to what has been destroyed – remember the outgrowths of bone reparation – and if the ulceration of the bronchi was important, it may lead to obstruction. A narrowing of the whole pulmonary part depending on these bronchi follows, since they are not ventilated anymore, what is called atelectasis in medicine. This atelectasis area is going to give the characteristic image on the X-ray. And the patient coughs, expectorates and is oppressed because of all this … reparation. The doctors do not understand. They see someone who is coughing since 3 or 4 weeks or 2 months and they think this history must go back to minimum 1 or 1 and a half-year. They are right when they are talking about this delay, but they can not explain why the patient is only recently coughing and expectorating. The answer lies in the two phases of the disease : this patient could not cough nor expectorate before, because while the ulcers are forming, there are no clinical manifestations. They are due to the elimination of the necrosed tissues and to the obstruction of the bronchi during the second phase. The diseased, suffering from a bronchial cancer, coughing and expectorating blood, has started his reparation phase. The drama is that, when consulting, he will hear that he has a lung cancer : a discourse the psychic impact of which is diametrically opposed to what should be said in order for him to repair without additional anxiety. I will not insist on the treatment : it will follow the same conceptions presiding over the amputation of a bone tumour… or a brain tumour. Here again, you notice the radically different attitudes. On the one hand, wait for the reparation to be finished, while comforting the patient. I do not argue the methods used, I am open to all methods to comfort and reassure the patient. On the other hand, tell him that he has a cancer, that he needs to be operated or has to undergo chemotherapy. Panic and amputation may entail new conflicts, at the origin of new “cancers” and so on. It is the comprehension of these biological laws that is essential and that strongly alters the therapeutic behaviour. It does not, however, introduce new therapeutics.
3. Last example: the intestinal mucosa. This mucosa proliferates in the first phase and this proliferation will be sufficiently destroyed in the second one, in order to allow the passage again of the alimentary and then of the faecal bolus. This destruction, repairing this time, will take the form of diarrhoea more or less glaireous and sanguinolent and especially more or less long according to the conflict. If the tumour is too important and comes to obstructing the intestines, it is of course necessary to operate : one can not live with an obstruction of the bowels. This even if the conflict is not solved ; but in this case, the tumour will be back. It will be back after some weeks or months according to what has been excised. It is not a relapse, but the proliferation going on since the second phase has not started yet. To take a metaphor, one simply took a leaf from a tree, but the tree is still there and goes on producing leaves. This is observed in all contemporary tumours of the conflictual phase : they will go on appearing unless, of course, the whole of the organ has been excised. But then, cancerology will speak of metastases, cutaneous for example on the cicatrise of a breast removal. And one should always remember the triad : notwithstanding the ablation of the entire organ, where a tumour was developing in the first phase, the conflict persists at the psychic and brain levels and may finally entail the fatal depletion of the individual.
I could still give you further examples, but I prefer going on and before coming to the fourth law, come back for a while to this very important notion of tumour and cancer appearing in the title of the lecture. In classical medicine, a fundamental distinction is made between non-malignant and malignant tumours both being synonymous to cancer. The non-malignant tumour is considered being far less dangerous than the malignant tumour. Its characteristic is to proliferate less rapidly than a malignant tumour, and especially to remain at the site of its origin. While the malignant tumour, and that is an intangible dogma, has the severe property to spread out within the organism, to generate, in other organs, new tumours called metastases. Without any explanation, it is said that every tumour judged to be cancerous might bring metastases, that will originate in almost whatever organ and within the most variable delays. And when there are enough metastases, the cancer is then described as generalised. But this dogma of the "evil infiltrating everywhere" is totally demystified by the exactness of the biological laws, being perfectly verifiable. Each tumour localisation has its own circuit : a biological conflict, a localisation in the brain and a consequence on the organ linked to this cerebral area. One may very well live more consecutive or simultaneous conflicts. One may have a complex resentment during one sole conflict. I take up again the first example I gave the one of the women who learns she has been cheated. She may at the same time develop an important de-valorisation conflict, a sexual frustration conflict and a conflict of something dirty. If she is going to consult, they will find a generalised cancer, but it concerns three different resentments and on the brain scanning, the three corresponding centres will be detected.
In the biological laws, there is no malignant tumour ; there is no demon to be exorcised, to be taken out of the body or to destroy at any price because it can only evolve. The distinction between the classical non-malignant and malignant tumours is purely quantitative, it is not qualitative. Here I would like to evoke an image that I often take up with my patients. I tell them : “Imagine that when going out of my consulting room you have an appointment four kilometres away from here, but you have two hours to spend. What will you do?”. Within this image, nor a car, nor public transportation are existing. The person will stroll, walk slowly. He will maybe stop at a terrace, have a drink and then go on walking because there are only five minutes left for the last hundred metres. All his systems, locomotor and cardiovascular, are functioning very slowly. Why? Because his motivation to spend himself physically is weak, he has plenty of time. But what if he had only twenty minutes to do those four kilometres, what would he do? He would run and have a much more important muscular, cardiovascular activity. There would be a much more accentuated whole of physiological parameters. Has this person changed identity for all this? Not at all, it is the same person. In the first scenario, where he had two hours to go, he could simply do it at ease. In the second scenario, the motivation to move is very strong and entails an acceleration of the physico-chemical reactions in his body . For the non-malignant or the malignant tumour, it goes exactly the same way. If the conflict is very intense, the cellular proliferation will be as fast. The same goes also for large-scale reparation, the repairing tumour will form very rapidly ; but this does not mean that there is a difference in nature between a non-malignant and a malignant tumour.
I remind you that in classical medicine, the ultimate criterion to judge between a non-malignant and a malignant tumour is to analyse the reproductive system of the multiplying cells. If one sees this very congested, very swollen reproductive system, one will speak of cellular monstrosities, of cellular atypies, etc. with the verdict of a cancer. While if one sees the reproductive system less active, the tumour will be judged non-malignant. This is the absurdly dualistic criterion, because, taking up my image again, the motivation of the person to move may take all the gradations according to the time given ; and in the cellular proliferation phenomenon, it will finally depend on the importance of the conflict or of its solution. Then, why bring the whole extent of variations possible in cellular proliferation over to a simple binary classification? The more since reality shows us so many differences in tumour evolution. The person who is going to decide between the nightmare of the devilish tumour with everything it will entail, or who will be able to reassure when a non-malignant tumour is concerned, is a specialist of course, who is correctly performing his profession but who is only looking through a microscope at cells enlarged between 400 and 1,000 times. He only knows the age and the gender of the person and the organ where the tissues was taken off. The life experience, the history of someone, the process that is still ongoing, all this is not taken into account.
In the biological laws, there is no distinction between non-malignant and malignant tumours and, what is more, a tumour is not necessarily a bad thing. A tumour may be something really pathological but then, it is a tumour developing in a tissue proliferating during a conflictual phase, and in this case, there is no limit. This tumour may evolve from the size of a pea to the one of a nut, of a tangerine, of a melon or even more. The only limits are those human being, not solving his conflict, can endure. While the tumour developing when the conflict is solved, concerns the tissues having gone through an already limited destruction, necrosis process, before the solution - and I remind you it is like plastering a crack in the wall or filling up a pothole in the road - the organism is going to develop a tumour that will repair the damage caused and this tumour will be functional in most of the cases. If it concerns a renal or an ovarian tumour for example, it will be renal or ovarian tissue that will function again. You see thus, once again, that the notion tumour is totally different in this approach.
To understand the tumour phenomenon, this “manichaean” vision between non-malignant and malignant tumour must be abandoned at first, as well as this modern and unexplainable myth of the metastasis ; and its presence must be restated in one of the two phases of the complete disease. As to its severity – a matter interesting us still much more concretely – it should be linked to the importance, the duration and the intensity of the conflict. And, notwithstanding new repetitions, I would like to insist again on this point, since it really is one of the essential questions a “profane” public is asking itself, since it is them who are suffering.
I told you that all the tissues managed by the archaic part of the brain have, during a conflictual phase, a way of damaging which is proliferation. So, even if it may be shocking – though at this stage of the lecture, it is certainly not the last questioning – I state here that everything here is cancer. The acne pimples of the adolescent are tens of cancers that do not stop appearing and disappearing. They are not at all due to the rise in hormones since, after adolescence, the hormones go on acting for a long time. Hence the question : why do acne pimples not last a whole life, but evolve according to so very different rhythms? A little bit during some months, lots during years, and often even a bizarre comeback at the age of 30 or 40? Why do not all adolescents have them? Explore the life experience, and why not yours if you have suffered from it, You will find the difficulty in asserting a dawning virility or femininity. It is personal to each one of us. Those little “taunts”, when facing the uneasiness of this period, change into as many small conflicts touching the deeper layer of the skin and provoke small proliferations ; the latter being destroyed by the microbial action during the second phase. It will not last forever, but it is often re-stimulated and consequently the pimples reappear and disappear again. The same goes for the small bony outgrowths, warts and condyloma, but here, the proliferation is rather reparation.
Does the word cancer not seem rather abusive for such benign affections? I fully agree, but then why use it for much more severe lesions, only because he same resentment was far more important? The more since this fateful word is wrapped up in so much incomprehension as to the origin of the phenomenon and in the always so mysterious characteristics. The first and the third biological laws explain – and allow us to verify! – that one same resentment, but far more severe, of an attack of one’s integrity will also entail a proliferation of the derm but far more consequent, i.e. very logically respecting the proportion between the importance of the conflict and the one of the lesion. It is not longer a simple pimple as in acne, but a tumour that can take an imposing size. It is, for example, the malignant melanoma or the “cancerous beauty spot”.
With all the comprehension acquired with these three laws, the moment has come to complete its application by evoking two painful and frequent realities of the diseases, the more since they are severe. The first one is the notion of the point of no return. I told you that the immense majority of the conflicts, even the dramatic ones, end up being solved. But, if the damage during the conflictual phase was too important, it is possible that the person can not recover anymore and, consequently, most of the people die during the recovery phase! For someone who destroyed or affected three quarters of his lung, three quarters of his liver of four fifths of his kidney, reparation is not always possible. It may be too difficult to endure, not necessarily at the level of pain, but subsequent to all the inflammatory phenomena, to the purely mechanical complications or to those due to cerebral oedema, and which may be out of reach for all kinds of treatment.
The second one is even more frequent and often has something to do with what I called the iatrogenous impact: it is the appearance of new conflicts during the recuperation phase if it is too hard to live. “Complications” are multiple: conflict of fear, of mutilation, of devalorisation consequent to his pain, or linked to other consequences of his state of health entailing family conflicts, separation conflicts, territory conflicts, etc. And, generally, in lung cancer histories having lasted for years, with successive “metastases”, the reasons why people die do not have anything to do anymore with the reasons why they initially consulted and that have been archived since a long time. This so-called extension of a cancer is in fact a life-experience filled out with new conflicts. The example of conflicts in series, I could witness mostly, is with breast cancer. It started e.g. following a marital conflict. When a breast is removed, the woman may experience it as a severe conflict of devalorisation in her femininity, a conflict the resentment of which is totally different from the first one and will entail bone affection. In order to better understand the risk, I often put this question : “What would you prefer? Being cheated by your husband or have one of your breasts removed?” It is certainly not meant to be cynical, but to know the importance such a situation may have. I assure you that the larger majority of the women answered without hesitation : “I would rather have my husband cheating me.” Some hesitated, but this proves that it is something dramatic. But, for classical medicine, it are travelling metastases. And, when a patient is told she has bone metastases, she will panic and develop alveolar tumours in the lungs : the machine is far engaged yet!
But, to put things straight: it is each time IF she develops a conflict. It is unfortunately often the case and also the explanation of the fact that one almost never observes “metastases” in animals. I often tell this short, though striking, story. When a veterinary surgeon tells a bitch : “My poor little bitch, the node I excised at your mamma is cancerous. You might have a risk of developing metastases. You will maybe loose your masters, etc.”, what will the bitch do? She gently barks, moves her tail. But a doctor, a gynaecologist, a senologist, a cancerologist who tells but half of all this to a woman, how will she react? She immediately plunges into anxiety! Who can endure this : have a cancer, especially if it is metastasised? She must thus get out of this new conflict as soon as possible. She may get out of it in twenty-four hours but may also take two months ; and, in the latter case, one will see the damage caused by this new conflict.
4th law: the role of microbes:
We just have to close the process of the complete disease now by integrating one of its essential components : the infectious phenomenon. It is the object of the fourth law, Dr. Hamer formulated as : THE ONTOGENETIC SYSTEM OF THE MICROBES.
The terms system and ontogenetic refer to their usage in the third law. System : because it brings an extended synthesis of the role played by the microbes in the diseases. Ontogenetic : because the different microbes being the fungi, the bacteria and the viruses all have what is called a “tropism”, i.e. an affinity for the tissues derived from a same embryonic origin. We will not have enough time to develop this more technical aspect of the affinities, but this is not at all necessary to understand the essence, i.e. the real role of the microbes. And, here again, the examination of the facts will throw over all the dogmas related to their noxiousness, contagion, prevention, vaccines, etc.
Contrarily to what is thought, microbes are not enemies that have to be fought by a defence system being our immune system. They are, on the contrary, “friends” being there to help us recover more completely but also more violently. Example : if you have developed a conflict affecting the biliary ducts of the liver, you will develop hepatitis being the recovery phase, when you will have solved this conflict. If you have viruses, your hepatitis will be more severe, but more complete. If you do not have viruses at your disposal, you will nevertheless develop your hepatitis. One will simply find no trace of viruses in the serology in the entire liver-repairing inflammation process. The viruses are thus not responsible for the hepatitis, it is our organism that uses them to optimise recovery!
This notion of microbial aid rests on concrete and repetitive observations, observations I do not at all ask you to believe – as for the biological laws – but to verify by yourself. First observation : the microbes only intervene when the conflict is solved and only during the second phase, thus on a previously modified tissue. In other words : you can not develop an infection if your conflict is not solved. Be it a furuncle, an angina, a bronchitis, a zona or the severest form of tuberculosis, there is no exception whatsoever. This contradicts the dogma of contagion with a healthy person, a contagion that could never be explained by universal and constant criteria : we understand it now.
I often hear following reasoning : “I was very tired since a couple of days or a week ; it is normal that my immune system was weakened and that I got the infection of X, or the first microbe that crossed my path”. This reasoning is the echo – deeply rooted in our beliefs – of these dogmas on microbial noxiousness, contagion and immunity conceived as sole defence. The manipulation of the biological laws brings us a much more reliable and at all times reproducible explanation. If that fatigue was not the banal consequence of extra work – which has nothing conflictual and can not make anyone ill – it was part of the non-specific second phase symptoms, where our nervous system commands us a need for additional rest. Simultaneously, the reparation mechanisms set into action. I already told you that this second phase is more than often more uncomfortable than the first one, and, in case of microbial work, it will always be that way. Next, the organ affected with infection will correspond to the type of conflict that is solved. The close analysis of each case of infection replaces those common beliefs on small and important depressions of our immune system, as well as the classical chills, “responsibles” as uncertain as non-repetitive.
If the microbes only intervene in the reparation phase, one may already think they participate in the restoration of the organs. But this does not yet formally constitutes a proof, since one may interpose as an objection that they remain a nuisance appearing only in the second phase, the objection being ill-assorted though, because why only in the second phase? It is the second observation that will establish their usefulness in the recovery phase : examine what they really do. The observation is then very expressive. One sees them destroying the proliferations having developed in the tissues reacting by means of this kind of modification in the conflictual phase. After the solution of the conflict, those proliferations have no further object, and if antibiotics or equivalents do of course not fight the microbes, they will try to restore the organ in the state preceding the conflict. If the microbes are missing, or have been artificially eliminated, those proliferations will stop but they will remain encysted. The destruction may not be completed, but sufficient to enable a better functioning of the organ. For example, an intestinal tumour may not be entirely suppressed, but sufficiently necrosed to set aside all risk of occlusion. Sometimes, their destructive action will leave a hole in the organ, as it is the case in the tuberculous caverns. But, keeping strictly to the facts, without “judging” their action, is it not better to remain with an anodyne small tissular shortage rather than with a tumour that could provoke compression phenomena? And, let us not forget that, even the classical lung specialists, considered their patient recovered when he only presented that sole cavern without any other symptom.
On the contrary, in tissues reacting by a loss of substance during the conflictual phase, the microbes contribute to a destruction limited to the cells which are no longer viable, to contribute afterwards to the reconstruction concretely consisting here in a cellular proliferation. It is the reason why one can only find for example a virus in the liver in case of hepatitis when it is in its second phase, or in the so-called uterine cervix cancer evenso in reparation, after the ulceration of the conflictual phase.
Let us finally add that in the two types of tissular modification where the microbes intervene in the reparation phase, their “work” does not systematically last during the entire second phase, but only in function of their own action : destruction, clearing up, reconstruction, etc. Let us take the cases of pulmonary tuberculosis and purulent otitis : the secretions witnessing the destruction stop before the end of the complete disease. The reason is that all the reparation is performed in a liquid environment – an environment constituting the two thirds of our organism where life develops! – and that the complete restoration of an organ must go through the elimination of this temporary liquid excess to come to the final cicatrisation step. At the end of the second phase, the action of the microbes is less necessary and even useless.
I, once again, resumed this fourth law as there would be much more to precise, particularly the actions more specific to each kind of micro-organism. But, considering these simple and constant criteria, verifiable by their presence, may we be satisfied with concepts as gratuitous as noxiousness in se, a completely hazardous contagion or a prevention that is not confirmed? On the contrary, the microbial actions is part of the tremendous natural programmation of the disease and it is the central computer, being our brain, that will decide of their appearance as soon as the conflict is solved, as well as of their disappearance as soon as their mission is accomplished.
To understand the importance of an infection, you always have to do the same step : know the importance of the conflict. And there will be nothing mysterious anymore in the considerable variations that the same infection may take from one individual to the other. Pulmonary tuberculosis, for example, may be a simple fortuitous discovery on an X-ray in industrial medicine, or during a check-up. You are being told : “Well, you have a tuberculous primary infection!” You are rather astonished but the proof is there : one can still see some typical small micro-calcifications. The radiologist reassures you by speaking of an old story without any importance, and, if you are curious, you will search in your past. It maybe happened when you were 17 or 18, a time where your missed school during a month, where you have coughed and expectorated very much, had fever. But the parents did not really worry, as everything was all right very quickly. And that same tuberculosis can make you think of certain Italian operas, where one spits out one’s lungs during a whole year, before dying of exhaustion in the arms or one’s beloved, the vocal cords still in top condition for the necessity of the cause… I try to ironise somewhat her in order to make it less dramatic, but if the tuberculosis appears to be lethal by its extent, you will always find a conflict in proportion. Think about the outbreaks of tuberculosis during both world wars : it was not a matter of malnutrition but rather an evident rise of the conflicts of fear to die. The underfeeding is especially a limiting factor meant to assume physically whatever important infection.
I leave the field of the infections for a while to draw a parallel with an entirely different pathology, because that one too can be banal or lethal, and because its explanation invariably goes through the biological laws. Why can an infarction pass unnoticed and be discovered accidentally during a cardiologic examination, or kill the same day? Always the same answer : look for the conflict. In the first case, it will only have lasted a few days or weeks and, in the other case, at least eight or nine months. Let me add a precision : the infarction is not due to the cardiac lesion, but to the reparation oedema in the brain. This oedema compresses the area managing the cardiac rhythm and its functioning, and, at its maximal extension, provokes a blocking of the heart. It is one of the second phase cerebral complications Dr. Hamer called the epileptoid crisis. Experimentation was even performed on animals where several coronary arteries were brutally clamped and the heart kept on beating. Personally, I have often seen patients, having more than half of their coronary arteries obstructed, living a normal life. A substitution circulation is foreseen everywhere. The infarction is explained by the conflict and not by the arteriosclerosis and the obstruction of the arteries.
Let us come back to the infectious phenomenon in order to divest the so usual notions of relapse and ill-treated infections of their mythical quality. The term relapse may cover two scenarios.
On the one hand, it effectively concerns a relapse in its strict sense, but in this case, after a simultaneous relapse of the first conflictual phase. One may thus have, more or less frequently, angina, bronchitis or vaginitis. Using the four laws, one will examine why the person always falls back into his conflict, and one will help him find the better parade for him. Result : done with the infections, the consultations, the drugs and … the growing anxiety over an innocent immune system heading directly to the charge of deficiency!
On the other hand, it concerns a new attack of infection each time the anti-infectious treatment is stopped. This time, it does not concern a relapse, but the continuation of the microbial work having been contradicted, and even completely masked, as long as the second phase was not finished. One may compare this to an eczema becoming red and itchy again, when one decides to stop the cortisone ointment … or to a leukaemia relapse, when the bone marrow tries to regenerate after the last bludgeoning of chemotherapy! The problem is that the doctor does not know how long he will have to treat, since he does not know the duration of the first phase. And all the doctors are confronted with the same problem, questioning themselves on their greatest successes or failures ; especially when the second phase is extremely long. If they knew its duration and if they only wanted to succeed, they only would have to take in charge those patients being very near to the end of their reparation phase, because it is the last therapeutist consulted in the second phase who wins the therapeutical praise! This happens of course in the great majority of cases, since it is the reparation that is most often uncomfortable. I have practices medicine during fifteen years without understanding anything and I learned more in six months than in fifteen years, by being able to “dismantle” the disease and thus to better foresee it and to know where the patient is going to. In a few words, if you want to know why your cystitis necessitated a package of antiseptics, a tube of homeopathic granules, an acupuncture session, an osteopathic manipulation, etc. or if one of those techniques had to be renewed 2, 5 or 8 times, consider exactly the duration of your conflict.
As far as ill-treated infections are concerned, it are conflicts having come to a balance where each period of relief will see the microbial work increase or start again. Here is an example that will show you simultaneously the “shortcuts” one may use when questioning a patient. When I see a man affected with chronic bronchitis since ten years, because ill-treated at the time of course, I am not going to start by asking him what he experienced ten years ago and that is still going on today. Except, of course, if he is really used to the approach. I am first going to ask him if he often needs sick-leaves and coughs less during weekends and holidays ; or if it is rather the contrary, having his weekends wasted by a worsening of the symptoms. If the answer is clear enough, I already know where I have to go on searching for the conflict : in the first eventuality, it will be the family environment and, in the second one, the professional environment. And, I will add in the same optic that, to evaluate if a retirement is a catastrophe or a blessing, one should not be satisfied with the sole consideration of the job the patient will no longer have…
I will end this last law with a precision, essential for its correct application : the eventual – and sometimes vital – necessity to interfere in the infectious phenomenon. We have already seen that an intervention in the natural phenomena may be mandatory, such as the operation of a tumour endangering a patient’s life ; and that may be the case in each of both phases. In the tumoral phenomenon, this necessity is relatively seldom and most often justifies itself by mechanical complications, such as obstruction or compression. In the infectious phases, on the other hand, things are a little more complicated even if the interventions must always obey imperatives of good sense and – as we will see – perfectly comprehensible.
The first indication is the risk for the patient of not being able to endure a “microbial reparation work” too consistent for his physical possibilities. In the whole of these reparations, real danger is seldom, but they have to be signalled. They will especially occur at both extremities of life, or when the weakening due to microbial cleaning lasts longer consequently to a first conflictual phase, too long itself ; and, a fortiori when both these conditions are combined. Also when the individual is already weakened for an entirely different reason than his infection: other disease, malnutrition, etc. A few concrete examples : if the pneumonia after the solution of a conflict of fear to die can not be circumvented, a baby or an elderly will be less able to assume the continuous efforts of an expectoration, which could lead, to choking. Evenso, one can not let a diarrhoea evolve that would lead the diseased to a fatal state of dehydration.
The second indication is intrusion, always in the second phase, of microbes not foreseen in the programme. At this stage, some explanation is necessary. First, in the immense majority of cases, when being in an infectious phase, we use our own microbes. So, our skin is covered with staphylococcus and our throat with streptococcus, and when we develop a furuncle or an angina, what do we find? Staphylococcus and streptococcus respectively! In a much larger number and considered pathogenic. In reality, there are no good microbes becoming bad, but simply an important multiplication only at the site where they have to perform the reparation. Another example : in the urine of a woman developing cystitis, colon bacillus is mostly detected, a bacterium possessed by each one of us. But its concentration will exceed the limit of 100,000 units, making it the responsible enemy to combat. While if less than 10,000 units are found, be there infection or not, it will be declared innocent. The incomprehension of the infectious phenomenon engendered the creation of these arbitrary levels, because why not 80,000 or 50,000, values which are also observed? All this reminds us of other more dramatic criteria, such as the one already exposed, being the simple classification between non-malignant and malignant cells. The same lacking engenders all these frozen classifications : the absence of observation of the large variations in biological modifications and the evenso extended one’s in the conflicts.
Next to the microbes inherent to our organism and always ready to intervene, others are existing reigning in the endemic state, i.e. usual to our regions, but that will only “invade” us in case of more sporadic or more important reparations. This is the case of numerous viruses and several bacteria among which one deserves to be cited considering its performances : it is the famous tubercle bacillus, the “Tuberculous Koch Bacillus”. Fortunately gifted with an excellent “resistance”, this ancient bacterium is especially appropriated to destroy the proliferations developed in the tissues depending on the archaic brain area. It thus contributes to clean the alveolar, intestinal, hepatic, genital, etc. tumours. But the evenso performing “price put on its head” has largely lessened its resistance and it has less and less the possibility to help us. It is on purpose that I cited this micro-organism considered a plague, though perfectly adapted to our occidental civilisation : the example will serve to introduce the second justification to consider intervention in the infectious phase.
This indication derives from taking into consideration a microbial ecosystem distributed over the world. It means that the numerous microbes are spread according to the sometimes totally different climatic zones. As long as an individual develops his infection with a microbe belonging to his usual environment, a problem may only occur in the situation cited higher of a reparation being too difficult for him ; because of his age, his weakness or because of the extent of his preceding conflictual phase. But the appearance of the rapid moves to far away regions makes us come into contact with another ecosystem the microbes of which are not adapted to the biological programme having developed in our original environment. So, the germs to which the natives of Central Africa or of the tropical American areas are used are not at all adapted to the occidental Europeans and this is where the system may fail. And vice versa : when the measles epidemics spread with the American Indians, mortality proved to be very important among the adults as the measles virus was not foreseen for these populations ; and only with the adults as the measles are a solution phase programmed for childhood where it is harmless.
Consequences on diagnosis and treatment:
Before coming to life experiences, I would like to rapidly summarise the consequences of these four laws on diagnosis and therapeutics. This will be the moment to talk about the personal shock – not at all biological but rather intellectual – being largely at the origin of my determination to verify these biological laws.
As far as diagnosis is concerned, you will have understood that it does not only extend to the physical lesions of the body , these lesions being the consequence of either an active conflict or a solved conflict. A correct and complete diagnosis is a diagnosis situated at the three levels of the triad psychism-brain-organs. At the psychic level, it means the exact identification of the conflict, the search for the moment and the colouring of the shock that made it set on, as well as for its stage at the moment of consultation. At the level of the organs, it means the observation of the tissue affected and the decoding of the nature of its modifications considering the two phases. For each of both levels – as for the cerebral level – it is evident that the appreciation will not only be qualitative, but also quantitative : the importance of the conflictual mass and of the organic lesion for which one will appeal to the necessary examinations.
It is intentionally that I take up last the examination of the cerebral level because this one is generally not absolutely necessary. It is very useful as it allows to precise the state of the conflict, showing differently on the scanning when in the activity or the resolution stage ; it also allows detecting the conflicts the investigations at both other levels would not have shown. But it is the most difficult examination of the triad, requiring a good experience, especially for the active conflicts. This is the reason why I principally use it when symptoms show translating a cerebral suffering due to the compression of the centre in reparation : it is then that the transient oedema must be specifically treated.
One can more easily do without the cerebral scanning, as in the approach of the biological laws, the diagnosis is over-determined, a notion justifying some recalls. We have seen that the complete disease evolves perfectly synchronically at the three levels. This implies that the diagnosis elaborated at one of the three levels could theoretically be sufficient and inform about what is going on at the two other levels. I insist on the term “theoretically” because when limiting to one sole tool, it implies a complete mastery, without one right of mistake. Let us take an example for each of the tools used separately. The rigorously conducted examination of the patient testifies of an active devalorisation conflict concerning the maintenance of his position : one must find an image on target in the cerebral marrow corresponding to the hip, and an X-ray of the hip must show a non-painful decalcification. The finding of a zona must lead to a solved conflict of impurity and to an oedema in the relay situated at the cerebellum. The image of an active centre in the right fronto-diencephalic area on a scanning must be accompanied with a non-solved repugnance conflict with resistance and a hyperglycaemia, i.e. a raise of the sugar level in the blood. But I would not advise to stay too close to one of the three possible “readings” and, as far as I am concerned, I systematically practise a cross-section between the study of the conflict and the pathology. Only relatively seldomly, when the person can not – or does not want to – talk about his conflict, will I be satisfied with the sole examination of the lesion. And even in this kind of difficult conditions, one may wangle to get it : if I know that the affected tissue proliferates in the first phase and that repeated examinations do not longer show any tumour extension, I may conclude that the conflict is solved … as long as the situation remains stable!
I will conclude the diagnostic aspect by a little interlude : the personal shock I cited a moment ago. It happened when I first met Dr. Hamer in February 1989. We were three doctors and one patient, who was very much acquainted with the German language. After a half an hour conversation, having already brought up a number of interrogations, a fellow-doctor handed Dr. Hamer a cerebral scanning, without giving him any further information on the case, asking him what he saw on it. Embarrassed and eager, we were awaiting the result of this experience, knowing that he could only know the name, gender and age of the patient automatically appearing on the clichés. He did not put any question but scrupulously examined it with his magnifying glass. After about one minute, he gave the scanning back to the fellow-doctor saying : “To me, this patient has a lung cancer, more exactly a bronchial cancer on its way to solution. At this stage he must be coughing and expectorating and he had had this kind of conflict (Note : I do not remember the exact terms he used since we were not at all acquainted with the jargon) which is now solved. So, that is all I can see.” Interrogative, I look at the fellow-doctor who, as astonished as I was, just said : “Highest degree!”. I insist : “But are you really sure? Do you have the X-rays, the biopsy? Aren’t there any metastases or other things?” He then extensively confirms that his patient only has that lesion, that he possesses all related documents, and that everything Dr. Hamer said was exact, including the conflict as the fellow-doctor had questioned the patient on his problems. There I disconnected from the conversation for a good while. I had been studying the so-called alternative medicines for fifteen years and I had already seen lots of things : interesting theories such as lucubrations, very useful medicines such as more than dubious lures. But the “act” to which I just took part, was above my comprehension! I was telling myself : either there is a trick and one would like to know it even if it is expensive or it is a seer, but a seer on scanning results does not roam the world over. Or, if everything he said since the beginning is real and, if we did not come for anything, we certainly still have much to learn. How could this man, by simply seeing the scanning of the brain with all the organs we have inside our body , make this diagnosis? He did not have one chance in a hundred, even in a thousand. And ever since, he has shown it numerous times. He, of course, masters the scanner very well and is capable of telling you whether a conflict is active, in solution, in balance or if it is only a glial cicatrise of an ancient terminated conflict. That is the advantage of mastering the most rapid of the three reading processes : without forgetting the two others, it allows him to gain much time, especially by a better choice of the pertinent questions to be put to the patient.
(Note : I add the passage on the therapeutical consequences, I had forgotten that night)
On the therapeutic level, it will be faster since the treatment derives from the diagnosis: one treats a disease according to the conception one has of it.
On the psychic level, if the patient is in the first phase, one will help him solve his conflict. And here, there is no recipe : it is with him that one will look for the solution that is most adapted to his case and the most concrete one. When his conflict is solved, we will search together how to avoid re-stimulation or the appearance of other conflicts that could compromise its reparation phase.
On the nervous level, one will watch the consequences of a too severe congestion of his cerebral centre ; a possibility, which is only to be feared if the conflictual mass, has been too important. The practitioner then has to detect the signs of suffering of the nervous tissue and to control this complication, especially by a cautious use of cortisone. And, of course, a maximum of rest and “peace”, i.e. avoid all unnecessary stress, and, within the bounds of possibility, the situations bringing him back in the environment of his conflict.
On the organic level, the matter will always be the one of relieving his symptoms, whatever the phase he is in. But, in the second phase, the criterion of choice will have to consider the fact that every treatment must also aim at contradicting to the least extent the biological reparation process.
I will end by insisting on the necessity for a dialogue, an explanation, information at all levels of therapeutics! Even in the difficult or urgent cases, where one ends up considering medicines with considerable side-effects, or a surgical operation, the comprehension and the agreement of the patient are of capital importance, as the act, as well as the medical discourse always have a consequence on the patient’s resentment. Not taking into account this resentment might entail new conflicts as we have seen when looking through the biological laws.
Examples:
I have chosen a variety of examples, non-malignant cases, malignant cases, trying that each of the cases more precisely illustrates a notion or an aspect of the method.
In this first case I am presenting you, I will not tell the whole story because I chose it to testify of the urgency, which sometimes shows. The patient is a woman aged about 45, who was just operated on for a small tumour of about one centimetre in the breast. One only excised the tumour because one was persuaded, based on the preliminary examinations, that the tumour was non-malignant. And one reassured her saying there would be no consequences. Some days later though, a telephone call from the hospital makes her panic : the microscopic analysis showed that it was a cancer. A, very probably, total removal of the breast was foreseen for the next week including of course the axillary ganglions. Next, a radiotherapy and, if affected ganglions were found, a chemotherapy. In short : the classical therapeutic scheme.
I see her a few days before the date foreseen for the start of the gear. Unfortunately, I had only one hour, what was much too short to explain an approach unknown to her and to make up a complete diagnosis : was it a reparation tumour and, in that case, after having evaluated the conflict, was it still going to grow? Because, if the second phase was not ended yet, the proliferation was going to start again. Or, on the contrary, was it a contemporary tumour of the conflictual phase and, in that case, what was the stage of the conflict? So I have chosen just to try to postpone the operation, as there was only urgency as to the choice, but a choice heavy with consequences. I gave her enough explanations and arguments to accept at least to postpone an eventual operation, after a diagnosis that would permit her to take her decision more calmly and with more lucidity.
At the end of the consultation, the patient agreed but embarrassed she said that the opinion of her husband was indispensable. The next day, it was my turn to go through an examination, giving the same discourse to the couple. After the repetition, I was glad to notice that the woman was already more reassured and confident. But the husband having almost not spoken a word, I could not refrain from asking why he had insisted that much to see me. He answered me : “When my wife told me about the conversation she had with you, I wanted to know whether she had seen a doctor or a madman!” Seizing the opportunity, I asked him what his diagnosis was : it was in my favour. You are laughing with the anecdote, but I wanted to keep it to evoke a very frequent situation : the solitude felt by a lot of patients when choosing an approach often criticised by their familiars … not to talk about the classical medical opinion where the term “criticism” is more than a euphemism.
Notwithstanding her persisting anxiety for “metastases”, the important pressure of her familiars, and the severe warning of the surgeon who confirmed that the ablation had to be total, I could make up the diagnostic work with that woman. It was long and difficult because during the years preceding her tumour, she had lived four conflicts. A first one was rapidly discarded because it was linked to her profession and that the problematic linked to the breast is affective. A second one too because it was too far away and did not really involve a shock. I was not able to distinguish which of the two latter ones was at the origin of the tumour, but what I was sure of is that they were solved and that, even if it most probably concerned a reparation tumour, the second phase was close to its end. This certitude was based on several conversation hours and I explained my conclusions to her : a tumour had been removed leaving only a cicatrise, a harmless sequel ; nor relapse, nor of course, metastases to fear. And I pleaded in favour of “not doing anything” – or, more exactly, of doing nothing more – to take up the example cited in the beginning of this lecture. The operation and its consequences risked provoking a mutilation, a de-valorisation, fear, etc. conflict. But I did have to examine and reassure her during at least one year. The initial confidence progressively turned into a conviction before the evidence of the facts. And during the years that followed, she never regretted … having kept her breast!
Now let me tell you two stories about eczema. I put them together because in one I had assembled all the conditions to make a good diagnosis, but I made a mistake, while in the other, with a minimum of information, the diagnosis was particularly precise. This double example illustrates the difficulties to establish a good anamnesis i.e. the questioning of the patient.
1st case
The mother, a regular patient already, brings her little daughter aged about ten. The child showed a very small eczema at one armpit, the size of a pound coin. I will ask you here to remember the dates, as it are important clues to make the correct cross-sections. I see this child around half October. Even before the mother spoke, I knew that the little girl has solved a separation conflict as the eczema is in its second phase. Always starting with the medical history of the symptoms, I ask the mother since when her daughter shows this eczema : maximum one week. The point was to discover the kind of conflict and especially its duration since eczema, as I told you, may last a week or five years. It is only the mother that I will have to question as the little girl, always smiling, answers that she had had no problem. I ask her : “What could have disturbed your daughter the weeks, and even the months having preceded and especially in an affective field?” I most often put rather general questions at first, in order to try not to influence the answers and to let the patient spontaneously express his conflict : it makes him better understand the approach. Ant that, even if I have to pass, as it is the case here, through an intermediate.
The mother rather quickly explains the following interesting story. Her daughter cried in the beginning of October as the female school teacher she had in September, and that she adored, was replaced by a male teacher she did not like at all. I say to myself that this “sticks” perfectly. The separation conflict from this female teacher starts on October 1st and its solution dated from a week already. The conflict, as far as I am concerned, did only last about one week. I explain my reasoning to the mother and tell her that within eight days, we would not talk about it anymore. A treatment was not even necessary.
Ten days later, I receive a telephone call from the mother : “Doctor, do you remember my daughter? You said the eczema would disappear within one week. Now, her eczema has become much more important, she has both armpits covered with purulent eczema, the size of an adult hand palm.” I immediately realise the double mistake I made : firstly, I wrongly evaluated the importance of the conflict that I thought to be unique and, secondly, I missed the second conflict. It was also a separation conflict but in an entirely different field as the other armpit was affected. What is more, it entered solution after our first conversation. Before the dawning concern of the mother, the symptoms having become painful for the child, and willing to repair an incomplete work, I see them on the same day.
After having explained the lacks in my diagnosis, I start questioning the mother again, in search of the second conflict. It was harsher at this point and I had to insist on the fact that something else must surely have happened. Finally, a little embarrassed, the mother remembers : “Half September, she cried when we told her that we were going on holidays until the end of the month. We were astonished as it was not the first time we left without the children, and it had never been a problem before.” Never been a problem that was for the preceding holidays, but the tears of the child testified that these vacations – for one reason of another – had been experienced very differently!
This supplement of information enabled a complete “reconstitution” and diagnosis. A first separation conflict with the parents, having lasted about ten days, is solved early October, with a first eczema the importance of the underlying conflict I had underestimated. The eczema I took for the solution of the female teacher problem, was the solution of the separation conflict with the parents. It is only afterwards, what is much more logical, that the solution of the conflict with the female teacher interfered, when the little girl finally accepted the idea not to have her anymore that the other eczema has started to develop. The consequence was as coherent as the corrected diagnosis : both eczema’s disappeared one after another within a six weeks delay, leaving no trace. A homeopathic treatment was added to relieve the child.
(Note : I spoke of a diagnostic “mistake” in this example and I would like to rapidly take up this reality. When handling the biological laws, one may make multiple mistakes. One of the most consistent ones would be to reassure a patient, talking about a reparation tumour that is going to stop, while the affected tissue proliferates in its first phase, and especially if one has not understood that this conflict is still active! But most of the mistakes are to be relativised, as they result from an insufficient collection of information, especially on the evaluation of the conflict. But this collection is the result of the indispensable collaboration and confidence between the doctor and his patient. Remember the difficulty of an implication with the patient, I evoked in the introduction : he might have forgotten a key element of his life experience, or judge it too innocuous to talk about it, or be embarrassed to express it. Whereas the doctor, he can not enough lend a listening ear for a whole series of details, but which may prove to be essential : a hesitation, a silence, and an emotion on the face, in the voice or even the choice of a word. Now is the opportunity to cite one of Dr. Hamer’s principal pieces of advice : “Before being a doctor, first be a detective and treat the patient with all the respect he deserves, as if he were a friend.”).
2nd case
Both parents come with their little boy, also aged about 10. The eczema lasted ten days already, was clearly marked at arms and legs, and itched a lot. But here, the anamnesis looked very unpromising : the few usual questions to know what disturbed the child did not have the slightest effect. In short: useless to start talking about the biological laws, the conflicts, etc. Besides, the parents that I was seeing for the first time only wanted to try homeopathy. But, as in the former case, I wanted to know how long the child would be suffering … and without being able to explain to the parents how long “homeopathy would have to be tried”. Then, I tried an indirect way, cautiously putting two kinds of questions.
First pretexting that an eczema could sometimes follow a state of irritability, I asked the parents if they had not noticed an unusual modification in his attitude lately : at school, at home, anywhere ; thus a very vague question, without alluding to a psychic problem. It is the father who answers : “The teacher convened us because his school results were clearly going down as where usually they were very good.” I learn this way that this decline has started about two months, to end up in a last normal school report and that this was two or three weeks ago. But the eczema had started ten days ago! I satisfy myself with this information, since I have nothing more. It was simply testifying that the child had been in a conflict, but which one?
Second, more “risky” question as it concerned the parents too : “Did something different happen in your everyday life, at home, in your rhythm of life, in the events?” Now, it is the mother who answers : “Well I went working as an interim.” I then learn that this woman usually does not work outside and that she had to go out in the evening when the child came back from school. You will have guessed the last question : from when and till when this unusual interim? By a couple of days, the period corresponded to the bad school results!
The separation conflict with the mother having lasted two months, I could play sorcerer and seer. I prescribed a first homeopathic treatment of 40 days, saying that the eczema might not be completely finished, but would have very much improved. And if some of it was remaining, I would prescribe a second treatment and there, it would all be over. Six weeks later, the parents show me their child, enchanted with the result : 80 % of the eczema had disappeared. I prescribed another month’s treatment asking just to see the child if he developed eczema again and precising that this affection is not chronic at all. I have not seen him again and, personally, I was not enchanted, as were the parents. I regretted not having been able to explain them why their son developed that eczema, and to let them believe that I cured him with homeopathy. To me, each consultation is the opportunity to start or to deepen the patient’s knowledge of the biological laws.
This third example is sad and dramatic. I have chosen it because it highlights a problem I am often confronted with, i.e. a fortuitous discovery of a cancer, most probably during a screening. And also because it shows the tragic mistakes arising from the sole consideration of the physical lesions without taking into account the history of the patient and often even, as it is the case here, the evolution of these lesions.
It is during the month of May that this sixty-year-old woman comes to consult me. Her extreme weakness, her greyish complexion and her wig make me guess the kind of diagnosis. She explains that she has a lung cancer metastasised in the brain, and her despair of having learned that she had only six months to live. The discovery dated from January and here, I lost some time putting her immediately a whole series of questions on her clinical state at that time : “Did you cough at that time? Did you expectorate? Were you oppressed? Did it hurt? Did you loose weight? Were you tired? Did you loose appetite? etc.” Each time the answer was negative : in fact, this woman was in top condition, leading an athletic, social and leisured life. I had better first asked the question : “How was this cancer discovered?” She then shows me the lung X-ray and the cerebral scanning made in January. On the X-ray one sees an important mass with a diameter of 3-4 cm right in the middle of the inferior lobe of the right lung and, on the scanning, a small whity mass with a diameter of about 5-7 mm at the left frontal lobe. Then she starts her rather hallucinating story.
It happened at the end of last year. “I felt so good, Doctor, since years, but seeing my age, I wanted to have an esthetical operation done, a face lift.” But the face lift being an operation, it meant : blood sampling, electrocardiogram and an X-ray of the thorax, three examinations I do not at all contest as they are useful to the surgeon and the anaesthetist. The blood sample? Nothing special. The electrocardiogram? They said she had an excellent heart. She goes on : “But they told me that the face lift had to be given up or postponed because they, unfortunately, discovered a lung cancer on the X-ray.” That is where the whole machinery starts. If you say cancer, you say generalisation check-up i.e. a whole series of examinations to see if there are no metastases elsewhere. The small spot on the scanning is interpreted as a metastasis, what excludes the operation of the bronchial tumour. Next, one makes her husband believe she has only six months, maybe a little more, to live. She quickly learns about it and considers herself condemned. They start an intensive chemotherapy treatment, but with little hope for success.
When examining the documents made in January, but taking into consideration the biological laws, I understand the mistake. On the lung X-ray, one observes that the tumour, evidently a bronchial tumour, is perfectly defined : the limit between the tumour and the rest of the pulmonary tissue is very well marked off. That is what Dr. Hamer calls an “old cuckoo”, i.e. a completely finished and stabilised lesion, remnant of a solved conflict and of a completed second phase. Remember the scheme of the bronchial affection, I described when going through the third law, and its two phases : the second entails a constriction of the pulmonary area which not ventilated any longer, considering the proliferation of the bronchial mucous, since it ends up obstructing the bronchi. At the end of the second phase only a non-functional part of the lung subsists, which is, however, unimportant and symptom-free. One has to keep one’s good sense : why worry – and a fortiori operate – a simple sequel, even if it has the size of an orange when someone can live with one single lung?
The brain “metastasis” evenso testified of its ancienty. It was only visible on the clichés after the injection of the contrast liquid, especially evidencing the glial proliferations of the brain. Not a slightest sign of oedema was visible around that small whity mass : proof of a cerebral centre the reparation of which was ended and only leaving here a harmless trace. But concerning this scanning I made a diagnostic error. At that time I did not know the map of the brain very well and I switched sides. I thought that the spot corresponded to the pulmonary lesion. But the bronchial relay is situated in the right fronto-lateral position and its glial cicatrise being at the same level, but at the left side, must have related to an ancient affection of the thyroid or the larynx. The patient informed me that she had had other cancers in her life, but I only took care of her pulmonary cancer. That is thus another type of a possible error : in the lecture of the scanning. It, fortunately, was without any consequence, because it did not change anything to the fact that the bronchial tumour and the tumour at the brain were ancient histories.
She had also handed me the rest of the examinations meant to control the effect of the treatment : three other lung X-rays, made at a one month interval and a second brain scanning performed in April. When cautiously comparing them, I noticed what could perfectly be foreseen : nothing had changed. Thanks to these documents, I start giving her the first explanations : why she could feel in such a good health with a lung cancer metastasised in the brain, why chemotherapy could not alter her “tumours”, this therapy only acting on cells in the process of multiplication and not on ordinary cicatrises, be they atelectatic, glial or of any other nature.
I then search for the conflict that could date six months as well as 10 years. She tells me about an important professional conflict she had some years ago and that lasted a little less than one year. She had solved it completely by putting the affair in the hands of a lawyer. Afterwards she had been very tired, but she does not remember if she coughed or expectorated a lot. She thinks she had some respiratory symptoms, what I would ascribe to the fact that the tumour was very peripheral. The cross section between the conflict and its lesions being done, I end my explanations : one accidentally discovered the traces of an ancient problem, she does not suffer an evolutive cancer and there is no danger. As to the treatment weakening her a lot, I repeat its uselessness. The patient, and her husband, who was accompanying her, seemed to have well understood and we took leave after this first conversation.
The next week, she calls me and confirms that she has obviously understood and remembered everything : “You remember, I lengthily consulted you last week. You explained me that there was nothing serious, that my cancer was ancient history, that it was cured, that the metastasis at my brain was not a metastasis, but a cicatrise at the brain, etc.” Then she goes on : “Listen Doctor, I would really like to believe you. What you say is reassuring and very hopeful, but I do not succeed doing so! I have seen several cancerologists before consulting you. I did not tell you but I did not only consult in the hospital that takes care of me and they were all unanimous to say that I had a lung cancer metastasising in the brain and that I only had a few months left to live and that the only thing I could do to prolong my life was chemotherapy. So, you understand…” She hung up very politely, leaving me with a feeling of sadness and powerlessness, I will not hide from you. I have never seen this patient again.
I would like to end this example by taking up the screening. If you decide to go through one, do not forget this very important advice : if one day they find something, no matter where, make sure to know whether it is evolutive or not. What is the use of operating, mutilating someone whom had a conflict five or ten years ago and who keeps the traces of it inside his body ? If one made someone aged 50 or 60 go through a scanner or through magnetic resonance, from the roots of his hair to the top of his toes, you can be sure that, with everyone, an abnormality would be discovered. Who, at that age in his life, has never lived at least one conflict, lasting some weeks or months, but sufficient to “mark” him physically? And who does not house within his body a polyp, a cyst or any other kind of tumour, micro-calcification, antibodies, etc.? These accidental discoveries may be considered suspect, and the patient may be plunged into anxiety and incisive treatments. I have seen too many lives, peaceful before screening, topple over in a nightmare, such as the one I just presented to you. In front of such “double or quits”, the biological laws are precious, because the scrupulously careful analysis of a complete diagnosis will allow to take a decision with full knowledge of the facts.
The person whose case I am going to develop is in the audience. But knowing her very well and seeing her glance, I think I may keep this fourth example. I will, though, remain discreet. This woman aged about forty came to consult me for a back pain lasting for some days. After the usual examinations of the symptoms, I question her on what happened, and she tells me about a physical effort she did during a yoga session. I then ask her if she is making a fool of me!
Why such a lack of tact from my side? In fact, I put this question gently, as giving a wink, evoking a very recent past. I had seen her already some months before to complete a very alarming diagnosis : relapse of a kidney cancer, which was removed though, with various metastases. Besides the very comprehensible anxiety, she felt good and had refused chemotherapy. She just came to understand. Some hours of mutual work, where the collaboration was excellent, allowed me to make a totally reassuring establishment : all her conflicts were solved. The only one that we could fear still was a conflict of fearing to die resulting from the resentment of the diagnosis. Before consulting me, though, she had several times consulted a psychologist who was acquainted with Dr. Hamer’s work and who had helped her a lot already. Our conversations had ended up defusing what I consider as being one of the worst “time bombs» : a diagnosis of a very severe affection. This reason, being all the experience she had acquired, made me put this small impertinent question.
I make a fresh attempt, discarding this history of physical effort. She tells me about a rather harsh quarrel with one of her children. Not receiving any other track, I had to know why a lumbago and evaluate its duration according to the conflict. The lumbago was explained by her life-experience : she felt humiliated, diminished, not acknowledged ; the devalorisation conflict was evident. To determine its importance, she gave me all the elements. The quarrel took place about ten days before the start of the pain. The conflict had been solved with the help of her husband who had talked to their child. The next day, her awakening was extremely painful! The consultation came to an end : I announce her a rapid relief, she has confidence in me and refuses a treatment, since her pain is bearable and it will finish within a few days…
A fortnight later, her husband comes to consult me. Before coming to his case, I ask him about his wife’s health. “She is in a very bad state, Doctor. She does not leave her bed at the moment. She has a lot of pain and is not even able to come and see you.” I did not find anything else to say than : “I must have made a mistake in the diagnosis. I must not have considered the whole of the problem. Tell your wife that I am very sorry, that she can call me and visit me as soon as she is in a better state.” One month later, she accompanies her husband to the consultation. Embarrassed, I first talk to her for a while, telling her that her husband informed me that the little lumbago I had predicted and for which I did not prescribe any treatment, had finally lasted five to six weeks, that she had endured terrible pain, etc. She interrupted me with a big smile and her reaction completely astonished me : “But it is not your fault, Doctor. After our conversation, I reflected a long time on what you had said, devalorisation conflict, the back and all that. I found that I not only solved the conflict we talked about, but that within two or three days, I solved four devalorisation conflicts, the largest of which having lasted about six weeks.” She exposes precisely the four conflicts and then she adds : “I did not want to disturb you because I understood that I would have pain for a much longer period and I wangled to get out of it.” I congratulated her for having done the work all by herself … and I could have kissed her. Patients like that are not seen very often.
(Afterwards, she told me she had had a lot of fun listening to me telling her story and the way I did it. She spoke about it herself, as well as about her generalised cancer, to persons she tried to help by means of her testimony.)
The next case will be very brief. It only concerns the outline of a diagnosis. I have chosen it among the numerous examples of the kind for two reasons. Patients often ask questions on relatives during their own consultation. In this demand, the conversation is forcedly very short and does bring but a few informations. But the handling of the biological laws allows then selecting some essential questions, being sufficient for the first comprehension.
A patient tells me at the end of our consultations : “It is bizarre though, I never understood why my mother died two years after her breast cancer, following lung metastases, when she felt so well during those two years.” I was writing my papers, but since it concerned her mother and since this demand for comprehension necessitated only two questions, I somewhat lengthened the consultation. I first explained her there are no metastases and that the pulmonary affection was due to a new conflict, two years after the one having provoked the breast cancer.
First question : Did the doctors speak about one single metastasis or of several? This first distinction is based on the 3rd law : if the lesions were multiple, the alveolar tissue had been affected and the conflict was the fear to die ; if the “metastasis” was unique, and seeing its importance for the woman died of it, it was a bronchial affection, and the conflict was the threat of the territory. With this information, I could more rapidly search for the conflict. Answer : “They told me that her entire lungs were invaded.”
Second question : during the weeks or months having preceded the metastasis diagnosis, what had her mother feared so much? The patient thinks and says : “Yes, I see one thing. Some months before, my brother had a very serious car accident. He was in a coma for weeks before dying, and my mother worried herself sick about him.” I explain then that that drama lies at the origin of the alveolar lesions at the lung, and precise that her mother has had a conflict of fear to die by association.
This case brings me to evoke another characteristic of the conflict : it may occur in an association process to what another person is living. But then, of course, it implies that the other person has such an importance for us, that we identify ourselves to that person. A parent, for example, may feel himself a failure or a humiliation problem of his child and develop himself a devalorisation conflict. And this, independent of the child’s own experience which may entail the same or another conflict … or none if this experience was not conflictual at all.
(Note : This kind of “express diagnosis” is of course very limited and only as often ends up in putting forward hypotheses, in giving only search tracks by indicating the type of conflict. But it is not to be neglected as it allows the patient questioning himself on the disease of others, to further enlarge his field of verification of the biological laws. It adds up to the pedagogic interest of the examples I often use during the conversations I have in order to complete the explanations. The results corroborate it because I now more and more hear reflections such as : “I now understand why my husband developed that hepatitis while I had nothing.” “I said to myself that there must have been a link between my colleague’s cancer and the accusations that made him be fired.” “I asked my daughter what happened before her tracheitis. She confirmed that she had very badly lived this type of situation.” Etc.
The next example will once again demonstrate the difficulty and the rigour necessary to an in-depth analysis. I would entitle it : “the missing link”. It concerns a woman aged about 35, who is affected with polyarthritis : an inflammation affecting several articulations.
I see her in July, here again, remember the dates. The disease started in March, in the middle of the holidays, where she felt well and had an excellent mood. After two months of worsening and in spite of the antalgic and anti-inflammatory drugs, in June, she painfully walked with two crutches, suffering from the upper limbs and the back as well. More elaborate examinations ended up in the pessimistic diagnosis of chronic evolutive polyarthritis and a treatment of high-dose cortisone was prescribed, what had very rapidly and remarkably relieved her pain. She consulted me six weeks after the start of this treatment because the doses having been largely reduced, the pain tended to come back. After the history of the symptoms, I come to the one of the conflict. The aim being, as ever, to understand together and to know how long she would have to be treated.
Without telling her that polyarthritis is the second phase of a hindrance conflict, felt in a more or less generalised manner, I put the usual questions on what could have disturbed her before her affection. But there was nothing special, however before my insistence, she explains me she feels choked up with her children : she can almost do nothing anymore, it is difficult to go out without having to appeal to a baby-sitter, the liberty of their couple is very much restricted, etc. It all had started with the birth of her oldest child three ago and it continued with the birth of her second child two years later. She tells me a hindrance situation in which I do not see anything conflictual, though, nor a striking shock. It is though the field she speaks about and stresses her feeling of constraint. I say to myself that there might be a link and that first this single track should be explored.
I first bring to her attention that her situation is similar to that of a lot of women with two young children and that I do not think that this could be at the origin of her disease. I then ask her if, since that constraining change in her life, any unforeseen event took place where she felt evidently more hindered and choked up. The question was now precise and, coming up with the hindrance theme in relation with her pathology, I hoped that the door would open. She thought for a while and says : “Yes, there is something which worried me a lot during at least six months.” And here the story becomes interesting. “Well, at the birth of the second child, when the sudden death tests were performed, they told me his test was positive and that there was a risk. They then gave us a monitor to be installed at home.” By talking lengthily about this monitoring and its consequences, it revealed to be the occasion of the “dragging”. It was no longer a simple “back drop”, the very normal liberty restriction of a woman with young children. It had become a real nightmare, an obsession : the device often beeped without reason, she went up the stairs ten times a day to see how her baby was doing, including the nights which were seriously reduced ; and as far as the outings were concerned, they could be counted on the fingers of one hand. During this whole period : not one single symptom at the level of the articulations.
We could have stopped here, the essential elements having been gathered. The conflict was hindrance, indeed. It had lasted six months, having started with the monitoring and solved before her pain started. And, as I saw her in July, the second phase was near to its end, as she was suffering since five months. But I wanted a more complete cross-section between the symptoms and the life-experience, while also checking how the conflict had been solved. At this point, the case becomes even more didactical.
But, before coming to the solution, I would like to come back a moment on this hindrance conflict. You could ask yourself why this woman did not develop a conflict of fear for her child rather than a hindrance conflict, or at least both of them. The explanation resides in the observation of the facts and not in a personal interpretation thereof! First, the reading at the level of the body is evident : she developed a polyarthritis and not another pathology. Next, when listening closely to her resentment, it clearly highlights the predominance of a hindrance feeling. She did, of course, speak of anxiety but it did not last long, only at the announcement of the risk for sudden death. What is more, it was solved by means of the monitoring, and there was no re-stimulation as, during those six arduous months, the child has never been in danger. And, finally, the logical good sense is respected in this analysis : on the one hand, her maternal anxiety was not conflictual because she did everything that was dependable on her to help her child ; on the other hand, the absence of disturbances with the child, did not make her question herself again. It is clearly the monitoring that quickly became “unmanageable” for her.
How the conflict was solved? Two months after the first fatidical test, the child undergoes another one, which proves to be negative. But they do not tell it to the mother. The doctors being of opinion that two successive negative tests are necessary to discard the risk of sudden death, she is told that another test will have to be performed within two months and that the monitoring has to be continued. In January, the third test is negative and the paediatrician completely reassures her : there is no danger anymore, they take back the monitoring and she can sleep on both ears again. Feeling that the diagnosis was going to be more difficult than foreseen, I ask her what she resented : “I was relieved at last, of course.” To what I retort : “Then, something is wrong!» Seeing her surprise, I justify my reasoning : if the conflict were really solved by this good news, she would have started her polyarthritis within the days following it and not two months later, during the March holidays! After coming back from the hospital another problem must have occurred having delayed the real solution. She did not remember, but as I had to see her soon again to readjust her doses of cortisone, I proposed her to discuss the matter with her husband to find the “missing link”.
The next week, I immediately come to the subject and she tells me : “Yes, I forgot to tell you something last time and my husband reminded me of it. I had completely forgotten.” And she gives me the link : after having deposited the monitor in the hospital and as soon as she got back home, she installed a baby-phone between the child’s room and hers and made it function it permanently. We talk about it and she confirms that she was not really reassured when she came back from the hospital. Thus, in fact, the conflict was not solved yet ; the baby-phone took the relay of the monitor. Last question : “When did you store the baby-phone?” New blackout and same advice from me.
The last piece of the puzzle will be for the next consultation : “Before leaving on holidays.” OK. She could now set off the new handicap being her 6-7 months of polyarthritis : she left on holidays reassured … and liberated.
For more information on Hamer's theory of diseases, watch these videos:
More information in this website and in this other.
