H-bomb on Medicine City

I started out this inquiry noting that if  GNM is true it would represent something like an h-bomb dropped on the city of conventional medicine. One of the dicta of GNM is that viruses are harmless, natural products of cells whose function is to actually aid the healing process. They accompany illnesses not as their cause, but as their cure. Nothing to be scared of. No cause for alarm.

Just one suburb of Medicine City is AIDSville, built up over 25 years in an exclusive part of town with an estimated budget of $190 billion.  I am walking through the imaginary wreckage of AIDSville caused by Jan Roberts’ campaign in Fear of the Invisible. Quite independently of GNM (though she has crossed paths with Stefan Lanka as I note from her references), she provides evidence that the GNM dictum about viruses may actually be true of the most feared virus of all: HIV. Well, she hasn’t argued (yet) that HIV retroviruses are part of the body’s attempt to heal AIDS, but she has certainly argued strongly against HIV being its cause.

I had wondered at the outset of this investigation how so many smart people could have been and still be wrong, if GNM were right. Well, most of the world now believes that HIV causes AIDS, which is a helluva lot of smart people. It’s the establishment view. It’s the established consensus. It’s virtually a dogma, an incontrovertible, unquestionable tenet of modern medicine. So patently obvious that to question it would seem to be the height of madness. Not to mention irresponsibility.  And yet, Roberts tosses a battery of grenades down every street and avenue of AIDSville, and while I’m some four chapters from the end, there ain’t too many buildings still standing. Curiously, one building that in spite of the massive expenditure was never erected in AIDSville was the one called The Cure Centre. Not only is there no cure, no vaccine, there is no understanding even of the mechanism by which the HIV retrovirus causes immune system deficiency (as of 2007; see p202).

Scientific discovery?

Assumption: peer reviewed scientific publications that have stood the test of time can be regarded as having established their conclusions beyond reasonable doubt. (Robert Gallo’s original Science papers on the origin of AIDS are mentioned by Roberts as the most cited papers of all time; the whole of AIDSville is built upon them.) Well, peer review plus publication is clearly an insufficient guarantee of truth; the scientific methodology could be incorrect, the arguments could be flawed, and the reviewers could be mistaken. Or less innocently, the contents could themselves be fraudulent. Unfortunately for Medicine City, this is exactly what Roberts demonstrates; Gallo “systematically” rewrote the original paper composed by Popovic that recorded the experiments done in Gallo’s lab which had failed to support the conclusion that Gallo has already gone to Europe to brief scientists on, that they had discovered the HIV virus to cause AIDS. Popovic had actually written: “Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified.” After Gallo had rewritten Popovic’s report, it read as follows: “that a retrovirus of the HTLV family might be an etiological agent of AIDS was suggested by the findings”. (And this emendation did not result from further scientific research in the meantime!)

Roberts’ discovery that HIV had been declared by a Gallo fiat – and not by experimental demonstration – to be the probable cause of AIDS is the h-bomb on Medicine City.

Gallo’s fraud would explain why subsequently he insisted that only he could approve anyone else getting hold of a sample of his virus to research it. In fact he prevented others subjecting his research to the test of repeatability by imposing very strict conditions on what they could do with his sample.

Gallo’s fraud, which is much more extensive that just this one example, did not go unnoticed. He was investigated by the US Government in five separate inquiries. One conclusion about Gallo’s experiment stated: “The February 1984 experiment was so faulty and so many aspects of it so questionable, that little or no confidence can be placed in any of its claimed findings” (Roberts p125; John Crewdson’s 1995 Chicago Tribune report details other aspects of the fraud). These inquiries should have spelled a radical re-examination of so-called AIDS science, beginning with a retraction of those original papers. Instead these reports were buried “when chairmanship of the U.S. Congress House subcommittee that oversees the National Institute of Health (NIH) went from Democrat to Republican control in early 1995” (ref).

In other words, the fraudulent nature of the very foundations of AIDS science, specifically the theory that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, has been covered up by a scandalous politically motivated campaign to preserve extra-scientific agendas against the inconvenient and corrosive incursions of truth. The total picture is infinitely more complex; I can only refer you to Roberts’ meticulously researched book.

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 14, 2011 in Uncategorized


Measles mystery

About that tip of the iceberg, one person confident, indeed convinced, about that, is Dr Stefan Lanka. (The ‘Dr’ refers to a PhD, not a medical qualification).

He declares: “So for a long time I studied virology, from the end to the beginning, from the beginning to the end, to be absolutely sure that there was no such thing as HIV. And it was easy for me to be sure about this because I realized that the whole group of viruses to which HIV is said to belong, the retroviruses – as well as other viruses which are claimed to be very dangerous – in fact do not exist at all. (

Why does he agree not only with Jan Roberts’ findings about the fraudulent nature of the HIV virus research, but all other bugs we’re taught to be afraid of? “Because none of those ‘viruses’ that claim to make you ill, like smallpox, polio, hepatitis, aids, ebola, measles, mumps, rubella and tic viruses has ever been seen, isolated and proven as existent. State medicine invented these ‘viruses’ in order to conceal vaccination and medication damages. This fact can easily be checked by anyone. There is no publication in scientific literature in which a scientist states and proves that he isolated and characterized the relevant virus out of a sick person. Relevant text books present, with fraudulent intention, models and photographs of cells as ‘viruses’. Any amateur can learn, within a couple of days, the isolating, photographing and characterizing of viruses which exist – and which are all harmless.” (

How then does vaccination appear to have an impact on something like measles? A statistic quoted in some news today suggests vaccines reduce the incidence of measles: “Medical Officer of Health, Dr Richard Hoskins says almost all the 76 confirmed cases have been found in non-immunised people.” He’s referring to an ‘outbreak’ of measles in Auckland, where 76 cases in a population of over a million are being referred to as an “epidemic”. Sounds like a bit of an exaggeration to me…. the very word ‘epidemic’ is loaded with recent history of media scares of various epidemics: SARS, swine flu, bird flu and so on.

Nor do we find out exactly what ‘almost’ means: 75 of the 76? Or 72? Maybe 66? Only 54? Yet every one of those who aren’t among the ‘almost all’ may be ruing a needless jab in the arm – they still got sick.

The question is if there is no such thing as a measles causing virus, how can a measles vaccine have the effect of lowering its incidence? On the other hand, if the vaccine is so necessary, why is it that measles is still found in almost none of the immunised sufferers, and not in exactly none?


Leave a comment

Posted by on July 26, 2011 in Uncategorized


Questions unanswered

I’ve finished as much of McCumiskey’s book The Ultimate Conspiracy as I want to read. I skipped over the sections on his correspondence and those that followed it – it was embarrassing. He included very many emails he wrote to figures in the Irish medical establishment and in politics, but rather than discredit them for their unwillingness to engage with his concerns, he merely gives the reader a pretty clear picture of why they may not have taken him entirely seriously. There is an element of politics that necessarily comes into attempts to puncture the overblown confidence of those in authority, and that element requires a degree of artfulness. Respect also goes a long way.

All the chapters on particular illnesses, too, although interesting, do not convince me. The common cold is still a conundrum, along with seasonal flus. If even the common cold is caused by a biological shock, then it ought to be pretty easy to observe the connection. After all, biological shocks are meant to be hard to miss: they make you cold, you lose your appetite, you stay awake at night thinking about the issue or the circumstance that caused it. You are meant to feel isolated by the shock, unable to share with others what is occupying you. These are some of the criteria of a DHS, the official designation within GNM of such a shock or ‘conflict’.

Sometimes GNM is described as if these shocks could be quite brief, and resolved quickly, ie within hours or less, such that you hardly even notice that it’s happened. Sometimes the shocks are described as though you may hardly notice they’ve occurred and yet they linger unresolved in our subconscious.

Certainly it’s hard to see how a really big and obvious shock would cause a common cold, and hard to see how a really small and unobvious shock such as caused a cold could still be classified as such.

Then there’s the seasonal aspect of flus: we tend to become more vulnerable in winter. Why should that be? What kinds of shocks happen more frequently in winter that in other seasons? On the other hand, how does conventional medicine explain the sudden appearance of influenza viruses in winter? And assuming that flu viruses are around for the whole of a cold season, why is it that people don’t have flu the whole time, cycling through repeated flus over and over as they get another dose of it as soon as they return to work or school etc?

We watched Vincent Ward’s Rain of the Children on the weekend. The question of introduced diseases cropped up: how would GNM explain indigenous populations succumbing to imported diseases? Tuberculosis, for example? There should already have been plenty of tuberculosis in Aotearoa before the white man appeared, given that according to GNM it belongs to the reparation phase of cancer caused by an existence conflict. The indigenous people of this country were war-like, and probably inflicting such shocks on each other the whole time. No doubt some of the illness was due to poverty, malnutrition, and toxic water.

Yesterday I was watching Autism: Made in America which showed a baby who was born with eczema. GNM might put that down to the mother’s toxicity, I don’t know; it’s certainly hard to see how that particular skin condition could be explained by a ‘tearing away from my skin’ conflict.

One thing I have discovered in the last couple of days, though, is some support for GNM’s wholesale rejection of the notion that viruses cause human illnesses. On Dr Gary Null’s website (and yes, there are other websites expressing skepticism about his views), there is a ‘press conference’ with British journalist Janine Roberts who has exposed in a seemingly convincing fashion the fraudulent nature of the scientific paper which first announced the discovery of the HIV virus as the cause of AIDS. Her findings are published in her book, Fear of the Invisible (which my local library – amazingly – also has).

With documentary evidence, research into the history of science, examination of original publications, this represents something of the art of speaking truth to power.

This web page ( contains innumerable quotations from scientists expressing disbelief in the whole HIV causes AIDS theory. Including a denial in 1997 by  the co-discoverer of the HIV virus himself:

“There are too many shortcomings in the theory that HIV causes all signs of AIDS. We are seeing people HIV-infected for 9, 10, 12 years or more, and they are still in good shape, their immune system is still good. It is unlikely that these people will come down with AIDS later.”

“HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause AIDS.”

VI Int’l AIDS Conference, Jun 24 1990

“AIDS does not inevitably lead to death, especially if you suppress the co-factors that support the disease. It is very important to tell this to people who are infected…. I think we should put the same weight now on the co-factors as we have on HIV.”

“Psychological factors are critical in supporting immune function. If you suppress this psychological support by telling someone he’s condemned to die, your words alone will have condemned him.”

“We did not purify [isolate] … We saw some particles but they did not have the morphology [shape] typical of retroviruses … They were very different … What we did not have, as I have always recognized it, is that it was truly the cause of AIDS.”

Interview with Djamel Tahi-1997

— Dr. Luc Montagnier, Virologist, co-discoverer of HIV, Pasteur Institute, Paris

You will also find a link to the press conference with Janine Roberts I mentioned. If the HIV virus has nothing to do with AIDS, and has never been adequately isolated, then that would suggest GNM is right about at least one thing! The tip of an iceberg?

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 19, 2011 in Uncategorized



As I mentioned in my first posting, GNM came into my awareness through Dr Joseph Mercola’s interview with Stanislaw Burzynski on YouTube. I thought Mercola was a doctor of general medicine hosting a website offering comprehensive health advice. Turns out he’s an osteopathic physician by training, and is listed in EsoWatch (here:

EsoWatch, I discovered, “is an internet project founded in 2007 with articles critical of esotericism, conspiracy theories and pseudoscience in CAM[1] [ie alternative medicine]. The platform offers a Wiki, a Blog and a forum…. The German wiki is the largest, with the English a close second” ( Which means EsoWatch, for one, regards Mercola as suspect, and lists many of the reasons he is suspect, but offers no definitive proof either way on the controversies mentioned. The opening paragraph summarises:

Joseph Mercola (born July 8, 1954) is a US-American osteopathic physician, businessman, author, and founder of the alternative medicine-website which markets and sells his health-related products. He is also an anti-vaccinationist, HIV/aids-denialist, an outspoken critic of FDA and critic of mainstream medicine, especially regarding the use of prescription drugs. His business practices are regarded as dubious by various sources, and he received several warnings by FDA for violating the law by advertising products using false and exaggerated claims. He is criticized for applying snake-oil vendors’ methods, promising expensive products free of charge and scaring visitors of his website into buying his products with his articles.[2][3]

What I did get from one or two of Mercola’s YouTube clips is that he conducts long interviews with interesting figures in the medical world, but posts an outtake only and then requires subscription to his site to view the rest. Which is annoying, to say the least.

So, doubt is sown. A good thing, as doubt is merely an invitation to more careful thought about appearances. So long as the thought happens, and doesn’t just get stymied by an attitude of persistent doubt.

Furthermore, google reveals a number of other sites highly critical of GNM, EsoWatch being the first one I’m led to ( Here’s another: And yet another:

I’m going to have to read all this material in due course, and I’m guessing McCumiskey hasn’t. (There’s a relatively recent interview with him here:, and I’m curious to know whether he’s moved on or not. A quick scan shows not.)

As I write my wife lies in bed unwell. Her body aches with movement. It came on rapidly this afternoon, although she felt she was getting sick three days ago, though yesterday she was again fine, and most of today too.

Towards the end of last week she babysat an eight year old who’d been off school for a number of days, but was on the mend. Still, she was still in bed with it, and coughing and blowing her nose frequently. Did she catch something? Not possible, says GNM!

On the other hand for the last couple of weeks she has become aware that as a child she desperately wanted a pet, something to cuddle and love. This awareness was prompted by the GNM theory that allergies are symptoms of associations with a biological shock. She has a cat allergy, and reflecting on cats in her childhood, remembered her unrequited longing for a pet to love. Since then she has realised that the faux fur shawls hanging on door knobs in the house, left out rather than put away, are reminders of what a cat feels like. She also told me tonight that she took one to Australia last summer, for the sheer comfort of it. And just yesterday she experienced an aching longing to be hugged, driven by a deep unmet need from long ago.

What would GNM say? I just don’t know it well enough to say with any certainty. But the symptoms of illness right now may well be regarded as belonging to the healing or reparation phase of a special biological programme, and best lived through without suppression by pain killing paracetamol etc. Curiously, the two cats in the home where she babysat last week didn’t cause her any problems.

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 11, 2011 in Uncategorized


Breaking the faith

McCumiskey’s The Ultimate Conspiracy arrived a few days ago and I’m ripping through it. And? It got six enthusiastic 5-star reviews on Amazon, but I’m not that wild about it. The author asks me to read through the whole thing with an open mind and virtually promises that I’ll no longer believe in the Biomedical Paradigm by the end. But an open mind, while sounding like a good thing, isn’t necessarily a critical mind. And my critical mind notices that, while McCumiskey characterises the Biomedical Paradigm as a new world religion founded by Louis Pasteur (p64), with its own set of dogmas, gospels, high priests and hierophants, his own book reads something like a new gospel according to James!

While claiming that the German New Medicine, by contrast, is purely scientific, McCumiskey’s own conversion to GNM is couched in explicitly religious terms. After reading about it for over a year, he attended a course with Harald Baumann. This is what he writes: “Evangelical Christians believe that you must be ‘born again’ in order to enter Heaven. That course had the same effect on me: after six days I knew more valuable information about medicine than any conventionally trained MD!… I felt born again. I was renewed. I felt obliged to evangelise, to spread the word about German New Medicine. Harald’s course energised and empowered me” (p14). Later in the book (p201, 205) he again likens GNM to “the good news” which needs to be spread. The biblical connotations hardly need commenting upon.

He goes on to define the concept of dogma: “An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true” (p65). Belief in dogmas is the price of membership to the circle of the faithful, and the Biomedical Paradigm, says McCumiskey, has a whole catalogue of them. But McCumiskey’s presentation of GNM suggests a new set of dogmas: they appear as early as the Legal Disclaimer before the book even starts: “The author’s fervent desire is that we discard Modern Medicine as quickly as possible and replace it with German New Medicine, which is 100% scientific and 100% medically correct.” In particular “the five Biological Laws of Nature are natural biological laws and are therefore 100% correct in each and every case of any cancer or disease.” If that’s not an authoritative belief considered absolutely true, I don’t know what is.

Another of the dogmas endlessly repeated by McCumiskey is that viruses don’t exist in plants, animals or humans, and can therefore not cause the diseases they are said to cause. Including AIDS. If that’s true then vaccines are also pointless. It might also explain why ‘medicines’ for colds and flus are largely useless, and should certainly remove any fear of a bird flu or swine flu pandemic.

The argument seems to be this:

1. Viruses exist if they are proven to exist.
2. They are proven to exist if they are isolated, photographed, and biochemically characterised, and all this published in a peer reviewed academic/scientific journal.
3. No virus has ever been thus proven to exist.
Therefore viruses don’t exist.

McCumiskey refers to the work of Dr Stefan Lanka in support of premises 2 and 3 (Chapter 23), and has whole chapters discussing HIV (Chapter 14), the bird flu myth (Chapter 15), and Dr Gerhard Buchwald’s critical work on vaccinations (Chapter 20).

The problem with the argument is that the first premise is not true. Therefore the conclusion remains unproven. It would be an interesting exercise to actually seek out the scientific papers which purportedly prove the viruses in question to exist, and if one were not able to find them, one could legitimately doubt the whole edifice of medical understanding and practice built on them. But that would not entitle someone to endlessly assert that viruses don’t exist, as does McCumiskey. That, I think, entitles me to claim dogma status for that assertion at least!

Which brings me to the rest of the book … which is a veritable compendium of information in support of the main tenets of GNM. But what this compendium most obviously lacks, in spite of its length, is the dissonant voice. It could all be true, every word of it, and I would still be suspicious, sceptical, because all the voices gathered within the pages of this compendium belong either to members of the faith or people wheeled in to support them. There is little discussion of the implausible parts, no mention of critics, and little reference to the wider scientific literature. It gives me the impression of being a hermetically sealed world unto itself, and you’re either in or you’re out.

Really, not another religion, or worse, a sect?

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 9, 2011 in Uncategorized


The comfort of strangeness …

… or shrinking the big C. For the promise of comfort it makes to those in a health crisis one would certainly wish for GNM to be true. It’s comforting because rather than viewing the symptoms and sufferings of a health crisis as scarifying and threatening and something to be gotten rid of as soon as possible, GNM views them as a meaningful and comprehensible biological programme of nature.

In other words, our diseases are trying to restore us to health, to balance, after having received a biological shock, and not trying to kill us, as much of medical thinking now believes. For example, lung cancer from a GNM perspective is the body’s attempt to increase lung capacity in order to help us survive an ‘existence conflict’, and the lungs are affected precisely because being able to breathe is absolutely central to our being alive. GNM tells a similar story for all diseases caused by a biological shock: in every case the response on the organic level of the body to the experience of shock can be framed as a story of enhancing some necessary biological function.

Gone are the days when a diagnosis of the big C is received as a death threat; gone are the days when in response to the questions ‘why me, why cancer, why now?’ the oncologist just shrugs and recommends the standard treatments of chemo, radiation or surgery; gone are the days when after a number of years a woman who is in the clear still wonders either what she did to bring on the lump in her breast or what carcinogen caused it. If GNM is true, that is.

GNM has an elegant story about cause and effect entirely lacking in the current paradigm. No doubt that accounts for a large part of its appeal. The practitioner can assure the patient that some kind of shock must have been experienced, and with careful investigation, and knowing what to look for in any particular case, the cause can be determined. Having identified a cause, the principle of ‘removing the cause’ can then be applied to resolving the conflict that is generating disease. This puts control firmly back in the patients hands. How different that is from current medical practice which seems to be entirely focused on the experts getting rid of the troublesome effects, with no real knowledge of cause.

Resolving the conflict, however, is only the first half of the ‘special biological programme’ that kicks in after a biological shock. The body reacts in one of two ways: cell proliferation (cancer) or cell destruction (ulceration, necrosis). Which of these reactions during the ‘conflict active’ phase occurs depends on which part of the brain registers the shock. If it’s the old brain (brain stem and cerebellum), cancers form. If it’s the new brain (cerebral cortex), cell destruction (and also loss of function) results.

All of these effects must then be undone and repaired in the second phase of the programme, once the shock has been resolved. During this second, reparation phase we notice many of the symptoms which we normally associate with being sick: fever, inflammation, lethargy. So contrary to what we’ve always believed, that such symptoms are signs of unwellness, of something being wrong, from the GNM perspective signs they are of something being right, of healing!

Which is not to say that you should do nothing and let the healing process do its job and everything will be fine. Far from it, because depending on the severity of the original shock and the duration of the active phase, the organs could be so deeply compromised that the reparation phase results in death. Equally, though, there will be times when the healing phase must be endured, and not interfered with by medical intervention, in order to reach a full restoration of health. In fact, inappropriate intervention during what is essentially a healing crisis can ironically hurry the arrival of the grim reaper!

What GNM would make possible if true is for the medical practitioner to know exactly where the patient currently is in the outworking of a special biological programme: are they in the ‘conflict active’ phase, in which case the biological shock needs to be identified and resolved; are they in the reparation phase, in which case the body needs to be supported through the healing crisis? The kinds of interventions that will be helpful depend on this knowledge. Conversely, the kinds of interventions that will not be helpful and may potentially be fatal also depend on this knowledge. This is knowledge entirely lacking in the conventional paradigm.

As necessary as such knowledge therefore seems, however, the question remains: does GNM actually possess it?

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 8, 2011 in Uncategorized


Small things

A few days ago another colleague told me that she and her husband had decided against vaccinating their little boy when he was a baby. She didn’t believe in them. Four years on, she tells me, he is robust, whereas cousins of a similar age seem often to be unwell. They’d been vaccinated. Whether that necessarily accounts for the difference isn’t obvious to me, not being especially well informed on the vaccination controversy.

Today this same colleague admitted that she’d buckled under pressure, and had her child immunised against measles. Apparently measles has been going around the schools in this city, having been brought in by a child from overseas. Once it gets into one classroom, no one in the entire school is safe; and from schools it spreads to other schools. Assuming children have not been immunised against it. My colleague didn’t want to be the one mother who might be accused of being irresponsible and putting other children at risk.

The New Zealand Government’s chief scientist Sir Peter Gluckman deplores our low immunisation rate: “From my work as a paediatrician I’ve seen children with whooping cough, diphtheria, tetanus and it’s not nice. Those bugs are still out there and can harm your child and we don’t need to look that far back in our history to remember polio epidemics, influenza epidemics and the like,” he said. ( We are apparently complacent because we haven’t had a major epidemic, and parents have been taken in my ‘a load of rubbish’ that vaccinations can cause autism.

Well, if we’re one of the lowest immunisers in the OECD and we haven’t had an epidemic, then what’s the argument for doing it? The genuine argument would have to do with real benefits, but the actual argument seems to have a lot more to do with fear: fear of an epidemic, fear of getting ill, fear of suffering. Fear of those malevolent ‘bugs that are still out there’ waiting to harm us and our children, against which we have to arm ourselves.

I’ve just looked up the standard immunisation schedule for New Zealand (here:$File/natl-immunisation-sched-21mar-11.pdf). I count eleven injections before the age of five. Now to me that’s scary stuff, given the amount of toxic material present in vaccinations, I’m told!

Clearly bugs are at the centre of the picture, as suggested by my colleagues’ description of the way measles bugs spread from child to child, unless they’ve been pre-armed to fight them off. And bugs aren’t just at the centre of this picture, but right at the centre of the picture of infectious diseases per se.

What does GNM say about bugs: viruses, bacteria, microbes of various descriptions? Well, a lot actually, too much to review now. But basically, GNM denies that bugs cause disease, which means, obviously, that flus and colds and infectious/contagious diseases like measles, like malaria, TB, HIV, tetanus, meningitis, hepatitis B, because caused by biological shocks, are in fact not transmissible by microbes. (For a comprehensive list of such diseases see

What they don’t deny is that microbes are active and present when someone is ill, but claim that the work they are doing is attempting to restore the person to health. They might always be present within the phenomena of illness, but that’s no proof of causality.

We all have the same picture in our minds: one kid gets something, then a bunch of others in the same class get it. One of our colleagues comes down with a nasty flu in mid-winter, and then we find ourselves coming down with it, and soon the whole office is getting it. How many of us believe we’ve caught something in the confines of an aircraft cabin, stuck for hours and hours with a sniffing companion two rows back, with air going round and round distributing all the bugs going? It seems entirely self-evident.

Not so for GNM: even the common cold is said to be caused by a biological shock, not to mention measles of course. In the latter case, a class full of kids is subjected to the same circumstances, and it’s only individual differences in sensitivity that explains the susceptibilities to experiencing a shock of the disease-causing kind.

Hmm, that hardly seems entirely self-evident, does it? A bit hard to believe, in fact.

But that’s not an argument against its truth. Empirical claims need empirical evidence; that’s what I want to see: the empirical evidence.

And that cuts both ways: empirical evidence for the existence of the dreaded bug, not to mention an adequate account of its capacity to cause illness.

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 7, 2011 in Uncategorized


Science or insanity?

GNM proposes that all human ill health, with the exception of the effects of poisons, nutritional deficiencies and the wounds of accidents are brought about by biological shocks.

Science or insanity? On the one hand that would mean that even the common cold, which we believe is caused by a microbe of some sort, is preceded by a shock of some kind; on the other it would mean that none of the usual theories about the causes of disease are true: genetic malfunctions, viral infections, hereditary dispositions, toxicity etc.

I am not medically trained, not even scientifically trained. I’m a layman. I’m not wedded to any particular theory, which is I suppose a strength and a weakness. The strength lies in having no need to defend an idea that I was trained in or on which my livelihood depends; the weakness lies in a lack of technical knowledge about the theories being challenged. All I have to go on is my observation and my questioning.

What I immediately noticed about the contents of those two websites I mentioned earlier was a lot of assertion, and not a lot of justification. Yes, there is on a page of testimonials, all from patients who benefited from GNM, and not that many. Dr Alvin De Leon provides case studies on But where is the literature detailing the hundreds and hundreds of different cases that have been successfully treated by GNM? Where is the body of literature that often grows up around a new idea? That’s what I’m on the hunt for.

At the very bottom of the testimonials is one by James McCumiskey, the author of The Ultimate Conspiracy. While he doesn’t testify to the effectiveness of GNM personally (his father died of liver cancer while James was in the process of discovering GNM), he described the impact of his discovery of GNM on his own life. Clearly it was enough to inspire him to write the book.

I have to find it. Although published as recently as 2008, I discovered it was already out of print, though being offered at an enormous price through Amazon, presumably second-hand. However, I was amazed and delighted to locate it in our city’s library, and made a request for it. I also did a search online for literature in English on GNM. The only thing I was able to find was Christopher Ray et al’s Factor-L Handbook of the New Medicine – The Truth About Dr. Hamer’s Discoveries, which I am now waiting to arrive.

In the meantime I watched Caroline Markolin present the GNM view of breast cancer. Notwithstanding my colleague’s experience of her grandmother dying a horrible death from just that disease, she claims that breast cancer shouldn’t kill. Why should it? The breast is not a vital organ. It’s not like a tumour in the breast disables or blocks some vital function. So why does it kill? Is it that the cancer metastases, ie travels to other parts of the body, like the lungs and the liver for instance, and wreaks its deadly havoc there? Yes, that seems to be the main worry about any kind of cancer, including breast cancer. It just doesn’t stay put.

No, says GNM, cancer doesn’t metastasise. That’s a theory, a speculation actually, unsupported by any empirical evidence. In other words, no one has seen cancer cells in the blood; if they were there, wouldn’t we be a helluva lot more careful about blood transfusions? And wouldn’t the blood vessels themselves be the first to contract cancer, given that they are primary channels? What about the fact that the cancer cells in one area of the body turn out to be quite different from the cancer cells that grow in the ‘destination’ organ? These are GNM’s objections.

If the cells don’t travel, how does this new cancer start? According to GNM, they are the result of further shocks, one of the worst being the panic and fear of death resulting from the diagnosis of the original cancer.

Well, that’s the theory. Hmm, really?

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 7, 2011 in Uncategorized


An investigation

There’s no doubt in my mind that German New Medicine (GNM) as a theory of human ill health is an utterly radical and revolutionary proposition. As its founder Dr Ryke Hamer claims, it renders 95% of current medical thinking utterly wrong, and most of current medical practice irrelevant (not to mention often dangerous). No wonder he has had an enormous amount of resistance and opposition to it! The personal, intellectual and economic investment in the current medical paradigm on the part of countless individuals and companies, not to mention teaching and research institutions, and even governments, is simply unquantifiable. The wreckage from its collapse – unthinkable!

But is the theory true?

Even calling it a theory would probably seem to a proponent of GNM to be a subtle kind of resistance. It is now regarded as an established set of principles or laws of nature (of which there are five), and not a “theory” yet to be proven.

However, it is a theory to me, a fantastic, brilliant hypothesis, and of potentially vast benefit to humanity … if it’s true.

I have found myself fascinated by GNM since I first came across it. That was a mere week ago, during an online interview that Dr Joseph Mercola (  conducted with another cancer researcher Dr Stanislaw Burzynski of Texas ( Mercola asked Burzynski whether he’d heard of GNM which he said seemed to have had a much higher success rate in treating cancer than conventional methods. From his answer it was obvious that he hadn’t.

Mercola had seemed impressed with GNM. That sent me off on a google search. I soon discovered and, and watched various presentations by Caroline Markolin PhD on aspects of Hamer’s ideas that are posted on the former website. I could see why Mercola might be impressed. Here was an entirely new perspective on the aetiology of “disease”, presented within an elegant framework of ideas that took in the phylogenetic evolution of the animal kingdom, the ontogenetic development of the human being, and provided a foundation for a holistic perspective on human health that many have intuited but no one has yet specified exactly. What I’m referring to here is the idea that a biological shock is the origin of disease, which in essence is a construction of meaning out of a sudden, unexpected and traumatic life experience, which is ‘registered’ by the human being simultaneously on the levels of the psyche, the brain, and the organs of the body.

Human beings are not alone in experiencing biological shocks. Other mammals do too, and like us humans, their organisms respond in exactly the same way, including forming  cancer cells. Not in any random way either. Hamer’s GNM lays out the patterns of organic response according to where such shocks register in the brain, and which parts of the body are ‘controlled’ by those areas of the brain.

There’s a logic, an elegance, to the five biological laws which is entirely absent from conventional medical understanding. But elegance is no guarantee of truth.

There’s a strong and clear idea about the causality of disease, itself a challenge to much of medical thinking which labours under great uncertainty about causation. I asked a friend recently whether in the course of her treatment for breast cancer she had gained some insight into what had brought it about, and she was unable to say. Her experience was mirrored by many of her (female) friends, she said, who had felt well and had been keeping healthy, and were astonished and puzzled by their own diagnoses of cancer.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Soon after my discovery of GNM I emailed another friend who loves investigating ‘alternative views of contemporary phenomena, saying he should check it out. He emailed back and told me he’d heard of Hamer’s work during a naturopathy training back in 1989. He said he too believed that illness can come about from one’s beliefs, from the dark, negative thoughts one harbours within.

That’s by now a common idea, that our minds can affect our bodies, that psyche impacts soma. (It’s a fundament of many ‘alternative’ healing modalities. Kinesiology, for example, shifted its early focus on restoring the flow of energy through the meridians to the underlying emotional stress which, left unaddressed, merely resulted in the energy blocks reappearing in due course.) However, the idea that beliefs cause disease a misconception of Hamer’s thesis. In GNM, what happens in the psyche, the realm of our thinking and feeling, is itself a result of a biological shock, and not the cause of what concurrently occurs in the body as disease or symptom (or in the brain, for that matter).

A couple of days later I was having a casual conversation with a couple of colleagues (women). I don’t recall now, but the topic of cancer came up. I shared what I’d been learning from GNM, that cancer can be resolved if the biological shocks that cause it can be resolved. One of these women said her grandmother had died a horrible death from breast cancer, and if she got it she wouldn’t take any risks and would opt for chemo. The other reported how doctors had recommended mastectomy to two sisters on account of a genetic predisposition to a certain kind of breast cancer. They followed the advice. But what if the cancer was due to biological shocks, I asked? Do shocks run in families, then? came the retort.

These are exactly the kinds of questions that come up about GNM. Absolutely everything to do with medical phenomena is up for review when considered from a GNM perspective. I am gobsmacked by the thought of just how many great minds, how many smart people, would now have to be quite wrong … if GNM is right.

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 6, 2011 in Uncategorized