An investigation

06 Jul

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


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: