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 www.newmedicine.ca a page of testimonials, all from patients who benefited from GNM, and not that many. Dr Alvin De Leon provides case studies on www.germanewmedicine.ca. 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?