Atheist philosopher Dr.Bradley Monton is a philosopher of science who defends the viability of the intelligent design theory.
Dr.Monton was the moderator in the debate between William Lane Craig (a Christian philosopher who's agnostic about intelligent design in biology) and Francisco Ayala (a critic of intelligent design). Watch the debate here:
Nobody is exempt of using (unintentional) logical fallacies, sophisms and contradictions. However, it is not common that straightforward contradictions and inconsistencies be employed by a thinker or writer, specially in an academic paper or book. The existence of such obvious contradictions, inconsistencies and fallacies cast doubts on the intellectual powers and rigour of the author in question.
One of the reasons why I've became convinced that hard-core atheistic materialists are (as a rule and save some exceptions) irrational is that they defend mutually incompatible positions and are caught in obvious contradictions and absurd positions, but they cannot spot such contradictions and fallacies (even if you document them and explain carefully such contradictions to them). This is evidence of irrationality. Their minds don't function properly in order to think straight. (A recent and painfully embarassing example of this kind of atheistic irrationality, imbecility and stupidity is the case of atheist Lawrence Krauss, who is currently known worldwide as Mr.2+2=5 atheist genius).
An example of this kind of straightforward inconsistency by a "professional skeptic" is demostrated in the book Debating Psychic Experience, which is an academic book where defenders of the existence of psi debate skeptics of psi.
In his essays entitled "Attributions about impossible things" (please, keep in mind this title, this is absolutely crucial to my argument here), professional skeptic of parapsychology James Alcock speculates about the "attributions" that parapsychologists make regarding the critics of psi:
Attributions are also made regarding the continuing rejection of parapsychology and its data by most scientists. While the scientists are likely to attribute this state of affairs both to the absence of persuasive data and to the incompatibility of parapsychological claims with modern scientific theory, parapsychologists on the other hand typically attribute it to dogmatism rooted in the belief that paranormal phenomena are impossible because their existence would violate the laws of physics. Britain’s Society for Psychical Research expresses this position clearly:
Opposition to psychical research is often against its implications and not the quality of the evidence. The evidence of psychical research, if accepted, challenges the fundamental assumptions about how the world works generally accepted by the scientific community. (Society for Psychical Research, 2009) (p.31, emphasis in blue added. Note carefully the emphasis in red)
Please, read carefully (three or more times, slowly) Alcock's argument above.
Note carefully that Alcock is arguing that parapsychologists attribute the rejection of parapsychology by most scientists to the following reasons:
1-Dogmatism based on a belief that the paranormal is impossible
2-Such impossibility derives of the the incompatibility of the paranormal claims with known physical laws.
Alcock calls "misattributions" these attributions made by parapsychologists about the mainstream scientific community's rejection of parapsychology: "While such attributions about scientists’ motives may appear reasonable to the parapsychologist, they fall far wide of the mark in terms of what is really going on. These misattributions unfortunately serve to insulate the parapsychological researcher from an understanding of why parapsychology has such difficulty being heard in the hallways of science, and they preclude due consideration to valid critiques that might promote better research." (P.31. emphasis in blue added. Note again the emphasis in red)
In other words, such attributions are convincing for parapsychologists, but they're false attributions (=misattributions) because they are far wide of the mark regarding the actual motives of the rejection of parapsychology by "scientists".
According to Alcock, the actual reason of why most scientists reject parapsychology is " the absence of persuasive data and to the incompatibility of parapsychological claims with modern scientific theory"
However, in the beginning of his essays, Alcock actually affirms (and hence, confirms) the attribution made by parapsychologists!. He says: Parapsychologists believe in “impossible” things. By definition, their subject matter involves phenomena that cannot possibly occur if modern materialistic science has things right. And the first goal of parapsychology is to demonstrate that these supposedly impossible things—purported paranormal abilities such as extrasensory perception, psychokinesis and the like—are indeed real and not impossible after all. If they are demonstrated to be correct, the laws of physics as we know them will have been shown to be terribly wrong in some very important respects. (p. 29. Emphasis in blue added)
Can you see the inconsistency? One the one hand, Alcock complains that parapsychologists wrongly attribute the rejection of parapsychology to the dogmatism of most scientists who believe that paranormal claims are imposible because they violate physical laws. But Alcock himself explicitly say that paranormal claims are impossible ("cannot possibily occur") because the laws of physics are incompatible with such claims (hence, if paranormal claims were proved to be true, "the laws of physics... will have been shown terribly wrong").
So, are parapsychologists wrong when they attribute the rejection of parapsychology to the dogmatism of people like Alcock, who believes that psi claims are impossible ("parapsychologisys believe in impossible things" -Alcock) because they are incompatible with the scientific laws as currently understood?
Alcock himself is providing the crushing and explicit evidence that parapsychologists' attribution is right!
It is not common that scholars defend so obvious inconsistencies in academic texts. Mistakes like that are strong evidence of a serious lack of intellectual rigour and logical training, and cast doubts on the author's overall reliability.
Cognizant of this obvious inconsistency, Dean Radin replied to Alcock in the same book in this way:
Alcock repeatedly emphasizes his belief that psi violates the laws of physics. He writes that if the parapsychologists are demonstrated to be correct, the laws of physics as we know them will have been shown to be terribly wrong in some very important respects. Later he asserts that while the scientists are likely to attribute this state of affairs both to the absence of persuasive data and to the incompatibility of parapsychological claims with modern scientific theory, parapsychologists on the other hand typically attribute it to dogmatism rooted in the belief that paranormal phenomena are impossible because their existence would violate the laws of physics.
This last statement suggests a regrettable prejudice, which leads to a blithe assertion that is, frankly, preposterous. Alcock claims that it is simply wrong to claim that parapsychology’s entry into the hallways of science is barred by scientific bigotry.
If this statement were true, then why does Alcock find it necessary to distinguish between what the parapsychologists say versus what “the scientists” say? (p.113. Emphasis in blue and red added).
Do you remember my emphasis in RED in the Alcock's citation of the beginning of this article? Read it again.
Radin correctly spotted the rhetorical ploy used by Alcock. Alcock distinguishes between "parapsychologists" and the "scientists" (implying that parapsychologists are NOT scientists), what is more evidence of Alcock's prejudices. (Note that a more intelligent person would have tried to hide his prejudices, instead of making them explicit and straightforward).
If I say "atheists" vs. "theists", I'm implying that theists are NOT atheists and viceversa (otherwise, the distinction is stupid and make no sense). Likewise, If I say "scientists" vs. "parapsychologists" I'm implying that parapsychologists don't belong to the group of scientists (otherwise, the distinction is ridiculous, ignorant, stupid and make no sense).
The use of these rhetorical fallacies is evidence of the defensiveness and weakness of Alcock's position. He cannot make his point with sober logic and sound evidence. He needs to use logical fallacies, inconsistencies and rhetoric in order to persuade the reader.
When you see the use of such fallacies, you'll know for sure that the author cannot make his case in a rational way. He needs to use logical fallacies and rhetoric in order to compensate the deficiencies and weakness of his case.
You need to ask yourself: if the evidence for psi were so weak as Alcock pretends, then why the hell professional skeptics like Alcock make use of such obviously bad and illogical arguments (which undermine their own position)?
According to the website of the BBC: "One of India's most revered spiritual leaders, Sri Satya Sai Baba, has died in hospital at the age of 84.
The guru, who suffered respiratory problems and kidney failure, died in his hometown Puttaparthi after a cardiac arrest, doctors said.
But he was dogged by controversy including allegations, never proven, of sexual abuse and charlatanism.
High-profile followers included former Indian Prime Minster Atal Behari Vajpayee and cricket legend Sachin Tendulkar.
Many devotees considered him a living god, and credited him with mystical powers including the ability to conjure objects out of the air.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described his death as an "irreparable loss".
"He was a spiritual leader who inspired millions to lead a moral and meaningful life even as they followed the religion of their choice," said Mr Singh."
Sai Baba was famous for his alleged supernatural materializations (specially of vibhuti, clocks and other objects).
Many of this materializations were caught on video:
Obviously such supposed materialization (in the above video, of a so-called lingam = objectwhich represents the Hindu deity Shiva used for worship in many temples in India) is absolutely unconvincing. It seems to be more a (crude) trick by an amateur magician than a real paranormal or supernatural manifestation.
Look at these videos (materialization of vibhuti):
They're interesting, but nothing that an amateur magician cannot do.
A more interesting video is this (look specially and carefully at the second 2 through the second 6, where Sai Baba dissapears an object, a collar it seems, in his bare hands):
The above video is far more interesting than the previous ones, but I still think that they can be done by tricks. Just compare that video with the following materialization video by David Copperfield, a seasoned professional illusionist:
Obviously, the point is not that Sai Baba's materializations are false because seasoned magicians can reproduce the same tricks. Rather, the argument is that Sai Baba's supernatural performances (at least, the ones caught on video) are unconvincing as evidence for his supernatural powers. That's all.
Finally, enjoy these couple of videos by David Copperfield (these are considered by many amateur magicians and fans of magic like myself as some of the best illusions ever):
In his debate with Christian philosopher William Lane Craig (and confronted by Craig's moral argument), atheist philosopher Massimo Pigliucci was forced to concede the actual implications of atheism and metaphysial naturalism regarding morality:
I agree with Dr. Craig when he cited Dr. Ruse, a philosopher of science. There is no such a thing as objective morality. We got that straightened out. Morality in human cultures has evolved and is still evolving, and what is moral for you might not be moral for the guy next door and certainly is not moral for the guy across the ocean, the Atlantic or the Pacific Ocean, and so on. And what makes you think that your personal morality is the one and everybody else is wrong? Now a better way of putting this is that it is not the same as to say that anything goes; it is not at all the same. What goes is anything that works; there are things that work. Morality has to work. For example, one of the very good reasons we don't go around killing each other is because otherwise the entire society as we know it would collapse and we'd become a bunch of simple isolated animals. There are animals like those. (emphasis in blue added).
Let's critically examine Pigliucci's fully consistent atheistic/naturalistic view on morality:
1-Pigliucci accepts Craig's citation of naturalist Michael Ruse according to which there is not objective morality. Morality is subjective (ontologically dependent on human persons, creations of the human mind).
I think this concession speaks strongly in favor of Pigliucci's intelectual honestity, because other apologists for atheism try to argue for objetive morality when they actually know that such thing is extraordinarily implausible if atheism is true. These atheists are intellectually dishonest and sophistical charlatans.
As atheist and naturalist infidels.org philosopher Keith Augustine has compellingly argued "I think there is a certain degree of plausibility among atheists in the view that without some kind of transcendental intelligence in the universe, there can be no objective moral laws... It seems to me that all ethical codes must ultimately be man-made, and thus there could be no objective criteria for determining if human actions are right or wrong. Admitting that moral laws are man-made is equivalent to acknowledging that ethical rules are arbitrary and therefore human beings are not obligated to follow them... given that moral subjectivism is just as logically viable as moral objectivism and that moral objectivism is implausible if a scientific naturalism is true, I think that there is a good case for the nonexistence of objective moral values". (emphasis in blue added)
This is the correct position for a naturalist to take. If naturalism is true, then moral objetivism is plausibly false. (Hence, if you have strong reasons to think that moral objetivism is true, then you have an argument for the view that naturalism is plausibly false).
2-Pigliucci also defends a version of ethical relativism, when he says "what is moral for you might not be moral for the guy next door and certainly is not moral for the guy across the ocean, the Atlantic or the Pacific Ocean, and so on"
In other words, what is moral is relative to individuals and cultures. Therefore, there is not an absolute morality (i.e. moral values and duties which are valid and binding for all human beings).
It implies that if killing atheists were moral in some cultures, other cultures could consider such behaviour as inmoral. And you don't have any independent and trascendent objective moral standard to criticize (on moral grounds) one culture over the other, because as Pigliucci ask: "And what makes you think that your personal morality is the one and everybody else is wrong?"
Pigliucci clearly has realized and fully understood the ethical implications of naturalistic atheism.
3-Pigliucci tries to avoid the obvious chaos and destruction that his moral view implies appealing to a pragmatic justification of morality: "Now a better way of putting this is that it is not the same as to say that anything goes; it is not at all the same. What goes is anything that works; there are things that work. Morality has to work. For example, one of the very good reasons we don't go around killing each other is because otherwise the entire society as we know it would collapse and we'd become a bunch of simple isolated animals. There are animals like those."
In other words, killing innocent atheists is bad not because killing as such is objectively wrong, but because it doesn't work for the purposes of social existence. It's a purely pragmatic justification of moral behaviour.
Note, by the way, that such pragmatic justification doesn't work either, because something "works" only in connection with the agent's ends. For example, shooting a gun "works" in order to kill someone but not in order to cure cancer, or swing in a pool.
The particular ends of the agent will determine the means appropiate to get such ends. If you change the ends, the means could loss their "working" property (regarding the end in question).
Now, you're in position to see why Pigliucci's pragmatic justification of morality is wrong. Imagine an atheist guy who WANTS to destroy society. Inspired by Pigliucci's atheistic moral theory, that guy can say "Well, morality has to work. And given that according to my professor Pigliucci what is moral for me is not necessarily moral for you, and given that I want to destroy the whole of society (myself included, because I hate myself too), I'm going to kill with bombs all my fellows atheists. My view is fully consistent with my dear professor Pigliucci's views on morality because:
1-My moral values are relative to myself, and nobody can say that I'm wrongbecause there is not any objective foundation for such judgment.
2-My moral decisions "work" for me, because I want to destroy my fellows atheists and the society in general, and putting bombs in skeptical and atheist meetings and public places is a very effective method which works in every case in order to get my purpose.
3-Obviously, I'm also respecting professor Pigliucci's point that "anything goes" is false. Morality has to work according to the ends of the agent. In this case, I'm an agent whose ultimate purpose is precisely destroy society. And the methods that I'm employing works marvelously. So, my position is fully consistent with my dear professor.
You can see that the above insane atheist guy is being fully consistent with Pigliucci's atheistic moral theory. Given that theory, you cannot say that such individual is wrong because (Pigliucci says): "what is moral for you might not be moral for the guy next door". So, if for you is not moral to kill atheists and skeptics, then perhaps such action is moral for other people (like the guy in the example).
And you cannot say anything against such person because (as Pigliucci's explicitly says): "what makes you think that your personal morality is the one and everybody else is wrong?"
You only could complain that a given morality doesn't work. But this is not the case for the guy in the example, because his moral actions are very effective to attain his personal ends (namely, the destruction of society). So, that guy's morality WORKS!
You can realize the obvious absurdity of Pigliucci's (fully) consistent atheistic moral theory. We have to congratulate Pigliucci for his intelectual honesty in accepting the actual logical implications for morality of his worldview. But it doesn't change the dangerous implications of such position.
Materialistic atheism and metaphysical naturalism is an essentially inmoral and extremely dangerous worldview. It's mostly based on an extraordinary hostility and visceral aversion towards religion (specially Christianity), and such monumentally intense hatred is manifested in the rationalization of their irrational and dangerous beliefs like the ones defended by Pigliucci and all the others naturalists and atheists that I've discussed in my blog.
For more strong and irrefutable evidence for the inmorality of metaphysical naturalism and materialistic atheism, see this link.
Program Committee: Bill Bengston, Chair, Dick Blasband, Courtney Brown, Adam Curry, Brenda Dunne, Robert Jahn, Dominique Surel. Local Arrangements: Dominique Surel
WEDNESDAY EVENING, June 8 - Millennium Hotel Gardens, Boulder, Colorado
6:00 pm - Opening Reception and Registration. Poster set-up
THURSDAY MORNING, June 9 - Ballroom Theme I: IMPLICATIONS OF NON-LOCALITY
9:00 Welcome and Introductions
9:10 Pamela Rae Heath, Diverse Perspectives: What Distant Healing, Remote Viewing, and the Afterlife Suggest about Non-Locality
9:50 Jane Katra, After Death Communication Involving the Ongoing Work of Two Bonded Parapsychologist Healers
10:10 Walter Semkiw, Advances in Reincarnation Research: A Tribute to Ian Stevenson
10:30 Gary Schwartz, Photonic Measurement of Apparent Presence of Spirit using a Computer Automated System
10:50 BREAK
11:10 Larry Dossey, Precognition As Preventive Medicine
11:50 Julie Beischel, Michael Biuso, Mark Boccuzzi, Adam Rock, Anomalous Information Reception by Research Mediums under Quintiple-Blind Conditions: Can the Mind Exist without the Body?
12:10 Chuck Lear, The Bell Inequality and Non-Local Causality (sponsored by Dean Radin)
12:30 LUNCH BREAK - Young Investigators' Meeting
THURSDAY AFTERNOON - Ballroom Theme II: THE SCIENCE OF THE SUBJECTIVE
2:00 Robert Jahn & Brenda Dunne, Towards a Science of the Subjective
2:40 Mark Boccuzzi, Three Methods for Examining Experimenter Effects in Investigations of Psychokinesis (sponsored by Julie Beischel)
3:00 Maria Syldona, Science of Subjectivity – Key to understanding the nature of Reality
3:20 BREAK
3:40 Dean Radin, Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments
4:20 York Dobyns, Using Parapsychology to Test Fundamental Physics
4:40 J. Kenneth Arnette, Subjectivity is Constitutive: Consciousness is to Energy as Energy is to Matter
5:00 Bernard Haisch, Is There a Consciousness Underlying the Universe?
5:20 Dan Ward, Planetary Geometry
5:40 BUSINESS MEETING
FRIDAY MORNING, June 10th - Ballroom Theme III: CONSCIOUSNESS AND LIVING SYSTEMS
9:00 Announcements
9:10 Larissa Cheran, Beyond Quantum: Consciousness in Action
9:50 Richard Shoup, How Consciousness is Like Las Vegas - and Where the Real Focus Should Be
10:10 Igor Dolgov, Self Organized Design: The Mechanism Behind Mindless, Yet Intelligent Natural Selection
10:30 BREAK
10:50 Bill Bengston, Healing with Intent: Some Reflections on Cancer Experiments on Laboratory Mice
11:10 Samuel Sandweiss, A Case Presentation about the Nature of Consciousness
11:30 Carl Medwedeff, Chemical Biology in Radionics and Healing (sponsored by Erik Schultes)
FIELD TRIP – RED ROCKS PARK
12:30 - Bus departs at 12:30 sharp Pre-ordered lunch to be picked-up in lobby before boarding the bus
4:00 Bus leaves Red Rocks to return to Hotel (arrive around 5pm)
5pm – 7:30 Free time for dinner
FRIDAY EVENING - Ballroom CONSCIOUSNESS, Part II
7:30 Rollin McCraty, Coherence: Bridging Personal, Social and Global Systems Health
8:10 Roger Nelson, Similarities of Global and Individual Consciousness
This information is very important to open mind skeptics and searchers for the truth, specially for medical doctors, oncologists, internists, nurses, biologists, honest journalists and other professionals and lay people interested in health questions, problems and therapies.
The Italian organization called A.L.B.A (Associazione Leggi Biologiche Applicate) is presenting an International Congress about Dr.Hamer's 5 biological laws about the origin and spontaneous remissions of cancer and other major diseases. The International Congress will include presentations and speeches by respected and experienced therapists and medical doctors, with several case studies and clinical evidence. The detailed information about this upcoming International Congress is available here. If you have reasonable doubts or questions about Dr.Hamer's work, it's your opportunity to discuss, analyze and study the matter in depth with people with extensive knowledge and medical experience with Dr.Hamer's theory.
According to the exit poll done after the debate between William Lane Craig and Lawrence M. Krauss:
516 cards turned in
286 Dr. Craig made the clearer/better presentation
130 Dr. Krauss made the clearer/better presentation
100 stated it was a draw
According to that data, a majority of the people who watched the debate in situ considered that Craig won it, which is the conclusion (I think) of any sane, objective and rational person. Honestly, it's astonishing to see that 130 persons (atheists, I must think) considered that Krauss made a better/clearer presentation. I'm shocked by it. Amazing.
It's astonishing to realize that there is people who cannot, intellectually, concede defeat. People like that are not emotionally prepared to intellectual debate and the search for the truth. They have an emotional commitment to their own opinions, and it is almost impossible to make them to realize they have been wrong.
I consider this a kind of intellectual disease.
AN EXEMPLE OF ATHEISTIC IRRATIONALISM AND STUPIDITY:
One of the most dissapointings things about public debates is, sometimes, the Q/A part. I've been shocked by the intellectual lazyness, ignorance, confusion and irrationality of some questioners, specially the atheistic ones.
An example of this kind of stupidity is the question by this atheist in the Craig vs. Harris debate. Please, examine carefully the following video, specially the question posed to Craig:
Note carefully the questioner's "Two questions":
-Is the statement "God exists" an IS statement or an ought statement? (Obviously, the answer is it's an IS STATEMENT; so the question itself is already stupid and inept).
But the second question is a masterpiece of atheist irrationality and it's evidence of the intellectual level of many atheists in colleges:
-So you cannot derive any objective duty from it?
Oh boy.... This atheist (like many others) is intellectually incapable to understand that in Craig's argument, objective moral duties came from God, not from the statement "God exists".
Note that in this point it's irrelevant if Craig is right or not. It's irrelevant if God exists or not. It's irrelevant if atheism is true or not. What is of my interest in this moment is the atheist's stupidy, solid irrationality and intellectual weakness.
If you have not understood the point yet, perhaps the following analogy will help:
When a court of law condemms you to something, let's to say "You must pay 100$ to X person", it's obvious that such prescription or legal duty came from the court/judge (as a legally valid and competent authority) NOT from the statement "courts exist". Even the most irrational, retarded and mentally impaired person would know and fully understand that.
Likewise, according to Craig, if God exists (i.e if a being of supreme cosmic intelligence, power and absolute ontological authority over creation exists), then objective moral duties exist. Such duties come from God, not from the statement or proposition "God exists". Is so hard to understand that? Do you need to be a genius in order to understand Craig's argument? Obviously not, any person, even the most stupid and ignorant one, would understand it (regardless of whether such person agrees or disagrees with Craig). The only people who cannot intellectually understand this obvious point are some atheists like the guy in the video, because they have a flawed cognitive functioning, their mind is not rational anymore, and even the most basic arguments or ideas are far beyond of their understanding and intelligence.
The atheist of the video conflates the PERSON of God with the STATEMENT "God exists".
I think that Craig's was surprised and caught off guard by such monumentally inept and stupid question, because he replied "Not from that alone", when his reply should have been "You're conflating commands that come from the person or authority called God (which is my argument), with commands that come from the statement "God exists". Obviously a person is not the same than an statement, and the duties come from the former, not from the latter, because duties (legal, moral, etc.) only come from competent personal authorities, not from statements, propositions or concepts which are abstract objects, not persons. So you're right that I cannot derive objective duties from the statement "God exists", and I've never pretented to do it".
To be honest, If I (Jime) were asked to stupid question in a public debate, perhaps I'd refuse to answer to it. My reply would be "Next!!!!!!!".
The reason is that answering to such ridiculous question forces you into the same level of mediocrity, stupidity and intellectual incapacity of the individual asking such idiocy.
I'm fascinated by and have dedicated some of my time to the study of the psychology of hard-core materialistic atheists, naturalists and pseudoskeptics; but at the same time, I feel sad that young people have been destroyed in their rational and intellectual faculties by the metaphysical naturalist and materialist ideology. They have reached a point of not return.
In my opinion, one of the worst consequences of a consistent naturalism (in addition to its moral poverty and the dangers it poses to society) is that it is a strong threat to the sanity and rationality of individuals.
This is another reason why we have to avoid that metaphysical naturalism takes control over society. We have to fight it (with intellectual means) and expose (with sound evidence and arguments) the moral and intellectual dangers that a fully consistent metaphysical naturalism entail.
And a good line of evidence for this position is precisely showing the intellectual effects that such ideology causes in young people, specially in college, like the guy in the video.
This is a long interview with James McCumiskey, the author of a very intriguing and original book entitled The Ultimate Conspiracy: The Biomedical Paradigm. Without a doubt, the theses of this book will be very controversial for many (perhaps most) readers, but McCumiskey's clear, well-argued and documented book makes it a must read for people interested in alternative scientific understandings of the origin and treatment of cancer and other major diseases. I strongly suggest the readers of my blog to read carefully, objectively and critically McCumiskey's book, and specially the readers should try to check McCumiskey's factual claims for themselves and draw their own conclusions according to the best evidence. I thank James for accepting this interview. Enjoy.
Above: Long and detailed 4-hour documentary (with English subtitles) about Dr.Hamer's research on cancer and other major diseases. Press the "cc" bottom (in the video) in order to activate the English subtitles.A perfect and accurate understanding of Dr.Hamer's theory is necessary in order to fully and properly understand, develop and qualify some of the ideas discussed in this interview
1-James tell us something about your background
I was a successful student at secondary school in Ireland and got a good Leaving Certificate. I studied Electronic Engineering at University College Dublin. After first year I knew I had chosen the wrong Degree, and should have chosen Accountancy or Economics. I felt obliged to continue on, but without any interest, failed many exams, and got a very poor degree. I think they felt sorry for me in the end! I got a job with Ericsson as a Telecommunications Engineer and enjoyed my time working for them. I studied accountancy at night, and passed my exams without ever having worked as one and eventually started working as an accountant.
Looking back, I knew I was on the wrong track studying engineering, but continued on with it, even though I should have bailed out. This experience took its toll on me, but I think now it was good in that it caused me to question everything. I took nothing for granted.
I also have healthy respect for Engineers and in particular that they deal with empirical evidence and not with theories, unlike the MDs.
2-Why did you get interested in medicine?
I got interested in medicine because in April 2002 my sister was diagnosed with skin cancer and went through the standard medical treatment. Chemo, radiation, lymph nodes removed etc. It clearly scared the hell out of her and she discovered the work of Dr Hamer and told me about it.
My father was diagnosed with liver cancer in August 2002. There was nothing much they could do for him and the oncologist predicted a short few months to live, because his liver was so enlarged. My sister got him to visit her GNM doctor in Belgium for a few sessions, but he was not able to take in the New Medicine, was too sick, and was too accepting of conventional medical wisdom.
I didn't know much about the New Medicine at the time but it made sense to me. The idea that a shock could cause cancer just made sense to me. After his death I resolved to study the New Medicine of Dr Hamer and bought his book Summary of the New Medicine - his only book that has been translated in to English. I read it for about a year and decided to write The Ultimate Conspiracy.
3-What do you mean by the "Biomedical Paradigm" and the "Ultimate Conspiracy"?
The Biomedical Paradigm describes the pattern of belief that underlies Modern Medicine. In the book I argue that Modern Medicine is a secular religion with a series of beliefs or dogmas that have no grounding in reality. The central dogma of Modern Medicine is the Germ Theory of Disease - the idea that bacteria and viruses cause disease. This central dogma is equivalent to the Resurrection for Christians - it is that central a belief for Modern Medicine.
The Biomedical Paradigm is the belief that disease is caused by germs, bacteria, faulty genes, carcinogens etc - Disease is caused from the outside but not from within - from ones own mind.
The Ultimate Conspiracy is that all MDs believe in the Biomedical Paradigm as do most people.
4-In your book, you defend the thesis of German virologist Stefan Lanka, according to which, pathogenic viruses have never been proved to exist according to the standard rules of virology for virus isolation. This is clearly an extraordinary claim which is very hard to believe. But, if such claim is true, it would cause a scientific and medical revolution. Can you tell us who Stefan Lanka is, and why do you give credit to his views?
Dr.Stefan Lanka
Dr Stefan Lanka is around my age, born in 1963 in Germany. As a schoolboy he had an interest in understanding how Nature worked, and studied Biology at University. He got a PhD in Biology by isolating a virus called the ectocarpus siliculosus virus. He was very excited because he thought he had discovered the first stable virus-host relationship: The sea algae 'infected' with this virus thrived in its presence.
He wrote up his thesis in the late 1980s, and got his PhD, and was deemed to be an expert on viruses. The HIV-AIDS hysteria was at its peak and he read the scientific literature, but nowhere did he find any scientific publication where the HIV-virus had been isolated from the host cell. Nowhere! Naturally enough he was astounded, told everybody but nobody was interested. Dr Lanka moved on then from the HIV-virus to the 'viruses' that we vaccinate our children against such as mumps, measles and rubella, and again found no scientific paper where any scientist had managed to isolate them.
The outcome of all his research is that phagen exist, which meet the criteria of viruses, but do not harm the host organism. In 1 litre of sea-water there are millions of these viruses, and they are obviously not pathogenic.
The Germ Theory of Disease is wrong and viruses do not exist. You are right; acceptance of this will be a medical revolution, in fact a societal revolution - no doubt about it.
5-Assuming for the argument's sake that Lanka is correct, many questions arise. For example, if viruses don't exist, how do we explain the many photographs of viruses that we can see in virology textbooks and scientific websites? (An example would be this picture of HIV: http://discover8.com/public/images/upload_article_images/080221183340.jpg )
Above: three standards examples of photographs showing putative HIV particles
The first question would be to ask how the photograph was taken? The second question would be to ask whether the HIV-virus was isolated from the host cell and biochemically characterised. The third question would be to ask for the name of the publication, so that one could replicate this. It must be reproducible - this isolation of the virus.
I have a 4-year history now of requesting from the Irish authorities scientific papers proving the existence of the H1N1 virus and also the mumps, measles and rubella viruses.
I have e-mailed and mailed letters to the Irish Minister for Health, and to the relevant Irish experts Dr Darina O'Flanagan Director of the HPSC, who recommend vaccinations, and also Professor Bill Hall Director of the National Virus Reference Laboratory at University College Dublin. Professor Bill Hall has studiously ignored my letters.
Dr.Darina O'Flanagan
Professor William Hall
In my last letter and e-mail to Professor Bill Hall, the most eminent Irish expert on viruses, I asked him the following four questions about the H1N1 virus as an example of a pathogenic virus:
1) Does Professor Bill Hall accept that the Ectocarpus siliculosus virus of approximately 120nm diameter has been isolated, biochemically characterised and photographed by Dr Stefan Lanka?
2) What is the approximate diameter of the H1N1 virus?
3) Why can Professor Bill Hall not cite a scientific publication proving the existence of the H1N1 virus?
4) Why can Professor Bill Hall and his NVRL colleagues not isolate the H1N1 virus in a similar manner like the Ectocarpus siliculosus virus and have this published in a scientific journal?
Professor Bill Hall, can silence me by answering these questions, but he can't. I hope he will have the courage and decency one day soon to fess up and admit there is no scientific evidence for the existence of any pathogenic virus.
Above: two scientific pictures of the putative virus H1N1. The first photo is a putative electron microscope image of the H1N1 swine flu virus culture obtained from a California patient. (U.S. Centres for Disease Control)
6-Also, if viruses don't exist, how are we going to explain the efficacy of vaccinations in the elimination of viral diseases?
I explain this in my book in Chapter 13 The Myth that Vaccinations are Safe and Effective. To take the examples of measles, the death rate from measles had declined by about 98% by the time the vaccine was introduced, and merely continued on its long-term decline after the introduction of the vaccine. Medical text-books link the decline in deaths from measles, with the introduction of the vaccine but conveniently ignore the estimated 98% decline prior to the introduction of the vaccine.
Graphics based on the The Vital Statistics of the United States starting in the 1900s
The decline in all of these diseases was due to improved nutrition, clean water and decent housing. That's it.
7-In the book, you question the Germ Theory of Disease, which is one of the pillars of Modern Medicine. However, it seems to be a fact that (even if we concede for the argument's sake that viruses don't exist) some microbes cause many diseases (e.g. lung tuberculosis is caused by Koch's bacilus). How are you going to question or doubt such obvious and commonly accepted scientific fact?
To answer this question I need to bring in the New Medicine of Dr Hamer. Every cancer / disease is caused by a severe shock. When the shock occurs, and the cancer/disease starts, one is in the Conflict-Active phase thinking about the event that caused the terrible shock. If one solves the shock, then one is in the healing phase or the reparation phase where the body recovers from shock.
This is the amazing thing about lung tuberculosis. It occurs in the healing or the reparation phase, and this is how the organism recovers from alveolar lung cancer. So lung tuberculosis is the reparation phase of alveolar lung cancer.
Let's go back one step. The preceding shock that caused all of this was a 'fear of death' biological shock. This is probably the most elemental shock. The body responds to this type of shock by multiplying the alveolii cells. This is called alveolar lung cancer. When the 'fear of death' biological shock is solved, one gets lung tuberculosis and one coughs out the excess alveolii, which appear as a bloody sputum, and you think "oh shit I'm going to die", and the doctors don't really help, in fact the contrary, and then u get another fear of death biological shock and then u die.
In relation to the bacilli that are present when one has lung tuberculosis, this is correct. The MDs assume wrongly that these microbes caused lung tuberculosis. In other terms, does snow cause winter? Do flies cause dung-heaps? Yes the microbes are present, but they did not cause the disease, on the contrary they are there helping the body to get rid of the excessive alveolar cells.
8-You have defended the medical views of another German scientist, the physician specialized in internal medicine Dr.Ryke Geerd Hamer, about the cause of cancer and other major diseases. Can you explain to us the basics of Hamer's theory?
Dr.Ryke Geerd Hamer
Dr Hamer has come up with a body of work called New Medicine or German New Medicine GNM. Dr Hamer tried to patent the term 'New Medicine' but couldn't hence the term ' German New Medicine', which he copy-righted.
GNM has 5 biological laws:
1st Biological Law - The Iron Rule of Cancer - IRC
Dr Hamer discovered this law in relation to cancer and called it the IRC, because he thought he had discovered the cause of cancer. Later he discovered that is was the cause of all other disease like MS etc.
The IRC is that every cancer / disease is caused by a severe, dramatic and isolating shock occurring on all three levels of the human: the psyche, the brain and the organ.
Dr Hamer calls the biological shock the Dirk Hamer Syndrome. Dr Hamer's 19-year old son Dirk Hamer died in incredibly tragic circumstances, and a few months later Dr Hamer got cancer a teratoma in his right testicle. After he recovered from cancer, he resolved to investigate his belief that cancer was caused by a severe shock. This work resulted in the 5 biological laws of the German New Medicine.
2nd Biological Law - The two-phases of every cancer/disease
Every Cancer/ Disease has two phases provided the conflict is resolved. The first phase is called the 'conflict-active' phase, which occurs after the biological shock or DHS. The second phase is called the 'healing-phase' by Dr Hamer, but personally I prefer the term 'reparation phase', and this occurs when the biological conflict has been resolved.
3rd Biological Law - The ontogenetic system of tumors and cancer equivalent diseases.
This states that the symptoms of a cancer/disease in the conflict-active phase and the reparation phase depends on the germ layer the respective organ is made up from. This is what 'ontogenetic' means.
For example all organs made up from the endoderm germ layer exhibit tumour growth in the conflict-active phase, and experience tumour degradation/ cell destruction in the reparation phase.
Dr Hamer is particularly proud of this 3rd Biological Law. He had cracked the connection between Conflict state and the symptoms that were occurring.
Fourth Biological Law - The ontogenetic system of microbes.
This law states the type of microbes that operate in the reparation phase, which are dependent on the germ layer of the diseased organ.
The amazing thing about microbes is they help us to recover from cancer / disease. They are our little helpers and they do not cause disease.
Germs do not cause disease.
Fifth Biological Law - The Quintessence
This law is really the most significant of the Biological Laws. Cancer or Disease is a Meaningful Biological Program of Nature - in German Sinnvolles Biologisches Sonderprogramm der Natur, abbreviated SBS.
The shock occurred, and the body tried to solve the biological conflict by the disease or cancer. This turns our understanding of disease upside down and inside out.
For example a mother sees her child knocked down and gets a shock. Some time later the child recovers but the right-handed mother has alump on her left breast. She has glandular breast cancer. The original shock was caring conflict for her child knocked down. The body responds by increasing the milk producing capacity of left breast causing the lump or tumour. Once u understand this, the fear of cancer /disease melts away.
Cancer occurs for a reason. Wow! That is really something isn't it!
9-Which is the difference between a psychological conflict and what Hamer calls a "biological conflict", and which are the conditions for the generation of the latter?
The conditions for a biological shock, known as a DHS - Dirk Hamer Syndrome - are that the shock is sever, acute dramatic and isolative. Harald Bauman an experienced GNM therapist who worked with Dr Hamer for 5 years believes that the isolative characteristic of the DHS is the most significant - the shock is so terrible the person cannot talk to anyone about it.
You can have ongoing little squabbles with your wife, work colleagues, children etc, which can cause sleepless nights and are psychological conflicts but because they don't have the characteristics required for a DHS they don't cause disease.
10-Does a DHS need to be a caused by a big problem, or it could be related to small incidents like a casual bad remark?
A DHS could be caused by overhearing a work colleague say that you are not a good worker - if the person concerned prided themselves on their work and their self-esteem was built around their work. Again the conditions of the DHS must be met.
11-Hamer has written that the view of conventional medicine about the "metastases" of cancer is wrong. Can you explain the well-known phenomenon called "metastases" in conventional medicine, according to Hamer's theory?
Metastasis is the major dogma of cancer. It is a belief with no grounding in reality. It is the belief that cancer originates somewhere in the body and spreads through blood cells or lymph nodes even though nobody has every observed these cancer spreading cells because they do not exist.
Just say you are diagnosed with cancer - say bowel cancer. And you get a shock from this diagnosis and think I'm gonna die. You then get lung cancer - alveolar lung cancer. The MDs state that the cancer spread from the bowel to the lungs. The primary cancer being in the bowel, and the secondary cancer in the lungs. This is what is meant by metastases.
GNM state that you just had another shock. Cancer does not spread, and metastases is just another medical dogma.
12-How do we explain the cases where a person is diagnosed with cancer and, at the moment of the diagnosis, she already has several metastases?
A shock can have a number of different aspects causing multiple cancers. For example if the woman loses her job and can no longer provide for her children, she might get a major self-devaluation conflict and get osteoporosis. At the same time she might think my children are going to starve to death, because there is not enough money, and she also gets liver cancer. So one shock - suddenly losing your job - could have different emotional aspects for the woman concerned and cause different cancers simultaneously.
13-Some critics say that Hamer hasn't discovered anything new, because it's well know that emotional stress and depression can cause or predispose to some diseases. Are the critics right?
The DHS is not simply an "emotional stress" or "depression" or "anxiety", but that the DHS is a whole new phenomenon, with specific defining characteristics, discoveried by Dr.Hamer and not related to previous psychological concepts. Depression or "stress" is not the cause of any disease. But they can be the consequence of a biological conflict.
The confusion is perhaps caused by the fact that during the conflict active phase, the patient is in a state of lasting sympathicotonic stress tonus. So this specific biological stress, which is part of the first phase of the biological program, is erroneously confused with the more generic and popular, but medically irrelevant, psychological stress.
It's essential to avoid any confusion between the concepts of "stress", "anxieties", "worries" and so forth and the more specific technical concept of DHS.
14-If cancer is caused by a biological shock, as Hamer, says, how do you explain the cases of leukemia and other cancers in babies and even in animals? Do babies and animals suffer of "biological shocks"?
Yes! Leukemia is an interesting cancer. Again you need to understand what caused it. The shock is a severe devaluation conflict. This causes bone cancer or osteolysis in the conflict-active phase, and in the reparation phase leukemia. The solution to leukemia is just let the child recover from the self-devaluation conflict and give medical treatment (e.g. blood tranfusions or cortisone to the brain edema) if temporary organic or cerebral complications arise. This is in stark contrast to what the oncologists do today.
15-Assuming for the argument's sake that cancer is caused by biological shocks, what implications have this discovery for the treatment of cancer?
The implications are enormous. About 95% of Modern Medicine is scientifically and medically wrong. Modern Medicine is brilliant for trauma, plastic surgery, burns, broken bones etc. But the rest of it is worse than useless because it kills off people unnecessarily and prematurely.
The implications are so stark, the medical profession won't agree to the open testing of Dr Hamer's GNM.
16-Can you tell us which is, exactly, the specific treatment of cancer that Hamer proposes?
In my book, I give a number of examples of patients that Harald Baumann (the renowned Swiss GNM therapist) helped.
One case was Paulo a scuba-diver diagnosed with lung cancer and given a few months to live. What happened to Paulo was he learned to scuba dive with his friends. On one of their first major dives, things went badly wrong, he lost contact with his buddy, was running out of air and did not have enough time to make it safely to the surface. His buddy eventually appeared, they shared air to the top, but went up too quickly but he survived.
But every time he went scuba diving he thought he was going to die when he put on the wet-suit.
He explained his story to Harald Baumann. Harald explained to him the 5 biological laws. Paolo knew that the MDs were predicting imminent death but he wanted to live.
The solution:- Paolo stopped scuba diving, sold his scuba equipment. He had subsequent visits to the MD, but it was a case of spontaneous remission and the MD wasn't interested.
17-Does Hamer's theory explain the rare medical phenomenon known as "spontaneous remission" of cancer?
Spontaneous remission means the person has solved the conflict causing their cancer and the cancer has gone away. Nothing more and nothing less. There is no magic involved with German New Medicine.
18-Which is the scientific evidence supporting Hamer's theory? Can the lay reader of this interview verify, by himself or herself, if Hamer is right or not? Or do they need a specialized medical training in order to test Hamer's theory?
We are conditioned to believe in hierarchies and to believe in the experts, particularly the doctors.
One simple way to verify GNM is say a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer. Ask which breast, left or right and determine if the woman is right-handed or left-handed. If she is right-handed then the left-breast will mean a mother-child conflict and a right-breast means a partner conflict. Check it out!
Dr Hamer got a teratoma on his right testicle. He is right-handed. He considered his 19-year old son Dirk to be grown up and to be his partner or equal - Hence his right testicle was affected by cancer.
This also applies to rashes eczema etc.
19-Is Hamer's theory a falsifiable scientific theory? I mean, suppose that Hamer were wrong, what kind of empirical evidence would refute his theory?
Dr Hamer's theory is falsifiable. To my mind the most compelling evidence is the brain CT scan. In the conflict-active phase you see concentric rings around the brain relay viewable on a brain CT-scan. When the conflict is resolved the concentric rings become oedematic and are blurred. This is what the MDs call a brain tumour.
Give the disease, Dr Hamer's disease chart can tell u the nature of the shock that caused it and the symptoms in the conflict-active phase and the reparation phase. What people like me want is for Dr Hamer's New Medicine to be openly tested and compared with standard medical therapies for a number of agreed medical conditions. We're not afraid of the Truth.
20-Hamer has said that biological shocks leave a ring-like trace in the brain which is easily seen with a brain scan (the so-called Hamer Herd or Hamer Focus). However, critics say that such ring-like images are actually "ring artefacts" caused by the scan's malfunctioning and are well known by radiologists. How do you reply to these critics?
In my book, I mention that Dr Hamer himself spoke with the Siemen's Chief Engineer and he agreed that they could not be artefacts.
The way to prove this is very simple and could be done by any working radiologist with a knowledge of German New Medicine.
What is required is patients in the conflict-active phase, with a tumour growing, the tissue layer being endodermal in origin, such as liver parencyma, lungs alveolii, etc.
Now this can be verified on three levels of the human organism:- psyche, brain and organ. All of this is predicted by Dr Hamer's GNM.
Psyche level:- Person is thinking /obsessing about the conflict
Organ level:- Tumour is growing
Brain Level:- The HH Hamer Herd (in German) or Hamer Focus in English, is in target configuration. The HH is like a series of concentric rings centred on the affected brain relay. It is clearly viewable on a brain CT-scan.
Brain CT-picture: showing an example of a typical Hamer Focus in the conflict active phase (target-ring configuration) in a person diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis (MS).According to Dr.Hamer, MS always corresponds to a “motor conflict”, experienced subjectively as “not being able to escape” or “feeling stuck”, which impacts in the brain in the motor cortex that controls the muscle movements. This particular patient had paralyses affecting both arms.
Diagram of the cerebral cortex: Motor cortex in blue
The way to prove the assertion that HHs in target configuration are not artefacts, is that as above one obtains a patient and does a brain CT-scan - say picture 1 and the HH in target configuration is observed (concentric rings around the affected brain relay).
The patient is moved 2-3 cm to the left and a brain CT-scan is repeated. If it is an artefact the artefact should remain in the same position. However if the "artefact" moves then, this would indicate that it is a phenomonen on the patient's brain detected by the brain CT-scan, and is as Dr Hamer says what it is.
More photographs could be taken, 2-3cm to the right, to the front and to the back to prove that the "artefact" is not an artefact but is a naturally occurring phenomenon on the patient's brain. Again the "artefact" will move, proving that it is not an artefact and is in fact a HH as Dr Hamer has stated.
This is really simple, if the concentric rings are an artefact, they would appear on the same position in the CT-scan photograph. If they are a HH in target configuration, they will move when the patient moves. This experiment would provide conclusive proof that HHs are real occuring phenomena as stated by Dr Hamer.
21-According to Hamer, specific Hamer Herds are always localized in the same brain location corresponding to the specific type of cancer. For example, a lobular (non-ductal) breast cancer in the right breast has always, in every case, a corresponding Hamer Herd in the left part of the cerebellum. Another example: Womb (cervical) cancer will have the Hamer Herd in the left temporal lobe of the brain. If it were true, the critics' objection against the existence of Hamer Herds would be refuted. Have you seen directly the Hamer Herds in the brain of cancer patients? Do they correspond to the exact brain location related to the specific kind of organ cancer that Hamer's theory predict?
Above: Brain CT-picture showing a typical example of an actual Hamer Focus in the left side of the cerebellum corresponding to a woman diagnosed with a growing glandular (lobular) breast cancer in the right breast
Above: Brain CT-picture showing a typical example of an actual Hamer Focus in the right side of the cerebellum corresponding to a woman diagnosed with a growing glandular (lobular) breast cancer in the left breast
Dr.Hamer's diagram for the brain relays in the cerebellum according to his empirical findings. Compare the specific brain relays corresponding in the cerebellum to the right and left breasts (in the diagram) with the previous pictures of CT scans showing a Hamer Focus in precisely that relay in the case of two women diagnosed with a right and left (lobular) breast cancer.
I personally am not a GNM therapist. Not yet anyway! I wrote the book to inform the general population in the english-speaking world about Dr Hamer's New Medicine. Dr Hamer's disease chart is very specific and there is a specific brain relay which controls a specific organ. So as you say for glandular breast cancer, the affected brain relay will be in a specific location in the left cerebellum.
Dr Hamer's disease chart (which should be in every home) gives the location of all the brain relays and what organ they control, and the nature of the conflict that caused the cancer / disease.
22-Let's to discuss about a specific common disease: breast cancer. Most breast cancers in women are of "ductal" or "intraductal" type (i.e. a cancer which beigns inside the ducts of the breast). According to Hamer, which is the cause of such intraductal breast cancer? Give us some real-life examples, if it's possible.
I should mention at the outset that Dr Hamer has produced a scientific chart, which clearly explains the cause of all cancers and other diseases on the three levels, the psyche, the brain and the organ.
If one wants to look up any cancer, it is just a matter of referring to the scientific chart. This can be purchased from Ilsedora Laker or Caroline Markolin, www.newmedicine.ca and www.learningnm.ca
The scientific chart of German New Medicine is truly revolutionary, because it details the cause of all diseases/cancers and the course of these diseases in the conflict-active phase and reparation phase and really should be in every home, and should be required learning for all high-school students - It is that important.
Intraductal breast cancer is caused by a brutal separation conflict, where the woman believes the beloved person is taken suddenly from her in a brutal manner. The milk ducts widen to allow the milk to flow away, that is not necessary (metaphorically) for the bloved person that has been taken away. This causes the breast to shrink if it goes on long enough.
Dr Hamer has a picture in one of his books, which is striking, of a middle-aged woman with one breast significantly smaller than the other. Her father died, and this was a brutal separation conflict for the woman. She was right-handed, I think, and consequently it was her right breast that was affected. The laterality rule is that the right breast is affected for partner conflcits and the left breast for mother-child conflicts, if the woman is right-handed. It is reversed if the woman is left-handed.
There was no solution to this conflict, because the father was dead. The woman can live with a shrinking right breast, or have it removed surgically and have an implant inseted to make both breasts the same size. The choice would be entirely up to the concerned woman.
23-What about womb (cervical) cancer. Which is the biological conflict that causes womb cancer?
Straight off the bat I don't know, I would have to look up the scientific chart. Having done that I discovered that cervical cancer occurs in the reparation phase or in the healing phase of a sexual frustration conflict.
In the conflict-active phase the cervix widens or ulcerates to more easily the sexual copulation with the desired partner, and in the reparation phase this ulceration is repaired causing the cervical cancer. This is my understanding from a quick read of the scientific chart. I am not a working GNM therapist and only have a layman's understanding of cancers and diseases, but this is the limit of my knowledge.
If this is the case, the solution with cervical cancer is to understand that the patient is is in the reparation phase and to fully understand the conflict that caused the cervical cancer and that the woman has resolved it. She needs to be congratulated. And most importantly one must avoid panic (in order to avoid new conflicts and metastases) and, if necessary, to address with medical means (e.g. with cortisone) some possible cerebral complications (caused by the healing Hamer Focus) which only appear in some patients. The cervical cancer itself is already the healing phase and, of itself is innocuous.
24-What about the different types of lung cancer (lung adenocarcinoma, bronchial cancer and the small cell lung cancer)?
I'll just take one of these as an example - alveolar lung cancer. The most elemental fear is fear of death. One can survive without food for weeks, without water for days but only minutes without air.
The Fear of Death biological shock causes the alveolii to multiply, so-called alveolar lung cancer. The biological purpose is to ensure that the person can take in more oxygen from a given quantity of air, to survive longer in a fear of death biological shock.
In my book I give the example of Paolo - a scuba-diver, who was a patient of the famous Swiss GNM therapist Harald Baumann.
Basically Paolo came to Harald in a panic, having been diagnosed with alveolar lung cancer, and given 3-months to live, if that. Straight away Harald knew from experience (and from Dr Hamer's scientific chart) that alveolar lung cancer is caused by a fear of death biological shock. Harald asked Paolo could he tell him when he had such an incident.
Paolo had taken up scuba-diving and had completed his basic training. He was on his first dive in open water. He was about 30m below the surface, when he realised two things 1) he did not have enough air left to make it to the surface safely 2) He lost track of his buddy.
Clearly Paolo was in a panic. He didn't know what to do. He waited for what seemed like a long time, but it was just a few minutes, until his diving buddy came along. They shared air to the surface, and although he came up too quickly and suffered some problems he was fine.
The problem was that Paolo continued on diving, because all his friends were doing it and he felt obliged to continue scuba-diving. He describes the feeling that everytime he put on the wet-suit he thought he was going to die. He continued on scuba diving and every single time he put on his wet-suit, all he could think was , I'm gonna die! This continued for a few months, and he developed lung cancer - a fear of death biological shock - went to the Doctor and was diagnosed and then went to Harald in a blind panic.
After Harald explained to Paolo GNM and that lung cancer is caused by a fear of death biological shock, and Paolo understood how he had obtained his fear of death biological shock - the solution presented itself to Paolo. Paolo came up with a solution that suited him. The important thing in GNM therapy is that the patient comes up with a solution for himself, it must be the patient's solution for it to work.
Paolo sold his wet-suit and his scuba-diving eqpt and just gave it up completely.This was a definitive solution to his Fear of Death Biological Shock.
Harald told him that he would get tuberculois in the reparation phase, and would be coughing excess alveolii cells, which would by blood-filled sputum. Paolo was prepared for this, understood what was happening and weathered it.
Paolo survived his lung cancer and his tuberculosis, and is alive and well.
Brain CT-picture of a patient diagnosed with lung cancer (adenocarcinoma). Typical Hamer Focus in the conflict active phase in the right side of the brain stem (pons) which, according to Dr.Hamer, corresponds always to this specific kind of lung cancer. In the case of lung tuberculosis (which appears only after the solution of the death-fright conflict), the same Hamer Focus won't have the target-right configuration (typical of the conflict active phase) anymore, and at the same location of the brain stem we only see a brain edema as sign of healing.
25-What about heart attacks? Does Hamer's theory explain heart infartion and heart attacks?
I'll talk about heart attacks. which are called heart infarcts.
The conflict is a territorial conflict. Someone or something is challenging your territory and u are fighting for it. Dr Hamer, gives the example of a stag being challenged for control by a younger stag. In the conflict-active phase, the arteries ulcerated and widen so that more blood flows and the animal/person has more energy to fight back for his territory.
Once the territory conflict is resolved the arteries repair themselves in the reparation phase. A territorial conflict can be fatal only if the typical symptoms of attrition (strong loss of weight, permanent sleeplessness, high blood pressuren etc.) have lasted for more than 9-months. The heart attack itself happens in the epileptic crisis (EC) and is directed by the brain, the HH (Hamer focus) contracts and doesn't therefore send out any more signals to the heart muscle. The brain squeezes out the last remaining oedema/liquid. It is the flooding of the slow-heart-beat-center in the brain by the expelled fluid of the brain oedema during the reparation phase that causes the signal to the heart to become absent, thereby stopping the heart, and the patient has a heart attack.
In the reparation phase, the cells that have been brocken down in the arteries and veins will be replaced by excessive repair cells and thus reduce their diameter, which will result in higher blood pressure.
In the book, I give an example of a successful businessman, who was exeprience a territorial conflict, and had all the classic symtoms in the conflict-active phase. He wen to a seminar given by Harald (or his wife did), understood GNM and understood that he was suffering a territorial conflict and in the reparation phase would get a heart attack.
The businesman recognised this, retired from the business, solved his territorial conflict and 2 months later got his expected heart-attack. He was prepared for it, stayed at home, didn't go to hospital and recovered slowly over time.
Brain CT-picture of a patient with a heart attack. The Hamer Focus in the right temporal lobe (the relay corresponding to the coronary arteries according to Dr.Hamer's findings) has the form of an edema with glia (commonly diagnosed as a brain tumour), not of a target ring, since the heart attack appears during the healing phase, specifically more or less 4-6 weeks after the solution of the biological conflict of "territorial loss"(e.g. loss of the job, wife, sons, properties, car, etc.)
Brain CT-picture of a patient with angina pectoris and necrosis in the right testicle. The wide white circle is an artefact; the arrow at right points out to the Hamer Focus in the right temporal lobe corresponding to the coronary arteries (territorial loss conflict in the conflict active phase with angina pectoris); the arrow at left points out to the Hamer Focus in the brain relay which controls the right testicle, corresponding to the necrosis of the right testicle (loss conflict).
Testicle CT picture of the same patient's right testicle.
26-What about mental disorders (like depression or psicosis) or eating disorders like anorexia or bulimia? Does Hamer's theory explain these diseases?
A heart attack is caused by a resolved territorial conflict.
Now in the case of so-called mental diseases, they are caused by territorial conflicts on both brain-sides.
Just say a person gets a territorial conflict on one brain side, and then gets another territorial conflict. If it occured on the same brain side, it would make the existing territorial conflict much worse and would result in death (massive heart attack) if both conflicts were resolved, because they had been ongoing for a long time. The body has this meta programme and causes the second territorial conflict to hit the other brain side.
So say the person is a right-handed male. First conflict hits the right cerebral cortex. HH on right cerebral cortex, target configuration around the affected brain relay. The next territorial conflcict hits the left cerebral cortex. Again, HH on left cerebral cortex, target configuration around the affected brain relay.
The person is now "mad", a manic-depressive, and depending on which conflict is stronger, the mania strengthens or the depression deepens. That's it. the solution is to resolve the individual conflicts and the person will no longer be mad.
The basic principle applies for all mental disorders both brain sides are affected, all psychoses, eating disorders etc.
Experiment The way to prove this experimentally is to get a brain CT-scan done on a patient who is "mad". There will be at least two HHs in the left and right brain sides, and this is what is causing the "madness".
27-Suppose that a curious and open minded scholar, professional physician, medical student or independent researcher is reading this interview and being sympathetic to some of Hamer's ideas, he is still skeptical of his theses and claims. What would you suggest to him in order to verify empirically, and by himself, Hamer's theory?
To be honest I would say just get Dr Hamer's disease chart and just study it. It's truly incredible. He has made the connection between the type of shock, the affected brain relay and the affected organ and what happens to all three components of the human trinity in the conflcit active phase and the reparation phase.
Dr.Hamer's disease chart published in English
I am convinced that the fact that pathogenic viruses don't exist is the Achilles Heel of Modern Medicine. Again they have never been 1) isolated, 2) photographed and 3) biochemically characterised. Now some people I tell all this to say I have been brainwashed. How is this possible when I have never met Dr Lanka, but have read some of his books and understand the core idea. I am brainnwashed the other way by Modern Medicine. Fortunately I manage to tune most of it out, but when I listen sometimes to the MDs, they upset me.
I have written to the Irish health authorities such as Professor Bill Hall Director NVRL National Virus Reference Laboratory ; Dr Darina O'Flanagan Director HPSC darina.oflanagan@mailx.hse.ie and the Irish Minister for Health Minister's_Office@health.irlgov.ie repeatedly over a 4-year period asking for proof of the existence of the H1N1 virus, mumps, measles and rubella viruses. I give these e-mail addresses to prove this is no idle claim of mine that viruses don't exist, this is "evidenced" by the fact that Professor Bill Hall nor any other virologist cannot isolate any pathogenic virus. The Irish Minister for Health has so far refused to compel the Irish expert Professor Bill Hall to name a scientific paper proving the existence of ANY pathogenic virus. I am attempting to pin the medical profession and the virologists / biologists down and request proof for the existence of ANY pathogenic virus. There is none, because none exists, but they continue on, recommending vaccines against non-existent viruses. It is madness! It's frustrating that none of them have the guts to admit that pathogenic viruses don't exist. So I would challenge any virologist to admit 1) that "pathogenic viruses" are detected currently by indirect means and that 2) there is no evidence that they exist, they cannot be proven to directly exist, even though this is technologically possible. 28-Suppose this same person wants to study books about it, or even to participate in seminars or lectures about Hamer's theory in order to learn more of the topic. What books in English and other languages would you suggest to him? What people in America and Europe are competent to teach Hamer's theory correctly? I recommend my book of course The Ultimate Conspiracy: The Biomedical Paradigm as a general introduction to the New Medicine and Dr Lanka's work. I definitly recommend buying Dr Hamer's disease chart in conjunction with attending a course on GNM. I understand there are two people in Canada teaching GNM, Ilsedora Laker and Caroline Markolin. I have no hesitation in recommending them both. ILsedora helped me out at the start when I wanted to find out more about GNM and she put me in touch with the Swiss GNM therapist Harald Baumann. I am grateful to Ilsedora for all her help and support. Harald Baumann is willing to give more courses on GNM in Ireland, so if I get enough interest I will organise regular courses on GNM with Harald Baumann. I am aware of the brilliant work with Marco Pfister with ALBA in Italy. The only book of Dr Hamer's in English is Summary of the New Medicine, which I recommend. I hope his other work is translated into English soon. Dr Hamer is a genius, and will be recognised as the greatest ever MD. Hopefully soon! 29-What websites or online resources would you recommend to people interested in Hamer's theory and related topics? In English language Ilsedora Laker's website is www.newmedicine.ca and Caroline Markolin's website is http://www.learninggnm.com/ My book's website is www.the-ultimate-conspiracy.com Dr Lanka has a german language website www.klein-klein-aktion.de. There is no website in English yet about the missing viruses. I hope to set one up with all my e-mails and letters to the Irish and English health authorities. 30-Would you like to add something else to end the interview? Jime, Having studied GNM and the missing viruses for a few years now, I believe I can make the following comments with some authority: People, the vast majority of people cannot think for themselves. They believe they can, but when you tell them something that goes against what they have been repeatedly told and believed to be true such as "There is no scientific proof that pathogenic viruses exist", they look at you as if u are an alien, and then they cite all the studies and photographs they have seen. Some of the more intellectual, take it as a personal affront that you question what they have been taught, and learned and assumed to be true all their lives. Once the germ theory of disease is accepted to be false, Dr Hamer's GNM will I believe be officially tested and accepted in short order. This is why I am putting in such a massive effort to compel the relevant Irish expert Professor Bill Hall to isolate any pathogenic virus and write up a scientific paper about how he did it, so that it can be re-produced by other scientists, OR admit he can't provide any such evidence because none exist. Jime, your questions indicate a profound knowledge of GNM and the missing evidence for the existence of any pathogenic virus. It is a pleasure to answer them and I wish you the very best with your future efforts.
----------------------
McCumiskey's scientific challenge for the proving/refutation of the GNM:
Addendum:- Testing German New Medicine I would like to challenge serious MDs, in particular oncologists and radiologists to a number of experiments to prove / disprove the German New Medicine of Dr Hamer. Any MD willing to carry out these experiments would require a copy of Dr Hamer's "Scientific Chart of German New Medicine". Radiologists: Prove existence of HHs HHs (Hamerische Herden) or Hamer focii, in the conflict-active phase are in target configuration around the concerned brain relay. I understand that Jime will display some pictures of these HHs. In target configuation, they are clearly visible. They are claimed to be artefacts (caused by glitch in the CT-equipment) and to be of no consequence. Dr Hamer's GNM states the contrary. Experiment to prove existence of HHs 1) Identify a patient with HH. Take brain CT 2) Move patient 2 cm to the left. CT-scanner in same position. Re-Take CT-scan. 3) Move patient 2 cm to the right. CT-scanner in same position. Re-Take CT-scan. 4) Move patient 2 cm forwards. CT-scanner in same position. Re-Take CT-scan. 5) Move patient 2 cm backwards. CT-scanner in same position. Re-Take CT-scan. Now if the HH is an artefact, it should appear on the same position on the CT-photograph - because the CT-scanner doesn't move. If the HH moves with the patient, as Dr Hamer clearly states it will do, then the HH is a physiological occurence on the brain and not an artefact. Maybe Dr Hamer is right! I would like a radiologist to carry out such an experiment. Experiment to prove Dr Hamer's GNM in relation to a primary cancer Take a patient with a primary cancer, say bowel, lung, liver, pancreas etc, all endodermal in orgin, with tumour growing in the conflcit active-phase. The oncologist would identify such a patient, and then would expect to see a HH on the concerned brain relay viewable with a brain CT-scan according to Dr Hamer's scientific chart. In other words, the scientific chart of German New Medicine is that precise, and is predicting the precise location of the HH depending on whether the person has lung, liver or pancreatic cancer. This experiment would prove conclusively that HH is correlated with a specific cancer. The next part of the experiment would be to get the patient to resolve the conflict, and observe the tumour reduce in size and the HH to become oedematic and disappear over time. One can come up with a large range of experiments to prove / disprove Hamer's GNM. I suggest the above two as examples. I am not a working GNM therapist. Not yet. But I would hope to persuade oncologists and radiologists, who want to know the truth and test Hamer's GNM to carry out these experiments. They cost almost nothing to do, and would benefit humanity. I can understand the fear of not wanting to publish under one's name (for fear of being struck off) but we can solve this and get a scientific paper written. The truth will out! Links of interest and a few remarks:
-James' website. -Stefan Lanka's critical comments on photographs and pictures of pathogenic viruses -One of Dr.Stefan Lanka's scientific paper (published in the leading scientific journal Virology) where he proves the existence of a virus in a sea algae, specifically its biochemical characterization. This is an example of a "primary scientific reference" for virus isolation. (Dr.Lanka's main scientific argument against pathogenic is that you won't find any similar scientific paper or primary scientific reference like his which proves the isolation and biochemical characterization of any pathogenic virus like HIV, poliovirus, hepatitis virus, measles virus, H1N1 virus, etc. Curiously, in 1997, the virologist Luc Montagnier, who received the Nobel Prize for the discovery of HIV, conceded in a interview that he didn't isolate nor purified the HIV virus: "I repeat we did not purify. We purified to characterise the density of the RT, which was soundly that of a retrovirus. But we didn't take the peak...or it didn't work...because if you purify, you damage." (emphasis in blue added). When asked why the pictures of HIV that he published didn't come from viral isolation/purification, Montagnier answered: "here was so little production of virus it was impossible to see what might be in a concentrate of virus from a gradient. There was not enough virus to do that. Of course one looked for it, one looked for it in the tissues at the start, likewise in the biopsy. We saw some particles but they did not have the morphology typical of retroviruses. They were very different. Relatively different. So with the culture it took many hours to find the first pictures. It was a Roman effort! It's easy to criticise after the event. What we did not have, and I have always recognised it, was that it was truly the cause of AIDS". Regarding these Montagnier's concessions, the obvious question that Lanka would ask is: If Montagnier didn't purified (isolated) the HIV virus, how does he (or anybody else) know scientifically that such virus do exist? Montagnier's concessions seem to endorse Lanka's whole point, at least regarding HIV in particular (which is the most studied virus in the history of science). Currently, Montagnier is still a defender of the existence of HIV (after all he was its "discover"), but he doubts that such virus can, by itself, cause AIDS. In fact, Montagnier believes that a healthy inmune system can overcome the virus, as you can watch in this short clip:
I let the readers (specially the people trained in this technical virological-medical question) to judge all of this, since this is a technical matter to which I feel I'm not qualified to give any opinion. -Lanka constantly stress that common citizens can (and must) easily verify the putative fact that no scientific publication in the world has ever proved the existence of pathogenic virus: you only need to write to Health Authorities and Institutions asking for the scientific publication (i.e. the primary scientific reference published in a scientific journal) where the evidence for the isolation and biochemical characterization of any pathogenic virus (HIV, polio, measles, etc.) is scientifically proved. Lanka says that, predictably, you only receive a bunch of indirect (non-primary)references to medical texbooks or even photographs of putative viral particles where no actual claim of isolation and purification is made by the authors. -Lanka's position regarding the nonexistence of pathogenic virus is the minority in the scientific community, but far from idiosyncratic. German physician and AIDS clinician Claus Köhnlein and science journalist Torsten Engelbrecht wrote a book (translated in English as Virus Mania) in which they argue that no scientific evidence exists for the existence of pathogenic viruses:
-In youtube, you'll find an introductory lecture by Caroline Markoline about the German New Medicine and the 5 biological laws that Hamer claims can explain scientifically the origin cancer and all the other diseases, and the process of spontaneous remission or healing.
