Understand one's own disease

There is a lot to say about the discoveries of Dr. Hamer and I would like to pass on to you a maximum of notions in one night. This conference is thus inevitably vulgarised. I structured it supposing that people did not know his work, in order to make it comprehensible for all.

I will start with the 4 principal biological laws he put forward, being largely sufficient to judge the importance of his discoveries. But his entire work, still growing, explains 5 of them including different rules. It is though not essential, nor even possible to take them up in the frame of a succinct reading. Next, I will briefly summarise the consequence of those laws from the point of view of diagnosis and of therapeutics. In the third part, I will tell you about real-life situations experienced by my patients. I will slightly distort those cases, not in the essence though, since there are probably in the audience people whose case I will elaborate or persons knowing these patients. We will then make a break, whereafter I will try to answer all your questions.

Before entering the core of the subject, I would like to make two introductory remarks. The first one is meant to avoid a misunderstanding, because, even if Dr. Hamer’s work is not well known yet, its starts to spread though, and proportionally to this progression, misunderstandings are installing. For this reason, I would like to precise that his work and his discoveries are not a curing method as such, nor a therapeutical method to be opposed to other therapies; even if it has important and incalculable consequences on therapeutics. The work of Dr. Hamer is in fact an explanatory system of disease, of all diseases whatsoever, from the most benign to the most malignant ones. It is, of course, not an explanation of the life and death phenomenon, since this goes far beyond medicine to open on to philosophy and metaphysics, but it is an explanation on everything that may occur inside the human body during a disease. I am telling you this in order to avoid frequent questions such as: which result do we get with the Hamer method? Which percentage of cure do you get with this method compared with this or that other method of alternative medicine, etc.? These questions do not make sense and you will understand why as the evening progresses.

The second introductory remark is this one : the contents of this work may be, on the one hand, very easily comprehensible from an intellectual point of view, but, on the other hand, very difficult to assimilate and to practice by the patient as well as by the doctor. I would like to explain this obvious paradox in two or three minutes. Why easily understandable from an intellectual point of view? Because these laws are simple, logical, coherent and a summary would be easily accessible for an adolescent. This discovery, however, is very difficult to assimilate for two reasons.

First, because when approaching disease this way, one does not only consider the symptoms of the organs, but also the psychic, emotional life and the life-experience of the diseased. When, questioning a patient, in the relation one will build up with him, one will enter his life, the intimacy of his history and sometimes even his secret garden. There is an implication in this medical approach that does not exist in classical medicine, which generally only considers the body . It is absolutely essential but all the patients can not accept this involvement. It is easier to say : “Doctor, I have a sciatica or, my digestion is bad ; I have a cancer at that organ”. But the canvass Dr. Hamer has worked out is to discover the causes and the process leading to it and consequently to investigate in people’s more personal life. It is also not always evident for the doctor to put the indispensable questions and to shake them up, emotionally speaking.

The second reason, evenso important, is that the conclusions to which we will come when following these discoveries of the biological laws he put forward, are very different from the conclusions of classical medicine, often at 180 degrees. This will extremely upset all the established ideas, our whole medical culture, and all the dogmas one thought to be acquired and often create an important confusion with the patients. I will certainly not throw a stone at any doctor who, having went through these works, is absolutely not willing to engage in this path because it will make him question most of his beliefs. At this stage, I would like to give you a small insight of those differences by means of three intentionally chosen examples.

- One may very well accept to consult someone with whom a cancer was discovered and to whom a surgical operation, radiotherapy and even chemotherapy was proposed; thus, a case considered serious. One applies the biological laws and after having done this work, as I will explain you, one may come to the conclusion that all that has to be done to treat this person is equal … to doing nothing! Nor surgery, nor radiation, nor chemotherapy. This because he does not have an evolutive cancer and that there is nothing to worry about. The only thing to be done is to explain things thoroughly to the person and to reassure him. It is evident that there is more to it than a slight difference between this doing nothing and what that person was bound to undergo for therapy ; it are two radically opposed ways. This scenario is, however, not seldom at all.

- Another example : classical medicine teaches that leukaemia is a blood cancer, a particularly severe cancer, the classical therapy of which being consequently incisive : repetitive chemotherapy that will often culminate in a bone marrow transplantation. When following the biological laws, however, one easily understands that, on the contrary, leukaemia is a remarkable biological mechanism foreseen by nature : a mechanism for curing a blood disease anterior to leukaemia. If one then persists, by means of very powerful therapeutic means, to fight against the curing that is vital for the individual, what will be the consequences? I let you draw your conclusions. Here, once again, we completely disagree with the dogmas and the classical therapeutical attitudes of medicine.

- A last and even stronger example to show you the difference of wavelength between the two conceptions : the symptoms and the diseases, the pathologies presented by someone who is seropositive or labelled as an AIDS-patient. Those symptoms have nothing to do neither with the HIV-virus nor with immune deficiency. This is an unacceptable discourse : say this to a doctor! Since more than ten years they are studying the subject in the four corners of the planet, trying to understand the role of this HIV-virus and its final culmination in AIDS. The practical result equals zero, but by following the biological laws, the symptoms of an AIDS-patient can be explained at the same level as those of a cold, an eczema, haemorrhoids, a cancer or multiple sclerosis.

All the pathologies are explained and understood by means of the same laws, following the same reasoning and with the same approach. It is a considerable simplification of the entire medicine but a conception absolutely overturning all the dogmas, all our taboos at the level of cancer, metastases, the dogma concerning the evolutive diseases, the dogmas on contagion, vaccines, etc. I would say that almost everything is being reconsidered. That is also the reason why this message is so difficult to pass and why a lot of patients can not accept it. Everybody can accept the fact that there is a relation between mind and disease. It will even be said : someone with a better mindset has more chances to get out of this or that disease. And then there are the idioms : he fretted himself into a fever, he worried himself sick, etc. But the canvass of Dr. Hamer goes farther beyond. It is going to re-create all the links existing between the precise and personal life-experience of a patient and the symptoms he presents, and this in all the pathological cases. With the exception of course of the genetic diseases, being physical defects, and of those clearly due to external aggressions : physical traumatisms due to accidents, intoxication, radiation such as the Chernobyl phenomenon, etc. But next to those affections provoked by external agents, all the diseases are a consequence of our history, of our life-experience. It was worth its while to precise the paradox because the patient might find himself seated between two stools, with two completely different discourses. When considering yourself, what would you do if a cancer were diagnosed? What would you do if leukaemia were diagnosed with your child? My goal is to inform you of the discoveries allowing choosing by trying to gain a maximum of information, and not only those we are being submerged with through the media.