Download the original MS Word document for easy printing | Return to NewTreatments.org
Can anybody explain what’s going on, please?
Every once in a while I try to remember when exactly I learned about the
existence of AIDS. It must have been around 1985 when I heard the first rumors
about a new disease that had been discovered in the USA. The victims seemed to
be mostly homosexual men and drug addicts. Until a few years ago, I had never
really tried to fully understand how the whole thing was supposed to fit
together. Medicine did not interest me very much and I never really bothered to
learn more about it. My knowledge of AIDS was something like: when a person
gets infected with a virus called HIV, this virus attacks the immunity system
of its host and once defenses are low, the patient attracts all kind of
diseases that always become fatal.
But that was some years ago, before two dramatic events forced me to
become aware of what badly ill people go through during classical cancer
treatment. My confidence in the medical know-how used to be complete, but when
things got worse for two very close family members, I started to ask the
concerned specialists some basic questions like “What is cancer?” and “What are
its causes?”. The bewildering answer was “We don’t really know, but it is not
important. The only important thing is to strike fast.” It finally did not take
long before the evidence hit me in the face: “They have really no idea of what
they are doing! They want to heal the human body, but the patient as person
does not exist in their medical world. Modern medicine seems to be interested
exclusively in the interaction between a bunch of cells and chemical compounds.
What’s going on here?” I started to gather alternative information, mostly on
cancer, but AIDS being such a hot item, I also wanted to learn more about this
syndrome and its relation to the causal virus HIV.
The following short text displayed at
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/hivinfo/overview.htm gives an adequate description of
the general conviction that science provided absolute proof that HIV causes
AIDS.
Before the discovery of human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV), the virus that causes AIDS, epidemiological studies of AIDS
patients' sex partners and AIDS cases occurring in blood transfusion recipients
before 1985 clearly showed that the underlying cause of AIDS was an infectious
agent. Infection with HIV has been the only common factor shared by persons
with AIDS throughout the world, including homosexual men, transfusion
recipients, persons with hemophilia, sex partners of infected persons, children
born to infected women, and health care workers who were infected with HIV
while on the job, mainly by being stuck with a needle used on an HIV-infected
patient.
Although we know that HIV is the cause of AIDS, much remains to be known
about exactly how HIV causes the immune system to break down. Scientists are
constantly discovering more information about HIV and AIDS. These discoveries
help people learn how to stop transmission of the virus and help people
infected with HIV to live longer, healthier lives. One important question to
answer is why some people exposed to HIV become infected and others do not.
Scientists believe it is most likely because of how infectious the other person
is and how they are exposed. For example, more than 90 percent of persons who
were exposed through an HIV-infected unit of blood became infected. So we know
that blood-to-blood contact is a very efficient way that HIV is spread. On the
other hand, many health care workers are splashed with blood or bloody body
fluids and this type of exposure has caused very few occurrences of HIV
infection. Researchers know how HIV is spread and the ways that people can help
protect themselves from being exposed to HIV.
This text, published by the very official and governmental Center of
Disease Control, leaves no doubt: science has definitely established the causal
relation between HIV and AIDS. Thousands of scientists are studying AIDS all
over the world, billions of dollars are invested every year in HIV research and
any article in any newspaper confirms the fact that HIV causes AIDS. Fight HIV
and you fight AIDS. Get rid of HIV and you get rid of AIDS, because science
definitely proved that HIV causes AIDS. Anyone will confirm this.
-
Anyone?
-
Anyone. Just read the newspapers.
-
The newspapers, ok. But I don’t read newspapers exclusively.
-
Well, watch TV. Everybody will confirm.
-
TV, ok. But I’m not interested in mass media information only.
-
Have a look on the Internet. Thousands of scientific web sites confirm:
HIV causes AIDS.
-
Thousands confirm. ok. But some don’t.
-
Ah, you mean the AIDS-dissident web sites? They’re crap.
-
So you do agree not everybody confirms?
-
I don’t listen to quack!
How convenient! Of course everybody confirms if you won’t consider
people who disagree.
I recently had a discussion with a chemist working in a university
hospital. When I asked her what she thought about AIDS, she immediately told me
that she found it quite strange that twenty years of worldwide research have
not yet enabled scientists to discover a vaccination against AIDS. I asked here
to give me her interpretation of the facts.
-
Well, once a person gets infected with HIV through sexual intercourse,
use of an infected needle, blood transfusion etc., he or she becomes
HIV-positive.
-
Immediately and always?
-
No, not immediately and not always.
-
That is strange.
-
Well, it just seems to take some months before the body has made a
detectable amount of antibodies.
-
If you hit yourself on the thumb with a hammer, the thumb starts to hurt
and to change colors immediately. Always.
-
That is not a comparable mechanism.
-
Well, maybe. But once a person is HIV-positive, he or she becomes ill
immediately and always?
-
No, not immediately and not always. Being HIV-positive does not mean you
have AIDS. It may even take ten years or more before the first symptoms appear.
In exceptional cases symptoms never occur.
-
Ten years or more. Or even never! That is strange. What is the
difference between somebody who becomes ill a short time after having been
infected with HIV, and a person who attracts a disease twelve years afterwards?
What is the triggering event?
-
It has to do with the natural defenses of the organism.
-
But the symptoms you mention, are they typical AIDS symptoms?
-
No, not really. We call them opportunistic AIDS- or HIV-related
diseases. Once HIV has destroyed the natural defenses of the body, the organism
cannot fight microorganisms anymore and infections become lethal. Even
infections that are normally harmless. HIV itself does not make you ill. It
just destroys the immunity system.
-
And the destruction may take any time between some month and never. That
is really strange. Speaking of AIDS-related diseases: I have seen a lot of
leaflets recently with a warning against herpes. Herpes is considered one of
the opportunistic HIV-related diseases, isn’t it?
-
Yes.
-
So you agree that if a HIV-negative person has herpes, he or she has
herpes. But if the same person is also HIV-positive, then he or she has AIDS.
-
Yes, if the herpes lasts for several weeks.
-
But do you know what causes herpes?
-
It is definitely caused by a virus.
-
So if I get infected with the typical herpes virus, I get herpes?
-
Not always, it depends on immunity disorder.
-
But if it only depends on my natural defenses, why do I always attract
herpes in the same spot, exactly here, on my lower lip? Same spot, always on
the right side of the lower lip, never on the left side or on the upper lip, or
anywhere else on my body. Does the virus dispose of a tissue selection
mechanism?
-
I never thought of that.
-
It seems to me that science never thought about a lot of things. But,
tell me, how do we know whether a person is HIV-positive or not?
-
We apply a HIV antibody test. The test detects the presence of
antibodies against the virus. If antibodies are detected, it means that the
person has been infected with HIV. The more antibodies, the worse.
-
Do you realize that in case of a normal disease, the presence of
antibodies is a positive indication? Vaccination is based on the idea “the more
antibodies, the better”. HIV seems to put things upside down.
-
I must admit that you have a point there.
-
So the HIV-tests detects antibodies. Do you know that an award of
20.000$ is still waiting to be claimed by the first person who can show a
scientific publication of the isolation of HIV in pure culture? How can we be
sure that the famous HIV tests detect HIV specific antibodies if HIV itself
keeps hiding away?
-
Oh come on! Of course HIV has been isolated. Pictures of it have been
published all over the place!
-
Sure! Artist impressions. I can make a picture like that with my
computer any time you want. No, I am talking about an electronic microscope
image of the virus in pure culture. You will never be able to show me any. Want
to bet a case of Champaign?
-
You must be kidding! If I get you right, you try to tell me that no
scientific evidence proves that AIDS and HIV are related. How about the AIDS
epidemic in Africa?
-
Do you know that people in Africa are rarely screened with the famous
HIV-tests, but that AIDS is generally diagnosed when certain clinical symptoms
are present? For instance, if somebody has tuberculosis or malaria and a fever
that lasts for a month or so, he has AIDS. Some years ago the same person would
have been diagnosed with tuberculosis or malaria. This kind of approach can
also be interpreted as changing labels for the same thing.
-
Why would anybody want to do that?
-
You ask me the question! AIDS medication consists of expensive and very
toxic drugs, big money. Tuberculosis medication consists merely of good food
and a secure place, which has almost no money in it. Do you want some more?
Overpopulation? Undesired individuals like homosexuals, drug addicts and
blacks?
-
I cannot imagine that things are the way you describe. Maybe you are
just a bit paranoia, don’t you think?
-
Sure. I am drifting away from a world of love and peace. Can you drop me
a line, please? Haul me back! In our society money is an undesirable side
effect of the only goal of human activity: happiness for everyone.
-
Don’t be cynical.
-
Society is screaming for it. Let me ask you one more question. You
studied pharmacology so I figure you know a lot about drugs. Do you know the
origins of AZT?
-
AZT is one of the major drugs against AIDS, developed in the eighties
and commercialized since 1987.
-
Wrong. AZT has been developed in the sixties as a drug against leukemia.
Due to its incredible toxicity, it was never commercialized. But in the
eighties it obtained the FDA authorization after a four-month clinical trial.
Today AZT represents a multi billion dollar market. Its basic action consist of
inhibition of DNA replication and thus cell multiplication. This is quite an
original approach in itself: fight disease through the destruction of the
mechanisms of life. I can imagine that this kind of therapy would promote death
rather than life.
-
You don’t really make me feel at ease. I will do some research.
Well, maybe I was a bit too aggressive indeed. Anyway, I find it hard to
imagine that professional health workers are so badly informed. They apparently
just take the official AIDS approach without any critical thought. Hook, line
and sinker. Is that science? Everybody is convinced that HIV causes AIDS, but
the main argument for their belief seems to be the fact that everybody shares
the same opinion. The person I talked with promised to do some research but if
she finds any evidence proving I was right, she might not be able anymore to
prepare chemotherapy ingredients and she will have to look for another job.
Most people prefer to keep their eyes wide shut.
Dear reader,
you might not have been aware of the existence of something like an
AIDS-dissident movement before you started to read this article. In that case
you are now. The following citations can be found at http://www.virusmyth.com
and illustrate that it is just a bit too easy to simply shovel criticism away
as quack. Dissidents can be found in the top layer of the scientific community:
·
Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel
Prize for Chemistry:
"If there is
evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which
either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high
probability. There is no such document." (Sunday Times (London) 28 Nov. 1993)
·
Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of
Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München.
Robert Koch Award 1978:
"Up to today
there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the
existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and
purified by the methods of classical virology." (Letter to Süddeutsche
Zeitung 2000)
·
Dr. Serge Lang, Professor of Mathematics,
Yale University:
"I do not regard
the causal relationship between HIV and any disease as settled. I have seen
considerable evidence that highly improper statistics concerning HIV and AIDS
have been passed off as science, and that top members of the scientific
establishment have carelessly, if not irresponsible, joined the media in
spreading misinformation about the nature of AIDS." (Yale Scientific, Fall 1994)
·
Dr. Richard Strohman, Emeritus Professor of Cell
Biology at the University of California at Berkeley:
"In the old days
it was required that a scientist address the possibilities of proving his
hypothesis wrong as well as right. Now there's none of that in standard
HIV-AIDS program with all its billions of dollars." (Penthouse April 1994)
·
Dr. Charles Thomas, former Professor of
Biochemistry, Harvard and John Hopkins Universities:
"The
HIV-causes-AIDS dogma represents the grandest and perhaps the most morally
destructive fraud that has ever been perpetrated on young men and women of the
Western world." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)
·
Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, New York Physician,
founder of the American Foundation for AIDS Research (AmFAR):
"The marketing of
HIV, through press releases and statements, as a killer virus causing AIDS
without the need for any other factors, has so distorted research and treatment
that it may have caused thousands of people to suffer and die." (Sunday times (London) 17 May 1992)
·
Dr. Etienne de Harven, Emeritus Professor of Pathology,
at the University of Toronto:
"Dominated by the
media, by special pressure groups and by the interests of several
pharmaceutical companies, the AIDS establishment efforts to control the disease
lost contact with open-minded, peer-reviewed medical science since the unproven
HIV/AIDS hypothesis received 100% of the research funds while all other
hypotheses were ignored." (Reappraising
AIDS Nov./Dec. 1998)
·
Dr. Bernard Forscher, former editor of the U.S. Proceeding of the National Academy of
Sciences:
"The HIV
hypothesis ranks with the 'bad air' theory for malaria and the 'bacterial
infection' theory of beriberi and pellagra [caused by nutritional
deficiencies]. It is a hoax that became a scam." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)
Once he starts to have a closer look at the AIDS scene, the innocent
spectator gathering mainstream and alternative information gets lost on what
appears to be a surrealistic scientific battlefield. Instead of being engaged
together in a broad fight against what is supposed to be the AIDS pandemic,
scientists fight each other with intangible arguments.
For instance, the polymeric chain reaction, PCR, discovered 1992, is
widely used today for HIV-detection. But dissident scientists argue that PCR
reproducibility and specificity have not been determined and that PCR detects
only small fragments of nucleic acid sequences which means that a positive PCR
is not proof for the existence of the whole HIV genome.
Another source of scientific disagreement: The number of T4 lymphocytes
in blood is supposed to be a helpful indicator in the AIDS diagnosis. But
others argue that during a period of stress the number of lymphocytes in the
blood dramatically decreases anyway, whether a patient is HIV-positive or not.
How is it possible that scientists so totally disagree when it comes to
the basic ideas? The arguments are sometimes even absolutely ridiculous. To
prove the causal HIV/AIDS relation, the CDC document quoted above states that: “Infection with HIV has been the
only common factor shared by persons with AIDS throughout the world“.
The only common factor! This kind of affirmation implicates that life
conditions of a huge part of the world population have been thoroughly studied
and that every single potential pathogenic factor, including nutrition habits
and life style, has been taken into account. By people who are generally
exclusively interested in the study of viruses. And I am supposed to believe
that?
To me such a disorder clearly indicates that either big interests are on
stake or that neither of the opponents really know what’s going on. And maybe
we should also keep in mind that scientists representing western medical
science all have the same “Pasteurian” approach of diseases as the cancer
specialists I mentioned in the beginning of this article. In the case of
physical diseases, modern medicine considers human cells and biochemical
mechanisms exclusively, and psychiatry only considers the psyche. But the
patient as an entire person is generally nowhere in sight. Besides, regular
medicine has become incredibly complex and when we listen to their disputes,
even specialists seem to be lost. So what to say of the public? How can one
chose for one opinion rather than another?
In the final part of this article I would like to introduce a holistic
approach of diseases which can easily be verified by any non-specialist willing
to spend a couple of hours on the study of its principles: The New Medicine
proposed by Dr Ryke Geerd Hamer.
Ever since the works of Louis Pasteur it is generally accepted that
microorganisms are the main cause of diseases. Besides that radiation,
pollution, bad nutrition habits, poison, etc., are also considered having an
important impact on our health. Diseases that are definitely not caused by one
or several physical factors are said to be psychosomatic, which means that the
causal factor is supposed to be psychological.
However, if some of those factor always induce an immediate reaction of
the human body (carbon monoxide, arsenic, massive radiation), others do not.
Some people are quite healthy even if they drink, smoke and eat mostly junk
food. Others take good care and are ill. During a flu epidemic many don’t get
ill, even if they live together with people who do. Some people are very
sensitive to certain allergens, but most are not. Many people are apparently
quite stressed yet healthy, others seem to live a peaceful life but become very
ill. What makes the difference? Could it be possible that an important factor
is not accounted for?
I promised to propose an approach of diseases that can be easily
verified by anybody. So, before I continue with a more or less detailed and
theoretical description during which the reader might get lost, first some
easily accessible information you can immediately verify yourself.
Statement: All
allergies are caused by a traumatic event during which the allergen was present.
The allergen can be anything: roses, wine, odor, dust, pollen, etc. Some people
object that they totally ignored the existence of the allergen before they
learned about their allergy. Get me well. The relation between allergen and
traumatic event is totally unconscious. Even if you have no idea what sulfur
dioxide stands for, the brain is perfectly able to recognize its odor and
relate it to a traumatic event.
Any contact with the allergen
in the future recalls the traumatic event and causes a defensive and
unconscious reaction of the organism. Definitive healing is generally easily
obtained when the person recalls the event and talks about his or her traumatic
experience.
Example: A person is allergic to cats. If the allergic
reaction was not already present at birth, it means that the person has
experienced a traumatic event directly (the cat is the cause) or indirectly (a
cat was present physically or imaginary) related to a cat. If he or she recalls
the event or, in case of a child, if the event is narrated to the child by a
parent for example, healing is obtained instantly
and no allergic reaction will occur anymore when again in contact with a cat.
If the person was already allergic at birth, a parent has experienced the
traumatic event.
Anybody can verify this information considering his or her allergies, or
those of family and friends. Talk it over and try to recall what exactly
happened around the first time the allergic reaction occurred or what was
specific around the last outbreak. It may be difficult to find the one
stressing event, but it always
works.
This approach of allergies may not be totally revolutionary, but the
discoveries of Dr Hamer show its mechanisms in a particularly evident way. The
next two paragraphs shortly introduce the New Medicine and can be found at
http://www.geocities.com/hamersnewmedicine.
Twenty years ago, Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer, a German doctor with his own
practice in Rome, Italy, received a call in the middle of the night. His
17-year old son had been shot while on holiday in the Mediterranean. Three
months later, Dirk died and shortly after, Dr. Hamer, who had been healthy all
his life, but who was utterly devastated by this catastrophe, found he had
testicular cancer. Rather suspicious about this coincidence, he set about doing
research on the personal histories of cancer patients to see whether they had
suffered some shock, distress or trauma before their illness.
In time, after extensive research of thousands of patients, Dr. Hamer
was finally able to conclude that disease is only brought about by a shock for
which we are totally unprepared. This last point is very important. If we can
in any way be prepared for the shocking event, we will not become ill. In fact,
Dr. Hamer does not like to say ‘cancer’. Rather, it is a special biological
response to an unusual situation, and when the ‘shock’ situation is resolved,
the body sets about returning to normality.
A shock for which we are totally unprepared is generally not taken into
account as a disease-causing factor. But isn’t it quite logical to become
suspicious when a testicular cancer
occurs some months after the loss of a son
and to start to search for a relation between traumatic event and disease?
Hamer searched and … found:
1)
All diseases are caused by a biological conflict triggered by a
traumatic event that took the organism by surprise, called a DHS. Psyche, brain
and organ are touched simultaneously. It makes no real difference whether the
traumatic event is psychological or physical (poison, drugs, etc.). For
example: a resentment of disgust may be caused by eating spoiled food (physical
event) but also by hearing mean words (psychological event).
2)
The resentment during the DHS determines the location of the target in
the brain (the Hamer Herd, detectable on a CT scan and generally misinterpreted
as brain cancer) and the organ that will be touched. For example:
Archaic fear of
death => Brain stem - Lung alveoli
Loss => Cerebral cortex - Testicle or ovary
Fear of an attack
against the belly => Cerebellum - Peritoneum.
3)
All diseases are bi-phase processes, which really is something totally
new and never considered as such before.
4)
During the first phase the individual has to deal with intensive stress,
which causes an alteration in his biology. During the second phase returning to
normality, i.e. repairing of changed, altered tissues, is necessary and the
patient has to face physical symptoms like fever, pain, tiredness, night sweat,
headaches etc.
5)
Depending on the histological origins of the concerned tissue, endoderm,
mesoderm or ectoderm, the result is either mitosis during the first phase and
decrease of mass during the repair phase, or necrosis during the first phase
and mitosis during the repair phase. In certain cases, neither mitosis nor
necrosis occurs, but the result of the biological conflict is merely function
increase or decrease. Finally disease consists of only four biological
mechanisms: tissue increase or decrease and function increase or inhibition and
the mechanism employed during the active phase is followed by the opposite
reaction during the healing phase.
6)
The concept of metastasis, meaning secondary cancers caused by migrating
cells originating from the primary cancer, is completely wrong. The one and
unique cause of tumor is stress induced by a biological conflict caused by an
unexpected traumatic event, and never some kind of wandering cell, rooming
around madly with only one idea in mind: destroy its host.
7)
Microorganisms are active exclusively during the second phase of a
disease and are part of the healing process.
8)
All diseases have a biological meaning that can be interpreted as the
expression of the adaptability of the living organism when facing a hostile
environment.
To the reader those affirmations might not be much of an instant
eye-opener. The reaction of most people is something like “So, what difference
does that make, huh? Any theoretical approach does not help a great deal to
fight cancer or any other serious pathology and you must admit that many don’t
find a way out, whether a disease has a biological meaning or not.“
Of course I must admit, and in the end neither of us will avoid the
fatal issue anyway. But let me try to illustrate with a practical example how
of a better understanding of biological mechanisms thoroughly changes the
therapeutic approach. Let’s apply the above to two persons we will call Chris
and Fred, both diagnosed with a malignant melanoma (skin cancer). Chris chooses
an approach according to regular medicine, whereas Fred fully understands and
agrees with the New Medicine.
|
Stage |
Chris |
Fred |
|
Diagnosis |
Chris first moment reaction will be something
like “Oh my God, I have cancer”. Depending on the resentment, this moment may
represent a DHS and instantly start off a lung cancer (I’ll die), or a bone
necrosis (I’m not worth anything anymore), or a colon cancer (how mean and
unfair), etc. Of course, if Chris is totally confident in medical know-how,
he may not develop any secondary cancer. |
Fred’s reaction will be something like “A
malignant melanoma. Well, I’ll surely have to face some uncomfortable
moments. Let’s have a look at Hamer’s scientific table to find the cause and
figure out which phase I’m in. If I can’t work it out by myself, I’ll consult
a specialist who is open to my approach”. |
|
Cause |
For regular medicine, UV radiation, chemical
compounds, X-ray radiation or eventually a primary cancer may cause melanoma. |
According to the New Medicine, the cause is a
biological conflict of blot, or fear of loss of physical integrity. During
the active phase of the conflict, the derma thickens (increased protection!)
at the exact spot where Fred felt attacked. The Hamer Herd is located in the
cerebellum. |
|
Treatment |
Chemotherapy and radiation: Strike hard and
fast to try to beat the bastard and avoid metastasis. If the overall fearful situation has caused
one or several DHS to occur, one or more secondary cancers interpreted as
metastases will certainly appear and result in the final diagnose of
generalized cancer. |
Go back in memory to find the causal event.
If the conflict is still active, find a person who can listen and who will
make it possible to find the resentment during the DHS. The healing phase
will start immediately once Fred has been able to express the resentment, and
the derma will be restored once the surplus of cells created during the
active phase has been reduced by bacteria. |
|
Post-treatment |
Even if after treatment total remission is
obtained, Chris will have a check-up every six months to verify that
everything is still ok and he will probably feel a threatening sword of
Damocles over his head for the rest of his life. A sword that may become the
source of future diseases. |
A pathologic reaction is the result of the
impossibility to face reality. Fear, guilt, self-devaluation etc. are often
associated with traumatic events of the past and may be rooted in our
childhood or even in our genealogy. To achieve a definite healing of
chronological affections, others than those caused by an archaic and pure
biological mechanism, it is often necessary to bring ancient traumatic events
to conscience. |
The therapeutic action according to the New Medicine consists mainly of
patient accompaniment. It is important to track the causal biological conflict
and to explain the basic ideas of New Medicine. The understanding will enable
the patient to stay confident during a sometimes very difficult healing phase.
Painkillers may be of great help, but pain generally decreases also
considerably if we know what is happening and may even completely disappear
once the message is understood. If you don’t believe me, then you ought to
consider that in certain cases we can easily accept that pain is a biological
mechanism of warning: “don’t put your hand in the fire, that’s bad for your
body!”. So why should we not consider that any pain might have a deeper
meaning? After all, my body is hurting myself. Why should it do so? If pain
were merely a result of injury it would be inexplicable why bone necrosis does
not hurt at all.
Surgical intervention or drug administration can of course be beneficial
or even vital, but only if they are employed in harmony with the biological
mechanisms of the organism. In case of chronic affections the patient might
need a therapy that will make it possible to face reality in a different way
and to avoid pathological reactions.
When compared to regular medicine, the New Medicine defeats much of the
acquired scientific knowledge and anyone who does not know what to think
anymore while listening to scientific quarreling might feel even more lost
after having read Dr Hamer’s affirmations. Maybe some more examples will help
to clarify the approach.
Lung tbc: Healing phase of lung cancer.
Cancer of the alveoli is caused by a terrorizing fear of death. This is the
reason why lung cancer “metastasis” very often occurs after cancer or AIDS
diagnosis, interpreted as a death sentence and causing a nocebo effect.
Hepatitis: Healing phase of a necrosis of
intra- or extra-hepatic bile-ducts caused by a masculine biological conflict of
anger/rancor or a feminine conflict of identity-loss (feeling out of place;
being non-considered).
Bone necrosis: Active stress phase of a biological
conflict of self-devaluation.
Leukemia: Healing phase of a biological
conflict of self-devaluation.
Multiple sclerosis: Active stress phase of a biological conflict of
indecision: I want to do something, but I can’t. (Example: divorce). Because
they appear during the active stress phase, the symptoms occur shortly after
the DHS.
Herpes: Healing phase of a biological
conflict of separation.
Sore throat: Healing phase of a biological
conflict caused by the fact that one finally did not get something that one was
already certain to obtain.
Hart attack: A heart attack occurs during a brief
period of the healing phase of a masculine biological conflict of territory
loss. During this short period, called the epileptical crisis, an electrical
discharge occurs in the brain. The reason why a heart attack generally happens
when problems are settled is simply the fact that it is part of the healing
phase. The active stress phase causes necrosis of the coronary arteries
(symptom: angina pectoris; stops instantly when stress is resolved).
Keeping in mind the fact that diseases proceed in two phases, it is
mostly not very difficult to find the necessary indications as to which event
caused a given disease. As symptoms like fever, headache, bleeding, etc. occur
during the healing phase, it is important to determine when exactly those
symptoms appeared. Because shortly before that moment, something positive has
happened that made it possible for the patient to relieve the stress relative
to the biological conflict. The severity of the healing phase is directly related
to the intensity and the duration of the active stress phase. So in case of a
relatively benign disease, the DHS must have occurred some days or even some
hours before the first symptoms arise. In serious cases, the DHS may have
occurred several months before appearance of the first symptoms. Quite often,
black spots provided by X-ray examination, for example in lungs or liver,
merely show some ancient and inactive vestiges of a cancer, healed since many
years. So one needs to go back far in the past to trace its cause.
If we apply the New Medicine postulates to AIDS it becomes clear that
the underlying cause of the syndrome and its multiplicity of totally different
related diseases cannot possibly be a single virus. Each of the AIDS-related
diseases has its own and very particular cause and fighting the overall
symptoms with one or more toxic drugs like AZT etc. can have only one
disastrous result: inhibition of the natural healing resources of the human
body. Moreover, if we consider stress as a disease inducing factor, it is not
hard to imagine that merely being diagnosed HIV-positive is a good reason not
to feel very well.
We are striving for a free world and freedom may have its limits if we
want to live in harmony with others. It is true that the “HIV causes AIDS”
theory is widely accepted and criticized by a tiny fraction of scientists only.
The number of dissidents increases but very slowly, mainly because the mass
media do not publicize much information concerning alternative opinions, but
they certainly do have some very strong arguments.
Anyone may argue for hours but as far as I know, nobody can guarantee
that a patient will recover from a serious disease if he or she chooses one
therapy rather than another. In some countries regular AIDS treatment is
imposed by state, but I would be curious to meet somebody who can clearly
explain the basic idea behind any law disabling perfect freedom of choice of
therapy for all. After all, taking into consideration alternative approaches
does not seem out of place given the toxicity and very negative side-effects of
regular AIDS drugs, the percentage of fatal issues after regular treatment and
the number of individuals who have been diagnosed with AIDS but are doing quite
well without any treatment.