Hi, sorry I took a while to reply. I read quite extensively on German New Medicine, on your recommendation, and it’s very aligned with my thinking. Thanks for letting me know about it :)
Hahahaha, you got back to me a lot faster than most people! It took me months to really get through it and begin to realize how powerful it's implications were!
I have observed that people do NOT like when someone suggests that cancer could be a healing process. Like, they’re enraged and think you’re the stupidest person alive. What are your thoughts? I have read most of GNM and am generally in complete agreement. Sometimes I think they’re inaccurate with the specific cause of some conflicts, but they’re covering a lot of topics, so it’s acceptable. It’s a fairly easy for me to accept the cancer idea, because recently my Nanna at 91 was diagnosed with throat cancer, given a year to live, they did chemo and she died within a week. Genius doctors huh?
I have observed that people do NOT like when someone suggests that cancer could be a healing process. Like, they’re enraged and think you’re the stupidest person alive. What are your thoughts?
Tell me about it! It is only with the utmost delicacy that this can even be mentioned. I don't even like the words "healing process". That's not quite right as I see it. It's more of an "augmentation" followed by a "restoration". Never was the person in an "unhealed" state (but I do realize this is how it's referenced in GNM). If anything, the "cancer" (for most) puts the person into a superior state to accomplish improved oxygen intake, food digestion, milk production, sperm production etc.
I've found that if you yourself haven't had the particular dis-ease, it's not helpful to speculate too much. From my POV, all the conflict causes make perfect sense, which is why I find it hard to fault them. Every other so called "cause" pushed on us by mainstream medicine is so random, so imprecise, so imperfect as to render them utterly pointless IMHO. None of them fit the bill, least of all "a malfunctioning body). But when you think of a primitive brain psyche taking our FIGURATIVE thoughts LITERALLY, it all comes together quite nicely IMHO.
Which conflict cause(s) explanation do you find most doubtful?
Sorry to hear about your Nanna. It sounds like she lived a good life though! Sad to say, it was the chemo that likely took the final toll, as it so often does. There's a study out there somewhere that sampled over 10,000 people diagnosed with cancer across 20 years I believe. Anyway, those that had sought mainstream treatments (burn, cut, poison) lived on average for 5 years. Those who sought alternative treatments, or no treatment at all lived on average for 7 years. There was also a survey given to oncologists 10-15 years ago who were asked if they would take chemo if they were ever diagnosed with cancer. 75% said they would NOT do chemo. So there's that...
But I get it, convincing someone who has lived their entire life "trusting the experts" is darn near impossible. I've found that the only real chance you have is warming them up in advance by telling them you know EXACTLY WHY they have cancer, unlike their doctor/oncologist. In this way, you're somewhat leveling the playing field.
It's worth noting that many people do not verbalize their internal struggles so it would be impossible to know sometimes what someone was dealing with. In regards to your Nanna, assuming the diagnosis was correct (which it isn't always) perhaps she did receive some news that was "hard for her to swallow" in the months leading up to her chemo? It's also worth noting that she may have resolving or had recently resolved a "hard to swallow" conflict so it could have been something she had gotten over many years prior to as well. I don't put anything past these doctors today. Even though the good and trustworthy well outnumber the bad and untrustworthy, there are so many links in the chain of a "cancer diagnosis" and so many errors in their education and training.
Dr. Hamer plainly and boldly said that "cancer" doesn't kill people. And when you stop and think about it, an "abnormal growth of cells" quite obviously does not kill anybody. There are rare instances where a blockage of a vital process can occur which obviously requires surgical intervention. But this is rare, very rare. It's the "metastases" deception that scares people into the mainstream treatments.
Dr. Hamer says that cancer patients almost exclusively die of cachexia (wasting away) and enervation (loss of vital force, spirit, the will to live), both of which are brought on by poisoning and irradiating one's own body. That's a tough pill to swallow I realize. But from my POV, it makes a lot of sense. Just referencing that 5yr vs 7yr lifespan survey alone supports his assertion.
And it's also worth noting, that perpetuating one's psychological conflict without choosing to eventually release/allow/accept it, will also lead to death. This is not healthy. There is far greater power in the act of forgiveness/acceptance than virtually anyone realizes. Halting and reversing a cancer program (aka "remission") is just the tip of the iceberg methinks.
Food for thought...
Looking forward to hearing which dis-ease/conflict you find unlikely. I've been on the lookout for a clear and undeniable case where the GNM diagnosis doesn't work and I've yet to find one. And I'm not saying this isn't the case. I'm always open to adjusting my beliefs when presented with new evidence. It's almost unimaginable that Dr. Hamer could have gotten EVERYTHING right. After all, we're all only human.
Thanks for your reply. Is this close to correct then?
The mind-body conflict prevents certain cells of some organ from functioning [correctly].
The conflict increases in intensity, with more and more cells not functioning.
Eventually the organ is at risk of complete failure
The cancer biological program triggers to produce more cells to compensate and try to "save" the organism, giving it more time to resolve the conflict
I'm not sure why number of cancer cells can be so large - even more cells than the number of cells in the original organ, it seems. Are the cancer cells less efficient?
When the conflict is resolved, bacteria repair the damaged organ. The unneeded cancer cells simply die and are removed as waste.
When I said "inaccurate", I only meant that there could be more precisely described conflicts. Not that any were "incorrect".
For example, my specialty, due of course to my own conflicts, is the musculature. In published GNM literature, they list things as abandonment, self-devaluation, etc,, which are certainly correct. However, it's more like... every single moment in life that has created even the slightest negative experience, that one may have put aside for fear of looking at it, has a paralyzing effect on some musculature to some extent.
Resolving the conflicts isn't so much about understanding the categories, as taking the time to scan the musculature and the memory, and hone in on conflicts... you usually don't know what they're going to be until you consciously locate them in the body. (This is basically scientology... just I developed specific ways of moving the body to help the person feel and locate the conflicts, where as scientology is I suppose more of a therapy approach).
GNM gives an excellent list of categories and likely conflicts, though there is simply room for more specificity. And it also necessary to say that some conflicts can't be categorized -- they're simply random unique moments in your life that have some absurd preconceptual meaning.
However, none of what I'm saying invalidates the general idea, with which I'm in agreement.
It's impressive that you asked "Was she having trouble swallowing something?" Because that was indeed the complaint. She complained to my Mum that she was having trouble swallowing. She was getting very, very old and there was no doubt that death was soon, plus she fairly advanced "memory degradation". So perhaps she couldn't swallow that. She was certainly in denial about her memory not working. As you said, perhaps it could have been an earlier life conflict, though I don't suspect so.
PS: would you like to chat on skype / zoom / some VOIP? (Send me a direct message if so... I guess we're still in some public thread here).
Hi, sorry I took a while to reply. I read quite extensively on German New Medicine, on your recommendation, and it’s very aligned with my thinking. Thanks for letting me know about it :)
Hahahaha, you got back to me a lot faster than most people! It took me months to really get through it and begin to realize how powerful it's implications were!
Cheers
I have observed that people do NOT like when someone suggests that cancer could be a healing process. Like, they’re enraged and think you’re the stupidest person alive. What are your thoughts? I have read most of GNM and am generally in complete agreement. Sometimes I think they’re inaccurate with the specific cause of some conflicts, but they’re covering a lot of topics, so it’s acceptable. It’s a fairly easy for me to accept the cancer idea, because recently my Nanna at 91 was diagnosed with throat cancer, given a year to live, they did chemo and she died within a week. Genius doctors huh?
Tell me about it! It is only with the utmost delicacy that this can even be mentioned. I don't even like the words "healing process". That's not quite right as I see it. It's more of an "augmentation" followed by a "restoration". Never was the person in an "unhealed" state (but I do realize this is how it's referenced in GNM). If anything, the "cancer" (for most) puts the person into a superior state to accomplish improved oxygen intake, food digestion, milk production, sperm production etc.
I've found that if you yourself haven't had the particular dis-ease, it's not helpful to speculate too much. From my POV, all the conflict causes make perfect sense, which is why I find it hard to fault them. Every other so called "cause" pushed on us by mainstream medicine is so random, so imprecise, so imperfect as to render them utterly pointless IMHO. None of them fit the bill, least of all "a malfunctioning body). But when you think of a primitive brain psyche taking our FIGURATIVE thoughts LITERALLY, it all comes together quite nicely IMHO.
Which conflict cause(s) explanation do you find most doubtful?
Sorry to hear about your Nanna. It sounds like she lived a good life though! Sad to say, it was the chemo that likely took the final toll, as it so often does. There's a study out there somewhere that sampled over 10,000 people diagnosed with cancer across 20 years I believe. Anyway, those that had sought mainstream treatments (burn, cut, poison) lived on average for 5 years. Those who sought alternative treatments, or no treatment at all lived on average for 7 years. There was also a survey given to oncologists 10-15 years ago who were asked if they would take chemo if they were ever diagnosed with cancer. 75% said they would NOT do chemo. So there's that...
But I get it, convincing someone who has lived their entire life "trusting the experts" is darn near impossible. I've found that the only real chance you have is warming them up in advance by telling them you know EXACTLY WHY they have cancer, unlike their doctor/oncologist. In this way, you're somewhat leveling the playing field.
It's worth noting that many people do not verbalize their internal struggles so it would be impossible to know sometimes what someone was dealing with. In regards to your Nanna, assuming the diagnosis was correct (which it isn't always) perhaps she did receive some news that was "hard for her to swallow" in the months leading up to her chemo? It's also worth noting that she may have resolving or had recently resolved a "hard to swallow" conflict so it could have been something she had gotten over many years prior to as well. I don't put anything past these doctors today. Even though the good and trustworthy well outnumber the bad and untrustworthy, there are so many links in the chain of a "cancer diagnosis" and so many errors in their education and training.
Dr. Hamer plainly and boldly said that "cancer" doesn't kill people. And when you stop and think about it, an "abnormal growth of cells" quite obviously does not kill anybody. There are rare instances where a blockage of a vital process can occur which obviously requires surgical intervention. But this is rare, very rare. It's the "metastases" deception that scares people into the mainstream treatments.
Dr. Hamer says that cancer patients almost exclusively die of cachexia (wasting away) and enervation (loss of vital force, spirit, the will to live), both of which are brought on by poisoning and irradiating one's own body. That's a tough pill to swallow I realize. But from my POV, it makes a lot of sense. Just referencing that 5yr vs 7yr lifespan survey alone supports his assertion.
And it's also worth noting, that perpetuating one's psychological conflict without choosing to eventually release/allow/accept it, will also lead to death. This is not healthy. There is far greater power in the act of forgiveness/acceptance than virtually anyone realizes. Halting and reversing a cancer program (aka "remission") is just the tip of the iceberg methinks.
Food for thought...
Looking forward to hearing which dis-ease/conflict you find unlikely. I've been on the lookout for a clear and undeniable case where the GNM diagnosis doesn't work and I've yet to find one. And I'm not saying this isn't the case. I'm always open to adjusting my beliefs when presented with new evidence. It's almost unimaginable that Dr. Hamer could have gotten EVERYTHING right. After all, we're all only human.
Thanks for your reply. Is this close to correct then?
The mind-body conflict prevents certain cells of some organ from functioning [correctly].
The conflict increases in intensity, with more and more cells not functioning.
Eventually the organ is at risk of complete failure
The cancer biological program triggers to produce more cells to compensate and try to "save" the organism, giving it more time to resolve the conflict
I'm not sure why number of cancer cells can be so large - even more cells than the number of cells in the original organ, it seems. Are the cancer cells less efficient?
When the conflict is resolved, bacteria repair the damaged organ. The unneeded cancer cells simply die and are removed as waste.
When I said "inaccurate", I only meant that there could be more precisely described conflicts. Not that any were "incorrect".
For example, my specialty, due of course to my own conflicts, is the musculature. In published GNM literature, they list things as abandonment, self-devaluation, etc,, which are certainly correct. However, it's more like... every single moment in life that has created even the slightest negative experience, that one may have put aside for fear of looking at it, has a paralyzing effect on some musculature to some extent.
Resolving the conflicts isn't so much about understanding the categories, as taking the time to scan the musculature and the memory, and hone in on conflicts... you usually don't know what they're going to be until you consciously locate them in the body. (This is basically scientology... just I developed specific ways of moving the body to help the person feel and locate the conflicts, where as scientology is I suppose more of a therapy approach).
GNM gives an excellent list of categories and likely conflicts, though there is simply room for more specificity. And it also necessary to say that some conflicts can't be categorized -- they're simply random unique moments in your life that have some absurd preconceptual meaning.
However, none of what I'm saying invalidates the general idea, with which I'm in agreement.
It's impressive that you asked "Was she having trouble swallowing something?" Because that was indeed the complaint. She complained to my Mum that she was having trouble swallowing. She was getting very, very old and there was no doubt that death was soon, plus she fairly advanced "memory degradation". So perhaps she couldn't swallow that. She was certainly in denial about her memory not working. As you said, perhaps it could have been an earlier life conflict, though I don't suspect so.
PS: would you like to chat on skype / zoom / some VOIP? (Send me a direct message if so... I guess we're still in some public thread here).