 |
 |
|
Dr. Hamer's Reply to Dr. Hartenstein - 17.05.06
Dr. med. Mag. theol. Ryke Geerd HAMER Apdo. De Correos 209
Herrn
Nymphenburgerstr. 21a
May 17, 2006 Re: Your article in ”Passauer Woche“ of March 8, 2006 Dear Professor Hartenstein, This letter is in response to your statements in the Passauer Woche of March 8, 2006, on behalf of the Bavarian Cancer Society. In your article, published under the heading: ”The president of the Cancer Society on German New Medicine“, you write that ”German New Medicine (GNM) is the abstruse and pseudo-scientific medical doctrine of an outsider“. I would like to point out that you can only call GNM abstruse and pseudo-scientific, after having falsified my findings by reproduction on the next patient’s case, as it is customary in natural sciences. But you have not done this. Given the aforesaid, I must request, with all due respect, that you unconditionally withdraw your unqualified statement. Recent epidemiologic studies clearly show that there are no increased cancer cases to be found in people with depressions or who suffer from extreme psychological stress (Dalton, et al. 2003 and 2004). You are alleging something that I have never claimed. If you had read my books (I am sending you my latest two ”Krebs und alle sog. Erkrankungen. Kurze Einführung in die Germanische Neue Medizin” and „Einer gegen alle”) you would understand that there is no causal link between cancer and depression, and that depression is in most cases only an accompanying symptom of a so-called cortical constellation. Also, if you knew the difference between the ”stress tonus“ (sympathicotonia) of the conflict-active phase of every Meaningful Special Biological Program (MSBP) and general non-specific daily stress, you would understand that an increased level of stress is not at all related to the development of cancer. What more could you expect from me, as a serious scientist, than that I am prepared to have my findings tested and have my discoveries put to the scrutiny of a medical faculty. Back in September 1995 – during the time of the ”Olivia Case“ - I offered Prof. Becker (surgeon), then Dean of the Medical Faculty of the University of Tübingen (Germany), to demonstrate my findings on a random number of patients from his clinic in front of all 700 lecturers and professors of the Faculty. That verification conference was scheduled for October 19, 1995, per handshake. One week later, the Dean’s secretary informed me that the Dean could not keep his promise, because the Faculty did not permit him to conduct the verification conference. I can assure you that this is exactly how it all took place. Please feel free to ask your colleague Prof. Becker about the matter. There is also a written correspondence on this subject. What more do you want me to do? What more scientific evidence can I provide you with, in order not to be called a charlatan and not to have German New Medicine slandered as ”abstruse“ and ”pseudo-scientific“? To this day, not one of your colleagues has contended that conventional medicine comprises some 5,000 unproven hypotheses. German New Medicine, on the other hand, does not have a single hypothesis. In natural science – and don’t we medical doctors want to be scientists – any scientific method that can be verified with any given patient’s case, is considered to be correct. In contrast, a method like conventional medicine that comprises 5000 hypotheses that cannot be reproduced on any patient’s case, is in fact an abstruse and pseudo-scientific doctrine (please refer to the evaluation of Prof. Dr. Niemitz, University of Leipzig (”The New Medicine a new natural science“). Prof. Niemitz’s concluded: ”Based on the criteria of natural science, the New Medicine, given today’s scientific understanding and today’s best knowledge must be declared as being correct“ (Leipzig, August 18th, 2003). For the benefit of our poor patients, of whom, to the best of my knowledge, up to 1,500 are dying unnecessarily every day, I extend to you the following offer: I would like to invite you to come to Alhaurin, Spain, accompanied by two or three professors who know German New Medicine, and who share your confidence. I am prepared to demonstrate in front of a video camera the biological laws of GNM on any number of patient’s cases, i.e. to verify them, so that you won’t have the slightest doubt. We should be able to accomplish the verification process within two or three days. Even Prof. Voigt, former Dean of the Medical Faculty of the University of Tuebingen stated on December 16, 1986, before the Administrative Court of Sigmaringen, Germany, that it would be easily possible to verify within two or three days whether the New Medicine is indeed correct. One year after (1987) the judge (Dr. Diem) stated in writing: ”There is unanimity amongst the contending parties of the lawsuit that it is only possible to verify the correctness of the New Medicine through reproduction on the next patient’s case“. I propose Dr. Willibald Stangl, M.D. to act as referee. Dr. Stangl is president of the Medical Officer Association of Lower Austria, a sworn court surveyor, and absolutely integer. It should be in your interest and in the interests of our patients that this evaluation will take place. One again, I invite you to come to Spain. Unfortunately I cannot go to Germany at the present, because I am afraid to be indicted again on some alleged charges. But, I can assure you that we will hold a genuine verification conference supervised by several professors of natural science so that the scientific accuracy of the testing is ensured. I propose the dates July 8 and 9, 2006. I will take care of arranging the location as well as accommodation. With kind regards, Dr. Hamer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
