Sigmaringen Letter - 13.07.06

Originator: a husband of a woman who became ill with breast cancer

Administrative Court of Sigmaringen

Karlstrasse 13

72488 Simaringen

Fax: 0049-7571104661

Re: Dr. Hamer/University of Tuebingen

July 13, 2006

Esteemed Court,

During the last couple of years, three women from my circle of friends died of the same type of cancer my wife is presently suffering from. Two of these women were married to physicians, and I would imagine that everything conventional medicine has to offer was tried in order to help her, but to no avail.

In spite of Chemotherapy, my wife couldn’t get any assurance to be cured. In the meantime, we have met Doctor Hamer and studied his findings, called German New Medicine, that postulate a verifiable interaction between psyche, brain and organ, founded on 5 biological laws. We know of several cases where patients underwent conventional treatments unsuccessfully but returned to complete health, based on these principles. And this not because of a wonder drug, but by understanding the biological laws that regulate our organism and by mobilizing the body’s innate self-healing powers supported if necessary with medication and in some cases with surgery.

Doctor Hamer told us that, provided it is done in a clinical setting, my wife could be cured by being treated according to the 5 biological laws. But, unfortunately, his hands are tied, since he has no longer a license to practice medicine and to open a clinic.  He lost his medical accreditation, because he refused to renounce his discoveries and did not want to "play lip service" to conventional medicine.

It is not our intent to discuss whether the traditional "medicinal science" is based on scientific criteria or not. All we can say is that in our case, conventional medicine is not able to offer us a cure. That is why we want to know whether the 5 biological laws, discovered by Dr. Hamer, can indeed be verified according to criteria of natural science. We believe they can. If they are approved, and only then, will Dr. Hamer be rehabilitated and can open a clinic where he can practice and treat my wife. But time is of essence.

As far as our situation is concerned, we have the freedom to choose the type of therapy, but only in theory. We cannot make use of this freedom, since it has not officially been confirmed whether Dr. Hamer’s medicine can be construed as a science. The refusal of the medical faculty of the University of Tübingen to conduct the verification process in spite of a court order is constricting our constitutional rights. For over 25 years, we are denied of these rights, because some professors refuse for whatever reasons to scientifically test Dr. Hamers 5 biological laws on the next available cases. What else can you reasonably expect from a scientist than to be willing to have his findings scientifically evaluated? As stated 25 years ago in the court proceedings, this could be done within three days. It is incomprehensible for us, why this evaluation has been denied, unless those very professors are afraid that a positive outcome could spoil their personal interests. We cannot accept that our life is dependent on vested interests of the official medical authorities. 

We are talking about patients' lives here! On September 8/9, 1998, Dr. Hamer’s discoveries have already been verified by a European University, namely by the Slovak State University of Trnava (certified 11.9.1998) as well as at many other official occasions. But in spite of that, Doctor Hamer is being prevented from clinical practice because of the supposedly unscientific character of his medicine. The verification procedures at the University of Tuebingen could clarify the matter of Dr. Hamer's "scientific" theories once and for all. I am not aware of any medical theory that is willing to so courageously face scientific scrutiny, subjecting itself to the risk of being falsified. 

For me and my wife, every day is precious. We want to be treated by Doctor Hamer, because we are convinced of the authenticity of his methods. Should he be proven wrong, we would seek other possible therapies. But as long as this is not the case, we regard his findings as the most up-to-date medical state of the art and hope that they will be of help or us.  

On behalf of my wife and many other patients, I therefore urge the court to employ all possible legal means to force the medical faculty to proceed with the evaluation as quickly as possible.

Yours sincerely,

(Husband)

P.S. This letter has also been sent by regular mail.