Wikipedia

Talk:Ryke Geerd Hamer/Archive 1

< Talk:Ryke Geerd Hamer
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Cyberbot II in topic External links modified
Archive 1

First

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

First, I would like to apologize for my poor ("german") English - and I invite everybody to correct my gramar/spelling/whatsoever :-) Second, I would like to say that I am one of the main editors of http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Medizin At the talk page of that German article I found the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryke_Geerd_Hamer and so came here. Realizing my poor language skills, I will not edit "your" article, but share some ideas on this talk page. Just to make clear from the beginning of this discussion: in my opinion "Germanische Neue Medizin", as Hamer names his strange ideas in german, has nothing to do with medicine - it is just the opposite of medicine. It is an inhumane way of refusing medical treatment, based on pseudo-psychological and pseudo-biological ideas mixed with anti-semitism. But let's have a look on the article:

Ryke Geerd Hamer (born 1935) is a German alternative cancer researcher. He served as head of the internal medicine department at the Clinics of Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen from 1972 to 1981, when he resigned. In this decade he invented and patented some surgery tools.

Hamer pretends to be a researcher. If you read any of his publications you will find out that this has nothing to do with research.
I cannot find any proof, that "he served as head of the internal medicine department at the Clinics of Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen". Please check http://www.germannewmedicine.ca/documents/hamerbio.html

(...)

Basically, according to Hamer, any disease, most notably cancer, is not dangerous in itself, but merely a symptom of a mental conflict situation. This conflict needs to be resolved in order for the disease to be cured while the tradititional treatments are not considered as having a primary value.

The idea of a "mental conflict situation" is just one of Hamers "theory". He also "discovered that every disease originates from a shock or trauma that catches us completely by surprise. The moment the unexpected conflict occurs, the shock strikes a specific area in the brain causing a lesion (later called Hamer Focus) ..." (from: [1]). This sounds a bit different from "mental conflict situation", but this does not disturb a great spirit;-)

(...)

On September 11, 1998 University of Trnava/Slovacia finished an investigation [2] held at the Oncology Division of the Hospital of the University stating that "[...] The object of the investigation was to verify the New Medicine system scientifically. This proved to be the case. [...] there is a high probability that the system is well founded." [3]

Please read the text of this so-called "investigation" and try not to laugh loudly. It is ridiculous to quote (BTW: incorrectly) such a pamphlet in an encyclopedia.

The conflict between supporters and opponents of Hamer's theories, at the base of which what he calls "biological laws" lays, has become more acrimonious over the years, with Hamer having started to use anti-semitic terminology and claiming that a genocidal Jewish conspiracy wants him silenced. In a similar vein, he has started to call his theoretical groundwork "German New Medicine" (GNM) - a registered trademark - or, in a literal translation from German, "Germanic New Medicine", instead of the formerly-used term "New Medicine".

I would like to add that in Germany the term "Germanische Neue Medizin" (with it's blind critics of "Schulmedizin") is raising historic parallels: in Nazi-Germany the "Neue Deutsche Heilkunde" was put against the "verjudete Schulmedizin". --RainerSti 13:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Rainer ! i agree and I attempted to modify this article to make it more npov. Please register here in the english wikipedia for better comunication. Michael Redecke 18:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Rainer and Redecke, I appreciate your sincerity, but you may not realize the extent to which you are taking a one-sided perspective on a legitimate and unresolved controversy. The extent of psychosomatic causes of illness is still a hotly debated issue, even within the mainstream. I think that in keeping with our NPOV perspective, we need to be careful of taking the position that Hamer's work "has nothing to do with medicine - it is just the opposite of medicine. It is an inhumane way of refusing medical treatment, based on pseudo-psychological and pseudo-biological ideas." These sentiments, although sincere and well-intentioned, do not reflect a NPOV. Hickorybark (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable case

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I rewrote this section about the Olivia Pilhar case from a more neutral perspective. Given that both Olivia and her parents still support Hamer, I think it's imperative that both sides of this controversial case be represented. Also, I think we need to reference all important conclusions. I am happy to work with the other editors to improve this page further, as it still needs a lot of work. Hickorybark (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ryke Geerd Hamer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ryke Geerd Hamer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ryke Geerd Hamer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverted rant

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Milk duct cancer has quite specifically to do with the conflict of, "my child, mother, or partner has been torn from my breast!" Again it is a separation conflict and the rules of laterality also apply here.

— User:E3healthdesign

I don't wish to attack any users, but the above quote is rant. I have reverted such rant and gross violations of WP:RSMED. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV again

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

The article is almost impossibly biased. It exaggeratedly insists on Hamer's Antisemitic views and the rejection of his medical theories by grand medical organizations. However, very little is cited from sources favourable to his work. I understand that the common conception for this is that the pro-Hamer references are deemed untrustworthy, but since there are respectable publications which do publish some of his assumed results – even if they're not medical journals – such sources should be present as well. This is because it is not Wikipedia's task to tell true from untrue material, but to equally represent opinions extracted from highly-rated sources. To cite only from sources related to certain organizations is, willing or unwilling, like proving a point, which is discouraged on Wikipedia. – Impy4ever (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

i think that comes from a hospital that was carried by hamer, where patients were screaming in pain, because they didnt get pain meds... so some people r afraid that it happens again and again if they dont say that they dont like hamer... that didnt work with cigs... and it looks like it doesnt work with hamer... :-) i think it would be more helpful to protect people and to make them decide early, if they want to dance in the rain or feel no pain... [that was stolen from some movie... The Recruit i think...] --Homer Landskirty (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Still, this is none of Wikipedia's business, right? – Impy4ever (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
we dont talk very good about cigs 2... :-) as long as there is a majority of users that likes to kick WP:SRC/WP:NPOV here, we cant do much about it... we could try to delete one of the worst unsourced statements and mark the others with the {{fact}} tag... which one would u suggest? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't complain about unsourced material and I think the article's references as of now are pretty fine (however, I haven't yet had an in-depth look). Rather, I suggested that new prose should be written, citing from those "unreliable or non-specialised" sources, favourable of Hamer's work, yet trustworthy in general (when discussing other topics), such as major newspapers and magazines. I however am not requesting wikipedians to write it for me (I know very well the way Wiki works), but fear that if I'll write it, a mob of angry editors will take it down in a sec. That's why I'm asking before shooting :) – Impy4ever (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
i c... once a user here called me a "murderer", just because i deleted a section named "other cases" (above was a section named "notable case"), that contained threats against other users... :-) regarding the (new) sources: they must be reliable in concordance with WP:V... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, and which "respectable publications" do "publish some of his assumed results"? There is already much about his eh "theory" regarding human diseases in the article. StoneProphet (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
i think regarding WP:NPOV it is ok to describe his ideas as long as they are marked as heavily disputed... but i think we should shorten the description... e. g.: it is not necessary to describe each "law"... :-) if someone likes the idea to treat physical diseases with psychotherapy, he/she can readily get information elsewhere... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
As far as I see, the Dutch Association against Quacks has an article at [2] presenting the same issues: that Hamer does pseudoscience, that he has lost his license to practice medicine, that he is guilty for several deaths of his patients, that he served several prison sentences, and that his reply to criticism is that criticism against his "medicine" is due to a global Jewish conspiracy. So, this is what a source independent of Wikipedia has to say, and it reached similar conclusions. The author of the article is David Boss, then a PhD student at the Dutch Cancer Institute (NKI), see http://nl.linkedin.com/pub/david-boss/15/500/156 He makes sport of the Niemitz Report, stating the Niemitz does not know much about medicine (e.g. Niemitz claims there is no evidence for the existence the immune system) and champions the ridiculous theory that the Early Middle Ages have never existed. Niemitz states that mainstream medicine is unscientific, but German New Medicine is scientific. So, I guess this is not a matter of NPOV, but of following the evidence against Hamer. Sources in favor of Hamer would fail by WP:RSMED. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Starting with citations

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I added several citation needed tags. Please take a look at evey of them, they are set in places where there are affirmations not sourced. One example is "of other effective treatment". (Obviusly this even doesn't agree with the cancer-related wikipedia information, even less with with most -and seriously- source outside internet). I mind that we must find this reference or remove the sentences. Corrections are welcomes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.42.214 (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

the sentence starts with: "The approach has been described as"... of course oncologists say, that a survival chance of 40% comes from their therapy, so that the conventional approach is in that sense effective... just asked ur doctor... :-) --- but i wonder if it should say: "of other but effective treatment", because the effectiveness of hamer's approach is disputed by "those that have described the approach"... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
on [3] i found "diese 95%ige Überlebenschance" (transl.: "this 95%-survival-chance") and "Sie wissen, daß in der Germanischen Neuen Medizin 95% und mehr, z.B. beim Krebs, wieder völlig gesund werden." (transl.: "they [the spanish patients of GNM] know, that with GNM 95% and more (e. g. in case of cancer) become completely healthy again.")... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, I agree more with the 95%, but I think we must add 95% and (this is extensive referenced) that "according to hamer this is in the case when patients were not under greate quimio oder radio therapies" or something like that.What do you think?
About the effectiveness, that more than half people die is effective?, I think we must set a more neutral, objective sentence like : "..other treatments that are official confirmed to have a X% of effectiveness" -x betwen 2-40%(we must find a average at least). What do you think about this last too?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.1.99 (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
"95%": we can write that, too... "X% of effectiveness": i dont know if that makes sense, because we then have to mention, what "effectiveness" means here (surviving 5 years after completion of the measures or so... i dont know what oncologists r talking of...)... we should find the source and make sure that the reader mentions its weasel talk (usually they use a conjunctive, like "therapy that could help them"... or is it past tense? i cant find the source...)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
So, are you agree with 95% more the "in the case.."?.
About the effectiveness, you are right, but the actual sentence is kind of confusing or could be thought incorrectly,I explain, if we say that something is effective, could be though that official-medizine "cure" cancer in a high/real rate. Even more, as you mention it, this rate 2%-40% is based in a 5 year old later, postmortems that date 6-10 years doesn't count, which make the "effective" word too much strong for this "cure". Could you propose something that maybe I agree more and you are also agree?.
By the way, I explain, that the "X" is not for the article but a auxiliar variable for the last explanation :-).
Take a look at this page http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cancer/CA00049, this information is all over internet, is almost the same, 99% for prostate bewtein 5 years, 49% 5 years lung, 2% with metastasis, is this web or related a valid source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.46.133 (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
the Mayo Clinic is a good source, i think... but it is still too complicated... i think we should try to find the source that compares "hamer's medicine" and "official medicine"...
i found here this: "Er sei folglich nicht bereit, Patienten in Kenntnis der ärztlichen Gegebenheiten der nach dem derzeit anerkannten Wissenstand gebotenen Behandlung zuzuführen. Es bestehe deshalb die Gefahr, dass der Kläger Krebskranke zu ihrem Nachteil von einer möglicherweise erfolgsversprechenden Behandlung auf anerkannter Grundlage abhalte." (transl.: "Hence he is not willing, to subject patients to the demanded treatment (according to the aesculapian circumstances) (regarding the current accredited knowledge). There is a danger, that Hamer prevents cancer patients from a treatment (that possibly promises success) (on accredited grounds)." -- the german text is so much misworded, that it is rather complicated to translate all the possible meanings -- e. g. it is not clear where "auf anerkannter Grundlage" (transl.: on accredited grounds) relates to (it could either relate to "abhalten" (transl.: prevents) or to "behandlung" (transl.: treatment)))... that sounds like a good source... the source cites from an official paper ("Hessisches Landesprüfungsamt") about hamer's capability to work as a MD... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
have u read this: http://www.swisscancer.ch/dt_fr/content/orange/pdf/skak/01_02_hamer_e.pdf ? they possibly say something about that comparison... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with "effective" modification, I think that is correct now. If the Swiss league is enough as to be set in the principal paragraph is another subject, that could be discuss later. Actualy the sentence is quite good and "objective".
About the 95% why do you keep 98%?, I don't found any Hamer stament of this, (we can not put any argument from Hamer "followers" as it was Hamers or GNM valid claim). But there is several reference from Hamer about that previous quimio or radio threatment make that 95% completely false. So, I quite the 98%, and leave without any adding until I find the statment that I have named above (the quimoradio..). Well, I think that if we continue this way, we could remove the bias label in some time. Please, take in count that been this a article controversial, is completely necessary if not obligated to be very carefully about reference (take the aids reprosal (dissidents) article for an example) of a controversial well referenced article. Tomorrow I well see the others one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.19.165 (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
try to read the source... it says "2% to 5%" or so... dont edit the article so quickly... btw: ur "source missing" claim was based on a misunderstanding (the source was given the whole time and the source is compliant to mainstream medicine, which can be described as "others", so that all these edits were not really necessary...)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, the Swiss League says that Hamer claims only 2%-5%.
We should find the correct sentence from Hamer itself. But, assuming rightness of this statement we come to the point that I have singed above: It should be set clear after or before the 95%-98% the following meaning: "[..]if it was treated by intelligent doctors and nurses according to the criteria of the New Medicine"[..].
Let's remember that GNM oppose directly to quimio-radio threatment so the 95-98% statement is became clearly false in this cases. (Simple statement analysis, nothing more,please check it). So the actual statement is -as I clearly expose- incomplete,and could became in a confusion for the reader -we can not allow this in a controversial article-, we must either remove it, or add something like "don't previous quimi-radio". I would wait for your arg for a better statement before the editing, as you ask me. Greetings. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.48.46 (talk • contribs) 2008-10-29T22:43:21 (UTC)

it is not necessary to mention, the exact properties of GNM already in the first paragraph... later we say enough about the differences between GNM and other approaches... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

version 235929347

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

these changes were unsourced and at least partially wrong... e. g. SIEMENS never stated publicly that there r "Hamer foci", but they allegedly wrote an internal piece of paper, that listed 7 alternative explanations for those "foci", and that implied that there is an eighth explanation... furthermore the statement "tomorrow it rains or it doesnt rain." is verifiable but without much use (of course conventional medicine has statements of that structure, too ("the cancer was too big/old or not too big/old")...), so that claims about verifiability r not so useful here... a statistic about successes would be nice (x-ray before and after? what after 5 years? what treatment was used (hamer, conventional, or a mix)?)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand, should We think that you are unbiased editor because you name both argument against Hamer and official medice?. No, nobody believes you ;-). I think you should put in black words the part of your personal page that say (you self writed) that you have a mental problem, with all respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.8.115 (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
can u prove that my contribution suffers under my mental disability? btw: before both sides were named, too - but in one sentence and quite biased (something about "doctors mocking about hamer" iirc)... it is not our job to lead the reader... the reader should be able to c the contradiction and build his/her own opinion... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of anti-Semitism

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

The allegation of anti-Semitism cannot be taken seriously without a source. Which (presumable influential) information outlet has called Hamer's theories "anti-Semitic"? JFW | T@lk 21:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

JFW ! The sources are his own words, for instance in his letters he wrote from prison, but also ealier. my English is not good enough for an exact translation. i insert here some links to statements from him in german language that appeared in the internet. Some of his messages published in the german wikipedia by his supporters can not be found any more, because they have be deleted to prevent legal actions against wikipedia. (deleted also in discussion history). I regret for the content.

see this link: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diskussion:Neue_Medizin&oldid=4862899

examples found: Some published statements have been deleted by his own supporters in the meantime and can only be found by the archive-service of google.com.

http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~klostewg/ANTISEMITISCHE-TIRADEN-HAMERS.HTML http://www.neue-medizin.net/hamer-brief-aktuell.html http://www.ansem.de/Hamer-Brief.htm

...Die Anordnung des Weltoberrabbiners haben nicht nur alle Rabbiner der Welt strikt befolgt, sondern alle jüdischen Großlogenmeister der B´nai B´rith haben ihre kleinen Logensklaven Chefärzte und Professoren angewiesen, den Massenmord an den Nichtjuden strikt durchzuführen, sowie alle Chefredakteure von Medien und Fernsehanstalten gezwungen, eine in der Geschichte beispiellose Erkenntnisunterdrückungskampagne gegen die Neue Medizin und speziell gegen meine Person zu führen („Wunderheiler, Scharlatan“) und alle Richter gezwungen, das Verbrechen mitzumachen. Ihren Weltoberrabbiner, den Ihre Freunde ja zeitweilig für den Messias hielten, wird man mal als den schlimmsten leibhaftigen Satan bezeichnen. http://web.archive.org/web/20040307100326/pilhar.com/Hamer/Korrespo/2003/20030103_Hamer_an_Denoun.htm

...Die Rabbinergerichte haben seit 22 Jahren keine Gnade oder Erbarmen gekannt, sie handeln in talmudischem Wahn, wovon sie ihre angebliche Erlaubnis herleiten, alle Menschen, die nicht jüdischen Glaubens sind, umbringen zu dürfen und zu sollen. http://web.archive.org/web/20040307101211/pilhar.com/Hamer/Korrespo/2003/20030423_Hamer_an_Freunde.htm

I do not agree with the content of these links. I publish them here only for scientific use and as source for further research. Redecke 00:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello JFW, I appreciate very much your asking for serious sources. A a "presumable influential" (but of course strongly critizised by GNM-friends) source I would mention Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft (German Cancer Society). In http://www.krebsgesellschaft.de/pressemeldung_liste_aktuell,9935.html (visited 2005-07-14 22:20:53) I read:

(...) Hamer und Antisemitismus: In den Schriften von Hamer tritt eine eindeutige antisemitische Haltung zutage. Ursprünglich wurde die Theorie von Herrn Hamer unter dem Begriff "Neue Medizin" verbreitet. Neuerdings wurde eine begriffliche Veränderung in "Germanische Neue Medizin" vorgenommen. Zur Begründung verweist Hamer in im Internet zugänglichen E-Mails auf die stolze Tradition des germanischen Volkes der Dichter und Denker, der Musiker und Entdecker, aus dem Dr. Hamer stamme. Auch wolle er seinen Gegnern zuvorkommen, die "stehlen wie die Raben", so dass am Ende "dieses wunderbare Göttergeschenk [die GNM] dann vielleicht jüdische Neue Medizin" hieße. Weiter führt Hamer aus: " Es ist doch so: Die jüdische Religion teilt bekanntlich alles ein in gutartig u. bösartig, so auch in der jüdischen sog. Schulmedizin. Wir Nichtjuden werden gezwungen, weiterhin die jüdische Schulmedizin zu praktizieren mit Chemo, Morphium....- die die Juden selbst aber seit 20 Jahren nicht mehr praktizieren." (www.AGPF.de/Hamer.htm). An anderer Stelle wird die absurde Behauptung aufgestellt, dass Juden sich nach der "Germanischen Neuen Medizin" behandeln ließen und deshalb Krebs zu 98% überlebten, während 95 % der schulmedizinisch Betreuten daran stürben. Diese Sätze entlarven sich selbst als klarer, dumpf-dümmlicher Antisemitismus.

There are several hints for a paranoid affection (I'm not sure, if this is correct english), and therefore I am not sure, if Hamer's anti-semitic outlets would really be understood as such by court. Please make your own conclusions. --RainerSti 08:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The previous version included this as a section:

==Antisemitism claims==
The conflict between supporters and opponents of Hamer's pretensions, at the base of which what "biological laws" lays, has become more acrimonious over the years, with Hamer being accused of using anti-semitic terminology and claiming that a genocidal Zionistic conspiracy wants him silenced. According to Hamer, Jews cure themselves with the German New Medicine and prevent non-Jews from using it. He says the doctors of official medicine are guilty of the "most hideous crime in the whole history of mankind". However Hamer clearly explains that he is neither an antisemite nor a racist nor a religious fanatist but a subject to denouncing. Hamer explains that "he wants to help anyone, no matter who it is" and "crime is a crime no matter, if it is done by Chineses, Esquimaus, or in this case, Jews. And it's notable to say, that there have never been any comments from Hamer against the Semitic race nor against Jews in general. http://www.nuovamedicina.com/biografia.asp "Hamer's Official biography, with his letters on an alleged Jewish conspiracy" (italian)

This needs sorting out, if only to rewrite in good enough English that the rest of us can understand. Frankly if he really collectively described all Jewish people as "cure themselves with the German New Medicine and prevent non-Jews from using it", then it really is not for him to start excusing himself as "Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism, also known as judeophobia) is prejudice and hostility toward Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group." So would need someone fluent in Italian to tell us what that article really states, as Google's automated translation is difficult to read (Altavista's Babel Fish makes complete hash of it). David Ruben Talk 02:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I took out the section on Anti-Semitism for now--it was simply too problematic as it was. A serious charge was made against Hamer's character with poor sourcing. Even if there are published sources, we don't know if these were off-hand remarks taken out of context, or whether they represent a genuine conviction on his part. Given that he explicitly denies anti-semitism, I think the discussion needs to be handled in more carefully. I am open to other points of view, and am very willing to discuss this further.Hickorybark (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
oki doke... although hamer quite often says that jews control the pharmaceutical industry, while one could think that the consumers (those that pay for medication, because they trust their MDs...) do... but: at least in germany i could not choose a health insurance, that doesnt pay for "wild therapies" (like electro shocks and surgery and neuroleptics and cytostatics(?)...)... i m puzzled... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm also puzzled. As a Jew, I am particularly sensitive to the anti-Semitism issue. But I can't tell, from what I have read, whether Hamer's comments were just careless remarks blown up out of proportion by his detractors. This is what seems to be the case. Certainly the remarks were unfortunate and mis-informed, but I don't get the sense that they accurately reflect his views, given that he specifically denies anti-Semitism and there doesn't seems to be any evidence that he refuses to treat Jews, for example. We live at a time when real anti-Semitism, and especially hostility toward Israel as the Jewish state, is sky-rocketing. In numerous countries it is punishable by death to sell land to Jews, for example. And our own current Administration in America has exerted tremendous pressure to selectively restrict housing construction for Jews in East Jerusalem and the West Bank territories, with the assumption that any areas governed by a proposed Palestinian state will be Judenrein. This is anti-Semitism. I don't see that Hamer's remarks warrant a whole section accusing him of anti-Semitism. This may just be a slander promoted by his enemies, which I don't think Wikipedia should participate in. But I am open to other views, if anyone feels strongly that the section should be reinstated in some form.Hickorybark (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

rv feb 1, 2006

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Hamer has never published in a scientific way. Side effects of cancer treatments are often dangerous, but at the same time they offer a real chance for any patient. A spontaneous remission is a very rare situation (1 case out of 50000-100000). And: wikipedia is not the place for opinions ( ... society is not ready for his theories...) Redecke 23:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understood Hamer's theory, his special psychotherapy triggers the procedures that lead to "spontaneous remission". There is no evidence, that psychiatric conditions are not correlated with tumor events. But there is a scandinavian study, that shows that the diagnosis depression is not correlated with the diagnosis breast cancer, which is exactly what Hamer predicts, since in his theory psychiatric diagnosis and oncological diagnosis is just the open visible manifestation of the deeper psychological problem, and that different patients show different manifestations. By the way: What does "society is not ready for his theories" mean? They dont deserve them or what? At least I would need a thorough study about the life expectancy of patients who chose Hamer's therapy concept, before I can believe one side or the other... --213.54.79.116 09:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I realize this discussion is old, but it raises important issues. Certainly Hamer's theories could be directly tested in at least this sense: the outcomes from a group of patients following the Hamer protocols could be compared to the outcomes from conventional medicine. I understand that records seized by prosecutors showed that 95% of Hamer's cancer patients were still alive after 5 years. I'll try to locate a reference.Hickorybark (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
i read that, 2... in 2004... and was so puzzled that i decided to ask the austrian authorities... since then i have a letter of the magistrate court Vienna (Bezirksgericht Wiener Neustadt) (date: 2004-10-25) (docket# 4 U 237/96) that states, that they must not talk about the ongoing process, and that they never said publicly that 95% of hamer's cancer patients survived >5yrs as far as they know... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

POV? Trivia? NPOV? Important fact?

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Since when do we talk here about

  1. guardianship court's patients?
  2. un-mature patients?
  3. Hamer approaching a patient himself?
  4. uninformed patients (where did they get the initial diagnose?)?

I think it is very very important to see, that the patients of Hamer are not forced by him, but that they decide according their own free will to reject the universitary medicine! Furthermore there are cases of suicide after the diagnose "cancer" was learned, so that rejecting universitary medicine is nothing special and nothing Mr. Hamer can do about. Thanks! --213.54.79.116 08:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

the content of this article should not be based on webpages of a sect. the final judgments of several courts concerning hamer are clear. Redecke 13:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Did he use his patented psycho-manipulator or what? --213.54.79.116 15:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

edits by user Ekem

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  • Hamer is a former physician, now living in spain.
  • Dirk-Hamer-Syndrome. About this syndrome nothing is know for sure.

Ekem wrote: (i cite)...The effect on the brain can be demonstrated by MRI where a specific focal alteration (Hamer's focus, or “Hamerscher Herd”) is apparent....this is not true, even from the POV of hamers supporters because they claim that such a DHS should always be visibile in CT brain scans, but not in any MRI. It is a fact that hamer never tried to prove his CT ring artefacts by comparing them to any MRI scan. I worked (after my study of human medicine) in radiology several years, and i know these ring artefacts very well. I worked also with a Somatom of Siemens. Ring artefacts can occur in older ct scanners if:

  • the calibration procedure at the beginning of operation was not done
  • one or several sensors are not working properly
  • an if in different scans, these rings are seen in different positions

a CT scan showing an alleged DHS can be seen here on a private webpage of a Hamer supporter: http://www.pilhar.com/Hamer/Korrespo/2005/20050808_Beisswenger_GlaubeWissenWeisheit.htm Siemens (manufacturer of the CT scanner Somatom, popular here in Germany over many years, wrote a paper about how to identify ring artefacts. One (out of many) sign is the fact that in ring artefacts you will always see perfect concentring rings. The paper can be seen here: http://www.pilhar.com/Hamer/NeuMed/Zertif/891222og.htm

the CT brain scan shows exactly these concentric ring artefacts. Another page telling us about ring artefacts is this one: http://www.medcyclopaedia.com/library/topics/volume_i/r/ring_artefact/gring_artefact_fig1.aspx?s=ring%20artefact&scope=&mode=1 Michael Redecke 14:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have zero arguments with any changes that keep the article objective. I would think, however, that he is a physician, because he graduated and the University has not revoked his degree. My changes stated clearly that the court revoked his licence to practice, but there is no evidence that his "Doctor of Medicine" degree has been revoked. Regarding the "Hamer's focus" I was simply trying to present Hamer's thesis. Is it necessary to inject in each sentence some qualifier? The removal of the reference to Hamer's focus omits now valuable information. Let us put this back and make sure that the language indicates that their presence is controversial. I believe that this is better than omitting information.Ekem 14:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
again, you inserted an error. please show any MRI showing one of these DHS. Hamer and his supporter clearly mean CT-scans, and not MRI-scans ! Please check your edits before inserting them, we need more precision in this article. you did not read my comments or you are ignoring them (and also the claims of Hamer himself). These DHS do not exist simply, they are artefacts (i recognized them immediately, remembering them from my time in radiology), you may also take a look at the paper: [4] in which we read: ...the hamer foci on the ct images in hamers books have been identified by radiological experts as typical artefacts produced by the radiological device which can appear in a poor-quality ct scan...In Germany people with a certain amount of jail-time loose automaticly their right to use their title, i agree with the word banned. I don't know the situation in US or England. Michael Redecke 15:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

ABOUT VERIFICATION. Fist at all, my english is not good, and will try to my best. When Dr. Hamer present his hipotesis on the University he worked, these hipotesis never were verified as correct or incorrect because Univerty rejected the verification. So, if something is incorrect, well, it must be verified at begining. Besides, there are a lot of no proved theories on actual oncology therapy. The most important of theme is METASTASIS. Metastasis has NEVER been prooved sciencely but it's used as universal truth. There a lot of not proved theories that actual Medicine uses as true althougt these one are never been proved in a science procedure. I understand this doesn't mean that Hamer is correct, but means that actual MODEL of medicine has to be reevaluated. Well soory about my english. Later I will try writing a better letter. V.C.

Hamer's own cancer and death of his son Dirk

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hamer said: ...Wie ich heute weiß, erlitt ich damals einen Verlustkonflikt mit Hodenkrebs. Damals kannte ich jedoch diese Zusammenhänge noch nicht, sondern vermutete nur, dass meine Hodenschwellung, die ich 2 Monate nach dem Tode meines Sohnes Dirk spürte, irgend etwas mit seinem Tod zu tun haben müsste... (http://www.neue-medizin.de/html/ein_vermachtnis.html) Hamer tells on his own webpage that he felt the first symptoms of his cancer two month after the death of his son. This is of cource a clear evidence that there is no rational link between these two events. Redecke 15:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. That is exactly proff for his theory. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.253.217.142 (talk • contribs) 2011-01-18T14:47:54 (UTC)

both r wrong: the dead-time between psychological event and tumor build-up (whenever that started) and tumor discovery doesnt say anything... it even might be negative, because -theoretically- some part of the brain might receive messages from the future sent by itself or god or whoever... :-) --Homer Landskirty (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"Hamer scalpel" story

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to the german newspaper "Der Stern", the Hamer-scalpel was indeed invented and costly pateted woldwide by RG Hamer. The money for the development came from investors. The german company Kienzle wanted to produce this battery-operated knife. But tests revealed that this scalpel was not "atraumatic" at all: it produced even large lesions when it was used "in curves", it did not work better than a normal scalpel. The investors asked therefore their money back and Hamer had to sign a "affidavit of means" because he could not pay back the money. According to the newspaper article, he left Germany for Italy because of his financial problems in Germany. Reference: Der Stern, november 24, 1983. Authors Teja Fiedler and Cordt Schnippen. Faxsimile can be seen here: http://www.ariplex.com/agb/a70205/stern_3.jpg Redecke 00:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"Hamer scalpel" story BUT why remove the link?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for your article, but why do you remove the link which reference that exists this " not "atrumatic " " scalpel. It is a reference, and if it isn't some bad-intentional persons could put it away because "it has none reference". A put it back.

Dear IP ! You inserted several times a link to a company that allegedly sells a "Hamer scalpel". Why do you do that ? We do not know the date of this list, we do not know if this scalpel is still sold, and it is not a reference to your assertion (without any reference) that this scalpel should be less traumatic than others. the link you inserted is a reference that this scalpel was existing or still exists. But nothing more. Michael Redecke 16:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

External references based on ad hominems and insults statements and ad hominem justification

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have removed this external reference:

It is based on ad hominens and insults about Germanic New Medicine. Please, take a look on this "reference" ans his "serious" approach. I believed that what you has written is enough justification for the removing: "...sites about charlatanism and quackery"

The part above is not by me and it is not signed. So I drew a line to separate.

The person with the IP "190.64.83.98" in a salami tactic repeatedly cuts out pieces he does not like and puts in pieces in favor of Hamer. We know that Hamer followers commit large-scale vandalism in forums and guest books. From what I see done by IP "190.64.83.98" I come to conclusion that this person believes himself to do it more cleverly than the other vandals. But it still is vandalism.

"Wehrhafte Medizin!" indeed is one of the large international sites about charlatanism and quackery. And it is the number one site about Hamer and his followers and about the crime they commit. No wonder the Hamer death sect does not like it.

But facts are facts - and all on that site about Hamer is proven by pieces of proof. The site is backed up with a huge data base to supports justice offices and journalists.

Zo'orIon 21:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Histeric and Exaggerating people

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As We:. can see, you seem completely Histeric. The Justice has put Hamer in Jail because his crimes, and now he is free because J:.ustice too. It means that Justice has spoken and has done. So Ryke Hamer has already paid his crimes acording to the LAW, that is what's matter, no simples peoples OPINIONS. And just now we learned using wikipedia's editing discussions tools, maybe you could thought that, instead of "vandalism act". It seems that Hamer's oppossitors are more paranoid that Hamer's followers. You behavior can make people think that we, the neutral people who try neutraly to put information about Hamer's crimes are so fanatic as you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.64.82.250 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-09T01:56:59 UTC

The part above is not by me and it is not signed. So I drew a line to separate.

Comments like the one above we see day for day. They mainly consist of primitive and foul retoric and plain lies. It is not a "privilege" of the Hamer scene to use them. It is normal esoteric hogwash rhetoric. You find it everywhere.

One of the lies is to declare plain facts as OPINIONS (see the stressed word above). By this all unwanted real facts are shoved away. And at the same time EVERYTHING unwanted is falsely supressed as "opinions". And at the same time all the claims of the very esoteric proponent are either levered up as being facts or (at least) as discussible opinions. Discussion about opinion is free. The right of free speach rules.

In this way utmost stupidity is made a discussible part of life (even if hundreds of people die because of it [as is in the case of Hamer's madness], whilst even simplest scientific knowledge is suppressed as ONLY being "opinions", "opinions these guys can have, but we don't have to care about".

The web site where I took the links from is teaching rhetoric analysis. No wonder why the esoterics and other charlatans and quacks do not like it. No wonder why the links were taken out and are defamed as being "spam".

The esoterics and other charlatans and quacks are easily to detect. Their language is foul stench.

Zo'orIon 19:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So u say, that people should learn as early as possible, to detect "manipulative rhetoric"? I personally found it very difficult to keep my own opinion, when I was under influence of psychiatric drugs and of certain people (like doctors of medicine and others)... Maybe u want to describe some useful methods in a special section, that help to think clear, when under the influence of other people? Or maybe u should link to another article, that is about this kind of manipulation? --Homer Landskirty 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hamer fled to Norway in march 2007

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

According to his lawyer (Joachim Koch in Schwerin/Germany) Hamer lives in a town south of Oslo in Norway. Hamer himself said in an interview (date september 23, 2007) that he left spain in march just one day before a scheduled arrest, and that he fled to Norway because that country is not part of the European Union. References: lawsuit Lanka-Hamer 2007, interview sept.23/2007 (italian),Hamer-biography at Esowatch (german). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.101.190 (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

See also: Kongsberg/Norway 2006: death of cancer patient Elsemarit Fjeldheim who believed in new medicine. She refused convential cancer therapy and died after beeing cured according to Ryke Geerd Hamer treatment.
Verdens Gang (VG 25) article date march 25, 2007 page 30 and 32
same newspaper, article march 26, 2007 page 12

82.82.236.120 08:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgeries and manipulation committed by Hamer's followers

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The page about Hamer is under attack by Hamer's followers. The reason is clear: they want to eliminate any kind of criticisme.

Today I weeded out a forgery concerning the fate of Christina Connell. As we are in direct contact with the family Connell we do know the facts and we do not allow any kind of forgery, not here, and nowhere else!

One tactic of forgery is to piece for piece substitute the text with more and more misleading parts and statements, until they have a completely different meaning.

Take this example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryke_Geerd_Hamer&diff=168475394&oldid=168132128

WAS: After she realized that Hamer led her on the wrong way, it was too late:

WAS FORGED TO: After she changed her mind and decided that Hamer led her on the wrong way,


We do know these tricks and we do not allow them. At this time being we are preparing a new wave of media information. Any kind of forgery or other crime by Hamer's followers will hit themselves badly. We are on their heels...

Zo'orIon 07:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Added, november 3rd, 2007:

Today I found the corrections and additions which I made yesterday destroyed by this person: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Homer_Landskirty

This is the person who had forged the above mentioned passage concerning Christina Connell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Huangdi


"Homer_Landskirty" writes about himself:

[quote] disclaimer I dont want to be responsible for what I write or do or say... Take into account my mental disability, please. Any advice (especially legal and/or medical), I might give, is worth almost nothing due to a lack of license... [/quote]

[quote] So u say, that people should learn as early as possible, to detect "manipulative rhetoric"? I personally found it very difficult to keep my own opinion, when I was under influence of psychiatric drugs and of certain people (like doctors of medicine and others)... Maybe u want to describe some useful methods in a special section, that help to think clear, when under the influence of other people? Or maybe u should link to another article, that is about this kind of manipulation? --Homer Landskirty 18:29, 8 May 2007 [/quote]

Please take care, that these persons do not again commit forgeries in wikipedia.

Thank you Zo'orIon 02:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I didnt chg (or forge), I just reverted your inacceptable edits (remember, please: u included threats in ur text)... I will ask an administrator to supervise the activities, that r going on in last days here... --Homer Landskirty 08:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

cleanup project (2007)

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! I think, I cleaned up the article sufficiently now. Especially I removed the claims, that Hamer is responsible for the death of people, since the governmental officials expressively say, that those dead people had no psychiatric diagnose (in that case they would have been incompetent to choose their medical treatment... guardianship judge would do that for them, if they dont comply to their MDs wishes...)... I fixed some wrong links... I shortened several paragraphs (esp.: biography... e. g. his patents r irrelevant since most relevant MDs dont like Hamer, so that they will refuse to use his inventions... I just left a short remark to document, that he did "doctor things" until his psychological trauma...)... I removed the "other cases" paragraph, because it was too bogus (20yrs of unsuccessful conventional oncology is too much for most people... with _and_ without Hamer I would guess...)... I divided Hamer's view on GNM from the view of "the others"... --Homer Landskirty 17:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you change that "The Tranva University has officialy prove its theory?. There is all over the internet the original paper of this confirmation, (of course that you knew it cause you are DOING LIKE you are a Hamer supporter).
If you change it you are saying that that paper it's a fake and that all the signed doctors are fakes singatures and Hamer has fake not only a Trnava university certification but Doctor signatures. So there must be a wide spand letter over the net with this doctors or trnava university directors explaining that this document is a fake, must'n It?. Or do you speak with any of this doctor or "heard from voices that this even exists" like Redecke user , whichs would be a primary source (not acceptable on wiki).
I recommend that you re-redact this and the rest of your "Hamer supporter" corrections. I am a Hamer supporter and have not touch the article in some time (althoug it is completly inaccuracy). I am not like the rest of Hamer fanatic and if this behavior continues, I will be forced to correct'em and use a strong-wiki-rules application that you, Hamer oppositors, know, that it will be no good for you.
I haven't done it because it takes time, because some fanatic make flame wars and some pseud-sceptics ("intellectual" peoples) use some "proovs", pseud-sceptics proovs that are cleared easily with some realy-sceptic proovs that take a little more time to do and refference.
So it is simple, please revert the article to the previous state (before your "corrections") or please call to all your friends like Zo'orlon and others like Redecke, who his contribution has another implications more than.... ¿save people from this murder? ¿Be this world a better place without these fakes?... well he takes much time and dedication....must be a lovely caring people ;-).
THIS IS NOT A THREAT BUT A WARNING, SO NEITHER OF US LOOSS OUR TIME (well except THE one which is paid for doing this).
Greetings -- By the way, if this continues I am realy calling an administrator to watch this article and at least semi-protect it, and watch all over the weeks and MONTHS that will last our flame or pseudo-sckeptics "change of opinions".--EkcedeR 03:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)ekcedeR
eh? Actually I tried to comply to the wikipedia rules... There were serveral things, that were undoubtedly wrong (e. g. wrong link to artefact (IIRC))... This "Trnava university" paper is quite badly misworded (in spite of this it is still mentioned in the article and I didnt see a reason to link to it, because it just says, that everything is in order with "GNM"... if somebody wants to see it, he/she can find it (as u say) easily somewhere on the websites of Hamer and his XOs and only there... due to the _verifiable_ structure of Hamer's theorems such papers have no much worth (u can most likely always find a "dead relative" conflict, so that u could always explain a whole group of cancer with Hamer's theory... those alleged austrian(?) studies, where one group had psychotherapy and the other conventional oncology, is interesting, but not sufficiently sourced...)... )... And where do I pretend to be a "Hamer supporter"? I was just sick of the undue weight, silly developments ("Notable cases" and "Other cases") and misleading information (it's not about archaeology here...)... What would be acceptable secondary sources in ur opinion? Those renowned cancer research centres with their papers and their brief and partially misleading description of Hamer's theories? --Homer Landskirty 08:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

the picture is surely not GFDL-licenced. It can be found on Hamer-websites, clearly marked as copyrighted. --87.178.52.141 (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the image immediately and requested its deletion in order to avoid any law suits... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Reno Medical Center

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sr. Redecke, if you are going to do undo, please do it manually by taking of what you consider that isn't referenced according to wiki rules. In your "happy" undo you have delete both, the reno medical center verification of the GNM and the perfect reference about that. So If you as the part of this job needs to erase something please be more carefuly. I suppose that you are going to say something about the Reno clinic, I realy do not know what, but I am sure you will come with "something" ;-).

Take in consideration that we are not writing that also Birkmayer from the Birmayer Labs has also confirmed hamer theories. Or you are going to say that the respectable Birkmayer from the high respectable Birkmayer labs is hamer friends? And in case it was, are you saying that the Dr. Birkmayer has lie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.64.91.27 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 5 March 2008

Proof of a method needs to be published in a peer-reviewed journal to acheive any degree of credibility. So whilst they claim to have been "confronted with an abundant amount of empirical evidence", it has not been published for others to assess. Indeed Reno clearly do not trust their own so-called proof of GNM, i.e. that chemotherapy is a wrong approach, as stated in their medical disclaimer "If you have cancer or suspect that you have cancer, please seek a thorough evaluation and treatment by a qualified professional", which rather suggests that they themselves would not consider themselves "qualified professional". About themselves "We do not seek to replace or eliminate traditional methods and, in fact, often incorporate such methods into our program", but that surely is teh antithesis of GNM.
So Reno claims of proof is not supported by WP:Cite from WP:Reliable source in order to WP:Verify. Provide reliable 3rd party references to the contray, but otherwise such unsupported claims do not belong in an enecyclopaedia. David Ruben Talk 01:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with David. This article may be seen by cancer patients, perhaps believing in what was presented as "the reno medical center verification of the GNM". There is no data presented on that private web-page. We know nothing about any publication, control groups and so on. It is only one more anecdote, sorry to say. This article should perhaps be protected to be edited by unknown IP. Michael Redecke (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

version 207770373

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

the version 207770373 is clearly the product of vandalism: repeated sections, threats against other wp-users and unsourced accusations... i reverted it... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

meta medicine

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

There is a bias new article created "meta-medicine" that has no contra-part explained that is so false as hamer theories. Someone should take care of that. Because if Meta-medicine is true then hamer theories are true!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.37.149 (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

i think, meta medicine doesnt fight conventional medicine so much and so openly, which is a big difference to GNM... the alleged danger of GNM comes from avoiding certain pain meds and certain surgery... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I must disagree, meta -medicine fight conventional medicine even more that GNM, they say that the process of a Illness is X, and oficial medicine say Y, and X is radical distinct from Y. Even more X is exactly what GNM affirms. For logical reasoning meta-medicine is fight in root what official medicine affirms without any proof(Hamer proof?).
Again, that article is bias and if it stay that way we, must affirm that if that article is correct then GNM is correct!. Do you think that Meta-medicine is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.8.115 (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
iirc "conventional medicine" avoids to describe the process that lead to the illness, but they try to treat symptoms... meta-medicine just tries to add a story, so that the patient can say, that he understood why he became ill, while taking the conventional therapy... obviously GNM tries to give the patient the same story... but that doesnt make the story true or helpful... if u could provide statistics that show that MM/GNM patients and their environment live healthier, i could think, that it is useful... but there is no correctness in natural science, because the human brain as a part of the universe cannot understand the universe... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you have not understood the point, Meta_medicine have the same root as GNM so it so true as GNM (not true). This is not signed in any part of the article, making it a bias article that can drive readers to believe that ANY of its argument are true. Why do you ask me for proof if I am the one that am asking to you proof (because you think that article is not bias, so you support it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.38.239 (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I dont ask u for any proof... why dont u edit the MM article or discuss on its talk page then? u cant judge over GNM's efficiency by referring to an incomplete WP article about something completely different (MM = explanation; GNM = explanation+treatment)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

yesterday's edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

in re yesterday's edit [5]: on that web page it links to, i found "after a 20-year battle with cancer"... so they (who beloved her) watched 20 years of malpractice by hamer? i doubt that this source is sufficient for WP and strenuously recommend to undo that edit... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

that page could create the false impression that criticism about hamer's theories is based on such accusations... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I agree that the source is not reliable and contains only a single, uncontextualized opinion, and should be removed. Including the case itself is a bit dubious because it is not integrated into the text (for example, if it were used to support a criticism of Hamer, or if there was contextual information indicating how Hamer's theories were followed by Ms. Connell as in the Olivia Pilhar case). I suggest removing that as well. --Regents Park (smell my socks) 14:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Third Law" section is possibly misleading

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The "Third Law" section contains inaccurate information about embryology and neurobiology. This is probably because Dr. Hamer is crazy and these are accurate quotes of what he believes. Nonetheless, I think it might be unclear to readers that Dr. Hamer has a poor understanding of embryology and neurobiology, and perhaps this should be pointed out more clearly.

In fact, all five laws might benefit from a good dose of parenthetical statements pointing out that these beliefs are inconsistent with mainstream beliefs about science and medicine. Fluoborate (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ryke_Geerd_Hamer/Archive_1&oldid=1130118928"