TG-1 * Transgallaxys Forum 1

Sorry Jason. Lost the first letter of your name coming back from spell check.

Posted by: KevinC | October 13, 2006 06:41 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jspreen: have you considered proving your point by injecting some incredibly deadly microbe into your body? If you live, you would get a teensy bit of respect. If you died, we can all stop arguing. win/win

Posted by: Baratos | October 13, 2006 06:48 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"They have no idea of how many of them I can handle"

--------------

Well, if by handle you mean "refute with logic or fact", since we've never seen you use either, I guess you would be right there.

As for you, DB, I haven't called him a hillbilly, dummy, or sheep, or anything like that... so, yeah. I do take the high road. I've actually learned a lot by looking into cancer and other things to figure out whether he is making any valid statements. So far--as far as I know--he hasn't made a single factual claim, which considering the volume of posts is pretty amazing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 13, 2006 07:17 PM

Of what? What does it represent?

Don't you know? It's part of the representation of nature as a battle field. Of a world according to George "Double You" Bush and consorts.

I do want to say that it makes me feel warm and fuzzy to see a scienceblogs threat making fun of a left-wing nut-job. Most of the time around here, it's the right-wing nut-jobs who get made fun of, since those tend to be the sorts of nut-jobs who most blatantly display ignorance about science.

(Unless js is in fact somebody who thinks W is too liberal or something like that?)

js, given that the germ theory of disease makes large numbers of predictions that have been borne out -- like, say, the fact that hygiene is crucial for preventing disease, and for healing wounds and so forth -- thereby increasing lifespans, and given that the individual small little thingies that cause the dieseases in many cases have been specifically identified, in what way does denying the germ theory of disease not make you as delusional as a flat-earther?

Or are you a flat-earther too?

Posted by: Rob Knop | October 13, 2006 09:32 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seth, I am incredibly honored and humbled. Thanks.

jspreen. 40 mph is indeed lethal to humans under certain circumstances. It isn't the speed that is dangerous. It's those sudden interactions with either nigh immovable bodies or fast moving ones with enough mass.

Posted by: Robster | October 13, 2006 10:51 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have one to post--I wouldn't even know where to begin. It's like arguing with my children about fairies or something.

Don't worry Tara, I know where to begin, just give me a hint the day you're ready to listen to the story. I can even make a fairy tale of it, if you wish. I bet your children will prefer it to dumb horror pictures like the one about the avian flu bullshit.

My story might start like this:

Once upon a time, in dark times when people were still very afraid of the same bacteria and viruses we know now we cannot live without, a man lost his son. The son, Dirk, was shot accidentally by a furious Italian prince, Emmanuel, and died four month after the fatal gunshot. The father of Dirk, Geerd was his name, was a very strong man who had never been sick before. Strange enough, he fell seriously ill only some month after what had been the most tragic and darkest moments of his life.
Geerd was a medical doctor but unlike almost all of his colleagues, he was also a very curious man and not afraid to let new and unheard off ideas enter his brain and think them over. "Lo!", Geerd said to himself. "I'm a strong man and have never been ill in my whole life. And now, within a couple of month of deep sorrow over the loss of my son, what do I have? Cancer in my balls! That is not a coincidence!"

40 mph is indeed lethal to humans under certain circumstances.

It's not the speed, it's the collision.

js

Posted by: jspreen | October 14, 2006 03:10 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And now, within a couple of month of deep sorrow over the loss of my son, what do I have? Cancer in my balls! That is not a coincidence!""

--------------------------

Lots of people will have a son die without developing testicular cancer. Other people get testicular cancer without having a son die. Having a son (child, relative, good friend) die is non-predictive of developing testicular cancer. Getting testicular cancer at that time was a coincidence.

All of use experience events that could be called shock events all the time. But these events are not predictive of health in the same way that exposure to smallpox or plague or even the common cold is. And lots of us get over internal conflicts as well, reconcile ourselves to life after divorce, learn to cope with our fear of heights, and so forth. But this isn't predictive of health either, not in the same way that antibiotics are. And spectacular single cases aside, for the majority of people who take them, the antibiotics are going to clear up that bronchial infection.

Hamer is a scam artist, like any astrologer or cold reader or whatever. He can't tell you that you are going to get sick. And he can't tell you, cold, what happened to make you sick. But if you tell him enough about you, he can seize on some event and make up a story about why that made you sick. He can't tell you if you're probably going to get well, or even what you need to do to get well. But if you do get well under his "care", he can take the credit. And if you don't.. . well, you didn't do it right.

Among the many people who did not use Hamer's methods when they had testicular cancer, we can count Hamer himself, alive today thanks to real doctors. Its sickening and sad when guys like Hamer--who have benefitted so much from western medicine--spit on people who have truly dedicated their lives to finding out why people get sick.

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 14, 2006 10:46 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How was his testicular cancer treated? What stage and type was the tumor? Testicular cancer is one of the most curable types...

Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | October 14, 2006 11:11 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

js -- in 1996, I was riding a Unicycle, and got hit by a car, breaking my left wrist.

How many people does that happen to?

A year later, I had a PhD in Physics.

This can not be a coincidence.

I urge everybody else out there to try it. Go on. Ride a unicycle in front of a car. Within a year, you'll have a PhD in Physics. We have solid, irrefutable anecdotal evidence that it will work, or at least good enough evidence that this hypothesis should be taken seriously. Anybody who laughs at this evidence is clearly closed minded and refuses to directly engage the evidence rationally, and is caught up in the groupthink of the establisment.

-Rob

Posted by: Rob Knop | October 14, 2006 11:39 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I do want to say that it makes me feel warm and fuzzy to see a scienceblogs threat making fun of a left-wing nut-job.

Rob, a lot of the people criticized by ScienceBlog bloggers are either of unknown affiliation (who knows what the likes of the thimerosal causes autism crowd belongs to), or are known to be on the left side of the US political spectrum (for example several of the posters over at the Huffington Post). It's only when it comes to the Intelligent Design movement, that it seems to be mostly right-winged people who are in the line of fire, simply because it seems most people who tries to promote teaching it, are Republicians.

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | October 14, 2006 03:16 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can I believe my eyes? Ha, ha, ha, what a pathetic bunch of hillbillies you are. I tell the first two paragraph of a one thousand pages story and already you folks try to hysterically hush me and proof I'm wrong.
Who are you? What big bones do you all have in the fight? Are you the people who are supposed to take care of patients, with tons of sympathy and love to spend? Hey Seth, you really are some kind of stupid scumbag to talk like that of someone you know nothing about at all but a few lines you read on the Internet. If I were to be severely ill, I'd certainly ask people like you for help. Seth, the doctor from hell, poison and hate for all occasions.

Maybe you have truly dedicated your live to finding out why people get sick but the way you speak I can tell you that you have not yet found out anything. At all.

js -- in 1996, I was riding a Unicycle, and got hit by a car, breaking my left wrist. How many people does that happen to? A year later, I had a PhD in Physics. This can not be a coincidence.

Hmm... I can eventually see some kind of relation between "death of son" and "father's testicular cancer", but between your accident and your PhD in physics...? Lemme see... hmm... hmm... Gotcha! Nobody ever broke his wrist after having been hit by a car and you became really interested in physics because of your accident, principally to find out which particularly rare mechanism broke your bones. Hence your degree.

But, why do you per se have to come up with baby talk to wave away the beginning of my story? At this moment I'm not trying to prove anything at all.

How come you feel threatened by a joke-blower like me? Why argue? You beat me hands down, all you need to do giggle.

Posted by: jspreen | October 14, 2006 04:47 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I suppose coconuts are migratory....

Posted by: complex_field | October 14, 2006 05:17 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Seth, the doctor from hell..."

"Maybe you have truly dedicated your live to finding out why people get sick but the way you speak I can tell you that you have not yet found out anything. At all."
--------------

Let me be the first to say that I haven't dedicated my life to finding out why people get sick. I was referring in a general way to how spreen calls doctors and medical researchers (like Tara, to pick one of the many on this blog out of a hat).

ahh... jan spreen. Never one to use facts or reason when insults and proclamations of superiority will do.

There are web pages (translated from the german) with lists of the dead from Hamer's treatment. Perhaps someone who is fluent in the language could do better research on this, but I have found no documented case where a Hamer patient survived serious illness, and many cases where he either almost killed or actually killed a person with his advice.

He was released from prison recently, I suppose because simply giving deadly advice to adults isn't a crime. But his claims are ridiculous... many people lose children and do not get testicular cancer. Many people get testicular cancer without losing a child. Hamer's theory is not useful in understanding testicular cancer. He is a quack.

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 14, 2006 06:23 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Maybe you have truly dedicated your live to finding out why people get sick but the way you speak..."

------------

Got a comment on this in the spam filter, but real quick, let me say that I am not a doctor and never claimed to be one, not even the PhD kind.

I love it when guys like Jspreen, who think nothing of calling people names and writing out his laughter get all huffy because I use a few strong words. If he says "What a bunch of hillbillies" its supposed to be clever, but if I say that Hamer is a scam artist (which he is) this is "poison and hate for all occasions."

A fact, jspreen. Lets hear from you one, single, verifiable fact. It won't prove your case, but it will be a start.

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 14, 2006 06:32 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I continued my research into this today, rather than working on my homework. What the hell, my job isn't that bad, why did I want that masters anyway? (and yes, for the experienced academics, I am nearing thesis phase... when procrastination becomes a true art)

I digress.

Jan Spreen, do you read German, right? Go here. Read the story, of how Erik took his friend Karmen to see Dr. Hamer, how for a year, her cancer went untreated. Read about how he asked for help on a "new medicine" forum, but how Carmen died anyway. Look at the pictures, Jan. See what breast cancer looks like. I warn you, it is truly horrifying.

If you do not read German (I don't) Google can translate this page for you, and you have to scroll WAYYYYY to the side on each set of comments. Its worth it, although some words don't translate.

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 14, 2006 07:21 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I managed to find some more cases. One of these is on a cancer support board, where a doctor brings up a patient he got after she had been with Hamer. To quote:

    I had to deal with one of them, a child with a Wilms tumour that that SOB watched grow so huge that it became 70% of her weight. When we got her she was skin, bones and tumour. He was still waiting for the "conflicts" he had seen in her brain CT to resolve! Thanks to chemo, operation and radiation shes a healthy adolescent today.


Could this be the same case where Jspreen claims the hospital handed this child back to her father with the injunction, "We cannot save the girl, maybe Hamer can, but you must promise not to tell anybody that I said this to you."

Or did Hamer let TWO little girls be eaten by Wilms tumors?

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 14, 2006 10:39 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This will be it for the breast cancer cases. They are quite upsetting. Anyway, you can take the following link to translate.google.com to see it in english.

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amamicha.htm

[ http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amamiche.htm English version, ama]
[ http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amamichf.htm French version, ama]
[ http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amamicht.htm Turkish version, ama]
[ http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amamichn.htm Dutch version, ama]


Apparently, Michaela Jakubczyk-Eckert died horribly on November 12th, 2005, two days before her 41st birthday. The photographs on this page are pretty horrifying, but not as bad as the ones on Carmen's page. The story is worse, though.

Anyway... what Jan Spreen will say is "dummy, idiot, fool, sheep, poison tongue guy person, Michaela Died of the pain killers they gave her in hospice" or some such thing like that. This is the same Jan who told us that you could, without ill effect, shoot coca-cola. I don't expect much lucidity from him anyway.

Just think, Jan. Maybe you were part of this case! Maybe she read one of your articles, and it motivated her, as you so fervently hoped it would, to drive to see Hamer in Spain. And he convinced her to stop her chemo, and her cancer became the horrible, creeping mass that you see in these photos. And then, when she was weeping with pain, and the tumor had torn open her skin, her back open and rotting, stinking of dead meat, she finally found the only surcease available to one who has taken your advice and died.

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 14, 2006 11:16 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm... I can eventually see some kind of relation between "death of son" and "father's testicular cancer", but between your accident and your PhD in physics...? Lemme see... hmm... hmm... Gotcha!

If only you had a clue about what anecdotal evidence was, as well as how irrelevant it is to supporting any case, you might actually see the connection.

However, "clue" is kind of an advanced concept for fringe nutcase theorists, so I won't expect it out of you.

-Rob

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: Rob Knop | October 15, 2006 03:54 AM

But, why do you per se have to come up with baby talk to wave away the beginning of my story?

Perhaps because it's obvious only from the beginning that your story is junk, and perhaps because the level of cognition behind your position suggests that baby talk may be the appropriate level of discussion?

I mean, treating your arguments seriously and trying to do a lot of work to refute them point by point would be absurd. Kinda like trying to seriously debate a flat-earther in this day and age; there just is no point. Some levels of tenacious willful ignorance warrant only laughter, not serious debate. Save the serious debate for issues where there acutally is some doubt.

-Rob

Posted by: Rob Knop | October 15, 2006 03:58 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Save the serious debate for issues where there actually is some doubt.

How wrong you are. Issues where there seems to be no doubt at all should be most seriously discussed when questioned.

Apparently, Michaela Jakubczyk-Eckert died horribly on November 12th, 2005, two days before her 41st birthday.

I had not heard of this case so I'm glad you informed me. Olivia Pilhar's case cannot really be used against Hamer anymore. She's alive and well some ten years after the events, her father has set up a huge Internet site to inform the world about Hamer's New Medicine and millions know now what really happened. Now the "scientific" cancer community needs another case in its war of hate against heresy. Michaela went to Hamer. She died. What happened to her before she went to Hamer? You can't tell. But it doesn't matter, who needs to know? Hamer killed the woman for sure because nobody ever died of cancer in a hospital exclusively equipped with doctors who never doubt about regular cancer treatment.

Yes, I read German. I found some more information. Interesting, you might want to have a look: http://www.faktor-l.de/viewtopic.php?t=929

If you question, look for answers on both sides.

Posted by: jspreen | October 15, 2006 07:45 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A fact, jspreen. Lets hear from you one, single, verifiable fact. It won't prove your case, but it will be a start.

Facts? I can give you thousands.

Here's one: A woman has a cancer in the left breast (mammary gland). Take a brain scan. Look at the outer right part of the cerebellum. You'll find the Hamer focus.

Beg your pardon? Artefact? Yeah, that's what people often say. You see, there are no facts, clear-cut one-way evidence does not exist. For anything. It all depends on how you look at things, what you let in, what you leave out. Everything can be explained away. That's why people have always been fighting, and will always continue to fight.

Posted by: jspreen | October 15, 2006 08:03 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You see, there are no facts, clear-cut one-way evidence does not exist. For anything. It all depends on how you look at things, what you let in, what you leave out. Everything can be explained away. That's why people have always been fighting, and will always continue to fight.

So is the world flat or not, eh?

Can you make a credible argument that the world is flat? Do you have thousands of facts to back that up?

-Rob

Posted by: Rob Knop | October 15, 2006 10:59 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Olivia Pilhar's case cannot really be used against Hamer anymore"
---------

Olivia Pilhar was rescued by the authorities. She underwent surgery, which removed a 6 liter tumor. The doctors involved are all on record as saying she would certainly have died without their intervention. I can use Olivia Pilhar's case against Hamer, because he almost killed her. There's actually a comment in the spam filter that addresses that.

Michaela's tumor was reducing under the chemotherapy. When Hamer convinced her to stop, it ate her alive and she died a horrible and painful death. The website you sent me too had exactly one critique, which is that there might be one wrong date in the narrative.

By the way, you skipped the story of Carmen. Her friend Eric posts to the new medicine discussion board how they are wondering why she isn't getting better, and whether anyone has gone through this and can tell them what to expect. No answers, of course, because anyone who ignores major breast cancer is going to die, which she does. Good job, Jan.

Hamer is a a serial killer, and you help him kill. Not one single person with a verified malignant tumor has ever survived Hamer's treatment unless they also recieved chemo and surgery. Not one. And oddly, thousands survive cancer with chemo and surgery every year without ever even HEARING about Hamer.

How do you explain that to yourself when you're trying to get to sleep at night, Jan? With pathetic psuedo facts about CT scans that aren't true, and wouldn't prove anything if they WERE true? Or do you just like killing people?

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 15, 2006 11:18 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Someday a cure for altie beliefs will be discovered, and become widely used. Shortly after, those of us who routinely heap textual abuse on alties be recalled with the same mixture of horror, shame, and revulsion that is today applied to the managers of 19th century asylums for the mentally ill.

Posted by: llewelly | October 15, 2006 11:33 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"those of us who routinely heap textual abuse on alties be recalled with the same mixture of horror, shame, and revulsion that is today applied to the managers of 19th century asylums for the mentally ill."

----------------

What, because we are holding them in tiny cages filled with human shit and beating them senseless? Sure, thats an apt comparison.

Jan Spreen aids and abets a serial killer. He makes up stories in his head to make that okay, to make himself special. But it isn't okay, and he isn't special, and I guess I just don't find him funny anymore. I put a couple of faces and names together and really got a grip on what he is doing, and it is no joke.

Jan needs to ask himself some tough questions, like, why is it that no one with a serious cancer lives without chemo and surgery, but many people with serious cancer live without ever hearing of Dr. Hamer? Why do all of Hamers patients either die, or go through standard medical procedures and live?

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 15, 2006 12:22 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Jan Spreen aids and abets a serial killer.

I'm well aware of that. Now, do you have any evidence that said textual abuse has prevented people like Jan from aiding serial killers?
I've been watching these kinds of arguments for years, and I've participated in much the same you have (though with somewhat less knowledge of the material). I began doing so, because at one point I believed such arguments would change people minds.
But I've seen no minds changed.

Posted by: llewelly | October 15, 2006 12:43 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I began doing so, because at one point I believed such arguments would change people minds.
But I've seen no minds changed.

Even if no minds are changed... it's probably worth the heaping scorn. If somebody else comes along and doesn't see it, they may come to believe that there is a legitimate debate.

If, on the other hand, a blog site populated by legitimate scientists dogpiles with score people like jspreen, it may help send the message to the un-knowledgeable lurker that they should not consider taking the nutty ideas of people like jspreen seriously.

-Rob

Posted by: Rob Knop | October 15, 2006 12:51 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I'm well aware of that. Now, do you have any evidence that said textual abuse has prevented people like Jan from aiding serial killers?"

-----------

No. But like Rob says, you have to show how silly it is to believe such things! So the lurkers will know.

I'm not knowledgeable, I'm tenacious. Finding this information has taken a lot of research. I don't read german and ALL the information is in german. Most people are not as obsessive as me, and wouldn't bother, but somebody probably needs to point out that Jan is a friend to murder so that the lurkers can know that too.

But I'm not heaping scorn. I'm just asking tough questions and showing people the bodies. And the tough questions are, why is it that no person who has ever had a malignant tumor survived Dr. Hamer's advice? In every case where a patient has survived Hamer, real Doctors had to intervene with surgery and chemo. In every case where there was no intervention, the patient died. Why is this? And why is it, if Hamer is correct, that thousands of people survive chemo and sugery with no Hamer, and go on to live extraordinary lives?

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 15, 2006 01:20 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Can I believe my eyes? Ha, ha, ha, what a pathetic bunch of hillbillies you are. I tell the first two paragraph of a one thousand pages story and already you folks try to hysterically hush me and proof I'm wrong.

Is there anyone who takes seriously the "You're arguing with me, therefore I'm right" line?

Posted by: Alon Levy | October 15, 2006 02:18 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there anyone who takes seriously the "You're arguing with me, therefore I'm right" line?

"Teach the controversy."

It's been shown to be a distressingly powerful line of argument. Perhaps not, "You're arguing with me, therefore I'm right," but people do seem to buy, "you're arguing with me, therefore my position as the same weight as yours."

That's why lots of otherwise rational people might say, yeah, I accept the evidence evolution, but we have to be "fair" and let the ID folks have equal time in our science classes.

Of course, by and large, most people here aren't arguing with js; they're making fun of him.

-Rob

Posted by: Rob Knop | October 15, 2006 02:41 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, by and large, most people here aren't arguing with js; they're making fun of him.

Yes, I'm sure you are! And since I'm making fun of all of you, let's have fun together for a year or so, OK? Let's try to find out which party will finally outwit the other. Because, after all, it's not definitely settled yet. You think that you win hands down but I think that you don't have a snowball's chance in hell against my ideas, preaching the funny stuff you believe in. HIV=Aids, avian flu bullshit, once a year flu vaccination. Ha, ha, ha, vaccination. A long time ago the nonsense started as a once in a lifetime thing, soon it'll be every week! Flu vaccine, get yourself a shot once a year. Don't be late but you must not shoot too early either, it might not protect you anymore after a couple of month, when you realy need the protection! ROTFWL, what a crap! Unless one's the manufacturer, of course. Which I am. That's why I write the things I write. Nobody will ever suspect me of being behind the monster poisoning campaigns.

With pathetic pseudo facts about CT scans that aren't true, and wouldn't prove anything if they WERE true?

You see? I show a fact and you bite my finger. You're ten times sillier that I'd already figured out. No, maybe you're not that stupid after all. Quit a shrewd formulation you have there. facts about CT scans that aren't true, and wouldn't prove anything if they WERE true That's bullet-proof reasoning as far as I can judge!

So is the world flat or not, eh? Can you make a credible argument that the world is flat? Do you have thousands of facts to back that up?

Did I mention something about my flat-earth beliefs somewhere? Why do you hop around from one subject to another on your Skippy ball? We'll never get anywhere like that!

Posted by: jspreen | October 15, 2006 04:19 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even if no minds are changed... it's probably worth the heaping scorn. If somebody else comes along and doesn't see it, they may come to believe that there is a legitimate debate.

Thank you, Rob.
Seth - and anyone else who was offended - I appologize for the comparison to 19th century asylums for the mentally ill.

Posted by: llewelly | October 15, 2006 04:20 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    And since I'm making fun of all of you, let's have fun together for a year or so, OK?

You sound like a 5-year-old taunting the local gangster who doesn't order a hit on him simply because the kid is too amusing to kill.

Posted by: Alon Levy | October 15, 2006 04:55 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After such a deafening applause I cannot possibly get away from telling the next two paragraphs of my fairy tale. Here they are.

~/~

One day Geerd decided to talk it over with some colleagues. He told them what he'd figured out and ended his talk saying: "That is not a coincidence!". A short silence followed. Then his colleagues burst out in laughter. "Oh come on Geerd! That's nonsense. Of course it's just a silly coincidence. What are you? A crackpot or something? If only you had a clue about anecdotal evidence!" End of story.
End of story? No, beginning of story. Geerd couldn't stop thinking about the remarkable coincidence. A cancer, anywhere else, OK. But in the balls? Isn't that about the closest a father biologically gets to his son? "I must find out more about this, see if there's something in it", Geerd thought. "Maybe I am indeed just being silly but maybe not. I want to know. Might there be some kind of relationship between disease and feeling? Between not wanting to see and becoming blind?"

Posted by: jspreen | October 15, 2006 05:03 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You sound like a 5-year-old taunting the local gangster who doesn't order a hit on him simply because the kid is too amusing to kill.

Glad you gave me the role of the kid. Now we also know where you place the other party. But aren't you just a littlebit exaggerating there? Doctors like gangsters shooting the five year old? OK, chemo and radiation are horrible but they're not like shooting bullets, are they?

Anyway, you got it wrong. It's not the funny kid and the gangster. It's David and Goliath. Mark my words.

Posted by: jspreen | October 15, 2006 05:14 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I show a fact and you bite my finger."

------------

Sorry about that. What I should have said was something like this: Jan, it is well known that older scanners, if out of calibration, can produce ring artifacts. The few documents that Hamer produces seem to describe only these "ring artifacts." In addition, no known, large scale study of breast cancer patients CT scans supports your assertions. So, this doesn't seem to qualify as a "fact", but simply an unfounded assertion.

In addition, even if it were true--which it isn't--that there was an effect on the brain of breast cancer detectable by a CT scan, this is not supportive of Dr. Hamer's theory. It does not show a causal relationship between the brain and the tumor at all, and without a real investigation with controls, you cannot simply jump to this conclusion.

I'm curious, Jan... as Hamer's death count rises, have you noticed that more people than ever are surviving cancer, thanks to modern medicine? Don't you have trouble sleeping at night, knowing that you may have contributed to the death of Micheala Jakubczyk-Eckert and others? Why do you think it is that no patient has ever come to Hamer with a medically diagnosed tumor and survived to tell the tale... except those treated with surgery and in some cases chemotherapy?

Jan, you are helping a serial killer find victims. Maybe you should consider doing something else with your life.

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 15, 2006 05:18 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, no known, large scale study of breast cancer patients CT scans supports your assertions.

I didn't tell you to search for studies, you dummy. I told you to look at patient CT scans. And you should read this again. Carefuly and without getting upset. Anger will get you nowhere.

Posted by: jspreen | October 15, 2006 05:31 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A cancer, anywhere else, OK. But in the balls?"

------------------

Jan still hasn't addressed the fact that many people lose a son and do get testicular cancer. Many people get testicular cancer without losing a son. So, yes, Hamers cancer (treated with modern medicine, I believe) is obviously a coincidence. Death of a son is non-predictive of testicular cancer.

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 15, 2006 05:36 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I didn't tell you to search for studies, you dummy."

--------------

Jan, your claim is simply not supported by any evidence. If I can't verify it, why should I believe it? Furthermore, it isn't true. There is nothing in that letter to add to my understanding of ring artifacts except one unsubstantiated claim that Siemens broke off testing that would have validated Hamer. But didn't. Because they broke it off. Whatever.

I may be a dummy, Jan, but I'm a dummy who does my research. Sadly, you cannot say the same.

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 15, 2006 05:53 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hamer, of course, claims that he has successes. But I have never seen any case of this. Jan claims in his letter that there are 8 patients (a far cry from the 3500 usually claimed on Hamer Hero sites) who actually survived Hamer's process back in 1981, but provides no other information beyond the simple claim.

On the other hand, there are real names and faces to attach to Hamer's victims. Care to explain that, Jan?

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 15, 2006 06:01 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I can't verify it, why should I believe it? Furthermore, it isn't true.

You can't verify so you can't tell.

... a dummy who does my research. Sadly, you cannot say the same.
Yes I can. Say the same. Word by word. But I won't. I may do my research but I'm not a dummy.

Posted by: jspreen | October 15, 2006 06:04 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You can't verify so you can't tell."

-------------

Right. Whatever. Jan, what you are presenting is simply not a fact, it is an unverified and unverifiable claim. Furthermore, those who have studied this claim consistently state that the images in Hamer's books are merely ring artifacts, and you have no evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore, we have yet to see any case where someone was cured by the Hamer method, but we have many millions of cases of people cured by chemotherapy and surgery.

And of course, there are those who tried Hamer and died. Now, plenty of people die of cancer. And no therapy is 100%... but Hamer's therapy seems to have a failure rate of 100%, even for cancers that should be curable.

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 15, 2006 06:56 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JS:

To my knowledge, there isn't an infectious microbe associated with testicular cancer or breast cancer. (Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, please.)

Assuming that is true, then even if a causual relationship between psychological trauma and testicular cancer could be shown, it would still be entirely unrelated to so-called germ theory.

Posted by: Edmund | October 15, 2006 07:27 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edmund,

You are correct there is not an infections microbe associated with testicular cancer or breast cancer. However, jspreen seems to think no illness is infectious and all disease is preceeded by cancer. For example jspreen stated TB is only found in people with lung cancer. You can check out the other thread for more details on that.

I do have a question for jspreen though. I did some reading an according to New Medicine the body creates a tumor in response to a deficiency and that it can be harmful to remove the tumor. I also read that if the tumor is removed then it will grow back to make up for the deficiency. Can you explain how a lesion on the brain leads to said deficiencies and how tumors make up for it?

Not to mention that the more I learn about New Medcine it sounds a lot like Scientology except the problems are caused by recent stresses instead of aliens and the key to health is treating these psychological imbalances. In Scientology treatment is called auditing and vitamins, I have no idea how Hamer treats these cancers.

Posted by: Laura | October 15, 2006 09:37 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did I mention something about my flat-earth beliefs somewhere? Why do you hop around from one subject to another on your Skippy ball? We'll never get anywhere like that!

Well, above you said that:

How wrong you are. Issues where there seems to be no doubt at all should be most seriously discussed when questioned.

Given that there is about as much doubt about the germ theory of disease as there is doubt about the roundness of the Earth, I think it only appropriate that we include a full and serious discussion of the reasons to believe that the Earth is flat together with your beliefs.

After all, it may just be the closed-mindedness and millennia of scientific indoctrination that have led us all to be sucked into assuming that the standard delusion of a round Earth is right, eh? There seems to be no doubt, so it's crucial that we have the discussion.

-Rob

Posted by: Rob Knop | October 15, 2006 10:44 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I have no idea how Hamer treats these cancers."

---------

Hamer encourages the patient to find the cause of the conflict and resolve it. Essentially, psychotherapy. As I've mentioned, the results are predictably tragic.

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 15, 2006 11:20 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hamer encourages the patient to find the cause of the conflict and resolve it. Essentially, psychotherapy. As I've mentioned, the results are predictably tragic.

Hamer's methods work for all those people that follow it correctly. If these people died it must mean that they didn't follow Hamer's methods correctly. You can't blame Hamer for that.

Hamer has a 100% success rate in the subgroup that followed his method's correctly.

Isn't that obvious.

You obviously do not have an open mind.

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 15, 2006 11:59 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aha It is similar to Scientology. Auditing or psychotherapy not much difference. Perhaps aliens really are at the root of all that ails us. Just kidding I don't believe in Scientology although curing a celebrity may get Hamer and Spreen some good PR.

Posted by: Laura | October 16, 2006 12:02 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hamer has a 100% success rate in the subgroup that followed his method's correctly.

I believe you are attempting to invoke something like a Dirac delta function?

-Rob

Posted by: Rob Knop | October 16, 2006 01:26 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, we have yet to see any case where someone was cured by the Hamer method, but we have many millions of cases of people cured by chemotherapy and surgery.

Once more you show that you never really read my letter to the Swiss shepherds at SCAC. Or otherwise you simply skipped the Burgau part.
Anyway, you have not one single case of people cured. People with cancer are never cured, at best they are said to be in remission. That's what you folks say.

Hamer's New Medicine shows a quite different picture of what we're used to think. People who start to feel better some time after chemo etc. are not doing so thanks to the treatment, but in spite of the treatment. Every person has several cancers during his life. Cancer mostly comes and go. Only when you start to cut, burn and poison things get really bad.

A man has a cancer in the stomach. Nobody knows how and why it came. But everybody is in panic and what do the doctors do? They cut the stomach away. Because, they say, if we don't, the bad cells will spill all over the place. Some months later the man dies. One more proof that cancer is sooooooo hoooorrible.
But it's not the cancer. It's the panic and the fear and the missing stomach. Metastasis is a tale for the mentally disturbed. It's not the spreading cells. Each different cancer is caused by it's own particular biological conflict.
You cannot help sick people if you don't understand why they're sick. If you haven't got the slightest idea why a man has a cancer in the stomach, you're nothing more than a wizard's pupil if you think you can cure by cutting the stomach away. Plus you're infinitely stupid if you think that's the solution.

Oncology. It's all about cells and mutations and chemical reactions and what do I know. But we're not just a bunch of cells governed by chemistry.

Posted by: jspreen | October 16, 2006 03:11 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, j,

"Let fury have the hour, anger can be power
D'you know that you can use it?"

Anyhow, I'm not here to dump on you. This is just too sad for words.

Posted by: Pinko Punko | October 16, 2006 03:31 AM

"we're not just a bunch of cells governed by chemistry."

=======================

And there you have it, folks. Proof positive that magical thinking kills.

I'm out. I have to spend these hours on my own research. I hope it did some good to actually show the bodies. I think that, while it may be really amusing to think about how delusional guys like Jan Spreen are, we shouldn't completely lose sight of the fact that its a dark humor, a joke with a body count.

It is also sad that bright people waste their lives on this crap. I feel a great deal of pity for Jan. He could have done some good with his life. Instead, he became the henchman of a monster. Sad.

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 16, 2006 07:49 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How was Hamer treated for his testicular cancer?

Posted by: Usnympathetic reader | October 16, 2006 11:28 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seth, the bodies showed how horrible breast cancer can be when left untreated (or "treated" by scam artists like Hamer). Alties often only defraud people of their money in most cases, but when they take money and let people die... Truly horrific.

js wrote,

But it's not the cancer. It's the panic and the fear and the missing stomach. Metastasis is a tale for the mentally disturbed. It's not the spreading cells. Each different cancer is caused by it's own particular biological conflict.

Stomach cancer is often caused by a "biological conflict" between the human patient and Helicobactor pylori and/or other factors. As currently understood, these factors include overuse of antacids, smoking (4x increase in risk), genetics, diets rich in nitrosamines (salted, smoked, and cured foods) pericious anemia, and atrophic gastritis. These real "conflicts" can lead to gastric cancer. Changes in diet, smoking, and treatment of H. pylori infection can prevent the cancer from forming even if H. pylori positive ulcers have been observed. Often, the cancer is treatable if caught early, requiring excision of the tumor and some surrounding tissue. If the tumor has begun to spread, the prognosis is poor. Metastasis is real. Denial of it is not protective against tumor seeding and progression.

When prostate cancer cells are observed in the bones of a patient previously diagnosed with prostate cancer, we don't call them crazy.

Blaming death on the diagnosis of a disease seems to be a theme with you. It doesn't explain those who respond to treatment or why those who recieve treatment have that bothersome tendancy to live longer than those who don't. With no proof that patients of Hamer live longer than patients recieving modern medical treatment, you have nothing to support your claims, besides calling others names, which you still do not perform well. Shepherd? Hillbilly?

You still have not responded to my comment regarding the American Chestnut in the other thread.

Posted by: Robster | October 16, 2006 11:43 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow! All those enthusiastic reactions on my fairy tale, I'm feeling a bit confused. You really want to hear more? Hey, be careful! Not too loud the cheers, my poor ears! OK then, next two paragraphs.

~/~

Geerd couldn't let go, even with all those happily giggling and tittering colleagues hanging around. One day, when he had become the chief of a hospital's gynecologic department, he made a decision. "I'm going to talk with all the cancer patients in my department as many hours as may be necessary. Let's see if something really relevant and noteworthy happened to them some months before their cancer was diagnosed." Some months later, after he had learned intimate details nobody had ever bother to search for told to him by one hundred and eighty patients during many hours spent at patient sick beds, Geerd felt lost. "This is too big for my shoes", he said to himself.
"What was too big for his shoes?", you'd ask. "The information he found put together.", I'd answer. As a matter of fact, Geerd found that with one hundred and eighty patients came one hundred and eighty relevant and noteworthy events. He further found that a particular kind of event led to a particular kind of pathology. As if with a particular feeling came a particular disease. Something like "I cannot bear to hear" and becoming deaf.

Posted by: jspreen | October 16, 2006 12:16 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what is the "event" that gives one mumps ?
Other that coming in contact, unwittingly, with a mumps-carrying individual ?
Use your gift of clear thinking on that one.

Posted by: _Arthur | October 16, 2006 01:17 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jspreen writes: "The experience of shock conflict is simultaneous or virtually simultaneous on all three levels:

1. on the psyche"
2. on the brain"
3. in the organ"

Given that the psyche (a mental activity) is manifested in the brain, the connection between #1 & #2 is a no-brainer. Still, there is no a priori reason to presume that such 'shock' can be visualized in a CAT scan as 'foci'. There's no denying that some parts of the brain are used to process "shock" but the *core* (crucial/central) hypothesis is that "psychic shock" results in cancer. 'Foci' seen in brains may or may not be manifestations of shock: That's a hypothesis that can be evaluated independently.

Whether 'foci' track with a particular shock or cancer cannot falsify the main premise: That 'shock' affects particular areas of the brain, produces different forms of cancer and that resolution of the 'psychic conflict' eliminates cancer. A lack of connection between foci and cancer or shock would only indicate that the identification or localization of effects to specific parts of the brain could not be visualized at this time. 'Foci' are relevant to Hamer's hypothesis only because he thinks he can use them to map psychic conflict to specific parts of the brain.

Or to put it another way...From a causal perspective, Hamer thinks that conflict creates:
1) specific forms of cancer.
2) specific foci in brain scans.


Whether #2 holds true does not inform us about the likelihood of #1. Remember, Hamer's core hypothesis, the connection that first got him wondering, was that shock produced cancer (i.e. stress of dead son = testicular cancer). He also mentions that women with "feelings of loss" develop certain forms cancer. The correlation he describes is between a category of stress and a type of cancer. That's the necessary, core connection. The idea that 'foci' are related somehow to cancer is a contingent, auxiliary hypothesis. If one can show that 'foci' have no strong correlation with cancers this would only demonstrate that 'foci' are not predictive for cancer. But that would still leave open the question of whether different types of emotional distress produce specific cancers and leave proposition #1 untouched.

Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | October 19, 2006 06:37 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robster writes: "Retinoblastoma -primarily childhood cancer."

The genetic mechanisms behind that are pretty well understood.

Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | October 19, 2006 06:40 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsympathetic, regarding retinoblastoma, you are absolutely right. The mechanisms of human papiloma viruses are also fairly well understood. js is grasping at straws to cover his ignorance at this point. You are giving Hamer far too much credit, considering his habit of reading artifacts as evidence.

js, what you don't seem to understand is that nobody is taking your claims seriously. We simply have far too much evidence in opposition to your unsupported claims. Why should anybody go bothering cancer patients to debunk claims of CT "rings" that others have already dismissed?

Now, a couple simple questions, asked before...

Do you buy into Hamer's claims that there is a Jewish conspiracy trying to keep his work out of the mainstream? Do you buy into Icke's anti semitic nuttery?

Posted by: Robster | October 19, 2006 09:48 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"repeat: find a cancer without a Hamer Foci in the brain and you've proved that the New Medicine is false. It's as simple as that."

-----------

Well, to do that, we just have to look at the brain with an MRI, because Hamer "foci" cannot be verified with an MRI. Thats because they are ring artifacts of the CT scan.

So, the new medicine is false, and we're done.

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 19, 2006 11:11 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you buy into Hamer's claims that there is a Jewish conspiracy trying to keep his work out of the mainstream?

There is no general conspiracy of the Jewish population but as far as I can see, there may be sort of a conspiracy of crooks and criminals. Anyway, why bother about conspiracy yes or conspiracy no? People are too dumb to think for themselves and understand the NM. No stick needed to ride the lazy brain sheep into the hospitals for their life saving chemo poisoning and radiation burning.

Do you buy into Icke's anti semitic nuttery?

Is he really anti-semitic? He seems to dislike the Rothschild family but I wouldn't call that being anti-semitic.

Posted by: jspreen | October 20, 2006 02:49 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, to do that, we just have to look at the brain with an MRI, because Hamer "foci" cannot be verified with an MRI.

Yeah. Seth doesn't look at bacteria with a microscope but with binoculars. Hey! Bacteria don't exist! I can't see them at all! It's a lie!

Anyway, during the repair phase you can't miss the cerebral oedema. Same spot.

Thus cervical cancer (repair phase) = Oedema in the cerebral cortex. Left side.

Posted by: jspreen | October 20, 2006 03:02 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jspreen wrote:

    Anyway, during the repair phase you can't miss the cerebral oedema. Same spot. Thus cervical cancer (repair phase) = Oedema in the cerebral cortex. Left side.


Details, please:

Whereabouts in the left cerebral cortex, and do you have any MRI scan results to verify this?

By contrast, where would (say) vulval, uterine or ovarian cancers show up?

What part of the brain would become oedematous in a glioblastoma?

Why would the oedema be left-sided, not contralateral or bilateral, and what is the proposed mechanism for cerebral oedema as part of a healing process?

Posted by: Peter Barber | October 20, 2006 05:40 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robster: "You are giving Hamer far too much credit, considering his habit of reading artifacts as evidence."

I am not giving Hamer any credit. I'm just pointing out that the CT artifacts are not critical to his hypothesis. He'd still be pushing the same notion regardless. As mentioned, double-blind tests would work well for testing Hamer's alleged cancer discovery 'acuity'.

Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | October 20, 2006 10:02 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

js, yes. Icke is an anti semite, and a toys in the attic nutters one at that.

I do understand the Germanic New Medicine. It is a fraud and scam perpetrated by an individual who appears to be out of touch with reality.

Posted by: Robster | October 20, 2006 10:03 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsympathetic, Understood, apologies. This would make for a good topic for a Skeptical Enquirer article. With the deaths involved, perhaps a Discovery channel special.

Posted by: Robster | October 20, 2006 10:07 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What part of the brain would become oedematous in a glioblastoma?

Ah, lieutenant Columbo corners his victim. You really want me to answer this? Well, let me put it this way: Your glioblastoma happens exactly at the location of the Hamer Foci mentioned above.
_______________________________


Why should anybody go bothering cancer patients to debunk claims of CT "rings" that others have already dismissed?

LOL ! History revisited, live on scienceblogs.com! What an incredible bunch of hillbilly nerds you are! Exactly like the guys who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because what it showed could not be trusted.

In "The Life of Galileo", Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei finds evidence that the earth revolves around the sun: the opposite of what the extremely powerful Catholic Church preaches. Because of this, he is facing a death sentence if he does not retract what he believes, and knows, to be true. In one scene, he has a new invention - the telescope - pointing at the night sky, showing previously undiscovered moons around the planet Jupiter. The Church says these moons cannot and do not exist. Several academics come to Galileo's house, and quote Aristotle, insisting the moons cannot exist, but refuse to look through the telescope and see the evidence for themselves.
_______________________________

I do understand the Germanic New Medicine. It is a fraud and scam perpetrated by an individual who appears to be out of touch with reality.

Ha, ha, ha! You haven't understood anything of the GNM yet. But today something is starting to get you, something has started to gnaw away somewhere deep down in that dusty "don't think for yourself!" mainstream brain. You asked for some facts. I give some facts. You superbly ignore them. Then I tell you "where" to look to find "what" but you keep looking at me saying this "what" cannot be found "where" I tell you to look and that it's all just a fraud and scam perpetrated by fools. Wow, your argumentation, man, if it's not the highest form of hard science, I don't know what it is!

Posted by: jspreen | October 20, 2006 11:38 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jspreen wrote:

    Ah, lieutenant Columbo corners his victim. You really want me to answer this?


Yes, I do - that's why I asked. And this:

    Well, let me put it this way: Your glioblastoma happens exactly at the location of the Hamer Foci mentioned above.


...is not an answer. So glioblastoma and cervical cancer both cause cerebral oedema at the same spot in the left cerebral cortex. Is this sign associated with all cancers? What is its relevance? What is the mechanism? Inquiring minds want to know!

Posted by: Peter Barber | October 20, 2006 12:04 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those CT "rings" don't look like oedema (aside: oedema could show up in MRIs). They look like artifacts from 3rd generation CT scanners. Here's a coral reef fragment exhibiting similar artifacts:
http://www.digimorph.org/specimens/coral_reef/

(click the 'About the scan' button for info)
Whether the coral is suffering from unresolved issues of a recent job layoff and small cell lung cancer is up for Doc Hamer to determine.

Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | October 20, 2006 12:18 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So glioblastoma and cervical cancer both cause cerebral oedema at the same spot in the left cerebral cortex.

Your glioblastoma is the Hamer Herd, you dummy. Each time you find a so-called metastatic cancer in the brain, you're staring at the Hamer Herd of a diseased organ. Each organ defines a HH location in the brain. You find one, you know where to look for the other.

Ah, shooting fish in barrels. I love it! More fish, more barrels!

Posted by: jspreen | October 20, 2006 01:50 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Your glioblastoma is the Hamer Herd, you dummy. Each time you find a so-called metastatic cancer in the brain, you're staring at the Hamer Herd of a diseased organ. Each organ defines a HH location in the brain. You find one, you know where to look for the other."

--------------

But of course, this is not what a Hamer Herd is at all! A Hamer Herd is not a cancer of the brain, that would be a second cancer, according to Hamer. The Hamer Herd is a result of the initial conflict, the secondary cancer would have to be a result of a SECOND conflict. The Hamer Herd is certainly not a cancer, because it doesn't look like one on a CT scan, it looks exactly like a ring artifact.

Jesus, spreen, its bad enough that you are totally ignorant about reality, do you have to be totally ignorant about your fantasies, too?

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 20, 2006 03:21 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess that the secret of "New Medecine", no research, no publications, just naked assertions, and the usual mumbo-jumbo.

Posted by: _Arthur | October 20, 2006 03:29 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder what part of the body gets cancer from the excruciating process of debating with Hamer Herdians? Yes, I just had to look it up to see what a Hamer Herd was.

DDS

Posted by: DDS | October 20, 2006 03:32 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origins of ring artifacts in CT scans:
http://radiographics.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/24/6/1679#SEC5

Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | October 20, 2006 04:22 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But of course, this is not what a Hamer Herd is at all! A Hamer Herd is not a cancer of the brain, that would be a second cancer, according to Hamer.

But of course, this is what a Hamer Herd is! According to Hamer what you call brain cancer is nothing but the "diseased" brain relais of the corresponding "diseased" organ. The three levels psyche, brain and organ simultaneously means:

"Diseased" organ = "diseased" brain = "diseased" psyche

Like:

stomach ulcer = HH in cortex temporal right = Rancor (RH man)

Posted by: jspreen | October 20, 2006 04:25 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"But of course, this is what a Hamer Herd is! According to Hamer what you call brain cancer is nothing but the "diseased" brain relais of the corresponding "diseased" organ."

---------

Which wouldn't explain why I can't see a hamer herd originally in a CT scan, or why not all cancer patients (even terminal ones) get brain cancer. You are totally contradicting yourself AND reality, no mean feat.

Hamer specifically states that brain cancer is caused by a DIFFERENT conflict, its a NEW cancer. Get your stupid story straight.

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 20, 2006 04:37 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very good link, Unsympathetic. And 3rd gen CT machines (the current standard) are especially likely to develop these artifacts. If you calibrate the machine, you get rid of the artifact, which might be hiding something important. I bet one could rig a test with a faulty machine to show a patient a ring artifact.

js, the only thing you have done here is show that you support a quack, whose actions have led to the deaths of many patients, and who is an anti semetic conspiracy nut. You have yet to offer any data or evidence, but it hasn't stopped you from claiming victory yet again.

Hamer's concepts of the disease process are bunk, as we have shown here. His foci are artifacts, as we have discussed here. He is no Galileo, any more than an orange is an orangutan.

But his role as an AIDS/HIV denier and claim to scientific knowledge (when you don't know the most basic definitions important to cell growth) certainly explain a few things about your slavish devotion to him. Yet another Ovis aries convinced that everybody else is a sheep.

Posted by: Robster | October 20, 2006 04:47 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hamer is a criminal psychopath.

Jan Spreen and the others who follow Hamer, do know about Michaela and Carmen. Both women were members of the "Stammtisch" meetings. At least they were closely associated.

In the site "Wehrhafte Medizin!" there are more than 25 web-pages about Hamer and the Hamer-idiots.

One of the most impoirtant pages, aside of
http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_ham7.htm
and
http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amamicha.htm

is the death list: 26 persons identified - out of more than 60 death cases caused by Hamer.

[Now, July 2007, we know of more than 140 dead!]

Until that list was published, the Hamer-idiots claimed that NO ONE had died because of Hamer. After the first version of the list was online (with 12 dead), that lie by the Hamer-idiots was not keepable any more, so this lie broke down. It took some time, but the lie broke down.

Although the pages are in German, there is no problem with the contents. In case you have trouble, call me in our forum:
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo

One of us made a web-site in Italian:
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~italix

We have a forum mainly focussed on charlatamisum and quackery,
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/

but also with topics like dangerous sects like the Hamer death-sect:


http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/board.php?boardid=17

Regards,
ama

Posted by: ama | October 21, 2006 11:15 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hamer specifically states that brain cancer is caused by a DIFFERENT conflict, its a NEW cancer.

Ha, ha, ha! Did you make it up yourself or can you give me a reference to a page written by someone who hasn't the slightest clue about Hamer's New Medicine either? What I specifically know about Hamer's specific views on brain cancer specifically, is that brain cancer does not really exist (neurones are not supposed to divide, are they?) but that what is said to be a brain tumour is in fact a Hamer Herd.

Brain Tumours:

Both phases have their HH in the same place on the brain, but show different conditions: as a so-called target configuration in the conflict-active phase (CA-phase), with marked crises always; as a swollen oedema in the conflict-solved configuration (pcl-phase). The oedema of the inner ring is called "intra-focal", and the oedema around the outer one is called "perifocal". These are however, imprecise designations for a thing that is very clear in itself. From the beginning of the healing-phase, it is normally possible to dye the brain to some extent with a contrast dye. At the end of the healing-phase, we find varying amounts of (neuro)glia in the HH stored there as a sign of the restoration of the nerve cells and synapses. These basically innocent (neuro)glioma were usually designated as brain tumours or brain metastases, but, in fact, they are healing HH's.

BTW: The silence of the profesionnal health care scientists is deafening. I reckon they don't even know where to start to make it clear to all how wrong I am.

Posted by: jspreen | October 22, 2006 04:12 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

js wrote, What I specifically know about Hamer's specific views on brain cancer specifically, is that brain cancer does not really exist (neurones are not supposed to divide, are they?) but that what is said to be a brain tumour is in fact a Hamer Herd.

Neurons are not the only cell in the brain. There are a large number of other cell types present, and they can divide and replace themselves as needed. They also happen to be, as I understand, the cells that give rise to brain cancer. Furthermore, as a brain tumor expands and grows, it damages surrounding tissue. Untreated, it will kill the patient. These tumors show up on both MRI and CT, which invalidates the claim of a Hamer herd.

BTW: The silence of the profesionnal health care scientists is deafening. I reckon they don't even know where to start to make it clear to all how wrong I am.

Oh no, you do quite a good job of it yourself.

Posted by: Robster | October 22, 2006 07:18 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"At the end of the healing-phase, we find varying amounts of (neuro)glia in the HH stored there as a sign of the restoration of the nerve cells and synapses. These basically innocent (neuro)glioma were usually designated as brain tumours or brain metastases, but, in fact, they are healing HH's."

-------------

You're right, I misread Hamer, there. Hamer denies Neurogenesis, and observed phenomena, and hence denies that brain cancer exists. However, you have falsified Hamer quite nicely here. According to Hamer, the only way to get over a cancer is to resolve the conflict, with a healing phase that will produce this growth. Therefore, all cancer survivors would, of neccessity, develop these false tumors if they had a Hamer Herd in the first place. They do not. Hence, there are cancers that occur without a Hamer Herd and by your own criteria, Hamer is totally full of shit.

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 22, 2006 07:40 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, all cancer survivors would, of neccessity, develop these false tumors if they had a Hamer Herd in the first place.

Which is exactly the case. Boy, you are long to get the point.

by your own criteria, Hamer is totally full of shit.
I thought we're all full of it. But maybe your home doesn't have a toilet.

Posted by: jspreen | October 23, 2006 06:05 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Which is exactly the case."

----------

Only if you ignore the majority of cancer survivors. It is simply a verifiable and verified fact that MOST cancer survivors do NOT develop metastatic brain cancer, or show any signs of it on an MRI or CT scan or any other test, and not all brain cancer patients show any signs of other cancers and the brain cancer will, if left unchecked, kill them dead. Thus, Hamer is, by your own criteria, completely falsified. You made up the criteria, Jan, and the evidence clearly demonstrates that by that criteria Hamer is falsified.

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 23, 2006 10:03 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You made up the criteria, Jan, and the evidence clearly demonstrates that by that criteria Hamer is falsified.

Ha, ha, ha, ha! Seth, you are by far the most illogical bloke I ever discussed with. If I made up the criteria all by myself, why should they affect Hamer's New Medicine? LOL

But now we must stop fooling around. The audience is eagerly waiting for the next episode of my fairy tale. That will be much more interesting than the discussion of the silly home-made arguments popping up in that foggy brain of yours, don't you think?

Posted by: jspreen | October 23, 2006 10:46 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jspreen wrote:"repeat: find a cancer without a Hamer Foci in the brain and you've proved that the New Medicine is false. It's as simple as that."

Later we discover that such a Hamer Foci, or Hamer Herd, MUST lead to a brain tumor, shown here:

Me:Therefore, all cancer survivors would, of neccessity, develop these false tumors if they had a Hamer Herd in the first place.

Jspreen:Which is exactly the case. Boy, you are long to get the point.

Since it is a fact that the majority of brain cancer survivors do not develop any secondary tumors in the brain, or show any signs of them in either MRI or CT scans, they did not develop Hamer Foci. Thus, the new medicine is falsified. It is as simple as that.

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 23, 2006 11:18 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Later we discover that such a Hamer Foci, or Hamer Herd, MUST lead to a brain tumor

Not must lead, you dummy. It is what others call a brain tumor. Check any breast or lung or stomach or liver cancer patient in any hospital. You'll find a Hamer Herd in the brain. That's the basic idea behind the New Medicine verification sessions of which there have been about thirty in the past. The most recent one was done in Trnava.

Posted by: jspreen | October 23, 2006 11:42 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big problem with that, js. You say that hamer herds show up on CT scans, but not MRIs. Then you say that hamer herds are what we call brain cancer.

Big problem. Brain cancer shows up on both CT and MRI. You contradict yourself. Hamer foci are the result of poorly callibrated CT machines. If you want to claim otherwise, challenge the Amazing Randi or CSICOP. I'm sure that someone can get a working CT machine lined up to expose the fraud. Won't happen though. Hamer is too busy blaming Jewish space aliens...

Posted by: Robster | October 23, 2006 12:35 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan,

Oh. My. God. I finally start reading this blog again, and I'm subject to this nonsense? I think reasonable health care professionals would respond to it, but they're probably cleaning up the coffee from their keyboards and monitors after laughing hysterically at your tripe.

I'd call you an idiot, but that would be an insult to idiots. Anti-vaxers think you're stupid.

Posted by: anonimouse | October 23, 2006 01:16 PM

Big problem with that, js. You say that hamer herds show up on CT scans, but not MRIs. Then you say that hamer herds are what we call brain cancer.

Why don't you do at least say 10% of your homework before you come back here to comment?

During the first phase of the pathology, when the causal conflict is active and the person under stress, the HH consists of concentric circles that are not easy to find on a CT-scan, invisible on MRI and swept away by main stream radiologists as artefacts. During the second phase, when the conflict is resolved and the damages is repaired in organ and brain, the HH in the brain becomes oedematous and can't be missed by any experienced radiologist on either CT or MRI.

I wrote it before:

"At the end of the healing-phase, we find varying amounts of (neuro)glia in the HH stored there as a sign of the restoration of the nerve cells and synapses. These basically innocent (neuro)glioma were usually designated as brain tumours or brain metastases, but, in fact, they are healing HH's."

but you don't read because you guys don't want it to be true. Why? What's so cool about chemo and radiation? Did you ever come close to patients who follow such treatments? They look great, don't they? Beg your pardon? They don't look great at all? Yeah you're right. Chemo sucks. So why hang onto it by all means? Let go man!

Posted by: jspreen | October 23, 2006 01:24 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

but they're probably cleaning up the coffee from their keyboards and monitors after laughing hysterically at your tripe.

You got it! I'm a very gifted clown and I offered my writing skills to a wealthy Chinese keyboard manufacturer. This blog recently almost doubled the global QUERTY keyboard market. No need to say that I'm very proud of my achievement. You can easily verify yourself. One cup of coffee and your keyboard's dead. Tea is not bad either but it's not half as good as coffee. And don't forget: the more sugar, the better.

Posted by: jspreen | October 23, 2006 01:40 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You got it! I'm a very gifted clown and I offered my writing skills to a wealthy Chinese keyboard manufacturer. This blog recently almost doubled the global QUERTY keyboard market. No need to say that I'm very proud of my achievement. You can easily verify yourself. One cup of coffee and your keyboard's dead. Tea is not bad either but it's not half as good as coffee. And don't forget: the more sugar, the better.

Yours is but a sad attempt to sound edgy and cool while throwing around 10-cent vocabulary words you clearly don't understand, mixed with a large dash of illogic. Never has so much scientific misrepresentation met with so much completely unfunny attempts at humor. It's kind of like a less serious version of whale.to

And by the way, it's QWERTY, you buffoon.

Posted by: anonimouse | October 23, 2006 02:55 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

js, Edema and cancer are not the same thing. An increase in glial cells and edema are not the same thing. Hamer is a fraud, and his concepts have been repeatedly refuted. Vaccines disprove all germ theory deniers, including Hamer. Animal models of cancer disprove his DHS concept. Cancer biology disproves his claim that fear causes cancer, as we have a large number of cancers for which there are known causal and/or risk factors. Hamer Foci are artifacts, as attested to by the radiology community, and the fact that they don't show up on properly callibrated machines.

If you want someone to disprove Hamer on a grand scale, contact CSICOP or James Randi.

Since Hamer's actions have led to the deaths of his patients, has had his license revoked, etc., he might be worthy of a TV special. I'd love to watch it.

If he doesn't explore such a skeptical and un fakeable challenge, then he is a fraud and a coward.

Posted by: Robster | October 23, 2006 02:55 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And by the way, it's QWERTY, you buffoon.

Shit! Forgot the correct transposition of azerty.

Anyway anonimouse, welcome to this little party of hate. You sound great and I'm sure each and everyone of your future contributions will meet the highest standards of pulp throwing.

That said and to avoid unbearable frustration among the less agressive and more comprehensive readers, I must now leave you and will not be back without the next two paragraphs of Tara's Fairy Tale.

Posted by: jspreen | October 23, 2006 04:05 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Not must lead, you dummy. It is what others call a brain tumor."

---------

Whichever, what is important is that EVERY SINGLE cancer survivor, as you've said, will show this brain tumor growth during the "healing phase". But they don't, most cancer survivors show no signs of a brain tumor in either ct scan or MRI at any time during or after treatment. So Hamer is falsified, because there cannot be a DHS without accompanying glial growth according to Hamer and we don't see this growth in all cancer patients. QED. Again.

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 23, 2006 04:42 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just had this thought before heading out of the lab... Lots of patients with cancers that have a high chance of showing up in the brain are given CT scans and MRIs. This is to make certain that the tumor hasn't spread. That these patients aren't all showing up with brain tumors during the supposed "healing" phase falsifies Hamer's concept.

The ones that do show up with secondary brain cancer (from mets) aren't the ones who are getting better. They are the ones that are most likely to not make it to see their next year.

Posted by: Robster | October 23, 2006 05:50 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, Seth, I didn't read your post before I put mine in. Same angle...

Posted by: Robster | October 23, 2006 05:51 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jspreen writes: "when the causal conflict is active and the person under stress, the HH consists of concentric circles that are not easy to find on a CT-scan, invisible on MRI and swept away by main stream radiologists as artefacts.

http://germannewmedicine.ca/documents/brainarticle.html

Hmmm... Multiple concentric rings centered on the axis of scanner rotation...

Now why would a biological, physical phenonemon like HH produce a *perfectly* circular or spherical pattern? The structures of the brain aren't circular on the scale seen in the picture. No communication in the brain spreads in a perfectly spherical pattern. Why would a circular pattern express itself across the gaps in the hemispheres?

Invisible on NMRI because...
...they're just CT artifacts?

Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | October 23, 2006 11:45 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey CTD, that's insane! I've been on it for days or even weeks, but with one tiny post you made the hillbillies run for cover looking sillier then ever!

We don't know all the exact details, but the scientific literature does include a lot of information as to what those details either are or might be.

Research questions remain in every meaningful field of study. That's what makes them meaningful.

R O T F L !!!!!! Man, I got tears running over my cheeks!

Given the initial quote Actually, we know a lot about how HIV causes AIDS you blew them to smithereens! Congrats!

information as to what those details either are or might be.

Science !

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ! What a crap.

HIV=Aids=Junk science

And also, of course:

AIDS = Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome

If you believe it exists, you have it.

Posted by: jspreen | October 31, 2006 01:19 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I've been on it for days or even weeks"

----------

During which time you managed to provide one falsifiable claim... which was then falsified. I have to thank you for providing such an airtight case against Hamer's new medicine.

Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 31, 2006 01:29 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

anonimouse said: "throwing around 10-cent vocabulary words you clearly don't understand"

In the event that anyone believes this to be a baseless assertion, you missed a prime piece of evidence for that claim.

If you understand why a QWERTY keyboard is called a QWERTY keyboard, how can you get it wrong?

Posted by: Vietor Davis | November 1, 2006 12:10 AM

which was then falsified.

When? By whom? By you worming through some pages on the Internet? Ha, ha, ha. Not only nothing was falsified at all, you don't even understand the claim.

So I write it again:

Find a cancer patient who doesn't have a Hamer Herd in the brain. You can't find that just by reading some literature like the Swiss SCAC sheepherders for lazy brains, you dummy.

Posted by: jspreen | November 1, 2006 04:57 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A CT machine takes images in slices. Layer after layer of images are taken. Since the brain is a 3D organ, pulling a single slice of a CT to falsify your claim would be pointless. You would just move the goalpost, telling us that we got the wrong layer. In fact you could claim that a dark blotch was the "healing phase." I also wouldn't be surprised to see you claim that a round structure of the brain was your focus.

Since I doubt that you could tell the pituitary stalk from the brain's infundibulum (trick question, they are the same), I'll go with the CT scan experts who say that it is an artifact that can be eliminated with calibration or repair.

You have the unsupported claim. Contact CSICOP and challenge them. The two groups can work out mutually agreed upon rules, and run the test. Put up or shut up.

Posted by: Robster | November 1, 2006 09:16 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Find a cancer patient who doesn't have a Hamer Herd in the brain. You can't find that just by reading some literature like the Swiss SCAC sheepherders for lazy brains, you dummy."

-------

I did. In fact, the majority of them don't, as evidenced by CT scans and MRI of patients who survive cancer.

CT and MRI is routine in patients who run a high risk of secondary cancer in the brain. Most of these patients develop no signs of a cancer in the brain. You (and hamer) claim that all patients will have to undergo a healing phase to their cancer if they survive their cancer, which involves glial growth in the brain that appears to be a brain tumor. Such growth is not encountered.

Dude, you gave us a falsifying test, we've falsified your claim. QED. Again. And, Again.

Hamer is murdering scum.

Posted by: Seth Manapio | November 1, 2006 09:40 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another falsification of Hamer is the existence of terminal untreated brain cancer. According to Hamer, brain cells cannot multiply, and so brain cancer is impossible. All brain cancers are glial growth to repair the damage from a DHS.

However, biopsied tumors are not made up of healthy glial cells. And if left untreated, such malignant tumors will kill the patient.

Unregulated cell growth has a name. Cancer. Its observed. Even if that brain tumor that kills you is really just a healing process gone wrong, it would still be unregulated cell growth. Also known as cancer. Which Hamer claims can't exist in the brain according to his theory, thus falsifying his theory.

I could go on. Pretty much everything Hamer says is falsifiable and falsified.

I suspect this is becauser Hamer is a serial killer--great guy to go to if you want to die a horrible death, but not if you want to live.

Posted by: Seth Manapio | November 1, 2006 10:11 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another falsification of Hamer is the existence of terminal untreated brain cancer. According to Hamer, brain cells cannot multiply, and so brain cancer is impossible. All brain cancers are glial growth to repair the damage from a DHS.

However, biopsied tumors are not made up of healthy glial cells. And if left untreated, such malignant tumors will kill the patient.

Unregulated cell growth has a name. Cancer. Its observed. Even if that brain tumor that kills you is really just a healing process gone wrong, it would still be unregulated cell growth. Also known as cancer. Which Hamer claims can't exist in the brain according to his theory, thus falsifying his theory.

I could go on. Pretty much everything Hamer says is falsifiable and falsified.

I suspect this is becauser Hamer is a serial killer--great guy to go to if you want to die a horrible death, but not if you want to live.

Posted by: Seth Manapio | November 1, 2006 10:16 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the latest figures we have, more than 140 people died a horrible death because of Ryke Geerd Hamer.

This is the dead list:
http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_ham2.htm

We think that there are several hundred dead, much more than 300.

Since the last post to this web-log thread we found MUCH new pieces of evidence.

So, e.g. we have interviews with former employees of Hamer back in 1985 in Katzenelnbogen.

The murderous Hamer mobsters all the time cry that Hamer wants a clinic where he can show the efficacy of his "treatment".

Fact is: Hamer HAD such clinics, where he could work undisturbed. What happend? Answer: his patients died like flies... NO ONE SURVIVED.

This spring one of us cleared the scene in Italy. He started the first anti-Hamer web-site in Italian. Newspapers made first reports with the truth on how the Hamer-scene kills patients. The attorneys now investigate several cases of death.

In the USA a group called "meta-medicine" placed a gigantic fraud, involving dozens of world famous screen actors like Geena Davis, Tommy Lee Jones and Ben Kingsley.

One of the breaking reports on our sites is about the "verification" by Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Hamer claims that Schneerson made a verification and ordered all Jew s to apply "German New Medicine".
Fact is: Hamer's claims are plain idiocy. We are in contact with the man in Paris, who is a victim of Hamer.

ama

Posted by: ama | July 8, 2007 09:23 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*QUOTE*]
.