banner dvd sammelmappe

allopathic – homeopathic – alternative

The medications supposedly symbolize the progress of modern medicine or what is considered to progress. Many patients are given 10, even 20 different medication types every day for and against all kinds of things. A doctor who does not prescribe drugs is not a real doctor. The more expensive the drugs are, the better they seem to be. That was a big bluff! The most stupid thing about it was that people always believed that the drugs would act locally, that the brain would supposedly have nothing to do with it! But practically no drug directly affects the organ, except for local reactions of the intestine when poison or drug is taken orally.

All other medications act on the brain, and their “effect” is practically the effect that the poisoning of the brain, or its various parts, produces at the organic level. If we leave aside the pure narcotics, narcotics, and tranquilizers, there remain two large groups of drugs:

  • the Sympathicotonica – which increase the stress,
  • the vagotonica – which supports the recovery or rest phase.

The first group includes adrenaline and noradrenaline, cortisone and hydrocortisone, and various drugs such as caffeine, teein, penicillin and digitalis, and many others. In principle, you can use all of them if you want to mitigate the vagotonia effect and reduce brain edema, which is something good, but in excess is a complication.

The second group includes all sedatives and antispasmodics that increase vagotonia or reduce sympathicotonia. Their difference lies in the fact that they have different effects on the brain.

Penicillin, for example, is a sympathicotonic cytostatic. The effect it has on bacteria is insignificant and secondary to its effect on the edema of the marrow bed. Therefore, it can be used in the pcl-phase to decrease the edema of the cerebral medulla. In contrast, it is inferior to cortisone in the other brain areas.

However, the importance of the discovery of penicillin and the other so-called antibiotics should not be diminished. However, this discovery was made based on entirely wrong premises and ideas. It was imagined that the decay products of bacteria would act as toxins and cause fever. Therefore, it was only necessary to kill the evil little bacteria to avoid the evil toxins as well. This was the mistake!

Of course, such effects also affect the bacteria, our industrious friends who are temporarily dismissed because their work has been postponed later with a less dramatic course.

However, one must ask oneself to what extent it makes sense at all to want to treat a meaningful healing process in nature.

Therefore, the Doctor of Germanische Heilkunde® is not hostile to medication, even if he assumes that most of the processes are already optimized by Mother Nature. Therefore, the vast majority of cases do not require supportive drug therapy. If the conflict duration is shorter and the mass of the conflict is smaller, no unusual complications are expected in the healing phase. There remain the exceptional cases, which would end lethally in nature, but we have to take special care of medical ethics.

Nevertheless, we will continue to lose patients in the future. However, we now have the advantage of knowing in advance what to expect.

It is true that it has not helped us to reduce the incidence of pneumonia by calling it bronchial carcinoma and that patients now die of bronchial carcinoma because we have only relabeled the “disease.” Still, suppose we know in pneumonia (the healing phase after bronchial Ca) that the conflict (territorial fear) has lasted only three months. In that case, we know that pneumonic lysis (epileptoid crisis = EC) will generally not be fatal, even if nothing at all is done medically. However, if the conflict has lasted nine months or longer, then the physician knows that the epileptoid crisis of pneumonia is a matter of life and death if nothing is done.

In this case, for example, sympathicotonics would be given earlier. Still, cortisone would also be used massively, which has not been done so far. Immediately during the epileptoid crisis, it would survive the critical point, which always occurs after the crisis.

It also follows logically and consistently that in the case of a new DHS or relapse, i.e., when the patient is again in sympathicotonia, the cortisone is immediately contraindicated. However, cortisone should not be discontinued at once but should be “phased out” within a few days or weeks. If the patient continues to take his cortisone, this will increase the intensity of the conflict.

But it would also be wrong now to give the patient tranquilizers. Because tranquilizers of all kinds only disguise the picture and carry in themselves the danger that an acute, active conflict will become a subacute, hanging conflict, and the patient may at any time be drawn into the schizophrenic constellation by another conflict.

If a patient has, for example, angina pectoris symptoms, then it is said: “Yes, he must get beta-blockers, he must get tranquilizers, so that he no longer has angina pectoris.” In reality, however, nature has set up the symptoms so that the conflict (territorial conflict) is to be solved and not so that any physicians or alternative physicians now work on the symptom and make it disappear. The more the symptoms are treated, the less the patient sees the reason to solve his conflict. Quite apart from the fact that he then no longer has any instinctive feeling for his conflict. Instead, one should always help the patient solve his conflict. Then he will not have angina pectoris anymore – with or without medication. That is just the nonsense that one always thinks that one has to treat symptomatically instead of causally.

Moreover, this does not help the patient. On the contrary, it is even very dangerous because if the patient should spontaneously resolve his territorial conflict later due to any circumstances, but the conflict would have been active for longer than nine months. The patient dies of a heart attack in the epileptoid crisis. In principle, one must carefully consider whether one may resolve the conflict or whether it is perhaps more sensible to instinctively transform down the territorial conflict as the animals do (second wolf), but not to resolve it until the end of life.

Likewise, it was evident that in one phase, which is fundamentally different from the other by all possible physical parameters, i.e., completely contrary, the same drug cannot “help.” In general, one has to ask: Does it help, please, in the conflict-active phase or the vagotonic healing phase? But this has never been considered in all medications so far. And the whole matter naturally becomes more complicated when several biological conflicts run simultaneously and perhaps even in different phases.

In gout, for example, an active collective tube carcinoma, that is, an existential/refugee conflict and leukemia, the healing phase of a self-esteem conflict, or in the case of bulimia, a combination of two active conflicts, hypoglycemia and gastric ulcer.

Which medication, bead, droplet, or powder is supposed to work there, how, where, and where? Maybe it just manages to make one or the other symptom disappear, but there can never be any question of a real medicinal effect or even a cure.

The same applies to high blood pressure, which can be artificially lowered with medication, but which has the purpose in the case of fluid conflict. For example, to functionally compensate for the hole in the kidney tissue formed by necrosis in the conflict-active phase, sufficient urine and urea can be excreted. But as long as the conflict is active, blood pressure also remains elevated. Only with the resolution of the conflict and cyst formation in the healing phase, the blood pressure lowers again all by itself, and even with prolonged courses of conflict still to age-appropriate values – and all this without medication.

It is also essential to know in all pcl-phases whether the symptoms disappear because of complete healing or because of a new recurrence, which also feigns an apparent improvement. The pseudo-therapy with cell poisons (chemo) administered in such pcl-phases, booked itself here, unjustified symptomatic “successes,” by stopping the sensible healing symptoms, under acceptance of most severe poisoning of the whole organism, nonsensically.

But also, all so-called alternative methods have one thing in common with symptom medicine. Whether they dose homeopathically or whether they dose allopathically, i.e., give a lot of substance or give little substance. Whether they give muesli or give mistletoe or give oxygen, macrobiotics, or Bach flowers or all kinds of things, that all means should work symptomatically – allegedly. In reality, the only thing that works is through the brain, and that is neglected.

Arguments like: “Mr. Hamer, you can not measure the soul, or what can you have against Bach flowers, they work through the soul…..”. To this, I can only say: Of course, I can measure the soul. I can see that a person in a particular conflict, which is a mental process, has a corresponding focus in a particular place in the brain and a corresponding change in the organ. With this, I have determined or limited the soul. I do not need to measure it quantitatively, but I can prove it scientifically.

And, of course, there are also so-called placebo effects. If a drug is “sold well” to a patient, that alone makes it 80% effective. However, this does not mean that the substance works somehow, but only that the people believe in it. Even if one does something good for the patient with a good heart, this also works, no matter how we name the procedure.

Our error was based on the fact that we always thought that we had to do something, e.g., medicamentous, whether in large doses or only with one molecule. But we see that in 80-90% of sick animals, there is spontaneous healing – without any medicine.

Beyond that, also once the question is allowed, how one can solve then with any means, e.g., a conflict, if this is nevertheless, as we know now, the most crucial criterion. How should we be able to produce a sensible special program of nature at all with things? If we could, then here with the things. But we can’t. That doesn’t exist. Certain substances can have only a healing phase supporting effect (relief), e.g., cough syrup, but never a healing effect in the previous supposed understanding, because the healing phase has already begun with the beginning of the conflict resolution.

Germanische Heilkunde® is not a sub-discipline that could limit itself only to, e.g., conflict resolution and delegate complications to other sub-disciplines. Still, it is a comprehensive medicine that has to keep in mind all steps of the disease’s course on the psychic, cerebral and organic level.

The doctor of Germanische Heilkunde® is also in demand as an all-embracing educated, humanly qualified “medical criminologist.” The therapy of the future consists least of all in the administration of medicines, but mostly because the patient learns to understand the cause of his biological conflict and his so-called disease. Together with his doctor, he finds the best way to get out of this conflict or to avoid stumbling into it in the future. Of course, such a doctor would use all helpful possibilities, also medicinal and surgical, with the patient, but only – if necessary, e.g., to avoid possible complications in the natural healing process, and he would do this also with himself.

Germanische Heilkunde® is complete in itself. It is based solely on 5 Biological Laws of Nature – without a single hypothesis, and was verified by the University of Trnava (Slovakia) on September 8/9, 1998 and officially confirmed on September 11, 1998. So, if we wanted to adopt anything, it would have to be in accordance with these 5 Natural Laws of Germanische Heilkunde®.

But as long as there are still people who think that we can strengthen the immune system, e.g., with medicines, I can only say that they have not understood Germanische Heilkunde®.

In the previous conventional medicine, including alternative medicine, all have “successes.” It was imagined that the more correct the choice of medicines, the greater these successes would be. But success is not earned by doctors, naturopaths, alternative practitioners, or other therapists, but primarily by the patient himself. Likewise, he programs himself the failure because both the success and the failure always necessarily run according to the 5 Biological Laws of Nature of Germanische Heilkunde®.

Articles & Testimonials on the Topic