Part 5: Comparison of the New Medicine and conventional view
German New Medicine
Part 5: Comparison of German New Medicine and the conventional view
Let’s consider the differences in diagnosis, disease causation and treatment. Conventionally, a person might get a cancer or serious disease diagnosis, and considering the way we normally view such diseases and all their ramifications, would naturally cause them to experience an emotional trauma.
By contrast, according to German New Medicine, one might view this disease process in a very different light, not as a death sentence but as a challenge to understand the symbolic meaning that this disease manifestation is attempting to express.
One would take up the cause of deep understanding, looking to New Medicine’s differential diagnosis to find out which phase the disease is in, and from there set about pursuing appropriate support. The insight provided by New Medicine not only provides a meaningful framework within which to understand the diagnosis, but also supports the person’s confidence and perseverance through the sometimes difficult healing phase.
As for causes, conventional medicine recognizes certain carcinogens such as radiation and chemical treatments, but New Medicine recognizes that the shock of an existing cancer itself may cause cancer. This explains the notion of metastasis, which according to New Medicine is not a spreading of cancer, but actual new cancers that develop in the same way, the result of a new conflict that a person with cancer experiences because of the fear and anguish of knowing one has cancer.
According to German New Medicine, the cause is always the DHS, which forms according to the way a person perceives the basic biological threat.
Let’s consider treatment. We know chemotherapy and radiation are the mainstay of the conventional approach. Instead of attacking and destroying tissue, New Medicine would explore the causal biological conflict, and heal its mental/emotional underpinnings, which in turn triggers the healing phase, allowing for the natural unfolding and resolution of the disease on the organic level.
The various biological programs running at the same time can be numerous, which can complicate matters. But on the other side of coin, the competent practitioner of New Medicine isn’t bogged down by “clinical nonsense that hampers scholastic medicine”, as Dr. Hamer puts it. The practitioner works with the patient as a partner to solve the puzzle of the “biological programs” that s/he is running.
French physician Dr. Michel Henrard in “The Discoveries of Dr. R. G. Hamer: The Biological Laws” says, “Classical [conventional] diagnosis is like examining the floating part of an iceberg: the examination, essentially descriptive, of all apparent symptoms without taking into account their origin, their links with the patient’s history and the universality of the suffering being.
The change would consist in investigating the three levels of the triad [psyche, brain and organ], in order to better understand all of the manifestations and to see which phase of the disease one is in.
Therapeutics derive from the complete understanding of the case, which allows to better know what one is exactly doing. Our intention is not to debate on the intrinsic value of one or another technique, and a priori all
therapeutic means must be considered. First, one has to know which phase of his disease the patient is in, and next, one has to “treat” him at the three levels: psychic, cerebral, and organic.
On the psychic level it means to solve his conflict if it is not done yet…On the cerebral level, one will look after eventual complications due to the compression phenomena of the nervous tissue following the transient edema in the repairing center… On the organic level, it may be necessary to call on various drugs or methods to relieve, but avoiding to interfere too much in the reparation process: for instance, pain, or too important or inconvenient infections, and all the functional disorders risky for the patient….But the ‘habit’ to operate within a few weeks of a discovery of a ‘cancer which might generalize if we wait’ is more than questionable.”
Ponder this: Diseases as we knew them before, no longer exist, and all the symptoms are explainable and in most cases mastered. We can begin to think in terms of mastering these biological programs instead of succumbing to rampant disease processes.
This is not to say that we live in a perfect world, or to deny the existence of suffering. Nor to turn our backs on the truly useful advancements in emergency medicine. But what a relief that we can choose to declare the old outmoded model has failed us, separate the wheat from the chaff, and begin anew with trust and deep respect for the laws of nature and New Medicine.
We need modern medicine now which addresses modern disease. Yet “modern medicine” doesn’t need to mean the prevailing allopathic paradigm, nor the “kinder, gentler” naturopathic versions.
Go To Part 6: Recommended Reading