Changes

Due to the fact that its principles are incompatible with the findings of modern evidence-based medicine, the GNM has never been accepted and is widely ignored by the scientific and academic medical community. Hamer spreads his ideas in his books, published by his own publishing company ''Amici di Dirk'', via many different private web pages in the internet and through publications by a number of followers and associations that support his doctrines.

Due to the fact that its principles are incompatible with the findings of modern evidence-based medicine, the GNM has never been accepted and is widely ignored by the scientific and academic medical community. Hamer spreads his ideas in his books, published by his own publishing company ''Amici di Dirk'', via many different private web pages in the internet and through publications by a number of followers and associations that support his doctrines.

Hamer states that every disease of man, animal or plant is the result of an earlier - not well-defined - ''biological conflict'' obeying to only five so-called ''biological laws of nature'' which he claims to have found, but which no scientist has been able to confirm as yet. Only effects of radiation and injuries were not the result of presumed conflicts, Hamer adds in his statements.

According to Hamer, every disease of either man, animal or plant is the result of an earlier - not well-defined - ''biological conflict'', obeying to no more than five so-called ''biological laws of nature'' which he claims to have found, but which no scientist has been able to confirm as yet. Only the effects of radiation and injuries are not the result of presumed conflicts.

GNM is a mainly diagnostic construction and can be seen as a primitive reinvention of some concepts of earlier psychosomatic medicine, mixed with some proprietary, pseudoscientific and unvalidated tests and a grotesque erroneous interpretation of CT brain scans. Some of his ideas were already proposed before (''Christian Science'' or anthroposophic medicine...). What usually is called disease or symptom, Hamer considers  a ''sensible biological program'' (in German: ''sinnvolles biologisches Sonderprogramm'') as a reaction of a healthy organism to alleged conflicts. According to Hamer's school, all severe diseases like cancer can be ''healed'' in 95% of all cases performing a so-called ''conflictolysis'' according to GNM. Failures of his method or the death of patients were due to interventions of ''scholastic medicine'', the use of morphine or because the patient was not totally convinced of GNM.

GNM is a mainly diagnostic construction and can be seen as a primitive reinvention of some concepts of earlier psychosomatic medicine, mixed with some proprietary, pseudoscientific and unvalidated tests and a grotesque erroneous interpretation of CT brain scans. Some of his ideas were already proposed before (''Christian Science'' or anthroposophic medicine...). What usually is called disease or symptom, Hamer considers  a ''sensible biological program'' (in German: ''sinnvolles biologisches Sonderprogramm'') as a reaction of a healthy organism to alleged conflicts. According to Hamer's school, all severe diseases like cancer can be ''healed'' in 95% of all cases performing a so-called ''conflictolysis'' according to GNM. Failures of his method or the death of patients were due to interventions of ''scholastic medicine'', the use of morphine or because the patient was not totally convinced of GNM.

The inventor does not mention any literature supporting his ideas, some of his assertions, however, remind of concepts to be found in anthroposophical medicine and other concepts developed earlier than 1981. No prospective and scientifically controlled clinical test has been made so far to show a possible effectiveness and no peer-reviewed articles in serious medical journals exist.

The inventor does not mention any literature supporting his ideas, some of his assertions, however, remind of concepts to be found in anthroposophical medicine and other concepts developed earlier than 1981. No prospective and scientifically controlled clinical test has been made so far to show a possible effectiveness and no peer-reviewed articles in serious medical journals exist.