autoreview, reviewer, Administrators
200
edits
Changes
→External and internal contradictions and obvious errors in Germanic New Medicine
Hamer does never recognize any limit of his medical knowledge (he could not work as physician after 1986) and behaves as an ''expert'' in every branch of medicine, exactly as described by the ''Dunning-Kruger effect''<ref>Justin Kruger, David Dunning (1999), "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (6): 1121–34. PMID 10626367. [http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf]</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect</ref> becoming a danger for his patients.
Hamer does never recognize any limit of his medical knowledge (he could not work as physician after 1986) and behaves as an ''expert'' in every branch of medicine, exactly as described by the ''Dunning-Kruger effect''<ref>Justin Kruger, David Dunning (1999), "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (6): 1121–34. PMID 10626367. [http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf]</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect</ref> becoming a danger for his patients.
==External and internal contradictions and obvious errors in Germanic New Medicine==
==External and Internal Contradictions and Obvious Errors==
[[image:Ce.jpg|Cancer survival in Germany|300px|thumb]]
[[image:Ce.jpg|Cancer survival in Germany|300px|thumb]]
[[image:Mortalitysweden.jpg|thumb|400px|Mortality in Sweden between 1964 and 1996]]
[[image:Mortalitysweden.jpg|thumb|400px|Mortality in Sweden between 1964 and 1996]]
[[image:ALLsweden.jpg|ALL in Sweden Acta Oncol 2003;42|300px|thumb]]
[[image:ALLsweden.jpg|ALL in Sweden Acta Oncol 2003;42|300px|thumb]]
[[image:Yoshihiro.jpg|300px|thumb]]
[[image:Yoshihiro.jpg|300px|thumb]]
Hamer made many different public statements about his doctrine being in conflict with each other and being in a clear contrast and conflict to the actual knowledge in scientific medicine.
Hamer made many different public statements about his doctrine being in conflict with each other and being in a clear contrast and conflict to the actual knowledge in scientific medicine.
*'''Cancer:''' Hamer states that he could cure cancer patients in 98% of all cases but is unable to present a single cured patient. At the same time it is well known (see his trials, the ''Aribert-Decker-List''<ref>http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_ham2.htm</ref> and [[victims of new medicine]] / [[Testimonies of former associates of Hamer]]) that many cancer patients who followed his method died. Some of his statements seem to indicate that the therapeutic principle in new medicine is the so far unknown induction of a ''spontaneous remission'' of cancer after a psychotherapeutical intervention by the patient himself, and assisted by a GNM therapist. The probability of any spontaneous remission is however known to be very low and occurs only in about 1:50,000 to 1:140,000 of all cancer cases. These remissions are not only very rare, but at the same time no cure is known today to induce them. Every spontaneous remission is also subject to possible relapses and a patient must wait at least five (or more) years until he knows that his recovery seems to be definitive. At least two different groups of experts are performing research on spontaneous remissions in Germany (one for instance in Nuremberg). At the same time Hamer has declared many times, and still continues to repeat this, that ''scholastic medicine'' would offer only about 2% of surviving chances for a cancer patient.<ref>[...] So aber gibt es nur schlechte Verlierer in der dummen und falschen Schulmedizin. Von der strafrechtlichen Seite wollen wir noch gar nicht einmal sprechen., d.h. von der Frage, wer denn für den seit 18 Jahren geübten, vorsätzlichen wissenschaftlichen Massenmord oder Superholokaust an unseren Patienten verantwortlich ist. Denn beim Deutschen Krebsforschungszentrum Heidelberg kann sich doch jeder erkundigen: Bei der "Standesamtsstatistik" (d.h.: Wer lebt wirklich noch nach Chemo-Pseudotherapie ?) findet man, daß nach 5 Jahren 95% der Patienten tot sind, nach 7 Jahren 98%! Das heißt: Man hat alle Patienten regelrecht um ihr Leben betrogen, indem man die Erkenntnisse der neuen Medizin mit ihrer 95%igen (und mehr) Überlebenschance unterdrückt hat! Das war aber nicht ein paar vertrottelte Medizyn-Onkelchens oder saudumme Medienredakteure, xxxxx Richter oder Politiker, sondern das waren die finsteren Mächte der Logenonkelchen und Onkologenbrüderchen, die dieses schlimmste Verbrechen der Menschheitsgeschichte für den Wahn der Weltherrschaft begehen mußten [...] see: http://www.pilhar.com/Hamer/Korrespo/1999/19990415_Hamer_an_Freund_Gallmeier.htm (rif 107)</ref> Hamer refers sometimes to Ulrich Abel, a german expert, but he never made any statement like this. In reality, modern medicine (evidenced-based medicine and good clinical practice) offers today a survival of about 55% (all cases) in Germany<ref>Robert Koch Institut, Germany</ref>, and in some other countries like the USA or Australia even over 60%<ref>http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/14/suppl_5/v61.pdf (periodo 1990-94, pag. 58)</ref>. National Cancer Institute (USA) indicates a cancer survival of only 20% in 1920. And cancer incidence started to decrease about ten years ago in Germany.<ref>http://www.aerzteblatt.de/v4/archiv/bild.asp?id=12796 (source: http://www.ekr.med.uni-erlangen.de/GEKID/Doc/kid2006.pdf)</ref>
*'''Cancer:''' Hamer states that he could cure cancer patients in 98% of all cases but is unable to present a single cured patient. At the same time it is well known (see his trials, the ''Aribert-Decker-List''<ref>http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_ham2.htm</ref> and [[Victims of New Medicine]] / [[Testimonies of former associates of Hamer]]) that many cancer patients who followed his method died. Some of his statements seem to indicate that the therapeutic principle in new medicine is the so far unknown induction of a ''spontaneous remission'' of cancer after a psychotherapeutical intervention by the patient himself, and assisted by a GNM therapist. The probability of any spontaneous remission is however known to be very low and occurs only in about 1:50,000 to 1:140,000 of all cancer cases. These remissions are not only very rare, but at the same time no cure is known today to induce them. Every spontaneous remission is also subject to possible relapses and a patient must wait at least five (or more) years until he knows that his recovery seems to be definitive. At least two different groups of experts are performing research on spontaneous remissions in Germany (one for instance in Nuremberg). At the same time Hamer has declared many times, and still continues to repeat this, that ''scholastic medicine'' would offer only about 2% of surviving chances for a cancer patient.<ref>[...] So aber gibt es nur schlechte Verlierer in der dummen und falschen Schulmedizin. Von der strafrechtlichen Seite wollen wir noch gar nicht einmal sprechen., d.h. von der Frage, wer denn für den seit 18 Jahren geübten, vorsätzlichen wissenschaftlichen Massenmord oder Superholokaust an unseren Patienten verantwortlich ist. Denn beim Deutschen Krebsforschungszentrum Heidelberg kann sich doch jeder erkundigen: Bei der "Standesamtsstatistik" (d.h.: Wer lebt wirklich noch nach Chemo-Pseudotherapie ?) findet man, daß nach 5 Jahren 95% der Patienten tot sind, nach 7 Jahren 98%! Das heißt: Man hat alle Patienten regelrecht um ihr Leben betrogen, indem man die Erkenntnisse der neuen Medizin mit ihrer 95%igen (und mehr) Überlebenschance unterdrückt hat! Das war aber nicht ein paar vertrottelte Medizyn-Onkelchens oder saudumme Medienredakteure, xxxxx Richter oder Politiker, sondern das waren die finsteren Mächte der Logenonkelchen und Onkologenbrüderchen, die dieses schlimmste Verbrechen der Menschheitsgeschichte für den Wahn der Weltherrschaft begehen mußten [...] see: http://www.pilhar.com/Hamer/Korrespo/1999/19990415_Hamer_an_Freund_Gallmeier.htm (rif 107)</ref> Hamer refers sometimes to Ulrich Abel, a german expert, but he never made any statement like this. In reality, modern medicine (evidenced-based medicine and good clinical practice) offers today a survival of about 55% (all cases) in Germany<ref>Robert Koch Institut, Germany</ref>, and in some other countries like the USA or Australia even over 60%<ref>http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/14/suppl_5/v61.pdf (periodo 1990-94, pag. 58)</ref>. National Cancer Institute (USA) indicates a cancer survival of only 20% in 1920. And cancer incidence started to decrease about ten years ago in Germany.<ref>http://www.aerzteblatt.de/v4/archiv/bild.asp?id=12796 (source: http://www.ekr.med.uni-erlangen.de/GEKID/Doc/kid2006.pdf)</ref>
*Another '''big error:''' Hamer says that ''1,500 german non-jewish cancer patients'' were ''killed'' every day by scholastic medicine and this can be seen or heard in a video interview in 2006<ref>http://www.lnc-2010.de/html/neues_deutschland.html</ref> and he continues to assert it on different web pages in open letters.<ref>http://www.pilhar.com/Hamer/Korrespo/2007/20070205_Hamer_an_HR3.htm</ref> These data contradict however published german cancer-statistics of 2002: 420,000 people were newly diagnozed to have cancer in that year in Germany, and at the same time 210,000 died because of cancer in 2002. 210000/365=575, Hamer's numbers cannot be correct and 1,500 x 365 = 547,500. This means the number of died patients would exceed by 120,000 the number of newly diagnozed patients. This is of course impossible.
*Another '''big error:''' Hamer says that ''1,500 german non-jewish cancer patients'' were ''killed'' every day by scholastic medicine and this can be seen or heard in a video interview in 2006<ref>http://www.lnc-2010.de/html/neues_deutschland.html</ref> and he continues to assert it on different web pages in open letters.<ref>http://www.pilhar.com/Hamer/Korrespo/2007/20070205_Hamer_an_HR3.htm</ref> These data contradict however published German cancer-statistics of 2002: 420,000 people were newly diagnosed to have cancer in that year in Germany, and at the same time 210,000 died because of cancer in 2002. 210000/365=575, Hamer's numbers cannot be correct and 1,500 x 365 = 547,500. This means the number of died patients would exceed by 120,000 the number of newly diagnozed patients. This is of course impossible.
*'''Chemotherapy and cancer''': According to the inventor Hamer, chemotherapy in cancer treatment would have a fatal and deathly effect for every patient and had caused to death of many people in the past. However, chemotherapy is used mostly as a coadjuvant therapy combined with surgery or a radiation therapy. Some (not all) cancers are sensitive to particular drugs used. Cancer of this type are for instance Acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children, Hodgkin-disease or testicular cancer.<ref>Brandt L, A systematic overview of chemotherapy effects in Hodgkin's disease, Acta oncol 2001;40(2-3):185-97, A systematic review of chemotherapy trials in several tumour types was performed by The Swedish Council of Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU). The procedures for the evaluation of the scientific literature are described separately (Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 155-65). This synthesis of the literature on chemotherapy for Hodgkin's disease (HD) is based on 113 scientific reports including four meta-analyses, 44 randomised studies, 18 prospective studies and 40 retrospective studies. These studies involve 69,196 patients. The conclusions reached can be summarised into the following points: Chemotherapy is of utmost importance for the cure of HD. At early stages, extended field radiotherapy cures most patients. For the majority of patients with relapse after radiotherapy, chemotherapy is curative and the total proportion of cured early stage patients is 75-90%. Chemotherapy in addition to extended field radiotherapy reduces recurrences but does not improve long-term survival. In early stage HD with a large mediastinal mass and/or with systemic symptoms, combined treatment with chemotherapy and radiotherapy is recommended. It is likely that chemotherapy will play a greater role in the future in the treatment also of early stage patients in order to reduce late consequences from extended field radiotherapy. However, this conclusion remains to be better documented in the literature. At advanced stages, chemotherapy or a combination of chemotherapy and limited field radiotherapy are effective treatment options and, using the regimens available 10-20 years ago, 40-50% of the patients are cured. Based upon more favourable short-term (three to eight years) results of more recently developed regimens, it can be expected that today a higher proportion of the patients will become long-term survivors. Several chemotherapy regimens containing four to eight drugs are effective in HD. The best regimen considering both antitumour activity and acute and late side-effects is not known. The choice of regimen is probably best done after considering various pre-treatment factors such as the number of poor prognostic signs, concomitant diseases and individual preferences. The results of chemotherapy are more favourable in young than in elderly patients. The development of less toxic but still effective treatment programmes is therefore particularly important for the elderly. High dose chemotherapy with stem cell support is presently often used in patients who are chemotherapy induction failures, who relapse after a short initial remission or after a longer initial remission and treated initially with seven or eight drugs, or who have had multiple relapses. However, this use is based on data from uncontrolled or small controlled studies, not being fully convincing with respect to effect on survival. Persistent side-effects of treatment are common among long-term survivors, although most patients have an apparently normal life. The relative contributions of chemotherapy and radiotherapy to the persistent effects are not well documented.</ref>. Overall (additional = contribution for chemotherapy for cancer survival is estimated to be between 5-10%.
*'''Chemotherapy and cancer''': According to the inventor Hamer, chemotherapy in cancer treatment would have a fatal and deathly effect for every patient and had caused to death of many people in the past. However, chemotherapy is used mostly as a coadjuvant therapy combined with surgery or a radiation therapy. Some (not all) cancers are sensitive to particular drugs used. Cancer of this type are for instance Acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children, Hodgkin-disease or testicular cancer.<ref>Brandt L, A systematic overview of chemotherapy effects in Hodgkin's disease, Acta oncol 2001;40(2-3):185-97, A systematic review of chemotherapy trials in several tumour types was performed by The Swedish Council of Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU). The procedures for the evaluation of the scientific literature are described separately (Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 155-65). This synthesis of the literature on chemotherapy for Hodgkin's disease (HD) is based on 113 scientific reports including four meta-analyses, 44 randomised studies, 18 prospective studies and 40 retrospective studies. These studies involve 69,196 patients. The conclusions reached can be summarised into the following points: Chemotherapy is of utmost importance for the cure of HD. At early stages, extended field radiotherapy cures most patients. For the majority of patients with relapse after radiotherapy, chemotherapy is curative and the total proportion of cured early stage patients is 75-90%. Chemotherapy in addition to extended field radiotherapy reduces recurrences but does not improve long-term survival. In early stage HD with a large mediastinal mass and/or with systemic symptoms, combined treatment with chemotherapy and radiotherapy is recommended. It is likely that chemotherapy will play a greater role in the future in the treatment also of early stage patients in order to reduce late consequences from extended field radiotherapy. However, this conclusion remains to be better documented in the literature. At advanced stages, chemotherapy or a combination of chemotherapy and limited field radiotherapy are effective treatment options and, using the regimens available 10-20 years ago, 40-50% of the patients are cured. Based upon more favourable short-term (three to eight years) results of more recently developed regimens, it can be expected that today a higher proportion of the patients will become long-term survivors. Several chemotherapy regimens containing four to eight drugs are effective in HD. The best regimen considering both antitumour activity and acute and late side-effects is not known. The choice of regimen is probably best done after considering various pre-treatment factors such as the number of poor prognostic signs, concomitant diseases and individual preferences. The results of chemotherapy are more favourable in young than in elderly patients. The development of less toxic but still effective treatment programmes is therefore particularly important for the elderly. High dose chemotherapy with stem cell support is presently often used in patients who are chemotherapy induction failures, who relapse after a short initial remission or after a longer initial remission and treated initially with seven or eight drugs, or who have had multiple relapses. However, this use is based on data from uncontrolled or small controlled studies, not being fully convincing with respect to effect on survival. Persistent side-effects of treatment are common among long-term survivors, although most patients have an apparently normal life. The relative contributions of chemotherapy and radiotherapy to the persistent effects are not well documented.</ref>. Overall (additional = contribution for chemotherapy for cancer survival is estimated to be between 5-10%.
*'''Tumors in transplanted organs:''' Cancer may come up also in transplanted organs, they were already present in these organs before transplantation (too small to be detected), but it is also known that a tumor can build up after transplantation. After a transplantation, no nerve links this organ to brain, and therefore the GNM theory of cancers origin fails.<ref>Schwarz A, Renal cell carcinoma in transplant recipients with acquired cystic kidney disease, Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007 Jul;2(4):750-6. Epub 2007 Apr 25 [...] CONCLUSIONS: Renal cell carcinoma occurs often after renal transplantation [...]</ref><ref>Aguilera Tubet C, Multifocal renal cell carcinoma on renal allograft, Actas Urol Esp. 2007 May;31(5):553-5 [...] We report a case of multifocal renal cell carcinoma diagnosed in a kidney grafted 17 years before [...]</ref><ref>Besarani D Urological malignancy after renal transplantation, BJU Int. 2007 Sep;100(3):502-5</ref><ref>Roithmaier S, Incidence of malignancies in heart and/or lung transplant recipients: a single-institution experience, J Heart Lung Transplant. 2007 Aug;26(8):845-9</ref><ref>Ondrus D The incidence of tumours in renal transplant recipients with long-term immunosuppressive therapy, Int Urol Nephrol. 1999;31(4):417-22</ref><ref>Birkeland SA Risk for tumor and other disease transmission by transplantation: a population-based study of unrecognized malignancies and other diseases in organ donors, Transplantation. 2002 Nov 27;74(10):1409-13</ref><ref>Buell JF Donor transmitted malignancies, Ann Transplant. 2004;9(1):53-6</ref>
*'''Tumors in transplanted organs:''' Cancer may come up also in transplanted organs, they were already present in these organs before transplantation (too small to be detected), but it is also known that a tumor can build up after transplantation. After a transplantation, no nerve links this organ to brain, and therefore the GNM theory of cancers origin fails.<ref>Schwarz A, Renal cell carcinoma in transplant recipients with acquired cystic kidney disease, Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007 Jul;2(4):750-6. Epub 2007 Apr 25 [...] CONCLUSIONS: Renal cell carcinoma occurs often after renal transplantation [...]</ref><ref>Aguilera Tubet C, Multifocal renal cell carcinoma on renal allograft, Actas Urol Esp. 2007 May;31(5):553-5 [...] We report a case of multifocal renal cell carcinoma diagnosed in a kidney grafted 17 years before [...]</ref><ref>Besarani D Urological malignancy after renal transplantation, BJU Int. 2007 Sep;100(3):502-5</ref><ref>Roithmaier S, Incidence of malignancies in heart and/or lung transplant recipients: a single-institution experience, J Heart Lung Transplant. 2007 Aug;26(8):845-9</ref><ref>Ondrus D The incidence of tumours in renal transplant recipients with long-term immunosuppressive therapy, Int Urol Nephrol. 1999;31(4):417-22</ref><ref>Birkeland SA Risk for tumor and other disease transmission by transplantation: a population-based study of unrecognized malignancies and other diseases in organ donors, Transplantation. 2002 Nov 27;74(10):1409-13</ref><ref>Buell JF Donor transmitted malignancies, Ann Transplant. 2004;9(1):53-6</ref>