editor, reviewer
547
edits
Changes
no edit summary
[[image:gnmen.jpg|300px|thumb]]
[[image:gnmen.jpg|300px|thumb]]
[[image:Hamer2.jpg|Inventor R. G. Hamer|thumb]]
[[image:Hamer2.jpg|Inventor R. G. Hamer|thumb]]
'''Germanic New Medicine'''® (GNM) (formerly called ''New Medicine'' and often called ''New German[ic] Medicine'') is a pseudoscientific alternative medicine and registered trade mark since 2003 which appeared in Germany in 1981. Many hopeful cancer patients treated by this method have died, at least 140 (see details below). This method was invented by barred German physician [[Ryke Geerd Hamer]] who has been prosecuted in several European countries for practicing medicine illegaly. Hamer is currently living in Southern Norway. His address is the same as his publishing company ''GERMANISCHE NEUE MEDIZIN FORLAG DR. HAMER'' Sandkollveien 11, N-3229 Sandefjord/Norway. In two different interviews of September 2007, he declared that he fled from Spain to Norway to escape an arrest warrant from Germany for ''incitement of hatred against a minority of the population'' (article 130 of German criminal law), because Hamer made many public anti-semitic statements in open letters and on web pages, and accused an alleged international Jewish conspiracy (in particular the New York B'nai B'rith) of having killed two billion people by means of hiding the truth about New Medicine which he claims can heal 98% of all cancer cases.
GNM has never been accepted and is widely ignored by the scientific and academic medical community, due to the fact that its principles are obviously contradictory to the findings of modern evidence-based medicine. However, there is no known interdiction of this controversial method. 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 of a number of followers or associations linked to his doctrines.
According to its inventor Hamer, every disease of man, animal or plant is the result of a former not well-defined ''biological conflict'' obeying to only five so-called ''biological laws of nature'' he allegedly found and no scientist could find so far. Only effects of radiation and injuries are not the result of the presumed conflicts, Hamer adds in his statements.
According to its inventor Hamer, every disease of man, animal or plant is the result of a former not well-defined ''biological conflict'' obeying to only five so-called ''biological laws of nature'' he allegedly found and no scientist could confirm so far. Only effects of radiation and injuries were not the result of presumed conflicts, Hamer adds in his statements.
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 remember however concepts in anthroposophical medicine and other concepts developed earlier than 1981. No prospective and scientifically controlled clinical trial has been made so far to show an eventual 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.
==Germanic==
==Germanic==
Germanic is a term that appeared first in roman times about 200 years before Christ and was used by romans (for instance Plinius the old) to designate different people living east of Rhine river or north of the Alps. These different people never called themselves ''germanic''. This term was an invention of some of the enemies of the different ''germanic'' people and tribes. When, in 2004, Hamer was asked why he wanted his hypotheses to be called ''germanic'', he answered: ''[...] weil ich stolz bin ein Deutscher zu sein [...]'' (because I'm proud to be a German).<ref>Caroline Markolin (Montreal/Canada), January 1, 2005: ''[...] Ich habe Dr. Hamer letztes Jahr während eines Seminar in Spanien gefragt: "Warum germanisch?". Seine Antwort kam schnell und war eindeutig: "Ich bin stolz, Deutscher zu sein [...]'' source: http://www.pilhar.com/Hamer/Korrespo/2005/20050101_Markolin_Plaedoyer.htm</ref> Hamer justified the term also in his book ''Vermächtnis einer neuen Medizin''<ref>Hamer RG: book ''Vermächtnis einer neuen Medizin'' chapter 28</ref>, asserting that the ''germanic'' had allegendly ''no concept of evil or good'' as this would allegedly only appear in ''judaic and christian tradition''. Hamer expressed also his conviction that medicine had been ''invented in Germany, the country of poets, musicians, inventors and discoverers'', and that Germany was ''the mother'' of all european languages, which is nonsense.
Germanic is a term which first appeared in Roman times about 200 years before Christ and was used by Romans (for instance Pliny the elder) to designate different peoples living east of the Rhine river or north of the Alps. These different peoples never called themselves ''Germanic''. This term was an invention of some of the enemies of the different ''Germanic'' peoples and tribes. When, in 2004, Hamer was asked why he wanted his hypotheses to be called ''Germanic'', he answered: ''[...] weil ich stolz bin ein Deutscher zu sein [...]'' (because I'm proud to be a German).<ref>Caroline Markolin (Montreal/Canada), January 1, 2005: ''[...] Ich habe Dr. Hamer letztes Jahr während eines Seminar in Spanien gefragt: "Warum germanisch?". Seine Antwort kam schnell und war eindeutig: "Ich bin stolz, Deutscher zu sein [...]'' source: http://www.pilhar.com/Hamer/Korrespo/2005/20050101_Markolin_Plaedoyer.htm</ref> Hamer also justified the term in his book ''Vermächtnis einer neuen Medizin''<ref>Hamer RG: book ''Vermächtnis einer neuen Medizin'' chapter 28</ref>, asserting that the term ''Germanic'' allegedly carried ''no concept of evil or good'' as this allegedly only appeared in ''Judaic and Christian tradition''. Hamer also expressed his conviction that medicine had been ''invented in Germany, the country of poets, musicians, inventors and discoverers'', and that Germany was ''the mother'' of all European languages, which is nonsense.
==No published reports about healed cancer patients so far==
==No published reports about healed cancer patients so far==
No report about healed cancer patients who had survived a GNM therapy and that have not been treated by academic medicine has been published so far, only some anecdotal stories are known. For instance a German asserts that he had survived eleven times a leukemia thanks to Hamer's method,<ref>case Joswig, a german right-wing admirer of GNM, who says to be citizen of a ''Deutsches Reich'' (German empire)</ref> another one asserts to be healed wondrously from an atheroma (this is not cancer), and someone thinks that his torticollis was in fact a non-Hodgkin lymphoma<ref>http://www.pilhar.com/Hamer/NeuMed/Sonderpr/20000101_NonHodgkin.htm</ref>. Admirer and followers of GNM think that thousands of cancer patients have been healed by the GNM. A neutral observer must wonder why they do not show up to support this method.
No report about healed cancer patients who had survived a GNM therapy and who were not treated by academic medicine has been published so far, only some anecdotal stories are available. For instance a German person asserts that he survived leukemia eleven times thanks to Hamer's method,<ref>case Joswig, a German extremist right admirer of GNM who claims to be a citizen of a ''Deutsches Reich'' (German empire)</ref> another asserts to have been healed miraculously from an atheroma (this is not cancer), and someone thinks that his torticollis was in fact a non-Hodgkin lymphoma<ref>http://www.pilhar.com/Hamer/NeuMed/Sonderpr/20000101_NonHodgkin.htm</ref>. Admirers and followers of GNM think that thousands of cancer patients have been healed by GNM. A neutral observer must wonder why they do not show up to support this method.
==Notable cases of failure==
==Notable cases of failure==
Many former GNM patients having cancer died so far. More than 140 persons are known so far in 2008. This is documented in different court files and sentences, newspaper articles, reports of relatives and in the list presented by Aribert Deckers.<ref>http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_ham2.htm</ref> Many of them had a good chance to survive as they had cancer that responds well to modern therapies (e.g. testicular cancer, Hodgkin-lymphoma). A detailed presentation of notable cases can be seen here: [[Victims of New Medicine]].
Many former GNM patients suffering cancer died so far. More than 140 persons are known so far in 2008. This is documented in different court files and sentences, newspaper articles, reports of relatives, and in the list presented by Aribert Deckers.<ref>http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_ham2.htm</ref> Many of them had a good chance to survive as they had a cancer responding well to modern therapies (e.g. testicular cancer, Hodgkin-lymphoma). A detailed presentation of notable cases can be seen here: [[Victims of New Medicine]].
Ryke Geerd Hamer got testicular cancer himself in 1978 (or beginning of 1979), but seeked professional help and underwent surgery in a clinic in Tübingen. He survived this miraculously, according to his own opinion he had a survival chance of only 2%.<ref>http://www.neue-medizin.de/html/ein_vermachtnis.html</ref> His cancer appeared only two month after the death of his son Dirk (that was December 1978), and Hamer was convinced that event was the cause of his cancer.<ref>http://www.newmedicine.ca/interview.php [...] in 1978 I developed testicular cancer from such a biological conflict, a so-called "loss conflict [...]"</ref>. But cancer needs years to develop, and not two month. His wife died instead because of her breast cancer in 1985, a GNM therapy by Hamer was not successful. Hamer said this at the end of 1985 and declared his wife to be his ''first patient after discovering the iron rules of cancer''.
Ryke Geerd Hamer developed testicular cancer himself in 1978 (or at the beginning of 1979), but seeked professional help and underwent surgery in a clinic in Tübingen. He survived this miraculously, according to his own opinion he should have had a survival chance of only 2%.<ref>http://www.neue-medizin.de/html/ein_vermachtnis.html</ref> His tumor appeared only two month after the death of his son Dirk (that was December 1978), and Hamer was convinced that event was the cause of his cancer.<ref>http://www.newmedicine.ca/interview.php [...] in 1978 I developed testicular cancer from such a biological conflict, a so-called "loss conflict [...]"</ref>. But cancer needs years to develop, and not two months. His wife died from breast cancer in 1985, a GNM therapy by Hamer was not successful. Hamer said this at the end of 1985 and declared his wife to be his ''first patient after discovering the iron rules of cancer''.
==Sceptical view of the GNM==
==Sceptical view of the GNM==
[[image:sciencefaith.jpg|650px|thumb]]
[[image:sciencefaith.jpg|650px|thumb]]
Hamer has never published his hypotheses in a scientific paper (his doctoral thesis has nothing to do with it), and apart from an article by danish holistic physician (now barred) Sören Ventegodt that appeared in a rather less-important journal<ref>Ventegodt et al. Fulltext: http://www.thescientificworldjournal.com/headeradmin/upload/2005.03.16.pdf</ref> no scientific paper analyzing his method can be found in databases. The author Ventegodt has also lost his medical license in the meantime and has been criticized to work in a pseudoscientific way, and it seems that the journal is accepting papers after a ''payment'' has been made.<ref>http://kasperolsen.wordpress.com/2005/12/19/more-dangerous-pseudo-science/ Ventegodt and pseudoscience</ref> This makes it more difficult to evaluate his ideas.
Hamer never published his hypotheses in a scientific paper (his doctoral thesis has nothing to do with it), and apart from an article by Danish holistic physician (now barred) Sören Ventegodt which appeared in a rather unimportant journal<ref>Ventegodt et al. Fulltext: http://www.thescientificworldjournal.com/headeradmin/upload/2005.03.16.pdf</ref> no scientific paper analyzing his method can be found in databases. The author Ventegodt also lost his medical license in the meantime and has been criticized for working in a pseudoscientific way, and it seems that the journal accepts papers after receiving a ''payment''.<ref>http://kasperolsen.wordpress.com/2005/12/19/more-dangerous-pseudo-science/ Ventegodt and pseudoscience</ref> This makes it more difficult to evaluate his ideas.
The inventor Hamer does not present scientific proofs in favor of his method, and does not present controlled and placebo-controlled prospective studies supporting it. He shows instead retrospective filtered reports and letters with anecdotal value, often underwritten by himself or laymen.
The inventor Hamer does not present scientific proofs in favor of his method, and does not present controlled and placebo-controlled prospective studies supporting it. Instead, he shows retrospectively filtered reports and letters of anecdotal value, often written by himself or laymen.
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.
[[image:Smokecancer.jpg|300px|thumb]]
[[image:Smokecancer.jpg|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 doctrines 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 was able to 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 following 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 patients must wait at least five (or more) years until they know that 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 declared many times, and still continues to repeat, that ''scientific medicine'' offered only about a 2% survival chance 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 sometimes refers to Ulrich Abel, a German expert who never made any statement like this. In reality, modern medicine (evidenced-based medicine and good clinical practice) today offers a survival rate of about 55% (all cases) in Germany<ref>Robert Koch Institut, Germany</ref>, and in 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 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.
*Another '''big error:''' Hamer claims that ''1,500 German non-Jewish cancer patients'' were ''killed'' every day by scientific medicine and this can be seen or heard in a video interview dated 2006<ref>http://www.lnc-2010.de/html/neues_deutschland.html</ref> and he continues to assert this claim on different web pages in open letters.<ref>http://www.pilhar.com/Hamer/Korrespo/2007/20070205_Hamer_an_HR3.htm</ref> These data, however, contradict published German cancer statistics of 2002: 420,000 people were newly diagnosed with 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 dead patients would exceed the number of newly diagnozed patients by 120,000. 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 effect on every patient and caused to death of many people in the past. However, chemotherapy is mostly used 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 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 relapses 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 systemic symptoms, combined treatment with chemotherapy and radiotherapy is recommended. It is likely that chemotherapy will in future play a greater role in the treatment of early stage patients, too, in order to reduce later consequences from extended field radiotherapy. However, this conclusion remains to be better documented in 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 later 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 apparently have a 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>
*'''Inherited cancer:''' In some cancer it is known for sure that these cancer are inherited and are therefore transmitted genetically. One example is Familial adenomatous polyposis<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familial_adenomatous_polyposis</ref> or Xeroderma pigmentosum<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeroderma_pigmentosum</ref>. Other cases are Louis-Bar syndrome, Gardner syndrome, Turcot syndrome and familiar form retinoblastoma. In these cases a ''biological conflict'' as origin can be excluded.
*'''Inherited cancer:''' In some cancer it is known for sure that these cancer are inherited and are therefore transmitted genetically. One example is Familial adenomatous polyposis<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familial_adenomatous_polyposis</ref> or Xeroderma pigmentosum<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeroderma_pigmentosum</ref>. Other cases are Louis-Bar syndrome, Gardner syndrome, Turcot syndrome and familiar form retinoblastoma. In these cases a ''biological conflict'' as origin can be excluded.