Guest guest Posted October 1, 2006 Report Posted October 1, 2006 ----- Original Message ----- From: Rolf Martens " Syphilis " , like " AIDS " , is an invented " disease " . xxxxxxxxxxxxx compared to AIDS, syphilis has quite straight forward primary symtoms. how is it 'invented' as it dates from an era when diseases were thought to be caused by " mal air " etc. and no known blame could be put on any teenyweeny particles eg. viruses? how would you explain the untreated final stage of the disease? just curious. bw, will . Quote
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2006 Report Posted October 2, 2006 At 14:24 2006-10-01 +0300, you (yerewan <yerewan@...>) wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: Rolf Martens > > " Syphilis " , like " AIDS " , is an invented " disease " . > >xxxxxxxxxxxxx > >compared to AIDS, syphilis has quite straight forward primary symtoms. >how is it 'invented' as it dates from an era >when diseases were thought to be caused by " mal air " etc. >and no known blame could be put on any teenyweeny particles eg. viruses? >how would you explain the untreated final stage of the disease? >just curious. > >bw, will Will, It would have been more precise of me to write: " Stefan Lanka maintains that syphilis too is an invented disease, and I believe he's right on this. " I've inferred this, since that German virologist has clearly turned out to be right both on " HIV/AIDS " and on viruses in general, and since I've noted that in history, many disease *names* have turned up in certain periods, have stayed for a while and then disappeared, other names then appearing. That is, certain varying conditions were all given the same name (similarly to what is being done today by use of the term " AIDS " - this I can ascertain rather clearly is a *trick* term), as if it was a question of one and the same disease. A name-invention for political reasons, that is. This practice seems to have been going on for centuries - inventing *scary* names, above all. In Biblical times, there was a lot of talk about " leprosy " and " lepers " . In the 1400th century, many were said to have " the Plague " (some of the former " lepers " , and there was much sickness caused by the climate's getting colder and by the infrastructure collapsing in important regions after a big earthquake in regions in and around northern Italy in 1348), and later again, this " disease " disappeared, many instead being said to " have smallpox " . From the early 1900s on, there was " polio " (sickness probably due to various vaccinations which had then become common). In India in recent decades, not many at all (compared to people in the " West " ) have been said to have " lung cancer " ; instead, many have been said to have " tuberculosis " - it seems that just different names have been used for the same condition. In many cases, clearly the purported " treatment " of certain diseases, or allegedly existing such, have been the thing, or one of the things, which actually caused the sickness said to be caused by that purported disease. Concerning syphilis, I've read that, long ago, it used to be " treated " with " medicines " containing mercury, and that the " final stage " of it was probably caused by mercury poisoning. Such poisoning, or some other kind of poisoning, would be my guess concerning " final syphilis stage " . But I want to stress again, I don't have any firsthand knowledge on such things at all, and am only repeating what such experts who to me seem trustworthy are saying. Rolf M. Quote
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2006 Report Posted October 2, 2006 <<<Concerning syphilis, I've read that, long ago, it used to be " treated " with " medicines " containing mercury, and that the " final stage " of it was probably caused by mercury poisoning. Such poisoning, or some other kind of poisoning, would be my guess concerning " final syphilis stage " .>>> Definitely this is not the case. Read about Tuskegee syphilis experiment where patients received placebo instead of any treatment. Olga Quote
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2006 Report Posted October 2, 2006 At 09:00 2006-10-02 -0700, you (pubrel <pubrel@...>) wrote: ><<<Concerning syphilis, I've read that, long ago, it used to be " treated " >with " medicines " containing mercury, and that the " final >stage " of it was probably caused by mercury poisoning. > >Such poisoning, or some other kind of poisoning, would be my >guess concerning " final syphilis stage " .>>> > >Definitely this is not the case. Read about Tuskegee syphilis experiment >where patients received placebo instead of any treatment. >Olga Olga, I've read a little about that Tuskegee experiment too, and nothing in the (of course mendacious) reports on it (some of which are actually complaining, that those poor blacks involved were *not* given the " treatment " still considered " OK " in the 1930s, with mercury poisoning etc) contradicts that theory which to me seems the correct one: " Syphilis " , just as " AIDS " , has been just an unjustified *name* given to certain (varying) conditions in some persons. The " official " theory is, there's a certain kind of bacteria that " causes syphilis " ; it's a " contagious disease " . But clearly, this is all wrong - I've concluded (still being pretty ignorant on such things). Something like the big " AIDS " scam - which (even) I can *prove* is a big scam - not a real disease at all. Rolf M. Quote
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 You're saying that lung cancer is the same disease as TB, Rolf? And I would contend that an apparent trustworthiness means nothing - after all the vast majority of allopathic doctors *appear* trustworthy. Indeed, arguably most have their hearts in the right place and genuinely do wish to help others. I'm sorry - I don't see what makes Stefan Lanka right and everyone else wrong....he's just another *expert* with another *opinion*, from what I can gather. That's all any of these experts have - their own opinions. I'm afraid you haven't convinced me at all. Sue > > In India in recent decades, not many at all (compared to people > in the " West " ) have been said to have " lung cancer " ; instead, many have > been said to have " tuberculosis " - it seems that just different names > have been used for the same condition. > > In many cases, clearly the purported " treatment " of certain > diseases, or allegedly existing such, have been the thing, or > one of the things, which actually caused the sickness said to > be caused by that purported disease. > > Concerning syphilis, I've read that, long ago, it used to be " treated " > with " medicines " containing mercury, and that the " final > stage " of it was probably caused by mercury poisoning. > > Such poisoning, or some other kind of poisoning, would be my > guess concerning " final syphilis stage " . > > But I want to stress again, I don't have any firsthand knowledge > on such things at all, and am only repeating what such experts > who to me seem trustworthy are saying. > > Rolf M. Quote
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 disease names are meaningless they are categories that allopaths have come up with that have certain symptoms symptoms are the body's way of trying to dissipate a disturbance and the symptoms need to be assisted to do their job when they are ineffective. It matters not what the name of the disease is. It matters not what supposedly has caused it. ie syphilis is just a name of a certain set of symptoms. Those symptoms certainly exist. Is the causitive agent a bacteria, a virus, something from outerspace? It doesn't matter. It is the person who needs to be assisted and their symptoms helped to be effective to bring about cure. Sheri At 06:05 PM 10/3/2006 +0800, you wrote: >You're saying that lung cancer is the same disease as TB, Rolf? > >And I would contend that an apparent trustworthiness means nothing - after >all the vast majority of allopathic doctors *appear* trustworthy. Indeed, >arguably most have their hearts in the right place and genuinely do wish to >help others. > >I'm sorry - I don't see what makes Stefan Lanka right and everyone else >wrong....he's just another *expert* with another *opinion*, from what I can >gather. That's all any of these experts have - their own opinions. > >I'm afraid you haven't convinced me at all. > >Sue > >> >> In India in recent decades, not many at all (compared to people >> in the " West " ) have been said to have " lung cancer " ; instead, many have >> been said to have " tuberculosis " - it seems that just different names >> have been used for the same condition. >> >> In many cases, clearly the purported " treatment " of certain >> diseases, or allegedly existing such, have been the thing, or >> one of the things, which actually caused the sickness said to >> be caused by that purported disease. >> >> Concerning syphilis, I've read that, long ago, it used to be " treated " >> with " medicines " containing mercury, and that the " final >> stage " of it was probably caused by mercury poisoning. >> >> Such poisoning, or some other kind of poisoning, would be my >> guess concerning " final syphilis stage " . >> >> But I want to stress again, I don't have any firsthand knowledge >> on such things at all, and am only repeating what such experts >> who to me seem trustworthy are saying. >> >> Rolf M. > > >> -------------------------------------------------------- Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK $$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account earthmysteriestours@... voicemail US 530-740-0561 (go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm Reality of the Diseases & Treatment - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm Quote
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 Completely agree. Read a homeopathic article recently that suggested that AIDS was really final stage syphilis.... Sue > > > disease names are meaningless > they are categories that allopaths have come up with that have certain > symptoms > > symptoms are the body's way of trying to dissipate a disturbance and the > symptoms need to be assisted to do their job when they are ineffective. > > It matters not what the name of the disease is. > > It matters not what supposedly has caused it. > > ie syphilis is just a name of a certain set of symptoms. Those symptoms > certainly exist. Is the causitive agent a bacteria, a virus, something > from outerspace? > It doesn't matter. It is the person who needs to be assisted and their > symptoms helped to be effective to bring about cure. > Sheri > > Quote
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 yes, someone else mentioned that. Coulter wrote a book on AIDS and syphilis someone else mentioned recently I think. Possible but not enough time goes by usually - end stage syphilis doesn't happen quite so fast usually At 10:57 PM 10/3/2006 +0800, you wrote: >Completely agree. > >Read a homeopathic article recently that suggested that AIDS was really >final stage syphilis.... > >Sue > >> >> >> disease names are meaningless >> they are categories that allopaths have come up with that have certain >> symptoms >> >> symptoms are the body's way of trying to dissipate a disturbance and the >> symptoms need to be assisted to do their job when they are ineffective. >> >> It matters not what the name of the disease is. >> >> It matters not what supposedly has caused it. >> >> ie syphilis is just a name of a certain set of symptoms. Those symptoms >> certainly exist. Is the causitive agent a bacteria, a virus, something >> from outerspace? >> It doesn't matter. It is the person who needs to be assisted and their >> symptoms helped to be effective to bring about cure. >> Sheri >> >> > > > > > Quote
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2006 Report Posted October 4, 2006 > > Completely agree. > > Read a homeopathic article recently that suggested that AIDS was really > final stage syphilis.... > > Sue > This is all so interesting and now that I am doing Sheri's hom. course I have to change the way I think about disease by 360 degrees. Fascinating stuff. Thanks, Sue and Sheri. Ingrid > > > > Quote
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2006 Report Posted October 4, 2006 At 13:19 2006-10-03 +0100, you (Sheri Nakken <vaccineinfo@...>) wrote: >disease names are meaningless >they are categories that allopaths have come up with that have certain >symptoms > >symptoms are the body's way of trying to dissipate a disturbance and the >symptoms need to be assisted to do their job when they are ineffective. > >It matters not what the name of the disease is. But it should be noted that some names used by traditional medicine are misleading. For instance, starvation, TBC and many other afflictions from the mid-1980s on have been renamed " AIDS " . This tends to prevent actual treatment, and risk ¨harmful phony " treatment " . >It matters not what supposedly has caused it. But what actually has caused it does matter. No doubt in many cases experience (without knowledge of the affliction's cause) has brought forth some effective treatment. As far as I understand, homeopathy in several cases has been much better than traditional medicine. The best chance for effective treatment, surely, you will have anyway after the cause has been found. >ie syphilis is just a name of a certain set of symptoms. Those symptoms >certainly exist. Is the causitive agent a bacteria, a virus, something >from outerspace? It does matter, I hold, when you get to know that the cause is not a bacteria (as traditional medicine says) but something else, whatever more precisely it is - some kinds of poisonings, it seems. >It doesn't matter. It is the person who needs to be assisted and their >symptoms helped to be effective to bring about cure. > >Sheri Curing methods shown by experience to be effective, perhaps you mean. Yes, such should be used of course. Still it's best if the cause or causes can be established. On lung cancer vs TB, which Sue asked about, I've understood the GNM as saying that the same condition which in the first phase mat be diagnosed as lung cancer may be diagnosed as TB in its second phase. But better read about that at the GNM websites. Rolf M. >At 06:05 PM 10/3/2006 +0800, you wrote: > >You're saying that lung cancer is the same disease as TB, Rolf? > > > >And I would contend that an apparent trustworthiness means nothing - after > >all the vast majority of allopathic doctors *appear* trustworthy. Indeed, > >arguably most have their hearts in the right place and genuinely do wish to > >help others. > > > >I'm sorry - I don't see what makes Stefan Lanka right and everyone else > >wrong....he's just another *expert* with another *opinion*, from what I can > >gather. That's all any of these experts have - their own opinions. > > > >I'm afraid you haven't convinced me at all. > > > >Sue > > > >> > >> In India in recent decades, not many at all (compared to people > >> in the " West " ) have been said to have " lung cancer " ; instead, many have > >> been said to have " tuberculosis " - it seems that just different names > >> have been used for the same condition. > >> > >> In many cases, clearly the purported " treatment " of certain > >> diseases, or allegedly existing such, have been the thing, or > >> one of the things, which actually caused the sickness said to > >> be caused by that purported disease. > >> > >> Concerning syphilis, I've read that, long ago, it used to be " treated " > >> with " medicines " containing mercury, and that the " final > >> stage " of it was probably caused by mercury poisoning. > >> > >> Such poisoning, or some other kind of poisoning, would be my > >> guess concerning " final syphilis stage " . > >> > >> But I want to stress again, I don't have any firsthand knowledge > >> on such things at all, and am only repeating what such experts > >> who to me seem trustworthy are saying. > >> > >> Rolf M. Quote
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2006 Report Posted October 4, 2006 At 22:57 2006-10-03 +0800, you (mum2mishka <mum2mishka@...>) wrote: >Completely agree. > >Read a homeopathic article recently that suggested that AIDS was really >final stage syphilis.... > >Sue This at least I can tell (on the basis of my still very slight knowledge) is wrong. Syphilis supposedly is " caused by a bacteria " . Wrong. There is no such bacteria. Some other things are causing those various symptoms lumped together as " syphilis " . As far as I understand, it's various kinds of poisoning. " AIDS " supposedly is caused by a virus, " HIV " . Wrong. There is no " HIV " . What is called " AIDS " in Africa is starvation, TB and lots of other things. What is called " AIDS " in the USA, for instance, is several things including the longtime use of a " recreational drug " called poppers. Also, the purported " AIDS medicines " , and the incorrect and fear-inducing " AIDS " diagnoses, are causing that which is called " AIDS " too. The very terms in themselves, both of them misleading and terrifying, " syphilis " and " AIDS " , obviously have been coined, by the medial and political establishment (in various periods), for similar (terroristic) purposes, on the part of that establishment. Rolf M. Quote
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2006 Report Posted October 4, 2006 From: Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@...> Subject: RE: HIV & syphilis-Rolf X--Group-Post: member; u=215045374; y=0hSaShQuuVD8GwLoYFDrWk_K62MD9hQ5Llt2X_OVKPGomKfPPt-cBw X--Profile: foreanaer1995 At 13:19 2006-10-03 +0100, you (Sheri Nakken <vaccineinfo@...>) wrote: >disease names are meaningless >they are categories that allopaths have come up with that have certain >symptoms > >symptoms are the body's way of trying to dissipate a disturbance and the >symptoms need to be assisted to do their job when they are ineffective. > >It matters not what the name of the disease is. But it should be noted that some names used by traditional medicine are misleading. For instance, starvation, TBC and many other afflictions from the mid-1980s on have been renamed " AIDS " . This tends to prevent actual treatment, and risk ¨harmful phony " treatment " . I WILL TYPE IN CAPS TO BETTER IDENTIFY MY RESPONSES Yes, that is true and I said the disease names are meaningless >It matters not what supposedly has caused it. But what actually has caused it does matter. NO IT DOES NOT FOR A TREATMENT THAT WILL PROVIDE CURE HOMEOPATHY DOES NOT NEED TO KNOW THE CAUSE AS MANY TIMES WE CANNOT KNOW THE 'TRUE CAUSE' I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS - THAT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW BUT WE CANNOT FIGURE OUT THE 'CAUSE' IN MOST CAES No doubt in many cases experience (without knowledge of the affliction's cause) has brought forth some effective treatment. As far as I understand, homeopathy in several cases has been much better than traditional medicine. The best chance for effective treatment, surely, you will have anyway after the cause has been found. HOMEOPATHY CAN CURE ALLOPATHY CAN ONLY PALLIATE OR SUPPRESS - IT CAN NEVER CURE >ie syphilis is just a name of a certain set of symptoms. Those symptoms >certainly exist. Is the causitive agent a bacteria, a virus, something >from outerspace? It does matter, I hold, when you get to know that the cause is not a bacteria (as traditional medicine says) but something else, whatever more precisely it is - some kinds of poisonings, it seems. >It doesn't matter. It is the person who needs to be assisted and their >symptoms helped to be effective to bring about cure. > >Sheri Curing methods shown by experience to be effective, perhaps you mean. Yes, such should be used of course. Still it's best if the cause or causes can be established. SEE ABOVE > >On lung cancer vs TB, which Sue asked about, I've understood the GNM >as saying that the same condition which in the first phase mat be >diagnosed as lung cancer may be diagnosed as TB in its second phase. >But better read about that at the GNM websites. > >Rolf M. > -------------------------------------------------------- Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK $$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account earthmysteriestours@... voicemail US 530-740-0561 (go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm Reality of the Diseases & Treatment - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm Quote
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2006 Report Posted October 4, 2006 At 12:09 2006-10-04 +0100, you (Sheri N.) wrote: >From: Rolf Martens <<mailto:rolf.martens%40comhem.se>rolf.martens@...> >Subject: RE: HIV & syphilis-Rolf >X--Group-Post: member; u=215045374; >y=0hSaShQuuVD8GwLoYFDrWk_K62MD9hQ5Llt2X_OVKPGomKfPPt-cBw >X--Profile: foreanaer1995 > >At 13:19 2006-10-03 +0100, you (Sheri Nakken ><<mailto:vaccineinfo%40tesco.net>vaccineinfo@...>) >wrote: > > >disease names are meaningless > >they are categories that allopaths have come up with that have certain > >symptoms > > > >symptoms are the body's way of trying to dissipate a disturbance and the > >symptoms need to be assisted to do their job when they are ineffective. > > > >It matters not what the name of the disease is. > >But it should be noted that some names used by traditional >medicine are misleading. For instance, starvation, TBC and many >other afflictions from the mid-1980s on have been renamed > " AIDS " . This tends to prevent actual treatment, and risk >¨harmful phony " treatment " . > >I WILL TYPE IN CAPS TO BETTER IDENTIFY MY RESPONSES >Yes, that is true and I said the disease names are meaningless > > >It matters not what supposedly has caused it. > >But what actually has caused it does matter. > >NO IT DOES NOT FOR A TREATMENT THAT WILL PROVIDE CURE >HOMEOPATHY DOES NOT NEED TO KNOW THE CAUSE AS MANY TIMES WE CANNOT KNOW THE >'TRUE CAUSE' The " German New Medicine crowd " , Dr Ryke Geerd Hamer & friends, maintains that in many (even most) cases, they CAN get to know the cause. And I, though still knowing very little about medicine, believe them. Because if they were basically wrong, the representatives of traditional medicine would have been able to refute their theory, which, in contrast to the " traditional " hypotheses (5000+ of them) at least is actually a medical science. A big advance also compared to homeopathy, it does seem to me. Absolutely worth studying, I hold (and yes, very " strange " , " Martian " or something, did it look, at first sight, to me): GNM Entrance Page http://germannewmedicine.ca/ Rolf M. Quote
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2006 Report Posted October 4, 2006 At 07:10 PM 10/4/2006 +0200, you wrote: >At 12:09 2006-10-04 +0100, you (Sheri N.) wrote: > >>From: Rolf Martens <<mailto:rolf.martens%40comhem.se>rolf.martens@...> >>Subject: RE: HIV & syphilis-Rolf >>X--Group-Post: member; u=215045374; >>y=0hSaShQuuVD8GwLoYFDrWk_K62MD9hQ5Llt2X_OVKPGomKfPPt-cBw >>X--Profile: foreanaer1995 >> >>At 13:19 2006-10-03 +0100, you (Sheri Nakken >><<mailto:vaccineinfo%40tesco.net>vaccineinfo@...>) >>wrote: >> >> >disease names are meaningless >> >they are categories that allopaths have come up with that have certain >> >symptoms >> > >> >symptoms are the body's way of trying to dissipate a disturbance and the >> >symptoms need to be assisted to do their job when they are ineffective. >> > >> >It matters not what the name of the disease is. >> >>But it should be noted that some names used by traditional >>medicine are misleading. For instance, starvation, TBC and many >>other afflictions from the mid-1980s on have been renamed >> " AIDS " . This tends to prevent actual treatment, and risk >>¨harmful phony " treatment " . >> >>I WILL TYPE IN CAPS TO BETTER IDENTIFY MY RESPONSES >>Yes, that is true and I said the disease names are meaningless >> >> >It matters not what supposedly has caused it. >> >>But what actually has caused it does matter. >> >>NO IT DOES NOT FOR A TREATMENT THAT WILL PROVIDE CURE >>HOMEOPATHY DOES NOT NEED TO KNOW THE CAUSE AS MANY TIMES WE CANNOT KNOW THE >>'TRUE CAUSE' > > >The " German New Medicine crowd " , Dr Ryke Geerd Hamer & friends, >maintains that in many (even most) cases, they CAN get to know >the cause. And I, though still knowing very little about medicine, >believe them. Because if they were basically wrong, the representatives of >traditional medicine would have been able to refute their theory, which, >in contrast to the " traditional " hypotheses (5000+ of them) at least is >actually a medical science. Homeopathy looks at trauma and shock also. And has a 200 year record There is not enough on these pages to verify what is said. I would need more actual case information than is given there. And why does a similar trauma or shock in someone else not cause illness. Because shock and trauma aren't the basic cause - the are contributing factors - but the ultimate cause cannot be known. > >A big advance also compared to homeopathy, it does seem to me. Well, you don't know homeopathy. And lots of people claim lots of things homeopathy has a 200 year record and cured me and many others I know and treat. > >Absolutely worth studying, I hold (and yes, very " strange " , " Martian " >or something, did it look, at first sight, to me): Certainly open to all possibilities but need more proof > >GNM Entrance Page >http://germannewmedicine.ca/ Sheri> -------------------------------------------------------- Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK $$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account earthmysteriestours@... voicemail US 530-740-0561 (go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm Reality of the Diseases & Treatment - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm Quote
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2006 Report Posted October 5, 2006 At 19:47 2006-10-04 +0100, you (Sheri Nakken <vaccineinfo@...>) wrote: > >The " German New Medicine crowd " , Dr Ryke Geerd Hamer & friends, > >maintains that in many (even most) cases, they CAN get to know > >the cause. And I, though still knowing very little about medicine, > >believe them. Because if they were basically wrong, the representatives of > >traditional medicine would have been able to refute their theory, which, > >in contrast to the " traditional " hypotheses (5000+ of them) at least is > >actually a medical science. > >Homeopathy looks at trauma and shock also. >And has a 200 year record >There is not enough on these pages to verify what is said. I would need >more actual case information than is given there. >And why does a similar trauma or shock in someone else not cause illness. >Because shock and trauma aren't the basic cause - the are contributing >factors - but the ultimate cause cannot be known. Do your really know, Sheri, that shock and trauma are *not* the basic cause? I know that you have a long medical experience. But is it one on that same, obviously very advanced, level as is that of R. G. Hamer? Your arguments for that which you're maintaining might interest him and others of the " GNM experts " . And I certainly am no such, but your maintaining also that the ultimate causes of diseases (or " " ) " cannot be known " must be wrong, I believe. On principle, all things in nature are knowable. I can see no reason why in medicine, certain things must remain " out of reach " , in the first place, and how you have been able to ascertain that they so they must, in the second place. > >A big advance also compared to homeopathy, it does seem to me. > >Well, you don't know homeopathy. And lots of people claim lots of things >homeopathy has a 200 year record and cured me and many others I know and >treat. True, I don't know homeopathy. It seems to me that it does have a rather good record in some respects, but also, that this new science, the GNM, is even much more promising. > >Absolutely worth studying, I hold (and yes, very " strange " , " Martian " > >or something, did it look, at first sight, to me): > >Certainly open to all possibilities but need more proof > > >GNM Entrance Page > ><http://germannewmedicine.ca/>http://germannewmedicine.ca/ > >Sheri> > At least some of its tenets seem to me to be quite well established already. For instance that fact (not unique for the GNM either) that there are NO diseasecausing bacteria or viruses. Important to inform everybody about, I believe. Such a clear confirmation of that fact that vaccinations are just bad - which you and some others have been telling people since a long time back now. Rolf M. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.