GENERALITIES

Developing the relations between diseases and conflicts requires a presentation criterion. In his succession of tables, Dr. Hamer has very rapidly opted for the embryological origin, important leading clue of this research. This way, he distinguishes the pathologies depending on the different brain areas, i.e. the parts corresponding to the degree of evolution of the species. The cerebral truncus manages the most archaic conflicts, with fundamentally "visceral" and even vital features; catch, swallow, make the bite pass, digest and eliminate it; this bite should be conceived in a very large sense: food, air, a signal, etc… And the pathologies follow the first concrete case: proliferation of the tissue linked to this ancient brain area in conflict phase: the endoderm. The mesoderm is dependent on two cerebral structures: the cerebellum and the brain marrow (as is the underlying mesenphalic zone). The cerebellum manages the conflicts related to the nest and to the attack of the individual’s own integrity. The corresponding tissues react in the same way as the endoderm. The cerebral marrow concerns conflicts of an already more relational type: devalorisation, lack of dynamism, some aspects of sexuality, etc… And the corresponding tissues obey the second concrete case: loss of substance in the conflictual phase. The cerebral hemispheres and their cortex are essentially related to the territory conflicts and thus to the individual and its delimitation compared with the others. The ectoderm is its tissue and it is subject to substance losses in conflictual phase. It is here that we find what Dr. Hamer called the cancer equivalents or the functional dysfunction.

This presentation, briefly resumed above, has the great advantage of being coherent in matters of cerebral areas, cellular modification types and big conflictual themes. But I preferred to choose a simplified and more usual classification in relation with the progress of the consultations and the questions being asked during these: departing from affections, ones is wondering about e. g. organs having been diagnosed as diseased. This being said, this second part is certainly not pretended to be exhaustive but it takes up the essential of the relation diseased-conflicts. For each organ evoked, the concrete case (precising the modifications in both phases, cf. 3^rd law) will be indicated between brackets next to the organ. If it contains tissues of different embryological origin, the concrete cases will accompany each tissue. Examples: prostate (CF1) means proliferation in the first phase; epiderm (CF2 and CF3) means loss of substance and functional dysfunction in the first phase.

Most of the chapters will treat a group of organs or "system" (respiratory, digestive, cardiovascular, etc…). Some of them will take up subjects voluntarily targeted for their connotation such as cancer, multiple sclerosis or A.I.D.S.. But, in every one of them, one will find additional precision next to the echo’s of the first part. Among those, two deserve a preliminary introduction: the localisation and the notion of territory.

The LOCALISATION of a lesion must be explained next to the affected tissue and does consequently only concern the tissues spread all over the body : the skin, the skeleton, the muscles and tendons, the vessels, etc… The very pertinent question is put in these terms: why an eczema on the arm or on the thigh? Why pain in the nape of the neck or in the lumbar region? Why a zona in the face or on the chest? Why a melanoma on the belly or at the foot? Or, if one wants to take up the classical dogmas: why an "allergy", a "metastasis" or a "spasmophilia crisis" at that spot rather than at another one? The reality is simple and we can find it in every sufficiently thorough anamnesis: it is at the exact moment of DHS that an emotional, spontaneous and immediate association is made between localisation and personal significance of the lived experience. In more imaged terms, an insult in the face does not feel the same as a kick on one’s behind. It is not the same to have to bend one’s neck as to keep one’s position by resisting on one’s hips. Or else, when a separation conflict is concerned, how did one live it: "I can not touch him with my hands anymore; I do not feel his arms around my breasts anymore; I feel pushed in the back; our hearts do not beat together anymore" etc…? It is where the tissue is modified that it all happened!

The TERRITORY refers to that "space" where we pretend to live, to create, to be master, to be free, to be in security, to possess, etc… It concerns the limits we attribute to ourselves and which stop where the other one’s begins. The animal manages its territory, signs it by means of dejection and does not tolerate intrusions from outside (nor contestation of its status if it is a ringleader). Humans too have their territory, the refining of its conception follows the evolution of their conscience and of their means of expression. It will be their house, their family, their work, their job, their car, their electorate, their clients, their patients, etc… They will sign it in a more civilised way, by a mixture of personal affirmations and socio-juridical recourse. But the archetype of the conflict is the same and if man or animal feel threatened or are beaten after a territory conflict, the cerebral and organic follow-up obeys the same laws. All those slight differences in this type of conflict are determining the cerebral hemisphere area and its organ: territorial threat, its marking, its intrusion, its border quarrels, the fight for preservation, etc…

Let us end these generalities by a remark that may help the reader to better assimilate the relations conflicts – diseases. It is what one may call an "intuitive perception": try to make the link – if possible of course – within one’s conscience, between a life experience and an organ’s function. Two examples to illustrate it: the epiderm is affected by a separation conflict, i.e. a loss of contact. This contact is secured by the skin but it is only physical, in the strict sense, in some situations: the love intimacy, the relations between parents and babies, etc… Most of the time it concerns a communication contact, human relations. One may thus "understand" the link between the skin and the separation conflict. As far as the bone system is concerned, how would you feel if you brutally had flabby, inconsistent bones? Most probably a feeling of deep helplessness, of not being worth much! And this way one may understand the relation between a deep devalorisation conflict and a bone affection. Let us also consider the richness of all these so much used expressions: being fed up with something, not being able to stand or digest, being sick of it, wearing someone out, etc… Finally, the fifth biological law allows us to make new relations, but its systematic application in each conflict would be too long since it would require a development on the physiological role of each organ.