Here we are at the end of this little overview of an approach still far from being incorporated in our thinking and acting habits in matters of health and disease. But the perspectives are so important that I would like to recapitulate some reflections expressed in the introduction.

Despite technological performances, modern medicine is not able to solve the growing problem of disease. It has, on the contrary, succeeded in complicating it and to bring it to a dead end where "patients" have no other choice than resignation. Analysing the "how" and "why" of the medical wandering would necessitate a complete work; but there are some essential markers on which is based the whole difference of what Dr. Hamer called the NEW MEDICINE.

INFORMATION has become a very powerful tool having no sense in itself: it only has sense through the use one makes of it. In medicine, this information is limited to what is measurable and digested by increasingly improving machines. But they result in increasingly larger and more numerous labels; and especially colder and more alarming ones for non-prepared eyes and ears. In the new approach, the information comes from the diseased too. He is the one who gives it to the practitioner whose personal knowledge will help the patient understand his disease.

COMPREHENSION of a problem is often indispensable to its solution. In the scientific discourse, the explanation of the disease is evacuated in favour of a description, the complexity of which excludes the profane. He is the one though who undergoes the hypermediated fallouts, with, as a consequence, the multiplication of conflicts, through vicious circle and iatrogenous impact. In the new approach, comprehension is of prime importance: it is built on mutual exchange and ties the patient up with his natural survival instinct again.

HUMAN RELATION is, in principle, inherent to the art of curing. But is it possible to speak of vocation when ordering examinations, the synthetic lecture of their results and the consecutive prescription of drugs? The culture is so well anchored that the patient himself asks for the diagnosis and the treatment. But with which hope for curing if this demand – and the hurried medical response – implies blindness on the origin of his suffering? In the new approach, the individual will have understood that the disease is due to a conflict, and he will ask for the help of another human being rather than of a machine.

Technique at the service of man, demystification of a hidden knowledge, respectuous partition of mutual knowledge, relation to help curing oneself, absence of idle panic, liberty of reflection and of choice … there is some reason to fear a collapse of the tower of Babel. A question remains for all of the diseased: is it worth trying if it is meant to help re-appropriate health?