With
this third law, we are going to understand the nature of the symptoms
in each of both phases of the complete disease. Dr. Hamer called it THE ONTOGENETIC SYSTEM OF TUMOURS
AND EQUIVALENTS. Let us first explain
these rather dull terms. System : because this law brings a first
coherent and simplifying synthesis of all the diseases. Ontogenetic : ontogenesis is the
development of tissues in utero during the entire embryogenesis, and
he made a link between the different pathologies the tissues could present
and the embryonic origin of these tissues. Indeed, each of our organs
– or, more exactly, each of our tissues, since an organ may contain
several different tissues – derives from one of the three main embryonic
layers. Tumour :
because, at the start, his research was essentially focused on tumours
and cancers ; but applying it to the other affections too, he completed
with: and equivalents. Such as for the iron law, one could say ontogenetic system
of the diseases.
What does this third
law teach us? Simplifying somewhat, there
are three kinds of modifications that may occur within a tissue during
the conflictual phase. The tissue is going to proliferate, destroy itself,
or stop functioning ; in the latter case,
there is only a functional breakdown without proliferation or destruction.
It are the three possible scenarios of damage within an organ, and the
rest is only a matter of gradation. So, in other terms, an acne pimple
is a proliferation as is a breast or an intestinal tumour. A gastric
ulcer, on the other hand, is destruction, as is bone demineralisation.
Diabetes is a functional breakdown. This is also true for the paralyses
in multiple sclerosis where neither proliferation nor destruction occurs,
be it at the level of the muscle or at the level of the brain. Each
tissue reacts in its own way and one may thus foresee the type of pathology
according to the tissue affected. The bone in a conflictual phase,
for example, always starts a destruction process. There may be variants
according to the gradation and the intensity of the conflict. It might
be either the demineralisation of one bone or of the whole of a large
part of the skeleton, what is sometimes called osteoporosis ; or a more
precise spot, a moth-eaten bone, taking the structure of a sponge ;
or even else a large cavity. But it always concerns a destruction process
during the conflictual phase!
To be more complete
on these three types of modification in the conflictual phase, let us
add a technical precision that is though not indispensable for the comprehension
of the lecture. The tissues proliferating during the first phase are
directed by the most archaic part of the brain, i.e. the cerebral truncus
and the cerebellum as well as the mesencephalic part subjacent to the
diencephalon. The tissues which, on the contrary, proceed to destruction
during the conflictual phase, are directed by the newer part of the
brain : the cerebral marrow and the telencephalon. This allowed us to
make the link between the tissue types, the modification types, and
the relay to the brain and the kind of conflicts. But entering into
the details of all this would be much too long.
During the spontaneous reparation phase,
after the solution of the conflict, the tissue modifications will be,
roughly speaking, the reverse of what happened during the first phase.
The tissues having proliferated are encysted or destroyed by the microbes.
Those having been destroyed are reconstructed again : the ulcers will
be filled and healed ; the “holes” will be filled up by proliferation,
which will thus be tumours. One
sees here that the tumour phenomenon may exist in both phases. Those having gone through a functional breakdown will start
functioning again.
(Note : the restarting will often set on after a temporary worsening
of the functional deficiency due to the oedema in the brain centre we
talked about in the second law). In both first reparation methods, there
will often be microbial intervention. This will be the object of the
fourth law on their role in the diseases. Let us illustrate the universality
of this natural system by means of some examples of current diseases,
which will enable us to measure again all the differences as compared
to the classical conceptions.
1. In bone pathology,
nature is going to repair the destruction by operating a proliferation
where something was missing. So “parrot bills”, seen in case of arthrosis,
called osteophytes, prove that the person developed a destruction process
at that spot in the past, after having lived and solved a de-valorisation
conflict. And, according to the part of the skeleton affected, one may
know in which field she was de-valorised. During the bone demineralisation
process, there is no pain but the reparation makes the bone swell, the
peripheral part of which being abundantly innervated, thus provoking
the pain. Consequently, someone suffering from an arthrosis crisis is
in a reparation phase. This is what has to be explained to him. If you
want to know how long the crisis will last, consider the duration of
the conflict and you will be able to tell people how long it is going
to last. Without this comprehension, the patient who suffered some arthrosis
crises at the age of 35 or 40 will tell himself that he is following
the path of his uncle or of his grandparents who underwent surgery or
were handicapped. He will think that he is becoming a victim of this
evolutive disease, said to be degenerative. But arthrosis is not at
all an evolutive disease.
I would like to put
a word in brackets about a widespread cliché, which is a carrier of
anxiety, as are much others. There
is not one disease evolutive in itself except the genetic diseases.
An evolutive disease is a disease where the conflict started one
day and has never really stopped, or has often relapsed, or came into
balance. One may suffer one or two arthrosis crises in one’s life …
or even ten. One may be subject to eczema one week … or during thirty
years. One may be tied to one’s bed struck by an attack of multiple
sclerosis during a whole year and then walk again as anyone else does.
One may die of one single “cancer” or recover from half a dozen. The history of a pathology will always follow the history of a conflict.
The genetic diseases, however, start from birth onwards, and ever since
they follow a programmation set on at fecundation ; it is not a matter
of conflict. But do not talk to me about a genetic disease starting
at the age of 20 or 40! I have had several of these cases. There might
be a predisposition, consisting in having certain genes staying “locked
up” for a long time ; but if one states that they are unlocked at the
age of 40, I claim that there has been a life experience before the
age of 40. And, each time, I found, in the patient’s history, a conflictual
resentment consistent with these so-called delayed genetic diseases.
I will end this first
example not by evoking those needless worries anymore, but the tragic
consequences the absence of comprehension of the mechanism and of the
origin of the diseases may entail. If the de-valorisation conflict was
very important, but solved, the reparation consecutive to the much more
important bone destruction, will not take the form of a simple and small
outgrowth but that of a real tumour that bears the risk of being diagnosed
as a bone cancer. I will come back later to the incoherences of the
classical concept of cancer, but you can already imagine here what the
consequences are. The patient will experience his violent pain as the
proof of his cancer – evolutive by definition – and will see his moral
sink more and more when he could better endure it if he knew that, on
the contrary, it is the token of his recovery. As to the treatment,
he may expect the worse i.e. the amputation of a repairing bone!
2. Other example,
the lung. It contains two essential tissues : the whole of the bronchi
and the tissue of the pulmonary alveoli where the gaseous exchange takes
place. It are two different tissues considering their embryonic origin
and their conflict. Let us take the bronchi, the conflict of which is
the threat of the territory and the relay to the brain is situated at
the level of the telencephalon. During the conflictual phase, bronchial
destruction, ulceration occur and during the reparation phase, these
ulcers are mended as one would mend a pothole in the road or mend a
crack in the wall with plaster. When nature mends though, it is often
in excess to what has been destroyed – remember the outgrowths of bone
reparation – and if the ulceration of the bronchi was important, it
may lead to obstruction. A narrowing of the whole pulmonary part depending
on these bronchi follows, since they are not ventilated anymore, what
is called atelectasis in medicine. This atelectasis area is going to
give the characteristic image on the X-ray. And the patient coughs,
expectorates and is oppressed because of all this … reparation. The
doctors do not understand. They see someone who is coughing since 3
or 4 weeks or 2 months and they think this history must go back to minimum
1 or 1 and a half-year. They are right when they are talking about this
delay, but they can not explain why the patient is only recently coughing
and expectorating. The answer lies in the two phases of the disease
: this patient could not cough nor expectorate before, because while
the ulcers are forming, there are no clinical manifestations. They are
due to the elimination of the necrosed tissues and to the obstruction
of the bronchi during the second phase. The diseased, suffering from
a bronchial cancer, coughing and expectorating blood, has started his
reparation phase. The drama is that, when consulting, he will hear that
he has a lung cancer : a discourse the psychic impact of which is diametrically
opposed to what should be said in order for him to repair without additional
anxiety. I will not insist on the treatment : it will follow the same
conceptions presiding over the amputation of a bone tumour… or a brain
tumour. Here again, you notice the radically different attitudes. On
the one hand, wait for the reparation to be finished, while comforting
the patient. I do not argue the methods used, I am open to all methods
to comfort and reassure the patient. On the other hand, tell him that
he has a cancer, that he needs to be operated or has to undergo chemotherapy.
Panic and amputation may entail new conflicts, at the origin of new
“cancers” and so on. It
is the comprehension of these biological laws that is essential and
that strongly alters the therapeutic behaviour.
It does not, however, introduce new
therapeutics.
3. Last example:
the intestinal mucosa. This mucosa proliferates in the first phase
and this proliferation will be sufficiently destroyed in the second
one, in order to allow the passage again of the alimentary and then
of the faecal bolus. This destruction, repairing this time, will take
the form of diarrhoea more or less glaireous and sanguinolent and especially
more or less long according to the conflict. If the tumour is too important
and comes to obstructing the intestines, it is of course necessary to
operate : one can not live with an obstruction of the bowels. This even
if the conflict is not solved ; but in this case, the tumour will be
back. It will be back after some weeks or months according to what has
been excised. It is not a relapse, but the proliferation going on since
the second phase has not started yet. To take a metaphor, one simply
took a leaf from a tree, but the tree is still there and goes on producing
leaves. This is observed in all contemporary tumours of the conflictual
phase : they will go on appearing unless, of course, the whole of the
organ has been excised. But then, cancerology will speak of metastases,
cutaneous for example on the cicatrise of a breast removal. And
one should always remember the triad : notwithstanding
the ablation of the entire organ, where a tumour was developing in the
first phase, the conflict persists at the psychic and brain levels and
may finally entail the fatal depletion of the individual.
I could
still give you further examples, but I prefer going on and before coming
to the fourth law, come back for a while to this very
important notion of tumour and cancer appearing
in the title of the lecture. In classical medicine, a fundamental distinction
is made between non-malignant and malignant tumours both being synonymous
to cancer. The non-malignant tumour is considered being far less dangerous
than the malignant tumour. Its characteristic is to proliferate less
rapidly than a malignant tumour, and especially to remain at the site
of its origin. While the malignant tumour, and that is an intangible
dogma, has the severe property to spread out within the organism, to
generate, in other organs, new tumours called metastases. Without any
explanation, it is said that every tumour judged to be cancerous might
bring metastases, that will originate in almost whatever organ and within
the most variable delays. And when there are enough metastases, the
cancer is then described as generalised. But this dogma of the "evil infiltrating
everywhere" is totally demystified by the exactness of the biological
laws, being perfectly verifiable. Each tumour localisation has its
own circuit : a biological conflict, a localisation in the brain and
a consequence on the organ linked to this cerebral area. One may very
well live more consecutive or simultaneous conflicts. One may have a
complex resentment during one sole conflict. I take up again the first
example I gave the one of the women who learns she has been cheated.
She may at the same time develop an important de-valorisation conflict,
a sexual frustration conflict and a conflict of something dirty. If
she is going to consult, they will find a generalised cancer, but it
concerns three different resentments and on the brain scanning, the
three corresponding centres will be detected.
In the biological
laws, there is no malignant tumour ; there is no demon to be exorcised,
to be taken out of the body or to destroy at any price because it can
only evolve. The distinction between the
classical non-malignant and malignant tumours is purely quantitative,
it is not qualitative.
Here I would like to evoke an image that I often take up with my
patients. I tell them : “Imagine that when going out of my consulting
room you have an appointment four kilometres away from here, but you
have two hours to spend. What will you do?”. Within this image, nor
a car, nor public transportation are existing. The person will stroll,
walk slowly. He will maybe stop at a terrace, have a drink and then
go on walking because there are only five minutes left for the last
hundred metres. All his systems, locomotor and cardiovascular, are functioning
very slowly. Why? Because his motivation to spend himself physically
is weak, he has plenty of time. But what if he had only twenty minutes
to do those four kilometres, what would he do? He would run and have
a much more important muscular, cardiovascular activity. There would
be a much more accentuated whole of physiological parameters. Has this
person changed identity for all this? Not at all, it is the same person.
In the first scenario, where he had two hours to go, he could simply
do it at ease. In the second scenario, the motivation to move is very
strong and entails an acceleration of the physico-chemical reactions
in his body . For the non-malignant or the malignant tumour, it goes
exactly the same way. If the conflict is very intense, the cellular
proliferation will be as fast. The same goes also for large-scale reparation,
the repairing tumour will form very rapidly ; but this does not mean that there is a difference in nature between a
non-malignant and a malignant tumour.
I remind you that
in classical medicine, the ultimate criterion to judge between a non-malignant
and a malignant tumour is to analyse the reproductive system of the
multiplying cells. If one sees this very congested, very swollen reproductive
system, one will speak of cellular monstrosities, of cellular atypies,
etc. with the verdict of a cancer. While if one sees the reproductive
system less active, the tumour will be judged non-malignant. This is
the absurdly dualistic criterion, because, taking up my image again,
the motivation of the person to move may take all the gradations according
to the time given ; and in the cellular proliferation phenomenon, it
will finally depend on the importance of the conflict or of its solution.
Then, why bring the whole extent of variations possible in cellular
proliferation over to a simple binary classification? The more since
reality shows us so many differences in tumour evolution. The person
who is going to decide between the nightmare of the devilish tumour
with everything it will entail, or who will be able to reassure when
a non-malignant tumour is concerned, is a specialist of course, who
is correctly performing his profession but who is only looking through
a microscope at cells enlarged between 400 and 1,000 times. He only
knows the age and the gender of the person and the organ where the tissues
was taken off. The life experience, the history of someone, the process
that is still ongoing, all this is not taken into account.
In
the biological laws, there is no distinction between non-malignant and
malignant tumours and, what is more, a tumour is not necessarily a bad
thing. A tumour may be something really pathological but then, it is
a tumour developing in a tissue proliferating during a conflictual phase,
and in this case, there is no limit. This tumour may evolve from the
size of a pea to the one of a nut, of a tangerine, of a melon or even
more. The only limits are those human being, not solving his conflict,
can endure. While the tumour developing when the conflict is solved,
concerns the tissues having gone through an already limited destruction,
necrosis process, before the solution - and I remind you it is like
plastering a crack in the wall or filling up a pothole in the road -
the organism is going to develop a tumour that will repair the damage
caused and this tumour will be functional in most of the cases. If it
concerns a renal or an ovarian tumour for example, it will be renal
or ovarian tissue that will function again. You see thus, once again,
that the notion tumour is totally different in this approach.
To understand the
tumour phenomenon, this “manichaean” vision between non-malignant and
malignant tumour must be abandoned at first, as well as this modern
and unexplainable myth of the metastasis ; and its presence must be
restated in one of the two phases of the complete disease. As to its
severity – a matter interesting us still much more concretely – it should
be linked to the importance, the duration and the intensity of the conflict.
And, notwithstanding new repetitions, I would like to insist again on
this point, since it really is one of the essential questions a “profane”
public is asking itself, since it is them who are suffering.
I told you that all
the tissues managed by the archaic part of the brain have, during a
conflictual phase, a way of damaging which is proliferation. So, even
if it may be shocking – though at this stage of the lecture, it is certainly
not the last questioning – I state here that everything here is cancer.
The acne pimples of the adolescent are tens of cancers that do not stop
appearing and disappearing. They are not at all due to the rise in hormones
since, after adolescence, the hormones go on acting for a long time.
Hence the question : why do acne pimples not last a whole life, but
evolve according to so very different rhythms? A little bit during some
months, lots during years, and often even a bizarre comeback at the
age of 30 or 40? Why do not all adolescents have them? Explore the life
experience, and why not yours if you have suffered from it, You will
find the difficulty in asserting a dawning virility or femininity. It
is personal to each one of us. Those little “taunts”, when facing the
uneasiness of this period, change into as many small conflicts touching
the deeper layer of the skin and provoke small proliferations ; the
latter being destroyed by the microbial action during the second phase.
It will not last forever, but it is often re-stimulated and consequently
the pimples reappear and disappear again. The same goes for the small
bony outgrowths, warts and condyloma, but here, the proliferation is
rather reparation.
Does the word cancer
not seem rather abusive for such benign affections? I fully agree, but
then why use it for much more severe lesions, only because he same resentment
was far more important? The more since this fateful word is wrapped
up in so much incomprehension as to the origin of the phenomenon and
in the always so mysterious characteristics. The first and the third
biological laws explain – and allow us to verify! – that one same resentment,
but far more severe, of an attack of one’s integrity will also entail
a proliferation of the derm but far more consequent, i.e. very logically
respecting the proportion between the importance of the conflict and
the one of the lesion. It is not longer a simple pimple as in acne,
but a tumour that can take an imposing size. It is, for example, the
malignant melanoma or the “cancerous beauty spot”.
With all the comprehension
acquired with these three laws, the moment has come to complete its
application by evoking two painful and frequent realities of the diseases,
the more since they are severe. The first one is the notion
of the point of no return.
I told you that the immense majority of the conflicts, even the
dramatic ones, end up being solved. But, if
the damage during the conflictual phase was too important, it is
possible that the person can not recover anymore and, consequently,
most of the people die during the recovery phase! For someone who destroyed
or affected three quarters of his lung, three quarters of his liver
of four fifths of his kidney, reparation is not always possible. It
may be too difficult to endure, not necessarily at the level of pain,
but subsequent to all the inflammatory phenomena, to the purely mechanical
complications or to those due to cerebral oedema, and which may be out
of reach for all kinds of treatment.
The second one is
even more frequent and often has something to do with what I called
the iatrogenous impact: it is the
appearance of new conflicts during the recuperation phase if it is too
hard to live. “Complications” are multiple: conflict
of fear, of mutilation, of devalorisation consequent to his pain, or
linked to other consequences of his state of health entailing family
conflicts, separation conflicts, territory conflicts, etc. And, generally,
in lung cancer histories having lasted for years, with successive “metastases”,
the reasons why people die do not have anything to do anymore with the
reasons why they initially consulted and that have been archived since
a long time. This so-called extension of a cancer is in fact a life-experience
filled out with new conflicts. The example of conflicts in series, I
could witness mostly, is with breast cancer. It started e.g. following
a marital conflict. When a breast is removed, the woman may experience
it as a severe conflict of devalorisation in her femininity, a conflict
the resentment of which is totally different from the first one and
will entail bone affection. In order to better understand the risk,
I often put this question : “What would you prefer? Being cheated by
your husband or have one of your breasts removed?” It is certainly not
meant to be cynical, but to know the importance such a situation may
have. I assure you that the larger majority of the women answered without
hesitation : “I would rather have my husband cheating me.” Some hesitated,
but this proves that it is something dramatic. But, for classical medicine,
it are travelling metastases. And, when a patient is told she has bone
metastases, she will panic and develop alveolar tumours in the lungs
: the machine is far engaged yet!
But, to
put things straight: it is each time IF
she develops a conflict. It is unfortunately often the case and also
the explanation of the fact that one almost never observes “metastases”
in animals. I often tell this short, though striking, story. When a
veterinary surgeon tells a bitch : “My poor little bitch, the node I
excised at your mamma is cancerous. You might have a risk of developing
metastases. You will maybe loose your masters, etc.”, what will the
bitch do? She gently barks, moves her tail. But a doctor, a gynaecologist,
a senologist, a cancerologist who tells but half of all this to a woman,
how will she react? She immediately plunges into anxiety! Who can endure
this : have a cancer, especially if it is metastasised? She must thus
get out of this new conflict as soon as possible. She may get out of
it in twenty-four hours but may also take two months ; and, in the latter
case, one will see the damage caused by this new conflict.
