This third biological law was called "ontogenetic tumour system and equivalents" by its author. Ontogenetic because the comprehension criteria rest on the embryonic development of the organism (what is called ontogenesis); tumours and equivalents hinting at the various pathologies encountered at the level of the organs.
But, before taking up these pathologies, we will first come back to the nature of the modifications occurring at the level of the brain, because the symptoms deriving from it are an integral part of the "diseases" and vary as much according to the two phases. During the first conflictual phase, one observes the outbreaks related to sympatheticotonia but the disturbance of the cerebral centre corresponding to the conflict translates essentially into the peripheral organs: at the level of the centre itself, it only concerns a dysfunction. In the second phase, however, next to the outbreaks related to vagotonia, the reparation of the cerebral centre gives rise to consequences justifying some developments.
Concretely, in the restoring cerebral centre, a transient oedema is formed and the glial cells proliferate. This glie is another tissue of the brain. It does not have the property to stock and to vehicle the information, as do the nervous cells (neurones), but it has a role of support, nutrition, isolation and reparation of the nervous tissue as such. The "congestion of the centre within the solution phase is related to the importance of the conflict and may go as far as to present the appearance of a "cerebral tumour", clearly visible during medical imaging examination such as the scanner or the nuclear magnetic resonance. But, next to the oedema, forming the major part of it, the diagnosed proliferation does only concern the different types of glial cells, a neurone not being able to reproduce anyway. These "tumours" are a proof of the second repairing phase of the complete disease and, more precisely, of reparation at the cerebral level; they follow the cycle of this second phase, at the outcome of which they can leave harmless glial scars. During their development, however, they can entail various complications.
Considering the spatial limits imposed on the brain by the skull, the oedema of the centre may give rise to compression phenomena of the centre itself and of the nearby nervous tissues; this last eventuality being explanatory for the possible functional disorders within some organs having no direct relation with the initial conflict. This compression lies at the basis of a whole series of symptoms observed in all affections but that can enormously vary according to the localisation and the extent of the phenomenon: headaches, vertigo, fever, disorders of the sight and of other senses, strange feelings inside the head, etc… In more important cases: syncope, coma, epileptic crises, "thromboses", etc… It is here, for example, that the death origin of myocardial infarction where heart arrest is due to a too strong compression within the cerebral area touched by a conflict where fighting is a must. But let us insist on the fact that oedema and its complications are proportional to the extent of the conflict. And, to keep the example of the infarction, it may be minimal or even pass unnoticed if the conflict was of minor importance.
Beside the large number of organs in our body , the tissues composing them may be reduced to some large types, all of them having their own deterioration manner during the conflictual phase and their own reparation during the restoring phase. By simplifying somewhat, a complete disease may present three concrete cases: in the first phase, the tissue will proliferate, destroy itself or set itself out of order; the second phase will respectively see the tissue being destroyed or encysted, reconstruct itself or re-function again.
IN THE FIRST CASE, the conflictual phase entails a cell proliferation. The affected organ consequently develops a tumour, the evolution of which being proportional to the intensity and the duration of the conflict. The classic distinction between non-malignant and malignant ("cancer") tumour is only descriptive. Let us remind that the first one would be more moderate but staying on its site of origin while the second one would be more rapid with a tendency to generalise by spreading. Actually, the tumour develops more or less fast according to the intensity of the conflict and as long as the latter is not resolved. This tumour only concerns the organ whose directing area within the brain is disturbed and the classical notion of "metastasis" is only one of the numerous hypotheses meant to fill the incomprehension as to the origin of what is called cancer. If a patient presents with several tumour locations, it means that he has been confronted with several conflicts and, consequently, several cerebral affections. Besides, we will come back to the notion of cancer in the paragraph devoted to it in the second part.
After the solution of the conflict, two possibilities exist. As we will see in the fourth law, if the organism disposes of the adequate microbes, there will be a reduction of the tumour involving all signs of inflammation and infection it implies, as well as the numerous blood modifications, simply testifying of this destruction. If not, the sound part of the organ will proceed to an encystment of the tumour, which will forever remain inactive unless the conflict is re-stimulated.
A few examples: most of the digestive mucosa, the profound layer of the skin, the alveoli of the lungs, the glandular part of the breast, etc…
IN THE SECOND CASE, we are confronted with an almost reversed scheme. During the conflictual phase, the organ is subject to destruction (ulceration, necrosis, loss of substance) and here, recovery will entail a cellular proliferation aimed at filling the loss of substance. This proliferation may be a simple cicatrisation or take the aspect of a real and sometimes very voluminous "tumour". The microbes (being the subject of the 4th law) also intervene to remove the lesions before reconstruction and to speed up this reconstruction. In this case, the tumour has an entirely different signification since it testifies of reparation and only develops after the solution of the conflict. It may be as fast and important as in the first concrete case and within a medical conception according to which all tumours are pathological, the restoring phenomenon will then be appreciated as being moderate if the tumour is considered to be non-malignant or very severe if its extent implies the cancer diagnosis. The reparation tumour, in proportion, often goes beyond the preliminary organ destruction, but it has always reached her time i.e. that without conflict relapse, it is always bound to stop. It is also accompanied by inflammatory phenomena (and among others with adhesions to adjoining tissues) looming up when the process is ended.
A few examples: the bone and the bone marrow, the superficial layer of the skin, the muscles, the ganglions, the excreting ducts of the glands (including the breast where it is therefore important to know which type of tumour we are dealing with), the bronchi, etc…
Bearing these two first concrete cases in mind, one can already apprehend the tragic consequences of the sole organic symptoms: the announcement to the patient that he is invaded by a cancer when he is in fact within the often distressing reparation phase and still morally fragile after the solution of his conflict means risking to see him plunge into an even more dramatic experience than the one at the origin of the initial affection.
IN THE THIRD CASE, there is neither proliferation nor destruction during the conflictual phase, but only a reduction or a stop of the activity, reversible after the solution of the conflict. This method concerns, above all, tissues having a nervous activity: within the organs of the senses, within the cortical tissues responsible for sensitivity and motricity, etc…
Those three first laws convey a totally different dimension to the concept of disease. Up to now, this term was understood as a whole of concomitant symptoms, always judged unfavourably. In other words, being ill meant presenting objective abnormalities (swelling, necrosis, inflammation,…) and/or subjective ones (pain, unusual sensations, various discomforts, …); abnormalities having only unknown, hazardous or statistical origins and that had to be fought to recover. It is now a question of correctly interpreting the sense of all the symptoms by linking them to one of the two phases of the complete disease, according to the affected tissue. Discomfort as such may accompany the first phase, but it is most often during the second restoring phase that the patient will take medical advice and that his actual experiences will be "completed" by a diagnosis of the disease he is suffering from.
The first phase discomfort especially concerns the mucosa, the ulceration of which will be more painful according to their innervation (peptic ulcer, ulcer of the urinary passages, ulcer of the vessels, …), the complications by compression of the proliferation (compression of the nerves, of the respiratory tracts, of vessels, …) and the reduction of functioning (glands, organs of the senses, paralysis, …).
The discomfort, far more frequent during self-recovery, physiologically explains itself by all the processes of inflammation (swellings, oedema, reparation tumours,…), of microbial cleaning, of compression of the cerebral tissue, of weariness, etc… This "shift" between conflict and discomfort is even an "asset" in the mechanism of the disease. Because the onset of a major conflict is, in fact, that of a delay and of a countdown: the individual must solve his conflict to survive. If he always perceived the physical pain in his organs coupled with the psychic pain of his scrutinising (where he looks for the solution), he would have less chance to get out of it. When, on the contrary, relieved of his conflict, he can more easily devote himself to the arduous reparation.
The hypotheses related to the infectious aspect of numerous diseases are so well established in the current thinking that they became dogmas as sacred as those of cancer did. It may thus be useful to remind the important steps having permitted to anchor this infection theory and to note that, here too, the patient is studied and approached as a machine without a soul.
The microbes were "scientifically" discovered in the second half of last century and described as living beings of microscopic size but gifted with life properties: mobility, nutrition, breathing, excretion, reproduction, etc… They were rapidly recognised as being responsible for banal phenomena such as fermentation and putrefaction but it is the medical aspect that is of interest to us here. One saw them often pullulate with numerous diseased presenting amongst other fever and purulent secretions. Various pathological tables were, this way, linked to infestation by specific microbes. Later on, the improvement of electronic microscopy allowed the observation of even smaller micro-organisms called viruses. These, contrarily to the other microbes (fungi, bacteria), are considered to be at the border of the living reign in so far as they do possess genetic material but are incapable of reproducing without using the reproductive system of another cell in which they introduce themselves.
In the meantime, the continuous progress of biochemistry brought more and more complex information about the reactions of our cells and, more in particular, about the leukocytes when facing those microbes: when they pullulated with diseased, one assisted to an enormous confusion among these leukocytes, as well as to the synthesis of numerous substances and to microbial destruction phenomena. The result was the conception of an immune system being our natural defence against invisible enemies, all the more dangerous since they pass on from a diseased to a sound person, implying a risk of contamination.
The last step "confirming" the infectious theory is the advent of drugs meant to support our immune system most often judged defective: the antibiotics and assimilated products. These drugs killed the microbes or prevented their multiplication in vitro, i.e. in laboratory cultures, and often relieved the symptoms in vivo, i.e. with the infected diseased. The development of the micro-organism’s catalogue, of molecular biology and of the mediatisation of the medical know-how did the rest: today, the civilised man’s culture is thoroughly impregnated with the microbes’ … for his highest fear.
The vision of the infectious phenomenon may seem very logical, but numerous researchers have, however, found incoherences, gaps and disconcerting questions. Let us briefly summarise them. If a large number of microbes are responsible for our diseases, infinitely more are the harmless ones which are even indispensable to life such as the billions of germs inhabiting our body : there are thus good and bad microbes. In a large number of infectious diseases, our own usual microbes start to proliferate: good microbes can thus become bad ones. There are some becoming "resistant" to antibiotics. In a lot of bacteria and especially in viruses, a change of structure and properties occur: why those mutations, in which HIV is a mere champion? Contagion rather obeys to statistics than to constant rules and the presence within the body of germs considered dangerous does not necessarily lead to disease: why such a difference in "sensitivity" and "malignity" between individuals? At the start of the century, some daring persons ingested germ cultures from patients deceased from cholera without even getting the disease themselves.
The general tendency on which converge these critical considerations joins the renowned (?) quotation of Claude Bernard: "Pasteur was wrong. A microbe is nothing. The site makes everything". And to extend on the balance of forces between the microbe and its host and all factors susceptible to disturb this balance. Confronted with these findings "in the field" science comes back in force describing always more thoroughly the shocks and misfortunes of an immune system supposed to have the monopoly over defence, and consequently over the famous balance. But all this only ends up in displacing the problems: why the weakness or the force of our immunity?
It is this fourth biological law that is going to get us out of this theoretical labyrinth by continuously integrating the missing link called psychism – or, more exactly, the triad psychism-body -brain – and by funding only on verifiable observation facts. "The ontogenetic microbial system" shows us two realities: the microbes will only interfere in the second phase and spread according to the embryonic origin of the tissues (ontogenesis).
The microbes only proliferate after the solution of the conflict obeying to the order of the brain that has, therefore, inverted its action mechanism now oriented towards reparation. They consequently participate in the recovery of the organs formerly affected during the conflictual phase. Their "job" consists in destroying, cleaning up or settling the lesions; this, of course, in an inflammatory climate, the discomfort of which will be proportional to the work to be done. When lacking these collaborators, recovery will only be slower and/or incomplete. If artificially neutralised by means of drugs, they will take up their activity later on ("relapse"), eventually by means of their mutation ("resistance"). Pure contagion is only a limited laboratory experience: an individual can only be contaminated while developing a lesion in the second phase of his disease and the extent of his infection will be determined by the extent of the harm done after his conflictual phase and not by the virulence of the germ in itself nor by the infection observed in the "contaminator". The micro-organism must suit the repairing tissue of the "contaminated" person. Most often our own microbes will start to proliferate at the site and, for a certain period; our cerebral computer will determine both. But numerous germs are latent in the endemic state, ready to "invade" us when needed.
As far as the epidemic is concerned, it is another reality that can be understood in the light of the biological laws. Here, infection gains a large number of individuals and the microbe "seems" to spread out strongly, thus "seeming" to confirm the myth of contagion. But the same conflict may concern more than one person at the time. We will take three schematic examples as an illustration. A patient may develop hepatitis some time after his partner because he solved the same conflict, worrying the couple, at a later moment. An entire army may end the invasion of its country and, after this conflict is solved, the Spanish, Asian or whatever influenza may decimate a large part of it (but not all!). Cholera is effectively devastating populations knowing it means to lack the power of ingesting food and that are on the outlook for the tiniest hope for a humanitarian action… And let us not forget that famine caused by war or by overexploitation of certain countries is not at all favouring the tremendous reparations following the complete or temporary solutions of the conflicts.
Each one of our tissues derives from one of the large embryonic layers and this origin is the criterion of choice of the different microbial types. Without going into details, let us precise here that the fungi and microbacteria destroy the proliferation occurring during the conflictual phase; it is for example the role of the tubercle bacillus which eliminates intestinal, lung or hepatic tumours. In function of the tissues, bacteria assume a similar destructive role in case of proliferation during the conflict or a clearing role previous to reconstruction in case of necrosis during the conflict. Finally, viruses contribute to filling up substance losses within ulcerated tissues during the conflictual phase.
If infection participates to the difficult restoring phase, it may also need, as do all other symptoms of suffering, a therapeutic intervention, but essentially in two well-defined eventualities.
First, when its extent (reminder: to be explained by the first phase) presents a vital risk for the patient, more in particular at the two extreme ages of life and with too weakened persons. One can then, concretely, be led to decelerate it more or less strongly, including by means of chemical drugs.
Second, the "infestation" by microbes not foreseen in our ecosystem, as it is the case for tropical diseases; the plasmodium of malaria is not foreseen for western "visitors"; nor is the paramyxovirus of measles for the Indians of America (adult ones since measles are part of early childhood’s conflict). Transportation within a few hours to the other side of the planet certainly is an interesting feat, but the subsequent microbial import – export is not (yet) programmed by nature…
With this fourth law, what remains of our immune system? Only the undeniable facts being the numerous biological modifications observed, but that have to be re-incorporated into a more global view: the immune system is a modulation mechanism of the microbial activity. During the conflictual phase, it is at rest, whatever the damage to and the weakening of our organs. As soon as the conflict is solved, it lets the microbes proliferate and act during the reparation phase and "dismisses" them when it is finished.
Such a modulation mechanism is necessary as microbes are autonomous living organisms and thus proliferate naturally. The balance host–microbe is the conviviality between the large organisms and the micro-organisms, dating from the emergence of the living world and it can only be maintained as such according to the biological laws ruling the functioning of the living entities. This conviviality is but a special case of the existing balance as soon as a cell population is concerned: without even talking of microbes, the cells of our tissues are already submitted to ancestral reproduction rules. During our embryonic development, we pass from the microscopic size of one single cell to three or four kilos within nine months: why, when reaching the age of fifty, do we not reach the size of a house? Instead of such a lengthening, our growth curve bends until we leave puberty to finally only permit the replacement of dead cells by their own ageing cycle or by the destiny of their function. These regulation orders, though, (including those of puberty maturing) are sent out by the cells of the nervous system (that are, on the other hand, the only ones incapable of reproducing!). How can one then still ignore the role of the brain in this "revival" of multiplication that is the tumour phenomenon? It is by observing the constant relation between microbial functioning, organs, brain and psychism that Dr. Hamer was able to retrace the great biological laws showing the coherence between health, disease and the reversible passage from the one to the other.
The table hereafter gives a synthetic overview of the four laws. On the next page, the reader will find a more complete table drawn from "THE FOUNDATION OF THE NEW MEDICINE" (page 246 of the French edition), which, however, particularly considers the cancerous phenomenon (it is but only in 1987 that he systematises the fourth law).
=======================================
Article taken from "Understand one's own disease"
=======================================
