Dr. Hamer to Dr. Hirsch
Dr. med. Ryke Geerd Hamer
Specialist for Internal Medicine
Tübingen, im Rotbad 40/2
Professor Dr. med. HIRSCH
Specialist in Gynaecology
Director of the Univ.-Women's Clinic Tübingen
Quote: "The argument from authority is the weakest".
Today your lady secretary told me that "your" clinic was not interested in verifying the results of my habilitation thesis! At the same time, she returned my scientific paper on the IRON RULE OF CANCER and the two letters from Mr. Oertel, who is gynaecologist in private practice and had roughly checked my results. He came to the same conclusions as me. Shortly after that, Prof. Dr. med. Schindler also returned a copy of my habilitation manuscript to me, which he apparently not even opened in 4 weeks.
Sir, dear Professor, you may be in a position to apparently discredit an uncomfortable scientific thesis of an outsider that contradicts the orthodox medical doctrine by showing "lack of interest", especially if the colleague (*Dr Hamer) is fair and submits his findings, which are based on empirical results, to be discussed in the context of a habilitation that is intended for such cases.
However, I doubt that this is the right way to serve patients, and I also doubt that this is collegial behaviour among physicians. According to the law, I think that you are guilty of a very serious breach of official duty. A duty that you, as director of a State University Hospital, would have to fulfil in the course of the habilitation procedure: You would have to thoroughly examine if the colleague's findings are correct, which Prof. Bock also believes to be a major revolution in medicine. Just think about it: the patients are dying while your clinic shows no interest in this new medical epoch. At the same time, your colleague Prof. Hammacher, Professor of Gynaecology and Obstetrics in Tübingen, said that my ideas were by no means absurd, but in fact very reasonable and that the findings should be examined on a larger scale as soon as possible. And Professor Hammacher is certainly no less bright than you. This means that you alone decide what is best for the clinic and, at the same time, what is best for the patients.
Are you at all aware of the consequences of your cynical disinterest concering these findings? Are you at all aware of the consequences this would have for "your" clinic, but most of all for our patients? Obviously not. In my humble medical opinion, it is irresponsible medical arrogance towards the patients when you say that "your" clinic has no interest in testing "my" results. Moreover, in my opinion, you are guilty of a serious breach of official duty regarding the habilitation. Professor, our patients are dying and you are not interested! That is totally unbelievable! Didn't you take the Hippocratic oath?
If you like, you can say at the end of the verification: this is all nonsense that Hamer has come up with, even professor Hammacher and the 15 professors from Tübingen, who consider these results to be very convincing and a medical revolution of extraordinary significance, are idiots; including the gynaecologist Oertel, who has examined the results in his practice. But you have to verify it first before you can act in scientific arrogance!
Prof. Schrage, senior physician at the Chair of Gynaecological Preventive Medicine, was commissioned by the faculty to assess the habilitation thesis. How is he supposed to do that? He can't get in touch with "your" cancer patients because of your lack of interest. Yet the habilitation thesis would also have enormous significance for the preventive medical care in the future. You are turning the whole habilitation procedure into a charade!! What is right or wrong is decided by the orthodox medicine professor "per autoritatem", without verifying it! In this way, you disqualify not only yourself as a scientist, but also the entire faculty, who is either supporting this arrogance or would have to discipline you. However, for the habilitation procedure, you are to be regarded as totally biased and unqualified.
You can accuse me of being unobjective. If defence against arrogance is unobjective, then that may be true. If it only concerned me, I would not waste a line on you, certainly not on the level you choose. However, I would have had the courage to check the results I found on 200 cases within 4 weeks together with an assistant from the clinic. The clinic would not have had any costs. You did not acknowledge my trust in you, which means to publicly test my results at the competent place. Admittedly, I am absolutely certain that the results are correct and can be reproduced any time, i.e. that they contain a Natural Law. But at the same time, the consequences are so far-reaching that I came to you trusting and hoping that we would be able to take responsibility for these results together. But your answer, dear Professor, is in any case arrogant and scandalous.
I wish you a Merry Christmas. With coll. greetings
Translated by El Glauner