Separation from Psychosomatics

My professor from Giessen Thure of Üxküll, with whom I was an assistant doctor, wrote a very thick standard work on psychosomatics. It deals with the question of sympathicotonia and vagotonia in a few short lines stating that these disturbances entail "vegetative dystonia". Psychosomatics was certainly headed in the right direction and even arrived at many correct conclusions. It would be unfair to many authors not to recognise their attempts to establish correlations between psyche and organ. However, one cannot really work with these results because unequivocal and sturdy connections – as described by the Germanische Heilkunde® (formerly: NEUE MEDIZIN - New Medicine, GERMANISCHE NEUE MEDIZIN® - Germanic New Medicine) in its Biological Laws of Nature – were never found.

From the very beginning, psychosomatics dealt only with diseases where a conflict had allegedly become chronic, causing somatic changes in the organs via the vegetative nervous system. In order to find out which conflicts may cause a particular disease, it usually uses psychoanalysis. It is no wonder that the attempts to connect certain disturbances with definite conflict constellations have been in vain. Admittedly, no standard rules for organ selection were found either.

An asthma attack was typically seen as an outburst of tears, high blood pressure corresponded to an attack of suppressed rage, and stomach ulcers were the result of a constant conflict between aggression and a tendency to escape.

These examples show how far off psychosomatics is from the Germanische Heilkunde® (formerly: New Medicine, Germanic New Medicine).

Unfortunately this resulted in the psychosomatic approach bringing its practitioners too close to the psychologists' field instead of keeping them in the realm of biology and the behavioral analysis of primates. There were constant discussions about stress potentials and stress research, but no observations that stress was merely the consequence of a DHS, a symptom of the ca-phase. The popular books on psychosomatics (Brautigam, Christian, vom Rad) do not even refer to the term sympathicotonia.

Maybe I've always been too much of a scientist for the vague psychosomatic approach. I think psychosomatics will not have a place next to Germanische Heilkunde® but it will be supplemented with solid, biological laws and absorbed by the Germanische (Germanic).

Grossart-Maticek (Illness as Biography, 1979) complains about the psychosomatic cancer researchers: 

"So far, scientists have not been able to develop a method to differentiate between the psycho-social conflicts before the disease and the psycho-social changes after the onset of the disease. This is also not possible in the individually conducted studies, since there is no research program.

Grossart-Maticek understands one aspect correctly: after the diagnosis it is difficult to distinguish between what had already happened before and what was additionally caused by the Impact of the Diagnosis.
He overlooks one thing, understandably, since the biological laws of Germanische Heilkunde® were not yet known at that time: The patient is either in conflict-active permanent sympaticotonia of a quasi physiological kind in order to resolve his Biological Conflict, or he is in permanent vagotonia (second phase) because he has to regenerate his organism. Both only can be understood biologically – neither psychologically nor psychosomatically.

Copyright by Dr. med. Ryke Geerd Hamer
Translated by Ela Flaulkner & El G.