Pulmonary nodules alveolar-adeno-carcinoma

Apart from a few exceptions still in the ca-phase, most of these patients were either in the healing phase or already past it. Most had a smaller or larger pulmonary nodule as a residual condition that expressed their fear of death conflict for a family member (also a dog) who had been in a serious accident. Such pulmonary nodules may be discovered years later during a routine examination. These patients were no longer sick. They just happen to have lacked the tuberculosis needed during the pcl-phase, in which case they had cavity and no one mentioned a tumor. These patients practically survive – they are not sick and there is no reason for them to die. 

Result: all the patients died within 119 weeks, most even much earlier as a result of panic and its conflict consequences.
There is a good reason why there should be a big question mark after all the statistics that report on supposedly positive or negative effects of cancer medication:
they do not consider the law of the two-phases of disease!

Neither psychologists nor medical statisticians were aware of the rule of right or left-handedness, the correlated connections of various conflicts, consequent brain localisations and the resultant organ manifestation.
For example: a left-handed, post climacteric, old woman who has a normal territorial conflict can suffer a cervical carcinoma that, in a young woman, could only occur with a sexual conflict (biologically speaking of not mating). This is almost impossible to explain to a psychologist today. The significance of not being aware of the meaning of left and right-handedness is a source of catastrophic errors for many statistically derived conclusions.

Ihe biggest number of cancer statistics refers to the so-called carcinogens. These statistics are prepared as a result of experiments with animals. In so doing, the intelligence, the psyche and the specific biological brain code of the animals in question were never taken into consideration. This would have been necessary in order to answer the following questions:

• How can the experiment situation confronting a research animal involving the exposure to a given substance provoke a DHS?
• What kinds of substances is such an animal exposed to in its natural environment?
• Isn t the very captivity of the research animal, usually involving dismal conditions, not in itselfa conflictive factor that must distort any experimental design?
• lo this one must add the complex of questions relating to the applicability of the experimental results to the human realm.

The carcinogenous nature oi formaldehyde is unquestioned worldwide as demonstrated by the following research:
American researchers sprayed rats - whose nose is their most sensitive organ - with a solution of formaldehyde used for disinfecting and normally given, a wide berth by animals. The solution was concentrated a thousand fold and administered to their noses several times a day for a year. Some of these poor, horribly tortured animals obviously suffered a DHS as a result of this procedure and developed a nasal mucosa cancer. One could have achieved the same results with human research by spraying excrement into the subjects’ noses every day for a year. The harsh conclusion would have been: shit is carcinogenic! Enormous consequences were generated by the mass hysteria resulting from the formaldehyde research.

In my article „Krebs und Rauchen“ [Cancer and Smoking] HP-Journal 8/1983, I cited W. Dontenwill et al. (Zeitschrift f. Krebsforschung u. klin. Onkologie 89, 153-180, 1977) [Journal for Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology] who had already demonstrated in Hamburg that lung cancer is obviously not provoked by smoking.

In a large-scale experiment, thousands of Golden hamsters were exposed to cigarette smoke, while the controls were not exposed. It was ascertained that none of the animals suffered a squamous epithelium bronchial cancer or a pulmonary nodule cancer and that the exposed animals lived longer than the controls. Following the criteria of the official medicine, the discussion around cigarette smoking and cancer should have ended with the conclusion that cigarette smoking does not cause cancer.
However, the results were hushed up and were made relative: if laboratory mice (descendant of the house mouse) are exposed to cigarette smoke, some of them develop alveolar (lung) nodule carcinoma, which men and mammals suffer from a fear of death conflict. And so it was reported that, yes, even though smoking does not produce bronchial carcinoma, it does doubtlessly cause a few lung cancers. From then on, bronchial carcinoma was not mentioned in connection with smoking, but lung cancer was. This is the wonderful way in which statistics can be used to deceive!

A human embryo can suffer a motor conflict while in its mother’s womb if it hears something like a lion’s roar (sound of a circular saw) nearby. It has an innate signal code for that.

A hamster is not disturbed by smoke because smoke does not exist in the underground burrows, so it has not developed a panic code. A mouse, on the other hand, becomes quite agitated by the smell of burning or cigarette fumes: in earlier times if a roof truss was burning, the mice ran out of the house with lightning speed, before anyone was even aware of the event. Mice have an unusually fine nose for the smell of smoke and an innate panic code, and they can suffer a fear of death conflict with an alveolar carcinoma.
We can therefore save ourselves this kind of research in the future. I could continue to criticise the pseudo-scientific use of statistics in medicine...

I will allow myself to prognosticate that the future will look back on our collective age and regard animal testing as a disgrace and a testimony of our unspeakable ignorance.

The following observation has been made: it appears that only men suffer from bronchial carcinoma and because men smoke, carcinoma of the bronchi must result from smoking.
The Germanische Heilkunde® explains it this way:
bronchial squamous epithelial ulcerative carcinoma is the organic correlate of a territorial fear conflict. Territorial fear conflicts affect only males (or masculine post climacteric women). Young women who are left- handed can also suffer bronchial carcinoma (together with depression). Given female hormones it does not usually get very bad and it is seldom diagnosed. None of this has anything to do with smoking.

In "Scientific American" (Spectrum of Science, 3.ed. Heidelberg 1990) I read with surprise how cigarette smoking and cancer are linked, i.e., specifically the assertion of a causal connection: a "latency period" was created all of a sudden and a shift was made from bronchial cancer to "lung cancer" (with alveolar cancer). The whole thing now read like this:

"Lung cancer is a disease of the 20th century. In the beginning, only males were affected but in the meantime it has started affecting women as well. In the USA, lung cancer (men) is responsible for about one third of all deaths, in England for about one half. From the start it was believed that cigarette smoking was the likeliest cause since this was a new form of polluting the air to which men were exposed in the first place and later women. This explanation encountered difficulties, however. It was impossible to correlate the incidence of lung cancer with the per capita consumption of cigarettes in different places. This problem was resolved with the recognition of the long incubation period of the disease. Many questions remain open, yet the basic fact is no longer questioned: a cigarette smoker is ten to fifty times more likely to die of lung cancer, the exact risk dependent on the amount smoked and on where he lives. If a lot of people in a group give up smoking, the mortality rate for lung cancer within this group will be reduced. This gives the impression that lung cancer, the deadliest form, could be reduced overall if smoking were reduced.

How could such statistics and conclusions have come about? It is quite simple: three factors had not been considered:

1. The 1920’s saw a worldwide economic crisis and mass unemployment, no welfare, no unemployment benefits, a great fear of death during and after the First World War, and liver and lung cancer were very common.
2. The eradication of contagion by tuberculosis since the 1930’s was celebrated as an outstanding achievement of modem hygiene. Although there was a reduction in liver and alveolar nodule carcinomas in the thirties because of the much improved economic situation, those that arose after 1939 in much higher numbers because of the war, were no longer cascated by tuberculosis and remained visible to diagnostic examination as alveolar nodules, i.e., "lung cancer".

I quote W.E. Muller (Die Infektionserreger des Menschen, 1989 S.3) [Infectious Pathogens in Humans, 1989, p.3]: „ln 1850, the mortality rate from tuberculosis in Northern Europe was still about 50 times as high as it would be 50 years later.“

Deaths from tuberculosis in the USA for every 100,000 inhabitants in the year
1900 : 194
1940 : 46
1956 : 8

(Documenta Geigy, wissenschaftl. Tabellen, 1960, S. 632) [Document Geigy. Scientific Charts. 1960, p. 632]

back

Copyright by Dr. med. Ryke Geerd Hamer
Translated by El Glauner