How did the Gyhum Arbitrations verify Dr Hamer’s Findings ?

The Gyhum Arbitrations took place on December 6 and 7, 1983, at Haus Dammersmoor in Gyhum, Germany, under the chairmanship of Dr. Ernst Eberhard Weinhold (President of the Stade Medical Association). The purpose of the 9-hour hearing was to test Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer’s Iron Rule of Cancer (Eiserne Regel des Krebs) before an international medical panel of seven doctors and professors.

Here is how the verification process unfolded according to the sources:

1. The Panel & Case Submissions

The Jury: The panel comprised specialists across radiology, oncology, surgery, internal medicine, and general practice—including Prof. Dr. Hans Stefan Stender (radiology, Hanover), Prof. Dr. Uwe Bär (internal medicine, Oldenburg), Dr. Hans Jochen Illiger (oncology), Prof. Dr. Klaus-Dieter Haehn, as well as Italian doctors Primarius Dr. Walter Ebner (surgery) and Dr. Vitaliano Clementi (cardiology/internal medicine).
Patient Case Examination: Dr. Hamer prepared 30 complete patient files, of which 15 cases were randomly selected and examined in detail alongside their clinical records, X-rays, lab findings, and brain computed tomography (CCT) scans.

2. Physical & Clinical Findings

100% Correlation: In all 15 examined patient cases—including those with secondary and tertiary carcinomas—the 3-fold correlation defined by the Iron Rule of Cancer (the sudden psychological shock/DHS, the corresponding brain focus, and the organ lesion) was shown to be exactly fulfilled.
Demonstration of Hamer Foci (Hamersche Herde): Over four hours of the session were dedicated to discussing the Hamer Foci—the concentric ring structures on brain CCT scans corresponding precisely to the affected organ locations and conflict themes.

3. Verdict & Controversies

Italian Doctors’ Proposal: The Italian physicians on the jury (Dr. Ebner and Dr. Clementi) formally proposed that the arbitration committee declare Dr. Hamer’s logically complete system to be correct and recognize that he had discovered the true underlying connections of cancer.
The Official Summary: The signed official statement acknowledged that the influence of psychological conflicts on cancer was clearly demonstrated and that psychological support had a positive effect. However, it concluded that the Iron Rule of Cancer “could not be followed in its full severity” and that Hamer’s approach should support, rather than replace, conventional treatments.
Dr. Hamer’s Critique: Dr. Hamer and his patients rejected the official written compromise as an “Etikettenschwindel” (label fraud), criticizing the German members of the panel for omitting the 4-hour discussion on Hamer Foci and failing to document that every single test case had 100% satisfied the Iron Rule of Cancer.

Following the 1983 Gyhum Arbitrations: Three Scientific and Technical Verifications of Germanic Healing Knowledge (GHK)

Following the 1983 Gyhum Arbitrations, several key scientific and technical verifications were conducted to test the validity of Germanic Healing Knowledge (GHK / New Medicine) and the electro-physical reality of Hamer Foci:

1. Siemens AG Technical & Physical Analysis (Erlangen, 1989–1990)

Objective: Conventional radiologists had dismissed the target-like concentric rings visible on brain computed tomography (CCT) scans as “ring artifacts” produced by scanning equipment.
Testing Protocol: On December 22, 1989, and May 18, 1990, Siemens AG Medical Technical Division in Erlangen, alongside Dr. Hamer, established 8 physical-technical exclusion criteria to rigorously differentiate machine artifacts from genuine biological brain structures.
Verification Method: Scans were repeated by deliberately shifting the patient 2 cm to the left or right of center in the scanner, or using different CT machines over time.
Outcome: If a ring configuration remained anchored to the exact same anatomical brain structure regardless of patient positioning or equipment used, a machine artifact was officially ruled out. Siemens verified that Hamer Foci represent real physical/biological phenomena in brain tissue rather than technical equipment errors.

2. The District Court of Wiener Neustadt Patient Tracking Study (Austria, Mid-1990s)

Objective: An empirical evaluation of patient survival rates under GHK principles resulting from legal proceedings.
Data Source: During a police raid on the “Center for New Medicine” in Burgau, Austrian legal authorities confiscated 6,500 patient addresses—the majority belonging to individuals diagnosed with advanced or metastatic cancer.
Outcome: An investigation conducted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office (Staatsanwaltschaft) in Wiener Neustadt confirmed that over 6,000 of those 6,500 patients (more than 90%) were still alive 4 to 5 years later.

3. Trnava University Official Verification (Slovakia, September 8–11, 1998)

Objective: A formal academic verification evaluating whether the 5 Biological Laws of New Medicine could be consistently reproduced under scientific rules of repeatability.
Examining Panel: Conducted at the St. Elizabeth Oncology Institute in Bratislava and the Oncology Department of Trnava Hospital. The examining board included the Pro-Rector of Trnava University (a mathematician), the Dean of the Faculty of Nursing and Social Work (an oncologist), the Chairman of the Scientific Commission (a professor of psychiatry), and 10 professors and senior lecturers.
Methodology: The panel examined 7 patient cases encompassing over 20 distinct medical conditions against approximately 100 verifiable GHK parameters per condition (across psyche, brain, and organ levels).
Official Finding: On September 11, 1998, the university panel issued an official signed confirmation stating that all tested parameters satisfied the Natural Laws of New Medicine, confirming the system’s scientific repeatability with high probability.

The Siemens Protocol (1989–1990): Eight Physical-Technical Criteria for Identifying Hamer Foci

On December 22, 1989, and May 18, 1990, Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer met with Engineer Mr. Feindor, head of the Computed Tomography Division at Siemens AG (Medical Technical Division in Erlangen, Germany), to resolve a long-standing debate with conventional neuroradiologists.

Conventional radiologists had dismissed the sharp, target-like concentric ring configurations (Schießscheiben-Konfigurationen) seen on brain computed tomography (CCT) scans as machine-generated “ring artifacts” (Ringartefakte). Siemens AG and Dr. Hamer jointly formulated a protocol detailing 8 specific physical-technical exclusion criteria to mathematically and physically rule out machine artifacts.

The 8 Siemens Physical-Technical Exclusion Criteria

A target ring formation on a brain CT scan is definitively proven NOT to be a machine artifact if it meets any of the following criteria:

Cross-Modality Verification (MRI / NMR): A comparable, clearly defined ring structure is also visible on Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI / NMR).
Dented / Irregular Rings (Mass Effect): The rings are not perfectly symmetrical or round, but are “dented” (eingedellt) or exhibit an obvious space-occupying mass effect on surrounding brain tissue.
Associated Edema / Glial Tissue: The circular formation shows surrounding or intrafocal edema (“edema rings”) or glia tissue deposits (Gliaeinlagerungen) accumulated during tissue repair.
Off-Center (Paracentral) Location: The ring center does not align with the exact rotational/pivotal center (Dreh-Zentrum) of the CT scanning device.
Multiple Adjacent Target Rings: When multiple target ring configurations appear simultaneously side-by-side on the same scan, at most one could theoretically be a rotational equipment artifact.
Clinical-Radiological Progression (Course Over Time): Sequential follow-up CT scans reveal the ring structure at the exact same anatomical brain relay, but changing over time in step with the biological conflict phase (e.g., sharp target rings during conflict activity, edematous swelling in the healing phase, or gliotic scarring).
Slice Selectivity: The round formations are visible on specific CT slice levels corresponding to the anatomical height of the brain relay, but absent on higher or lower slices.
Patient Shift Test (Anatomical Fixity): Machine artifacts remain tethered to the machine’s rotational axis. When a patient is intentionally repositioned—shifted 2 cm to the left, 2 cm to the right, or vertically—and the ring configuration remains fixed relative to the patient’s own anatomical brain structures, a machine artifact is completely ruled out.

Significance of the Siemens Protocol

By establishing these criteria, Siemens AG confirmed that the Hamer Focus (Hamerscher Herd) is an objective electro-physiological and biological footprint in brain tissue rather than an optical error or machine glitch.

How Court Proceedings in Austria Evaluated Patient Survival Statistics ?

During the legal proceedings in Austria, an empirical evaluation of patient survival statistics emerged directly from an official law enforcement investigation.

The Wiener Neustadt Investigation & Findings

1. Confiscation of Patient Records

During a police raid (Hausdurchsuchung) on Dr. Hamer’s “Center for New Medicine” (Zentrum für Neue Medizin) at Schloss Burgau in Austria, legal authorities confiscated approximately 6,500 patient addresses and medical files. The vast majority of these patients had been diagnosed with advanced or terminal cancer prior to seeking GHK care.

2. Official Court Verification

The Public Prosecutor’s Office in Wiener Neustadt (Staatsanwaltschaft Wiener Neustadt) subsequently conducted a formal review to track the official vital status of these 6,500 individuals through public registries.

3. Survival Statistics

The prosecutor’s official tracking revealed that 4 to 5 years after the seizure of the records, over 6,000 out of the 6,500 patients (more than 90%) were still alive.

Dr. Hamer frequently referenced this legal tracking study to argue that when conflict panic and aggressive intervention are removed, long-term survival rates for advanced biological programs are significantly higher than conventional statistical expectations.

The Exact Clinical Protocol Signed by Trnava University

The official verification at Trnava University (Trnavská Univerzita) in Slovakia represents one of the most significant formal academic evaluations of Germanic Healing Knowledge (New Medicine).

1. Date, Location & Examining Panel

Dates & Location: On September 8 and 9, 1998, formal case examinations were conducted at the St. Elisabeth Oncology Institute in Bratislava and the Oncology Department of Trnava Hospital. The official signed document was issued on September 11, 1998.
Examining Board: The verification commission consisted of key university leaders and clinical specialists:
Prof. MUDr. J. Pogády, DrSc — Professor of Psychiatry and Chairman of the Commission.
Prof. MUDr. V. Krčméry, DrSc — Oncologist and Dean of the Faculty.
Doc. RNDr. J. Mikloško, DrSc — Pro-Rector for Research and Mathematician.
Altogether, 10 professors and senior lecturers (Dozenten) participated in evaluating the medical records.

2. Cases Examined & Testing Protocol

Scope of Examination: The panel systematically reviewed 7 patient cases encompassing more than 20 individual medical conditions.
100 Parameters per Condition: For every single medical condition, GHK establishes approximately 100 verifiable facts across the three synchronized levels (psyche, brain, and organ).
Strict Scientific Repeatability: While some specific details could not be checked due to incomplete historical records in certain patient files, 100% of the facts queried fulfilled the Natural Laws of New Medicine.

3. Official Conclusion & Recommendations

Scientific Verification: The undersigned professors stated with high probability that the verification conferences demonstrated Dr. Hamer’s system with the highest probability.
Clinical Recommendation: The board commended Dr. Hamer’s patient-centered, ethical engagement and officially recommended that the question of applying the “New Medicine” in clinical practice as soon as possible should be urgently pursued.

How Dr. Hamer Interpreted These Survival Figures in Comparison to Conventional Oncology Statistics from the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)

Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer contrasted conventional oncology statistics—such as those published by institutional research bodies like the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and the German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe)—with the empirical outcomes observed under Germanic Healing Knowledge (GHK) across several key areas:

1. Critique of Conventional Oncology Statistics

Artificially Inflated Cancer Figures: Hamer argued that conventional cancer statistics are skewed because modern imaging technologies (CT, MRI) frequently discover “sleeping” or “inactive” carcinomas—encapsulated cell formations representing old, completed biological programs. Because pathologists and oncologists treat all detected lesions as active, aggressive tumors, these benign “cancer scars” are misdiagnosed as active cancer, artificially inflating official cancer incidence rates and subjecting healthy people to unnecessary, toxic treatments.
Age-Adjusted vs. Absolute Rates: He pointed out that while absolute cancer numbers have increased historically due to rising life expectancy (since older individuals experience more biological conflicts over a lifetime), relative age-adjusted conflict frequencies have remained stable.
Stagnant Outcomes Despite Massive Funding: Hamer criticized official institutions (mentioning the German Cancer Aid’s multi-million Mark expenditures) for failing to reduce overall cancer mortality despite decades of research and aggressive public awareness campaigns.

2. The Cause of High Mortality in Mainstream Oncology

Hamer asserted that the conventional medical paradigm produces a mortality rate exceeding 95% in advanced or terminal cancer cases, which he attributed not to the primary biological program itself, but to iatrogenic (physician-induced) factors:

Diagnosis Panic Shock: The brutal announcement of a “terminal” diagnosis or poor prognosis acts as a severe psychological shock (Dirk Hamer Syndrome / DHS), frequently triggering secondary “death-fright” conflicts that manifest as lung nodules (pulmonary round foci) within weeks.
Toxic Therapies: He argued that aggressive interventions such as high-dose chemotherapy, cobalt radiation, and radical surgeries poison the bone marrow, disrupt the body’s natural healing phase, and often lead to death from organ failure or severe anemia rather than the original tumor.

3. The GHK Survival Model vs. Conventional Rates

Inverting the Statistics: Hamer maintained that when a patient understands the 5 Biological Laws, loses the panic associated with the word “cancer,” and receives supportive care without cytotoxic drugs, the survival rate is inverted: approximately 95% or more of patients survive and complete their Special Biological Program (SBS).
Re-defining “Spontaneous Remissions”: In conventional statistics, unexpected cancer recoveries are dismissed as rare “spontaneous remissions” (occurring in less than 1 in 10,000 cases). Hamer argued that under GHK principles, these recoveries are fully predictable, scientific, and reproducible once the underlying conflict shock is resolved.

4. Empirical Legal Proof (The Austrian Court Investigation)

As concrete evidence against official oncology survival statistics, Hamer frequently pointed to the formal Austrian judicial investigation conducted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Wiener Neustadt. After police seized 6,500 patient files from his center in Schloss Burgau, official registry tracking conducted 4 to 5 years later revealed that over 90% (more than 6,000 of the 6,500 patients) were still alive, despite the vast majority having presented with advanced or metastatic cancer diagnoses.

How GHK Explains Specific Secondary Conflicts (Such as Bone Osteolyses from Self-Devaluation) That Conventional Oncology Classifies as Metastases

In Germanic Healing Knowledge (GHK), what conventional oncology classifies as “metastases” or “secondary tumors” is re-interpreted not as migrating, wandering cancer cells, but as independent, secondary Special Biological Programs (SBS) triggered by new psychological shocks.

1. The GHK Critique of the Conventional “Metastasis” Model

Conventional oncology assumes that primary tumor cells break away, travel through the arterial bloodstream (“hematogenous seeding”), and plant themselves in distant organs to form secondary tumors. GHK challenges this assumption based on several biological inconsistencies:

No Floating Cancer Cells in Arterial Blood: Cancer researchers have not found cancer cells floating in free-flowing arterial blood (outside of accidental spillage during direct surgical intervention).
Impossible Germ-Layer Metamorphosis: Standard oncology assumes that an endodermal cell (such as a colon adenocarcinoma cell that grows via cell multiplication during stress) can travel to the bone, transform into a mesodermal tissue type, and cause bone dissolution (osteolysis), and then travel to another organ and transform into an ectodermal cell. In GHK, every tissue retains its strict evolutionary germ-layer affiliation, brain control relay, and biological behavior throughout its entire cycle.

2. “Metastases” as Secondary Biological Conflict Shocks (DHS)

According to GHK, secondary carcinomas are new primary biological programs triggered by secondary Dirk Hamer Syndromes (DHS). These secondary shocks are most frequently caused by the diagnosis and prognosis shock delivered by medical staff or by the physical trauma/mutilation of surgery.

Common secondary conflict shocks triggered by a medical diagnosis include:

Death-Fright Conflict (Todesangst): Triggered when a patient hears a terrifying diagnosis (“You have malignant cancer”), resulting in lung round foci (alveolar adenocarcinoma).
Attack Conflict: Triggered by fears of being cut open or operated on, manifesting as pleural or peritoneal mesotheliomas.
Disfigurement Conflict: Triggered by surgical mutilation (e.g., breast amputation), manifesting as skin melanoma at the surgical site.

3. How GHK Explains Bone Osteolyses (Self-Devaluation Conflicts)

Conventional oncology classifies bone lesions or holes in the skeletal system as “osteolytic bone metastases.” GHK explains these specific skeletal changes through the Self-Devaluation Conflict (Selbstwerteinbruch-Konflikt / SWE):

A. Brain & Germ-Layer Control

Skeletal tissues and bones are directed by the cerebral medulla (new mesoderm).

B. Conflict-Active Phase (ca-Phase) — Bone Loss

When a patient suffers a severe hit to their self-worth—such as feeling useless, physically ruined, or defiled after receiving a cancer diagnosis or losing a body part—the body responds immediately:

Organ Level: Tissue loss occurs in the skeleton in the form of bone osteolyses (decalcification, holes, or loss of bone substance) along with a depression of bone marrow blood production (anemia).
Anatomical Mapping: The specific location of the osteolysis corresponds to the exact emotional nuance of the self-devaluation:
Intellectual/Moral Self-Devaluation: Affects the skull (calotte) or cervical spine.
Relationship/Partner or Mother-Child Self-Devaluation: Affects the shoulders.
Central Personality Self-Devaluation: Affects the lumbar or thoracic spine.
Physical/Performance Self-Devaluation: Affects the legs, knees, or feet.

C. Healing Phase (pcl-Phase) — Recalcification & Periosteal Pain

When the self-devaluation conflict is resolved—for example, when the patient regains hope or understands that their health issue is manageable—the biological program enters the healing phase:

Recalcification & Callus Formation: The bone holes begin to refill and remineralize with callus tissue.
Periosteal Stretching Pain: As the bone repairs and swells with edema, it stretches the highly sensitive outer lining of the bone (periosteum), causing deep bone pain. Conventional medicine often misdiagnoses this healing swelling and callus production as an aggressive “osteosarcoma” or “progressing bone metastasis”.
Leukemia as Healing: The surge of white blood cells (leukemia) during this phase represents the natural rebuilding of bone marrow hematopoiesis following the active-phase depression.
Biological Purpose: At the end of the healing phase, the bone is more heavily calcified and physically stronger than it was before the conflict (the “Luxus” group of the mesoderm).

What Is the Role of Microbes in the Healing Phase?

In Germanic Healing Knowledge (GHK), the role of microbes is defined by the Fourth Biological Law: The Ontogenetically Systematized System of Microbes.

Contrary to conventional medicine’s view of microbes as aggressive invaders or causes of disease, GHK demonstrates that microbes are symbiotic helpers and clean-up crews directed entirely by the brain.

1. The Core Rule: Microbes Work Exclusively in the Healing Phase

Brain-Controlled Activation: Microbes do not attack the body on their own initiative; they are activated on command from the brain at the exact moment of conflict resolution (conflictolysis / CL).
Active Only During Repair: All microbes work exclusively in the healing phase (pcl-phase). Before conflict resolution (during normal health or during stress/conflict activity), they remain inactive or harmless (“apathogenic”).
Symptom Misinterpretation: What conventional medicine classifies as an “infectious disease” (fever, inflammation, night sweats, pus) is actually the body undergoing a brain-directed biological repair process with the assistance of microbes.

2. Categorization by Germ Layer & Brain Relay

Microbes are strictly categorized according to their evolutionary age, the embryonic germ layer they serve, and the brain region controlling them:

A. Fungi & Mycobacteria (e.g., Tubercle Bacilli / Tbc)

Brain Level: Controlled by the Old Brain (Brainstem and Cerebellum).
Germ Layer: Entoderm and Old Mesoderm.
Function: Act as destruction and breakdown crews (“Abräumarbeiter”). They caseate, decompose, and clear away tumors (such as lung, colon, or breast gland adenocarcinomas) that grew during the conflict-active phase.
Multiplication Timing: Myco-bacteria multiply during the conflict-active phase (ca-phase) alongside the tumor cells so that an exact, sufficient quantity is ready to begin clearing the tumor as soon as the conflict resolves.

B. Bacteria

Brain Level: Controlled by the Cerebral Medulla (Großhirnmarklager) and Cerebellar Mesoderm.
Germ Layer: New Mesoderm.
Function: Act as breakdown and rebuilding crews (“Abräum- und Aufbauarbeiter”). They remove cell necrosis and assist in rebuilding and recalcifying tissues, such as bones, cartilage, and lymph nodes.
Multiplication Timing: They multiply exclusively in the healing phase (pcl-phase) under vagotonia.

C. Viruses

Brain Level: Controlled by the Cerebral Cortex (Großhirnrinde).
Germ Layer: Ectoderm.
Function: Act exclusively as reconstruction workers (“Aufbauarbeiter”). They act as catalysts to optimize the repair and refilling of ulcerations in ectodermal skin and mucous membranes (e.g., bronchial ducts, bile ducts, or nasal passages).
Multiplication Timing: Multiply exclusively during the healing phase (pcl-phase).

3. What Happens When Microbes Are Missing?

If the necessary microbes are absent (for instance, due to aggressive hygiene, antibiotics, or sterile environments):

Healing Still Occurs, but Sub-Optimally: The body completes the healing phase, but without reaching its natural biological optimum.
Encapsulation Instead of Breakdown: In the case of Old-Brain tumors (such as lung nodules or intestinal tumors), if tubercle bacteria are absent, the tumor cannot be caseated and coughed up or excreted; instead, the body simply encapsulates the inactive tumor in scar tissue, where it remains dormant.

How Specific Symptoms Like Night Sweats or Fever Are Monitored During a Tubercular Healing Phase

In Germanic Healing Knowledge (GHK), symptoms like night sweats, subfebrile fever, and deep fatigue are not monitored as signs of an escalating disease, but as physiological markers that the body has entered the tubercular healing phase (pcl-phase). During this phase, Mycobacterium tuberculosis act as brain-directed breakdown crews to caseate and decompose old-brain/endodermal tumors (such as lung alveolar nodules, breast gland, intestinal, or kidney tumors) that grew during conflict activity.

Monitoring and managing these symptoms involves specific biological principles:

1. Monitoring & Managing Night Sweats (Nachtschweiß)

Circadian Rhythm & Timing: Sweating typically reaches its peak during the deepest vagotonic window of the 24-hour cycle, between midnight and 3:00–4:00 AM.
Duration: In a smooth healing course, profuse sweating continues for 3 to 4 weeks (or longer if conflict relapses occur) until the cellular breakdown of the tumor mass is complete.
Protein Replenishment: Heavy sweating and tubercular discharge cause significant protein loss. Monitoring protein balance and maintaining a protein-rich diet (eiweißreiche Ernährung) is required; restrictive juice cleanses or protein-free diets are strictly advised against during this phase.

2. Monitoring Fever & Vagotonic Fatigue

Subfebrile Temperature: Moderate fever (typically 37.5°C to 38°C) naturally accompanies the microbial decomposition process.
Profound Exhaustion (Müdigkeit): Patients experience severe weakness (“Schlappheit”). In GHK, this is recognized as a necessary “rest cure” (Liegekur), where the nervous system switches into deep parasympathicotonia to allocate all biological energy toward organ repair.
Managing Nighttime Peak & Brain Edema: Because localized swelling occurs simultaneously in the corresponding brain relay (Hamer Focus), symptoms and head pressure often intensify at night. Monitoring includes applying cooling compresses to the head and keeping the patient out of direct sunlight to prevent exacerbating cerebral edema.

3. Tracking Physical & Radiographic Resolution

Elimination of Caseated Tissue: Tubercular breakdown material is coughed up (sputum), passed in stool/urine, or absorbed by the surrounding tissue.
Formation of Caverns (Kavernen): Radiological monitoring (X-rays or CT scans) tracks the transition of dense tumor nodules into hollow, harmless caverns (Kavernen) or calcified scar remnants.
Preventing Diagnostic Panic: The single most crucial monitoring factor is psychological: reassuring the patient beforehand about night sweats and fever prevents a “death-fright” shock (Todesangst), ensuring the healing phase finishes without new conflict shocks.