An INTRODUCTION to GERMANISCHE HEILKUNDE®
according to Dr. med. Ryke Geerd Hamer
Animal testing - a disgrace for our entire age
The need of humans to understand the language of animals is endlessly old. From ancient times we know from the religion of the Hittites, the Indians, the Greeks and the Germanic tribes, that they largely had a very intimate relationship with the animals, for example they regarded their horses as their friends.
That changed radically when Islam and Christianity came to dominate. Their contempt for animals put an end to any dialogue with animals and degraded all animals (and plants) to purely commercial products that can be exploited and sold. People have become brutalised and impoverished. The dialogue with our animals has been cut off.
Instead, animals are denied not only their souls but also their language. But every dog lover knows, for example, that a dog speaks with its whole body and is also understood by its own kind. It speaks with its tail, which it can raise or lower and wag it, it speaks with its fur, which can bristle, it speaks with its gesture, its eyes, the baring of its teeth or the laying on of its ears, and it speaks with ritual actions: e.g. to surrender to its victorious opponent and offer its throat for a bite. Of course we cannot hear this part of "language", but the dog speaks through it.
And so all animals communicate with each other according to their special species. Because they have a different language, they are not just more stupid than us, they are just different. "Ach", say the enemies of the animals, "the animals can't feel pain at all, they just scream out of instinct, all just reflexes. But you can make sure that they can't scream anymore". But even during the silent torture - the animal experiments - our comrades, the animals, scream.
The statistics on carcinogens are generally based on animal experiments. In this context, the psyche and intelligence of the animals, used in the experiments, were neglected. In reality, however, the psyche with its many so-called Biological Conflicts is the gateway for the development of "diseases" in humans and mammals.
In a large-scale experiment over several years, thousands of Golden Hamsters were smoked (note: confronted with smoke) with cigarette smoke for life, while control animals were not smoked. It was found that none of the animals had suffered from squamous epithelial bronchial Ca, none from pulmonary nodular Ca (Lungenrundherd-Ca), and that the smoked Golden Hamsters had obviously lived longer than the unsmoked control animals. But the result was hushed up or put into perspective: If one constantly confronted laboratory mice (descendants of the house mouse) with cigarette smoke, then one found Lung Nodules in a few of these mice, i.e. alveolar cancer. Both humans and mammals can suffer alveolar cancer from a death-fright conflict. Well, they just said: "Yes, smoking then does cause lung cancer, although not bronchial cancer, but lung cancer. Since then, people have never again spoken of bronchial Ca in the same context as smoking (S.Chart: r.r.a.2)1, but always of lung cancer (S.Chart: g.13)1. This is how perfectly you can lie statistically!
The special point is, that animals also have a psyche like humans. A Golden Hamster is not upset by smoke, because smoke usually does not harm it in its habitat, because it lives in caves under the ground surface, so it has not developed a panic-code. A mouse, however, can be quite upset by the smell of burning or cigarette smoke. In the old days, if a roof truss was on fire, all the mice would run out of the house in a flash, before one noticed anything.
Mice have a fine nose and a congenital panic-code for the smell of burning, so they can suffer a DHS (Conflict Shock), i.e. a death-fright conflict with alveolar Ca (S.Chart: g.13)1.
Another example: American researchers injected rats, whose most sensitive organ is their nose, formaldehyde solution - which is used for disinfection and around which the animals usually take a wide distance - into the nose in thousands of concentrations, several times a day for a year. Some of the poor animals, tortured in such a terrible way, obviously suffered a DHS during this procedure and developed nasal mucosal cancer (S.Chart: r.r. + l.a.11)1. Result of the research: formaldehyde is carcinogenic. The same effect could have been achieved in a human experiment in which the test persons were injected sh…. into their nose several times a day for a year in the same way, from which one would have had to strictly conclude that sh…. is carcinogenic! One will probably remember the billions of consequences, this experiment unfortunately triggered together with a formaldehyde mass hysteria. However, it never occurred to anyone that the poor rats did not like the substance and therefore suffered from nasal mucosal cancer with DHS.
So-called findings in conventional medicine ("school" medicine) have so far always been obtained statistically. As long as facts can be added up, statistics are legal. But where facts of different series are to be linked in a statistically causal way, the matter becomes faulty.
Example: Shepherds in the Caucasus get cancer very rarely. They eat a lot of sheep's cheese. Statistical conclusion: sheep's cheese is an anti-carcinogenic, prevents cancer. (Scientific work from the Ordinariat for Cancer Prophylaxis at the University of Heidelberg/Mannheim). Of course there are no statistics from the point of view of Germanische Heilkunde (initially called NEUE MEDIZIN = New Medicine). Here, totally different explanations would come into play, which on top of that could be proven absolutely clear.
If you want to compare the psyche of animals and humans, you have to imagine that in our big computer brain, completely different conflicts are coded for different life situations. If we put a human being in a car, does he or she feel comfortable there, if we put an eagle in a car, it gets scared to death. The same fear that a human being would get if we put him or her in an eagle's nest. Although the fear of death (death-fright) is a comparable result, it arises in different living beings in very different life situations. As a result, the individual nature and psyche of each living being must be taken into account in order to be able to judge a possible conflict situation.
If a CT of the lungs is done in a hundred dachshund females with mamma-ca (S.Chart: o.r. + l.a.4)1 and also in a hundred human females with mamma-ca (S.Chart: o.r. + l.a.4)1 , then in both groups no pulmonary nodules (Lungenrundherde) are found on the day of diagnosis. Two months later, depending on the brutality of the diagnosis, a large number of women are diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the lungs (S.Chart: g.13). In dogs, on the other hand, not in a single case. Fortunately, they could not understand the diagnosis and therefore did not panic, i.e. did not get a second carcinoma. The term "secondary conflict" means that a person is panicked at the diagnosis (iatrogenic) and suffers a DHS with a new Biological Conflict. In the past, we called these new carcinomas "metastases" in complete ignorance. However, it has never in any way made our doctors or oncologists wonder, that animals almost never get so-called "metastases".
Unlike humans, the animal feels most of these conflicts realistically. For example, when we talk about morsel-conflict, in case of animals it is always about a specific, real morsel, a piece of food that, for example, cannot be swallowed. On the other hand, material value can be a "morsel" for a man, e.g. winning a lottery. These Biological Conflicts can only be understood in terms of evolution, as archaic conflicts that are basically analogous in humans and mammals.
This shows us, that we feel connected to dogs, horses or cows, that we can communicate with them and that we perceive them as "quasi-humans". So we also suffer the same loss-conflict when our human partner or our dog partner dies. If, for example, a young dog is ill, then the human female also experiences a "mother-child worry conflict" with breast cancer on the left, in case of a right-handed woman. Vice versa, the animal feels the same Biological Conflicts about us humans, as partners etc.
I hope the knowledge of the conflict-contents will finally, open a new era in the relationship between man and animal; moving away from the terrible idea of the animal as a thing (subject), which has reached its terrible climax in the extermination of many rare species and the completely unnecessary animal experiments, which are a disgrace for all mankind. All animal experiments that are carried out today, are just senseless cruelty to animals, because the psyche of animals is considered to be non-existent.
In recent times, so-called behavioural research has become increasingly important. After all, we are learning to re-understand many things, which had previously become totally incomprehensible to us. We are forced to communicate with our fellow creatures, the animals. But the whole thing will stay fragmented as long as we only talk about instincts and behaviour, and as long as we do not grant the animals a soul similar to our own. Only then we can really communicate with them.
The big obstacle to these tries of communication was always, that we could not understand the language of animals. But there is a language we have in common with our animals, namely the "interanimal biological language" of our brain. In fact, we can "talk" to any horse or mouse using a computer tomogram. This is because the language of the brain, the interanimal language, is the same in humans and mammals, both with regard to the localisation of fear/fright and conflicts in the brain, and with regard to changing processes in the brain.
All these things are wonderfully pre-programmed in our brains and our brains are also networked with the brains of our fellow creatures, the animals. The same for animals and plants. We call these correlations biological harmony, which has existed wonderfully for millions of years until man came in his hubris and destroyed it. Man is actually the only one of all living creatures on earth that got out of balance and destroyed this wonderful creation. This brings to mind Schiller's verses:
Gefährlich ist's den Leu zu wecken, verderblich ist des Tigers Zahn,
doch das schrecklichste der Schrecken, ist der Mensch in seinem Wahn.
I would like to predict that animal testing will one day be seen as a disgrace for our entire age and a testimony to our inexpressible ignorance.