In my last post I set the stage by talking about the fundamental shift in thinking required by the 5 Biological Laws. I used the analogy of changing the room and mentioned that to explore this new concept you have to fully step into it and resist the temptation to evaluate it with one leg still in the previous room. Doctors are fully committed to their understanding of health in order to do their work. Their understanding is based on a 'mechanical' model where outside forces 'attack' the body or parts break because of some genetic coding (aka bad luck). You could imagine that if a doctor or scientist held on to the old paradigm of disease as a result of sin it would be difficult for them to really understand or accept the current 'mechanical' model. The 5 Biological Laws open the door to an entirely new way of practicing medicine where the patient no longer simply hands over his body to be 'healed' by the doctor. Instead the patient and doctor, together, determine the exact cause of the symptoms, the current phase of the process and the doctor then has the ability to support the patient and alleviate some of the symptoms. Using the 5 Biological Laws it is possible to gain a much more accurate understanding of why we get sick instead of a myriad of possible causes. One of the fundamental views held by Hamer is that nothing in nature happens by chance or accidentally. He refused to accept that just because something was present 50 or 60 percent of the time a certain disease developed, that this could be described as the cause. We don't have biological fathers 60 percent of the time, we have a biological father and mother 100 percent of the time. So he applied the same rigorous standard to his research, demanding that each law be verifiable in 100% of patients.
So, the first biological law creates an understanding regarding the origin of disease. The cause of disease is a very precise event, defined by Hamer as a biological conflict. Again, a different room all together, not a weak immune system, genetic coding (aka bad luck), but a precise experience. Disease is also not caused by generic stress or psychological conflict either. These areas have been the subject of psychosomatic research but are no more accurate than the field of genetics where because a certain gene is present and active in SOME of the cases it is determined to be a cause.
The origin of all disease, from the common cold to cancer, according to the first biological law is a biological conflict, which is defined as an "acute shock - an unexpected, dramatic event, experienced with a sense of isolation." Hamer named this "shock" DHS, which stands for Dirk Hamer Syndrome, to honor the memory of his son who died in a tragic accident, an event which caused Hamer to begin his research.
It is important to point out that the biological conflict has very specific qualities as mentioned above, these are as follows:
1. It is immediate and unexpected, therefore the mind has no time to fully contemplate the event. It is not something you see coming, but an unexpected event that catches you off guard.
2. It is acute in the sense that it happens in a fraction of a second.
3. At the time of this event, the person feels detached from the world and experiences that moment with a sense of solitude.
An example of a small, insignificant "shock" is if we open the door to a public washroom, which someone forgot to lock and find ourselves face to face with the occupant. In an instant our body reacts on several levels. We hold our breath, muscles contract, adrenalin is released and all of this happened without us thinking it through and planning our reaction. The biological shock, or DHS, is not a bad thing. Life is full of them and our bodies have adapted to them by reacting in a way that helps us overcome the conflict in a timely manner. Think of a mouse that sees a cat, it doesn't think about the best way to deal with this situation, it just runs. Automatically its body releases adrenalin, increases its heart rate, constricts its veins and increases the performance of its lungs. The state following the experience of a DHS is called sympathicotonia, where you experience vasoconstriction and therefore have cold hands and feet, increased heart rate and have difficulty sleeping or eating and obsessively think about the problem until you can solve it. This makes sense from a biological, evolutionary view point, which is why Hamer called the body's responses to these conflicts SBS - Special and Biologically Sensible programs (instead of disease).
In our culture, we hold the belief that only the intellect analyses, processes and organizes situations. Hamer, however, is talking about a direct, biological, unfiltered feeling. And he supports his view with the study of evolution. So when he speaks of a biologically sensible program, it is sensible for survival, for adaptation and the preservation of the species. Hamer uses simple animal language in order to describe these biological conflicts such "being unable to mark the territory", "sensing danger (as in the sense of smell)", "being unable to swallow or digest" etc. Of course we experience these situations differently today than we would have earlier in our evolution, or how other animals still experience them today. For example "missing a morsel of food" for an animal actually means starvation, whereas we can have the same experience when we go bankrupt, lose our job or our home because those situations threaten our ability to provide food and shelter for us and our families.
At the moment of the DHS, the body experiences a situation that is very significant from a biological viewpoint. All the elements of that situation, so the smells, sounds, objects, food that was ingested are registered by the body in a framework along the with the context of the emotional content. From then on, any one of these elements can remind the body and reactivate the same SBS. This is called a "conflicting track" which covers allergies, chronic diseases and auto-immune diseases. This will be covered futher, later on.
For now lets look at some examples to help us with our understanding so far. An animal that is experiencing a starvation conflict react with cell proliferation in the liver in order to better digest what little food it may find. As mentioned, humans can experience the same biological conflict in situations such as a job loss. The biological conflict is subjective to the experience, not the event. In other words, two people can have different experiences of the same event. One person may have a "starvation conflict" because the job is clearly the means to put food on the table, while another person looses their job and feels "devalued". Both experiences are biologically, fundamentally different and will activate different responses in the body.
Here is another example: A mother goes to the grocery store with her son. While she is shopping, she looses track of her child and all of a sudden notices that he is gone. Any parent who has experienced this kind of situation can probably confirm that the experience is acute, dramatic, and experienced with a sense of isolation. The shopping list no longer exists and the experience is all consuming, heart is racing etc. At this point the experience of the mother determines the activation of the SBS. The mother may feel as though the child was "torn from her breast" because on the way in she perceived someone looking at the child in a suspicious way and in this case the activated program would be one related to the milk ducts. However, she may feel "devalued" because she did not pay close enough attention to her child and this would result in the activation of a program related to the skeleton. If she felt a great sense of urgency to "act quickly" her thyroid glands may become involved.
The point here is that, what is important is the persons experience rather than the event itself. The biological conflict of the experience relates to the biological function of the affected system. For example, the urinary system is in charge of gathering and expelling urine, but biologically it is also used to "mark one's territory". If this relates to the content of a biological conflict such as when my boss tells me to take down the pictures I've hung up in my office, then it is possible that a SBS is activated that is in charge of the urinary track's epithelium. Now, if the conflict is intense enough and lasts for a long enough time, then the resolution may involve a cystitis or urethritis.
At this point I want to finish this post with the following clarification. Not every time we experience a DHS do we develop detectable symptoms, the intensity and duration of the conflict determine the intensity and duration of the SBS and we will go into more depth about the course of events following a DHS.
Also, I am not saying that diseases are not potentially dangerous or life threatening. But I do believe they are misunderstood processes under the current medical model and the understanding of the 5 biological laws can offer a more precise approach that also allows the patient to deal with symptoms without being filled with confusion, frustration or consumed by blind fear and panic.
