Talk:Ryke Geerd Hamer

Another source

See Prof. Ernst's blog for details of another source, if anybody has good German it may be usable here. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent deletion

About the deletion by Wblundie: sources do say what our article claims they say, see WP:VER. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello there, I saw that you put the bit about the "hamer foci" back up. Still, however, the links on your page for the Hamer focus send users to blank webpages. What's going on? Maybe you should take down the information until you're able to find, and put up, working reference links. It doesn't seem very professional to put up information without any references that actually work. Your links ought to send users somewhere where they can verify your statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wblundie (talk • contribs) 20:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

If you didn't notice, one link is already archived. Anyway, link rot is not a reason for removing information which was verifiable. Meanwhile I found the archive of the second cited source, so both sources can be consulted by anyone clicking on the "archived" link. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ryke Geerd Hamer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110815053742/http://dr-rykegeerdhamer.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=362&Itemid=76 to http://dr-rykegeerdhamer.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=362&Itemid=76
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110815053200/http://dr-rykegeerdhamer.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=361&Itemid=76 to http://dr-rykegeerdhamer.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=361&Itemid=76
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209061931/http://www.krebsinfo.at/Fremdseiten/Hamer/www.krebsinformation.de.therapie_na.pdf to http://www.krebsinfo.at/Fremdseiten/Hamer/www.krebsinformation.de.therapie_na.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928055543/http://www.krebsgesellschaft.de/news_detail,,,16104.html to http://www.krebsgesellschaft.de/news_detail,,,16104.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Victims

Currently, the list of Hamer's victims is as a single line with a ton of references. If there's interest, I'd like to expand this to a proper section. I think this is appropriate as there is no separate article for GNM, and GNM redirects here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari T. Benchaim (talk • contribs)

Talking about victims, without a conviction of Hamer for it... The whole thing gets prejudicial. And I don't see that any of the other articles on medical issues uses 'victims'. E.g. victims of vaccinations, victims of chemotherapy, etc. 105.9.142.2 (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

As one famous philosopher once said, you don't have to eat the whole egg in order to know it's rotten. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding balance

Dr. Hamer passed away a few years ago and there are medical practitioners who use his system of medicine to treat any and all disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyVerinder (talk • contribs) 12:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

No, thanks! We don't need Hamerites adding WP:FALSEBALANCE to the article.

This is not a friendly website for the superstitious, illogical, unreasonable and WP:FRINGE.

And if you don't want your editing to be limited by the Wikipedia community's particular goals and methods and decisions, the good news is that there's plenty of other outlets for your work, like perhaps Conservapedia, or getting a personal blog. At the end of the day, Wikipedia really is the private project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is, roughly, a service that provides summaries of the contents of mainstream scholarship, in the specific sense that "mainstream scholarship" has here at Wikipedia. It's really not an experiment in treating all views equally, and if you think it is, you're likely to wind up frustrated. Alephb (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

A word of caution. The Wiki FalseBalance parameters use “consensus of scientific opinion” as a basis for fact or truth. Consensus has never been a basis for correct fact opinion or truth. So here we should allow “added balance” to a very prejudiced Wiki page on Dr Hamer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipirana (talk • contribs) 14:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Nope, medical science exists in the off-wiki world, Wikipedia simply renders it for what it is. See WP:MEDRS, and WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Fact: Dr. Hamer passed away a few years ago and there are medical practitioners who use his system of medicine to treat any and all disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipirana (talk • contribs) 18:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. But around here they count as quacks. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

tgeorgescu is correct. (From what I can tell, Conservapedia doesn't want any quack medicine content either., although you didn't say it did.)--FeralOink (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

His career as a doctor before 1978

The article seems to imply that he went mad rather than became a quack consciously and cynically. Was his licence revoked only because of GNM, or were there any issues with his work before his son's death too? 213.134.178.129 (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

On the question: I don't know the answer.

On became a quack consciously and cynically: for a MD doing that would be a testimony of insanity in itself. I'm not taking sides upon whether we was mad or bad, but awarely turning bad seems to imply mad, at least for someone having received medico-scientific and medical ethics education. The problem is that you can't plead he was homo economicus unless millions of dollars were involved (which does not seem to have been the case). Most con men would retract their beliefs rather than go to prison for their beliefs. So, if his purpose for becoming a quack was financial, he was a financial failure. MD is generally speaking a well-paid job, so he had no economic incentive to go rogue. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)