Hi all,
I like to discuss the relation of META-Health and us as Trainers and Practitioners with the establishment and the mainstream. I like a true scientific approach, as science is free to follow and examine ANY thought.

Confrontation with the establishment is nothing to fear per se, it is a root of development. Having said that, the way one confronts the mainstream of course is important. This is what I try to bring across in my trainings. We should not shy away from discussion, but should let be to attack other professionals!

Like "what heals cancer" is yet to be discovered in conventional medicine, what has been observed is that individual resources are preventing or healing cancer. There are medical doctors who say that chemotherapy is sometimes doing more harm than good, as it tends to not have lasting effects. Also, screening is being criticised (e.g. by Cochrane Institute) for being uneffective and sometimes harmful. On this footing, we are open to individually respond to our client's needs and preferences. I have helped some to get rid of their fear for chemo, and have supported others to follow what strengthens them more.

So I would like the Trainers of META-Health to have a discussion about the META-Health stance (in this thread, and in Barcelona) and to publish the result on our website so that we draw clear limits to where we in META-Health are in accord, and what are personal opinions (which Practitioners have a right to have and to use as long as they are not illegal - even if others inside the community don't share them). We also want to establish where Dr Hamer comes into META-Health, and where our profile exceeds or contradicts and replaces his statements.
This can then be shown to those who want to equal META-Health with GNM or accuse us of quackery.

Greetings,
Kora