Experience of testing and treating degenerated cells with the BICOM Combined Test Technique

Dieter Kramer, Naturopath, Bad Essen

INTRODUCTION

Dear colleagues and BICOM bioresonance therapy enthusiasts!

I should like briefly to introduce myself. My name is Dieter Kramer. I am a naturopath by profession and come from an idyllic little place near Osnabrück, where, for the past 15 years, I have been running a practice which administers natural therapies. I now work only with the BICOM Combined Test Technique and chiropractic. I have gradually been able to give up all other types of therapy such as acupuncture, neural therapy, ozone treatment, etc. in favour of bioresonance.

But now to the actual theme of my paper, testing and treating “degenerated cells”.

TESTING AND TREATING “DEGENERATED CELLS”

A patient who was 41 at the time came to my practice in April 1998. I knew him already from occasional visits due to various back problems. He told me that his GP had referred him to a urologist with suspected prostate cancer. This suspicion was based on a raised PSA level. He had learned that I also treated cancer patients and asked me to test him.

EAV testing with the “Degenerated cells” test kit gave a positive result on the triple warmer measurement point with the “Degenerated cells” ampoule. The examination conducted the following day by the urologist (palpation and ultrasound) confirmed this test. At this the patient fell into a deep psychological hole, thanks in part to the extremely solicitous nature of the urologist’s “clarifying discus sion”. He contacted me again and asked me to carry out therapy.

I spoke to the patient at great length and in considerable detail explaining the options open to me and the hypothesis behind the testing and treatment. The patient then decided not to undergo any punch biopsies but just to let me treat him for the time being. I began treating the prostate cancer with the BICOM Combined Test Technique. At first the individual sessions took place every three days and then, after a fortnight, at weekly intervals. After 4 therapy sessions the tumour ampoule could no longer be tested. After about 2 months, the entire “Degenerated cells” test kit could no longer be tested. So I began to search out the cause of the tumorous process.

Detailed testing with the Combined Test Technique test kit revealed that it was a preformed wisdom tooth in the upper left jaw which had triggered the prostate problem. An OPG (panorama radiograph) confirmed this.
The preformed tooth was surgically removed following rigorous preparation and after dissociating the tooth from the triple warmer.

Some three months after his first visit, the patient called at his urologist again. Both the palpation result, the ultrasound examination and the PSA level were normal and no tumour could be detected. The urologist congratulated the patient on his spontaneous recovery and sent him away with the parting comment: “Our diagnoses are sometimes not very reliable and a raised PSA level is not a very reliable form of diagnosis either!”

The patient is currently still symptom-free, has not had any problems since with his prostate but still comes to me every 6 to 9 months for testing.

THE DIAGNOSIS OF “CANCER”

Imagine a doctor telling you that he has found a tumour, what goes through your mind?

Certainly thoughts such as:
• Have I got long to live?
• Who can I turn to for help?
• “Chemo” isn’t exactly a bed of roses!
• Is it too late for surgery?

A diagnosis of “cancer” is closely linked with a fear of lingering illness and death. Where do such thoughts and feelings come from? Certainly not because biochemical medicine gives us hope. Even genetic research has ceased to be centre stage following the recent dilemma in Korea.

An experienced doctor whom I have known a long time and who set up a practice as a specialist in internal medicine said to me some time ago: “Tumour therapy hasn’t made any progress in the last 50 years. It is hard to comprehend where all the billions have gone! The only new development I have heard of is that different chemos were being combined. However, this tended to kill patients and so they have gone back to single chemo.”

I personally have been dealing with tumour patients regularly for about 10 years. And the biggest problem in all this is making clear to the patient that a diagnosis of cancer does not mean that life is over. A positive well-balanced mental attitude on the part of the patient contributes at least 50 % towards their recovery. Yes, you read correctly: to a recovery, not to prolonging their life. Some doctors are even able to predict life expectancy to the patient or their relatives. One of my main aims in working with cancer patients is to give the lie to these “god-like figures in their white coats” and their prognoses.

A patient comes to mind who I have been treating for several years now and whose experience was as follows:
Mr B from B (born 1940) was diagnosed with medullary thyroid cancer (so-called C cell cancer) in January 1999. He presented at my practice in February 2000 following two sessions of surgery in a normal hospital and three in a university hospital. The latest operation took place on 1 December 1999. He had not received any chemo or radiotherapy. Prior to the operations, the patient’s levels of “calcitonin”, the relevant tumour marker for this clinical picture, stood at 1700 pmol/l. On his first visit to me this had dropped to 350 pmol/l. The normal level is below 10.0 pmol/l.

When taking his history, he told me that he felt as if his whole body hurt. He had abdominal pain, needed to cough and felt tightness in his chest. Apart from an appendectomy at the age of 24 and a skiing accident in 1970, he had never had to go to hospital. He was a self-employed businessman who ran a chain of tanning salons. My first testing with the “Degenerated cells” test kit produced a positive result for the “Degeneration” ampoule as well as evidence of Candida in the large intestine and allergic stress from cow’s milk.

From then on I treated him each week for around three months. His blood count settled at around 250 pmol/l. An examination at the university hospital in May 2000 ended with the statement: “your condition has stabilised!”

By June 2000 candida therapy was completed and the allergic stress eliminated. The patient’s overall condition had improved considerably and he no longer had an overall feeling of pain. The coughing and tightness in the chest were resolved through three sessions of chiropractic. From July 2000 the tumour ampoules in the “Degenerated cells” test kit could no longer be tested (and this is still the case today). The patient came to my practice regularly for testing and therapy (at intervals ranging from 14 days up to three months, depending on the testing) and continued to be monitored by the university hospital. The tumour marker stabilised at between 250 and 350 pmol/l. The patient was active and practiced sport, travelled widely with his wife and friends and enjoyed life to the full.

The tumour markers rose in June 2003 leading his doctor to inform him that this was a normal development for this type of cancer. His condition could be expected to deteriorate steadily until 2004. Someone with his diagnosis had 5 years left to live from the appearance of the first symptoms until death. So 2005 was the end (was the patient’s interpretation).

The patient immediately contacted me and by July 2003 we had brought the values back down to the “normal range” around 300 pmol/l. The check-ups at the university hospital were now scheduled closer together. From July 2004 the patient was summoned virtually every month. No new or old tumoral foci were found during these examinations.

Then “finally”, in May 2005, something resembling a focus was found which was also immediately punctured, unfortunately unsuccessfully. A second puncture brought success, but was negative. The professor at the university hospital now also explained to the patient that his raised tumour marker was cause for concern since his five years’ grace was now up. All further examinations have so far not been able to find any positive evidence of tumours.

Because the chances of survival for a patient like this are statistically not very good, a simple raised tumour marker is, for someone who is actually doing fine, a prediction that his life will soon come to an end. Anyone who, for whatever reason, tells a patient how long he can expect to live is behaving like God and will no longer do all he can to heal the person entrusted to his care.

DEALING WITH CANCER PATIENTS AND THEIR RELATIVES

For me a patient’s close relatives play a vital role. Consequently I always try to involve in the treatment the patient’s spouse, parents, close friends, brothers and sisters or whoever they can relate to. The patient and their chosen companion should always take part in the first visit to my practice. Relatives should also accompany the patient to further treatment sessions.

My intention here is that the relatives should know what goes on in my practice and what is discussed, said, done and planned. I also disapprove of “secret telephone calls” in principle (“My husband/ wife mustn’t know that I’ve called you!”). I want to be honest and open about what I do. The patient and their relatives are already confused enough by those offering biochemical treatment. I do not want to make matters worse.

Involve the patient’s relatives in the therapy. Give them practical jobs to do. Have them promise that the patient will go for a walk with the relative at least twice a day (if he is still able to). Give the relative the job of making sure that the patient drinks plenty of water. Have the relative drink plenty of water too, creating a sense of solidarity. If you work with Bach flower remedies, then test Bach flower remedies for the relative as well. Relatives are often the ones who, acting out of sheer despair and anxiety, put so much pressure on the patient that in the end they cannot make a free choice and do what the relatives want.

PATIENTS PREVIOUSLY TREATED WITH CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE AND THEIR SPECIFIC PROBLEMS

All patients previously treated with conventional medicine have one big problem:
They are often resigned and tired of therapy.

All your powers of persuasion will be required now. What is more, you must know what you are talking about and be convinced that the BICOM Combined Test Technique really is the solution for your cancer patients. I hope to be able to give you sufficient practical advice this afternoon to enable you to persuade others through your conviction.

Patients who have already undergone treatment are not just resigned. They are physically at the end of their strength. All conventional medicine actually does is attack the patient with chemical and/or radiation therapy. The body’s metabolism is only operating to a limited extent. Cortisone, antibiotics and/or other chemical products do not necessarily help the patient’s well-being either.

Consider very carefully what you are doing! Do you feel capable of taking up the fight once again with this patient? He will place all his remaining hope in you. Are you up to the task? Are you convinced that you want to take up the fight against degenerated cells with this wonderful BICOM bioresonance therapy?

If not, then be honest enough to tell the patient so openly. It is better for him to sit before someone who is honest than someone who promises a lot and cannot keep his word.

If yes, then stick to your word! Do your best, you cannot do anything other than that anyway. Fight alongside your patient. There is no better motivation for a patient to actively work on his recovery than a committed and, above all, honest therapist.
And if you lose the fight (this does not just happen with cancer, it happens with other diseases as well), see it as an incentive to incorporate in future all the experience you have gained into treating and accompanying the next patient and to obtain a better result.

Even BICOM bioresonance therapy cannot open a book of life which has shut. Neither am I calling upon you to work away selflessly without regard to yourself. Try to find your limits and apply the brake at the right time. For tumour patients need a lot of support and get it from you. But if you agree to help, then do so wholeheartedly. The patient will thank you by getting well!

BICOM COMBINED TEST TECHNIQUE AS SOLE TUMOUR THERAPY?

If we have the good fortune to have a tumour patient come for therapy who has not previously been treated biochemically, above all who has not had any tissue biopsies taken, then we can possibly perform the BICOM Combined Test Technique as the sole therapy and experience considerable success as a result. (I have recorded a total of 45 such cases in the past 9 years.)

If no tissue biopsies have yet been taken, then the likelihood that cells have spread (metastasis) is relatively low. If the patient has not started chemotherapy, the body’s metabolism and its whole system still has an incredible capacity to regulate processes. If no surgery has yet taken place (conventional medicine’s best tumour therapy), we do not need to suppress any interference from scars, nor do we need to eliminate the side effects of anaesthetic or look for tumour cells which have spread, etc. Yet it is still the patient who makes the decision in this matter. What use is it if I, as a therapist, am convinced that therapy will work even without resorting to biochemical means? The patient decides what happens next.

To be able to advise the patient comprehensively, we must know not just precisely what is possible with biochemical medicine but also what the BICOM Combined Test Technique can do. Unfortunately, there are scarcely any patients in my practice who have been helped with biochemical medicine. Patients actually only come to a naturopath when they have exhausted the biochemical options. Therefore I always find it hard to advise biochemical therapy. I also disapprove of certain conventional medical examinations because they are not always performed by experienced specialists. A CT scan, an MRI scan, an X-ray, they all belong in the hands of a radiologist. As for blood tests and tumour markers, my earlier example with Mr M from B. says it all.

The patient alone should decide and I am there at this side and lend my support to his decision.

BICOM COMBINED TEST TECHNIQUE AS FIRST-LINE THERAPY?!

Once again I get to talk about us therapists. If the situation arises, I like to use the following words to my patients:
“It’s quite all right to use other therapies as well as mine. The main thing is that we have discussed it beforehand and I am able to resolve the side effects. It’s all the same to me who conquers the disease in the end. The main thing is that you are healthy and feel better!”

If I stand by these words, the patient will sense this. And I am in a position to deal with his wishes. Let him have chemo while you eliminate the side effects. Many of my patients eat their breakfast while having chemo. Let your patients have radiotherapy if they come to you straight afterwards to make the therapy tolerable. Let patients have hormone treatment. You will get its side effects under control with the BICOM Combined Test Technique.

At some point patients will tell you they have the feeling they no longer need these biochemical treatments. They have a good awareness of their bodies and can judge for themselves what is doing them good and what is not. The fact that registered oncologists operating their own practices are not very happy about this is demonstrated by the case of a young patient who now comes to me regularly. This is her story.

I will call my patient Amelie. She came to my practice for the first time in December 2000 accompanied by her mother. In November 2000 she had been diagnosed with “stage II B Hodgkin’s disease under the Ann Arbor staging system with bilateral cervical involvement and mediastinal bulky disease, nodular sclerosis type according to histological findings”. To keep the therapy report as brief as possible I shall simply say that, after 9 treatment sessions with me and simultaneous chemo, no tumours could be found in Amelie either by conventional methods or by testing the “degenerated cells”.
Nevertheless I should like to quote from the final report of the professor who had Amelie operated on and undergo chemotherapy1 .

“11/00 Hodgkin’s disease, nodular sclerosis, clinical stage IIB with bilateral cervical and mediastinal involvement, bulky disease right cervical and mediastinal nodes. ICD 10 C 81.1

12/00-03/01 5 cycles of curatively intended chemotherapy with BEACOPP

16.01.01 Intermediate staging: Good partial remission

19.03.01 Virtual full remission

21.03.01 Patient discontinued treatment

Condition on admittance on 1 December 2000:
166 cm, 60 kg conscious patient in good general condition, well informed about her condition, cooperative, depressed, anxious. Held head at an angle due to left cervical fist-size lymph node. No helmet headache, mobility of the head restricted due to lymphoma …

Progress and main points of the assessment: …

The patient was clearly distressed and depressed by the diagnosis of a malignant potentially fatal disease and by the impairment of her external appearance by large right neck masses. The nature of the disease and its natural progression was explained in great detail, in the presence of her mother, as well as the excellent chance of recovery. Systemic chemotherapy adapted to her particular stage and possible radiation were also discussed as well as the procedures involved, their sideeffects and possible complications. In view of the stage of the lymphoma, we recommended systemic chemotherapy with 8 cycles of BEACOPP in total and possible subsequent radiation of the bulk.

Chemotherapy was begun on 4 December 2000 and, with the usual accompanying anti-emetics [vomiting] and measures to protect the bladder, was tolerated without complications. When she returned for the 2nd cycle the night sweats had already subsided. The cervical lymphoma appeared much smaller.

The side-effects were transient cutaneous eruption after bleomycin [an antibiotic] and three days’ muscular soreness.

After the 2nd chemotherapy cycle, excellent partial remission was noted in mid January. Therapy was continued at the appropriate time, the patient continuing to tolerate it well. At repeated restaging after the 5th therapy cycle only isolated enlarged regressively transformed cervical lymph nodes were evident. Admittedly, according to a CT scan, one mediastinal tissue plus still present. Since, with the nodular sclerosis subtype, a bulky scarred residual state frequently remains, full remission was already anticipated.

The patient telephoned two days later quite unexpectedly to say that, after careful consideration, she had decided to discontinue treatment and from now on go to a naturopath for treatment by a bioresonance method. Urgent warnings were given against such a step as there was a good chance of treatment curing her yet the alternative method would definitely not be effective against the tumour, but the patient paid no heed. [Amelie] rejected the offer of further discussions about the reasons behind her decision, even in the presence of the naturopath who would be continuing her treatment.

Should [Amelie] come to you, we would ask you to urge her to continue to the end the treatment which has so far been so successful. If the patient is not prepared to do this, we can only hope that the treatment given so far has already brought about a cure. The bioresonance method now favoured by the patient, which she described so vividly on the telephone and which she must pay a lot of money for out of her own pocket is, in our opinion, a charlatanry which may have serious negative conesquences because effective treatment has been discontinued.

With kind regards,

‘Innocent’                                        ‘Professor Know-it-all’
Consultant                                               Medical director”

So, dear colleagues, you now know at first hand what we are dealing with. “A bioresonance method” is not capable of being effective against tumours. Our dealings are “charlatanry”. In the end, Amelie paid less for her tumour therapy at my practice, including testing the causes and dissociating the interfering 1.2 tooth which was responsible for the degeneration, than the cost of all the chemotherapy which she did not have and all the radiation which she did not have.

Amelie is now a 24-year-old student who is well, has no symptoms and also comes to me for “ineffective bioresonance therapy” of all the little infections and complaints which people get. Her whole family comes to me for treatment. Her father has overcome his chronic paranasal sinus infection, her sister’s boils have been cured and her mother no longer has allergic stress.

Thanks to BICOM Combined Test Technique!

I could go on. I could tell you more of my experiences. But there will still be some time for this later this afternoon. Let me just end by making the following point:

If you offer a tumour patient your help, do so wholeheartedly. When tumour patients are presented with their diagnosis, it is also their death sentence because normal medicine is not capable of healing the disease, only of prolonging life. And think of your patient’s will to recover. If you are able to activate this, then everything will be made so much easier. So, to end with, my dream cancer patient, let us call him Paule.

Paule came to my practice for the first time in early December 2003. He was accompanied by his wife and daughter (a nurse). Paule told me that he had found out 10 days earlier that he had prostate cancer. This had already spread into the lumbar spine. Consequently he now also experienced pain in his right thigh. His PSA reading was 84 ng/ml. We did not discuss his previous illnesses any further but began testing immediately. I discovered “degeneration” and “degeneration 19 (prostate)” were positive and gave the appropriate therapy. We conducted 5 therapy sessions in all up to 16 January 2004. On 16 January 2004 Paule complained of pain in his right hip. I treated him with various pain programs and tumour therapy. Paule was actually supposed to have a CT scan but he wasn’t keen. After the therapy the pain had virtually disappeared. On 21 January 2004 the daughter turned up in my practice and brought me a CT image and the accompanying result from which I now quote as follows:

“MRI thoracic/lumbar spine on 21 January 2004

Tumour completely permeated thoracic vertebrae 9 – 11, distance to vertebra 10 completely reduced. The rear edges of thoracic vertebrae 9 and 10 arch forwards compressing the subarachnoid space and deforming the myeloma on the right. Diffuse intrapyramidal epidural dorsal growth of tumour from intervertebral disc thoracic segment 7/8 to thoracic vertebra 12 is assumed. Highly recommended to see neurosurgical consultant as an emergency”.

I do not want to bore you with the details. But we succeeded in getting this patient to the neurosurgeon where he was operated on. He was then transferred to the urology ward. The urologists’ reports contained sentences like:

“If the adjoining vertebra is involved, complete stabilisation of the affected thoracic vertebral segment cannot be assumed however … From a neurological viewpoint, it is possible to mobilise him in a seated position.”

Paule was then treated in the urology ward from 3 to 18 February 2004. The discharge report contained the following:

“Dear colleagues,

We report below on the treatment received by the abovementioned patient while in our care.

Treated as an in-patient from 3 – 18 February 2004.

Diagnosis: Metastasising prostate cancer
Transverse spinal cord syndrome with spinal metastases
Previous laminectomy and partial stabilisation of thoracic vertebra 8/9 Constipation

Therapy:
4 February 2004 4 mg zoledronate infusion
10 February 2004 prostate punch biopsy
10 February 2004 suprapubic urinary diversion fitted
13 February 2004 anti-androgenic therapy with LH-RH analogues introduced
Mobilisation and physiotherapy

Histology:
6 punch biopsies: all revealed infiltration of malignant adenoma of the prostate G 2 – 3 in varying density, Gleason grading 3 + 4 = 7

Case history:

Patient suffered thoraco-lumbar pain since spring 2003. MRI scan in January 2004 due to onset of paresis in legs identified invasion of spinal column by tumour with compression of the epidural space. You performed the abovementioned surgical procedure on 26 January 2004, when partial transverse spinal cord syndrome was already observed.

With a PSA level of 82 ng/ml, osseous metastasising prostate cancer was suspected so the patient was transferred to our department for further diagnosis and therapy.

Progress:

The first attempt at a transrectal punch biopsy on 5 February 2004 had to be abandoned as the patient was severely constipated and, at times, the ampoule was completely filled with hard stool. After giving the patient a laxative and administering antibiotic to protect him, a biopsy was then taken on 10 February. A suprapubic catheter was fitted during the same appointment. Once the histological results were available, we prescribed the first monthly Zoladex implant on 13 February 2004 after three days pre-operative treatment with Androcur. The whole time the patient was with us we tried to increase his mobility through physiotherapy. On discharge [Paule] reported that the sensitivity in his legs had increased slightly. A customised bed was prescribed and the patient transferred to the care of his GP.”

So Paule was discharged on 18 February 2004 and sent home to bed. He was paralysed from the hips down. He was not able to sit or stand or walk or do anything else. His daughter contacted me as soon as he was discharged and I made an initial home visit on 21 February 2004. This was to be followed by a further 18 visits.

On 27 June Paule came into my practice for the first time in a wheelchair. And on 23 December 2005 Paule again came to my practice, only supported on crutches. Not for treatment this time, but to surprise me. His wife had to carry the bottle of red wine he had brought as a Christmas present. Paule announced that next year he would bring it himself.

Only one thing is certain. Paule has a tremendous will to live and a stubborn determination which he was able to bring to bear positively for his own good. Paule is certainly one of a kind but he serves as an example that, together, conventional medicine and biophysical therapy can stop this spectre that haunts modern civilisation. When I talk about the skill of the conventional medical profession here, I am talking about the incredibly precise work of the neurosurgeons.

Do not make light of cancer but convey your confidence to your patient. We have in our hands a tool which is certainly not completely perfected and still requires further research. Yet it has saved several lives in the past 10 years, both human and animal. We should not allow ourselves to be misled by people who appear scientifically advanced. Our work is an excellent alternative to any biochemical action.

I wish you every success in your work.