When NOT to Use GNM

Should You Ever Stop Using the GNM?

A few years ago, my dance teacher started missing classes. Her hips were killing her. For someone whose whole livelihood is movement, that's not a small thing. No dancing, no teaching, no income.

She went to her doctor, who told her a virus had targeted her hip joints. And she was relieved. Finally, a name. An explanation. Something to fight.

I offered to help her using Germanic New Medicine. She looked at me and asked the question I've thought about ever since: "But what if it isn't true?"

It's a fair question, and most people new to the five biological laws wonder about it.

We know the five biological laws are real because we've had experiences that confirmed them. But then something scary happens — chest pain, a fever, a scary test result — and then a deep, existential fear slips in: what if I look at this honestly and it isn't enough?

So we lurch to one extreme or the other. Either, "trust your body, never see a doctor," or its opposite: hedging so hard to follow the doctor's orders that we think using the five biological laws is joining a "death sect."

Both come from the same missing piece: a clear framework for how the GNM and conventional medicine actually relate to each other.

The GNM is not a medical theory competing with conventional medicine. It's a framework for understanding your own experience: what's happening in your psyche before, during, and after whatever you decide to do about your body.

Medicine, at its best, has a completely different purpose. It's mechanical work on your body that you can't do for yourself. Setting a broken bone. Stopping a hemorrhage. Anaesthesia. A clear-eyed diagnosis that tells you which tissue is involved.

GNM: work you do on yourself using your psyche, brain, and body. Conventional medicine: work others do on your body (but not on your brain or psyche).

They're not rivals. They answer different questions. Medicine asks what's going on in the hardware, and what could be changed. Germanische Heilkunde asks what your experience means.

You can set a bone and understand the conflict the fall was part of. You can take the antibiotic and still know exactly which healing phase you're in.

Unfortunately, we live right now with a cultural and medical paradigm that blurs the line between illness and injury — treating a process that's quietly resolving with the urgency you'd bring to a car crash, and scaring people into fresh conflicts in the bargain. Sort that confusion out, and a surprising amount of the "should I or shouldn't I" agony is just gone.

Which brings me to the question I've been asked a lot: when should you not use the GNM?

It's a trick question. The answer is never. You should always use it, because it doesn't tell you whether to go to the hospital. It helps you understand your own experience honestly, and take responsibility for it, rather than handing yourself over to a rescuer.

The one thing the GNM can't coexist with is the victim role. And the victim role, alas, is what most of the health industry is built on.

As for my dance teacher, both her hips were involved, and that allowed me (as a GNM practitioner) to understand what she was struggling with in her psyche. I realized why the doctor's "virus" story was so welcome to her. Allopathy handed her a convenient lie that GNM never would have. Her symptoms were actually doing something for her.

In this episode of the Mind Over Symptom podcast, I explain the two different kinds of "health problems," where medicine is genuinely irreplaceable, the grey zone where the two systems go to war, and what "using the GNM" actually means (which isn't what most people think).

Listen now.