Did We Survive Thanks to Antibiotics or in Spite of Them?

This article arises from a question asked by a student of the Professional Training in Biological Laws at the Awaking Project, shared in the private forum at awakingproject.com/foros. Below is her question and my response, restructured into an article format for greater clarity and depth, while remaining faithful to the original ideas.

Student’s Question:

Hi Gastón! I’m a student in the training program and a committed follower of German New Medicine. I have a question that I partially know the answer to, but I couldn’t argue it solidly during a family conversation about New Medicine. I’m referring to antibiotics. I understand that using them is “anti-life” and that their use interrupts the bacterial process active during the repair phase, whether rebuilding or breaking down tissue depending on the case. In your words, as quoted from a forum response: “the work stops there and remains pending, to the detriment of your organs.” On another occasion, someone asked when it might be appropriate to use antibiotics and you answered: in no case.

These were the arguments I gave during a Sunday family lunch that triggered a storm of questions I couldn’t answer, all along these lines:

How do you explain the billions of people who have been and are treated with antibiotics and still remain completely healthy? I mean, basically the whole planet, including you.

Your grandfather wouldn’t have lived 20 more years without penicillin. When he was dying, would you have refused treatment?

So if it were up to you, you wouldn’t take anything at all, except maybe a few medicinal plants, which we don’t even have here. What doctor would you go to? The girl at the health food store?

Response:

Dear Vale,

Thank you for your honesty and for raising such an important concern. I completely understand what you experienced, as it’s a common point of friction when trying to share this new paradigm in environments still rooted in the old medical model. Here’s a way to respond to these questions, not to convince others, but to strengthen your own understanding.

1. Are they really healthy?

That is the big question.

Just because someone has no visible symptoms doesn’t mean they are healthy. The absence of symptoms is not synonymous with good health; in fact, only dead bodies are completely symptom-free. Inflammation, fever, or pain are not signs of a “narcissistic illness,” as some might think, but natural expressions of an ongoing organic repair process, as explained and verified by the Biological Laws.

German New Medicine helps us understand that these symptoms are not enemies to be eliminated but necessary phases within a biological restoration program. Just like when you get a cut and it swells before healing, internal processes also require inflammation as part of healing. And for this to happen correctly, the body needs the action of specific bacteria. If these are eliminated by antibiotics, the process is interrupted and left incomplete, leaving a pending repair that may lead to more serious consequences in the future.

Yes, it is true that antibiotics can provide immediate symptomatic relief. But the real question is: is that truly a solution? If the person identified their DHS, resolved it, and went through the repair phase peacefully and without relapses, they would not only complete the biological process without issues, but also experience personal growth. After a biological program, both body and psyche strengthen, leading to greater maturity and awareness.

2. Your grandfather wouldn’t have lived 20 more years if it weren’t for penicillin. Would you have refused to let him be treated?

I would start by responding with a question: Who can assure us that living longer is truly in the person’s best interest, especially if that means being confined to a chair, staring at the TV? Is that really why we extend life? Or could we say that we’re simply prolonging their suffering?

I’m not entirely sure whether people lived longer in the past or not, but what is clear is that the conditions were very different. Technological advancements have drastically reduced the number of biological conflicts (DHS) we experience. For example, if you spent a year working in the countryside and compared yourself with a friend who stayed in the city, you’d see that you age much more in a short time. That’s due to constant exposure to cold, heat, natural adversities, animals and insects (and the biological conflicts they can trigger), water shortages or excesses, and the sheer physical labor that life in a natural setting demands—in other words, a significant degree of biological fatigue.

Undoubtedly, modern advances have greatly improved our quality of life: today we sleep warm, we have clean water, readily available food, safety, and far less exposure to the factors that wear us down biologically. This means we fatigue our bodies less, and therefore, we live longer. It’s not penicillin that saves lives—it’s the more comfortable environment that technology has created.

That said, I do acknowledge that in extreme cases, where the repair phase (PCL) is so intense that someone without knowledge of GNM might not be able to handle it, penicillin could potentially help them survive. But antibiotics should be avoided at all costs, as far as possible. It’s also true that, as we’ve become physically and emotionally weaker, many people today are simply not equipped to endure intense PCLs and end up dying from biological fatigue—precisely because we’re no longer exposed to the same natural conflicts that shaped our biology before technology cushioned our lives. These advances allow us to live more comfortably, but they also make us more fragile. It’s not that the body isn’t capable—it’s that the mind and the environment are no longer prepared to support the process.

Personally, I’ve been through extremely intense repair processes—so intense that I nearly fainted from the pain—and I never felt fear. The process continued and eventually resolved. But I do recognize that, in those moments, I thought: “I’m not sure many people today could withstand this.” In such cases, perhaps an antibiotic could save someone with a weaker body or mind, and overwhelmed by fear—but at a high cost, because the organic process will remain incomplete. And depending on the organ involved, this could leave serious consequences.

Knowing GNM empowers you. It gives you strength and courage. Over time, you realize that you need a strong body (strength training), proper nutrition (animal protein, fruits, and honey), and a firm attitude toward life—an active and determined posture. I could go much deeper into this, but I believe this is already a more than sufficient answer.

The case of the grandfather and penicillin:

People often say that “antibiotics saved someone’s life,” but we can never really know what would have happened had the natural biological process been respected, understanding it as a repair phase, and avoiding collapse. It’s not the same to intervene in someone with no knowledge of GNM as it is in someone who understands, accepts, and knows how to accompany their repair.

Moreover, today we live in much more favorable conditions (warmth, hygiene, rest, nutrition), which make it easier to complete intense processes without resorting to aggressive medications. Penicillin may have been an emergency tool, but its systematic and widespread use has done more harm than good, largely due to ignorance of the biological role of bacteria and their essential function in repair phases.

In some extreme cases, where the repair phase (PCL) is so intense that the person might not survive due to biological fatigue, using antibiotics like penicillin could seem like a life-saving measure. However, this raises an even greater dilemma: in such a case, all penicillin would do is kill the bacteria, possibly stopping the inflammation… but at what cost? What tissue remained unrepaired? What organic consequence resulted from interrupting that process?

Over time, we see that repeated use of antibiotics doesn’t just halt necessary processes—it leads to a progressive loss of vitality, bacterial flora, and essential biological functions. Thus, the person becomes increasingly dependent on external interventions, eventually reaching a point where their life is sustained artificially by continuous use of sympathicotonic chemicals… until the end.

3. “So if it were up to you, you wouldn’t take anything…”

Indeed, someone with a deep understanding of GNM who has prepared physically, emotionally, and mentally can undergo very intense processes without needing pharmacological intervention. This requires inner strength, peace, and an environment free of fear. Not everyone is ready for that, and that’s okay. But it is possible. What isn’t valid is dismissing that possibility just because it’s difficult.

“Going to the health food store?” The point isn’t choosing between pharmacology and herbalism (it’s clear they always seek external solutions and never look within, let alone consider that the solution may lie deep inside us). The point is understanding these processes and knowing when to intervene and when not to, from a paradigm that puts the human being at the center of their health, rather than as a victim of microbes or bad luck.

Eventually, after many conflict relapses and incomplete processes, surgery might be needed as a mechanical aid—not as a cure for disease. That kind of benefit, as noted by Dr. Hamer and Dr. Robert Guinee, is something nature itself does not provide.

4. Final Reflections

GNM is not about being against classical medicine, but about recognizing that many of its interventions are unnecessary, harmful, or counterproductive—especially when the ongoing biological process is misunderstood. As Dr. Hamer said, the greatest danger is fear. It is fear that drives people to use antibiotics without understanding they are interrupting an intelligent process. The best medicine is understanding.

If you want to explore further, I recommend researching the history of Pasteur and Bechamp, where you’ll see how the idea of “bad microbes” was imposed through scientific fraud. You can find information on this here:

Thank you for your courage in asking these questions. As always, I’m here to accompany you on your path of verification.

Gastón

Related Articles

Responses