Changes

Moreover, if the cancer progresses, patients could suffer feelings of failure or guilt, because the Hamer method of «New Medicine» presumes that the cure for cancer depends upon the patients’ resolving their personal conflicts. This could give rise to the erroneous assumption that the disease will progress if they do not make a large enough contribution towards the resolution of their conflicts, or if they do not follow the proper procedure.

Moreover, if the cancer progresses, patients could suffer feelings of failure or guilt, because the Hamer method of «New Medicine» presumes that the cure for cancer depends upon the patients’ resolving their personal conflicts. This could give rise to the erroneous assumption that the disease will progress if they do not make a large enough contribution towards the resolution of their conflicts, or if they do not follow the proper procedure.

==Handedness and the New Medicine==

==Handedness==

[[image:handedness.jpg|600px|thumb|applause-test for handedness according to Hamer]]

[[image:handedness.jpg|600px|thumb|applause-test for handedness according to Hamer]]

In new medicine, handedness is important as it should determine the location of an eventual disease like cancer. But in relation to handedness in man, Hamer made many erroneous statements beeing in obvious contrast to actual medical knowledge.  

In new medicine, handedness is important as it should determine the location of an eventual disease like cancer. But in relation to handedness in man, Hamer made many erroneous statements being in obvious contrast to actual medical knowledge.

*'''monozygotic twins and handness''': Hamer is convinced that in monozygotic twins one were always left-handed and the other one right-handed, but he gives no exact reference for this opinion <ref>...Interessant ist in dem Zusammenhang auch, daß bei eineiigen Zwillingen stets einer linkshändig und der andere rechtshändig ist...(from: http://www.neue-medizin.de/html/handigkeit.html )</ref> <ref>Hamer RG: Vermächtnis einer Neuen Medizin. Teil 2. Die 5 Biologischen Gesetze - Grundlage der gesamten Medizin.. 7. Aufl. Amici di Dirk - Ediciones de la Nueva Medicina S.L., E-Fuengirola 1999 ISBN 84-930091-0-5</ref>. This opinion can easely be checked and there exits scientific literature dealing about this issue. Incidence of left-handedness is in sigletons, monozygotic and dizygotic twins around 10%-15% and there is no source stating that left-handedness would be exactly 50% in monozygotic twins <ref>Derom, Handedness in twins according to zygosity and chorion type: a preliminary report Behav genet 1996 Jul;26(4):407

*'''monozygotic twins and handness''': Hamer is convinced that in monozygotic twins one were always left-handed and the other one right-handed, but he gives no exact reference for this opinion.<ref>[...] Interessant ist in dem Zusammenhang auch, daß bei eineiigen Zwillingen stets einer linkshändig und der andere rechtshändig ist [...] (from: http://www.neue-medizin.de/html/handigkeit.html)</ref><ref>Hamer RG: Vermächtnis einer Neuen Medizin. Teil 2. Die 5 Biologischen Gesetze - Grundlage der gesamten Medizin.. 7. Aufl. Amici di Dirk - Ediciones de la Nueva Medicina S.L., E-Fuengirola 1999 ISBN 84-930091-0-5</ref> This opinion can easily be checked and there exits scientific literature dealing about this issue. Incidence of left-handedness is in sigletons, monozygotic and dizygotic twins around 10%-15% and there is no source stating that left-handedness would be exactly 50% in monozygotic twins.<ref>Derom, Handedness in twins according to zygosity and chorion type: a preliminary report Behav genet 1996 Jul;26(4):407<br>

In the course of the East Flanders Prospective Twin Survey (EFPTS), handedness was assessed as part of a genealogical study (Meulemans et al., 1995) in 1616 twins (808 twin pairs) aged 6 to 28. Our findings are that, in this large population-based study with known placentation and zygosity, the often observed higher frequency of left-handedness in twins is confirmed, that it appears to be independent of zygosity and chorion type, and that the belief that discordant handedness in monozygotic twins represents mirror-imaging is mythical.</ref>. The autor Derom writes: ''...the belief that discordant handedness in monozygotic twins represents mirror-imaging is mythical...'' <ref>Shimizu A, Comparison of patterns of handedness between twins and singletons in Japan, Cortex 1983 Sep;19(3):345-52

In the course of the East Flanders Prospective Twin Survey (EFPTS), handedness was assessed as part of a genealogical study (Meulemans et al., 1995) in 1616 twins (808 twin pairs) aged 6 to 28. Our findings are that, in this large population-based study with known placentation and zygosity, the often observed higher frequency of left-handedness in twins is confirmed, that it appears to be independent of zygosity and chorion type, and that the belief that discordant handedness in monozygotic twins represents mirror-imaging is mythical.</ref> The autor Derom writes: ''[...] the belief that discordant handedness in monozygotic twins represents mirror-imaging is mythical [...]''.<ref>Shimizu A, Comparison of patterns of handedness between twins and singletons in Japan, Cortex 1983 Sep;19(3):345-52<br>

The handedness questionnaire of thirteen items which was identical to that employed in our previous study on singletons was administered to 62 monozygotic (MZ) and 48 dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs in Japan. Information on forced conversion of hand usage in childhood was also obtained. Results indicated that the incidence of left-handedness was 3.6% and that of non-right-handedness (which includes mixed- and left-handedness) was 5.9%. There was no significant difference in the incidence of left-handedness or of non-right-handedness between MZ and DZ twin groups. The proportion of converted right-handedness in MZ twins was slightly higher than in DZ twins. MZ pairs were somewhat more concordant for handedness than DZ pairs. Item analysis indicated that the incidence of individuals who use the left hand for writing and eating was only 0.9% and 1.8%, respectively. A comparison of the results of the present survey on twins with those of our previous one on singletons revealed that the incidence of left-handedness or non-right-handedness in twins is the same as that in singletons. Twins (especially MZ twins) have experienced a forced conversion to right-hand usage more frequently than singletons.</ref>.

The handedness questionnaire of thirteen items which was identical to that employed in our previous study on singletons was administered to 62 monozygotic (MZ) and 48 dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs in Japan. Information on forced conversion of hand usage in childhood was also obtained. Results indicated that the incidence of left-handedness was 3.6% and that of non-right-handedness (which includes mixed- and left-handedness) was 5.9%. There was no significant difference in the incidence of left-handedness or of non-right-handedness between MZ and DZ twin groups. The proportion of converted right-handedness in MZ twins was slightly higher than in DZ twins. MZ pairs were somewhat more concordant for handedness than DZ pairs. Item analysis indicated that the incidence of individuals who use the left hand for writing and eating was only 0.9% and 1.8%, respectively. A comparison of the results of the present survey on twins with those of our previous one on singletons revealed that the incidence of left-handedness or non-right-handedness in twins is the same as that in singletons. Twins (especially MZ twins) have experienced a forced conversion to right-hand usage more frequently than singletons.</ref>

*'''Hamerian applause-test and pryer-test'''. Hamer uses an own and controversal test for handedness, the so-called ''Applause-test'' and a so-called ''Bet-Test'' (prayer-test). These simple tets have never been scientifically validated and have a pseudoscientific caracter. No information regarding these tests can be found in scientific databases. Using these tests, some new-medicine patients were given conflicting handedness by different persons creating some confusion.  

*'''Hamerian applause-test and pryer-test'''. Hamer uses an own and controversial test for handedness, the so-called ''Applause-test'' and a so-called ''Bet-Test'' (prayer-test). These simple tests have never been scientifically validated and have a pseudoscientific character. No information regarding these tests can be found in scientific databases. Using these tests, some new-medicine patients were given conflicting handedness by different persons creating some confusion.  

*'''Handedness and body side to cradle babies'''. Hamer is convinced that women and men would cradle their babies always on the opposite side of her dominant hand. A left-handed woman would therefore always hold her baby on the right side of her body. This is not tue, and many scientific sources tell us someting different. Men and women are holding their baby mostly (80%) on her left side, regardless of her handedness. This is also true for apes (primates). <ref>Salk L, The effects of the normal heartbeat sound on the behavior of the new-born infant: implications for mental health. World Mental Health 1960 12, 168-175</ref><ref>De Chateau, Left-side preference for holding and carrying newborn infants. Parental holding and carrying during the first week of life, J Nerv Ment Dis 1983 Apr;171(4):241-5,Four groups of adults were studied: new mothers, new fathers, fathers with older children, and males without children of their own. Nearly 80 per cent of all newly delivered mothers and fathers held their newborn infant against a point to the left of the body midline. Handedness and parity did not influence this preference, nor did the sex of the infant. The present study also demonstrates that new fathers during the neonatal period, as well as fathers with older infants, display a significantly greater preference for holding the infant to the left than males without own children and with or without experience of other children. Individual mother-father pairs held the infant on the same side of the body in the majority of couples studied. The pattern of infant-carrying showed no significant in-between group differences. The possible significance of these observations and their relation to other parental behavior are discussed.</ref><ref>Mason Giorgia, Why do humans and apes cradle babies on their left side? New Scientist, 21. July 1990, 28.</ref><ref>Sieratzki JS, Neuropsychological and neuropsychiatric perspectives on maternal cradling preferences, Epidemiol Psychiatr Soc 2002 Jul-Sep;11(3):170-6

*'''Handedness and body side to cradle babies'''. Hamer is convinced that women and men would cradle their babies always on the opposite side of her dominant hand. A left-handed woman would therefore always hold her baby on the right side of her body. This is not true, and many scientific sources tell us something different. Men and women are holding their baby mostly (80%) on her left side, regardless of her handedness. This is also true for apes (primates). <ref>Salk L, The effects of the normal heartbeat sound on the behavior of the new-born infant: implications for mental health. World Mental Health 1960 12, 168-175</ref><ref>De Chateau, Left-side preference for holding and carrying newborn infants. Parental holding and carrying during the first week of life, J Nerv Ment Dis 1983 Apr;171(4):241-5,Four groups of adults were studied: new mothers, new fathers, fathers with older children, and males without children of their own. Nearly 80 per cent of all newly delivered mothers and fathers held their newborn infant against a point to the left of the body midline. Handedness and parity did not influence this preference, nor did the sex of the infant. The present study also demonstrates that new fathers during the neonatal period, as well as fathers with older infants, display a significantly greater preference for holding the infant to the left than males without own children and with or without experience of other children. Individual mother-father pairs held the infant on the same side of the body in the majority of couples studied. The pattern of infant-carrying showed no significant in-between group differences. The possible significance of these observations and their relation to other parental behavior are discussed.</ref><ref>Mason Giorgia, Why do humans and apes cradle babies on their left side? New Scientist, 21. July 1990, 28.</ref><ref>Sieratzki JS, Neuropsychological and neuropsychiatric perspectives on maternal cradling preferences, Epidemiol Psychiatr Soc 2002 Jul-Sep;11(3):170-6

OBJECTIVE: To assess competing explanations for the universal preference of mothers to cradle infants on their left side and to propose a relation to hemispheric asymmetry for social attachment and communication behaviour. METHODS: A review of observational, experimental, physiological, psychological, neuro-physiological, and neuro-psychological studies, including new findings on the cradling behaviour of mothers with auditory or visual impairments. RESULTS: A significant left-cradling bias is observed in both right- and left-handed mothers which cannot adequately be explained by arguments based on handedness or closer contact to the soothing sound of the maternal heartbeat. Observations of primate behaviour have led to the suggestion that the left-cradling bias may be related to a left visual field (right hemisphere) advantage for monitoring an infant's facial expressions of distress. However, more than just monitoring, cradling subserves the mother's connection with the infant. For that reason, we have suggested that left cradling might be related to a right hemisphere specialisation for emotional communication, i.e. the speech melody, smiles, signals, and stroking which mothers use to interact with their infants. Studies of mother-infant interaction show that the sound of the mother's voice is more soothing when cradling on the left, more stimulating when cradling on the right. Cradling laterality may thus be related to emotional state and behavioural intent. There is also evidence to suggest that left cradling is linked to a special role of the right hemisphere in social attachment behaviour. This function may be disturbed in mothers with post-natal depression who show abnormal right hemisphere activity. CONCLUSION: Cradling embodies the symbiotic relationship between mother and infant; various lines of evidence support the suggestion that the universal preference of mothers to cradle infants on their left side is related to a right hemisphere dominance for social attachment and communication behaviour.</ref><ref>Bogren LY, Side preference in women and men when holding their newborn child: psychological background, Acta Psychiatr Scand 1984 Jan;69(1):13-23

OBJECTIVE: To assess competing explanations for the universal preference of mothers to cradle infants on their left side and to propose a relation to hemispheric asymmetry for social attachment and communication behaviour. METHODS: A review of observational, experimental, physiological, psychological, neuro-physiological, and neuro-psychological studies, including new findings on the cradling behaviour of mothers with auditory or visual impairments. RESULTS: A significant left-cradling bias is observed in both right- and left-handed mothers which cannot adequately be explained by arguments based on handedness or closer contact to the soothing sound of the maternal heartbeat. Observations of primate behaviour have led to the suggestion that the left-cradling bias may be related to a left visual field (right hemisphere) advantage for monitoring an infant's facial expressions of distress. However, more than just monitoring, cradling subserves the mother's connection with the infant. For that reason, we have suggested that left cradling might be related to a right hemisphere specialisation for emotional communication, i.e. the speech melody, smiles, signals, and stroking which mothers use to interact with their infants. Studies of mother-infant interaction show that the sound of the mother's voice is more soothing when cradling on the left, more stimulating when cradling on the right. Cradling laterality may thus be related to emotional state and behavioural intent. There is also evidence to suggest that left cradling is linked to a special role of the right hemisphere in social attachment behaviour. This function may be disturbed in mothers with post-natal depression who show abnormal right hemisphere activity. CONCLUSION: Cradling embodies the symbiotic relationship between mother and infant; various lines of evidence support the suggestion that the universal preference of mothers to cradle infants on their left side is related to a right hemisphere dominance for social attachment and communication behaviour.</ref><ref>Bogren LY, Side preference in women and men when holding their newborn child: psychological background, Acta Psychiatr Scand 1984 Jan;69(1):13-23

In a prospective study 81 randomly selected parents awaiting their first baby were interviewed early during pregnancy and again during the week after delivery. About 80% of the women and their partners were found to hold their child to the left, and 20% to the right, irrespective of handedness. There was no relation between side preference in child holding in the couples. Common to both sexes is the trend that left-holders are more attached to and identified with the parent of their own sex whereas right-holders are more attached to and identified with the parent of the opposite sex. Right-holders have also more often had mental symptoms prior to pregnancy and were concerned about the pregnancy, delivery and health of the child at birth.</ref><ref>Bogren LY, The couvade syndrome and side preference in child holding, Acta Psychiatr Scand 1985 Mar;71(3):311-4,In a prospective study of expectant couples 20% of the men suffered from the couvade syndrome. About 80% of both women and men hold their newborn infant to the left and 20% to the right, irrespective of handedness. Compared with others, men with the syndrome more frequently developed a right-side preference in child holding. Right-holding men more often had sons than daughters. Right-holders with the couvade syndrome were more often attached to and more closely identified with their mothers than were right-holding non-sufferers.</ref><ref>Ginsburg HJ, Maternal holding preferences: a consequence of newborn head-turning response, Child Dev 1979 Mar;50(1):280-1,

In a prospective study 81 randomly selected parents awaiting their first baby were interviewed early during pregnancy and again during the week after delivery. About 80% of the women and their partners were found to hold their child to the left, and 20% to the right, irrespective of handedness. There was no relation between side preference in child holding in the couples. Common to both sexes is the trend that left-holders are more attached to and identified with the parent of their own sex whereas right-holders are more attached to and identified with the parent of the opposite sex. Right-holders have also more often had mental symptoms prior to pregnancy and were concerned about the pregnancy, delivery and health of the child at birth.</ref><ref>Bogren LY, The couvade syndrome and side preference in child holding, Acta Psychiatr Scand 1985 Mar;71(3):311-4,In a prospective study of expectant couples 20% of the men suffered from the couvade syndrome. About 80% of both women and men hold their newborn infant to the left and 20% to the right, irrespective of handedness. Compared with others, men with the syndrome more frequently developed a right-side preference in child holding. Right-holding men more often had sons than daughters. Right-holders with the couvade syndrome were more often attached to and more closely identified with their mothers than were right-holding non-sufferers.</ref><ref>Ginsburg HJ, Maternal holding preferences: a consequence of newborn head-turning response, Child Dev 1979 Mar;50(1):280-1,

A dominant leftward cradling bias has been observed in women in non feeding interaction with infants. Reasons for this behavior have been sought in behavioral asymmetries, but none have sufficiently justified the presence of this leftward pattern. Recently, the cradling bias has been linked to affective processing, considered to be a specialized function of the nondominant (right) hemisphere (Manning & Chamberlain, 1990). This study investigates Manning and Chamberlain's (1990) suggestions that a relationship exists between leftward cradling and the interpretation and expression of affect. Eighty-six nulliparous women were tested for this relationship by correlating direction of cradling bias with visual field dominance for perception of facially expressed emotion and expression of affect. No significant relationship was found to directly support the hypotheses.</ref><ref>Harris LJ, Side preference in adults for holding infants: contributions of sex and handedness in a test of imagination, Brain Cogn 2000 Jun-Aug;43(1-3):246-52, Five hundred one right-handers (150 men, 351 women) and 53 left-handers (15 men, 38 women) were asked to imagine holding a young infant in their arms. Right-handers reported significant left-side biases--in 68% of the men and 73% of the women. For left-handers, side preferences were weaker, the left-side bias dropping to 47% for men and 60% for women, with neither figure different from chance. The results are discussed in the context of theory and research on the functional neuroanatomy of attention, emotional arousal, and the generation, maintenance, and manipulation of mental images.</ref><ref>Harris LJ, Lateral biases for holding infants: early opinions, observations, and explanations, with some possible lessons for theory and research today, Brain Cogn 2002 Mar-Apr;48(2-3):392-4, In 1962, the psychologist Lee Salk reported finding that 80% of mothers held their infants on the left side of their body, so that the infant's head was to their left. Salk's finding has been amply confirmed, with new studies of mothers as well as other adults reporting figures for left-side holding ranging from 60 to 85% (e.g., de Chateau, 1983; Harris & Fitzgerald, 1985; Harris, Almerigi, & Kirsch, 2000). New studies also suggest that the bias is only for holding infants (or infant dolls), not for books, packages, or other objects (e.g., Almerigi, Carbary, & Harris, 2001; Rheingold & Keene, 1965). The possibility that it is unique to infants (or their likenesses) is what gives it special interest for investigators who study laterality of function. The discovery of the bias is often credited to Salk, but it would be more accurate to say that he rediscovered it because it was first noted at least two hundred years earlier, then, evidently, forgotten, only to be rediscovered and again forgotten several times through the early decades of the twentieth century. Over this period, however, not all agreed that the preferred side was the left: a nearly equal number said it was the right. Each group also proposed explanations for why one or the other side was preferred. They also foresaw different consequences for the infant being held. In the 1980s, I briefly described some of the early reports in essays on the history of theories and research on laterality of function (Harris, 1980, 1983). A manuscript now in preparation provides a more comprehensive description and evaluation of these reports and suggests certain lessons they may hold for current theory and research. The poster proposed for TENNET XII will summarize the main points of this new review and analysis. The poster will be organized into 6 sections, with bulleted text accompanied by drawings, photographs, and other illustrations. The plan is to make the story as visual as possible.</ref> <ref>http://www.sussex.ac.uk/press_office/bulletin/13feb04/article1.shtml</ref><ref>Reissland N 2000 http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~psy215/dept/cradling%20bias%20in%20relation%20to%20child%20directed%20language%202000.pdf</ref>.

A dominant leftward cradling bias has been observed in women in non feeding interaction with infants. Reasons for this behavior have been sought in behavioral asymmetries, but none have sufficiently justified the presence of this leftward pattern. Recently, the cradling bias has been linked to affective processing, considered to be a specialized function of the nondominant (right) hemisphere (Manning & Chamberlain, 1990). This study investigates Manning and Chamberlain's (1990) suggestions that a relationship exists between leftward cradling and the interpretation and expression of affect. Eighty-six nulliparous women were tested for this relationship by correlating direction of cradling bias with visual field dominance for perception of facially expressed emotion and expression of affect. No significant relationship was found to directly support the hypotheses.</ref><ref>Harris LJ, Side preference in adults for holding infants: contributions of sex and handedness in a test of imagination, Brain Cogn 2000 Jun-Aug;43(1-3):246-52, Five hundred one right-handers (150 men, 351 women) and 53 left-handers (15 men, 38 women) were asked to imagine holding a young infant in their arms. Right-handers reported significant left-side biases--in 68% of the men and 73% of the women. For left-handers, side preferences were weaker, the left-side bias dropping to 47% for men and 60% for women, with neither figure different from chance. The results are discussed in the context of theory and research on the functional neuroanatomy of attention, emotional arousal, and the generation, maintenance, and manipulation of mental images.</ref><ref>Harris LJ, Lateral biases for holding infants: early opinions, observations, and explanations, with some possible lessons for theory and research today, Brain Cogn 2002 Mar-Apr;48(2-3):392-4, In 1962, the psychologist Lee Salk reported finding that 80% of mothers held their infants on the left side of their body, so that the infant's head was to their left. Salk's finding has been amply confirmed, with new studies of mothers as well as other adults reporting figures for left-side holding ranging from 60 to 85% (e.g., de Chateau, 1983; Harris & Fitzgerald, 1985; Harris, Almerigi, & Kirsch, 2000). New studies also suggest that the bias is only for holding infants (or infant dolls), not for books, packages, or other objects (e.g., Almerigi, Carbary, & Harris, 2001; Rheingold & Keene, 1965). The possibility that it is unique to infants (or their likenesses) is what gives it special interest for investigators who study laterality of function. The discovery of the bias is often credited to Salk, but it would be more accurate to say that he rediscovered it because it was first noted at least two hundred years earlier, then, evidently, forgotten, only to be rediscovered and again forgotten several times through the early decades of the twentieth century. Over this period, however, not all agreed that the preferred side was the left: a nearly equal number said it was the right. Each group also proposed explanations for why one or the other side was preferred. They also foresaw different consequences for the infant being held. In the 1980s, I briefly described some of the early reports in essays on the history of theories and research on laterality of function (Harris, 1980, 1983). A manuscript now in preparation provides a more comprehensive description and evaluation of these reports and suggests certain lessons they may hold for current theory and research. The poster proposed for TENNET XII will summarize the main points of this new review and analysis. The poster will be organized into 6 sections, with bulleted text accompanied by drawings, photographs, and other illustrations. The plan is to make the story as visual as possible.</ref> <ref>http://www.sussex.ac.uk/press_office/bulletin/13feb04/article1.shtml</ref><ref>Reissland N 2000 http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~psy215/dept/cradling%20bias%20in%20relation%20to%20child%20directed%20language%202000.pdf</ref>.

'''Handedness''' was object of research for long time and is detected by particular complex tests developped during the fourties taking in account cultural influences <ref>Hardyk C Petrinovich LF, Left-handedness, Psycol Bull, 1977 May; 84(3):385-404</ref><ref>Perelle IB Ehrmann L, An international study of human handedness: the data, Behv Genet, 1994 May;24(3):217-27,

'''Handedness''' was object of research for long time and is detected by particular complex tests developed during the forties taking in account cultural influences <ref>Hardyk C Petrinovich LF, Left-handedness, Psycol Bull, 1977 May; 84(3):385-404</ref><ref>Perelle IB Ehrmann L, An international study of human handedness: the data, Behv Genet, 1994 May;24(3):217-27,

Human handedness has been the subject of systematic study since 1646, but there is no agreement among researchers as to who can be considered a left-hander, what is the etiology of left-handedness, or what the proportion of left-handedness is in the world's population. This article reports the results of a handedness survey administered to 12,000 subjects in 17 countries, the largest handedness survey attempted. The paper discusses methods for determining handedness, the probability of a genetic component for handedness, and the relationship of sex, birth order, multiple birth, and first-degree relative's handedness on subject's handedness. A hypothesis for the etiology of left-handedness is presented.</ref><ref>Raymond M, Frequency-dependent maintenance of left handedness in humans, Proc Biol Sci, 1996 Dec 22;263(1377):1627-33,

Human handedness has been the subject of systematic study since 1646, but there is no agreement among researchers as to who can be considered a left-hander, what is the etiology of left-handedness, or what the proportion of left-handedness is in the world's population. This article reports the results of a handedness survey administered to 12,000 subjects in 17 countries, the largest handedness survey attempted. The paper discusses methods for determining handedness, the probability of a genetic component for handedness, and the relationship of sex, birth order, multiple birth, and first-degree relative's handedness on subject's handedness. A hypothesis for the etiology of left-handedness is presented.</ref><ref>Raymond M, Frequency-dependent maintenance of left handedness in humans, Proc Biol Sci, 1996 Dec 22;263(1377):1627-33,

The percentage (10-13%) of left handedness in human has apparently not changed since the Neolithic. Left handedness is heritable and appears to be repeatedly associated with some reduced fitness components; the persistence of left handedness implies that left handers have a fitness advantage in some situations. We propose that left handers have a frequency-dependent advantage in fights and for that reason a fitness advantage. To test this hypothesis, left handedness frequencies in the general population and in sporting individuals (both students and the sporting elite) have been compared, as sporting performance is likely to be a good indicator of fighting abilities. The higher proportion of left-handed individuals in interactive sports (reflecting some fighting elements), reaching 50% in some sports categories, but not in noninteractive sports, is consistent with the fighting hypothesis. The greater frequency of left handedness in males than in females is also consistent with this hypothesis, as male-male fights are universally more frequent than other combinations. The frequency-dependent advantage in fights of left handers might explain the stability of left handedness.</ref><ref>Medland SE, Special twin environments, genetic influences and their effects on the handedness of twins and their siblings, Twin Res 2003 Apr;6(2):119-30,

The percentage (10-13%) of left handedness in human has apparently not changed since the Neolithic. Left handedness is heritable and appears to be repeatedly associated with some reduced fitness components; the persistence of left handedness implies that left handers have a fitness advantage in some situations. We propose that left handers have a frequency-dependent advantage in fights and for that reason a fitness advantage. To test this hypothesis, left handedness frequencies in the general population and in sporting individuals (both students and the sporting elite) have been compared, as sporting performance is likely to be a good indicator of fighting abilities. The higher proportion of left-handed individuals in interactive sports (reflecting some fighting elements), reaching 50% in some sports categories, but not in noninteractive sports, is consistent with the fighting hypothesis. The greater frequency of left handedness in males than in females is also consistent with this hypothesis, as male-male fights are universally more frequent than other combinations. The frequency-dependent advantage in fights of left handers might explain the stability of left handedness.</ref><ref>Medland SE, Special twin environments, genetic influences and their effects on the handedness of twins and their siblings, Twin Res 2003 Apr;6(2):119-30,

The literature on twins and laterality is reviewed: Both monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic twins (DZ) show a low concordance in all functional and morphological asymmetries. The proportions of R-R, R-L and L-L pairs in MZ twins and in DZ twins are in binomial distribution. The incidence of left-handedness is the same in MZ twins and DZ twins, but higher than in singletons. Other laterality signs do not show this tendency. The whole issue of twinning is as yet unresolved, yet it is clear already that no simple genetic model for the inheritance can be applied. The present review discusses three genetic models and associated problems with each. The overall tendency to a higher rate of left-handedness in twins could be due to such pathological factors (associated with twinning) as intrauterine crowding and perinatal stress, but is not due to so-called "mirror imaging"-phenomena in twins.</ref><ref>Derom, Handedness in twins according to zygosity and chorion type: a preliminary report Behav genet 1996 Jul;26(4):407

The literature on twins and laterality is reviewed: Both monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic twins (DZ) show a low concordance in all functional and morphological asymmetries. The proportions of R-R, R-L and L-L pairs in MZ twins and in DZ twins are in binomial distribution. The incidence of left-handedness is the same in MZ twins and DZ twins, but higher than in singletons. Other laterality signs do not show this tendency. The whole issue of twinning is as yet unresolved, yet it is clear already that no simple genetic model for the inheritance can be applied. The present review discusses three genetic models and associated problems with each. The overall tendency to a higher rate of left-handedness in twins could be due to such pathological factors (associated with twinning) as intrauterine crowding and perinatal stress, but is not due to so-called "mirror imaging"-phenomena in twins.</ref><ref>Derom, Handedness in twins according to zygosity and chorion type: a preliminary report Behav genet 1996 Jul;26(4):407

In the course of the East Flanders Prospective Twin Survey (EFPTS), handedness was assessed as part of a genealogical study (Meulemans et al., 1995) in 1616 twins (808 twin pairs) aged 6 to 28. Our findings are that, in this large population-based study with known placentation and zygosity, the often observed higher frequency of left-handedness in twins is confirmed, that it appears to be independent of zygosity and chorion type, and that the belief that discordant handedness in monozygotic twins represents mirror-imaging is mythical.</ref><ref>Coren S Porac C, Fifty centuries of right-handedness: the historical record, Science 1977 Nov 11;198(4317):631-2

In the course of the East Flanders Prospective Twin Survey (EFPTS), handedness was assessed as part of a genealogical study (Meulemans et al., 1995) in 1616 twins (808 twin pairs) aged 6 to 28. Our findings are that, in this large population-based study with known placentation and zygosity, the often observed higher frequency of left-handedness in twins is confirmed, that it appears to be independent of zygosity and chorion type, and that the belief that discordant handedness in monozygotic twins represents mirror-imaging is mythical.</ref><ref>Coren S Porac C, Fifty centuries of right-handedness: the historical record, Science 1977 Nov 11;198(4317):631-2

A survey of more than 5000 years of art work, encompassing 1180 scorable instances of unimanual tool or weapon usage, revealed no systematic trends in hand usage. The right hand was used in an average of 93 percent of the cases, regardless of which historical era or geographic region was assessed.</ref><ref>Peter Hepper, Signalling right from the womb, Belfast 2004 New Scientist 2457, pag 13, 24 july 2004 [http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6186]</ref>

A survey of more than 5000 years of art work, encompassing 1180 scorable instances of unimanual tool or weapon usage, revealed no systematic trends in hand usage. The right hand was used in an average of 93 percent of the cases, regardless of which historical era or geographic region was assessed.</ref><ref>Peter Hepper, Signaling right from the womb, Belfast 2004 New Scientist 2457, pag 13, 24 July 2004 [http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6186]</ref>

==Hamer, New Medicine and radiology (See also: [[Hamer focus]] article)==

==Hamer, New Medicine and radiology (See also: [[Hamer focus]] article)==