The subject of cancer always provokes response, some good, and some bad. It is such an emotional subject. The letter ‘No scientific support for teachings’ commenting on an article of mine (The Sunday Times of Malta, February 8) about the media response to reports published in January relating to the ‘bad luck’ of suffering from cancer is no exception.

I knew when I mentioned this doctor that it would provoke a response, as he is vilified by most of his profession when looking at his results from an accepted scientific point of view.

However, I do accept that I got Ryke Geerd Hamer’s nationality incorrect. He is, in fact, German.

My aim for relating to Hamer was to give an example of a different view of diagnosing cancer. The theory is that serious stress and trauma can contribute to the cause of cancer.

This is a lifestyle issue similar to diet and exercise. The letter mentioned that Hamer had no support in accepted science and “several times” had proven lethal to patients, as can chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.

I have seen my father die an unnecessarily painful death from cancer and he didn’t even know of the existence of Hamer.

The difference is what is accepted and what is not.

My aim was to look at the theory of the cause of cancer and the many solutions, which are widely available, should anyone care to research them.

I am not judging the person.