Thoughts on Science, Medicine And Sundry Things
This is the private homepage of Prof. Dr. Dr. Harald Walach →.
A complete overview of my publications can be found here →. One focus of content is my small Methodology for Beginners →, which now has 25 chapters.
In my personal blog, I chat about my everyday scientific life and share some thoughts on what I see and experience.
Our new study proves that only 14% of those who suffered restrictions as ‘infected’ individuals with a positive PCR coronavirus test were actually infected.
During the unfortunate coronavirus years, we all had to endure nasal or throat swabs followed by PCR tests, sometimes on a daily basis, combined with anxious waiting: Is it positive? Will I now be unable to travel, go to work, university, restaurants or meeting places? Even the German Infection Protection Act stipulates this testing procedure. In our new study [1], recently published in Frontiers in Epidemiology, we show that only 14% of those who tested positive with a PCR test and therefore often had to experience some form of restriction actually had a manifest infection.
This can be deduced from a comparison of data collected with a PCR test and an IgG antibody test. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR), invented by Kary Mullis [2] in the 1980s, for which he received the Nobel Prize, uses tiny snippets of any gene sequence and searches for the matching counterpart in a sample. And if it finds even a single such counterpart, it amplifies it as often as desired and as long as the process is kept running. This works through cycles of repetitions. According to laboratory wisdom, I have been told by specialists, this is normally not done more than 20 times, because otherwise the risk of a false positive result becomes too great. One would then claim that a certain gene sequence was found in someone or in a sample, even though it is not actually there. This so-called cycle threshold, abbreviated CT, is therefore an essential part of a PCR test. This is because it provides information about how often the original sample must be amplified in order to find something. Can anyone remember a CT value being specified on the PCR test that was given to us? No? That’s right. Because it was almost never specified. However, we know from various studies that German laboratories worked thoroughly with CT values of 30 to 35, sometimes even up to 40 (evidence in our publication). Therefore, the risk of false positive results was very high.
I found an interesting text of a journalist. It is a protocol of an AI session with a Large Language Model (LLM) AI, ChatGPT, on the background, purpose, goal and potential forces behind AI. I found it on the internet, it was published on a Substack page. Substack is a kind of free-journalism platform, where many journalists publish. Because I found it so strange, I thought the author had made it up. On second thought, I had the idea to replicate the dialogue with ChatGPT. As a colleague has a paid subscription with OpenAI, the company that runs ChatGPT, we came together via Zoom and probed the system online and in real time, by using the original protocol to replicate it. I report below the two chats. On the lefthand side is the original, which I found and copied verbatim. On the righthand side is the replication. We used identical questions and rules. As can be quickly seen: the two chats are pretty similar, except for a few interesting and also decisive differences, which I comment on below in my discussion. Where our replication deviated from the original, I emphasize it in the text on the right-hand side. In our chat, the AI system deviated from the rules laid out and tried to circumvent our questions several times by giving verbose answers that are not really interesting. Those and other redundancies I drop.
The link to the original chat is preserved, and it can be accessed via the following link: https://chatgpt.com/share/68ee4f4e-d330-800b-8cd7-fc428be55357
The responses by ChatGPT are in italics. The divergent responses are highlighted. Please observe that although there might be divergences, these are often only minimal. It is worth a close look:
Transhumanism – next step in human evolution, crazy ideology, irrelevant, or what?
A few years ago, I wrote a report for the Galileo Commission of the Scientific and Medical Network on scientism, the religion-like belief in science of our time (‘Beyond a Materialist Worldview’).
I have now followed up on this with a report on transhumanism, which I presented in an online event.
Quinn, G. A., Connolly, R., ÓhAiseadha, C., Hynds, P., Bagus, P., Brown, R. B., . . . Walach, H. (2025). What Lessons can Be Learned from the Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic? International Journal of Public Health, 70, 1607727. doi:10.3389/ijph.2025.1607727; https://www.ssph-journal.org/journals/international-journal-of-public-health/articles/10.3389/ijph.2025.1607727/full
I have worked with 36 other authors on a detailed policy paper on the international collective mismanagement of the COVID-19 crisis, which has now been published and is available to the general public via the link above.
Some of these authors are well known, such as Robert Malone, Harvey Risch, Jessica Rose and Norman Fenton, while others have been less active in the public eye than in academia, such as Gerry Quinn, the lead author and organizer of the consortium, and others. One of the authors, Yaffa Shir-Raz from Haifa, has just published, together with others, a detailed critique of the claim that COVID-19 ‘vaccinations’ have saved millions of lives (Preprint; see also).
What they all have in common is that during the COVID-19 crisis, they argued extensively and with good scientific documentation that one or more aspects of the response to the crisis were not sufficiently scientifically sound or were even harmful. Whether it was masks, mandatory vaccination, social distancing rules, ‘vaccinations’ or other non-pharmaceutical measures (‘lockdown’).
In my last blog, I discussed the study by the Cologne working group led by Prof. Jan Rybniker. If the findings of immune training were only positive, then we would not be seeing so many serious side effects as a result of these interventions. But we are seeing them, in the side effect database of the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI). I had just finished evaluating the first part of the data that the PEI published publicly last summer, when the second part came out. I will therefore have to repeat the evaluation at some point, otherwise it will hardly be of sufficient scientific value. But I will report on my evaluation of the first part here. This is a workshop report; the data has not been published anywhere else.