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.
Last year, together with a few colleagues from the MWGFD, including Klaus Steger, Christian Schubert, Anne Ulrich, Stefan Hockertz and several others, I founded the Discorso publishing cooperative in Basel. Our website https://discorso.ch/ provides information about our goals and our books. The first book, ‘Courage to Disagree – Dissidents of the Lack of Alternatives Report’, edited by Wolfgang Stölzle and Günter Roth, will be published on 11 December and can now be pre-ordered on our website. The 400-page book summarizes the experiences of 18 authors. In addition to myself, these include authors from the MWGFD circles – Christian Schubert, Andreas Sönnichsen – and other public figures who have spoken out against abuses either during the coronavirus crisis or even before it. In some cases, they have had to face harsh consequences, such as Daniele Ganser and Alessandra Asteriti. Most of the chapters deal with reprimands from the coronavirus period, such as the reports by Ulrike Guérot, Michael Meyen, Andreas Heisler, Alexander Bittner, Christian Dettmar, Lucian and Martin Michaelis, Carola Kistel. Finally, the experiences of the editors Günter Roth and Wolfgang Stölzle. Heike Egner and Anke Uhlenwinkel summarize their social science study on this topic and their own experiences, and Michael Esfeld wrote the foreword.
It is an important documentation of structures of exclusion, which, although covering different areas, involved similar mechanisms. Above all, it is a contradiction to false factual claims and opinion manipulation. This volume shows that such contradiction is possible, but may come at a cost. Sometimes that cost is high. However, each contribution also shows that such supposed slaps in the face simultaneously open up new paths and therefore give cause for hope. At least, that was the intention of all the authors.
Readers of this book, which can be ordered for £29.80 (400 pages) on the Discorso website, where more detailed information is also available, should judge for themselves to what extent this has been achieved.
By the way: anyone who wants to support our work can become a member of the cooperative for a minimum contribution of CHF 500 (or a multiple thereof) and purchase one or more share certificates. This allows members to participate, help shape, assist or simply provide support. Anyone interested should contact me at hw@discorso.ch.
I have read Helmut Sterz’s new book and will discuss it briefly here. It will be published on 1 December and is the most important book on coronavirus awareness that I am aware of (though I haven’t read them all). I highly recommend it to the readers of my blog. The book is only available in German, but I still want to convey the most essential aspects with my discussion for my English language readers.
Helmut Sterz: Die Impf-Mafia (The Vaccine Mafia). Pfizer’s former chief toxicologist proves how toxic substances were illegally sold to us as a cure for Covid-19. Basel: Rubikon. 240 pages. £24, ISBN 978-3-907606-00-1
The most significant part of this book on the coronavirus comes at the very end, on pages 206–210: ‘Demands for the investigation of the global pharmaceutical scandal’. There, the author makes 18 demands. In my opinion, the following are particularly noteworthy (in my own words – where not indicated by quotations, which are literal translations from the book):
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.