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.
A well-known story of the Muslim sage Nasreddin Hodsha reports Nasreddin standing under a lamp at night, searching frantically for something. A passer-by asks him: “Nasreddin, what are you looking for?” Nasreddin answers: “I am looking for my house keys.” “Did you lose them here?” “Almost certainly not, but I am looking here, because this is where the light is.”
It is a common phenomenon: We are looking for something not where it might be found in all likelihood, but where it is most convenient to look for. Something similar, it appears to me, happened and is happening at the Science of Consciousness (TSC) Conferences. The most recent of them was convened from May 22nd to 27th 2023 in Taormina, Sicily (see https://tsc2023-taormina.it/ for a full program and book of abstracts), and I had the privilege to attend it on behalf of the SMN in a beautiful surrounding.
My colleagues at the MWGFD (Physicians and Scientists for Health, Freedom and Democracy) held a press conference in Munich yesterday where some specialists talked about the changes to the WHO statutes, about which I already wrote a blog. This press conference is an important document. On the MWGFD site there is a press kit and on Rumble you can listen to the symposion; Youtube has deleted it. You learn a lot of important details, especially from lawyer Kruse, who spoke at the end and backed up the statement with hard documents, that the WHO is indeed planning a dictatorial grip on our health. It may not even be the WHO, but mainly those who promote it. For the promoters, as one learns at this conference, are also the ones who are allowed to send their representatives to the decisive committees and therefore have a say in how health will be defined, regulated, monitored and prescribed in the future. After all, if the regulations pass national parliaments or are ratified by governments, then these regulations and changes become binding and have an international regulatory character.
I noticed at this press conference that the acronym WHO, when turned upside down and mirrored, results in the term “OHM”.
Ohm, as hobbyists from the electronics kit know, is the name for electrical resistance. I thought it was great when I was a kid that you could pack thousands of ohms into a small resistor. Maybe we should put millions of ohms into the resistance to this craziness?
I want to make one thing clear at the outset: Our political system in Germany and Europe is as far away from fascist regimes as the planet Pluto is from Venus. That is, at most far, if you consider the distances in our solar system. In other words, if one applies short-term historical standards, then our present form of government is incomparably much better than what took place between 1933 and 1945 during the Third Reich. However, if one takes ideals as a yardstick for what one would like to see under optimal conditions, there is room for improvement.
In this blog, I mainly want to point out a debate going on in the background that threatens our democracy and freedom. It is the debate to change the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR), which are currently in the consultation phase. If everything that is proposed there goes through, then global health fascism is just around the corner. I discuss this in the context of the Covid-19 crisis. Because that crisis is basically the blueprint for what is going on right now.
These developments are going on in the background because at the moment the Ukraine war and its consequences are hogging public attention. I think this is dangerous. I can only recommend to all those who do not yet do so to look at the thought pages every now and then or the Multipolar Magazine by Mr Schreyer, who was the first in Germany to describe the planning games of different actors that preceded the SARS-CoV2 pandemic and others [1]. It is also helpful to consult the page initiated by the MWGFD “New Media Portal“, where all possible alternative and new sources of information are listed.
The worrying phenomenon is that this war is masking other activities that may have much deeper implications for us in the long term. For example, the transformation of the WHO into a global health government with legislative and possibly executive powers. In my view, that would be health fascism. And that is just around the corner if we do not resist it.
I know, harsh words. But I have my reasons. They come from several legal analyses I’ve heard or read about this recently.
A while ago, I had pointed out that our children’s mask study had been republished in the long version after a new review process. As a reminder: We had found elevated carbon dioxide levels in the order of 13,000 parts per million (ppm) in the children’s inhaled air after 3 minutes; 2,000 ppm is the limit value. Higher levels pose a health risk, according to the Umweltbundesamt (German Federal Environment Agency) [1].
This confirms that the original publication in JAMA Pediatrics was wrongly retracted. The motivation for this retraction of the publication was probably political. For if this publication had stood at the time, it should have led to consequences. The masking mandate for children would have had to be lifted and parents would possibly have had good chances in court proceedings. The mask mandates have now been lifted, thank God, and possibly the wheels of justice will now begin to grind.
As was to be expected, there was also opposition to the second publication of the new long version of our study. This is the normal process of scientific discourse, that data that others do not like or are critical of, are critically commented on. In this case, a Japanese group and two Swiss authors of the Schweizerische Unfallversicherung (Swiss Accident Insurance) have voiced criticisms.
We have responded to these criticisms. Our reply is now freely available until 2021-04-21 at this link and thereafter via the Journal’s homepage [2].
Occasionally I sing the “Dichterliebe”. This is the song cycle that Robert Schumann set to music based on poems by German poet Heinrich Heine. In it, Heine came to terms with his unhappy love. In the last song, No. 16, (here in a very beautiful recording, with Fritz Wunderlich), the poet sings:
The old evil songs,
the dreams evil and bad,
Heinrich Heine
Let us bury them now,
get a big coffin.
Into it I put many a thing,
yet I say not yet what.
The coffin must be even bigger
than a Heidelberg barrel…
I felt reminded of this several times these days, trying to find out if Covid-19 vaccinations have prevented deaths, and seeing the plethora of information slowly oozing out of all corners: Excess mortality, deaths, severe vaccine side effects. Even the world’s vaccination champion Gates now admits that it all didn’t work out as planned after all.
I want to address such questions in this blog. First, I address our new analysis on that model by the Imperial College working group of Watson and others [1]. Our analysis just became available online [2]. And then I discuss some recent information on the issue of side effects and excess mortality despite or because of vaccinations.