Thoughts on Science, Medicine And Sundry Things
During the COVID period, I co-authored two papers with colleagues, both of which were published in succession and retracted in close sequence; known as “retractions” in scientific parlance. One was a risk-benefit analysis of the COVID-19 “vaccines,” and the other was our study on children’s masks. Both have been republished [1-4].
Our field study in Africa has been published
Background story
I’ve always found off-the-wall therapies interesting because, historically, scientific innovations and new findings have very often come from the fringes of the mainstream. Not always, but very often. That’s why I became interested in homeopathy when friends and colleagues dragged me to Dr Köhler’s legendary homeopathy lectures during my student days. At the time I thought: This is so crazy, if it’s true, then it’s revolutionary. As a result, I became scientifically involved with homeopathy. I did some drug trials and clinical research and then, after about 10 years of intensive research, 3 books [1-3], a series of peer-reviewed papers [4-10], extensive work on placebo effects [11-15], I realized: Yes, something is happening that is beyond random fluctuations, but that we do not understand in any way and certainly cannot explain with the conventional causal models of science [16]. I have tried to make this tangible with the scientific models currently available, but I still don’t know whether that actually leads anywhere [17].
While my hot homeopathic research period was cooling down in the early 2000s, I was approached by Harry van der Zee, a Dutch homeopathic doctor. He wanted to replicate our headache study, but better than us. That study is one of the studies in the homeopathic database that found by far the worst effect for homeopathy [7, 10]. I invited Harry round. We spent a few days together and cooked up the supposedly unbeatable design. Harry went home, did a pilot study, which turned out to be what I predicted, not what he expected. And because there was no funding, nothing came of it in the end.
Our commentary on the study by Buergin et al. is now published Sometimes you have to take detours to reach your destination. Ours now led to the Egyptian Heart Journal, which has just published our commentary on the study by Buergin and colleagues [1, 2]. I had previously complimented the study by Buergin and colleagues … Read more
The truth behind RNA-based vaccine technology (Part 3)
From time to time, I publish contributions from other scientists and authors who seem to me to be appropriate to topics that are of current concern to me and on which I myself can provide less competent information. Prof. Klaus Steger is a molecular biologist and has published a three-part article on Covid-19 vaccines and the active principles of modRNA (nucleoside-modified mRNA) in the English version of “Epoch-Times”. I find these texts very informative.
Harald Walach
On Monday, Nov 6, 2023, an article appeared on FAZ.net, which addresses the retraction of the publication of our homeopathy ADHS meta-analysis. On the occasion of this incident, he also mentions the other two retractions (of the “Vaccines” study [1], which was republished in “Science, Public Health Policy and the Law” after a triple-blinded review [2] and the children’s mask study [3], which was republished in “Environmental Research” after an extensive review in its long version [4]).
The article is a very good example of how one can apparently work journalistically correctly, namely by not making any false statements or providing good evidence for one’s assertions, but still lying. Because there are two kinds of lies: Someone can lie by claiming something false. And someone can lie by omitting or concealing known, true and important facts. In this case, the second form of lie is endemic. It leads very easily to the presumably intended effect, namely the assassination of my character in the view of all those who don’t know me and who don’t have the time or inclination to take a closer look at the matter. This will probably lead to Wikipedia authors finding even more reason to make critical comments in the article about me, which means that the critical citation cat bites its own tail once more.
Feldwisch-Drentrup knows from me what he is hiding, or could easily have found out by doing more research. I had sent him a detailed email with details about this retraction and the meta-analysis, which are not mentioned in the article.
I then sent him the following letter and waited until Monday, Nov 13, 2023, the deadline, for a response. Having received none, I am publishing the letter. If I receive a reply later, I will of course also publish it.
Here is my letter: