Tag Archive for: doctor

Zitate

Torsten Engelbrecht & Claus Köhnlein: The Truth about Virus Detection and Fear

0 Comments/in ,

“If you listen to the general public, the world is repeatedly plagued by terrible viral epidemics. The latest horror story dominating the headlines is the so-called coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. And the population is also being terrorized with frightening reports about measles, swine flu, bird flu (H5N1), SARS, hepatitis C, AIDS, polio, and BSE. However, what is overlooked is that the existence and pathogenic/lethal effects of these “pathogens” have never been proven. The fact that the medical establishment and the media that follow it nevertheless claim that the evidence has been provided is solely due to the fact that a few decades ago, direct virus detection was abandoned in favor of indirect “detection” methods (including antibody and PCR tests). However, “modern” methods of virus detection such as PCR “say nothing about how a virus replicates, which animal carries this virus, or how it makes people sick,” as more than a dozen critical top virologists note in the journal Science. “It’s like looking at a person’s fingerprints to determine if they have bad breath.””

Torsten Engelbrecht | Claus Köhnlein

Read more

Dr. med. Gunter Frank on Vaccine Disclosure Risks – What Doctors Truly Need to Know!

0 Comments/in

“The situation is clear. And I think my colleagues [doctors who vaccinate children] are being very naive if they don’t fully inform patients about what’s actually going on. And the political wind can change at any time. And if children die as a result, the statute of limitations only expires after 20 years. And then, as a doctor, you will be sued for negligent homicide and you will go to prison – even after 15 years. […] I don’t think many colleagues understand that.”

Dr. med. Gunter Frank

Read more

Ulrich Bahnsen on the Revolutionary Rethink in Genetics – The Future of the Genome

0 Comments/in

“The genome was considered to be the unchanging blueprint of human beings, determined at the beginning of our lives. Science must now abandon this idea. In reality, our genetic makeup is constantly changing.

Two years ago, 25 geneticists gathered at the University of California, Berkeley, to answer a seemingly simple question: What is a gene? However, the attempt to precisely define the basic concept of their field proved to be extremely difficult. The meeting of experts almost ended in disaster, recalls Karen Eilbeck, professor of human genetics at Berkeley and host of the roundtable: “We had hours of meetings. Everyone was yelling at each other.”

The dispute in Berkeley had little to do with researcher vanity. It was the first sign that the life sciences—still unnoticed by the public—were on the verge of a turning point. What researchers are uncovering in the chromosome strands of humans and animals is breaking with previous patterns of thinking in genetics. Much like at the beginning of the 20th century, when Einstein and his colleagues formed a new physical worldview, the age of relativistic genetics may now be dawning.

Medical research in particular is facing new challenges. Initial outlines are becoming apparent: the body and soul, their health, illness, development, and aging are subject to a genetic interplay whose complexity exceeds all previous ideas. Geneticists must abandon their image of a stable genome in which changes are pathological exceptions. Everyone’s genetic material is constantly undergoing change. The result: every organism, every human being, even every cell in the body is a genetic universe unto itself.”

Ulrich Bahnsen

Read more

Eugen Rosenstock on Research vs. Knowledge – Revealing Insights into the Science Crisis

0 Comments/in

“Perhaps the following current example can best illustrate this point. We do not live in the clerical age, where lay people and clergy fought each other; nor do we live in the state-political age, when state officials and the people fought over democracy. The free growth area in the scientific age lies in a new pair of tensions, namely between research and knowledge. This pair of conflicts is still largely unclear.

We scholars all disguise ourselves as researchers, just as the old clergy behaved like saints in order to hold back the division between clergy and people. This does not change the fact that today the danger of the sciences becoming ossified is looming large.

Scholars are competent and therefore completely incapable of loving the overthrow of their virtue. They are science officials, and they always oppose amateurs. But since research is as much a part of science as the Holy Spirit is part of the Church, there is a great deal of pseudo-research competing with the progress of free research; and only the former is conscientiously supported by official bodies and foundations, because only this appears worthy of support to the professional officials of science.

Such harmful research acts according to the principle: Wash my fur, but don’t get me wet.

It researches cancer according to Pasteur’s outdated ideas, as if it were rabies.

It examines religion according to Wellhausen’s ideas, but because it bases its research on ancient authority, it is extensively funded.

As long as scholars and researchers both remain poor, genuine research has prospects. That was the case until 1900. Today, the prognosis for research is deteriorating because grateful peoples are generously funding “science.” Thus, power is shifting to the side of the knowledgeable, against the researchers.

Our doctor factories and Rockefeller fellows are eloquent witnesses to this.”

Eugen Rosenstock

Read more