Why Is Anthroposophic Medicine Taking an Official Pro-Vaccination Stance?

PART ONE: ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS

Since the beginning of the Corona crisis I have been reading or watching contributions from various sources about the so-called ‘pandemic’ of the so-called ‘novel Covid-19 disease’ that has been caused by the so-called ‘SARS-CoV-2 virus’. Amongst them were also contributions from anthroposophical authors, mainly doctors. While reading their articles and other documents I was rather disappointed – with few exceptions – with their contributions that contained many unverified claims of the official medical narrative or claims that were contradictory or were simply ignoring some very important explanations by Rudolf Steiner about the origin of infectious diseases and epidemics.

Among them the most outstanding were the following statements of the so-called ‘policy makers’ of anthroposophic medicine – that is, the people who are according to the vision statement of IVAA officially representing the interests of the anthroposophical doctors and other medical workers by promotion of the recognition of anthroposophic medicine in the World Health Organization (WHO) and its worldwide implementation in existing health care systems:

❖ Anthroposophic Medicine Statement on Vaccination
By the Medical Section of the Goetheanum and the International Federation of Anthroposophic Medical Associations (IVAA), 15 April 2019

❖ Anthroposophic Medicine Statement on Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2
By the International Federation of Anthroposophic Medical Associations (IVAA) and the Medical Section of the Goetheanum, Brussels and Dornach, 12 January 2021

These official statements are supported by the conclusions of the following single research paper:

❖ Covid-19 Vaccination, A synthesis review of current status and proposal of a registry study to overcome social polarization tendencies and answer open research questions
By Dr. Georg Soldner (Deputy Head of the Medical Section at the Goetheanum) and Prof. Dr. med. David Martin (holder of the Gerhard Kienle Chair of Medical Theory, Integrative and Anthroposophic Medicine at Witten/Herdecke University), 14 January 2021

There is another research paper that is relevant to this topic:

❖ Anthromedics, Anthroposophic Medicine, Development-Research-Evaluation: Covid-19
By Georg Soldner and Thomas Breitkreuz, 21.07.2020

Below are presented the most questionable claims and statements from the above documents (blue text) accompanied by my comment and questions with the aim to give you an opportunity to form your own judgments as to whether the viewpoints of the representatives of anthroposophic medicine are based on solid evidence and good arguments or not.

Where is anthroposophic evidence for the existence of a new disease?

Description of two anthroposophical medical experts about Covid-19 disease
An integrative medical concept is required for prevention, understanding and therapy of the new Covid-19 disease which appeared at the end of 2019… A positive swab result (PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 is relatively reliable; initially false negative results are not uncommon even in infected people… The SARS-CoV-2 virus enters the organism primarily via the mucous membranes in the facial region (eyes, nose, mouth) and can penetrate early into the alveolar space of the lungs. The infection itself is caused by the virus binding to the ACE2 receptor, which normally has a protective function for the cardiovascular system. The viral infection weakens this system. The path of infection means that Covid-19 is primarily a disease of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems, which in anthroposophic medicine are summarized as the rhythmic system.… A characteristic early symptom is a usually temporary loss of the ability to smell and taste. Other symptoms in the initial, influenza stage of the disease are: fever, headache and sore throat, cough, dry, but sometimes with mucus, diarrhea… The symptoms of the disease initially show that the person’s immune system, which is centrally linked to their individual warmth organization, is actively trying to stop further virus replication. In this respect, the symptoms themselves are signs of meaningful activity of the organism in ‘dialogue’ with the virus.

From the above description and other writings of anthroposophical doctors it is evident that they have adopted the conventional medical narrative that there exists a new virus SARS-CoV-2 which causes a new disease Covid-19. If we look at the arguments why anthroposophic doctors believe that there is a new disease, we can notice the following facts:

we are dealing with a disease of the rhythmic system to which belongs all serious acute respiratory diseases;
there is one new symptom: temporary loss of the ability to smell and taste happens more often than with the flu;
for its diagnosis relies on a positive “relatively reliable” PCR test.

Now if this is the new norm for proclamation of the existence of a new disease, then we will in the future have a multitude of new diseases.

If we look at the list of the anthroposophical medications used in various stages of this supposedly new disease we can see that: [1]

Covid-19 has an initial stage which is the same as in influenza and is treated with anthroposophical medications for influenza.
In the further stage, called ‘Covid-19 pneumonia’, anthroposophical medications are used with “the therapeutic goals of warmth regulation, limitation of excessive inflammatory reactions, preservation of capillary microcirculation and the basal vitality of the vital organs.”
In the last stage, called ‘sepsis and multiple organ failure’, the medications are used to support “heart and kidney function” and some other “organism’s basic vital functions”.

Therefore one wonders if there is any difference in medications and the overall treatment in the case of influenza/flu and that presented to us as an anthroposophic treatment of new disease, Covid-19. If Covid-19 is really a new disease then anthroposophic doctors should explain from where they have obtained all the anthroposophical remedies they are using in the treatments of ‘Covid-19 patients’. For sure there was not enough time to develop new remedies!?

If one reads more carefully it seems a more sensible conclusion that we are dealing with a variation of the seasonal flu – as many epidemiologists and other medical experts are saying. And if anthroposophic doctors do notice something unusual in the present cases of people suffering from the severe forms of respiratory diseases then they should not look further than to the spiritual impacts of negative placebo effects caused by relentless fear propaganda and inhuman lockdown policies – including the unprecedented level of social isolation that can have a very harmful effect on all those who are not capable of withstanding it. [2]

Below is one fascinating chart which shows the distribution of all causes of deaths (blue) in comparison to distribution of Covid deaths (orange) in Sweden in the age groups from birth to 100 years: [3]

How can such an extraordinary similarity of the pattern can be explained if we really have a new disease? And one can wonder what the chart would look like if there was a comparison between the distribution of Covid deaths with the distribution of flu deaths only.

Why is anthroposophic medicine not supporting anti-vaccine movements?

Official statement of the Medical Section of the Goetheanum and IVAA
Vaccines, together with health education, hygiene and adequate nutrition, are essential tools for preventing infectious diseases. Vaccines have saved countless lives over the last century; for example, they allowed the eradication of small pox and are currently allowing the world to approach the elimination of polio. Anthroposophic Medicine fully appreciates the contribution of vaccines to global health and firmly supports vaccination as an important measure to prevent life threatening diseases. Anthroposophic Medicine is not anti-vaccine and does not support anti-vaccine movements.

From the above statement it is evident that anthroposophic policy makers are disregarding all available scientific evidence of members of the anti-vaccine movement, while simultaneously not expressing any scepticism about the official medical narratives that contain many unverified claims and suggestions and even pure advertising. I will mention just three of them which are presenting the outcomes of in-depth investigation and independent critical evaluation of pro-vaccine arguments:

Documentary series The Truth about Vaccines which presents interviews with 54 medical experts, scientists, writers and activists among whom are many who are not against vaccines but against bad science and corruption of the medical establishment in this area.
The book Virus Mania which is based on an investigation of 1432 scientific papers and other written works and articles on the topic of infectious diseases and epidemics.
The book Ideological Constructs of Vaccination. In this scholarly book Slovenian research sociologist Dr Mateja Černič subjects the vaccination phenomenon to a relentless forensic examination – based on a rich combination of sociological critique, detailed historical trend analysis, and medical and biological research.

Such a selective approach is for sure not an example of objective evaluation of all existing arguments – either in favour or against vaccination. Do the representatives of anthroposophic medicine really believe that they will be able to transform the existing medical system without the help of scientists, doctors and independent journalists who are active in the anti-vaccine movements? Do they also dismiss them as ‘Covid-sceptics’ and ‘conspiracy theorists’ as the members of orthodox medical science and media are doing with the aim to thwart any public discussion about vaccinations?

Besides, if the official representatives of the anthroposophical movement are serious about their intention to overcome social polarisation we need to ask them: “Have you so far attempted to establish any social dialogue with the representatives of the anti-vaccine movements?” And if not: “Do you intend to do this in the future?”

Are the new vaccines really safe enough to go forward with them?

Official statement of IVAA and the Medical Section of the Goetheanum
IVAA and the Medical Section at the Goetheanum welcome the development of safe and effective vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in the hope that they will play an important role in overcoming the Covid-19 pandemic… Studies of the two authorized mRNA-vaccines and a viral vector-based vaccine show acceptable safety in short-term follow-up. However, rare, serious side effects cannot be ruled out until very large numbers of people have been vaccinated and followed for longer time. Also, the detection of non-specific effects – which can be positive or negative – requires longer observation periods. We therefore call for sufficiently large long-term studies and anonymized vaccination registers that allow a comparison between populations receiving the different vaccines and non-vaccinated populations. This is all the more important since the mRNA technology used in some SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has not been widely used in humans before.

The above welcome to the development of “safe and effective vaccines against SARS-CoV-2” is going along similar assurances of the representatives of the medical and political establishment of the safety of new vaccines in spite of the fact that we are only at the beginning of an experiment which will end only in the year 2023. The public is told that “vaccines are not just safe, but they are a marvel of hundreds of years of medical and scientific research. A seemingly simple concept of an injection, over in a matter of seconds, will prevent people from contracting ailments that would otherwise have caused them life-changing harm or even death… Vaccines have to be considered safe from day one. The standard for testing and monitoring vaccines is higher than for most other medicines… Vaccines go through rigorous testing, and all information relating to their testing, licensing, side-effects and so on is available for public scrutiny.” [4]

If the vaccines are really so safe why has the USA Supreme Court decided that “vaccines are unavoidably unsafe” [5] which provided an argument for the exceptions of vaccine producers in USA from legal liability for the harm and death caused by vaccinations.

This is another example of double standards one can often notice with the vaccine propaganda. For the sake of advertising “vaccines are safe” and “science is settled” [6] – meaning “we don’t need any debate about the efficiency and safety of vaccines.” But when they need to defend against the increasing evidence about the harmful impacts of vaccinations, their defence is that “all vaccines and medicines have some side effects. These side effects need to be continuously balanced against the expected benefits in preventing illness.” [7]

Can official representatives of anthroposophic medicine deny their indirect endorsement of such pro-vaccine propaganda as it was voiced by one Conservative member of the British parliament? “It is only natural to have questions about something that we put into our bodies, so I hope that that offers some peace of mind. People should ask questions, speak to their GP, pharmacist and so on about this or any vaccine, and find out the information that they want to know. Go to those with the knowledge – please do not listen to dangerous internet conspiracy theories… Therefore please, please, please have the vaccine when the time comes and you are asked to come forward. The right, healthy, patriotic and human thing to do is to be vaccinated to protect individuals and those around them.” [8]

Why are anthroposophic medical experts endorsing genetically modified vaccines?

Statement of two anthroposophical medical experts about new vaccines
Advantages of mRNA vaccines:

The production of mRNA on a DNA template is easily scalable industrially and enables the rapid production of large quantities. At the same time, efforts are being made to minimize the amount of mRNA used in the absence of reliable knowledge as to the optimal dose of an mRNA vaccine.
There is no requirement to use cell cultures in order to obtain inactivated viral material or attenuated live viruses, thus eliminating any contamination or problematic adjuvants on the part of such cell cultures.
No (problematic) adjuvants to stimulate the immune response.
No risk from pathogens capable of reproducing.
No administration of insertable DNA.
mRNA is generally only very short-lived in the organism. The residence time of the mRNA can in principle be manipulated (replicable mRNA).
In contrast to vector vaccines, mRNA vaccines can be boosted when the vaccine effect decreases.

Although the authors also list the disadvantages of mRNA vaccines, the simple fact that they list advantages is equal to listing the advantages of GM (genetically modified) foods versus organic/biodynamic foods. Of course, from the perspective of promoters of GM foods they have many advantages, but from perspective of members of the organic movement they have none. If we put the above list of supposed advantages of GM vaccines in the contexts of two general statements (from the same document) that “the development of such an impressive variety of Covid-19 vaccines in a very short time can be considered an extraordinary achievement” and that “a viable prevention through effective and safe vaccines can make a significant contribution to rapidly overcoming Covid-19” – then one cannot avoid the rather surprising conclusion that anthroposophic medicine is not against use of these vaccines until there will be enough evidence that they can be harmful.

What is missing in this approach is the clear recognition that in the case of mRNA vaccines we are no longer dealing with vaccines but with gene therapy disguised as a ‘vaccine’. In the independent media we can find information that “human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use. Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a person’s genes to treat or cure disease.” If we look at the vaccines we find that “the active ingredient inside their shot is mRNA – mobile strings of genetic code that contain the blueprints for proteins. The mRNA inside Pfizer and BioNTech’s vaccine directs any cells it reaches to run a coronavirus spike-building program.” For that reason “Moderna describes its product not as a vaccine, but as ‘gene therapy technology’ in [their papers]. This is because neither Moderna nor Pfizer make any claims about their products creating immunity or preventing transmission.” [9]

Therefore we can wonder how many people would still accept the present vaccination with these new ‘vaccines’ if they were called ‘gene therapy’ – or if they were called ‘GM vaccines’ instead of the neutral term ‘mRNA vaccines’ – and if they were told that this gene therapy is the only solution against the seasonal flu!?

How is anthroposophic medicine intending to overcome the present social polarization?

Statement of two anthroposophical medical experts about the present vaccination
The fact is that a considerable proportion of well-informed, professional medical personnel are currently sceptical about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Information campaigns are not likely to change this attitude, but only hard data resulting from comparative registry studies conducted free from direct or indirect vested interests, e.g., of the pharmaceutical industry, such as would be possible with an immunization registry as proposed in this paper…
In our opinion, high – albeit not absolute – legal protection of freedom of choice on vaccination is advantageous. A securely and reliably managed vaccination registry for SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, which also covers the challenge of various vaccines of different technologies, therefore also appears to us as the best solution, both scientifically and socially, for achieving a satisfactory level of evidence as quickly as possible with regard to the effectiveness and safety of the various SARS-CoV-2 vaccines…
Such a broadly based scientific approach would have a socially integrating effect and help to counteract polarization with regard to the vaccination issue. Reliable pseudonymization of this registry should be a central requirement; data breaches could have serious consequences and the risk of discrimination against non-vaccinated people cannot be ruled out, especially with this vaccination. The necessary trust of the population could be created and optimized on all sides with this approach.

From this statement it is evident that two anthroposophic doctors (Dr. Soldner and Dr. Martin) hope to overcome the increasing social division between pro-vaxx and anti-waxx population with the establishing of the database of vaccination choices, including those who will choose not to be vaccinated!? However, with an exception for research purposes it is not clear what is the benefit of such a database for general health, neither how it could help to overcome social division that is to a great extent triggered by the continuation of the fabricated pandemic we are all exposed to. The best way to stop social division in regard to the present pandemic is to cease the senseless lockdown measures and imposition of vaccination which are the main source of social polarization, including anxiety, fear, anger, depression and social isolation.

If even many members of mainstream professional medical personnel are sceptical about vaccination I wonder if the anthroposophic ‘policy makers’ have ever asked anthroposophical professional medical personnel about their opinion on vaccinations before they went public with their statements? Are they not contributing to the social division among members of anthroposophical movement by taking such disturbingly one-sided pro-vaccine stance? One cannot hope to attain the true knowledge of the challenging issue of vaccination by means of uncritical acceptance of official medical narratives in the atmosphere of emergency while simultaneously ignoring the serious warnings of independent scientists and medical experts who might not be always right – but who are nevertheless exposing, amongst those who are pushing for global vaccination, plenty of cases of corruption, selfish profit-seeking and extreme disregard for the wellbeing of the rest of humanity. [10]

PART TWO: IN THE SEARCH OF GOOD ANSWERS

I have not expected that there will be any direct response to the questions formulated above from the representatives of the anthroposophic medicine. Although there were occasional acknowledgments that “Covid-19 and vaccination are a complex topic which affects each person directly.” Therefore “if the freedom of thought and of choice is to be guaranteed we need a quality of dialogue, both publicly and within the anthroposophical movement, that makes this kind of freedom possible.” [11] But I am not aware of any real attempt to establish such dialogue between the pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine representatives either inside the Medical Section or among the members of the anthroposophical movement itself.

However, after I published the first part of this article I have received several contributions from the official representatives of medical section that have tried to defend their pro-vaccine stance – some older and some new. In this indirect way some questions have been answered and new questions have arisen.

Nobody can ban anthroposophic medicine if it has the support of enough people

Already in 2019, in an attempt to reply to the anti-vaccine critics inside the anthroposophical movement, Dr. Soldner has tried to provide in article What is Our Global Attitude to Vaccinating? a few additional arguments for issuing the Anthroposophic Medicine Statement on Vaccination.

I have not found in this document any additional arguments in favour of issuing this statement. As I have explained in Anthroposophical Pro-Vaccine Statements as Modern ‘Papal Bulls’ such forms of intervention go against the impulse of free development of ethical individualism.

However, there was one important clarification in regard to the motive behind issuing two pro-vaccine statements by Medical Section and IVAA:

“In the global vaccination campaigns anthroposophic physicians are often vilified as ‘anti-vaxxer’ and, using this accusation as a pretext, efforts are even being made to ban anthroposophic medicine altogether. On the other hand, there are one-sided campaigns that oppose vaccination indiscriminately.

Given this situation, the attempt has been made to keep the discussion factual and protect Anthroposophic Medicine against one-sided attacks and generalizations. It soon became evident that, in some countries, the statement was very important for the public image of Anthroposophic Medicine and that it was welcomed accordingly. Others expressed clear criticism, often based on misunderstandings.” [12]

Finally it is revealed that these organisations have issued a statement that was clearly endorsing a global vaccination campaign against one purposely orchestrated ‘pandemic’ with experimental vaccines for the reason of not being vilified as ‘anti-vaxxers’!? Yes, it is true, people are systematically vilified as being ‘anti-vaxx’ and ‘anti-science’ – but is this a reason to give up one’s core moral values? Many people have lost their jobs and were segregated as ‘enemies of state’, but I cannot see how any governmental body could “ban anthroposophic medicine altogether” just on the ground of keeping a neutral stance on vaccines?! [13] One needs in such a battle to distinguish between what is a real threat and what is an imaginary one. I do not take the complete ban of anthroposophic medicine as a real possibility whilst we still have some democratic traditions left. And especially if anthroposophic medicine has enough supporters – from satisfied patients to members of anti-vaccine movements.

However, the endorsement of a global vaccination campaign against the so-called ‘Covid-19’ with experimental vaccines has alienated many people from institutions that claim to represent the interests of anthroposophic medicine. Therefore we can regard the issuing of two pro-vaccine statements (especially Anthroposophic Medicine Statement on Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2) as a public relation failure which will have long-term negative consequences for the image of anthroposophical medicine.

One-sided support of vaccination is not contributing to the development of civil society

In an older interview with Dr. Georg Soldner entitled Vaccinate?!, he has said:
“The topic of vaccination has been polarized ever since there have been vaccinations. As early as 1860, there were statements from vaccination supporters and opponents that sound very similar to those from today. Then, as now, both sides tend to suppress facts that contradict their own view. We also noticed this when we drafted a worldwide position statement on the part of the Medical Section and the IVAA (International Federation of Anthroposophic Medical Associations). Even within the anthroposophic movement, the reactions are contradictory. There were colleagues who welcomed it, and colleagues who feared it would be selling out anthroposophy.” In spite of this admonition he concluded the interview in very optimistic mood: “I am very glad that we in the anthroposophic movement are bringing a process of clarification, if we want to affect the development of civil society.” [14]

The statement referred in the interview is the one issued on 15 April 2019: Anthroposophic Medicine Statement on Vaccination. I cannot see in it any reflection of the fact that there were (as mentioned by Dr. Soldner) two groups inside the anthroposophical medical staff in regard to their view of vaccination. And in Anthroposophic Medicine Statement on Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 issued on 12 January 2021, there was just a one-sided endorsement of a global campaign to vaccinate all the worldwide population with experimental vaccines – including ‘gene therapy’ disguised as ‘vaccine’ – with the only reservations that it should be done with informed consent.

In the article What is Our Global Attitude to Vaccinating? Dr. Soldner tries to provide additional argument for the first statement on vaccination. He comments that the statement that “Anthroposophic Medicine is not anti-vaccine and does not support anti-vaccine movements,” “clearly rejects any indiscriminate anti-vaccine movements.” Not just that, it rejects all anti-vaccine movements, for there is nothing said about those anti-vaccine movements that are not against vaccination per se, but against a corrupt medical system which is pushing for increasing number of vaccines to children, such as the Children’s Health Defense.

These are just a few examples that demonstrate that in the time of the ‘corona pandemic’ the representatives of the Medical Section and the IVAA themselves were indiscriminately in favour of vaccination under the guise of taking a neutral position!?

We have an absolute right to criticise the medical experts, including the anthroposophic ones

In March 2021 Dr. Soldner expressed the following assessment of the situation with the ‘corona pandemic’: “Given the high incidence of people getting ill or even dying, it is essential that physicians and politicians act responsibly, even if there is much that we don’t know yet – a situation, by the way, that is not uncommon in medicine. This not-knowing and not-yet-understanding is something we also have to acknowledge in the anthroposophical movement. I am often rather taken aback at the certainty with which people judge the vaccines. I personally don’t have that certainty even though I administer vaccinations and have studied the topic for decades. We are in a process where we are learning to understand, and in this process we need both expertise and openness.” [15]

The first thing that is evident from the above assessment is that Dr. Soldner professes that he and (we assume) some other anthroposophical doctors are acting on the basis of “not-knowing and not-yet-understanding”!? This is supported by his admonition that he has no certainty in regard to vaccines and he is therefore “often rather taken aback at the certainty with which people judge the vaccines.” I am really taken aback that he and his colleagues make the public statements about vaccination on such shaky ground. One should not publicly speak about things one does not-yet-understand!! Especially when it is the question of disease and danger of death. [16]

The above opinion of Dr. Soldner was an attempt to dismiss critique of all people who have disputed claims of anthroposophic medical experts in favour of vaccination against Covid. However, according to Steiner, the basic condition for criticising the work of doctors is not specialisation in any specific medical field – “this faculty of judgment we shall not acquire by specialising – but only by cultivating in an all-round way our powers of understanding and our faculty of judgment. This, however, can never come about through expert knowledge in some particular branch of science, but only through the all-embracing knowledge of the spirit.” [17]

Anthroposophic medical experts are not committed to self-critical questioning of their own approach

Now I will demonstrate how one can evaluate by means of logic and common sense the statements and conclusions of anthroposophic medical experts about various aspects of the ‘corona pandemic’. Here are the concrete examples of various practices that were used with the aim of ‘proving’ their conclusions. For each example I have provided the basic reason why it doesn’t hold ground against careful examination of available facts.

EXAMPLE OF UNCRITICAL REPETITION OF OFFICIAL NARRATIVES

“A positive swab result (PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 is relatively reliable; initially false negative results are not uncommon even in infected people.” [18]
From the above example (and many similar) it is evident that Georg Soldner and Thomas Breitkreuz have completely adopted the official medical narrative of WHO and other governmental medical institutions that have used the PCR tests to simply manufacture so called ‘coronavirus pandemic’. They even go along with the absurd suggestion that the negative PCR tests can be false – thus arriving at the opposite of the reality which is: the use of PCR tests for diagnostic purposes is unscientific and meaningless – unless one wants to use them for the purpose of creating an epidemic.

EXAMPLE OF IGNORANCE OF FINDINGS OF INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

“On January 7, 2020, the novel coronavirus was already identified as SARS-CoV-2.” [19]
Michaela Glöckler, former leader of the Medical Section at Goetheanum, is in her 25 page long article completely ignoring all scientific evidence that virus SARS-CoV-2 has never been properly isolated and for that reason alone cannot be identified. For evidence see the collection of articles About Virus Isolation and PCR Tests.

EXAMPLE OF STATISTIC, THE SOURCE OF WHICH IS NOT CLEAR

“To date (as of Dec. 31, 2020), except for allergic reactions and flu-like symptoms, no serious adverse events have been reported for the newly licensed SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the US and Europe.” [20]
From the phase of trials onwards there were available on alternative platforms reports of official statistics about serious adverse events. For example, in one video there was given the summary of VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) in the US from the beginning of vaccination on 14th December 2020 till 22nd January 2021: 329 deaths, 722 hospitalizations, 2073 urgent care, 1219 office visits, 126 anaphylaxis and 102 Bell’s palsy. [21] What kind of statistics were Dr. Georg Soldner and Dr. David Martin looking at to be able to report “no serious adverse events” for the about half of the month of the Covid vaccination campaign?!

EXAMPLE OF CONCLUSION WITHOUT EXPLANATION OF THE METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

“Virus SARS-CoV-2 is present among all inhabitants of the world.” [22]
It is not clear if Matthias Girke and Ueli Hurter, the two members of the School of the Spiritual Science at the Goetheanum – where people are developing supersensible means of perception of spiritual realities behind the manifestations of physical realities – have used any supersensible method of investigation that enabled them to arrive at the above conclusion, for so far there are no logistic means to check the whole world population about the presence of the specific virus. And even PCR and antigen tests that were used to provide dubious ‘proofs’ of the presence of this specific coronavirus were not performed with all inhabitants of the world and in all those cases when they were used they were not all positive.

EXAMPLE OF CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS IN THE SAME DOCUMENT

“The will to examine the truth and not to allow oneself to be infected by false claims forms part of our immunity, for which we ourselves are responsible.”
“The SARS-CoV-2 virus cannot simply be eradicated, and new mutations may follow.” [23]
Matthias Girke and Georg Soldner do not notice that they are contradicting to their principle “to examine the truth and not to allow oneself to be infected by false claims” by taking seriously the official claim of the existence of the novel coronavirus and even support the false conclusion that this virus “cannot simply be eradicated.” This virus (and many others) could be simply eradicated if the virological science and associated medical science would start to do independent scientific research that would not serve as the marketing department of pharmaceutical corporations. For evidence see the first episode of the documentary series The Viral Delusion.

EXAMPLE OF A STATED PRINCIPLE THAT IS NOT FOLLOWED IN PRACTICE

“Anthroposophic medicine is pro-science and continued scientific debate is more important than ever in today’s polarized vaccine environment.” [24]
The claim that the members who practise anthroposophic medicine are pro-science is very deceptive. For there is lacking the clarification of what kind of science it is that is endorsed by them. The official representatives of anthroposophic medicine who issued this statement seem to be completely unaware of the existence of Three Kinds of Science, otherwise they would characterise which science they support. Judging from their uncritical reiteration of the official ‘scientific’ claims, they are pro-pseudoscience.

On the other side, there were some spiritual scientific researchers who have critically evaluated the available independent scientific evidence. For example, Tim Nadelle in his report A Critical Assessment of the COVID-19 Crisis - For Anthroposophists has refuted the following seven basic claims of the official doctrine regarding Covid-19:

people are dying around the world from a new infectious disease;
scientists have isolated a new coronavirus;
scientists have proven that SARS-CoV-2 causes the disease;
accurate and reliable tests have been developed for detecting the presence of this virus;
safe and effective vaccines reduce the probability of contracting or spreading the disease;
measures of the wearing of masks, social distancing and lockdowns have been politically imposed for the public good;
the social good achieved through these measures to contain the disease outweigh the harm done by the measures.

I wonder what has prevented the anthroposophic medical experts to do the same and arrive at similar conclusions.

EXAMPLE OF THE LOSS OF AN ANTHROPOSOPHIC MEDICAL APPROACH

There are many instances of writings by anthroposophic medical experts about the ‘corona pandemic’ that are not mentioning the basic principles of an anthroposophic medical approach that are important for developing a proper understanding of what is going on in the case of this social-medical phenomenon. The most outstanding among them is the research paper Covid-19 Vaccination, A synthesis review of current status and proposal of a registry study to overcome social polarization tendencies and answer open research questions written by Dr. Georg Soldner, Deputy Head of the Medical Section at the Goetheanum, and Prof. Dr. med. David Martin, holder of the Gerhard Kienle Chair of Medical Theory, Integrative and Anthroposophic Medicine at Witten/Herdecke University.

For the only references to an anthroposophical medical approach in the whole document (approx. the length of this article) are the titles of the authors and the following entries:

“… the Italian doctor and long-time president of the International Federation of Anthroposophic Medical Associations (IVAA) Giancarlo Buccheri, who died of Covid-19 in April 2020”;
“… where anthroposophic hospitals in Germany and Switzerland are also involved in the care of Covid-19 patients experiencing all degrees of severity.” (without a description of their approach to the care of patients);
“… where specific anthroposophic therapy concepts have been clinically experienced as helpful, especially when they are used in the first week of illness.” (without a description of these therapy concepts).

Besides, in the whole document there are no references to:

the polarity of ‘HOT’ vs ‘COLD’ ILLNESSES which is one of the fundamental principles of anthroposophic medicine;
no reference to the danger of an increase of sclerotic diseases due to overuse of chemical medications and vaccines in the last decades;
no quote of Steiner on the issues of vaccination.

For me it is a real riddle why is this imitation of an ordinary medical research paper regarded as the paper which represents an anthroposophic medical perspective on the issue of vaccination against Covid?!

These examples and many more demonstrate that the official representatives of the Medical Section and the IVAA are not applying the methods of spiritual scientific investigation that they themselves describe in the following manner: “The systematic, self-critical exercise and development of extrasensory perception is a declared goal of the anthroposophical schooling path. If people want to be active on this path, this requires a corresponding transparency and methodical cleanliness to a much greater extent than in conventional scientific research. The usual basic requirements of scientific work include conscientiousness, self-critical questioning of one’s own approach, transparency with regard to the conditionality of the research method and object, restraint in judgements, disclosure of motivational and conflicting interests, etc.” [25]

Therefore we could use their own words for our conclusion about the majority of the research papers and articles issued by anthroposophical medical experts: “Methodologically, this work is not serious in all recognizable areas, it is unscientific, manipulative and has nothing to do with anthroposophic spiritual science and anthroposophic medicine. When it comes to gaining a deeper understanding of the signatures of the current situation, a solid scientific methodology is needed, to which anthroposophy and the medicine inspired by it feel committed.” [26]

Thus we can only hope that they will be courageous and honest enough to take more seriously the warning of Christ: “Be not judges of others, and you will not be judged. For as you have been judging, so you will be judged, and with your measure will it be measured to you. And why do you take note of the grain of dust in your brother’s eye, but take no note of the bit of wood which is in your eye?” [27]

The damage to anthroposophy that results from the members themselves

The official representatives of anthroposophic medicine have – to their credit – stated clearly, that in the time of the present vaccination campaign “as in the time before the pandemic, we have vehemently advocated freedom of choice in relation to vaccination and against making vaccination compulsory, whether directly or indirectly.” [28]

Besides they make it clear that “we consider it very important to first establish as physicians whether a patient should have the vaccination and whether they are being given the freedom to decide, to carefully inform them on what to do after the vaccination and to provide individual support. This is in our view essential for avoiding complications, especially in the case of the Covid-19 vaccines because of their considerable potential for side effects.” [29]

However, there was one anthroposophical Covid vaccination hub in England (Blackthorn Medical Centre) which was clearly violating these ethical guidelines and – to my knowledge – nothing was done about it. As could be seen in their advertising video they were not able to perform the procedure of informed consent and careful examination of people’s health condition in the two minutes that were used in average for each person to get a Covid vaccine.

Besides, now we can find on the same website the NHS advertisement to vaccinate unborn babies in the womb of pregnant women against Covid!? [30] This is in spite of the fact that official representatives of anthroposophic medicine have not endorsed the vaccination of children and adolescents. This is evident from the following statement of Dr. Soldner: “We should not vaccinate an entire generation [of children] and prevent them from acquiring natural immunization because they are considered a danger to others – using a vaccine of which we don’t yet know the long-term effects and that is not well tolerated. In my view that is unethical.” [31]

How one can then trust any other claim of the official representatives of anthroposophic medicine in regard to their core values if their members don’t follow the basic ethical guidelines which are promoted to the public by them?! So if official representatives of anthroposophic medicine are truly concerned about the damage to anthroposophy, then they should deal first with their own problems and weaknesses before they accuse others of having “nothing to do with anthroposophical spiritual science and anthroposophic medicine.” [32] Only then we can hope for any fruitful dialogue among pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine proponents inside the anthroposophical movement itself.

In my view one of the most important conclusions in regard to the social phenomenon of the ‘corona pandemic’ is that this crisis has exposed to an extreme degree the failure of the modern hierarchical medical-economic-political-educational social arrangements. The logical outcome of the signs of the times that demonstrate “the factual collapse of the current hijacked system and its institutions” is that we need by “necessity to jump-start [our] own new system of health care, education, economics and judiciary, so that democracy and the rule of law on the basis of our constitutions will be re-established.” [33]

Compare this with the following example of “a deeper understanding of the signatures of the current situation” in regard to the ‘corona pandemic’ by anthroposophical medical experts? When Dr. Soldner is asked, “What can be said about the spiritual dimension of the pandemic?” – he replies: “Understanding spiritual quality means first of all being with the sick and with the dying, accompanying their suffering and their death. This calls for earnestness but also for courage and trust. The message is that it depends on our attitude, on our active solidarity, on how carefully we listen to what others perceive; and on how sensitive we are to whether we are perceived as being helpful. A society that wants to deal with the virus needs dialogue and forums where everyone can be heard; where civil society can come together, where generations listen to each other and consult together on what needs to be done – until it is possible to believe that the other means well with his or her actions.” [34]

However, this does not mean that official representatives of the anthroposophical medicine and other branches of spiritual science should avoid confrontation with those social impulses that are restricting basic human rights and hindering the free development of individuality. Nor does it mean that they should endorse a one-sided materialistic approach to origin of diseases and the maintenance of human health. For, “proceeding from an image of the human being other than that of contemporary materialism, Rudolf Steiner expected strong initiative from the Anthroposophical Society and its leadership – as well as the courage to represent uncommon positions publicly.” [35]

It was admitted by them that their motive for a one-sided endorsement of global vaccination campaign was to protect anthroposophical medicine against becoming a target of threats by pro-vaccine extremists. While doing this they have forgotten that “Rudolf Steiner spoke repeatedly about the explosive force of the different attacks and the response necessary on the part of the Anthroposophical Society: ‘If in response to the opposition nothing is done, then the mission of anthroposophy will fail.’” [36]

So while they were trying to protect anthroposophical medicine they were damaging the essence of anthroposophy itself.