A Spiritual Scientific Perspective on the
Origin of Viruses and the Nature of Viral Diseases
By Brane Žilavec, 8 May 2021
A Spiritual Scientific Perspective on the
Origin of Viruses and the Nature of Viral Diseases
By Brane Žilavec, 8 May 2021
Since the beginning of the ‘corona pandemic’ we have been exposed to ongoing claims by politicians and representatives of official medicine who are with unflinching certainty declaring the new strain of coronavirus as the cause of the Covid-19 pandemic. This is done in spite of the fact that there are no physical means – even with the help of the latest technology – that would enable us to penetrate into the infinitely small realm of existence and observe the living interactions between minute organs of the cells, called ‘organelles’, and various substances on the molecular level. In the case of bacteria we can at least see them by means of optical microscopes and observe how they multiply in a laboratory dish. But to look inside the living cell is impossible due to the fact that any penetration of a living cell by any mechanical means would simply kill it.
Therefore each cell is like a house with closed doors and windows and scientists can just watch outside and register who is going in and out and what they carry with them; occasionally they might catch a glimpse of some inner movement through a window and then with the help of all these observations guess what is happening inside. Of course, scientists can use various methods of microdissection of dead cells to find out their inner structure, but this is like finding out the structure of the house and then trying to figure out what was happening inside where it was still inhabited by people.
Hence in the transition from the level of cells to the level of molecules materialistic science encounters the impenetrable wall of what it can still observe – even with the help of the most advanced technological means. This is evident if we compare the following two images of parts of the human genome (a complex biological molecule) with the computer generated images of what is supposed to be its inner structure. [1]
The scanning tunnelling electron micrograph of
the part of DNA
and the double helix image of its inner structure
The electron micrograph of the human chromosome
and the scientific presentation of its inner structure
In both examples we can see that there is nothing visible in the photograph that would confirm with absolute certainty the supposed inner structure presented to us by scientists. This is an incontestable fact even if all the people in the world agree that DNA has a double helix structure. The reason why science cannot provide any photo of their molecular structure is that they are simply too small! Here we are confronted with one of the limits of physical science that can be overcome only by means of supersensible perception. [2]
Due to this fact alone it should be clear that there is a lot of guessing in regard to what is going on when we turn our attention to the three smallest levels of the structure of the physical organism: the cells, molecules and atoms. As viruses belong to the level of molecules, there is no good basis for the level of confidence expressed by virologists when they speak of structure of viruses, their infectious nature, the manners in which they hijack the cells and force them to produce new viruses, and so on. Those scientists who take these claims for granted are just confirming the opinion of spiritual science that very often “the simple-mindedness of our modern materialistic mythology is considerable. It is far greater, in fact, than that of any other mythology. This will be realized only in the future” [3] when people awake from the mental ‘prison’ of materialism and discover the reality of the existence of spiritual worlds.
Was Steiner Really Not Able to Differentiate
between Bacteria and Viruses?
Among the members of the anthroposophical movement there is circulating one misconception that Steiner’s descriptions of the role of bacteria in infectious diseases can be used also for viruses. This is the assertion that Steiner’s descriptions of the role of bacteria in infectious diseases can be used also for viruses. As “in Steiner’s day there was as yet little talk of viruses among the wider population” some people arrived at the conclusion that in Steiner’s texts “the word ‘bacterium’ refers not only to bacteria but also to all microorganisms that cause diseases, including viruses.” [4] A slightly modified view is that “viruses were only discovered in the 1890s, so that when Steiner speaks more specifically of germs or bacteria, his comments can be taken to include all microorganisms and point to understandings of viruses today.” And another view is that the “virus was isolated for the first time in 1935 and for that reason Steiner call them bacteria – not yet viruses.” [5]
The implication of this kind of reasoning is that Steiner somehow was not capable of differentiating between bacteria and viruses [6] due to the historical fact that the ‘true nature’ of viruses was found out only after his death by means of the first electronic microscope in 1930s. [7] Those who are pursuing these lines of arguments do not take into account another possibility – that is, that Steiner’s conception of the nature of viruses might differ from the materialistic conception in a similar manner as the spiritual scientific conception of the nature of matter fundamentally differs from the materialistic one.
Another problem with the above viewpoint is that their advocates don’t provide any evidence that Steiner did not distinguish between bacteria and viruses. But there is enough evidence that Steiner was familiar with the latest discoveries in the field of virology. For during his life “Steiner was an avid reader and followed the advances across all fields in a way still possible for a well-educated lay person in those days. While there certainly were some areas where he was sure the researchers of his day were on the wrong track, the more important point is that he was up to date on the advances in virtually all fields. For virology this is evidenced by his remarks in a 1909 lecture about the discoveries related to mosquitos and yellow fever. That research had been done in Cuba and publicized starting six years earlier.” [8]
But this is not all. For there is another of Steiner’s references to viruses that gives further proof of his familiarity with the concept of viruses. [9] In 1917 he said: “Just as viruses have been discovered as means of protection against illnesses, so certain inoculations will be used to influence the human body in such a way that it provides no place for the spiritual proclivities of the soul.” [10] The first part of the sentence proves that Steiner was familiar with the following historical fact: “In the early 20th century, the English bacteriologist Frederick Twort discovered a group of viruses that infect bacteria, now called bacteriophages (phages), and the French-Canadian microbiologist Félix d’Herelle described viruses that, when added to bacteria on an agar plate, would produce areas of dead bacteria... Phages were heralded as a potential treatment for diseases such as typhoid and cholera, but their promise was forgotten with the development of penicillin.” [11]
Steiner has even suggested “treatment with modified virus vaccine [as] effective in the case of diphtheria, because the body is thus given a strong impulse to become active, [although] it has unfavourable aftereffects.” [12] So the real question arising out of all this is: What is the difference in Steiner’s perception and understanding of viruses with the modern materialistic one?
When we survey the history of virus discoveries we can notice from the very beginning the presence of an ambiguity in perception of the nature of viruses. “All the evidence indicates that the early writings used the word ‘virus’ in the context of its original meaning, which is from the Latin for a ‘poison’ or ‘noxious substance’. Careful reading of 18th and 19th century writings, particularly those that refer to smallpox inoculation and vaccination, show that the use of the word ‘virus’ is clearly intended to refer to some kind of ‘noxious matter’. This can be demonstrated by the practice of inoculation, which used the ‘pus’ from sores on the skins of people with the disease called smallpox; this pus was often referred to by the word ‘virus’. The same word was also used to refer to the ‘pus’ from the sores on the udders of cows with the disease called cowpox. The ‘pus’ from sores bears a far closer resemblance to the original meaning of ‘virus’ as a poison or a noxious substance than to an ‘infectious’ particle.” [13]
In more recent times viruses have been regarded as “parasites that skirt the boundary between life and inert matter.” It is a historical fact that “for decades, researchers have argued over whether viruses are alive or not.” [14] For example, Dr Lynn Margulis PhD [15] maintained that viruses “are not alive since outside living cells they do nothing, ever. Viruses require the metabolism of the live cell because they lack the requisites to generate their own. Metabolism, the incessant chemistry of self-maintenance, is an essential feature of life. Viruses lack this.” [16]
In opposition to this there exists an increasing tendency to regard viruses as microbres by attributing to them those characteristics which are typical for the smallest living organisms – bacteria. And the view which tries to reconcile these two contradictory perspectives is that “a virus is an organism with two phases: virion (infectious particle) and cell” [17] – that is, with the dead, seed-like state of virion and the living state after hijacking the cell’s reproductive machinery.
We can see the evolution of the conception of viruses from dead particles to living microscopic entities as a kind of modern ‘resurrection’ of matter on the mental plane. In fact, there is even a perspective that “viruses are the only known biological entity with this kind of ‘phoenix phenotype’ – the capacity to rise from their own ashes” [18] – that is, from death to life and back.
The difficulties scientists seem to have in grasping the nature of viruses – which are molecules on the borderline between organic life and inorganic substances – is just one example of the lack of proper concepts to enable them to grasp the nature of INORGANIC vs ORGANIC SUBSTANCES from a spiritual scientific perspective. Therefore any assumption that Steiner did not distinguishing between bacteria and viruses goes against the basic distinction between the manifestations of two different realms of existence: the physical/mineral and etheric/living. Microorganisms (bacteria, archaea and protists and unicellular fungi) are living entities capable of reproductions and possess some other attributes of life, such as metabolism, movement, etc. These characteristics are the manifestations of the activity of the etheric body.
However this is not the case with viruses. They are molecules which can be found in living organisms, but this does not make them yet ‘organisms’. If we regard viruses as organisms, then we should also do so with complete genomes and all proteins, fats and carbohydrates. For all of them are having much more important roles than viruses in the maintenance of organic functions of organisms. But the very moment these complex biological molecules are removed from the organisms, they will no longer perform same activities as they do inside an organism. On the contrary, when they are separated from a living organism the processes of decay set in. This is evident in the case of any food derived from plants and animals, where we need to use all kinds of methods to preserve it against forces of decay as much as possible. [19]
On the basis of these explanations we need to conclude that the smallest organism is a cell. Although each cell needs various molecules to perform its living functions, this don’t entitle them to be proclaimed as ‘organisms’. We cannot do this even with the whole human genome, in spite of the fact that it carries the blueprint for physical human form. Therefore the inclusion of viruses into the group of microorganism is another modern fallacy that helps to promote the fear of ‘killer viruses’ and all the consequences of this misconception of modern science.
Therefore we can see that it was not Steiner who was not able to differentiate between bacteria/cells and viruses/molecules; the modern scientists cannot differentiate them or are purposely blurring the line between them. And this is the case also with all those anthroposophists who are uncritically taking explanations of materialistic science as ‘facts’ – and not taking into consideration the obvious limitations of a physical approach to investigation of the microscopic world of cells and molecules.
The Deceptive Illusion of Extremely Enlarged Microscopic Images
In general people are not aware how many unproven assumptions are regarded as ultimate realities just because there are propagated by materialistic science for decades or even centuries while simultaneously all other explanations that contradicts them are labelled as ‘unscientific’. This is especially the case in regard to the question of human health and for that reason “everybody who observes the world must after a time acquire a certain anger against every use of the microscope – against every research on the microscopic scale – because microscopical methods are more apt to lead away from a wholesome view of life and its disturbances, than to lead towards it. All the processes actually affecting us, in our health and sickness, can be much better studied on the macroscopic than on the microscopic scale. We must only seek out the opportunities for such a study in the world of the macrocosm.” [20]
The prevalent approach in medicine has gone in the opposite direction. Nowadays “people have accustomed themselves to depart as far from nature as possible. They do something which shuts their own sight off from nature, for what they wish to examine they lay beneath a glass on a little stand – the eye does not look out into nature, but looks into the glass. Sight itself is cut off from nature. They call this a microscope. In certain sense it might as well be called a nulloscope, for it shuts one off from the great world of nature. People do not know, when something under the glass is magnified, that for spiritual knowledge it is exactly as though the same process were to take place in nature herself. For only think, when you take some minute particle from the human being for purposes of observation under a microscope, what you then do with this minute fragment is the same as if you were to stretch the man himself and tear him apart. You would be an even worse monster than Procrustes [21] if you were to pull violently man and tear him asunder in order to enlarge him as that minute particle is enlarged under the microscope. But do you believe that you would still have the person before you? This would naturally be out of the question. Just as little you have the reality there under the microscope. The truth which has been magnified is no longer the truth; it is an illusory image. We must not depart from nature and imprison our own sight. For other purposes, this can of course be useful; but for a true knowledge of man it is immensely misleading.” [22]
This immensely deceiving character of microscopy in relation to human health has been amply demonstrated in the case of the ‘corona pandemic’. The infinitely small viruses have been stretched to such a gigantic size that they seemed as the real threat to many people around the world. This would not be possible if people were aware that “there are processes at work within the human being of which modern physiology and anatomy have not the slightest inkling because their observation does not extend to nature processes. We must observe the more delicate processes in nature and then we shall unfold a real knowledge of the human being. For all these things an inner understanding of nature is required and a comprehensive view of the warmth, the streamings of air, the warming and cooling of the air, the play of the sun’s rays in this warming and cooling of air, the water vapour in the atmosphere, the wonderful play of the morning dew over the flowers and plants. A sense for nature is required in all these things. And this sense for nature is certainly not present when, as in the modern way of observation, everything is made dependent on what is seen under the microscope where things are taken right away from nature. There is a dreadful illusion here.
What is the aim of looking through the microscope? The aim is to be able to see what cannot be seen by the ordinary eye. When the object is enormously magnified people imagine that its workings will be the same as they are in the minute. But in microscopy we are looking at something that is untrue. Microscopy is only of value if you yourselves have a sufficiently true sense for nature to be able, with your own inner activity, to modify the particular object to the corresponding minuteness. Then the whole thing is different. If you see an object magnified, you must be able to reduce it again, simply through its own inner nature. This is usually not done. As a rule, people have no inkling of the fact that the magnitudes of the things of nature are not relative. The theory of relativity is great and fine and in most domains simply incontestable. But when it comes to the human organism, that is another matter altogether.” [23]
For “the human organism cannot be twice as large, for example, as it actually is, for it could not endure such a size. The size of the human organism is determined by the cosmos; its size is not relative, but absolute. When the size is supernormal, as in a giant, or subnormal as in a dwarf, this immediately brings us to conditions of illness. And so when we see an object under the microscope, we see a lie, to begin with. It is a question of reducing objects back to truth, and this is possible only when we have a sense for nature, a sense for what is really happening outside in nature.” [24]
This sense for nature has been in gradual decline since the beginning of modern science and technological development. Instead of a healthy sense for outward realities we have been increasingly imprisoned by the deceptive character of atomistic and molecular pictures – with these ‘microscopic lies’ that have the tendency to expand until they become the gigantic phantoms haunting the whole humanity.
There Is No Scientific Evidence That the
Foreign Viruses Are Causing ‘Viral Diseases’
For non-experts it is not an easy task to obtain knowledge about the methods of the experiments which are carried out with the aim to prove which factors are decisive for an occurrence of specific disease. This is also valid in the case of infectious diseases which are – according to official scientific narrative – divided into bacterial and viral infectious diseases, although we can find ‘in small letters’ the admission that “it can be difficult to distinguish which is the cause of a specific infection, as bacterial and viral infections can both cause the same kinds of symptoms.” [25]
The definition of ‘viral disease’ or ‘viral infection’ is that it “occurs when an organism’s body is invaded by pathogenic viruses, and infectious virus particles (virions) attach to and enter susceptible cells.” [26] Where is the evidence for such a confident claim?
In the article Are Viruses and Microbes the Real Culprits in the Emergence of Deadly Epidemics? is presented the fact that we are living among a multitude of viruses around us and inside us. As the vast majority of them are not pathogenic there must be conducted experiments that prove the pathogenic effect of any specific type of viruses. For this purpose virologists inoculate a suitable cell culture with a mixture which contains viruses and then observe the outcome. [27] Below is a diagram of the four steps of such an experiment: reduction of nutrients, addition of antibiotics, addition of an infectious mixture and observation of its effect shown in the number of plaques of dead cells in the petri dishes under investigation. [28]
However, Dr Stefan Lanka, a German biologist and virologist, has conducted a control experiment which has demonstrated that the death of the cells is not caused by viruses. [29] He has asked two independent laboratories to perform the same experiment without adding any ‘infectious’ substance taken from patients with measles. [30] The outcome of this control experiment – the first one ever done in the history of virology – was the same: dead cells!
This means that virologists “believe that the cell culture is killed by viruses. However, the death of the tissue and cells takes place in the exact same manner when no ‘infected’ genetic material is added at all. The virologists have apparently not noticed this fact. According to the scientific logic and the rules of scientific conduct, control experiments should have been carried out. In order to confirm the newly discovered method of so-called ‘virus propagation’, in order to see whether it was not the method itself causing or falsifying the result, the scientists would have had to perform additional experiments, called negative control experiments, in which they would add sterile substances or substances from healthy people and animals to the cell culture. These control experiments have never been carried out by the official ‘science’ to this day.” [31]
This means that to this day there are no scientific proofs for the claim that the entry of foreign viruses is causing any so-called ‘viral disease’! And as much as it can surprise us, we need to know that this is not an isolated example of a deeply embedded fallacy of modern research, for “one of the main reasons for the problems within medical science and the healthcare system it promotes, is that most of the ‘science’ is conducted within the confines of the laboratory; this means that laboratory experimentation is now almost entirely equated with medical science. This is a fundamental error and one that imposes a severe limitation on the ability of ‘science’ to understand living organisms.” The outcome of such an approach is the creation of an artificial world that no longer resembles the real conditions in the natural environment. As a result “one of the key features of, as well as one of the main problems with, laboratory experimentation, is that it does not investigate living intact biological systems.” [32]
Instead of this, “when a tissue is prepared for histology, histochemistry, electron microscopy, or immunochemistry, an animal is killed; the tissue is excised; it is fixed or frozen; it is embedded; it is sectioned; it is rehydrated; it is stained; it is mounted; it is radiated by light, or bombarded by electron beams.” [33] And even in those experiments where they maintain the plant, animal or human cells and microorganisms alive, these cells have been removed from their normal environment – an environment where they were an integral part of an intact living organism.
Consequently “there are very few conclusions that can be drawn from experiments that take place under the very specific conditions of the laboratory environment and assumed to be meaningful to the health of a living human body. The internal environment of a human body bears no resemblance whatsoever to the artificial environment created by scientists for their experiments in the laboratory.” [34] The reason for this is evident only when we take into account the existence of the FOURFOLD HUMAN BEING composed from the physical, etheric and astral body and an ego-organisation.
Usually “it is so easy to think that what exist in man’s surroundings, what belongs to the mineral, plant and animal kingdoms and is then taken into the body, that these external material processes which are investigated by the physicist, the chemist and so on, simply continue on in the same way in man himself. However, this is not the case for one must be clear that inside the human skin and its processes everything is different from outside it, that the world inside differs entirely from the world outside. Any process that takes place outside in nature changes when it occurs in the human being; in the human being it is permeated with soul; it is spiritual. As long as one is not aware of this one will ever and again reach the conclusion that what is examined in a retort, or investigated in some other way, is continued on inside the human organism, and the human organism itself will simply be regarded as a more complicated system of retorts.” [35]
In reality the human organism is an extraordinarily complex living environment due to the existence and activities of supersensible bodies of human being – the etheric body, astral body and ego-organisation. And because materialistic science is not yet capable of arriving at the admission of the supersensible bodies, all conclusions based on laboratory experiments are empirically false when they are simply transferred into the environment of the human organism! This kind of fallacy has been widely used in the case of the so-called ‘corona pandemic’ with the aim to force people to accept the officially promoted narratives of ‘deadly pandemic’.
Viruses Are Mineral Poisons Which Serve
as Nourishment for the Supersensible Bodies
One of the interesting facts I have discovered whilst reading various scientific literature about viruses was the lack of information about their origins in spite of undisputed evidence about their ubiquitous omnipresence in all kinds of natural environments and inside all living organisms. The reason for this curious omission may be that this information doesn’t fit into the official narrative of infectious viruses that threaten to enter human beings from outside and cause deadly epidemics.
As viruses are molecules containing parts of DNA or RNA, there is one very obvious source of them: the ongoing death of billions of cells in the plants, animals and humans – all of which include the genome decay. [36] This is indirectly confirmed with confusing arrays of names used by scientists for viral-like particles found in the living organisms: whole/intact viruses, naked viruses, obligate intracellular organisms, extracellular vesicles, exosomes, viral debris, viral fragments, pieces of genome, nucleic acid fragments, virions, etc. Therefore when they take samples from the throat or lungs of patients these samples “contain all kinds of molecules, billions of different micro- and nanoparticles, including extracellular vesicles and exosomes, which are produced by our own body and are often simply indistinguishable from viruses.” [37]
There is one description by Steiner of the origin of viruses – although using unusual expressions: “In a human corpse there is a poison known as the virus of dead bodies. But in reality man has within him all the time a corpse that is producing poison. A corpse yields [produces] this particular virus and the physical body of a living man yields it too, but in the latter case the ether body, astral body and ‘I’ are at work” [38] and thus preventing any negative effects of this virus.
What is this ‘virus of dead bodies’? From the above quote we can see that Steiner is regarding this virus as a poison – that is, that he goes back to the original meaning of the word ‘virus’ as ‘noxious substance’. For that reason we need a short introduction into spiritual scientific understanding of the nature of poisons. [39]
For that purpose we need to start with the recognition that “man must be regarded as a being who consists not only of the physical body that is visible to the eye, but also of higher members – invisible bodies. The first invisible member, the etheric body, is a much finer, more delicate body and cannot be perceived by the ordinary senses.” [40] Consequently “we only see the physical part of man which he has in common with all apparently lifeless beings. Everything to be found in the human body is also existing there [in the mineral kingdom], only of course these mineral forces exist in man in quite a special manner. They are so complicatedly interwoven, so manifoldly built up that the physical body would fall asunder through its own physical laws unless something penetrated it like water penetrates a sponge – something which combats in each man in each moment all disturbances in the physical body. We call this fighter the etheric or life body. In each one of you the physical body would be exposed in every moment to decay unless that fighter, that victor which we call the etheric or life body were in you. Man has this in common with the whole of living nature, this fighter is there in everything that lives. In the moment when at death the physical body is separated from the etheric body then it follows physical laws, it decays and passes over into lifeless nature.” [41]
The next “higher member is the astral body which enables man to have feelings and perceptions. He has this body in common with the animals, for they too have an astral body. But man has something which the animal has not, namely, self-consciousness, ‘I’-consciousness. Man, then, consists of the visible physical body and of three higher members: etheric body, astral body and the ‘I’.” [42]
We can divide poisons into three categories: mineral poisons (arsenic, lead, phosporus, etc.) plant poisons (e.g. belladonna and digitalis) and animal poisons (e.g. insect and snake poisons). As a general rule “the effect of mineral poisons is that the physical body trespasses into the ether body. Plant poisons cause the ether body to trespass into the astral body. Animal poisons cause the astral body to trespass into the field of the ‘I’.” Thus we can see that “every poison has its own specific way of working” [43] which is apprehensible only with knowledge of the supersensible bodies of man.
If we want to grasp the nature of the corpse-virus which belong to the mineral poisons, we need to imagine first the disintegrating physical body of man after death. There we see the full effect of this virus. But the reality is that “the physical body has always produced this poison; there is no possible reason why it should not do so, for as physical body it is the same, no matter whether the man is dead or alive.” However, while we are alive the poison produced by the physical body serves another purpose, for in this case “the ether body, astral body and ‘I’ are at work. These higher members are occupied all the time with this nascent poison; they absorb it as sustenance. If the corpse did not contain poison the living human being would not, in the real sense, be man.” [44]
Here we come to one of the most important secrets of the human constitution which reveals that “the human being bears these death-bringing forces continually within himself and he could not be an ego without them. The human being as a physical being on Earth could only hope to be immortal if he were to renounce his ego-consciousness.” [45] This explanation also reveals why the propaganda of ‘deadly viruses’ can have such a powerful psychological impact on all those who are not aware of the supersensible realities inside their own organisms.
For “it is death that is active in us when we surrender ourselves to what is spiritually active in our consciousness. And just as we look through the unconscious creating forces to the beginnings of life, to birth, so we look through the conscious conceptual forces that reveal themselves as destructive forces; they reveal themselves as what begins to take hold of us more and more as we grow into earthly life, to break us down, and finally to lead us to confront earthly death; we see through these forces to the other end of life, to death.” [46]
If we want to safeguard ourselves against manipulation of those who use such spiritual insights for their selfish purposes we need to know that “the processes producing illness are only further stages of those that must be present in the healthy human being. If we could not become ill, we could neither think nor feel. Everything that lives in the soul in feeling and thinking is organically a system of forces that produces illness when it exceeds its proper measure.” When realising that only decaying and dying organic life can provide a basis for soul-spiritual life we can then wonder if the World Health Organisation will in the future start also a campaign to drastically reduce the human capacities of feeling and thinking with the aim to improve public health?! Or it will finally acknowledge that we should again adopt the moral principle of ancient mystery centres which instructed that “the art of healing should not be communicated to irresponsible people, because in doing so one would at the same time necessarily communicate the art of making someone ill.” [47]
Thus we can see that Steiner has had a different understanding of viruses from what is imposed upon us by means of materialistic explanations. According to him, viruses are a type of mineral poison that is constantly produced by the human organism itself, [48] while inside materialistic science, “starting with 1953, Virchow’s idea of a disease poison (Latin=virus) became the genetic virus.” [49] As a result, the materialistic explanations of the transmission of viruses and their ‘infectious cycles’ are nothing more than conjectures of the materialistic mind which is neither capable nor willing to admit the limits of scientific approach to the investigation of human health.
To this we need to add Steiner’s important revelation that viruses are providing indispensable sustenance for our supersensible bodies and therefore don’t deserve all the fear and hatred that has been unleashed on them from the side of the present medical establishment. And when viruses have role in emergence of any disease we need to look at imbalances in the relationships between the physical-mineral body on one side and the etheric body, astral body and ego-organisation on the other side. [50] In other words, if we want to discover the primary origin of any physical illness we must not overlook the spiritual causes that are decidedly contributing to unhealthy balances in the human organism.
And the final conclusion is that the concept of a ‘viral disease’ has been misinterpreted and it would demand serious re-evaluation. [51] For usually “people give some thoughts to things, but the moment they want to use those thoughts to explain something in the human being, they do not work. Such thoughts will work for as long as one experiments with lifeless matter in a laboratory, but the moment you are intending to explain something [in the human being], it no longer works.” [52]
The reason why these thoughts no longer work is that “the modern physicist or chemist says that there are molecules which are composed of atoms, that the atoms possess forces by means of which they act upon each other. Now this is a conception which simply does not accord with reality. The truth is that the minutest molecule is acted upon by the whole starry heavens. Suppose here is a planet, here another, here another, and so on. Then there are the fixed stars, which transmit their forces into the molecule. All these lines of force intersect each other in various ways. The planets also transmit their forces in the same way, and we come to realise that the molecule is nothing but a focus of macrocosmic forces. It is the ardent desire of modern science to bring microscopy far enough to enable the atoms to be seen within the molecule. This way of looking at the subject must cease. Instead of wishing to examine the structure of the molecule microscopically, we must turn our gaze outwards to the starry heavens, we must look at the constellations and see copper in one, tin in another. Out there in the macrocosm we have to behold the structure of the molecule that is only reflected in the molecule [here on the Earth]. Instead of passing into the infinitely little, we must turn our gaze outwards to the infinitely great, for it is there we have to look for the reality of what lives in the little. In this way [by looking down] does the materialistic conception of things also affect other domains of thought. The nineteenth century materialism is not overcome so long as men still think atomically, so long as they fail to search in the great for the form and configuration of the small.” [53]
This inherent limitation of materialistic science can be overcome only by a sincere recognition of the existence of supersensible realities which we can investigate by means of the methods of spiritual science. Without this recognition we will be evermore exposed to the danger of being ‘enchanted’ by representations of the world of atoms and molecules to which belong also viruses. For “a great part of what today is called the scientific outlook – not the facts of science, for they can be relied on – consists of nothing else than pictures of the general occult captivity threatening to overtake mankind. The danger lies in the surrounding of people everywhere with atomistic and molecular pictures. It is impossible, when surrounded by such pictures,” to take in spiritual ideas and explanations; “for the atomistic picture of the world is like a wall around man’s soul – the spiritual wall of a prison house.” [54]
We have seen the results of this power of ‘enchantment’ of people by means of images of viruses and spike proteins and other molecular ‘actors’ since the beginning of the ‘coronavirus pandemic’. And the only defence against this manipulation is for people to attain a real understanding of what is really going on in this subconscious realm of human existence.
For an additional perspective see:
❖ Are Viruses and Microbes the Real Culprits in the Emergence of Deadly Epidemics?
NOTES
