Why the lack of virus evidence does not irritate natural scientists - On the ideology of materialism

Undefined
0
No votes yet
Why the lack of virus evidence does not irritate natural scientists - On the ideology of materialism
 
 
deepL translate:
 
 
Because," he concludes razor-sharp,
"that which must not be cannot be."
(Christian Morgenstern)
 
Again and again, scientists and journalists point out that pathogenic viruses, and thus also the "corona virus", have not yet been scientifically proven and consequently one cannot speak of them as pathogens of various infectious diseases. This is the axe to the root of the prevailing virus theory, the overthrow of which would have tremendous consequences not only in medicine but also for the pharmaceutical industry and politics. The critics are either ignored by the established scientists, "refuted" with references to alleged evidence or personally discredited. There is no scientific communication for clarification. Why not? What is actually the basis of this widespread resistance?
 
In their book "Virus-Wahn" (Virus Delusion), Torsten Engelbrecht and Dr. Claus Köhnlein pointed out many times, even before the appearance of an alleged corona virus, that there was not a single proof of the existence of an isolated and purified virus.
Even leading virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer had claimed that particle purification - i.e. the separation of an object from everything that is not that object - was an essential prerequisite for being able to prove the existence of a virus and thus to prove that the observed particles came from a virus. Tests could detect these particles, but not where they came from. And if a virus is not present in its pure form, it is not possible to determine its microbiological properties and establish a relationship with the particles.1  
 
Torsten Engelbrecht, Konstantin Demeter as well as the Italian microbiologist Stefano Scoglio have specifically stated in an extensive article that there has not yet been a single scientific study worldwide in which the complete purification and isolation of the corona virus SARS-CoV-2 has been carried out and its existence has thus been proven. The authors point out the compelling scientific prerequisite in even more detail:
"In a cell culture with countless extremely similar particles, complete particle purification must logically be the very first step in order to be able to truly define the putative particles as viruses. In addition to particle purification, it must then of course also be perfectly proven that the particles can cause certain diseases under real and not just laboratory conditions. But nowhere has such particle "purification" been carried out. But how can one conclude that the RNA obtained is a viral genome? And how then can such RNA be generally used to diagnose infection with a new virus?"
 
The authors have asked these two questions to numerous representatives of the official corona narrative around the world, but no one has been able to answer them. Michael Laue, for example, head of the Department of Special Light and Electron Microscopy at the German Robert Koch Institute (RKI), had replied: "I am not aware of any work in which isolated SARS-CoV-2 has been purified." -
The Corona virus, the authors say, was ultimately "cobbled together" on a computer - a computer construct. This, according to experts, is "scientific fraud".2
The microbiologist and virus expert Dr. Stefan Lanka also points out in detail that there has been downright scientific fraud, as mandatory control tests in science have never been carried out or published for a single step of their actions.3
 
The critics have tried many times to get into conversation with established scientists. According to Dr. Lanka, for example, he made a written offer to the pope of virology, Prof. Christian Drosten, to jointly carry out the previously omitted control experiments on the alleged corona virus, but received no response.4
 
According to the above authors, the German entrepreneur Samuel Eckert had even promised Christian Drosten the payment of more than 230,000 euros if he could present text passages from publications that scientifically prove the process of isolating SARS-CoV-2 and its gene substance. But the deadline, 31 December 2020, had passed without Drosten having contacted Eckert.
The German journalist Hans Tolzin had also offered a reward of 100,000 euros to anyone who could present him with a scientific publication in which a successful attempt at infection with the specific SARS-CoV-2 was described in detail. The infection attempt had to have reliably led to respiratory illnesses in the test subjects. But this deadline, also 31 December 2020, had also passed without the requested documentation being submitted.5 
 
In the meantime, the page "Corona_Facts on Telegram" has promised 1.5 million euros to "whoever can name a publication in which the scientific rules have been satisfied". 6
 
Why does established science behave like this across the board? There are certainly various external reasons: Habit, reputation, financial ties with the pharmaceutical industry, etc. But to really understand this defensiveness, we have to look at a much deeper reason, which has to do with the fundamental materialistic understanding of science in modern natural science and is of fundamental importance.
 
The materialistic approach to science
 
The present natural science assumes, as a matter of course, that the physical material world, which we perceive with our senses, is the full, only true reality; that it carries its reason in itself and cannot be thought to be dependent on and produced by a spiritual world lying above the senses, since there is no such thing.
Therefore, the cause of a material phenomenon is always sought in another material phenomenon, between which a monocausal relationship is assumed: a cause - a very specific lawful effect.
 
Since the middle of the 19th century, the low point of materialism, this monocausal way of thinking has also penetrated medicine and has increasingly replaced the holistic view of the body, soul and spirit of man and his illnesses that had been taken for granted until then. Thus, bacilli and later also viruses were held monocausally responsible for certain diseases as material microbes invading the human organism from the outside.
 
Since materialism does not recognise life, soul and spirit as real supersensible forces, it cannot understand living, ensouled and spiritualised organisms in the plant, animal and human world and treats them like lifeless mineral, inorganic matter. Monocausal relationships, however, only exist in the inorganic world. All mineral components of an organism, on the other hand, observably no longer follow inorganic laws, but completely different ones.
 
The material substances of the plant, for example, are largely withdrawn from the force of gravity to which they are otherwise subject, and - even contrary to gravity - are forced into a formative relationship which they can never assume of their own accord. One must therefore presuppose real higher forces, life forces, which bring this about according to inner laws, even if one does not perceive them sensually.
In the case of animals, an inner spiritual motive force is added, which puts the vital forces at their service to drive out outer organs of movement and to form an inner space of spiritual experience, which enters into relationship with the outer world through sense organs and reacts to outer impressions.
 
In man there is an even higher spiritual force which transforms the life and soul forces in such a way that it raises the body from the horizontal, to which the animals are bound, into the vertical, so that the earthly forces of gravity can only be applied directly to the feet and in the alternating shifting of the weight to one leg each, the wonderful floating gait is created by striding and keeping the balance. It is the spirit of man which concentrates for consciousness in what we call our I, and which also seizes the soul forces within in order to tame, direct and control them more and more. 7 
 
Thus the lawfulness of organisms is not determined from the outside, as in the inorganic, but by forces from within that are not sensually perceptible but can be observed in real terms in their shaping of matter.
No less a person than Goethe uncovered the laws of the organic in his scientific research - which he valued more highly than his poetry - and the young Rudolf Steiner, as the editor of Goethe's scientific writings, clearly worked them out in scientific theory in contrast to the laws of the inorganic. 8
 
The Laws of the Organic
 
This is how R. Steiner describes it in a precise manner: A phenomenon of inorganic nature "is, for example, the impact of two elastic spheres on each other. If one sphere is at rest and the other collides with it in a certain direction and with a certain velocity, then the latter also receives a certain direction of movement and a certain velocity. ... We have understood this phenomenon when we can state the velocity and direction of the first ball from its mass, direction and velocity, and the velocity and direction of the other from its mass; when we realise that under the given conditions this phenomenon must occur with necessity."
 
The sensually perceptible processes of inorganic nature are thus exclusively conditioned by conditions that also belong to the sensory world. A conceptual grasp of such processes is nothing other than a derivation of the sensuous-real from the sensuous-real. Both the cause and the effect belong to the sensory world. This means that perception (appearance) and concept coincide.
 
In the organism, on the other hand, the conditions perceptible to the senses, e.g. shape, size, colour, heat conditions, do not appear conditioned by conditions of the same kind.
"One cannot say, for example, of the plant that the size, shape, position, etc. of the root determine the sensually perceptible conditions of the leaf or the flower. A body in which this were the case would not be an organism but a machine. On the contrary, one must admit that all sensual conditions in a living being do not appear as a consequence of other sensually perceptible conditions, as is the case with inorganic nature. Rather, all sensual qualities appear here as a consequence of one that is no longer sensually perceptible. They appear as the consequence of a higher unity hovering above the sensuous processes. Not the form of the root determines that of the stem, and again the form of the stem determines that of the leaf, etc., but all these forms are determined by something above them, which is not itself of sensuous-perceptible form; they exist for each other, but not through each other.
 
They do not condition each other, but are all conditioned by another. Here we cannot derive what we perceive sensuously from sensuously perceptible relations; we must include in the concept of processes elements that do not belong to the world of the senses; we must go beyond the world of the senses. (...) This, however, results in a distance between
and concept occur; they no longer seem to coincide; the concept hovers above the view. It becomes difficult to see the connection between the two. Whereas in inorganic nature concept and reality were one, here they seem to diverge and actually belong to two different worlds."
The object does not appear to be governed by laws of the sensory world, but is nevertheless perceptible to the senses.
 
Before these connections, which can still be observed and penetrated intellectually in the physical, the materialistic natural scientists close their eyes in strange narrowness and assert the omnipotence of matter. But no one has yet scientifically demonstrated how material substances of the human body rise up vertically against the force of gravity and how a human brain is formed from material parts in direct causal development. -
This is speculation, pure faith and not science.
 
The microbes
 
Blindly applying monocausal laws of inorganic nature to an organism is a serious scientific offence. In the 19th century, this materialistic narrowness gave rise to the theory that bacilli and later also viruses were the causative agents of certain infectious diseases, since there must be a material cause for a materially perceptible disease.
 
However, the health of the human organism depends on the harmonious interaction of all supersensible life, soul and spiritual forces that make up the whole organism. Illnesses arise when disturbances take place in the inner being which throw the supersensible elements out of balance. The causes of illness must be sought within, in the complexity of the organism itself. And since in the organism non-material parts have a conditional effect on material parts, material parts penetrating from outside cannot be the cause of inner diseases of the organism. As foreign bodies, they can only cause defensive reactions, i.e. secondary local symptoms of disease.
 
In nature, fungi appear where rotting and decaying processes take place, because fungi find their optimal living conditions there. It can also be observed in the human organism that fungi and certain bacilli quickly establish themselves when normal life functions are transformed into disease processes, thus creating an environment in which they thrive particularly well. They therefore do not occur as a cause, but as a consequence. Only inaccurate observations and hasty judgements lead to such serious errors, which are then passed on unchecked.
 
It is as if - as R. Steiner once made a drastic comparison - because frogs croak when a thunderstorm is approaching, this is declared to be the cause of the coming thunderstorm. The microbe theory, however, follows this short-circuited pattern, which is also tempted by the fact that the invading bacilli, as foreign bodies, naturally cause rejection reactions, local inflammations, and these are mixed with the actual disease process, for which the bacilli are also supposed to be the cause. This leads to the fact that the actual causes of disease in the organism itself are no longer investigated at all.
 
The virus theory
 
At the end of the 19th century, when the microbe theory had become the determining medical doctrine, it became more and more apparent that bacilli could not be identified in all infectious diseases. But since the materialistically limited world view can only imagine one material cause that monocausally brings about the disease, there had to be another poisonous material pathogen hidden somewhere that had only not yet been discovered because it is so small that it could not be perceived with the light microscope. So they resorted to the Latin term "virus" (= poison) to describe the unknown nature of another material pathogen. Engelbrecht/Köhnlein note: "To which one could say with Goethe's Mephistopheles: 'For precisely where concepts are lacking, a word presents itself at the right time'". 9
 
For decades, until the 1930s, the empty word virus was used to describe the purely mental concept of a material part that was not perceived and which was claimed to exist on the basis of materialist ideology. It was not until the electron microscope was developed in 1931 that this virus was believed to have been identified in the hitherto invisible dimensions of material existence. But until today, as described at the beginning, its existence as a pathogen has not been scientifically proven.
 
But the materialistic scientist cannot accept this, because for him the virus must exist. For him, there is no other possibility as the cause of an infectious disease. It is not at all possible that the virus cannot be proven, because then the whole materialistic theory of disease would not be correct. And that can't happen under any circumstances - that's why it exists. -
Objectively, however, it is still basically a thought construct that has taken on a tangible form as a computer model and functions as a quasi-reality - strongly supported by materialist power psychopaths who instrumentalise it as an inscrutable fear object for their totalitarian goals.
 
 
The aberration of materialist thinking
 
The virus as a thought construct is thus the result of scientific thinking that seeks the causes of material phenomena only in material phenomena again, because it does not want to recognise any other reality apart from matter. And since the results must always be unsatisfactory, it burrows into smaller and smaller material parts, finally not stopping at the border of the perceptible, but wanting to penetrate even beyond it in order to find the ultimate causes in a mental model that represents, as it were, the claimed perception - which must be somewhere after all - but thereby completely abandoning the ground of science.
 
This leads, despite all quantitative expansion, into an ever more absurd narrowing of the horizon of knowledge, in which reality is reduced only to material miniature worlds whose true meaning is no longer grasped. For thinking here degenerates into a purely interpretative description of material processes, for whose origin in the higher life, soul and spiritual forces of the human organism one remains blind. Pure materialism leads into stupidity, into the limitation of imbecility.
 
With the matter of the physical body, materialism only grasps the outer quarter of the human organism, which, however, does not receive its form and function from itself, but only through the higher forces of life, soul and spirit. To leave them out means to remain outside the full, indeed the actual reality, i.e. the whole context of meaning. Drilling into the depths of matter as such, in order to search for the meaning of phenomena there, ends precisely in - meaninglessness.
 
Already in the 19th century, the "virus", in its only assumed, claimed, fantasised state, had the task and the property of being the material pathogen of infectious diseases. For the ideology of materialistic virology, it could only be a matter of certifying and confirming this dogma more and more with all microscopic and intellectual means over one and a half centuries. After all, a dogma also has this task. Only - science is not that.
 
 
Materialistic natural science must confine itself to the study of inorganic, dead nature and its technical application. Of the world of the organic-living it can understand nothing and delivers only destructive nonsense, which has devastating effects above all in medicine and beyond that in social life.
 
How can one understand a living organism such as the human being without consciously grasping the all-pervading supersensible forces of life, soul and spirit in their real, concrete material efficacy and thus successively expanding one's own cognitive faculty for the full reality? There is no other way to emerge more and more from the sea of manifold errors and deceptions.
 
Conclusion
 
All this shows that the materialistic virus theory cannot be easily brought down by individual scientists claiming a lack of scientific proof of viruses. The theory of material pathogens is so deeply rooted in the prevailing materialist worldview, which is taken for granted not only by the mass of scientists but also by the rest of the people, that the criticism of individuals on details of scientific evidence is easily glossed over and cannot shake the whole materialist approach.
 
This must be attacked at the same time, for which, however, a few are not enough, but a sufficiently large number of scientists must come together, who expose the fundamental scientific-theoretical errors of materialistic science on a broad front, in order to gradually bring about a fundamental change.
 
Notes:
 
Siehe näher in: Die Wissenschaft vom Virus …
2   Das Virus ist ein Phantom …
Siehe auch: Das große Verschweigen …
3   Rote Karte für Corona … ; wissenschafftplus.de
4   Siehe: Virologen, die krankmachende Viren …
5   Siehe Anm. 2
6   telegra.ph
7   Vgl. Der unsichtbare Mensch
8   Rudolf Steiner: Einleitungen zu Goethes Naturwissenschaftlichen Schriften,   GA 1 GA001.pdf (fvn-archiv.net)
9   T. Engelbrecht/ Dr. C. Köhnlein: Virus-Wahn, Lahnstein 20208, S. 38