The role of the Nobel Prize in science and its fatal consequences through the award !

No votes yet
The role of the Nobel Prize in science and its fatal consequences through the award !
The fact of the 50-year secrecy of the reasons for awarding Nobel Prizes, who proposed the candidate(s) and the reasons for the prize, is another argument against the awarding of Nobel Prizes. This secrecy contradicts all democratic and scientific principles. If the ultimate research achievements are determined by the Nobel Prize, then all reasons must be disclosed, if only to prevent unscientific influence.
A contribution by Dr Stefan Lanka
 The role of the Nobel Prize in science and the fatal consequences of awarding it
The role of the Nobel Prize in science and its fatal consequences by awarding it.
deep L translate ; 
According to Alfred Nobel's will, the Nobel Prize should be awarded to people who "have been of the greatest benefit to mankind in the past year". If you look at the list of Nobel Prize winners, you will see that virtually no one has received the Nobel Prize because he or she "has been of the greatest benefit to mankind in the past year". The Nobel Prizes are usually awarded for achievements that date back years and decades. 
Thus, when awarding the Nobel Prize, the committee relies exclusively on what has been accepted as scientific fact in the scientific community for many years and decades. From this it can be concluded that the committee that awards the Nobel Prizes cannot itself decide which current statements by scientists are of great or greatest benefit to humanity. This is an indication that the majority of current statements by scientists are speculative and it takes years to assess whether the current statements will still have value in a few years or decades. 
The awarding of the Nobel Prize has the effect that the first commandment of scientific work, the doubting and questioning of scientific statements, is not only not practised, but prevented and scientific statements are dogmatised. The history of science has shown that all previous scientific statements have turned out to be "incomplete" or even wrong. The very clear and easily comprehensible warnings of the historian and sociologist Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy were not taken seriously. In 1956, he outlined the simple mechanism of how state funding and administration automatically causes science to cease to be science. Only the old authorities are ever accepted and promoted. New findings, on the other hand, which are supposed to replace old knowledge, are suppressed - with fatal consequences. [1] 
The fact of the 50-year secrecy of the reasons for awarding Nobel Prizes, who proposed the candidate(s) and the reasons for the prize, is another argument against the awarding of Nobel Prizes. This secrecy contradicts all democratic and scientific principles. If the ultimate research achievements are already established with the Nobel Prize, then all reasons must be disclosed, if only to prevent unscientific influence. 
The function of Nobel Prize winners 
Awarding the Nobel Prize to a single scientist or a small group automatically means ignoring the masterminds and co-thinkers who were prerequisites for the new insight. The Nobel Prize also excludes the often unknown scientific collaborators who in many cases were the source of ideas and impulses for the new findings. Another argument against the awarding of Nobel Prizes follows from a logical demand by Sir Karl Popper, the science theorist who is authoritative for science today. He rightly demands that a scientist must always be modest and gives reasons for this.
The reasoning behind Popper's demand for a scientist to be humble is simple and logical. All findings that lead to further knowledge are based on findings of others. If you reward only one, you punish all the others. This automatically leads to exaggeration, competition, envy, egoism and all the other things that lead to unscientific behaviour. Above all, Popper argues that in the history of science all previous findings have proved to be incomplete to wrong. [2] 
The Nobel laureate ignores all this and by accepting the prize signals that he himself is brilliant, is far above the level of all other scientists and has worked out a scientific truth which in reality, as in most cases, is only a current interpretation with a short half-life. 
Another function of Nobel Prize winners is that they use the pretext of seemingly individual super-achievements to prevent real scientific discourse, the questioning of all model conceptions, the introduction of new findings and the positive impact of individual insights. Never before has a Nobel Prize been awarded for an insight that replaced outdated, disproved ideas that had a negative impact. Such a kind of Nobel Prize would be useful.
An example
When the humanities scholar John Franklin Enders suddenly discovered his love of biology and very quickly produced his doctoral thesis in bacteriology without studying biology, he had no idea that he would one day receive the Nobel Prize. Nor could he have suspected it, since the awarding of the prize was based on a chance finding triggered by another scientist. The awarding of the Nobel Prize to Enders, however, led to the whole world believing in disease-causing viruses, although these have never been scientifically proven and the most fundamental requirements of scientific work are constantly violated in the virus claims.
Enders cannot be accused of not knowing the rules of scientific work and therefore not being able to apply them. On the contrary, until he was awarded the Nobel Prize, he was very honest, discussed his contradictory results and realised that his results in the test tube might have nothing to do with the biological reality of humans. This changed abruptly with the Nobel Prize in 1954, when the same activity, the same contradictory results that disproved his assumptions, became a scientific fact that could no longer be doubted. Enders himself believed and claimed after the Nobel Prize award that he had propagated a disease-causing virus, had therefore proved its existence, and that all future vaccine development would be based on it. [3]
If Enders had known and carried out the control experiments that are mandatory in science, he would have found that it was exactly his laboratory conditions that he had developed that led to the death of cells and not a suspected virus. The artificially produced death, however, was misinterpreted as the presence and action of a virus. Thus, his method of propagating a presumed virus became a scientific fact through the awarding of the Nobel Prize and Enders' acceptance of the prize, the basis of belief in the propagation of all claimed disease-causing viruses and vaccine production to this day. Yet previous virology had previously disintegrated itself in 1951 and 1952 when those involved could never see the suspected viruses in the electron microscope.
By means of control experiments, the virologists of the time established that all components that were misinterpreted as virus components were in fact typical cellular components and therefore could not be parts of viruses. With this justification, the virus claims and virus conjectures were discontinued. However, when a new dogma was promulgated in 1953 that there were healthy and disease-causing genes [4], young chemists enthusiastic about the gene idea popularised a new virus idea. This new virus idea, according to which the effective, the virulent factor of a virus was not a disease poison, as previously assumed, but a dangerous hereditary substance that kills cells, humans, animals and plants, was popularised together with the new gene hypothesis. [5] 
The only thing missing to enforce the new virus claims was the belief that refutations and doubts turned into the opposite of what the experiments proved. While German politics from 1933 to 1945 caused the infection hypotheses to become global dogma [6], the 1954 Nobel Prize to Enders ensured that the infection hypotheses could be practically implemented in the form of vaccinations, campaigns and testing.
Enders and the Nobel Prize caused the body's own substances to be misinterpreted as virus components to this day. This means that any human, animal or plant can be tested "positive" for any virus at will. A virological "screening test" for the general public is set to be less reactive and therefore yield low numbers of cases of "positivity". A virological "confirmation test", on the other hand, which is supposed to detect a suspected "infection", is set in such a way that it is very reactive and therefore delivers high numbers of cases of "positivity", regardless of whether those tested are healthy or ill. Enders and the Nobel Prize also had the effect that vaccination is still being carried out today and that vaccine damage is being produced, although there is not a single comprehensible and verifiable argument that could justify vaccination. [7]
List of sources:
[1] From: Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, Sociology (I), The Supremacy of Spaces, Stuttgart 1956, p. 115. 
"Perhaps this can best be illustrated by the following current example. We do not live in the clerical age, when laity and clergy contended; nor in the state-political, when state office and people contended for democracy. The free growth point in the Scientific Age lies in a new pair of tensions, namely between research and knowledge. This pair of struggles is still largely unexplored. 
We scholars all disguise ourselves as researchers, just as the old clergy posed as saints, in order to prevent the split between the clergy and the people. This does not change the fact that today there is a huge danger of the sciences becoming rigid. Alexander von Humboldt said of the real history of free discoveries: it goes through three stages. First, a new piece of research is told that it is not true. Then it is said: someone else has discovered this. At the end it is said: we have known that for a long time. Scholars are efficient and therefore incapable of loving the subversion of their virtue. They are scientific officials, and they always stand against the amateur. 
But since, of course, research belongs officially to science as the Holy Spirit belongs to the Church, there is masses of pseudo-research which competes with the progress of free research; and the former alone is conscientiously supported by the official agencies and foundations, for this alone seems worthy of support to the professional official of science. Such bogus research acts according to the principle: Wash my fur, but don't get wet. It investigates cancer according to the outmoded ideas of Pasteur, as if it were rabies*. She investigates religion according to Wellhausen's ideas, but because she invokes ancient authorities in her research, so she is extensively funded. 
As long as scholars and researchers both remain poor, genuine research has prospects. That was the case until 1900. Today, the prognosis for research is worsening because grateful peoples are funding "The Science" lavishly. Thus power is shifting to the side of the knower, against the researcher. Our doctoral factories and Rockefeller fellows are eloquent witnesses to this." 
(The underlining was done by Stefan Lanka) 
[2] Karl R. Popper. Objective Knowledge. An Evolutionary Outline. With an epilogue by Helmut Schmidt. Edited by Joachim Fest and Wolf Jobst, Siedler, 1973. 478 pp.
[3] Stefan Lanka. Untangling viruses. WissenschafftPlus 6/2015. On the Internet at:
[4] Hereditary material in disintegration. Die Zeit, 16.6.2008. Available on the Internet at.
Genetics: Genetic make-up in constant flux [News on ZEIT online (
Archived version, since "Die Zeit" deleted it in 2022. 
[5] Prof. Karlheinz Lüdtke, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Early History of Virology, Special Paper 125, 89 pages, 1999. i. K. (A 2) Preprint 1999.
This shows that by 1953 it was clear and known to every virologist and to the scientific community that all the constituents that had hitherto been interpreted as constituents of viruses turned out, through control experiments, to be constituents of dead tissues and cells.
6] Annette Hinz-Wessels. Das Robert Koch-Institut im Nationalsozialismus. Kadmos, 2012. 192 pp.
[7] See source no. 3