Newsletter 29 / 16 March 2021
On 10 March 2021, the Medical Section held an online forum discussion on the “Current Situation and the Corona Vaccination” with the doctors Georg Soldner, Tido von Schoen-Angerer, David Martin and Johannes Weinzirl. The following remarks cannot cover the content of the event; reference must be made here to the corresponding written publications. The underlying assumption was that we are dealing with a dangerous, life-threatening pandemic of extraordinary proportions, to the defence of which vaccinations must necessarily make a significant contribution. A fundamentally positive attitude towards the novelty of these vaccinations became clear. Thus, the explanations corresponded to a large extent to orthodox medical points of view. Rudolf Steiner’s remarks on contagion, flu-like diseases and vaccinations were not mentioned at all.
The following remarks, which in spite of their scope would certainly still need to be supplemented, are intended to draw attention to some contradictory aspects that have arisen. For comprehension, knowledge of the last newsletter: “Rudolf Steiner on contagion in viral diseases” is assumed.
This text was prepared under time pressure in order to be available as a basis for judgement in time for the next discussion forum on 18 March 2021. Any errors or incompleteness are due to this circumstance.
The virus as a pathogen to be fought?
The discussion forum on 10 March 2021 was strictly limited to the topic of “vaccination”. Apart from a few marginal remarks, it was lectured on the basis of current natural scientific views. This alone created a strange picture, as Rudolf Steiner’s remarks on the subject were not mentioned, not even in passing. Thus, if one takes Rudolf Steiner seriously, the whole event took place in the context of “modern superstition” that “bacilli and bacteria move in and out of man and cause disease.” We should remember that with the theories about viruses, as something infinitely small, one is moving into a realm that is beyond perception of the human senses. This problem is attempted to be overcome with physical and chemical methods, which again mostly move in the imperceptible and are also based on theories that cannot be verified by human perception. In order to understand this problem, it is helpful to study Rudolf Steiner’s epistemological writings to some extent and in particular the explanations of the cycle “Limits of Natural Knowledge and their Overcoming”. In this way it can become clear how true Rudolf Steiner’s above statement is. It is an “invented world” that is entered when “one lets cognition roll on in inertia in order to think up all kinds of mechanistic, atomistic, molecular world pictures into the metaphysical.” Can there be any doubt that viruses are also to be classified in this area of world views – beyond any perceptibility?
“But how is it then that it is permanently claimed that this or that virus exists and has the potential to cause disease via infection? The explanation is that established virus science has for some time abandoned the path of direct observation of nature and instead deals with so-called indirect “detection methods” such as antibody and PCR tests.“ Rudolf Steiner is to be understood in this sense. One moves in a purely imagined world with theories and ideas that cannot be verified against reality. What Georg Soldner says about the effects of vaccinations is also purely imaginary, because everything that is supposed to take place during the production of the vaccine and then in the cells of the organism also defies verification by reality. Moreover, the formation of antibodies as a result of a vaccination is no proof either for these theories that what is imagined has taken place in the organism. In addition, these antibodies are at best only partially effective against this virus, because one can still become infected and may also be contagious – despite vaccination.
Now Georg Soldner had claimed that the virus had been isolated (and thus proven) and that claims to the contrary were false. If you google and search for “isolated virus SARS-CoV-2”, you will find plenty. But then you have to read exactly how it was done. This is also the case with the study mentioned by G. Soldner and it very quickly becomes clear that only indirect methods were used, as in other studies claiming to isolate the virus. This was thoroughly investigated by the authors of the book “Virus Mania”:
“We have also looked at all the studies that claim to have isolated and even tested the virus. But in fact this was not done in any study. Instead, something completely different was done. So researchers have taken samples from the throat or lungs of patients, ultracentrifuged them (spun them at high speed) to separate the larger/heavier molecules from the smaller/lighter ones. They then took the supernatant, the top part of the centrifuged material. And this they then call “isolate” to which they apply PCR.
But this supernatant is not a true “isolate” as it contains all kinds of molecules, billions of different micro- and nanoparticles, including so-called extracellular vesicles (EVs) and exosomes, which are produced by the body itself and are often simply indistinguishable from viruses. “Today, it is an almost impossible task to separate EVs and viruses using canonical vesicle isolation methods such as differential ultracentrifugation, as they are often pelleted together due to their similar dimensions,” says the study “The Role of Extracellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCVand SARS Viruses” published in the journal Viruses in May 2020.1249
So how do you extract a specific virus from this vast mishmash of billions of barely distinguishable particles, which include useful exosomes? Well, you simply can’t unless you have first completely purified (and then sequenced and proven the pathogenic potential of) the particles that you suspect belong to a new virus. But that is precisely what has not been done.
So the scientists “create” the virus by PCR: to do this, they take so-called primers, i.e. sequences available in gene banks, and put them in contact with the supernatant broth that comes from the patient sample (throat, respiratory tract) – i.e. with many 10 billion RNA and DNA molecules. If the primers then attach, as is likely, to any gene fragments in the “broth”, then the scientists simply conclude that these attaching fragments are SARS-CoV-2, without even a hint of proof.
Not only do the primers consist of just 18 to 24 bases (nucleotides). The SARS-Cov2 virus, on the other hand, is supposed to consist of 30,000 bases. The primer therefore does not even represent 0.1 per cent of the supposed viral genome. This alone makes it seem almost impossible to find or select a very specific virus in a sea of billions of virus-like particles on the basis of this ludicrously tiny set of genes.”
Even if 37 bases were used in the study mentioned by Georg Soldner, a real isolate is not available. In addition, it would still have to be proven that it is a virus capable of reproducing, which causes the disease Covid-19, and that this virus is then also found again in the sick person, and that this would also be suitable for infection. There is really out of the question.
Basically, it is dubious and irresponsible that the co-leader of the Medical Section, a member of the board of the GAÄD and the IVAA, makes such claims without even being able to substantiate them and then virtually makes vaccination recommendations. Furthermore, the question arises whether his colleagues in the institutions see everything in the same way? We will come back to the institutions later.
The question of vaccinations is undoubtedly of particular importance, since here medicine does not – as is usually the case – deal with the sick, but with the healthy person. A vaccination can be dangerous to health or even life, there are enough examples. In this respect, vaccination can only be considered if the benefits (averting the danger of a disease) clearly outweigh the dangers (of the Covid-19 disease and those caused by vaccination). This is because very many people are exposed to the dangers of vaccination in order to protect a few. Unfortunately, the argumentation here is often not really informative, stating the relative risk reduction, e.g. 95% for the BionTech vaccine. However, the absolute risk reduction is not communicated. According to this, about 120 people have to be vaccinated to avoid one infection. However, since approx. 99.7% of those infected survive (the lethality / case mortality according to the WHO-approved study by John P.A. Ioannidis is 0.24% , i.e. one person dies for every 400 infected), approx. 40,000 – 50,000 people must be vaccinated (and put at risk by the vaccination) in order to avoid approx. 400 infections, one of whom would not survive the infection. Even though these figures have only resulted from a relatively short observation period and one naturally hopes that this risk reduction will be maintained, these ratios should also be known. Unfortunately, however, it has become common practice to select information in such a way that it supports one’s own view. Especially with regard to mortality in old people’s homes, the information war seems to escalate after the start of vaccinations: On the one hand, there are reports of increased mortality in old people’s homes since vaccination began (many will have noticed the numerous individual reports of people dying after vaccination, whose deaths are said to have nothing to do with the vaccination!) This is contrasted with the claim that there have been fewer corona deaths after vaccination. Georg Soldner referred to an Israeli study according to which the number of deaths after vaccination had decreased (I have asked which study it is. Presumably it is the one mentioned in the footnote). A large Israeli study with 600,000 vaccinated people and a control group of the same size. However, the number of deaths is so low (32 in the unvaccinated group and 9 in the vaccinated group) that it is not meaningful. In addition, only the Covid 19 deaths are recorded, not the side effects and those who died in connection with the vaccination. It would have been interesting to compare the total mortality in the groups. So it is not serious to selectively quote only this study and sweep everything else under the table.
From this perspective, a positive benefit of vaccinations can in no way be considered proven. However, this is precisely what is conveyed by the selective use of facts in the written and other publications and pronouncements, and this is representative of the whole of anthroposophical medicine. For example, it is simply assumed without further justification that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is the (main) cause of the disease Covid-19. However, this is precisely what is justifiably questioned by numerous experts (medical doctors and natural scientists), including anthroposophically oriented ones. However, common sense is sufficient to recognise that the views represented by the organisers can by no means be regarded as scientifically confirmed – and certainly not spiritual scientifically in relation to Rudolf Steiner’s statements. However, this would be urgently necessary, since it is about the necessary basis of knowledge, which would be existential even for a conditional vaccination recommendation.
Thus, a real evaluation of the benefits from this perspective is still pending. The fact that this was not addressed in view of the limited time may seem understandable, but is irresponsible in view of the widespread overall positive mood towards vaccination.
As already mentioned, Georg Soldner had claimed in a subordinate clause that the virus had been isolated, that claims to the contrary were false, without giving a source (which was given on request). Again and again I pointed out that a virus proof did not exist and that it had not been proven that this virus was the pathogen of Covid-19. Months ago I had already sent Matthias Girke and Georg Soldner one copy each of the book “Virus-Wahn” (Virus Mania), a book which was also strongly recommended by anthroposophical doctors, such as Thomas Hardtmuth (“The Kiel internist Claus Köhnlein and the journalist Thorsten Engelbrecht have written an excellently researched and scientifically absolutely serious book on the worldwide business with epidemics. A must read in the current situation!“) and even in the book co-edited by Michaela Glöckler: (“The authors Engelbrecht and Köhnlein show in “Virus Mania” that the hypotheses of the elites from science, politics and the media are factually unprovable and highly contradictory. At the same time, they describe alternative explanatory models and possible causes … “What should we doctors do? The first step is to rid ourselves of illusions and realise that the primary purpose of modern commercialised medical science is not to maximise patient health but to maximise profit,” – John Abramson of Harvard Medical School is quoted as saying).
Since a corresponding vaccine could only be developed on the basis of a purified virus, this question is of considerable importance. The supposed scientific consensus turns out to be a matter of faith on closer examination – which would consequently also apply to vaccination. In order to do justice to the importance of this question, it is necessary to quote at some length here:
“Therefore, Thorsten Engelbrecht, author of this book, was the first in the world who decided to ask the research teams of the relevant papers mentioned in connection with the claimed detection of SARS-CoV-2 whether the electron micrographs depicted in their in vitro studies show completely purified viruses. But not a single team of authors – including those of two absolutely relevant papers (Zhu et al, Wan Beom Park et al) – could answer this question in the affirmative. Mind you, neither team wrote back that complete purification was not a necessary step for solid virus detection.
Only answers like “our electron microscope image does not show a completely purified virus” came back …
In May 2020, Thorsten Engelbrecht also contacted the renowned virologist Charles Calisher, who belonged to a group of experienced virologists from whom the journal Science published an “impassioned plea to the younger generation” in 2001. The thrust of this appeal: The modern methods for detecting viruses such as “sleek PCR … say little or nothing about how a virus replicates, which animals carry it [or] how it makes people sick…. It’s like trying to determine if a person has bad breath by looking at their fingerprints.” The question to Calisher was whether he knew of a single publication in which SARS-CoV-2 had been isolated and eventually completely purified. His answer:
“I don’t know of any work like that. And I have been on the lookout for it.”
Some time after that, Christine Massey, Canadian biostatistician, together with New Zealander Michael Speth and a number of people who prefer to remain anonymous, submitted Freedom-of-Information requests to dozens of institutions worldwide. The aim was to obtain documents describing the complete purification of a so-called SARS-CoV-2 virus from an unadulterated sample from a sick patient. By 22 January 2021, 46 institutes had responded – but none of them could present documentation showing that complete purification of the particles claimed to be SARS-CoV-2 had taken place. The German Federal Ministry of Health even ignored the request completely.
Even Michael Laue of the Robert Koch Institute concedes in an email on 4 September: “I am not aware of a paper which purified isolated SARS-CoV-2.” And a document from the US Center for Disease Control (CDC), updated on 13 July 2020, also states: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available.”
So if no such particle “purification” has ever taken place anywhere, how can one claim that the RNA obtained is a viral genome? And how then can such RNA be widely used to diagnose infection with a new virus? We 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. So the fact that the RNA gene sequences that scientists have taken from the tissue samples prepared in their in vitro studies, and to which the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests have finally been “calibrated”, belong to a new pathogenic virus called SARS- CoV-2, is based only on belief, not fact.” [the source references have been removed here]
Thus it becomes clear once again that the whole virus theory cannot be based on evidenced facts, everything remains in purely imaginary spaces.
Was Rudolf Steiner an opponent of vaccination?
No, certainly not. People like to point out that Rudolf Steiner warned against any radicalism in this respect, against “fanatically opposing these things”. It is also sometimes pointed out that he had himself vaccinated against smallpox. This reference is usually left alone in order to be able to justify a positive attitude towards vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, even with Rudolf Steiner in the background. On closer examination, however, this selective citation proves to be untenable. However, even his remarks on contagion cannot be reconciled with the currently held assumptions, as has already been pointed out. 
Let’s take a closer look at the quote :
“And the smallpox vaccination? There one is in a peculiar case. You see, if you vaccinate someone, and you have the person concerned as an anthroposophist and educate him anthroposophically, it does no harm. It only harms those who grow up with preferably materialistic thoughts. Then inoculation becomes a kind of Ahrimanic force; the human being can no longer rise out of a certain materialistic feeling. And that is actually the alarming thing about the smallpox vaccination, that people are virtually clothed with a phantom. Man has a phantom which prevents him from detaching the spiritual entities from the physical organism as much as in normal consciousness. He becomes constitutionally materialistic, he can no longer rise to the spiritual. That is the worrying thing about vaccination. Of course, statistics are always brought into the equation. The question is whether so much importance should be attached to statistics in these matters. Smallpox vaccination is very much a psychological matter. It is by no means impossible that the belief that the vaccination helps plays an incalculably large role. If one were to replace this belief by something else, if one were to educate people naturally so that they could be impressed by something other than vaccination, for instance by bringing people closer to the spirit, then it would be quite possible to counteract the unconscious invasion: “Here is a smallpox epidemic! – by being fully conscious of it: here is something spiritual, albeit an unjustified spiritual, against which I must stand my ground! -would have just as good an effect as one would have to make man strong against such influences in general.”
Question: “If the circumstances are like this, for example in our area, where the influence through education and so on is very difficult, how should one behave?”
Rudolf Steiner: “Then you have to vaccinate. There is no other option. For a fanatical stand against these things is not at all what I would recommend, not for medical but for general anthroposophical reasons. The fanatical stand against these things is not what we are striving for, but we want to do things differently on a large scale through insight. I have always, when I was friends with doctors, regarded this as something to be fought against, for example with Dr. Asch, who absolutely did not vaccinate. I always fought that. Because if he doesn’t vaccinate, someone else will. It is a complete absurdity to proceed so fanatically in detail.”
First of all, let’s talk about black pox. This is also considered a viral disease. But to compare it with influenza or Covid-19 is not appropriate. The first attempt at immunisation was made as early as 1717 by means of “variolation”. This involved taking material from a pox and scratching a small amount of it into the skin of another person. It was clear that the disease could be transmitted in this way and that it was also contagious. This is a quite respectable indication that smallpox is based on a pathogen. Completely opposite experiences were made in 1918, when similar methods were used to try to artificially infect people with influenza. None of these succeeded. (It can only be strongly recommended to deal with the facts of the Spanish flu, as references to today’s situation are drawn again and again. Wikipedia, however, will not help. ) Of course, this is not sufficient scientific proof, but it corresponds strikingly with Rudolf Steiner’s statements, especially with regard to the infection with influenza. It is thus clear that the statement on vaccination in relation to smallpox can by no means simply be transferred to influenza or now Corona.
A statement like this: “if he doesn’t vaccinate, someone else will” by Rudolf Steiner is unexpected. Surely it cannot be that one does something just because otherwise someone else would do it? In view of the considerable effects of smallpox vaccination that he himself described, he cannot have meant it that way. It may also be irritating that he had himself vaccinated against smallpox. This is what Hedda Hummel, an important stenographer, reported:
“As is well known, the Society had set up a nursery at that time. In Berlin, smallpox had broken out on one corner. As far as I remember, the children were vaccinated in the schools and nurseries. Dr Steiner ordered that the children in our nursery should also be vaccinated and also the people who went in and out of the nursery. Dr. Steiner himself also had himself vaccinated, as did Mrs. Dr. Steiner and all of us, or almost all of us, who went in and out of the house. Dr. Steiner himself got a bad arm, the smallpox struck, as they say. There was a joke going around at the time that Dr Steiner was part of the women’s movement – which consisted of all of us, mostly women, often rubbing our sick arm.”
However, this only becomes truly understandable when one takes into account that at that time there was compulsory vaccination against smallpox in the German Reich (in contrast to Austria, so Rudolf Steiner had obviously not been vaccinated as a child):
“Although smallpox had thus lost its potential danger31 and the “conscientious objection” to compulsory vaccination was increasingly the subject of fierce criticism in the “daily press and in popular assemblies”, compulsory vaccination was not up for discussion in the German Reich; on the contrary: since the proclamation of the Republic, smallpox vaccinations have been enforced more rigidly than ever.”
Even if it is not known when these vaccinations took place, it can be assumed that it was an official measure. This makes the statement understandable, because the children had to be vaccinated and if one doctor did not want to do it, well, then someone else had to do it.
With this background it should now be clear that this quote from Rudolf Steiner is completely unsuitable to advocate vaccination against Covid-19.
The divisions that have arisen were clearly addressed and the lack of an appropriate exchange was lamented. Presumably there will be agreement that in an anthroposophical spiritual life of whatever kind, an unbiased free exchange of even different views should be possible. Rudolf Steiner formulated this for the Society as follows: “If the human being lives in an awake existence with human beings, then his striving must be based on an understanding of common ground. What one person asserts must have meaning for the other; what one person works out must have a certain value for the other. People who live together must have the feeling that they are in a common world.” Where, if not in our circumstances, should we set an example in this sense?
So the question is justified: Why is this not happening? But above all: Don’t the organisers realise that it is they, or those responsible in the leadership, who are preventing any dialogue? Why are dissenters not invited for these forum discussions? Why don’t the corresponding publication organs allow for an appropriate space for discussion? After the discussion forum, I had asked for the source of the virus evidence. The first answer from G. Soldner: “Dear Mr. Heck, I have answered this question too often, also to people in your circle. You are welcome to do your own research, it will not take more than three minutes. Yours sincerely.” Then an hour later a 2nd mail reaches me: “Dear Mr Heck, now that several questions have reached me again, I would ask you to read up once after a few clicks: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/grows-virus-cell-culture.html. Yours sincerely.” The question about the Israeli study remained unanswered even after asking again. Not very inviting. And that this statement of mine would be possible in any publication co-financed by the members in the Society context can probably be ruled out. Like much else, it is simply ignored.
Organised Anthroposophical Medicine
At this point a characterisation of the organisations of the anthroposophical medical profession appears necessary, as far as this is recognisable from the outside. At present, a doctor in Germany must be certified by the leadership of the GAÄD if he or she wishes to practise anthroposophic medicine, communicate this to the outside world, bill health insurance companies and also be listed in the relevant directories. Here, within what is actually a free association of anthroposophic doctors, there is a certain legal dependence of the individual on this association or its management. This is only stated here without questioning the sense of it. The leadership of the GAÄD thus represents anthroposophic medicine in Germany. On the level of spiritual life, this can by no means be described as absolutely homogeneous, as can be seen especially now in the disputes over the Corona questions, which have reached the point of conflict. Now, of course, the leadership of the GAÄD, which also includes the leading representatives of the Medical Section, would have to represent the entire spectrum of doctors organised in the association. However, this is not the case at present, so that minority views are not represented but excluded. In fact, in their real behaviour, the leadership is turning against a section of their members whose representation they have taken over and by whom they are also funded. One may refer to a majority consensus in this behaviour, but this has no place in spiritual life. The whole thing can be seen in a heightened light in the International Federation of National Associations of Anthroposophic Doctors (IVAA): it was reported in the forum discussion that the IVAA’s position on the current vaccination issue had come about democratically between the 28 national associations (their leaderships)! At this point, the politicisation of the national associations, the Medical Section and the international association becomes more than clear: The latter is based in Brussels and serves the lobbying on the EU level. Certainly with the best of intentions – but nevertheless with political methods and means. In addition, the leadership positions in the above-mentioned organisations are often held by the same people, i.e. they are among themselves. When the co-option procedure in the GAS was criticised in 2016, Georg Soldner pointed out that this procedure had been used for years in the GAÄD with great success. However, Rudolf Steiner had described this procedure as inbreeding in 1923. Different views are no longer adequately represented in a system of self-reproducing organs and are often marginalised. A free spiritual life, which is precisely what medicine requires, cannot develop in this way.
Thus the claim that the range of anthroposophic medicine would be represented by these organisations cannot be fulfilled. The result is the supposed consensus of the leading personalities, for presumably there will certainly also be notable “dissenters” there and in the medical profession, who, however, remain silent towards the outside world. The individual anthroposophically working doctor is in a certain way dependent on these organisations and is thus forcibly represented – whether the views represented suit him or not.
Thomas Heck, 16 March 2021
Addendum to the Newsletter of 18 March 2021
Based on the comments “Was Rudolf Steiner an opponent of vaccination?”, Georg Soldner had pointed out to me that the Reichsseuchengesetz of 8 April 1874 “expressly does not provide for compulsory adult vaccination.” (email of 17 March 2021). However, this does not correspond to the facts, because § 1 only stipulates that vaccinations should take place in the first year of life. If this has not happened, the vaccination is to be made up for (§4), literally: “If the vaccination has been omitted without a legal reason (§§. 1, 2), it is to be made up for within a period to be set by the competent authority.” The obligation to vaccinate was therefore by no means limited to children. That would also have been nonsense, because smallpox is, after all, anything but a children’s disease.
The actual facts can also be seen in the “Bekanntmachung, betreffend Bestimmungen zur Ausführung des Gesetzes über die Bekämpfung gemeingefährlicher Krankheiten. Of 21 February 1904 / II. Combating smallpox”. An excerpt:
“The most effective means of combating smallpox is smallpox vaccination, the implementation of which is regulated by the Vaccination Act of 8 April 1874 (Reichs-Gesetzbl. p. 31) and the enforcement regulations issued in this regard. Where compulsory vaccination is permissible on the basis of Land legislation in the event of an outbreak of a smallpox epidemic (cf. § 18 para. 3 of the Vaccination Act of 8 April 1874 – Reichs-Gesetzbl. p. 31), efforts shall be made to ensure that, where appropriate, all persons exposed to the infection, unless they have survived smallpox or are adequately protected by vaccination, are vaccinated …”.
There was no compulsory vaccination in Austria, so Rudolf Steiner had not been vaccinated as a child. His vaccination took place during the First World War, presumably in 1916/17. It is not known whether current ordinances were issued in Berlin at that time. However, it was reported by Hedda Hummel that smallpox had broken out, so that official measures can be assumed.
In view of his statements in 1924 about the effects of smallpox vaccinations and his reference that he had consciously exposed himself to the possibility of infection when he was 22 years old – i.e. around 1883 – it seems very unlikely that he had been vaccinated against smallpox entirely out of his own decision as well as inner and/or medical conviction without mentioning this in 1924.
The tradition of Rudolf Steiner’s smallpox vaccination and the statements (taken out of context) that if one doctor does not vaccinate, then someone else (must) vaccinate, and that one should not fanatically oppose vaccination, are in no way suitable to justify the current fundamentally positive attitude towards vaccination on the part of the institutionally represented anthroposophical medicine or the Medical Section. Added to this is the fact that we are now dealing with genetically based vaccinations.
There can be no talk of virus denial. However, it must be allowed to point out that corresponding scientific evidence does not exist.
GA 314, 7 April 1920.
GA 322, P. 33.
AaO., p. 62f.
“Virus Delusion”, 8th ed. p. 40
There are clear indications in Rudolf Steiner of the fact that people fall ill and that others in their environment also fall ill, but these cannot be addressed here, e.g. “Hygiene as a Social Question”, GA 314 and in GA 348.
New England Journal, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765.
This cannot be discussed here.
Engelbrecht/Köhnlein, Virus-Wahn, 10th ed., 2021, p. 387f.
See my Newsletter No. 28, https://wtg-99.com/Rundbrief_28.
GA 314, 287f.
Dr Suzanne Hupfries, Roman Bystrianyk, “Die Impfillusion”, Rottenburg, 2020, p. 77ff.
Engelbrecht/Köhnlein, loc.cit., p. 254f. and Impfreport, p. 4, https://www.impf-report.de/download/impf-report_2005.pdf.
Malte Thießen, “Vom immunisierten Volkskörper zum “präventiven Selbst”. Impfen als Biopolitik und soziale Praxis vom Kaiserreich zur Bundesrepublik”, Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag | 2013 https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1524/vfzg.2013.0002/html
7th Letter to Members, GA 260a.
GA 259, 1991, P. 226.