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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the above description and other writings of anthroposophical doctors it is evident that they have adopted the conventional medical narrative that there exists a new virus SARS-CoV-2 which causes a new disease Covid-19. As for this view are not given any references, there is no need to refute all those scientists who are providing evidence that the existence of this virus has not been proved, neither that this specific virus is a cause of disease. [1] With such a lack of any conclusive scientific evidence one wonders if anthroposophical doctors have any supersensible means of cognition that enable them to perceive how this virus enters the organism, how it replicates and has a ‘dialogue’ with the organism?

If we look at the claim that there is a new disease, we can notice that:

we are dealing with a disease of the rhythmic system to which belongs all serious acute respiratory diseases;
there is a single new symptom: temporary loss of the ability to smell and taste;
for diagnosis is decisive a positive “relatively reliable” PCR test. [2]

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

If we look at the list of the anthroposophical medications used in various stages of this supposedly new disease we can see that: [3]

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

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

If one reads more carefully it seems a more sensible conclusion that we are dealing with a variation of the seasonal flu – as many epidemiologists and other medical experts are saying. And if anthroposophic doctors do notice something unusual in the present cases of people suffering from the severe forms of respiratory diseases then they should not look further than to the spiritual impacts of negative placebo effects [4] caused by relentless fear propaganda and inhuman lockdown policies – including the unprecedented level of social isolation that can have a very harmful effect on all those who are not capable of withstanding it.

Below is one fascinating chart which shows the distribution of all causes of deaths (blue) in comparison to distribution of Covid deaths (orange) in Sweden in the age groups from birth to 100 years: [5]

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

Why is anthroposophic medicine not supporting anti-vaccine movements?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The above welcome to the development of “safe and effective vaccines against SARS-CoV-2” is going along similar assurances of the representatives of the medical and political establishment of the safety of new vaccines in spite of the fact that we are only at the beginning of an experiment which will end only in the year 2023. The public is told that “vaccines are not just safe, but they are a marvel of hundreds of years of medical and scientific research. A seemingly simple concept of an injection, over in a matter of seconds, will prevent people from contracting ailments that would otherwise have caused them life-changing harm or even death… Vaccines have to be considered safe from day one. The standard for testing and monitoring vaccines is higher than for most other medicines… Vaccines go through rigorous testing, and all information relating to their testing, licensing, side-effects and so on is available for public scrutiny.” [6]

If the vaccines are really so safe why has the USA Supreme Court decided that “vaccines are unavoidably unsafe” [7] which provided the legal basis for the exceptions of vaccine producers in USA from legal liability for the harms and deaths caused by vaccinations.

This is another example of double standards one can often notice with the vaccine propaganda. For the sake of advertising “vaccines are safe” and “science is settled” [8] – meaning “we don’t need any debate about the efficiency and safety of vaccines.” But when they need to defend against the increasing evidence about the harmful impacts of vaccinations, their defence is that “all vaccines and medicines have some side effects. These side effects need to be continuously balanced against the expected benefits in preventing illness.” [9]

Can official representatives of anthroposophic medicine deny their indirect endorsement of such pro-vaccine propaganda as it was voiced by one Conservative member of the British parliament? “It is only natural to have questions about something that we put into our bodies, so I hope that that offers some peace of mind. People should ask questions, speak to their GP, pharmacist and so on about this or any vaccine, and find out the information that they want to know. Go to those with the knowledge – please do not listen to dangerous internet conspiracy theories… Therefore please, please, please have the vaccine when the time comes and you are asked to come forward. The right, healthy, patriotic and human thing to do is to be vaccinated to protect individuals and those around them.” [10]

Why are anthroposophic medical experts endorsing genetically modified vaccines?

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

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

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

What is missing in this approach is the clear recognition that in the case of mRNA vaccines we are no longer dealing with vaccines but with gene therapy disguised as a ‘vaccine’. In the independent media we can find information that “human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use. Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a person’s genes to treat or cure disease.” If we look at the vaccines we find that “the active ingredient inside their shot is mRNA – mobile strings of genetic code that contain the blueprints for proteins. The mRNA inside Pfizer and BioNTech’s vaccine directs any cells it reaches to run a coronavirus spike-building program.” For that reason “Moderna describes its product not as a vaccine, but as ‘gene therapy technology’ in [their papers]. This is because neither Moderna nor Pfizer make any claims about their products creating immunity or preventing transmission.” [11]

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

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

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

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

If even the majority of mainstream professional medical personnel are sceptical about vaccination I wonder if the anthroposophic ‘policy makers’ have ever asked anthroposophical professional medical personnel about their opinion on vaccinations before they went public with their statements? Are they not contributing to the social division among members of anthroposophical movement by taking such disturbingly one-sided pro-vaccine stance? One cannot hope to attain the true knowledge of the challenging issue of vaccination by means of uncritical acceptance of official medical narratives in the atmosphere of emergency while simultaneously ignoring the serious warnings of independent scientists and medical experts who might not be always right – but who are nevertheless exposing among those who are pushing for global vaccination plenty of cases of the hidden corruption, selfish profit-seeking and extreme disregard for the wellbeing of the rest of humanity. [12]