Author

I grew up in NRW and learned Latin and Greek at school and a little English. I live and work in the Ruhr area and am now pleased that the artificial intelligence makes it possible to translate my texts into many languages.

However, the machine translates “Maas and Scholz are no industrial accident” with “industrial accident” instead of “unfortunate accident” and “chase it away with shame and disgrace” instead of “chasing it away with shame and disgrace” ”: Artificial intelligence still appears to be very artificial. Understanding the double meaning of the word “artificial” is probably asking too much.

I am an attentive observer of political events and from a distant position it is easier for me to diagnose a collective delusion. But I can no longer maintain this position; the global social upheaval hits me deeply too. I now have to use my medical and scientific competence:

So I can analyze and evaluate scientific articles. I can tell if it's charlatanism or serious science.

I am constantly presented with third-party funded research results that relate to a specific drug. I then have to decide on the basis of the scientific publications whether the use of the drug really means progress, or whether it is just a competing product that has been slightly modified in order to circumvent patent protection. I am then often faced with the question:

• Are the analog insulins better and also more suitable for the patient than the old, tried and tested ones?
• Are severely metabolically interfering drugs appropriate to correct a lab reading? Does the increase in cholesterol indicate disease or the precursor to disease, or is it hype driven by the medical-industrial complex?
• Can the hormone level of the patient be influenced by a drug or should the living conditions change?
• Who is interested in the billions in sales and what interests does the patient have?
• Can I take responsibility for advising cancer patients to undergo chemotherapy that will allow them four months to live, or should they live better without this treatment? To do this, I have to differentiate between serious and sponsored scientific literature.
• On the basis of many scientific recommendations, should I advise a patient to keep their blood sugar levels below a certain limit that is determined in the laboratory, or should they rather continue to live with the existing level.

A doctor who is constantly involved in scientific work must learn to separate the wheat from the chaff in science.

It is then no longer difficult to distinguish whether a charlatan appears in a white coat and makes prophecies acceptable to the government with the authority of science, or whether serious scientists are appearing. And not to mention the feeling that comes over you when you find out that the minister at the Charité is quickly making one hundred and fifty million available for the virology team.

As a psychotherapist, I also have to keep an eye out if a person who is prone to depression is at risk from general social depression, whether a suicide is imminent. How to help a person when the majority of the population is afflicted with collective psychosis?

Write comments, I will publish them after review.