L’invité de cet entretien, Frédéric Carron, est ancien membre du parti des Verts et député au Grand Conseil valaisan. Agriculteur biologique et artiste céramiste de formation, il a rejoint la politique par conscience écologique et par sens du service public. Dès le départ, il pose une condition claire : sa liberté de pensée et de parole doit être respectée. La crise du COVID va rapidement mettre cette promesse à l’épreuve.

Lorsque les premières mesures sanitaires arrivent, puis le pass COVID et la vaccination de masse, Frédéric adopte une grille de lecture marquée par son expérience d’agriculteur bio : renforcer le terrain, la santé globale, le système immunitaire, plutôt que tout miser sur une solution technologique. Il questionne la cohérence d’un parti écologiste qui s’oppose aux OGM, mais adhère sans débat à une technologie d’injection issue des mêmes logiques. À l’intérieur du parti, il rencontre deux types de réactions : quelques collègues qui partagent silencieusement ses interrogations, et une majorité qui se revendique d’une « science » figée et monolithique, sans espace pour le doute ni la remise en question.

En prenant publiquement la parole et en déposant des objets parlementaires critiques sur la gestion de la pandémie, Frédéric se heurte à des tentatives de limitation de sa liberté d’expression, y compris sur le plan institutionnel. Il constate une organisation systématique de la déresponsabilisation : chaque niveau renvoie la responsabilité à un niveau supérieur, des enseignants aux directeurs d’école, des services cantonaux aux Conseillers d’État, des autorités cantonales aux instances fédérales et internationales. Tout le monde applique des recommandations, mais personne n’assume réellement la décision. Cette dynamique, combinée à une forte pression sociale et médiatique, rappelle selon lui les mécanismes historiques des régimes totalitaires, où le conformisme et la peur prennent le dessus sur le discernement individuel.

Face à ce système, Frédéric choisit de quitter le groupe parlementaire des Verts et de siéger comme député indépendant, afin de rester cohérent avec ses valeurs et avec la confiance des électeurs. Il assume la perte de positions influentes en commission au profit d’une plus grande liberté de parole et d’action. Dans cette discussion, il évoque aussi son travail sur lui-même, le développement de sa part masculine, la question de la virilité responsable, et l’importance de modèles masculins capables de prendre des décisions, d’assumer leurs erreurs et de protéger le bien commun. Son ancrage quotidien dans la nature, au contact des plantes et des animaux, lui donne un contrepoids essentiel au tumulte politique et médiatique.

Cet entretien s’adresse à toutes celles et ceux qui s’interrogent sur l’état de notre démocratie, le rôle des partis, la place de la science dans le débat public et la responsabilité personnelle en temps de crise. Il ouvre un espace pour réfléchir à la liberté d’expression, au courage civique et à la manière dont chacun peut « prendre sa place d’être humain sur cette planète », plutôt que de se laisser réduire à un simple rouage ou à un consommateur obéissant.

Avertissement / Disclaimer :
Les opinions exprimées dans cette vidéo sont celles des intervenants et ne reflètent pas nécessairement celles de DoctorsTalk. Aucun élément de ce contenu ne doit être interprété comme un conseil médical ou un substitut à une consultation médicale individuelle. Pour toute question de santé ou de traitement, adressez-vous toujours à un professionnel de santé qualifié.

In this fascinating and deeply insightful interview, we sit down with Professor Emeritus Marc Henry, a world-renowned chemist from Strasbourg University, author of 10 books, over 160 scientific papers, and cited more than 12,000 times in the scientific literature. Professor Henry joins us to discuss his groundbreaking article “Thermodynamics of Life”—an exploration of entropy, energy, and the philosophical and scientific foundations of what it truly means to be alive.

With his trademark humor and humility, Professor Henry begins by apologizing for his “spicy French accent,” then dives into a sweeping intellectual journey that bridges physics, chemistry, biology, and the very nature of consciousness itself. Drawing from more than 40 years of scientific research, he challenges the way modern biology and medicine interpret fundamental concepts—arguing that they’ve been on the wrong track for more than a century due to a deep misunderstanding of entropy.

He explains that entropy has been simply equated with “disorder”—a subjective and misleading interpretation that has shaped generations of scientists, educators, and physicians. Instead, Professor Henry restores the original meaning introduced by Ludwig Boltzmann and refined through Max Planck’s revolutionary insights: entropy is a precise physical quantity that measures how matter and energy explore space and motion. It’s not about chaos, but about possibilities.

From ovens and blackbody radiation to quantum mechanics, relativity, and the crisis in modern medicine, Professor Henry connects the dots between the smallest particles and the largest galaxies. He reminds us that quantum physics governs the micro-world of atoms and molecules, while general relativity governs the cosmos—and that humanity exists somewhere in between. But the key question, he says, is: What scientific language should we use to describe life itself? His answer: quantum mechanics, because life is fundamentally a quantum phenomenon.

Professor Henry talks about his understanding life as a dynamic, self-organizing process that continually interacts with its environment while maintaining order through the increase of entropy in the universe. In his view, life doesn’t oppose entropy—it depends on it. The entire biological and medical paradigm must be rethought accordingly.

He argues that the medical crises we see today—chronic illness, degenerative disease, and the limits of pharmaceutical approaches—stem from this mistaken view of entropy and energy. By ignoring the true thermodynamic nature of living systems, medicine has lost its connection to the physical laws that govern all matter. “We cannot truly heal in the medical professions,” he says, “if our science is built on a misunderstanding of what life is.”

This conversation is far more than an academic discussion. It’s a philosophical meditation on science, time, and human responsibility. Professor Henry reminds us that writing—unlike speaking—endures. It’s a message meant not only for today’s scientists but also for future generations who may read his words centuries from now. As he eloquently puts it, “We are citizens of the universe.”

If you are interested in:
● The deep connection between physics and biology
● Entropy, biology and medicine
● Why quantum mechanics matters for understanding life
● The crisis in modern medicine
● And how science must evolve to meet the challenges of the 21st century
…then this interview will expand your mind and challenge your assumptions.

🔬 Featured Guest:
Professor Emeritus Marc Henry
Department of Chemistry, Strasbourg University
Author of Thermodynamics of Life

🎙️ Host: Klaus Schustereder
Scientific discussions on life, energy, and consciousness

📘 Topics Covered:
● Entropy vs. Disorder: The historical misunderstanding
● Boltzmann, Clausius, Carnot, and Planck: The roots of thermodynamics
● Quantum Physics and Relativity: Two languages of nature
● How thermodynamics connects life to the universe
● Why biology and medicine need a paradigm shift
● The concept of Homeodynamics of Life

🧠 Key Ideas:
● Entropy is not disorder—it’s a measure of possible states.
● Medicine and biology must realign with 21st-century physics.
● Life follows the second law of thermodynamics, not against it.
● True understanding of entropy connects us to the cosmos.

#ThermodynamicsOfLife #MarcHenry #Entropy #QuantumPhysics #Thermodynamics #Boltzmann #MaxPlanck #QuantumBiology #PhilosophyOfScience #Homeodynamics #ScienceAndConsciousness #MedicineCrisis #PhysicsOfLife #KlausInterview

Dans cet entretien, le Professeur Michael Esfeld, philosophe des sciences et professeur ordinaire à l’Université de Lausanne, revient sur son rôle de chercheur : examiner de manière critique les prétentions à la connaissance, quelle qu’en soit la source. Il raconte comment ses prises de position publiques sur la gestion de la crise du COVID-19 lui ont valu l’étiquette de « professeur rebelle », tout en rappelant que la mission de l’université est de garantir la liberté académique, le débat argumenté et la remise en question des évidences apparentes.

Au fil de la discussion, Michael Esfeld analyse l’usage de la notion « d’état d’urgence » et les mesures comme les confinements et la campagne de vaccination. Selon lui, limiter les droits fondamentaux n’est justifiable que sur la base de faits solides, et non de simples modèles ou scénarios catastrophes. Il insiste sur le fait que la science ne doit jamais être confondue avec l’autorité : ce qui compte, ce ne sont pas les titres ou les statuts, mais la qualité des arguments et des preuves avancées.

Le professeur met également en cause le rôle des médias, du monde politique et de certains milieux scientifiques dans la création d’un climat de peur, ainsi que les violations du consentement éclairé dans la pratique vaccinale. En établissant des parallèles historiques, notamment avec l’eugénisme, il met en garde contre l’instrumentalisation de la science pour légitimer des mesures politiques lourdes de conséquences. Cet entretien invite chacun à réfléchir aux critères permettant de distinguer une véritable situation d’urgence d’une urgence proclamée, et à l’importance de préserver le débat public et la responsabilité individuelle.

In this in-depth conversation, host Dr. Klaus Schustereder speaks with Bishop Richard Williamson, traditional Catholic bishop and founder of the St. Marcel Initiative. Recorded in Switzerland, the interview ranges from the crisis in the Church after Vatican II to the COVID-19 response, the state of modern medicine, and the deeper spiritual roots of today’s political and cultural upheavals. What begins as a discussion about one man’s biography becomes a wide-ranging reflection on faith, truth, and the future of civilisation.

Bishop Williamson reflects on his 1988 episcopal consecration, his expulsion from the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), and why he believes the post-conciliar Church has lost much of its integrity. He traces the timeline from the Second Vatican Council through the suppression of the traditional Latin Mass, the founding of the SSPX, Rome’s sanctions, and the 1988 consecrations. In his view, fidelity to the old Mass and doctrine is at the heart of preserving the Catholic faith in a modern world that has largely rejected God, embraced subjectivism, and built what he calls a “new church” aligned with the spirit of the age.

The discussion then turns to COVID-19 and the medical system. Drawing on his long-standing critique of the “New World Order,” Bishop Williamson explains why he quickly came to see the pandemic response as part of a wider anti-human project aimed at control and depopulation. He links the crisis to earlier historical events and official narratives he believes were manipulated, arguing that a godless elite now wields media, politics, and institutions against the true good of mankind. Dr. Schustereder, an internal medicine specialist, shares his own journey from conventional training in Vienna through years of clinical experience in Europe and Central Africa, where he confronted extreme poverty, violence, and death, and unexpectedly rediscovered the living reality of faith.

From there the conversation opens onto the question of healing. Dr. Schustereder describes how serious illness, personal suffering, and listening deeply to patients led him to realise that there is no real healing without a spiritual dimension. He explains how modern materialistic paradigms reduce the human person to a molecular machine and treat drugs as the main solution, while ignoring the mystery of life and the action of grace. Bishop Williamson agrees that without God and the soul, medicine can only silence symptoms rather than address their deeper causes. They speak about responsibility, risk, and the way crises—personal and societal—can become moments of conversion.

Together they explore subjectivism, materialism, and the loss of common sense in universities, medicine, and public life. Bishop Williamson revisits the warnings of Pope St. Pius X about modernism and explains why, in his view, corrupt philosophy leads directly to corrupt theology, corrupt education, and eventually a corrupt society where evil appears “normal.” Dr. Schustereder contrasts the solidarity he experienced in African communities with the isolation and purposelessness so common in the West, where many people can survive alone but quietly lose contact with family, responsibility, and meaning. Both men insist that the human person cannot be understood, or truly helped, when the spiritual soul is denied.

In the final part of the interview, Bishop Williamson offers his reading of the times: a world that has largely expelled God, a Church infiltrated by error, and a medical profession pressured to conform to political and media narratives. They discuss the pressures on doctors during COVID-19, the role of fear and intimidation, and the moral weight of decisions about treatment. Bishop Williamson speaks about courage, martyrdom, and the possibility of a severe divine chastisement if humanity does not repent—drawing parallels with the Flood and modern Marian warnings—while still pointing to hope: prayer, especially the Rosary, fidelity to truth, and trust in God’s justice and mercy. Dr. Schustereder underlines that every encounter with a patient is also an encounter with mystery and a call to humility, compassion, and deeper faith.

Dedication: This video is dedicated to the memory of Bishop Richard Williamson, who passed away in January 2025. Whatever one’s agreement or disagreement with his analyses and language, we offer this interview as a testimony to his unwavering conviction, his love for the traditional Catholic faith, and his concern for the spiritual and physical health of souls. May he rest in peace, and may this conversation inspire deeper reflection, honest examination of conscience, and a sincere search for the truth in both Church and medicine.

In this in-depth episode of Doctor's Talk, internal medicine specialist Dr. Klaus Schustereder speaks with California chiropractor and craniosacral practitioner Dr. Richard Gerardo, D.O., about one of the most overlooked health problems of our time: chronic sympathetic overload. Drawing on more than 20 years of clinical experience, Dr. Gerardo explains how trauma, pain, media-driven fear and the COVID-19 crisis have locked millions of people into a permanent fight-or-flight mode, with profound consequences for sleep, breathing, hormones, digestion, mood and long-term regeneration.

He describes how his work originally began with TMJ and clenching problems, and gradually expanded into a broader protocol for down-regulating the autonomic nervous system. Using hands-on chiropractic and craniosacral techniques to normalise the craniosacral rhythm and cerebrospinal fluid flow, he helps patients "reset" the nervous system so that parasympathetic functions like rest, repair and digestion can finally switch back on. Because many patients are exhausted after years of stress, he also integrates targeted herbs and nutritional strategies to lower night-time cortisol, support the brain and endocrine system and rebuild resilience.

Together, the two doctors discuss concrete clinical pictures they now see every day: insomnia, anxiety, asthma flare-ups, chronic pain, digestive issues, menstrual disturbances, chest pain and delayed inflammatory reactions after COVID-19 infection or vaccination. Dr. Gerardo shares real-life cases where addressing spike-protein-driven inflammation, balancing the craniosacral system and supporting weakened organs led to significant improvements, even when symptoms appeared many months after the shot. Both doctors emphasise that true healing is never about suppressing symptoms, but about bringing the whole system back into balance so that the body can heal itself.

The conversation then widens to the role of fear and the media in driving sympathetic overload. Dr. Gerardo and Dr. Schustereder reflect on how 24/7 crisis messaging, conflicting narratives and the censorship of dissenting voices have damaged not only public trust, but also people's nervous systems. They contrast mainstream, pharmaceutically driven approaches with hands-on "physical medicine" - chiropractic, osteopathy, craniosacral work and physiotherapy - which help patients literally discharge tension, export "entropy" and reorganise themselves from the inside out. Dr. Schustereder connects this with thermodynamics and recent research on plants, vibration and protein resonance, suggesting that well-applied manual and vibrational therapies support the body in re-establishing coherence.

Finally, Dr. Gerardo speaks candidly about the challenges and opportunities for practitioners who refuse to simply repeat the official script. He explains why his practice has become a refuge for patients who no longer trust standard answers, why posture and core stability are essential to ageing well, and how chronic pain, structural instability and environmental stressors all feed into sympathetic dominance. Both men see a clear task for the future of healthcare: to move away from fear-based, centralised control and towards approaches that respect biology, decentralise power and help patients recover their innate capacity for adaptation, rest and healing. This episode is an invitation to rethink stress, illness and "nervous system health" at the deepest level - and to rediscover the body's own wisdom.

Scientism, driven by a psychological need for security, is quite seductive. But it is a dangerous train to jump on because science can never be a moral guide to life.

Michael Esfeld, Professor of Philosophy of Science at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, analyses how the COVID crisis turned into a post-factual scientism. According to him, there has never been any factual evidence for an extraordinary situation, a real emergency, and COVID policies were utterly arbitrary. We now need to examine how this could have happened.

All the existing standards of medicine and science were thrown overboard, says Esfeld. One major issue is science that is based on models instead of evidence. Models are not reflecting reality, and neither can they make predictions. Scientifically they have no value. He explains the success of models through the psychological need for answers, and the need for certainty. Pessimistic predictions generate attention in media and politics. As a result, there is the danger of abusing them for fear-related political business models by offering protection and security. However, preventive measures come with a cost and collateral damage. You need to assess the proportionality, and you need a faculty of judgment.

The problem is also about language and changing the meaning of concepts. So, for example, the definition of a pandemic is no longer associated with excess mortality but rather infection only. Infection, in turn, no longer means a symptomatic sick person but rather a positive PCR test only. It's completely arbitrary, he says, "I call this post-factual."

Science has brought about substantial progress in modern society and therefore benefits from great credibility. This crisis demonstrated the danger of abusing science for political scientism, whereby science is taking the role religion had in pre-modern times. Under the doctrine "follow the science," science is believed to be capable of imposing norms and telling people what to do. But science has to abstract from subjective values, Esfeld explains. It cannot be a moral guide to life. In scientism, science loses its objectivity. This will backfire on science and destroy its credibility. Science is about to destroy itself.

Asked about the role of media, Esfeld states that the intention of discrediting any critical voices, as he had to experience in his own case, is to intimidate others to speak up. If they tolerate people asking critical questions, the whole regime of "follow the science" will be finished because the public will realize that it is not THE science. But there are always two sides. There are those who intimidate, and there are those who let themselves be intimidated.

We must ask: "What can we do to prevent this from happening again?" We thought we had enough mechanisms built into our political system. The shocking thing is they all failed. The whole judiciary failed. The entire system of checks and balances failed. We have to employ reason to limit the exercise of power. We have to prevent a concentration of power in the hands of the state that various interest groups can seize to further their interests. 

Regarding the vaccination campaign, Esfeld notes that in a free society, a vaccine producer or other interest group would have to convince people to take a product and take liability. They could not seize the state power, force the vaccines on the people, and exempt the producers from liability. Those experiencing adverse effects from the vaccines should sue the doctors who vaccinated them.

In this in-depth conversation, Dr Klaus Schustereder speaks with French sociologist Laurent Mucchielli, Director of Research at the CNRS (National Centre for Scientific Research), about how the COVID-19 crisis was managed politically, medically, and culturally. Drawing on his experience in the sociology of crime and public policy, Mucchielli explains why he turned his attention almost entirely to COVID from early 2020 onward, after being shocked by official guidelines in France that told family doctors not to treat patients early and to simply send them home with paracetamol until they were sick enough for the emergency room. He describes this as a historic break with traditional medicine and calls it “therapeutic nihilism.”

Mucchielli outlines how his memory of the 2009 swine flu episode, his work on criminality across all social classes, and his interviews with physicians and biologists led him to investigate the crisis as a sociologist. He describes forming an informal research network of doctors and academics, collecting clinical observations from thousands of patients treated early with drugs such as hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, ivermectin and nutritional support, and argues that many deaths were linked less to the virus itself than to the refusal to use available early treatments. From there, he proposes the idea of a “doxa” – an official global narrative – structured around four stages: a new virus presented as a mortal threat to all, the assertion that no treatments exist, lockdown as the only possible response, and finally vaccines as the sole way out of the crisis.

Throughout the interview, he and Dr Schustereder explore how this narrative was communicated and defended. They discuss the politicisation of specific drugs, media campaigns that portrayed certain molecules as “dangerous” while minimising discussion of vaccine side effects, and what Mucchielli calls a “political-industrial propaganda” that joins governments, pharmaceutical companies, and parts of the scientific establishment. He questions the way large randomised trials and statistical methods are prioritised over detailed local clinical experience, and describes his own attempts to analyse epidemiological curves and pharmacovigilance databases in several countries. The conversation concludes with a call to review the crisis calmly, to understand how fear and mass communication shaped decisions, and to protect younger generations from similar large-scale experiments in the future.

Disclaimer: This video presents the personal opinions, interpretations, and research perspectives of the guest and host. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DoctorsTalk, its producers, or any affiliated organisation. Nothing in this conversation is intended as medical or therapeutic advice. The content is for information and discussion only and should not be used to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Viewers should always consult qualified health professionals regarding any questions about their own health, treatments, or vaccination decisions.

Dans cet entretien approfondi, le Dr Klaus Schustereder dialogue avec le sociologue Laurent Mucchielli au sujet de la gestion de la crise du Covid-19. À partir de son expérience de chercheur sur la criminalité des élites et l’histoire des politiques sanitaires, il analyse la « doxa du Covid » : un récit dominant structuré autour de la peur, du « nihilisme thérapeutique », du confinement généralisé et de la promesse du vaccin comme unique issue.

Laurent Mucchielli revient sur le précédent de la grippe H1N1, sur le rôle des grandes industries pharmaceutiques, de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé et de certains États dans la construction d’un discours de crise. Il explique comment, selon lui, la communication de masse et la gestion politique ont pris le pas sur la rationalité scientifique, en marginalisant les médecins de terrain, les traitements précoces et la prévention (vitamine D, zinc, etc.). Il décrit également la politisation des médicaments et des vaccins, et l’usage de catégories simplistes (« complotiste », « extrême droite », etc.) pour disqualifier les voix critiques.

L’entretien aborde ensuite les enjeux plus larges : concentration des financements autour de fondations privées, place des modèles prédictifs controversés, montée d’un « vaccinisme » présenté comme solution quasi unique, et risques de dérive autoritaire lorsque la santé devient une forme de religion d’État. Laurent Mucchielli s’interroge sur les effets psychologiques, sociaux et démocratiques durables de ces politiques (confinements, passes sanitaires, pression sociale et professionnelle) et appelle à une véritable évaluation globale de la crise.

Avertissement important : Les propos tenus dans cette vidéo reflètent les opinions et analyses personnelles de l’invité et ne représentent pas nécessairement celles de DoctorsTalk, de son équipe ou de ses partenaires. Rien dans cette vidéo ne doit être interprété comme un conseil médical, un diagnostic ou une recommandation de traitement. Pour toute question relative à votre santé, consultez un professionnel de santé qualifié et suivez les recommandations en vigueur dans votre pays.

In diesem eindrucksvollen Gespräch zwischen Dr. Klaus Schustereder und der Journalistin und ehemaligen TV-Moderatorin Milena Preradovic spricht Preradovic offen über ihren Weg vom etablierten Fernsehen hin zu ihrem unabhängigen YouTube-Kanal „Punkt Preradovic“. Sie schildert, wie sie im Zuge der Corona-Krise durch ein Interview mit Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg ins Zentrum der medialen Kritik geriet. Ihr Interview ging viral, aber gleichzeitig begann eine massive Diskreditierungskampagne gegen sie und ihre Gäste – mit Wikipedia-Manipulationen, medialem Ausschluss und sogenannten „Google-Bombings“.

Im Gespräch analysieren Preradovic und Schustereder die Rolle der klassischen Medien während der Pandemie. Preradovic beschreibt aus ihrer Erfahrung, wie sich Journalismus zunehmend in eine systemstabilisierende Blase verwandelt hat, in der alternative Meinungen keinen Platz mehr haben. Sie kritisiert die enge Verflechtung von Medien, Politik und Pharmaindustrie sowie die gleichförmige Berichterstattung, die durch Abhängigkeit von Drittmitteln und Agenturmeldungen geprägt ist. Für sie wurde durch diese Entwicklung der Journalismus von einer kontrollierenden vierten Gewalt zur verlängernden Hand politischer Interessen.

Abschließend diskutieren die beiden auch Themen wie die Verantwortung von Ärzten, die gesellschaftliche Spaltung durch politische Narrative und den zunehmenden Verlust an demokratischer Kultur und Meinungsvielfalt. Preradovic betont ihre kompromisslose Haltung gegenüber Wahrheit und Integrität – auch wenn sie dafür persönliche und berufliche Konsequenzen tragen musste. Ihr Appell: Mehr Eigenverantwortung im Denken, Offenheit für verschiedene Sichtweisen und Mut, gegen den Strom zu schwimmen.