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.

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 diesem außergewöhnlichen Gespräch verlässt Dr. Klaus Schustereder bewusst die gewohnten Pfade von Medizin, Recht und Politik und spricht mit einem Künstler, der die Corona-Zeit mit schonungsloser Offenheit verarbeitet hat: dem deutschen Maler Rolf Lukaschewski.

Am Genfersee in Montreux erzählt Lukaschewski von seiner Corona-Serie mit 16 Aquarellen, die er bewusst „fies“ gemalt hat – als künstlerische Antwort auf Angstkampagnen, Maskenpflicht und den massiven Druck zur Impfung. Er beschreibt, wie er die Atmosphäre als diktatorisch, manipulativ und von Angst gesteuert erlebt hat und warum er sich entschloss, diese Zeit nicht schönzufärben, sondern radikal zuzuspitzen.

Im Mittelpunkt steht unter anderem sein Bild „Der Corona-Schrei“, das den Menschen am äußersten Rand seiner Belastbarkeit zeigt – kurz vor dem Zusammenbruch, bedroht von einer riesigen Spritze in grellen, aggressiven Farben. Ein anderes Werk zitiert die Freiheitsstatue, ersetzt die Fackel jedoch durch eine Spritze und stellt die Frage: Was ist aus Freiheit geworden, wenn Gesundheits- und Impfpolitik zur neuen Religion werden?

Lukaschewski spricht offen darüber, dass er und seine Frau ungeimpft geblieben sind, es aber lange verheimlichten, um berufliche und soziale Konflikte zu vermeiden. Er berichtet von Ausgrenzung, moralischem Druck und der Erfahrung, dass der „Freund von heute der Feind von morgen“ werden kann, wenn man nicht konform ist.

Das Gespräch weitet sich schließlich auf größere Themen aus:

• Entmenschlichung und Verlust von Ethik
• Rolle der Politik, der Pharmaindustrie und der Medien
• Verantwortung der Ärzte in der Corona-Zeit
• Gesellschaftliche Spaltung, politische Korrektheit und Angst vor Abweichung
• Die besondere Rolle der Kunst, Unaussprechliches sichtbar zu machen

Dr. Schustereder stellt nach und nach Fragen aus der Perspektive eines Arztes, der anderen eine Plattform geben möchte – ohne deren Aussagen zu zensieren, aber auch ohne sie automatisch zu übernehmen. Die geäußerten Ansichten sind zum Teil hoch umstritten, spiegeln jedoch authentisch die persönliche Wahrnehmung und den Zorn eines Künstlers wider, der sich von Politik und Medien tief enttäuscht sieht.

Dieses Interview richtet sich an alle,

• die Corona nicht nur als medizinisches, sondern auch als kulturelles und gesellschaftliches Ereignis verstehen wollen,
• die wissen möchten, wie Kunst auf Druck, Angst und Manipulation reagiert,
• und die bereit sind, sich mit einer sehr unbequemen, provokativen Perspektive auseinanderzusetzen.

Hinweis: Die in diesem Gespräch geäußerten Ansichten liegen beim Interviewgast und sind keine medizinische oder politische Empfehlung, sondern ein künstlerisch-subjektives Zeitzeugnis der Corona-Jahre.

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.

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

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.