Born in 1983 in Vienna.
I was raised with the philosophy of Sir Karl R. Popper and was interested in metaphysics and epistemology at an early age. My mother and my teachers at school used to say since my earliest days at elementary school that I was “very clever” and this was confirmed by various intelligence tests which I took at adult age.
I am pretty good at deductive thinking, which is a useful asset in evaluating scientific hypotheses proposed by other researchers.
My scientific background is that after completing university degrees in medicine, medical informatics, and computational intelligence, I joined Dr Uwe Rohr’s research group and contributed to several papers in the intersection of endocrinology, immunology, oncology, and psychiatry. Uwe thought that phytoestrogens had a positive effect on the treatment of infectious diseases, wounds, cancer, and mental disorders because they converted stress hormones into immunity hormones. He also proposed that instead of killing cancerous cells, these cells should be converted to functional tissue, following the “modify and repair” paradigm that had been invented by researchers from Harvard University. Later on, after Uwe’s passing away, I generalized his views and wrote the paper about “Symbiont Conversion Theory”. This theory states that it is possible to re-educate or re-program cells exhibiting parasitic behaviour to act as symbionts. It has already been demonstrated by other research groups that this, in general, is possible. Bacteria have been reprogrammed to produce substances that are beneficial for the human organism. Until now, my paper has always been rejected whenever I tried submitting it to a scientific journal, but I made it available on the Internet and received some positive feedback.
In our work sessions, Uwe often told me about the problems he was facing as a highly gifted scientist in the scientific community. Many of his peers rejected him as a person, and it was only thanks to his mentor Prof. Dr Adolf Eduard Schindler that his papers were accepted by scientific journals. When I told fellow young medical doctors about Uwe’s discoveries, most of them suspected that he was a fraud. After all, it is difficult to imagine that natural compounds can effectively treat cancer, while a lot of money is spent on developing new chemotherapeutics for the same purpose. Both Uwe and I were also in contact with Mensa Austria and quite disappointed at the low intellectual level of most members of that “high IQ society”. Ultimately, they even decided to combat us and our ambitions. We realized that the commonly accepted criterion for intellectual “giftedness”, an IQ of 130 or higher, is not sufficient for what we consider scientific giftedness. Probably an IQ of 145 or maybe even 160 is the absolute minimum for being a person like what Uwe imagined a “gifted” person to be. Most academics are not gifted in Uwe’s sense. Their primary goal is to obtain a regular income. As they work in a system created by people of average intellect, they are used to not speaking their minds and not always telling the truth. Moreover, they have no revolutionary ideas. These are the reasons why pharmacy and medical science, in Uwe’s eyes, have been stagnating for decades. Instead of “blockbuster” drugs which can be used to treat many diseases, the pharmaceutical industry has resorted to developing “niche busters”.
I decided to join the Syncritic Institute because its founders have similar views about science as Uwe and me, and because Syncritic Institute seems to be what I was originally looking for before I joined my first “high IQ society”.