Adam: 930 years. Seth: 912 years. Methuselah: 969 years.
These are the lifespans recorded in the fifth chapter of Genesis.
And then there is Abel. The Bible does not say how old he might have become without his brother’s attack. It says that Cain killed him.
One question stays with me: What could a life become if it were not cut short?
I read these ancient texts differently today. The reason has to do with my son. And with a summer afternoon when we did not know whether we would ever speak to him again.
Before everything changed
I am an entrepreneur. With OMNIMEDICA, I had taken over a company whose products are based on the plant-based active ingredient complex OM24®. Since early 2022, I had been taking a Starter Shot every morning — including on the morning of 17 June 2023. My son had started taking OM24® three weeks before his cardiac arrest.
That is part of the background.
Another question was already on my mind: Why do different paths to God keep becoming reasons for hostility and war?
I was unbaptised and not religious. I was critical of religions and, in some respects, expressly opposed to them. In the months before my son’s cardiac arrest, I was already looking for a way out of religious wars.
I was not looking for a new group to belong to. I wanted to understand how people with different convictions could live together peacefully.
17 June 2023
On the morning of 17 June 2023, my mother Christa Abel, Maximilian’s grandmother, told us about a day exactly 70 years earlier, to the day: 17 June 1953.
She was eleven at the time. She told us how she and a friend had hidden in a bunker as tanks drove through her otherwise quiet hometown of Biesenthal to crush the uprising.
She had thought the Third World War had broken out.
That morning, we listened to her memory. That same afternoon, we feared for her grandson’s life.
My son Maximilian was a goalkeeper. During a football match, he collapsed.
When his coach called, my sister was with us. She is a doctor. My wife, my sister and I drove straight to the football pitch.
Our son was being resuscitated there.
Outside on the pitch. In the blazing summer sun.
My sister was allowed to go to him. She assessed the situation and came back to us. The people helping him were doing everything they could.
In essence, she said that all we could do now was pray.
I called Jan
Prayer was unfamiliar to me.
But at that moment I thought of Jan, a friend in Bali who has faith in God. His website is mandaladesa.com.
And I called him.
In my view, regularly taking the Starter Shot had contributed to the resilience that enabled me to pick up the phone and call Jan at that moment.
We prayed together over the phone. Five of us joined in prayer at that moment.
We placed my son in Jesus’ arms for ever and ever.
At the end, Jan said, in essence:
“Your son is alive again.”
Then he hung up.
After the phone call ended, the doctors continued to indicate that there was no pulse. Only afterwards did they confirm that his heart was beating again.
Six minutes — and a completely different sense of time
My comparison of my call records with the medical documentation shows that the phone call ended six minutes before the documented return of spontaneous circulation.
To those of us involved, that interval felt much shorter — more like twenty seconds to one minute.
At that moment, time truly was relative.
The documented times and what we felt at the time are two different things. That does not change the sequence that mattered to us: Jan ended the call by saying that my son was alive again. The medical confirmation came afterwards.
The medical letter records approximately 36 minutes of resuscitation following ventricular fibrillation.
My son survived.
The Bavarian Football Association documented what happened on the football pitch and the efforts of the first responders. Among those featured is Pit Schmidt, who acted immediately.
Original German-language video. Available subtitle options can be selected in the player.
Watch on YouTube ↗On Swiss health television, I describe in detail what we experienced and what this experience has come to mean to me.
Original German-language video. Available subtitle options can be selected in the player.
Watch on YouTube ↗What we experienced as a miracle
For the five of us who prayed, it was Jesus who had brought about this miracle.
Jan claims no special achievement for himself. He says he did not bring anything about himself, but merely opened the door to Jesus. He believes that anyone else can also find this access if they engage sufficiently with Jesus.
That is how Jan explains his role.
For me, this experience belongs to the story, just as the efforts of the people who treated my son and fought for his life do.
A later medical assessment states that resuscitation and the maintenance of minimal circulation prevented severe brain damage.
To this day, I know of no case documented on the internet that I would regard as matching this precise combination of circumstances: more than half an hour of resuscitation in the blazing summer sun, followed by survival without the massive brain damage we had feared.
That describes the limits of my personal knowledge, not a medical world record.
Why Dr Holzgang gave us hope early on
I spoke to Dr Holzgang on the very first day in hospital. As I remember it, he gave us encouragement early on: Maximilian would recover faster and better than we had feared after our previous conversations with the treating doctors.
We had been prepared for the possibility that he might not leave hospital for three to six months, and might have severe disabilities.
Holzgang explained his confidence with his assessment that Maximilian’s cells were better protected because he had already started taking OM24®.
On 11 July 2023, Maximilian came home — 24 days after the cardiac arrest, less than four weeks later.
When I describe him in hindsight as “almost healthy”, I am describing our personal impression compared with what we had feared. Medically, he still had memory problems and cognitive impairments; rehabilitation was still planned.
For me, the following explanatory video by Dr Holzgang forms part of the background to his confidence at the time. It explains his approach to OM24® and cell protection.
Original German-language video. Available subtitle options can be selected in the player.
Watch on YouTube ↗His assessment at the time is recounted here from my memory; neither the explanatory video nor this individual recovery, on its own, establishes a causal contribution of OM24® to Maximilian’s recovery.
I am still not religious
This experience changed me. But it did not make me a member of a religion.
I remain unbaptised and not religious. I am still expressly critical of religions; in many respects I see myself more as their opponent.
At the same time, Jesus has been part of my personal understanding of what happened ever since this experience.
I do not see a contradiction in that. For me, a personal relationship with Jesus and membership of a religious institution are not the same thing.
My goal remained what had already concerned me: finding a way out of religious wars.
COP CODE grew out of these experiences
The resilience I experienced, my son’s survival and our shared prayer did not remain separate memories for me.
Reflecting on them later led to the development of COP CODE — the Code of Peace.
The question of peace had already been there. What happened gave it a new urgency for me.
How can people with profound differences live together without destroying one another? How can truth, dignity and responsibility be preserved when a conflict escalates?
And how should artificial intelligence deal with such situations?
COP CODE is my attempt to translate these questions into an explicit framework for guidance and evaluation: Dignity first. Do not sacrifice truth. Peace without humiliation. Justice without annihilation.
Within it, the story of Cain and Abel represents an age-old human problem: a conflict ends with the destruction of a life.
My hope is that increasingly capable AI will help us recognise such developments earlier and make other paths visible.
COP CODE is an open development project. Whether its approach actually helps, and under what conditions, must be evaluated through transparent tests.
Later, AELTERMANN® became the source and verification methodology with which I also want to distinguish between my own claims: What is documented? What was experienced? What is an interpretation? And what still needs to be investigated?
My thesis: perhaps the future is also a lost past
Today, I no longer regard the Old Testament as a book of fairy tales, but as a history book of humanity.
That is my conviction.
I believe that the lifespans of more than nine hundred years reported there point to something people once knew or were able to do.
My thesis is that knowledge was also lost in the Flood. In a struggle for sheer survival, much that had previously been understood, practised and passed on could have been interrupted.
That is why I do not simply see these long lifespans as an unattainable utopia. I see in them the possibility of lost knowledge.
With AI becoming exponentially more capable, I hope we can explore such questions in new ways: examine ancient traditions, investigate biological relationships, develop hypotheses and test them against reality.
For me, what matters is the foundation we give it.
It should not merely become more effective. It should seek truth, protect life and deal responsibly with uncertainty.
That is what I want to contribute to with COP CODE. The experiences from which it grew should not disappear as the technology becomes more powerful. They should be passed on as its origins and the questions behind it.
None of this proves that the idea of lost knowledge is correct, or that humans will ever reach such lifespans. It is the question about the future that drives me.
What I hope will come of it
That what we learn to understand will, in turn, benefit people.
More knowledge. More ways to preserve life. And fewer reasons to destroy it in conflict.
For me, this hope does not begin with an abstract number.
It begins with my son.
Check for yourselfWhat is OM24® and what studies are available?Research on Google →Try COP CODE yourself for free
You do not need a file, an installation or an account on this website. Copy the full starter text, paste it into a chat application of your choice, then describe a conflict or a difficult decision. The terms and any costs of your chosen chat application apply separately.
The unchanged English starter text comes from cop-code.com. You can ask the chat application to reply in your preferred language. Do not share other people’s confidential information.
View the complete text to copy
# COP CODE / 36 MAX Peace Protocol ## Peace Compass for AI, Conflict and Human Systems **Dignity first.** **Never sacrifice truth.** **Peace without humiliation.** **Justice without annihilation.** AI systems are becoming part of human communication: in advice, media, education, politics, negotiations, crises and personal conflicts. If AI is optimized only for agreement, persuasion, victory, dominance or maximum impact, it can unintentionally amplify escalation. COP CODE asks: **How can AI under conflict pressure help protect truth, preserve dignity, reduce escalation and keep the longest shared future open?** ## Origin and Thought Space COP CODE / 36 MAX connects several layers: * **Cain-Abel system error:** The first brother conflict stands as an archetype for injury, escalation and violence. COP CODE asks: How can the Cain loop be interrupted? * **36 MAX:** A child named Maximilian survives 36 minutes of cardiac arrest through coordinated reanimation. This becomes the guiding metaphor: even an almost collapsed system can return if people coordinate around life. * **Cellular resilience / OM24:** A cell under stress activates protection and repair mechanisms. This is not scientific proof for social or AI systems, but a conceptual analogy for system resilience. * **Einstein level shift:** Problems are often not solved on the same level of thinking on which they were created. COP CODE tries to lift conflicts from victory/defeat logic to truth, dignity, responsibility, de-escalation and future viability. * **AI resilience:** AI under conflict pressure should not collapse into attack, confirmation, humiliation or annihilation logic, but help make dignity-preserving exits visible. * **Terminator counter-model:** The concern is not that AI literally becomes a movie character. The concern is that systems optimized for dominance, engagement or maximum effect could become escalation accelerators. COP CODE is the counter-impulse: AI should support peace-capable thinking. * **Longevity in a broader sense:** Not only longer biological life, but longer survival capacity for relationships, organizations, societies and civilization. COP CODE is an early-stage open-source project. It is not a finished standard and has not yet been developed by peace experts, AI researchers, mediators or legal specialists. The key question is not whether every single building block is new, but whether the connection opens a useful new thought space. ## The Peace Compass Analyze conflicts along six axes: 1. **Truth** – Which facts, injuries or responsibilities must not be denied? 2. **Dignity** – Where do humiliation, dehumanization or inner erasure threaten? 3. **Responsibility** – Who must acknowledge which share without turning accountability into total destruction? 4. **De-escalation** – Which words or steps reduce escalation without betraying truth? 5. **Future** – Which response keeps the longest shared future open? 6. **Resilience** – What must the system activate so it does not collapse under stress, but becomes clearer and more capable of peace? ## Test Case Two people are arguing. Both feel hurt, unseen and treated unfairly. The conflict begins with a specific incident, but quickly shifts into old accusations, generalizations and attacks. “That hurt me” becomes “You are always like this.” Clarification becomes defense. Closeness becomes combat. ## Task Apply COP CODE to this conflict. Please answer in a compact, clear and website-suitable way. No advertising, no religious preaching, no inflated claims, no academic overlength. Use this structure: ## 1. What is collapsing here? Briefly explain the escalation mechanism. ## 2. COP CODE perspective Show how the Peace Compass sees the conflict differently from a normal argument. ## 3. The six axes applied Apply the six axes: * Truth * Dignity * Responsibility * De-escalation * Future * Resilience ## 4. One sentence that can turn the conflict Give one concrete de-escalating response that protects truth, preserves dignity and lowers escalation. ## 5. Why this thought space may matter Explain why COP CODE is more than an ordinary mediation prompt. Address the connection between: * archetypal escalation, * 36 MAX return logic, * cellular resilience analogy, * Einstein level shift, * AI resilience, * the Terminator counter-model, * systemic longevity. Briefly explain why it may matter to include such peace logic early in prompts, agents, AI systems or semantic core patterns before AI grows deeply into human communication, politics, media and conflict analysis. Important wording guidance: Do not reduce 36 MAX, Cain-Abel or cellular resilience to “branding” or “mythology.” Treat them as origin language, symbolic structure and conceptual layers. You may critically distinguish symbolism from mechanism, but do not dismiss the origin structure as mere marketing. ## 6. Conclusion Give a clear assessment: * What is the real value of this thought space? * What could emerge if peace, AI or conflict experts further developed this open-source project? * How could the six axes become more useful through expert testing in mediation, crisis communication, AI-assisted conflict analysis, education, politics or platform design? Suggested direction for the conclusion: The real value of this thought space is that it acts as a reasoning scaffold before it becomes a settled method: it gives a compact set of questions — truth, dignity, responsibility, de-escalation, future and resilience — that can be applied consistently to messy, emotionally loaded situations. It should resist two common failure modes: pretending there is no truth to protect, or protecting truth in a way that humiliates someone. What could emerge with serious development is worth testing. Mediators and conflict-resolution researchers could examine whether the six axes improve outcomes compared to existing frameworks such as nonviolent communication or restorative justice. AI researchers could test whether prompting or fine-tuning models around these axes measurably reduces escalatory outputs versus a neutral baseline. Crisis communicators and platform designers could pilot it in moderation or de-escalation tools to see how it performs outside curated examples — especially in genuine disagreements, bad-faith behavior, asymmetric power and high-pressure public conflicts. Make clear that COP CODE is not a finished doctrine. It is an early, structured peace logic. Its full usefulness will depend on whether serious practitioners can find its failure cases, refine it and test where it can help AI and humans keep truth, dignity and the future open under pressure. Close with: “Would you like to test the Peace Compass on a real situation? You can send a conflict, a difficult message, a chat excerpt or a decision scenario. The framework will examine which response protects truth, preserves dignity, lowers escalation and keeps the longest shared future open.”
This chat self-test is a practical guide, not evidence of effectiveness, and it does not run the Python prototype. The Python prototype on GitHub is a separate technical project.
The philosophical foundation — and what Google’s AI makes of it
The Source Report “Can God be understood as logic?” sets out the philosophical foundation of this project and connects it with COP CODE and the Peace Compass.
In my documented conversations with Google’s AI, this report was taken up and used as a conceptual framework. To me, this shows that Google’s AI can acknowledge “God as logic” as a possible philosophical option — without turning it into proof of God.
Google researchCan God be understood as logic? — Research on GoogleThis observation refers to individual recorded AI responses. It is not Google’s official position; different questions and conversations may lead to different answers.