Annekatrin Puhle, Dr.phil. / PhD

Philosophie, Gesundheitsberatung, Bücher / Philosophy, Health Consulting, Books

Annekatrin Puhle, Dr.phil.  /  PhD header image 3


Green light for the freedom of decision
My work is dedicated to a responsible lifestyle, a conscious approach to
nature, the use of medicinal plants for health, and a diet that promotes health and immunity, for which a rich microbiome is an essential requirement. Furthermore, our individual ethical responsibility – this call goes back more than 2000 years – forms the core of human life. For this reason, I am fully in favour of the freedom of every citizen to decide for or against vaccination and impairment of our natural highly complex immune system. This freedom appeals to our mindful treatment of ourselves. It goes along with our health awareness and will thus relieve the burden on the health system. This vaccination is a high-risk experiment. It impairs our natural immune system and prevents herd immunity.

For basic information on protecting and strengthening the natural immunsystem see page “Health”.

The speech by the cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough at the European Parliament in Strassburg on September 13 is very important for all of us:

Statement of the Gesellschaft fuer Gesundheitsberatung GGB e.V. (Society for Health Consulting) on the social disadvantage of unvaccinated people

Der Gesundheitsberater, Sonderausgabe Dezember 2021

(Translated by Prof. Adrian Parker PhD and Annekatrin Puhle PhD)

We do not discriminate!

In many places, the so-called 2G rule now applies: Access to a wide variety of events, leisure activities or sports and group offers is only available to people who are considered vaccinated or recovered from a corona infection. [1]  This largely excludes people who do not want to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 from social life. Before the publication of the twenty-eighth Corona Control Ordinance of the State of Rhineland-Palatinate on 23.11.2021, we feared that this regulation could also apply to the seminar operation in the Dr.-Max-Otto-Bruker-Haus. Fortunately, this has not been confirmed for the time being: Our seminars may currently continue to take place under the applicable regulations even with unvaccinated participants.

However, this fear has already led to some discussions and considerations in advance and has also led us to make a very clear decision with regard to future regulations:

In the Dr.-Max-Otto-Bruker-Haus there will be no discrimination against unvaccinated people.

We will not offer seminars or events whose group of participants is pre-selected under duress due to a personal and far-reaching decision regarding their own health. How could we run our house [Dr.-Max-Otto-Bruker-Haus] in the sense of the humanitarian doctor and philanthropist Dr. med. Max Otto Bruker if we would support such discrimination by the government? Already in the Geneva Pledge, which is anchored in the professional code of doctors working in Germany, it is unequivocally stated: “I will respect the autonomy and dignity of my patient. I will maintain the highest respect for human life. I will not allow considerations of age, illness or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social position or any other factor to occur between my duties and my patient.” [2]  As a holistic health center, we are deeply committed to these principles.

Voluntary vaccination decision

Our task is to provide economically independent health education, and in this sense we continue to support a free vaccination decision. Especially in times when a scientific discourse is often replaced by political actionism and one-sided media coverage, it is important for us to take a clear stand. Very early on, sometimes even before the first doses of the vaccine were administered, vaccination was touted by various politicians as the “only way out of the crisis”. [3]  While vaccination was still presented as an individual decision at the time and was repeatedly assured by various politicians – including Angela Merkel and Jens Spahn – that there would be neither compulsory vaccination nor an immunity card in Germany [4], the pressure on unvaccinated people is now becoming ever greater.

An indirect vaccination obligation has existed for a long time. In addition, there is an enormous media agitation against unvaccinated people, which seems to be coming to a head, especially in recent weeks. With statements such as “We have long been considerate of all the unvaccinated. Now we have to take less consideration for those who do not take any themselves” [5], as the Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Soeder met in November 2021, unvaccinated people are portrayed as ruthless and lacking solidarity. The head of the political resort of the TV media group RTL Deutschland, Nikolaus Blome, is even clearer. In a column published in SPIEGEL, he wrote: “I, on the other hand, would like to take this opportunity to expressly ask for social disadvantages for all those who voluntarily renounce vaccination. May the entire Republic point the finger at them.” [6]

German population overestimates risk of life-threatening COVID-19 infection by 100 times


The media distortion of the facts surrounding the corona crisis understandably led to a complete misjudgement of the German population regarding the dangers of corona infection at an early stage. For example, a study by the German Institute for Economic Research [Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung], which was published in August 2020, found that respondents estimated their personal risk of becoming critically ill with COVID-19 at an average of around 26 percent. [7]  Depending on which assessments are used as actual risk [8], they overestimated their personal risk by more than a factor of 100.

The one-sided presentation of the corona vaccinations as “effective and safe” and as the “only solution” is now likely to lead to a similarly serious miscalculation. This kind of misinformation becomes dangerous when it stirs up anger, hatred and contempt for a certain group of people in the sense of the narrative of the “pandemic of the unvaccinated”. While the claim that unvaccinated people are to blame for the progress of the pandemic is still based on a very good effectiveness of corona vaccinations in the media, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) estimates in its current status report of 18.11.2021 the vaccination effectiveness in the group of over 60-year-olds already at only about 67%. [9]

In professional circles, it is now undisputed that the vaccinations can not safely prevent a corona infection and that their effectiveness decreases over time much faster than initially suspected. [10–13] For example, the Israeli Ministry of Health reported that according to its evaluations, the effectiveness of corona vaccinations had already fallen to 39% by the end of July 2021 – a value that is well below an effectiveness of 50%, which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) specifies as the minimum limit for the potential approval of vaccines. [11]

Corona vaccinations do not provide safe protection against infection, contagion and severe and fatal disease courses

Nor can the corona vaccines guarantee protection against severe courses of the disease or even death in the event of a vaccine breakthrough. [9, 10] For example, a cohort study of the Swedish population as a whole showed that vaccinations reduced the risk of severe COVID-19 disease by 89% immediately after vaccination. However, this protection decreased continuously and was only 42% after six months. Particularly drastic was the reduction in risk reduction in older and pre-sick people. [10]  The figures of the status report of the Robert Koch Institute of 18.11.2021 also fit in with this. As a result, almost half (about 45%) of the over 60-year-olds who were admitted to hospital from calendar week 42 to 45 due to a symptomatic COVID-19 infection, were fully vaccinated. The rate of fully vaccinated corona patients in intensive care was 37.8% in this age group and 42.0% among deceased corona patients. [9]  Of course, these percentages must always be considered in the context of the vaccination coverage rate, which is very high, especially for the group of over 60-year-olds with over 80%. Nevertheless, they show that the burden of corona-infected people in hospitals is far from being caused only by unvaccinated people and that complete protection against severe and fatal courses of corona infection cannot be guaranteed by vaccination.

The situation is similar with the protection against infection hoped for at the beginning. Contrary to initial assumptions, even fully vaccinated people are able to transmit infectious coronaviruses to other people. [9, 13, 14] A study published in October 2021 in the journal “The Lancet” comes to the conclusion that fully vaccinated persons with vaccination breakthroughs have a similarly high viral load as unvaccinated, infected persons and can effectively pass on the infection – even to fully vaccinated contact persons. [14]

Vaccinated people are therefore quite involved in the infection process, which, according to the Robert Koch Institute, can also be observed in the context of corona outbreaks in old people’s homes, nursing homes and hospitals. [9] The RKI therefore advises people in the risk group to carry out a corona test before contacting people in the risk group, regardless of vaccination or convalescent status. [9]

High vaccination coverage does not correlate with low infection

The fact that corona vaccinations do not reliably protect against infections, nor against severe and life-threatening courses or the transmission of infectious virus material also makes the results of a study published in August 2021 in the European Journal of Epidemiology comprehensible. It compared vaccination coverage in 68 countries and 2947 counties in the U.S. with their number of COVID-19 cases. It was found that there is no discernible relationship between these two parameters at country level. In contrast to the expected results, there was even a small positive correlation between a high vaccination rate and the number of COVID-19 cases. Iceland and Portugal, among others, are used as examples of this. In both countries, 75% of the population had been fully vaccinated at the time of the study. Yet they had more COVID-19 cases per million inhabitants than countries like Vietnam or South Africa with a vaccination coverage rate of just 10%. [15]

In view of these results, which show that the scientific discussion on the effectiveness of vaccinations is far more open and must be conducted than is sufficiently portrayed in the media, the “blame” for the current situation cannot be shifted to one population group. To portray unvaccinated people as unsupportive and ruthless not only misses scientific findings, but also leads to a division of society. In addition, this approach encourages individuals to make important decisions about an intervention in their physical integrity less on the basis of an open-ended examination of the topic and more through social pressure. This is neither in the sense of science, nor in the sense of good medical treatment, nor can (or should) it be the goal of politics. The task of health education is not to convince people, but to enable them to make an informed decision.

No reliable statements can be made about the potential long-term consequences of corona vaccinations at the present time

This also includes honest information about possible side effects of any medical measures. While the SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations are almost unreservedly described in the media as “absolutely safe”, it should be clear to every person trained in the medical field that such an undifferentiated and sweeping statement can hardly ever be made in medicine. Just like any medication, every vaccination carries risks that must be considered and weighed up depending on a patient’s individual situation.

As potential side effects of their corona vaccination, for example, the company Moderna mentions pain, swelling and redness at the injection site, fatigue, headache and muscle pain, chills, nausea and vomiting, fever and allergic reactions. [16] However, more serious side effects are also possible. For example, in its safety report from October 2021 on suspected cases of side effects and vaccine complications from the beginning of the vaccination campaign on 27.12.2020 to 30.09.2021, the Paul Ehrlich Institute also states, for example, heart muscle and pericarditis, the so-called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) or Guillain-Barré syndrome. [17]

This selection of diseases that can be triggered by vaccinations already shows that even rarely occurring side effects can have a massive impact on the entire further life of the people who are affected by them or can even acutely threaten their lives. In addition, the actual frequency and variety of adverse reactions due to incomplete reports and the absence of large-scale, longer-term, double-blinded randomized controlled trials are difficult to assess. In the Phase 3 pivotal studies of Pfizer and Moderna, for example, the blinding of the participants was lifted early in the course of the study and members of the placebo group were also vaccinated, which of course deprives any evaluations after this time of the most important basis. In the case of Pfizer, for example, only 7% of the subjects (2,932 out of 44,060) achieved blinded follow-up after six months. Thus, Pfizer’s entire assessment of “safety and efficiency after six months” refers only to a very small study group and is therefore hardly scientifically usable. The situation was similar with Moderna. In their experimental groups, 98% of the members of the placebo group had already been vaccinated by mid-April 2021. [11, 16] This approach makes it difficult to make an honest assessment of the vaccination risk and, in particular, makes it almost impossible to make usable findings on side effects that occur late.

This is particularly disadvantageous in view of the fact that the lack of data on the potential long-term or late-term consequences of corona vaccinations is of particular concern to many people. Of course, it is not possible to make any reliable statements about vaccines that have only been on the market for about a year after a compressed emergency approval procedure, which could only occur after years or even decades.

Even with drugs or vaccines that have been tried and tested over many years, there is great difficulty in establishing a correct relationship with regard to late-occurring side effects without temporal proximity. However, especially in view of the novelty of the vaccination procedures of mRNA or vector-based vaccines, the risk of long-term consequences is particularly difficult to calculate. [18]  A publication in the “International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research” published in May 2021 with the title “Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19” (“Schlimmer als die Krankheit? Assessment of some possible unintended consequences of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19”). It investigates various possible effects of mRNA technologies on the human organism and warns of the possibility of potentially serious unforeseen consequences for years or even generations to come [19]

Although it is difficult to assess whether such warnings will come true, they provide a legitimate basis for calling for further research into the potential consequences of the novel vaccination procedures. In addition, they make it particularly easy to understand why vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 are associated with worries and fears for many people.

Methodological deficits in approval studies for corona vaccines

Also worrying are methodological deficits, which can be seen on closer inspection in the approval procedures of various corona vaccines. For example, pfizer calculated the effectiveness of vaccination in its FDA approval study from the fact that eight PCR-confirmed corona cases occurred among the vaccinated study participants, while there were 162 cases in the placebo group. However, what did not go into the evaluation – and was also not mentioned in Pfizer’s publications – was that in addition to these cases, there were 3410 cases of suspected but unaudited COVID-19 disease – that is, sick study participants who showed the clinical picture of COVID-19 infection, but without having a positive PCR test. 1594 of these cases occurred in the vaccine group and in 1816 in the placebo group. Although the effectiveness of the vaccination in terms of protection against a positive PCR test result was relatively high, the effectiveness in terms of protection against illness with COVID-19 symptoms was only 19%. And even excluding the cases that occurred in the first week after vaccination (to rule out possible bias from symptoms of a vaccine reaction), the risk reduction was still only 29%. [12]  However, both in the discussion about the individual health benefits of vaccination as a medical measure, as well as in the discussion about the ability of vaccinations to prevent overloading of the health system, a PCR test result cannot be used as a decisive parameter. For this assessment, the actual clinical effects shall be considered. What good is it if people vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 fall ill with a clinical picture with COVID-19 symptoms almost as often and possibly just as severely as unvaccinated people – just PCR-negative?

If what the data of the registration study suggest here are also confirmed by society as a whole, the vaccination would have only a very small influence on the number of respiratory diseases requiring inpatient treatment and intensive care and would thus bypass the actual problems of overloading hospitals and intensive care units. These observations also refute the argument that unvaccinated people are taking up intensive care capacities due to their own fault and are therefore responsible for the fact that these are not available to other patients. This argument could only be discussed if unvaccinated people generally used far more hospital and intensive care capacities and not if they do it as often as vaccinated people, only more often SARS-CoV-2-positive.

At this point, it should be briefly mentioned that in the entire discussion about hospital and intensive care capacity, in addition to the factors mentioned above, another very important aspect should be taken into account: Contrary to the assumption that the overload of hospital concerns large part of the population, the overload results not only from a high number of patients in need of treatment, but also from a decline in capacities themselves. For example, the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) recently pointed to a drastic reduction in the number of intensive care beds available in Germany. While at the beginning of 2021 there were still 26,475 operable intensive care beds available, on 20.10.2021 there were 4268 fewer beds, i.e. only 22,207. [20] This is therefore a decrease of 16%. The DIVI states the lack of nursing staff as the reason for this. [20]

This context must not go unmentioned in discussions about intensive care capacities and the various causes of the pronounced lack of care should be considered accordingly and active measures should be taken by politicians to solve this serious problem. It would certainly be far more helpful than agitation against a certain population group to raise awareness of the situation of caregivers and to point out the high social responsibility towards these professional groups.

COVID-19 vaccines cause more harm to health than good

Another methodological deficit in the approval studies of vaccine manufacturers, which points in a similar direction to the one explained above, is discussed in a publication by the American immunologist John Bart Classen. He also criticises the fact that only a (severe) COVID-19 infection was defined as the “endpoint” according to which the evaluation of the studies was carried out. However, in order to determine the actual health benefits of vaccinations, as already explained, not only the protection against a corona-PCR-positive respiratory infection must be assessed, but the health situation of the study participants in general. In order to be able to make statements about this, he re-evaluated the data from the approval studies of Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Janssen. In doing so, he investigated how often serious health problems generally occurred in the vaccination and placebo groups – regardless of their genesis. This analysis found that while the vaccines reduced the risk of severe COVID-19 infection, they increased the risk of similarly severe medical problems of a different kind. Overall, there was even a statistically significant increase in serious illnesses in general in the vaccination group. From this, the author concludes that COVID-19 vaccinations cause more harm to health than good. [21]  Both in terms of the individual health of people who are faced with the decision whether they want to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, as well as in terms of the overload of the health system, even the own data of the vaccine manufacturers cannot serve as an argument for corona vaccinations. John Bart Classen finds drastic words for this: “Scientific principles demand that mass immunization with COVID-19 vaccinations be immediately interrupted because we are facing an emerging vaccine-induced health catastrophe.” (translated from English) [21]

Die Stellung der natürlichen Immunität

In summary, contrary to media coverage, neither the effectiveness nor safety of corona vaccinations can be considered guaranteed. Nevertheless, even calls for a direct vaccination obligation are getting louder and louder. [22]  While, for example, the Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Soeder assured in December 2020 “There will be no compulsory vaccination” [6],, he said at the cabinet meeting of the Bavarian state government on 23.11.2021: “I am campaigning for it, let us finally introduce mandatory vaccination in Germany.” [22] We would like to plead for this and hope that the discussion about such a serious measure can be conducted in an unbiased and scientific way than the statements of various politicians currently suggest. Far more helpful than an even higher pressure on unvaccinated people through a medical coercive measure and thus a promotion of social division, would be an honest, democratic and constructive discourse. It is also worth taking a look at the fact that vaccination, even if it would bring a high degree of effectiveness and safety, and even if the focus should not be on the entire health situation, but purely on COVID-19 infections, is not the only way to immunity.

The human immune system is a highly complex system that has developed over millions of years into its sophisticated mode of action. We owe it to this that the vast majority of people survive a COVID-19 infection well and for the most part with mild disease progressions. The Greek-American health scientist John Ioannidis, for example, gives the average mortality rate of a corona infection at about 0.23%. [8]  A retrospective study comparing natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 with immunity generated by vaccination shows that natural immunity provides stronger and more long-lasting protection against both corona infections with the currently predominant delta variant and symptomatic Disease courses and hospitalizations. [23]

This also explains the demand of the Society for Virology to equate convalescents with vaccinated people in regulations for corona control for at least one year, as it appeared in its updated statement on the immunity of convalescents of 30.09.2021. [24]  Christian Bogdan, Professor of Microbiology and member of the Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO), also put it in a fitting way: “Anyone who has gone through a corona infection and survived it well is certainly with a broader and more stable immune response than a vaccinated person. Upon contact with the whole virus, the immune response extends not only to the spike protein, but to other virus components. A larger spectrum of lymphocytes is activated. Therefore, one might even wonder whether going through an infection in age groups that have only an extremely low risk of a severe course would not even be an advantage.” [25]  These findings testify once again that corona vaccinations are neither the “only way out of the crisis”, nor are there no alternative. In addition, they point to the enormous importance of a competent immune system.

Strengthening the immune system through a healthy lifestyle

In our eyes, it is therefore essential and so far unfortunately a major omission of politics to educate society about ways to strengthen its immune system. Dr. med. Max Otto Bruker described the vulnerability to infection as a diet-related disease of civilization. Numerous findings from scientific studies as well as his decades of medical experience as head of biological hospitals have shown that the consumption of highly processed foods over a long period of time can lead to various serious health damages, including a weakening of the immune system and the resulting tendency to frequent infections. In addition to sufficient exercise and a healthy lifestyle in general, he therefore advised in particular to avoid manufactured foods such as extract flour, all types of factory sugar and refined fats. For a healthy diet, he recommended instead a nutrient-rich whole food diet consisting of foods that are as natural as possible. This included in particular a plentiful and varied fresh food from fruit and vegetables, the consumption of whole grain products and natural fats and, of course, the heart of the nutrient-rich whole foods:  The fresh grain porridge, prepared from freshly processed, unheated, germinable cereals, fruit, nuts and a small amount of cream. [26]  Detailed information can be found on the website of the Gesellschaft fuer Gesundheitsberatung GGB e.V. as well as in the numerous writings of Dr. med. Max-Otto-Bruker. [27]  However, not only in view of the high importance and the manifold possibilities and opportunities of natural health prophylaxis, but also in view of the various aspects explained here around the vaccination discussion, we do not consider the consideration of mandatory vaccination to be justified in any way.

Such an interference with the freedom of the population would be ethically difficult to justify even with excellent effectiveness and safety as well as a well-justifiable need for corona vaccinations, as it would undermine patient autonomy as an essential component of any medical action. In view of the fact that none of the factors mentioned is given, a compulsion to vaccinate is absolutely out of the question in our eyes. Decisions about the integrity of one’s own body must remain voluntary!

Ronja Lutz, Ärztin
2. Chairman

On behalf of Gesellschaft fuer Gesundheitsberatung GGB e.V.

Dr. med. Jürgen Birmanns, 1. Chairman
Dr. phil. Mathias Jung, Secretary
Pia Ziegler, Treasurer
Dr. med. Joachim Hensel, Assessor
Dipl.-Psych. Hassan El Khomri, Asessor
Johannes Lutz, Assessor
Petra Daum, Managing Director


[1]    Landesregierung Rheinland-Pfalz. Achtundzwanzigste Corona-Bekämpfungsverordnung Rheinland-Pfalz. 28. CoBeLVO; 23. November 2021.

[2]    Weltärztebund. Deklaration von Genf – Das ärztliche Gelöbnis.

[3] Scholz: Impfung ist der einzige Weg aus der Corona-Krise. 11.01.2021.

[4]    Hubertus Volmer. Warum es keine Corona-Impfpflicht geben wird. 10.12.2020.

[5]    Stefan Zeitler. Bayern verschärft Corona-Regeln: Lockdown für Ungeimpfte, Sperrstunde, Clubs dicht. Freistaat zieht die Zügel an. 21.11.2021.

[6]    Spiegel Politik. Impfpflicht! Was denn sonst? Eine Kolumne von Nikolaus Blome. 07.12.2020.

[7]    Hertwig R., Liebig S., Lindenberger U., et al. Menschen überschätzen Risiko einer Covid-19-Erkrankung, berücksichtigen aber individuelle Risikofaktoren. DIW aktuell. 06.08.2020.

[8]    Ioannidis J. P. A. Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2021; 99: 19-33F. 14.10.2020.

[9]    Robert Koch Institut. Wöchentlicher Lagebericht des RKI zur Coronavirus-Krankheit-2019 (COVID-19). 18.11.2021 – Aktualisierter Stand für Deutschland.

[10]  Peter Nordström, MD, PhD, Marcel Ballin, MSc., Anna Nordström, MD, PhD we. Effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccination against risk of symptomatic infection, hospitalization, and death up to 9 months: a Swedish total-population cohort study. The Lancet Preprint. 25.10.2021.

[11]  Peter Doshi. Does the FDA think these data justify the first full approval of a covid-19 vaccine? 23.08.2021.

[12]  Peter Doshi. Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines— we need more details and the raw data. 26.11.2020.

[13]  Robert Koch Institut. Impfen – Wirksamkeit (Stand: 19.11.2021).

[14]  Singanayagam A., Hakki S., Dunning J., et al. Community transmission and viral load kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) variant in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the UK: a prospective, longitudinal, cohort study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2021. 28.10.2021.

[15]  Subramanian S. V., Kumar A. Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States. European journal of epidemiology. 2021. 30.09.2021.

[16]  moderna. Moderna Provides Clinical and Supply Updates on COVID-19 Vaccine Program Ahead of 2nd Annual Vaccines Day. 13.04.2021.

[17]  Paul-Ehrlich-Institut. SICHERHEITSBERICHT. Verdachtsfälle von Nebenwirkungen und Impfkomplikationen nach Impfung zum Schutz vor COVID-19 seit Beginn der Impfkampagne am 27.12.2020 bis zum 30.09.2021. 26.10.2021.

[18]  Wodarg W. Falsche Pandemien. Argumente gegen die Herrschaft der Angst, 1. Aufl. Mainz: Rubikon; 2021.

[19]  Stephanie Seneff and Greg Nigh. Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research: 38–79. 10.05.2021.

[20]  Ärztezeitung. Intensivmediziner beklagen: Zahl der Intensivbetten im freien Fall. Intensivmediziner warnen: Der Mangel an Pflegekräften führe dazu, dass immer mehr Intensivbetten gesperrt werden – über 4000 gingen seit Jahresbeginn verloren. 22.10.2021.

[21]  J. Bart Classen. US COVID-19 Vaccines Proven to Cause More Harm than Good Based on Pivotal Clinical Trial Data Analyzed Using the Proper Scientific Endpoint, “All Cause Severe Morbidity”. Trends in Internal Medicine. 2021: 1–6.

[22]  Welt. „Lassen Sie uns in Deutschland endlich eine Impfpflicht einführen“. 23.11.2021.

[23]  Gazit S., Shlezinger R., Perez G., et al. Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections. Preprint 25.08.2021.

[24]  Vorstand der Gesellschaft für Virologie. Aktualisierte Stellungnahme zur Immunität von Genesenen. 30.09.2021.

[25]  Martin Müller. Stiko-Mitglied zu Kindern: Lieber Infektion als Impfung? nordbayern. 29.05.2021.

[26]  Bruker M. O. Unsere Nahrung – unser Schicksal. In diesem Buch erfahren Sie alles über Ursachen, Verhütung und Heilbarkeit ernährungsbedingter Zivilisationskrankheiten, 50. Aufl. Lahnstein: emu-Verlag; 2018.

[27]  Max Otto Bruker. Gesund durch richtige Ernährung.


Here is the link to the English version of the paper by Adrian Parker which I translated into German as a part of our German book (soon to be printed) on natural immunity (Puhle, Parker & Kunz): “How the Mind Heals and Harms the Body and Handles Covid-19” Journal of the Scientific and Medical Network No 136, 2021 / 2, pp. 17-21.

Covid Parker JSMN 2021 17-21 v3