“LubecaVax”: News about the individual anti-coronavirus vaccine from Lübeck

Primum nihil nocere!

25^th August 2021

We assume that a coronavirus infection can be effectively prevented by vaccination. The Lübeck vaccine uses a tailored, small and trivial genetically engineered antigen that the body does not need to synthesise itself as is the case with nucleic acid-based methods. In the organism of the recipient, it induces the production of antibodies against the Spike protein of SARS-Cov2 that the virus uses to bind to the angiotensin-2 receptors on endothelial cells, alveolar cells and enterocytes in unvaccinated individuals. By this blocking, the antibodies prevent infection of the cells and the virus is unable to bind.

The vaccine is generally administered three times: on day zero, after 14 days and once more after another four weeks. After 14 more days, the antibody concentration is measured. We do not have the officially prescribed confidence that an immune protection will probably have been developed. At the end of the vaccination period, over 95% of the patients will show a high concentration of antibodies of the immunoglobulin class IgG against coronavirus spike proteins, which should make them immune to coronavirus. Immunocompromised individuals, who can only be identified as such by serological analysis, are re-vaccinated once or twice with double the dose, after which half of them will also show high titers. Moreover, measurements have shown that the antibodies were able to neutralise the coronavirus and that three quarters of the individuals had acquired T-cell immunity.

The strong response to recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein vaccines is described in an increasing number of publications. They have proven to be highly effective in animal testing and large clinical trials. It is unnecessary for the antigens to be produced in the human body, as it is the case for vector- and mRNA vaccines. So I was right with my concept of applying protein based vaccinations against coronavirus in March 2020, the first worldwide.

With nucleic acid-based vaccines, such as those from Biontech and Moderna, RNA with the genetic code of certain coronavirus proteins is introduced into the cells of the human organism, which induces the synthesis of the respective proteins. These will then appear on the surface of the cells and stimulate the immune system. This principle has already been tried in the immunisation against certain tumour antigens in cancer treatment, but has never really worked. Insofar, the coronavirus has saved the company, which had so far squandered huge amounts of investor funds without bringing one single product to market. Another principle has been applied more frequently. It uses viruses as vectors whose DNA contains the genetic information for the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 (AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson). First studies have recently shown that these SARS-CoV-2 genes can also be integrated into the genome of some host cells.

Both variants – vaccination with RNA and with vector viruses – are well-tolerated by the majority of vaccinated persons. But in some they cause severe side effects, with the Biontech vaccine particularly after the second shot. According to a recent study (Dtsch Ärztebl int 2021; 118: 298-9) around 5% of the individuals who had received the Biontech vaccine had to take one day or more of sick leave after their first shot. This was the case with around 20% after the second shot. With the AstraZeneca vaccine, these were even half of the individuals. The second AstraZeneca shot is generally better tolerated than the first because the immune system apparently recognises the virus and eliminates one part early. This is why the Russian vaccine uses two different viruses for the first and second shot (Sputnik 1 and 2).

The pathogenic effect of these nucleic acid-based vaccines should in most cases result from the following mechanism: both the encapsulated RNA and the vector virus are introduced into the endothelial cells and other cells of the blood vessels and various organs where, according to their purpose, they induce the synthesis and expression of coronavirus-specific antigens. Since antibodies against these antigens are produced in the organism within a few days or are already present due to previous vaccinations or a past COVID-19 infection, harmful immune complexes from locally newly produced coronavirus antigen and the serum antibodies of the vaccinated person can form at the membrane of the cells or in their vicinity.

These immune complexes are further bound by complement, resulting in more or less severe inflammation, as known from the autoimmune disease lupus erythematosus. Inflammatory mediators such as interferon and different interleukins are activated. Moreover, tissue thrombokinase released by the damaged endothelial cells induces blood coagulation. Billions of tiny fibrin clots are formed, but also large thrombi. Furthermore, cytotoxic T cells contribute significantly by uselessly destroying masses of previously healthy cells.

Various symptoms can occur, depending on the affected organs or the extent of their involvement. The “Safety Report” by the Paul-Ehrlich Institute from July 2021 underlines some cases of health disorders, which, statistically, are connected to the currently favoured vaccines. These disorders include myocarditis und pericarditis (inflammation of the heart), thrombotic events with coagulation disorders, a sudden decrease in the number of thrombocytes and a bleeding tendency. Deaths caused by thromboses of the sinus veins of the dura mater are particularly stunning. Inflammation of the nerves (Guillain-Barré syndrome) and anaphylactic reactions, possibly against the adjuvant polyethylene glycol, which envelops the injected RNA, have also been reported (increased risk from the second shot). If the blood-brain barrier is passed and the brain is affected, further neurological manifestations would have to be expected. The same is true for dementia diseases, if over the course of many years foreign proteins are deposited in some of the brain cells.

In the above report, these severe and sometimes lethal events are justified by the immense danger posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of vaccination fatalities only represents a fraction of the deaths caused by an unchecked vaccination wave. The death of people who were completely healthy until their vaccination has been accepted for the above reason and was predictable due to the afore-described mechanisms. However, these deaths go to the account of the, in my opinion, incorrigible regulatory authorities, which ignored non-hazardous alternative vaccination techniques. They want to be right at all costs and stay the fatal course regardless. They may try to play down the number of people who died from the anti-coronavirus vaccinations. This is what is feared, for instance, by Peter Schirmacher, a pathologist from Heidelberg, who is reaping much criticism from the authorities, as expected. He says that all deaths that are temporally related to an anti-coronavirus vaccination should be investigated in pathology.

Furthermore, the “Safety Report” does not mention the minor impairments which only last a few days, such as headache and joint aches, fever, shivering and malaise, experienced by millions of vaccinated people, who then need to take sick leave.

How are you supposed to get protection from coronavirus if you are afraid of the officially available vaccines? In order to put a vaccine on the market, i.e. to sell or provide it to a third party, it needs an official authorisation. In Germany, however, physicians are granted freedom of treatment, which is guaranteed by the Constitution. Without special permission, they may produce a vaccine in their practice and administer it individually to their patients. The legality of this action is based on a major decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (decision of 18 March 1997 – 1 BvR 420/97-). No rule-abiding authority is permitted to interfere with this right.

Any physician in Germany is allowed to mix an antigen with an adjuvant (only then it becomes a vaccine) and to individually inject it into or apply it to their patients. The adjuvant absorbs the antigen and presents it to the immune system. Without the adjuvant the antigen would spread throughout the body and thus be diluted to ineffectiveness. Due to functional requirements the two components must be kept separately and mixed together freshly. However, according to the law, physicians are not permitted to pass their home-made vaccine to a third party (i.e. to put it on the market).

In Germany and Austria, several physicians have already started to legally use the Lübeck procedure in this way – in several thousand cases. We are overseeing more than 800 individual cases. None of the vaccinated persons became ill, but 95% of them developed high concentrations of protective antibodies.

In June and July 2021 in Kiesdorf near Görlitz, for instance, two fellow physicians legally vaccinated 376 of my colleagues and friends, who had been seeking protection from COVID-19 through an individual treatment, based on the Lübeck procedure. None of the vaccinated individuals suffered from health problems caused by the vaccination. All of them felt fine after the individual shots – disregarding minor local reactions at the injection site, which are a desired reaction of the immune system to the vaccine – and were able to go to work. Over 97% of the vaccinated individuals developed high concentrations of antibodies against coronavirus. These antibodies will probably provide protection from the infection for at least two years. With comparable vaccination methods, e.g. against hepatitis A and B, five years are expected, the antibody titer is checked and a booster is given, if required.

Two weeks after the third shot, almost all of the vaccinated individuals showed antibody titers at the upper threshold of the measurement range. Those few who did not yet show a satisfying response received a fourth shot, which produced the desired result in half of them. We have been informed that around 500 patients who received the same vaccination also showed a good serological response and tolerated the vaccine very well.

In our view, the “Lübeck vaccine” is safe, effective and presumably the most suitable vaccine for children since the vaccine antigen used is already complete when it is injected into the body. The organism of the vaccinated person is not misused for its synthesis or harmed in the process. The vaccine also does not contain any self-amplifying or genetic information (virus DNA, RNA), about whose possible integration into the genomic material of vaccinated individuals there is no final clarity yet.

Each week, we learn more about the numerous and partly severe side effects of nucleic acid-based vaccines. Why should we expose children to this risk when they hardly ever get sick with SARS-CoV-2? How dare you!

In case of an existing immunity against coronavirus – following infection or any kind of vaccination against coronavirus – vaccination with a protein vaccine such as used in the “Lübeck procedure”, is in our opinion and for the above reasons, the only option. It poses the least danger and should therefore definitely be considered as an alternative for a second and third shot or booster after nucleic acid-based vaccinations. The novel Novavax should be equivalent to the Lübeck vaccine. However, it uses the whole spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which is associated with the danger of increasing the infection (antibody-dependent enhancement or ADE), as was shown in many animal trials. The risk of ADE is very small with our vaccine since the receptor-binding domain that we use is only a tiny portion of the spike protein.

Many true experts have realised by now that protein-based vaccines have a great potential. They are convinced that nucleic acid-based vaccines are a mistake and that the beneficial protein vaccines will prevail in the end. The Head of the Paul-Ehrlich Institute and his superior, the Federal Minister of Health, should have found out and seen how harmful and dangerous RNA- and virus-based vaccines can be and that vaccines based on recombinant proteins, such as used in the state-of-the art vaccination against hepatitis A and B, are the solution in the fight against coronavirus. Recombinant subunit vaccines are inexpensive, contain neither RNA nor DNA from attenuated viruses (and thus no foreign genetic material), trigger no allergies, are easy to handle, require no frozen transport, can be stored in the fridge and be given in any medical practice – and would be far better accepted by the population.

The freedom of treatment does not suit some authorities. They wish to question that freedom to extend their influence and to interfere. The Paul-Ehrlich Institute is subordinate to the Federal Ministry of Health. Together they fight against the Lübeck anti-coronavirus vaccine, which is excellent and has minimal side effects. At the end of 2020, the Institute filed a criminal complaint against the initiator of the Lübeck vaccine, Winfried Stöcker, because he had vaccinated his family of five. That this was legal was simply ignored by the Head of the Paul-Ehrlich Institute, who is usually very familiar with paragraphs. Obsessed with power, he establishes a threat of force, conducting a defamation campaign to prevent physicians from exercising their fundamental right of freedom of treatment. These attempts at intimidation are supported by a poorly informed sensational press. However, the State must also abide by the law, in this case obviously to the benefit of the people, of which many fear the arbitrary state power. This is the reason for the currently deplored “vaccination fatigue”, which they want to counteract by increasing, through the back door, the pressure on all those that are still reluctant.

By these many measures and regulations, the authorities want to deliberately delay the day when everyone realises the damage they have done because then they will be held accountable. In order to prevent physicians from giving responsible citizens the Lübeck vaccine, the Federal Minister of Health demands that naturally acquired anti-coronavirus antibodies after infection will only be recognised upon presentation of a positive PCR result obtained during the illness. If this is not available, a booster should be given with one of the approved vaccines (Dr. Thomas Gebhart, May 2021, work no. 5/098). But many people had an asymptomatic coronavirus infection and thus did not recognise it. How are they now supposed to obtain a positive PCR test? A vaccination in this case is completely unnecessary; the demand is absurd and baffles all description. We should resist this kind of coercion. To give individuals who have already acquired immunity an (approved) nucleic acid-based vaccine can be considered as assault for the above-mentioned reasons. Mr. Spahn, the Federal Minister of Health, asks these people to expose their own body to a risk of damage without medical justification. A physician in his position would never have come up with such an amateurish idea. “Primum nihil nocere!” dear Mr. Minister, which means “Above all, do no harm!”

The coronavirus pandemic makes it clear that incompetent bureaucrats and politicians as well as some of their advisers are not up to such difficult challenges. They were unable to respond appropriately to this lethal crisis. Stereotyped thinking and traditional procedures were no help. They have rather caused illness or death in hundreds of thousands of people because due to exaggerated approval requirements a comprehensive vaccination campaign started too late and the way for a promising vaccine with minimal side effects was deliberately blocked. Wake up!

Moreover, in view of the emergency, the authorities and their numerous advisers should not insist on lengthy double-blind trials as a precondition for vaccine authorisation. The vaccination of several thousand persons in a defined habitat followed by an evaluation of the vaccination success must suffice. Thus, it would have been possible to find out long ago that the Lübeck coronavirus vaccine does not have such severe side effects as nucleic acid-based anti-coronavirus vaccines and that it would have significantly decreased the coronavirus incidence in vaccinated people compared to that in non-vaccinated individuals. What is more, our vaccine is inexpensive and can also be distributed without cooling in developing countries after freeze-drying. The few well-meant donations of vaccines made so far failed in many cases due to requirements on distribution logistics and on the cold chain.

Instead of supporting the promising Lübeck vaccine with all his strength from the beginning, the first thing the Head of the Paul-Ehrlich Institute did was to take legal action against it. With all his power he opposes a vaccination principle whose harmlessness and at the same time huge effectiveness only experts can recognise immediately. In many other infectious diseases, it has already proven to be beneficial. Although the procedure is legal, he has his disciples try to denigrate it and even to threaten physicians who want to use it.

Why does such an omnipotent authority, with the blessing of the Federal Minister of Health, protect vaccines that are associated with obvious damage? Many people assume that commercial and political interests are behind this. In any case, it cannot be medical or scientific reasons. Some clinicians and so-called experts also allow themselves to be used to obtain third-party or maybe other funding by means of unnecessarily exaggerated studies. Any serious scientist in a responsible position would only approve these vaccines if there was nothing better at hand. A strong immune protection against coronavirus infection can be achieved without any health risks by means of long established vaccine models. In this case, directly administered recombinant spike protein or, better still, its receptor-binding domain (RBD). No antigen expression in the organism of vaccinated individuals is required if the antigen can be produced outside of the human body – rapidly, at low cost and with an excellent quality!

If someone should be legally prosecuted, it is not the physician who proposed the so far most promising vaccine against coronavirus but the Head of the Paul-Ehrlich Institute and his superior, the Federal Minister of Health. It is high time to start investigations against them and to draw consequences. With the help of my suggested anti-coronavirus vaccination, it is highly probable that Germany would be free of the coronavirus epidemic today. And the quicker the world population is vaccinated, the less we need to fear new mutants.

Winfried Stöcker