- Which to Conventional Medicine May Well Turn Into a Pandora's Box
by Anette Stahel, MSc
Introduction: The observations of a certain dr Peter Aaby
In June 2020, after some in-depth studying of a number of relatively new scientific papers in the wake of a post to an alternative medical web group that I'm part of, I realized that I'd discovered something important. The forum post in question contained a video of a largely vaccine critical lecture by Danish anthropologist dr Peter Aaby (Most of You Think We Know What Our Vaccines Are Doing - We Don't) which the poster urged the group to watch and contemplate the message of. However, the post received practically no comments, which got me wondering if maybe what the doctor said was a bit too mainstream to be of interest for the very alternative minds of this group. After having watched the video I understood that I was right; this man didn't only hold his lecture from a strictly conventional point of view, he even talked warmly of several vaccines in the video.
Being a very alternative-minded woman myself I naturally found these vaccine promoting parts of the lecture annoying but something about what dr Aaby said really caught my attention anyway. And after having watched the video several times as well as read some of his and his collegues' research papers, it slowly dawned on me that what dr Aaby said actually meant that a treasure chest of scientific evidence for the correctness of German New Medicine had been opened!
If you're unfamiliar with the biomedical paradigm of German New Medicine (GNM), I'll here direct you to an article of mine in order for you to get acquainted with it. It's a very comprehensive concept, impossible to give a fair picture of in a short, one-passage description, therefore I choose to point you to my article instead. It's called My Interpretation of New Medicine: A Revolutionary Biological Paradigm and I think it gives you a detailed, yet accessible account of the GNM concept.
So, to the observations which dr Aaby presented. He and his collegues had for many years been administering various vaccines to children in developing countries and they'd now started to discern a pattern there. They'd discovered that remarkably, vaccines containing intact viruses and bacteria had complete opposite effects on the children's health compared to the vaccines containing inactivated microbes. That is, the firstmentioned drastically decreased overall mortality while the latter drastically increased it.
Before I continue I want to firmly state that I find the praxis of omitting proper control studies when testing vaccines beneath contempt, it's staggeringly unscientific. Also, epidemiological studies usually have poor reliability because of all the vast confounding factors. However, I think the observations by Aaby and his collegues of the changes of the mortality curves following administration of intact vaccines - measles (MV), tuberculosis (BCG) and polio (OPV) - versus inactivated vaccines - diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP), hepatitis B (HBV) and malaria (RTS,S) - are special in three ways.
First of all, the consistency of the changes are striking. After administration of intact (so-called "live") microbe vaccines, decreased mortality always followed and after inactivated microbe vaccines, increased mortality always followed. No exceptions, and this means there really ought to be some vaccine related mechanism here, whatever it may be. We're not just watching, for instance, waves of nutritional improvements or deteriorations coinciding with administration of these shots. Because then sometimes the intact vaccines would be followed by increased mortality and inactivated by decreased but that was never the case.
Second, these observations were made during a large time span, 40 years, and that strengthens reliability profoundly.
Third, these effects weren't merely observed in one country but in many. And not only countries in Africa but also countries in totally different parts of the world such as India, Bangladesh and Haiti. Same pattern.
Dr Aaby's conclusions
So what's Aaby's own take on this? Well, since he's a doctor of conventional medicine (CM), he naturally applies the 'germ invasion' + 'immune defense' theory to solve this riddle. The viruses in MV and OPV are 'alive', as are the bacteria in BCG, and these for some reason do not provoke the secondary, humoral, antibody producing immune system as much as the basic, cellular one - from which they elicit a very strong response. This response consists of a boosting of the leukocytes in a way that, according to this theory, makes them better at 'guarding' the body in the future against the microbe in question.
However the wondrous thing here, is that these intact vaccine leukocytes appear to have non-specific effects (NSEs) which seem to provide protection against infections beyond the ones related to the microbes in the vaccines. Why so? Because of the observation that after giving intact vaccines, the reduction of mortality was disproportionally large.
For example, in one study, after MV administration (without any DTP following it) the mortality went down 50%, something totally unexpected since measles had stood for only 10-15% of deaths among the children. So Aaby and his collegues proposes that the intact microbes for some unknown reason provoke a 'super' qualitative and quantitative boosting of the leukocyte 'armies', bestowing them with ability to 'fight' further 'invasions' of not only the microbe administered in the shot but of many other microbes as well, thereby 'protecting' the vaccinated from all sorts of future infections (see The Non-specific and Sex-differential Effects of Vaccines).
On the other hand, in Aaby's view the bacteria and viruses in DTP, HBV and RTS,S, which are inactivated, do not provoke the cellular immune system to such a 'super' boosting at all, again for some unknown reason, but instead they dramatically weaken it, transform this system into what he calls "tolerating" of further 'germ invasions'. According to Aaby, these inactivated vaccines outright kill children, and not only sporadically but consistantly, all over the world. I personally completely agree with this latter statement of his, as do many other alternative-minded people, but of course it makes him very uncomfortable for the medical authorities and pharmaceutical companies since the inactivated vaccines are these powerholders' real gold calves, the DTP in particular. Not surprisingly, they've turned their back on him like the plague.
I predict that dr Aaby and his collegues soon are going to gain respect and influence in the medical community and that before we know it, all vaccines are going to contain intact microbes instead of inactivated. Because it's now very obvious that the theory which says that inactivating microbes before putting them into vaccines is totally ok as long as the antigens are intact is faulty. The theory states that it brings a good 'immunity' and the fact that the injected microbe 'carcasses' are unable to reproduce in the body constitutes no problems whatsoever, on the contrary! Well apparently it's not ok. At all. They're beginning to realize their mistake though, and have begun feeling the weight on their shoulders of the deaths of millions of children worldwide and they don't like it, hence the freeze-out of dr Aaby.
My own conclusions
However, I believe dr Aaby's conclusions are incorrect. After watching his lecture my thoughts wandered and suddenly I remembered that when studying for my Master's in Biomedicine at the University, a group of course mates wrote a report which really interested me. It was on the subject of so-called "oncolytic" microbes. I didn't think about it that much back then, just found the report fascinating since I knew that "oncolytic" means "tumor dissolving" and since I knew that our body's usage of tumor dissolving microbes is a core concept in GNM. I'll take that again. Our body's usage of tumor dissolving microbes is a core concept in GNM.
The concept is a part of The Fourth Biological Law: The Ontogenetic-Dependent System of the Microbes and this law explains how each different kind of microbe has developed affinity for their own very specific types of bodily tissues in living beings. Nature has a system here, there are no randomly occuring microbes. The law also explains that all microbial action has a bigger purpose to it than meets the eye. As for viruses, GNM firmly agrees with the vastly held alternative view that what CM wrongly calls viruses (vīrus is latin for poison) and deems to be parasitic beings, in truth are neither alive nor parasitic but the complete opposite. That is, they're non-living, exosome-like particles with tissue-restorative functions in our body. As for bacteria, according to same alternative view, they have solely tissue-restorative functions in our body as well, although of course they aren't dead substances but living beings. GNM firmly agrees with this also.
Anyway, since I was pretty much overloaded with both my studies and work at home at the time, I told myself to read the studies my course mates referred to more in detail later. As it turned out, that day came more than a decade later, that is, after I'd watched the Aaby video. I looked these scientific papers up and read them carefully. Then I looked related papers up and read them too (these are referenced throughout this text). And what I read completely stunned me.
After having understood that many viruses and bacteria have been profoundly scientifically proven, time and time again, to have strong oncolytic, i e tumor dissolving, properties, I found it obvious that the mortality reducing effects seen after the administration of intact vaccines are due to these shots actually containing whole "crews" of health bringing tumor scavengers! And proliferating such, at that.
What we see here is the immense power of intact viruses and bacteria in action, not the effect of a boosted immune 'defense'. The shots do boost the leukocytes, yes, but that's simply the body's natural, neutralizing response to all the poisonous substances injected, with which all vaccines are loaded. Aaby's right about the inactivated vaccines though; they're more poisonous than the intact vaccines (I'll soon go into why) and therefore pressure the cellular immune system to some kind of breakdown which dramatically weakens it. However they don't transform it into "tolerating" of further 'germ invasions' but instead they weaken the system's capacity to neutralize toxins and other disturbing agents - including helpful microbes in the body which have "wandered astray".
Back to the intact microbes entering the body via the intact vaccines. In case of the viruses, they carry instructions via nucleotides to certain waste tissues of the body to start viral reproduction, a process during which the waste cells are dissolved and discarded of, thereby radically increasing the receiver's health. And the healthier bodies are, the less life-threatening infections they develop. The injected viruses behave very similarly to how bacteria introduced to the body via intact vaccines behave; they start scavenging and multiplying with the help of our cells, although of course the former aren't alive but are simply cleansing substances. Another difference is that they're passively mass-produced by our cells and not like bacteria actively multiplying on their own initiative, provided by our cells with nutrients.
Contrary to waste tissues, healthy tissues aren't affected by this lysis since they're well vascularized and thus supplied with a fresh blood flow containing both leukocytes and complement substances which neutralize all microbes when encountering them. It's important to remember that the cells and other substances of the immune system are regulators of the microbe locations and levels, not 'warriors' that 'fight' them. Microbial scavenging is a symbiotic process which aids both parties. Our body warmly welcomes it because it heals and refreshes our tissues.
There's a theory circulating in the alternative medical world stating that that our body is unable to recognize or use viruses stemming from outside sources which enter our body. Although popular, this theory is incorrect. Our body both can, and does, recognize and use them. However this transfer, when occuring in natural situations, is definitely not like the spread of mad wildfire, as our authorities have conjured up. It just doesn't work like that, because it's the amount of tumor-, ulcer- and cell wastes inside our bodies that determines if we're going to develop any symptoms or not. Even if we've picked up a larger than normal amount of the microbe. This inter-bodily sharing of our scavenging little helpers will elicit purging symptoms in the occational receiver with enough of waste load, yes, and the popping up of these symptoms in certain areas may to mainstream people look like malicious spreading of 'attacking' germs, but it's not. It's simply helpful passing on of bodily cleansing tools.
A pause for a bomb drop here: That's right, even the famous coronaviruses are oncolytic and help cleanse people's bodies from tumor growths and cancers! See, among other papers, Tumor-selective Coronaviruses as Potential Anti-cancer Agents, Oncolytic Effect of SARS-CoV-2 in a Patient with NK Lymphoma: Spontaneous Remission in NK/T-cell Lymphoma During Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-2-Induced Remission of Hodgkin's Lymphoma. But you haven't heard that astonishing and very encouraging piece of information from the authorities anywhere, have you? Could that possibly have to do with the fact that transforming coronaviruses from "enemies" to "allies" in people's eyes would make them less inclined to cheer the development of anti-corona drugs and vaccines on, do you think?
Now this microbial waste scavenging, commonly called detox, via intact vaccines would most likely bring with it symptoms of whatever disease is related to the virus or bacteria in question. And not surprisingly, we find that intact vaccines are well-known for giving rise to the very diseases they're supposed to protect from. Especially the intact measles and polio vaccines. However, when vaccinated against a certain disease and then developing symptoms resembling those of that sickness, doctors have been known to refrain from diagnosing the person with the disease for which he's been vaccinated but to select another one. See Response to "Isabella B" and Little Known Facts About Poliomyelitis Vaccinations, Part 1 + Part 2. Furthermore, the studies Aaby talk about only take up mortality. We're not informed at all about whether the children developed any symptoms after the shots or not. I'd say many of them did. And add to that the phenomenon of symptom-free detox, there would've been a lot of such cases also.
Lastly, the amount of children that got vaccinated must've way exceeded the amount which naturally had the microbes present in their bodies. Either they hadn't received them from others or their own bodies hadn't yet had time or ability to develop such microbes - an ability the body to some extent has - or both. Hence the disproportionally positive effects from the shots. Then there's yet another dimension to this having to do with the injected microbes being of strains which were weakened, but I'll come back to that later.
Over to the children vaccinated with inactivated microbes. What happens to them? Well the microbes they're injected with, be it viruses or bacteria, can naturally not act as detoxifying agents since their functioning is destroyed. Repurposing the Yellow Fever Vaccine for Intratumoral Immunotherapy is an interesting study which confirms this:
"MC38 and B16OVA cancer cell lines were among those susceptible to 17D infection in culture (--), a clear delay in tumor progression was observed. To exert such an effect, the 17D virus had to be competent since UV‐inactivated viral particles failed to control tumor growth (--) when similarly injected."
So the children are filled with toxins from the shots and buildup of waste cells from different biological conflicts but left without functioning, scavenging microbial helpers. In addition to that, the microbial 'carcasses' they're injected with are highly disturbing substances in the body, to the point where they actually break the immune system down (primarily via cytokine and T-cell repression, see Interacting, Nonspecific, Immunological Effects of Bacille Calmette-Guérin and Tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis Inactivated Polio Vaccinations: An Explorative, Randomized Trial). This means that all taken together, the inactivated vaccines are shots of pure poison. So Aaby's right, the children receiving these vaccines are straight-out poisoned to death by the medical industry. Those who survive are lucky to have a body healthy enough to be capable of producing enough of toxin neutralizing leukocytes and appropriate amounts of scavengers of their own, I'd say.
Ok, so does this mean I'm turning all pro-intact-vaccines here, after having been a firm vaccine opponent all my life? Why certainly not! Even if they contain powerful detox tools, these liquids are still poisonous due to the adjuvants, preservatives and other noxious substances in them and give rise to numerous side effects, some of which are very, very serious. They may not kill you but can make you crippled for life. Not to mention the rarely talked about fact that every and all vaccines cause harm. It's merely the extent of the damage that's determined by the person's age, sex, health status et c, not the infliction of damage as such. Long lists of scientifically established adverse effects of vaccines have been compiled by the very pharmaceutical companies that produce these substances, and these are readiy found on each product's package insert.
Above all, repeated vaccination leads to hyperimmunoglobulinemia, i e an excess of both the diversity and levels of antibodies in the blood, which in turn leads to an array of autoimmune diseases. I warmly recommend the American MD Thomas Cowan's explanatory videos on how this vaccine-induced hyperimmunoglobulinemia is developed. See e g his lecture at Weston A Price Foundation's conference Healthy Immunity 2019.
In addition, it's important to understand that these adverse effects go beyond the body, they involve the soul as well. And this primarily in small children, where the harm starts already at the moment of the injection; according to GNM every shot given to a small child generates a shock in him which then elicits a biological conflict with symptoms of varying degrees in its wake. See Constellations: German New Medicine and Autism.
No, instead of giving toxic shots to children, we should give them "shots" of loving touch, stress-free environments, proper nutrition, clean water and clean air. That's what brings true freedom from disease, not mixes of cellular particles and toxic chemicals in syringes!
I'm pro-microbes, not pro-vaccines.
Viruses and bacteria are both oncolytic and oncogenic
There's much more to this subject, though. As a matter of fact, viruses and bacteria are both oncolytic and "oncogenic", the latter of which means "tumor constructing" (see Oncovirus and Carcinogenic Bacteria). The existence of these two microbial properties has apparently been known in the medical world for well over a century, but in spite of this, it's still practically unheard of among common people. Before having finished this article, the observant reader will have figured out why.
In fact, CM uses the oncolytic viral and bacterial property in a treatment of cancer, which is called "oncolytic therapy" (more about that below). In contrast, their oncogenic property is, of course, merely seen as detrimental and in various ways fought by the medical profession, who has no clue that tumors are biologically meaningful, productive and highly controlled cell formations.
In her excellent article The Nature of Tumors, GNM dr Caroline Markolin writes:
"The moment the related conflict is resolved, the tissue that was lost through ulceration during the active stress phase is now being refilled and replenished with new cells. Here we find, for example, tumors of the ovaries and testicles, cervical cancer, bronchial or laryngeal carcinoma, lymphoma as well as various types of sarcoma. According to conventional medical standards, these cancers are considered to be malignant growths although they are in fact healing tumors, which degrade along with the completion of the healing phase."
The really interesting thing with this passage is what dr Markolin writes lastly here, about the healing tumors degrading along with the completion of the phase. The thing is, opinions are divided among GNM teachers as for whether viruses are both oncogenic and oncolytic or merely oncogenic in nature. But it seems the ones who maintain the latter have some homework to do because according to the scientific papers I've read, viruses engage in both tumor construction and tumor degradation. First oncogenic bacteria or oncogenic viruses come to the site and construct the tumor, which often renders the ulcer overfilled. Then, later, oncolytic viruses arrive and scavange the tumor tissue redundancy. It may seem to be a somewhat cumbersome procedure but for whatever reason, that's how Nature carries it out.
A good example of this is Burkitt's lymphoma followed by measles. After the solution of a child's self-devaluation conflict involving bone marrow necrosis, healing of the bone marrow via staphylococcus bacteria occurs, which leads to creation of leukoblast tissue redundancy in the shape of a lymphoma (often virally augmented by means of Epstein-Barr, see Acute Infections as a Means of Cancer Prevention: Opposing Effects to Chronic Infections?). Later, measles viruses arrive and scavenge the redundancy, returning the tissues to normal. CM disagrees with parts of this, but it shouldn't. From Staphylococcus aureus Osteomyelitis: Bad to the Bone:
"Osteomyelitis is a bacterial infection of the bone or bone marrow for an alarming number of patients that are admitted to hospitals. Staphylococcus aureus is a prominent bacterial pathogen and the most frequent isolated causal agent of infection-induced osteomyelitis."
This is what GNM says about this, in Biological Special Programs: Bones and Joints:
"In the healing phase, the bone is reconstructed with callus produced by bone-building osteoblasts (see also tooth repair with odontoblasts). The soft, new bone substance eventually hardens into a hard callus. In standard medical practice, however, the soft callus is often mistaken for pus and subsequently removed with the effect that the holes in the bone (osteolysis) remain. (--) If available, bacteria assist the reconstruction of the bone. Staphylococcus bacteria are specialized in restoring bone tissue. This is why surgeons who operate on fractures commonly find a "staph infection" in the area not realizing that these bacteria are vital for bone healing. (--) After three to six weeks into the healing phase, the bone marrow starts to produce a large amount of leucoblasts. (--) It is the high count of leucoblasts that is diagnosed as LEUKEMIA. (--) When lymphocytic leukemia cells are found in a lymph node, this is usually diagnosed as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (--). So-called Burkitt lymphoma is, in terms of conventional medicine, a non-Hodgkin's lymphoma that arises in the B lymphocytes."
Scientific support for the above GNM statement is found in the paper Simultaneous Occurrence of Multifocal Osteomyelitis in a Child with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Rare Manifestation During the Maintenance Phase of Treatment:
"Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is the most common malignancy among children, with 25% prevalence and a cure rate of about 85%. (--) Osteomyelitis may occur as the initial manifestation or a sign of disease relapse in ALL."
Support for this is also found in the article Bone Pain As an Initial Symptom of Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Association with Nearly Normal Hematologic Indexes, which underlines the GNM observation that the osteomyelitis precedes the leukoblast proliferation:
"Group 3 patients had symptoms an average of more than 2 weeks longer before diagnosis, and had significantly lower serum uric acid and higher calcium levels than patients in the other groups had. No differences were detected among the groups in age at diagnosis, gender, or survival rate. We conclude that children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who have prominent bone pain preceding the diagnosis frequently have nearly normal hematologic values and that this feature may contribute to a delay in diagnosis."
So the healing staphylococcal osteomyelitis leads to leukoblast proliferation, which in turn leads to formation of a lymphoma. And here's where the work of the oncolytic measles viruses begin. From Measles Virus for Cancer Therapy:
"Perhaps the most compelling was the case history of an 8-year old African boy who presented to a clinic in Uganda with a four month history of painless right orbital swelling. A biopsy specimen of the right retroorbital tumor was histologically diagnostic of Burkitt's lymphoma but at the time of planned initiation of therapy, he was noted to have a generalized measles rash. On the same day, the right orbital tumor was noted to be regressing and because of the presumed measles infection, he was given no chemotherapy for the Burkitt's lymphoma. During the course of the next two weeks, his rash disappeared and he seroconverted to measles. At the same time, the tumor regressed completely and remained in complete remission for at least four months after the measles infection in the absence of antineoplastic therapy. The mechanism underlying the rapid tumor regression that was observed in this remarkable case history was never elucidated but Burkitt's lymphomas are known to express high levels of SLAM and are therefore susceptible to infection by wild-type measles viruses. (--) The timing of the regression, coinciding with the period during which measles virus burden and measles-induced immunosuppression are at their peak, supports the contention that the tumor cells were directly destroyed by the virus."
According to GNM, measles rash is the manifestation of a resolved separation conflict. That would mean that if the above occurs for a child who hasn't gone through, and solved, any separation conflict, no skin rash will appear by the work of the measles viruses, only scavenging of inner organ tumors.
It's particularly interesting to note that quite a few studies indicate that children with leukemias (including disseminated leukemia) and lymphomas of different kinds can be cured from their condition by contracting the good ol' measles infection, which CM nowadays adamantly tries to keep children away from, especially children with cancer. See e g Attenuated Measles Virus Controls Pediatric Acute B-lineage Lymphoblastic Leukemia in NOD/SCID Mice:
"Ex vivo, attenuated measles virus readily spread among and effectively killed leukemia cells while sparing normal human blood cells and their progenitors. In immunodeficient mice with disseminated acute lymphoblastic leukemia a few intravenous injections of attenuated measles virus sufficed to eradicate leukemic blasts in the hematopoietic system and to control central nervous system disease resulting in long-term survival in three of the four xenografted B-lineage leukemias."
Or this one, Repurposing CD8+ T cell Immunity Against SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Immunotherapy: A Positive Aspect of the COVID-19 Pandemic?. And this quote is quite breathtaking considering it's taken from a completely mainstream medical source:
"Full remissions from cancer following viral infections have been reported throughout the history of modern medicine, and virus-based platforms are poised to become mainstream cancer immunotherapies. For example, remissions from leukemia, Hodgkin's disease and lymphoma have been well documented after influenza, chicken pox, and measles infections."
Another example of this microbial tandem work by Nature is the restoration of an ulcer of the bladder after the solution of the territorial marking conflct which caused the ulcer. First, papilloma viruses restore the bladder's tissue loss via canceration:
"It is certainly true that the epithelia of the bladder can also be infected by HPV, especially the condyloma acuminatum, which is characteristic of HPV infection and has been reported in the bladder. (--) In conclusion, our study revealed a clear link between bladder cancer and HPV infection." (Human Papillomavirus Infection and Bladder Cancer Risk: A Meta-analysis)
Then a common cold scavenges the cell redundancy via the coxsackie viruses:
"A group of researchers conducted an early-stage clinical trial in which they infected 15 bladder cancer patients with coxsackievirus A21, which is one of the viruses that cause the common cold. Coxsackievirus is not a genetically modified virus; it's "something that occurs in nature" said senior author Hardev Pandha, a professor of medical oncology at the University of Surrey in England. (--) In one patient, the virus completely destroyed the tumor. In all of the other patients, the researchers found evidence that the virus had damaged the tumors and had spurred the immune system to send an army of immune cells to the tumors. None of the patients had any significant side effects, Pandha said." (A Common Cold Virus Wiped Away Bladder Cancer in One Patient)
Interestingly, we see here that viruses like corona and coxsackie not only scavenge upper respiratory organs from waste cells (which CM calls an 'attack' on these tissues), they dissolve certain tumoral waste cells located deeper inside the body as well. Corona takes care of e g lymphomas and coxsackie e g bladder growths. I e, getting any of these infections is worth gold, because they're nothing less than thorough, natural and free forms of cancer treatment. But no one is taught about this in school, and media never talks about it. All we ever hear is to avoid these infections. If money's at stake, CM knows to keep its lips sealed shut.
There are yet other scientific findings which confirm this microbial tandem work method by Nature, meant to first replenish ulcerated tissues with help from one type of microbe, then remove the excess with another. Here's a very telling passage, from CD150 (SLAM) Is a Receptor for Measles Virus but Is Not Involved in Viral Contact-mediated Proliferation Inhibition:
"SLAM is a glycoprotein belonging to the CD2 subset of the immunoglobulin (Ig) superfamily and is expressed on the surface of a proportion of primary B cells and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-transformed B cells, activated T cells, memory T cells, T-cell clones, and immature thymocytes."
The Epstein-Barr viruses are oncogenic, tumor building (see Oncovirus). Isn't it curious then, how Nature has seen to it that after B cells have been transformed by these viruses, a proportion of them develops SLAM receptors on their surface, which are the very receptors that oncolytic measles viruses use?
Oncolytic virotherapy and bacteriolytic therapy
Here, I'd like to get into the mentioned oncolytic microbial therapy for cancer. At the Wikipedia page where oncolytic viruses are described it’s stated, in reference to six different scientific papers:
"An oncolytic virus is a virus that preferentially infects and kills cancer cells. As the infected cancer cells are destroyed by oncolysis, they release new infectious virus particles or virions to help destroy the remaining tumour. Oncolytic viruses are thought not only to cause direct destruction of the tumour cells, but also to stimulate host anti-tumour immune system responses. The potential of viruses as anti-cancer agents was first realised in the early twentieth century, although coordinated research efforts did not begin until the 1960s. A number of viruses including adenovirus, reovirus, measles, herpes simplex, Newcastle disease virus, and vaccinia have been clinically tested as oncolytic agents." (Oncolytic Viruses)
"Oncolytic viral therapy is a new promising strategy against cancer. Oncolytic viruses (OVs) can replicate in cancer cells but not in normal cells, leading to lysis of the tumor mass. Beside this primary effect, OVs can also stimulate the immune system."
And again, from Measles Virus for Cancer Therapy:
"It could be argued on the basis of case histories such as the one described above that there would be some value to treating cancer patients with a wild-type pathogenic strain of measles. However, there are strong safety and efficacy arguments against this. From a safety perspective, measles is a serious and unpleasant illness which is highly transmissible to non-immune subjects and is sometimes fatal. Regarding efficacy, as discussed previously, most human malignancies lack receptors for wild-type measles viruses and therefore, are not even theoretically susceptible to its possible oncolytic actions. Attenuated vaccine strains of measles virus, by contrast, have far greater appeal as possible oncolytic agents for intentional administration to human cancer patients. Most of the measles vaccine strains in current use belong to the Edmonston lineage which comprises a number of closely interrelated laboratory-adapted substrains derived from a 1954 clinical isolate (from the throat of a child named David Edmonston) that has been passaged extensively in tissue culture, resulting in a loss of pathogenicity."
Which brings us to High CD46 Receptor Density Determines Preferential Killing of Tumor Cells by Oncolytic Measles Virus:
"Live attenuated Edmonston B strain of measles virus (MV-Edm) is a potent and specific oncolytic agent, but the mechanism underlying its tumor selectivity is unknown. The virus causes cytopathic effects (CPEs) of extensive syncytial formation in tumor cells but minimal damage or cell killing in normal cells."
Here, the abstract from the 1954 report on this measles virus 'isolation' is of interest, Propagation in Tissue Cultures of Cytopathogenic Agents from Patients with Measles:
"The findings just summarized support the presumption that this group of agents is composed of representatives of the viral species responsible for measles. Eight agents exhibiting the properties of viruses have been isolated in cultures of human or simian renal cells from the blood or throat washings of five cases of typical measles. Multiplication of the agents in vitro is accompanied by characteristic changes in the cells. Primarily these changes consist in the formation of syncytial giant cells wherein the chromatin assumes a marginal position and is replaced centrally by an acidophilic substance of unknown nature. The cytopathogenic effect of at least one of the agents is inhibited by convalescent phase measles sera from other patients with measles. Antigen appears during cultivation in vitro of the measles agents that reacts specifically in complement fixation tests with convalescent phase measles sera."
The reason why I get into detail about this 'isolation' part is that there's another statement circulating in the alternative medical world as well, which is that no human virus has ever been properly purified according to strict scientific standards. Well, be that as it may, perhaps it's true. Purification of human viruses is apparently very difficult, for several reasons (see Oncovirus). Nevertheless, judging from all the papers on oncolytic viruses and successful oncolytic virotherapies out there, as well as symptom induction studies spanning from the mid-1900s (such as the above) to present (like Comparative Pathogenesis of COVID-19, MERS and SARS in a Nonhuman Primate Model from 2020), it's obvious that virologists somehow have managed to 'extract' many of these viruses anyway, in intact, even if not in a pure, form. They probably haven't succeeded doing this with all human viruses but certainly with many. And not only that but they've also managed to change them into forms with a milder oncolytic function and higher selectivity for tumor tissue.
What dr Aaby and his collegues discovered in their vaccine studies adds credibility to this. Over and over again, what they observed was that vaccines containing intact viruses and bacteria without exception resulted in greatly lowered mortality among these children, while vaccines containing inactivated such without exception led to drastically increased mortality.
To oncolytic professionals and us others familiar with the fact that the types of intact vaccines Aaby administrated contained just such microbes which have been discovered to be oncolytic - such as that very Edmonston measles strain, among others - this comes as no surprise. The explanation is naturally that the intact, weakened microbes which were injected scavenged the vaccinated from waste cells in a way which was milder for these tumor-laden, malnourished developing children than the rougher wild-type measles strain which up til then had reigned the area.
A word about the gender differences. Tumor generating stresses and suboptimal food are burdens affecting girls more than boys in developing countries (see Gender Differentials in Health), thereof the stronger mortality lowering for them by intact microbes and the stronger mortality increase by inactivated. The differing immunological profiles between girls and boys that Aaby refers to merely enhanced these numbers.
Of course the vaccine strain cleaning wasn't as thoroughly carried out as with the wild-type, but it brought down the symptoms to levels easier to handle, or even made them unnoticeable, thereby avoiding potentially life-threatening post-conflictolytic stages to a greater extent.
Dr Aaby himself has unfortunately not made this connection, though. Perhaps he isn't acquainted with the phenomenon of microbial oncolysis. On the other hand, that would seem rather strange seeing as he's long been a very engaged intact vaccine promoter. Anyway, his theory is instead, as said above, that intact microbes, contrary to inactivated such, trigger the formation of a 'super power microbe defense' by the cellular immune system. I beg to differ. The explanation for his observations is spelled microbial oncolysis.
Let me repeat: MV-Edmonston, the major intact virus strain that dr Aaby and his collegues administered to children in developing countries and discovered to be so impressively mortality lowering, is the exact same MV-Edmonston virus strain as is used clinically in successful tumor dismantling in the world today, see Mechanisms of Measles Virus Oncolytic Immunotherapy. Again, MV-Edmonston is said to be a very "potent and specific oncolytic agent" (from the Cancer Research study).
The OPV was another intact virus vaccine he administered and found to be mortality lowering, and yes, polio viruses are also oncolytic and used in virotherapy. See The Practical Consideration of Poliovirus As an Oncolytic Virotherapy and Brain Infusion of Genetically Modified Poliovirus Is Used to Treat Glioblastoma.
And indeed, one of the first bacterial species reported to show anti-tumor activity was the of Aaby administered BCG, derived from M. bovis, a member of the M. tuberculosis complex, which he found dramatically mortality lowering also. And guess what? BCG is now "widely used" to treat human bladder cancer, in bacterial tumor dismantling therapy: Mycobacterium tuberculosis Culture Supernatant Induces Cancer Cell Apoptosis and Cell Cycle Arrest.
(It should be noted here that this kind of bladder cancer differs from the one mentioned above, created by oncogenic papilloma viruses, but more on that further on.)
Don't make the mistake of thinking that microbial vaccine strains are less efficient in their oncolytic capacity than the cancer therapy strains either. Here are just three examples of many which show that's not the case:
"In 1904, a woman in Italy confronted two life-threatening events: first diagnosed with cervical cancer and then bitten by a dog. Doctors applied RV-V [an intact rabies virus vaccine] for the bite and thereafter her "huge" tumor disappeared ("il tumore non esisteva più"), and the woman lived cancer-free until 1912." (Rabies Virus Vaccine As an Immune Adjuvant Against Cancers and Glioblastoma: New Studies May Ressurect a Neglected Potential)
"A 78-year-old man with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) was revaccinated for smallpox [an intact vaccinia virus vaccine]. A severe local reaction and generalized rash followed that responded to treatment with vaccinia immune human globulin. After recovery, the leukocyte count fell to normal and all evidence of CLL disappeared. He remains in complete remission three years after smallpox vaccination." (Remission of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia After Smallpox Vaccination)
"In a cohort study of 542 melanoma patients followed from 1993 to 2002, hazard ratios (HR) were determined based upon previous vaccination with vaccinia [HR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.34–0.89] or Bacille Calmette-Guérin [HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.30–1.86] or both [HR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.25–0.69]. Both vaccines consist of live attenuated pathogens. Similarly, previous case control studies by the same group demonstrated that a history of vaccination either by vaccinia or BCG was associated with a significantly reduced risk of developing melanoma." (Acute Infections as a Means of Cancer Prevention: Opposing Effects to Chronic Infections?)
Dr Aaby, what's there not to grasp here?
Let's go on. There's more to say about the mentioned tuberculosis mycobacteria and their oncolytic property. Back to GNM dr Markolin and her elucidating article The Nature of Tumors. She writes:
"Since healing can only occur after the conflict has been resolved, GNM focuses on identifying and resolving the original conflict. Above all, it is most important to create an environment free of fear and panic so that so that the healing process can be completed without the danger of new conflict shocks. During the healing phase, the entire organism undergoes a period of repair and recovery. In the case of lung cancer, the moment the death-fright conflict is resolved, for example through hope and encouragement and most of all through understanding the biological significance of the cancer, the tumor stops growing. During the healing phase the tumor is broken down by specialized microbes that have been trained over the course of evolution to do just that. In the case of lung tissue, tubercular bacteria are activated to decompose the now superfluous cells. The remnants of the tumor are coughed out, therefore the sputum contains tubercular secretion often mixed with blood. This condition is clinically called lung tuberculosis."
Now if one looks more closely at the Open Cancer Journal paper above, one notices that the whole text actually is on the subject of how promising oncolytic lung cancer therapy by means of Mycobacterium tuberculosis seems to be! From the paper:
"That mycobacteria could provide a promising way to treat human cancer, also receives support from occasional clinical observations. Some case reports about the relationship between M. tuberculosis and human cancer were published in the past few years. Interestingly, one report showed that a patient with lung cancer was completely recovered when he had tuberculosis. It is likely that M. tuberculosis could exert a direct effect on cancer cells besides its stimulation of the immune system. M. tuberculosis is known to cause characteristic pathology of necrosis and liquefaction, which we may take advantage of for lysing cancer cells. (--) In this study, we found that TB [M. tuberculosis] culture supernatant (TB-SN) had growth inhibitory effect on various human cancer cells. In addition, we showed that TB-SN could significantly inhibit cancer cell proliferation and induce apoptosis and cell cycle arrest in lung cancer cell line A549."
Frankly, I don't know if I've ever seen any stronger scientific evidence for GNM than this. These papers would be valuable for GNM teachers to study as well, since there are divided opinions among them not only regarding viral capabilities but also as for whether mycobacteria need to be present in the body before tumor generating conflicts occur or not, for the post-conflictolytic tissue scavenging to work properly. Apparently, as we can see from studies like these, it's actually not needed. Adding them after the conflict has occured works very well also.
CM should study GNM in order to avoid spending money on incorrect microbes
I'd also like to take up the fact that CM scientists' uninterest in GNM actually is a big obstacle for optimizing their own success when it comes to oncolytic therapy, though they haven't got a clue about this themselves. I'll quote a few papers on the subject to explain what I mean. From Oncolytic Viruses for Cancer Therapy: Barriers and Recent Advances, Clostridium novyi-NT in Cancer Therapy and Therapeutic Bacteria to Combat Cancer; Current Advances, Challenges and Opportunities, respectively:
"In solid tumors, there is a range of hurdles that the OV [oncovirus] must circumvent to reach the tumor site. First, physical barriers post a big challenge to delivery because viruses must get past the endothelial layer to reach the target cells. (--) OVs are more likely to be cleared by the host's immune system, and it is difficult to make sure whether sufficient numbers reach the tumor site. (--) In contrast to systemic delivery, the common route by which OVs have been delivered in preclinical or clinical trials is intratumoral delivery. However, this cannot be employed in multifocal or inaccessible tumors, such as brain tumors or pancreatic cancers."
"One problem of the systemic spore administration is the discrepancy between the need for a large injected spore dose and the relatively small fraction of spores that are delivered to tumors, thus limiting the efficacy of the therapy and potentially creating side effects."
"Nevertheless, many problems remain for using bacteria in clinical practice as antitumor agents including; bacterial toxicity, DNA instability, limited targeting efficiency, choice of practical and safe bacterial strains, and testing combination with other therapies."
As we can see here, despite great triumphs in cancer treatment thanks to the development of oncolytic therapy, there are still problems to overcome. In short, it all sums up to various difficulties in getting the microbes to reach the tumor sites and problems with keeping the body from neutralizing the microbes, often making direct intratumoral injection necessary as well as parallel treatment with chemo- or radio therapy. There's also the puzzled, in various forms recurring comment 'Oncolytic microbes are very tumor selective and we don't know why', such as in the above CTMI paper and Cancer Research paper. A comment which constitutes yet another, strong piece of evidence for the correctness of GNM, by the way.
Well these problems occur when they use viruses or bacteria which don't have a natural affinity for the tumors in question, or when they try to "force" restoring microbes onto a body in the conflict active phase. When they happen to choose the microbes which are correct for the tissues in question and manage to inject them into a body in the post-conflictolytic phase however, things go much better. The treatment goes smoothly, without any greater side effects, and the dismantling of the tumors is thoroughly carried out. Sometimes it's even enough with systemic application of the microbes, limiting the need for injection directly into the growths:
"While regressions were restricted to virus-injected lesions in most patients, pointing towards a contribution of virotherapy to clinical outcome, regression of distant lesions in some patients indicates systemic anti-tumor immune effects. (--) In summary, clinical evidence exists that oncolytic MeV [measles virus] can reach tumors even after systemic application and that viral gene expression occurs intratumorally. Importantly, MeV treatment is generally well-tolerated, causing limited side effects." (Mechanisms of Measles Virus Oncolytic Immunotherapy)
This article takes up lymphoma as the primary example of tumor type successfully treated with measles viruses. And as we've seen above with the little boy from Africa, that's one of the tumor types to which this virus really has a natural affinity. The virus was transferred to him by natural means, from another child with measles, and from thereon everything developed on its own and cleared him of his Burkitt's lymphoma. No need for intratumoral injection or addition of dangerous cytostatica.
Another example of this is the patient mentioned in the Open Cancer Journal paper who completely recovered from lung cancer after having developed tuberculosis. The mycobacteria were transferred to him naturally as well and then the scavenging evolved automatically, freeing him entirely from his tumor.
As touched upon, the use of tuberculosis mycobacteria to dismantle [endoderm-related] bladder tumors is a third, perfect example of natural compatibility. From Oncolytic Bacteria: Past, Present and Future:
"Coley's therapeutic approach has been reexamined in the light of the success of the BCG bladder instillation therapy. BCG is an attenuated strain of Mycobacterium bovis. At the present, intravesical BCG instillation is one of the best therapies for treating bladder cancer. However, despite its success, BCG is the only live bacterial therapy approved for clinical purposes against bladder cancer for almost 30 years."
Yes, this type of bacteria is just the right one to use after a solved "dirty morsel" conflict. From the GNM text in Biological Special Programs: Kidneys and Bladder:
"Starting with the DHS, during the conflict-active phase cells in the bladder trigone proliferate proportionally to the intensity of the conflict. The biological purpose of the cell increase is to improve the ability to "digest" or "absorb" the "dirty morsel". With prolonged conflict activity a flat (absorptive type) or cauliflower-shaped growth (secretory type) forms in the trigone. In conventional medicine, this is diagnosed as a bladder cancer. (–) Following the conflict resolution (CL), fungi or mycobacteria such as TB bacteria remove the cells that are no longer needed. This causes purulent tuberculous cystitis, a "bacterial bladder infection"."
To everyone even remotely educated in GNM, it's obvious that CM potentially could save huge amounts of money if they just read up on which microbes best fit which specific tissues and in which bodily phases they're best administered for optimal results, like the GNM therapists have done. That's right, GNM therapists actually administer microbes to patients as well, sometimes!
Sure, with all sorts of manipulations of the different viral and bacterial species and their genomes, and with addition of chemo- or radio therapy parallel to the oncolytic, scientists after much ado manage to get microbes to scavenge tissues which Nature didn't originally design for them to work on. But is it worth all the fuss and money? Wouldn't it be better to just listen to GNM instead? Not to mention, as I discuss in my GNM article, that liberating all cancer patients from these intensely injuring chemo- and radio therapies is desirable, and that microbes in their original, natural form are safer and more effective for the patients than lab-manipulated ones (unless the patients are overly tumor-laden and/or malnourished, in which case using somewhat weakened microbes may be wisest).
Here's a clear schematic picture with an overview of which brain- and embryonic germ layers are related to which types of microbes: The Fourth Biological Law
And here's the GNM page where it's described in greatest detail which brain- and embryonic germ layers are connected to which bodily organs or organ parts: Embryology
Contrary to vaccines, I find oncolytic microbial therapy an interesting and rather exciting treatment concept as long as it's performed the GNM way, according to GNM standards. Also, as long as preservatives and other kinds of additives in these injections are kept to an absolute minimum.
One's gain is another one's loss
I find it very strange how CM professionals still today can look at all these vast studies of oncolytic microbes and this multitude of cancers erased thanks to injections of viruses and bacteria and still not get it. Despite all the evidence right before their eyes, they don't understand that the relationship between microbes and other organisms, including us humans, is symbiotic. We're mutually beneficial to each other. It's a graceful, loving dance, or symphony, skilledly composed by Nature. Death or injury when under an infection is due to incorrect treatment of the body and/or soul before and/or during the symptoms, generating in it too much waste cells and other toxins for our healing system and microbial restoration crew to handle in a smooth way (read more about this, which primarily revolves around a skewed ROS-antioxidant ratio, in my GNM article). The fault is ours, not our helpful, scavenging microbes'!
As for viruses, it's especially odd how CM can view these as 'attacking parasites'. The idea is that these minute protein covered genomes, without any eating function, metabolism or excretion of any kind, are somehow anyway living parasitic organisms, not only with ability to move, but with ability to force themselves into cells, including healthy cells who are equipped with exquisite defense mechanisms. They're then supposed to order these comparatively gigantic cells around, force these to reproduce them, despite that nowhere in Nature does any living thing reproduce anything else than its own kind.
One wonders: How can a dead particle have any type of interest at all, let alone for breaking down or building up tissues? The answer is that they don't have any such interest, or any other interest of any kind. Viruses aren't parasitic for they have no desires, neither to inject nor to reproduce themselves. In order to call something alive, it must be endowed with some sort of intelligent intent. And viruses are completely void of that, they're simply exosome-like particles with restorative functions. To carry out these functions they're equipped with chemical and mechanical properties (such as springs) which make them move. They're simply tools that our bodies use, like washcloths, pliers and needles.
Two whole centuries have passed since the discovery of the very first oncolytic microbe - Clostridium perfringens (see Oncolytic Bacteria and Their Potential Role in Bacterium-mediated Tumour Therapy: A Conceptual Analysis) - but still CM sees bacteria and viruses as parasites, enemies 'waging war' on us, which our body is constructed to 'fight' with different 'immune defense armies'. It's stunning how incapable they are of taking a few steps back and connecting the dots, enclasping the whole, holistic picture. How very differently people can interpret the same, objective observations. Personally I, and many alternative-minded people with me, see this holistic picture so clearly. For us, Nature's purpose with this design is so totally obvious, so self-evident.
But I suppose it's true as have been said, that this way of interpreting the microbial events as an ongoing war is due to the fact that the germ theory was developed during times of war, by medical people who grew up surrounded by battles and therefore were infused with a war-waging mindset as adults. However, even if it's explainable and tragic, this mindset is dangerous because its application to the microbe-host relation is incorrect and therefore the handling of this relationship becomes incorrect as well. One thing's for sure though, we in the alternative world are no longer the only ones sick and tired of this war-waging mindset, some CM professionals have begun getting fed up with it too. From Healing Without Waging War: Beyond Military Metaphors in Medicine and HIV Cure Research:
"Military metaphors are pervasive in biomedicine (--) Rooted in the mindset that regards pathogens as enemies to be defeated, terms such as "shock and kill" have become widely accepted idioms (--) Such language and symbolism must be critically examined as they may be especially problematic when used to express scientific ideas within emerging health-related fields. (--) We found the use of these metaphors to be ironic, unfortunate and unnecessary. To overcome military metaphors we propose to: 1) give them less aggressive meanings, and/or 2) replace them with more peaceful metaphors. Building on previous authors' work, we argue for the increased use of "journey" (and related) metaphors as meaningful, cross-culturally appropriate alternatives to military metaphors."
So, at this point you probably wonder what I mean by the latter part of my article's title; that to CM, all this emerging science may well turn into a Pandora's Box? Well, the answer is really pretty simple. All this scientific evidence for the correctness of GNM which I've presented above is, as I see it, a huge step towards an official acceptance of this biomedical paradigm. In spite of the big hurdle that the medically conservative, mainstream minds constitute, an acceptance of GNM is what I see before me. When The Fourth Biological Law reluctantly but inevitably is admitted to be correct, that will start the ball rolling and one by one, the correctness of the four other GNM Laws will soon be scientifically investigated and verified also.
And what happens when the whole concept is accepted and the GNM doctors get their medical licenses back? Yes, naturally the CM doctors, scientists and pharmaceutical manufacturers who refuse to let go of the old CM view will be outcompeted on the market, perhaps it will even be their turn to lose their licenses to carry out medical work. These authorities will be deprived of their income, their power and their prestige. Not to mention that guilt loads, perhaps even prosecutions, will be placed on their shoulders due to decades of medical wrongdoings.
Because of this it's my belief that when that day comes, the scientific evidence I've presented which to us GNM followers is as warmly welcomed as a chest of treasures, will to these professionals take the shape of a rather devastating Pandora's Box. In other words, not welcome at all, and attempts will be made to disprove and/or discredit these studies. The irony is of course that the researchers who once discovered the microbial oncogenic and oncolytic properties and developed various oncolytic treatments, all were CM trained scientists themselves. And this irony happens to be the very core of the tale of the Box of Pandora:
"According to Hesiod, when Prometheus stole fire from heaven, Zeus, the king of the gods, took vengeance by presenting Pandora to Prometheus' brother Epimetheus. Pandora opened a jar left in her care containing sickness, death and many other unspecified evils which were then released into the world. Though she hastened to close the container, only one thing was left behind - usually translated as Hope, though it could also have the pessimistic meaning of "deceptive expectation". From this story has grown the idiom "to open a Pandora's box", meaning to do or start something that will cause many unforeseen problems. A modern, more colloquial equivalent is "to open a can of worms"."
The insightful dr Ryke Geerd Hamer
I'd like to round my article off with a beautiful, longer quote by dr Ryke Geerd Hamer himself, the highly insightful German oncologist who discovered German New Medicine 40 years ago. From his book Summary of The New Medicine:
"All of a sudden, our medical thinking and feeling includes every elephant, beetle, bird and dolphin; every microbe, plant and tree. Anything other than this 'cosmic thinking' in the framework of living nature is no longer tenable.
While we used to regard Mother Nature as fallible and had the audacity to believe that she constantly made mistakes and caused breakdowns (malignant, senseless, degenerative cancerous growth, et c) we can now see, as the scales fall from our eyes, that it was our ignorance, arrogance and pride that were and are the only foolishness in our cosmos. We could not understand such a 'sewn up' totality, and so brought upon ourselves this senseless, soulless and brutal medicine.
Full of wonder, we can now understand for the first time that nature is orderly (we already knew that), and every occurrence in nature is meaningful, even in the framework of the whole, and that the events we called 'diseases' are not senseless disturbances to be repaired by sorcerers' apprentices.
We can see that nothing is meaningless, malignant or diseased. Why can we not see this interplay of nature in all the inhabited cosmos as something 'godly'?"
References
Danish DOX (2019) Most of You Think We Know What Our Vaccines Are Doing - We Don't YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPNHYAevTwg
Stahel, A (2003) My Interpretation of New Medicine: A Revolutionary Biological Paradigm Anette Stahel Natural Thoughts https://anettestahel.wixsite.com/home/post/myinterpretation
Aaby, P, Stabell Benn, C, Flanagan, K L, Klein, S L, Kollmann, T R, Lynn, D J & Shann, F (2020) The Non-specific and Sex-differential Effects of Vaccines Nat Rev Immunol 20: 464–470 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-0338-x
Laker, I (2017) Excerpts from Summary of The New Medicine: The Fourth Biological Law The German New Medicine http://www.newmedicine.ca/overview.php
Würdinger, T (2006) Tumor-selective Coronaviruses as Potential Anti-cancer Agents Utrecht University Repository http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/7671
Pasin, F, Mascalchi Calveri, M, Calabrese, A, Pizzarelli, G, Bongiovanni, I, Andreoli, M, Cattaneo, C & Rignanese, G (2020) Oncolytic Effect of SARS-CoV-2 in a Patient with NK Lymphoma: Spontaneous Remission in NK/T-cell Lymphoma During Covid-19 Acta Biomed 91(3) https://www.mattioli1885journals.com/index.php/actabiomedica/article/view/10141/9053
Challenor, S & Tucker, D (2021) SARS‐CoV‐2‐Induced Remission of Hodgkin's Lymphoma Br J Haematol 192: 415-415 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjh.17116
Humphries, S (2015) Response to "Isabella B’s" "Why Dr Suzanne Humphries, an Anti-vaccine Activist, Is Lying to You About Measles" Suzanne Humphries, MD https://drsuzanne.net/2015/10/why-dr-suzanne-humphries-an-anti-vaccine-activist-is-lying-to-you-about-measles/
Schiebner, V (2009) Little Known Facts About Poliomyelitis Vaccinations, Part 1 Nexus 16(5) https://fdocuments.in/document/nexus-1605-new-times-magazine.html
Schiebner, V (2009) Little Known Facts About Poliomyelitis Vaccinations, Part 2 Nexus 16(6) https://fdocuments.in/document/nexus-1606-new-times-magazine.html
Aznar, M A, Molina, C, Teijeira, A, Rodriguez, I, Azpilikueta, A, Garasa, S, Sanchez-Paulete, A R, Cordeiro, L, Etxeberria, I, Alvarez, M, Rius-Rocabert, S, Nistal-Villan, E, Berraondo, P & Melero, I (2020) Repurposing the Yellow Fever Vaccine for Intratumoral Immunotherapy EMBO Mol Med 12(1):e10375 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6949490/
Blok, B A, de Bree, L C J, Diavatopoulos, D A, Langereis, J D, Joosten, L A B, Aaby, P, van Crevel, R, Stabell Benn, C & Netea, M G (2020) Interacting, Nonspecific, Immunological Effects of Bacille Calmette-Guérin and Tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis Inactivated Polio Vaccinations: An Explorative, Randomized Trial Clin Infect Dis 70(3): 455-463 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/70/3/455/5421296
Weston A Price Foundation (2019) Dr Thomas Cowan, MD, at Healthy Immunity 2019 YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x-QBYibY2A
Sell, M (2018) Constellations: German New Medicine and Autism Medium https://medium.com/@drmelissasell/constellations-german-new-medicine-autism-fe9a72189518
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia (2020) Oncovirus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncovirus
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia (2020) Carcinogenic Bacteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogenic_bacteria
Markolin, C (2018) The Nature of Tumors LearningGNM https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/naturetumors.html
Hoption Cann, S A, van Netten, J P & van Netten, C (2006) Acute Infections as a Means of Cancer Prevention: Opposing Effects to Chronic Infections? Cancer Detect Prev 30(1): 83-93 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361090X06000043?casa_token=U4-0-zHDnoYAAAAA:NUZ0ifCIy2aUKL8NvL4Nspis3rZiwb-2WQccYK1pu5E0f9pwPqfYVLtrhdDj39EKMGU8fgUo1w
Olson, M E & Horswill, A R (2013) Staphylococcus aureus Osteomyelitis: Bad to the Bone Cell Host Microbe 13(6): 629-631 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3732834/
Markolin, C (2020) Biological Special Programs: Bones and Joints LearningGNM https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/bones.html#Bones_PCL
Bordbar, M, Amanati, A, Shokripour, M, Kamali, K, Zareifar, S, Shahriari, M, Zekavat, O R, Moradi, M & Shakibazad, N (2018) Simultaneous Occurrence of Multifocal Osteomyelitis in a Child with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Rare Manifestation During the Maintenance Phase of Treatment Arch Pediatr Infect Dis 6(2): e13095 https://sites.kowsarpub.com/apid/articles/13095.html
Jonsson, O G, Sartain, P, Ducore, J M & Buchanan, G R (1990) Bone Pain As an Initial Symptom of Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Association with Nearly Normal Hematologic Indexes J Pediatr 117(2): 233-237 https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(05)80535-9/pdf
Russell, S J & Peng, K W (2009) Measles Virus for Cancer Therapy Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 330: 213-241 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3926122/
Lühl, N C, Zirngibl, F, Dorneburg, C, Wei, J, Dahlhaus, M, Barth, T F, Meyer, L H, Queudeville, M, Eckhoff, S, Debatin, K M & Beltinger, C (2014) Attenuated Measles Virus Controls Pediatric Acute B-lineage Lymphoblastic Leukemia in NOD/SCID Mice Haematologica 99(6): 1050-1061 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4040909/
Gujar, S, Pol, J G, Kim, Y & Kroemer, G (2020) Repurposing CD8+ T cell Immunity Against SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Immunotherapy: A Positive Aspect of the COVID-19 Pandemic? Oncoimmunology 9(1): 1794424 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7458627/
Li, N, Yang, L, Zhang, Y, Zhao, P, Zheng, T & Dai, M (2011) Human Papillomavirus Infection and Bladder Cancer Risk: A Meta-analysis J Infect Dis 204(2): 217-223 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3114469/
Saplakoglu, Y (2019) A Common Cold Virus Wiped Away Bladder Cancer in One Patient LiveScience https://www.livescience.com/65908-cold-virus-might-treat-bladder-cancer.html
Erlenhoefer, C, Wurzer, W J, Löffler, S, Schneider-Schaulies, S, ter Meulen, V & Schneider-Schaulies, J (2001) CD150 (SLAM) Is a Receptor for Measles Virus but Is Not Involved in Viral Contact-mediated Proliferation Inhibition J Virol 75(10): 4499-4505 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC114203/
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia (2020) Oncolytic Viruses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncolytic_virus
Marelli, G, Howells, A, Lemoine, N R & Wang, Y (2018) Oncolytic Viral Therapy and the Immune System: A Double-edged Sword Against Cancer Front Immunol 9: 866 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5932159/
Anderson, B D, Nakamura, T, Russell, S J & Peng, K-W (2004) High CD46 Receptor Density Determines Preferential Killing of Tumor Cells by Oncolytic Measles Virus Cancer Res 64(14): 4919-4926 https://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/64/14/4919.long
Enders, J F & Peebles, T C (1954) Propagation in Tissue Cultures of Cytopathogenic Agents from Patients with Measles Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 86(2): 277-286 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3181/00379727-86-21073?journalCode=ebma
Rockx, B, Kuiken, T, Herfst, S, Bestebroer, T, Lamers, M M, Oude Munnink, B B, de Meulder, D, van Amerongen, G, van den Brand, J, Okba, N, Schipper, D, van Run, P, Leijten, L, Sikkema, R, Verschoor, E, Verstrepen, B, Bogers, W, Langermans, J, Drosten, C, Fentener van Vlissingen, M, Fouchier, R, de Swart, R, Koopmans, M & Haagmans, B L (2020) Comparative Pathogenesis of COVID-19, MERS and SARS in a Nonhuman Primate Model Science 368(6494): 1012–1015 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32303590/
Buvinić, M, Medici, A, Fernández, E & Torres, AC (2006) Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries: Gender Differentials in Health New York: Oxford University Press https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11729/
Pidelaserra-Martí, G & Engeland, C E (2020) Mechanisms of Measles Virus Oncolytic Immunotherapy Cytokine Growth Factor Rev S1359-6101(20)30175-1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359610120301751
Denniston, E, Crewdson, H, Rucinsky N, Stegman, A, Remenar, D, Moio, K, Clark, B, Higginbotham, A, Keffer, R, Brammer, S & Horzempa, J (2016) The Practical Consideration of Poliovirus As an Oncolytic Virotherapy Am J Virol 5(1):1-7 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5304422/
Curry, W T (2019) Brain Infusion of Genetically Modified Poliovirus Is Used to Treat Glioblastoma Massachusetts General Hospital https://advances.massgeneral.org/neuro/article.aspx?id=1107
Ma, C, Zhou, J, Yin, X, Jie, C, Xing, D, Du, L & Zhang, Y (2008) Mycobacterium tuberculosis Culture Supernatant Induces Cancer Cell Apoptosis and Cell Cycle Arrest Open Cancer J 2: 31–41 https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCJ/TOCJ-2-31.pdf
Altinoz, M A, Guloksuz, S and Elmaci, I (2017) Rabies Virus Vaccine As an Immune Adjuvant Against Cancers and Glioblastoma: New Studies May Resurrect a Neglected Potential Clin Transl Oncol 19(7): 785-792 https://www.ilhanelmaci.com.tr/uploads/dosyalar/articles/Kuduz-Asisi.pdf
Hansen, R M & Libnoch, J A (1978) Remission of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia After Smallpox Vaccination Arch Intern Med 138(7):1137-8 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/666477/
Zheng, M, Huang, J, Tong, A & Yang, H (2019) Oncolytic Viruses for Cancer Therapy: Barriers and Recent Advances Mol Ther Oncolytics 15: 234-247 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6911943/
Staedtke, V, Roberts, N J, Bai, R Y & Zhou, S (2016) Clostridium novyi-NT in cancer therapy Genes Dis 3(2): 144-152 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352304216000064
Sedighi, M, Zahedi Bialvaei, A, Hamblin, M R, Ohadi, E, Asadi, A, Halajzadeh, M, Lohrasbi, V, Mohammadzadeh, N, Amiriani, T, Krutova, M, Amini, A & Kouhsari, E (2019) Therapeutic Bacteria to Combat Cancer; Current Advances, Challenges and Opportunities Cancer Med 8(6): 3167-3181 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6558487/
Rius-Rocabert, S, Llinares Pinel, F, Pozuelo, M J, García, A & Nistal-Villan, E (2019) Oncolytic Bacteria: Past, Present and Future FEMS Microbiol Lett 366(12): fnz136 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333949605_Oncolytic_bacteria_past_present_and_future
Markolin, C (2020) Biological Special Programs: Kidneys and Bladder LearningGNM https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/kidneys.html#Bladder_Trigone_Top
Laker, I (2001) Diagram 3 The German New Medicine http://www.newmedicine.ca/images/diagram3.gif
Markolin, C (2020) Embryology LearningGNM https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/embryonic_development.html
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia (2020) Reactive Oxygen Species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species
Wang, Y, Guo, W, Wu, X, Zhang, Y, Mannion, C, Brouchkov, A, Man, Y-G & Chen, T (2019) Oncolytic Bacteria and Their Potential Role in Bacterium-mediated Tumour Therapy: A Conceptual Analysis J Cancer 10(19): 4442-4454 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6746139/
Nie, J B, Gilbertson, A, de Roubaix, M, Staunton, C, van Niekerk, A, Tucker, J D & Rennie, S (2016) Healing Without Waging War: Beyond Military Metaphors in Medicine and HIV Cure Research Am J Bioeth 16(10): 3-11 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5064845/
Markolin, C (2020) The Five Biological Laws of The New Medicine LearningGNM https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/five_laws.html#Five_Biological_Laws
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia (2020) Pandora's Box https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora%27s_box
Hamer, R G (2000) Summary of The New Medicine Spain: Amici di Dirk http://www.newmedicine.ca/excerpt.php
This article was written in August 2020 and has since been updated.