Life Enthusiast Co-op | 1-866-543-3388 | 775-299-4661

http://life-enthusiast.com/index/Education/Antibiotics/OShea:_Germ_Theory
Back

The Post-Antibiotic Age: Germ Theory

by Tim O'Shea See our full line of Probiotic supplements When once you interfere with the order of nature, there is no knowing where the results will end. - Herbert Spencer It was great while it lasted: the age of antibiotics. Sure came and went in a hurry, though, didn't it? Left me with a few questions: How did antibiotics run their course already in just 50 years? How did we get so sick? Where does all the money go? Why aren't we making any progress? What's going to happen now? These are the questions for which you can almost never get a straight answer. Unless you look beyond Newsweek, beyond the San Francisco Chronicle, beyond 20/20, or Ted Turner, beyond the media which year by year seem to cater to an ever-dwindling level of literacy and awareness... Questions like these involve some famous people: Pasteur, Bechamp, Koch, Bernard, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Fleming, all of whom we'll mention. But before we launch off into all that, let's turn back the clock for a moment and go back to 1350 A.D. Place: the European continent. In less than two years' time, the bubonic plague wiped out half the population of Europe. Fleas bit rats and then bit man, but no one knew it. An estimated 25 million people died. Some individual cities had a mortality as high as 90%. Bodies were piled into carts and dragged away to be burned in common graves. It was a most grotesque way to die: bleeding and screaming and having one's organs liquefy. From infection to death took perhaps one week. Prior to that outbreak, bubonic plague had been absent for nearly 1000 years. Scholars of the day attributed the cause of the plague to evil spirits, divine retribution, etc. All this time, even up to the present, other scientists have been asking the question: why did some die and some survive? What made the difference? Today we know the answer. Go forward now a few centuries to France in the 1870s. Three scientists were conducting experiments in the area of chemistry, particularly having to do with fermentation, yeast, and the new discovery of little organisms called bacteria. All were involved in similar research but there was much competition and "borrowing" of discoveries, always with the undercurrent of politics and influence, as usual. The men were Louis Pasteur, Antoine Bechamp, and Robert Koch, a German. These individuals were not colleagues, but worked independently. Each one knew that he was onto a whole new area of human discovery, and the race was on to influence the medical world. It was Pasteur who won the race of politics and influence. Today students memorize that Louis Pasteur "discovered" the Germ Theory. Not only is this not accurate, and not only is the Germ Theory itself unsubstantiated even today, but Pasteur himself in one of the most quoted deathbed statements perhaps of all time, recanted the Theory and admitted that his rivals had been right, and that it was not the germ that caused the disease, but rather the environment in which the germ was found: "Bernard acail raison; le terrain c'est tout, le germe c'est rien."

The Germ Theory

What exactly was this Germ Theory? Very simply, the Germ Theory stated that there were separate diseases and that each disease was caused by a particular micro-organism. It was the job of science, then, to find the right drug or vaccine that would selectively kill off the offending bug without killing the patient. That would be great, but nature rarely is so black and white about things, ever notice that? For one thing, bacteria and viruses tend to be "environment-specific." That's why some people get colds and others don't. That's why some survived the Bubonic Plague. That's also why some doctors and nurses seem to be immune to disease even though they're surrounded by it every day. Deepak Chopra tells us of a study in which the influenza virus was isolated and implanted directly onto the mucous membranes of a group of subjects, with only 12% of them getting the flu. (Quantum Healing)

The Germ Theory has as many holes as a Swiss cheese, and it is likely that Pasteur knew it. But a little research shows us that Pasteur had a gift for PR. He rarely let his research keep him away from an opportunity to address royalty or medical society in the most prestigious university settings. He was quoted and published and offered practically every honorary title and chair in Europe. The records however not only cast suspicion, but seem to establish fairly clearly that Pasteur "borrowed" the research for some of his most famous discoveries, and then capitalized on the celebrity of being there first.

What's The Big Secret?

Before he died, Pasteur instructed his family not to release some 10,000 pages of lab notes after his death. Not until 1975, after the death of his grandson, were these "secret" notes finally made public. An historian from Princeton, Professor Geison made a thorough study of the lab notes. He presented his findings in an address to The American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston in 1993. Dr. Geison's conclusions: Pasteur published much fraudulent data and was guilty of many counts of "scientific misconduct," violating rules of medicine, science, and ethics. Like Koch, Pasteur was very motivated by money. In the race for a vaccine for anthrax, for example, not only did Pasteur not test it on animals before using humans; it was also established that Pasteur actually stole the formula from a colleague named Toussaint. Unable to prove his claim at the time, Toussaint died a few months later of a nervous breakdown. (Hume)

Hume
There was a book published in 1932 that is still in print today: Bechamp or Pasteur? This book was written by E. Douglas Hume, who it turns out was actually a woman who had to disguise her name as male to get the book published. Hume chronicles a contemporary of Pasteur, Antoine Bechamp, the most respected researcher and teacher in France at the time, department head at the University at Lille. Bechamp was too busy to be bothered with conventions and awards and politics. He was a professor and a researcher, and that took every moment of his time until his death at 93. It was Bechamp's view that it was not the bug that caused disease, but rather the condition in which bugs lived. Disease happens when an imbalance causes some of the more pathological that is, bad, bacteria to take over. What causes that? Low resistance, weak immune system. Seems like such a simple idea, but that is really the foundation of the whole controversy all along. In the end, everyone, even Pasteur, agreed that bugs - bacteria and viruses - do not alone cause disease. A little research uncovers the following amazing possibilities about Pasteur, which the reader is encouraged to further investigate: Pasteur had no training or credentials in either medicine or physiology; he was a chemist Pasteur very likely created the disease known as "hydrophobia," rather than found a cure for it. Pasteur initiated the practice of vivisection with horrific animal experiments. Hundreds of thousands of laboratory animals have been needlessly killed by atrocious experiments in the name of "science," not only at Pasteurian Institutes, but pervasively throughout the entire empire of medical research laboratories worldwide, even to the present time. Rather than protect the human race from disease, Pasteur was directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people who were inoculated with unproven vaccines and injections, and indirectly for thousands more in whom disease was introduced by the administration of unproven Pasteurian procedures. Pasteur may be seen more as a merchant than a scientist, with his frequent reporting of false test findings and data, which had two designs: self-promotion and profiteering from the sale of drugs and vaccines that were often made mandatory by legislators. Pasteurian treatment for a disease he did not even have actually killed Alexander, the King of Greece. Pasteur did not work on naturally diseased subjects, but instead introduced the idea of inducing sickness by giving morbid (diseased) injections into healthy subjects. As far as his Germ Theory goes, there was much opposition to it among many researchers of his own time. In a lecture given in London on 25 May 1911, M.L. Leverson, MD stated: "The entire fabric of the germ theory of disease rests upon assumptions which not only have not been proved, but which are incapable of proof, and many of them can be proved to be the reverse of truth. The basic one of these unproven assumptions, wholly due to Pasteur, is the hypothesis that all the so-called infectious and contagious disorders are caused by germs." Also from the top medical journal Lancet, 29 Mar 1909, we find: "Koch's Postulates are rarely, if ever, complied with." The discoverer of the cell theory, Rudolf Virchow, with respect to the Germ Theory, commented simply: "Germs seek their natural habitat - diseased tissue - rather than being the cause of diseased tissue." - Bieler, p 40 Virchow felt that the presence of germs identified the tissue as diseased, but was not the cause of disease. A weakened or diseased tissue may be a target area for micro-organisms, a hospitable environment in which they can set up shop. But that's

quite different from germs having caused the weakened state. The same idea was graphically shown to Bechamp one day when an amputated arm was brought into his laboratory. As a result of a violent blow to a patient's elbow, gangrene had set in within eight hours, and amputation was the only option. Bechamp immediately began to examine the severed limb using the microscope. To his amazement he found no bacteria in the gangrenous limb. After a few hours bacteria began to appear, but initially there were none. Bechamp's associate, Professor Estor, thereupon remarked "Bacteria cannot be the cause of gangrene; they are the effects of it." (Hume p 134)

Postulate This
Robert Koch was racing Pasteur to find the cause of a disease called anthrax, from which great numbers of cattle in Europe were dying. Taking blood from the diseased cattle and isolating bacteria from it, Koch then injected mice with the bacteria. When the mice died, Koch then cultured blood from them and compared it to the original bacteria form the cattle. He developed procedures and his Postulates are still memorized by medical students the world over as the foundation of the Germ Theory: 1. the organism must be present in every case 2. must be isolated 3. must cause the disease in a healthy host 4. must be isolated again Each postulate has been disproven, then and now, but that has not cheated them of their place as basic tenets in the Germ Theory religion. Both Koch's and Pasteur's vaccines for anthrax were colossal failures, with thousands of sheep killed all over Europe as part of the "experiment," especially in Italy and Germany. It is also interesting to note that both Koch and Pasteur did everything possible to alter and cover up the results of these failures. (Hume)

Oops!
Koch made the first vaccine for tuberculosis, employing these same Postulates. He called the vaccine tuberculin. In Berlin alone, 2000 patients were inoculated with tuberculin. Unfortunately they died at a higher rate than TB patients who hadn't been treated at all. Tuberculin simply did not work. More distressing for Koch was the admission by the Prussian government that they'd made an exclusive agreement with Koch to sell the remedy and divide the profits. Not only was this a political disaster for the Prussian government and for Koch himself, but it was an embarrassment for the cause of scientific medicine when all the prestige of the scientific method suddenly suffered this blow. Koch never recovered his credibility and is remembered today only for his "Postulates." But Koch helped set the stage for the marriage of science and marketing, for which divorce does not appear likely any time soon, especially at present. At the turn of the century, tuberculosis was the leading cause of death in America. (Garrett)

Another Theory
Antoine Bechamp, from whose research Pasteur plagiarized whatever he thought was useful, came up with an interesting point of view that has never been refuted. Bechamp discovered tiny organisms he called "microzymas" which are present in all things animal, vegetable, and mineral, whether living or dead. Depending upon the condition of the host, these microzymas could assume various forms. Bad bacteria and viruses were simply the forms assumed by the microzymas when there was a condition of disease. In a diseased body, the microzymas became pathological bacteria and viruses. In a healthy body, microzymas formed healthy cells. When a plant or animal died, the microzymas lived on. To this day, the whole theory of microzymas has never been disproved. Later researchers like Naessens and Enderlein followed the same line of reasoning and developed their own systems of how these microzymas operate. Although their ideas were never proven false by opposing research, they were generally persecuted by mainstream medicine, which makes sense. Because without an enemy that can be identified and killed, what good is it to develop weapons? And developing weapons, that is, drugs, has been the agenda of the industry set up by Carnegie and Rockefeller even down to the present day, as we shall see. New drugs mean new research funding and government money and the need for prescriptions and for an entire profession to write those prescriptions.

Pasteur Won
How did Pasteur's ideas become the foundation of organized medicine? Politics. Pharmaceutical economics. Early in his career, Pasteur was decorated by the Emperor Napoleon. His position as a scientist was thereby secured, even though he was only a chemist and had no credentials at all in medicine or physiology. Scientists in both France and Germany at that time were grappling with mankind's first look at fundamental questions about the nature of living matter itself: what makes something alive or dead?

where does that force come from? why do things rot, ferment, or decompose? is there something in the air, or something inside the organism that has these effects? what effects can manmade chemicals have? For the first time in history, things were coming into focus. Discoveries were being made about fundamental issues, but in a piecemeal fashion. It was perfect timing for an opportunist to take advantage of the general uncertainty and lack of understanding and to claim that he understood all the issues involved, and furthermore had thought of them first. Pasteur was noted for his habit of playing both sides of the fence on issues he didn't understand, and then later, to quote the parts of his earlier writing that supported the later finding, always with the claim that he had been there first. Only the scientists understood the complexities of these emerging ideas. The royal court and the press just knew that something was going on, and though they didn't know what, were going to act as though they did. And for them, a chameleon like Pasteur was the perfect frontman. Politics never changes. The same type of thinking that imprisoned Galileo long ago for discovering that the earth went around the sun, the rulers' eternal attempt to control the minds of their subjects, these are the forces that cast Pasteur, an ambitious opportunist, into a position he may not have deserved - the supposed Trailblazer in the science of modern biomedicine. Funny how things often don't really get "discovered" until the commercial aspects of that discovery have been worked out. Howard Hencke, in his 1995 book The Germ Theory: A Deliberate Aberration, notes that it was critical for the new medical industry. "... to indoctrinate the public in the Western world with the belief that the salvation from all, especially physical ailments, lay outside the individual's system and responsibility, because it was caused by external factors...and that chemical remedies (drugs) will keep him free from disease, independent of his own vigilant responsibility." We're talking about marketing here, yes? The author of the long-suppressed work Pasteur or Bechamp? states: "Had it not been for the mass selling of vaccines, Pasteur's germ theory of disease would have collapsed into obscurity." - E. Douglas Hume Some 17 years before Pasteur, the most famous nurse in history, Florence Nightengale, put it like this: "Diseases are not individuals arranged in classes like cats and dogs, but conditions growing out of one another. The specific disease is the grand refuge of the weak, uncultured, unstable minds, such as now rule in the medical profession. There are no specific diseases; there are specific disease conditions." F.N. 1860 Sound familiar?

A Few Snags
Actually it was more than a few, as even the most cursory investigation into vaccination demonstrates. From the beginning, the whole idea of piercing the skin with a needle for any reason was suspect, let alone introducing new proteins and agents into what was supposed to be an inviolable environment: the circulatory system. Injections are a total violation of nature. Normally nothing is introduced into the bloodstream without going through the laboratory of the entire digestive system. That is how nature protects the blood from external intrusions. Here are just a few of the hundreds of researchers opposing inoculation: "The most serious disorders may be provoked by the injection of living organisms into the blood...into a medium not intended for them may provoke redoubtable manifestations of the gravest morbid phenomena." - Bechamp A medical doctor reporting from the battlefields of South Africa during the Boer War in the early part of this century, Walter Hadwen, MD, in his book Microbes and War notes that the war itself killed 86,000 men. With a 100% inoculation rate, there were an additional 96,000 casualties from disease alone! In 1915, another medical doctor wrote an article for the top British medical journal Lancet. Dr. Montais studied 21 cases of tetanus, each of whom had received Pasteurian inoculation. The conclusion of the article, which appeared in the 23 Oct 1915 issue, was that in every case, the tetanus had been caused by the inoculation. Dr. Montais said that "Pasteur had created a new form of disease." We should understand that it was Pasteur who began the fashion of studying artificial disease conditions: "inducing sickness by morbid injections in human and animal subjects, instead of studying naturally diseased subjects."

Pasteur began the practice of vivisection and horrific animal experiments, which has never been proven to have any value. Why not? In the natural state, animals simply have different diseases from humans. This one error has led us down a costly and finally fruitless path. How can we hope to cure human disease by giving animals diseases they would never have gotten in nature, then pretending that such diseases are the same ones we get, and then seeing which drugs cover up the animal's symptoms? The we illogically conclude that those same drugs will have the same effect in humans! Idiotic as that sounds, this may be a pretty fair description of how many prescription drugs have found their way to market during the past century. Without going on for pages and pages with data that substantiate the above ideas, suffice it to say that Pasteurian methods may not have been quite the success we have always been taught that they were. The reader is referred to the chapter on Vaccinations, and to Hans Ruesch's Naked Empress. So with most of the major researchers eventually coming around to the same conclusion, how is it that on the threshold of the 21st century, organized medicine in this country still acts as though the Germ Theory is carved in stone and all policy proceeds from this premise? And most people still believe it? The answer to that is out there too, and can be gotten to with just a little more patience. Roll forward now to the 1880s and 1890s. The Industrial Revolution, the age of coal, of oil, of electricity, of machines, of railroads and automobiles. Two figures towered over this era, wielding more power over science, industry, finance, and politics than possibly anyone else in history. Of course we're now speaking of Andrew Carnegie and J.D. Rockefeller. The control of Carnegie and Rockefeller over most aspects of American life is something to marvel at and appreciate, even extending to the present day. Change was taking place faster than the politicians could control it, and for once in our history, control was in the private sector. Without going into a long political harangue, I just want to touch on one aspect of the way that power was expressed - the rise of organized medicine. Before 1880, most medicine consisted of folk remedies, basic herbs, and crude surgery and dentistry. For centuries, there had not been much radical change in the area of medicine. Superstition was as much a part of medicine as the actual remedies themselves. The use of leeches and bleeding was still common, the reason being to "let out the bad blood,'" which was in the same category with getting rid of evil spirits. Even drilling holes in the skull - the art of trephination - which had been around since the time of the Pharaohs, was still done. In Renaissance Europe, barbers and surgeons actually were the same profession, combining the services of shaving, pulling teeth and blood-letting. The origin of the red and white striped barber-pole is well-known: an enterprising barber/surgeon, having just bled a famous nobleman, proudly displayed a bloody white towel used in the procedure by wrapping it around a pole outside his establishment. In the 1700s, King Edward IV of England instituted a corporation of "barber-chirurgiens" who performed the above services. Not until 1800 did King George II separate barbers and surgeons into two separate professions. Among many other things, Carnegie and Rockefeller controlled the oil and coal industries. By 1900, they became aware that these industries were producing mountains of waste year by year. An original idea was presented: what if these chemical waste materials could somehow be turned to profit? Capital idea, but how? Medicines, that's how. But medicines like the world has never seen. Medicines made from chemicals. Pharmaceuticals.

The Creation of Credibility

Brilliant idea. But how could the people be made to accept such a strange notion? That was the problem. They just took natural cures and occasionally consulted the country or local doctor for something "serious." The way to gain general acceptance of the new medicines soon became obvious: standardize the education, training, and credentialling of medical doctors and raise their economic status to a level where they would follow policy. And the policy would come from above. About 1904 Andrew Carnegie noticed that the workers in his factories actually made more money than most medical doctors. Consulting with the president of MIT, Henry Pritchett, they set up the Carnegie Foundation with $10 million. Its original purpose was to provide a pension fund for retiring professors. But soon a new application emerged: control of education. The name was changed to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, and Pritchett expanded its original purpose, now calling it " a great agency devoted to strengthening American education through scientific inquiry and policy studies." Any time billionaires tell you they're going to devote themselves to something for you, that's usually the time to check your wallet. Ever notice that? The Foundation became immensely successful. Control of educational standards came about in this way: in order to qualify for the new pension system, a participating institution had to meet standards set by the Foundation. In the first year, only 52 of the 421 colleges who applied were accepted. The Foundation soon took on a life of its own.

Abraham Flexner

a nonphysician teacher, was hired by the Carnegie Foundation to travel throughout the country and "observe" medical education. His landmark study, known as the Flexner Report, was published in 1910. Upon his recommendations, the Foundation branched out from being merely a pension plan for professors to an entirely new area: research funding. Schools which met Flexner's, i.e., the Foundation's, standards were awarded research funds and endowments. Those who did not got nothing. In this way the giants of industry came to dictate the type of medical care that would flourish in America. Traditional, natural methods of healing were passed over, in favor of the more "scientific" approach, which coincidentally meant those schools with the likelihood of disseminating the products of the newborn pharmaceutical industry. The big universities in the medical hierarchy that rule today were aligned with the Carnegie Foundation at that time: Case Western Reserve Johns Hopkins Carnegie Institute of Chicago University of Chicago Harvard School of Medicine University of North Carolina Not to be outdone by the Carnegie Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation also came into ascendancy at this time. Again employing the direction of Abraham Flexner, the Rockefeller Foundation developed national standards for medical schools that were seeking "philanthropic" support. Good word. In 1904 there were 5747 medical doctors. Only 15 years later, after the Flexner Report, by 1919, there were only 2658. In that same 15 year period, the number of medical schools went from 162 to 81. (Lisa p 26) The cut had been made - Rockefeller was screening who was going to play ball from who wasn't. Schools had to be connected to a large university. Universities had to be linked with clinical departments with laboratories and a university hospital. Using Rockefeller Funds, Flexner was able to develop a small group of elite medical schools that were clinically oriented. They already had the raw materials for the new drugs. What was lacking was an academic power-base to legitimize their development and general use. The infrastructure for education, funding, research and the organization of medicine that persists today was created in a few short years. Ever wonder how simple folk medicine which had been around for centuries was chucked out the window so fast? Set up under the guidance and specifications of two of the biggest economic forces in history, Carnegie and Rockefeller, organized medicine became an industry, with its focus on market growth. An industry concerned with disease is not about to abolish itself by curing the diseased, now is it? This is why all these years, effective inexpensive non-pharmaceutical remedies have been systematically suppressed. It's just good business. Against this backdrop, the flailing Germ Theory was revived and trotted back out for a SECOND RUN The fact that it had been repudiated by its founder and most of his contemporaries was no longer mentioned in circles who expected next year's funding. The Germ Theory fit well with the new market-oriented paradigm of medicine: if bad bugs are out there causing diseases, we better find drugs to kill them. It was a natural, a marriage of expediency, like Bill and Hillary. Up into the 1920s, the burgeoning medical industry was gaining strength. It was aided by the declining incidence of infectious diseases due to improved sanitation, for which medicine took credit. That is an entire story in itself, and a good starting point would be The Sanctity of Human Blood. The politics of medicine was becoming stronger year by year, as new institutions were built and funding was doled out for those research projects that had the best potential for future market value. The worldwide flu epidemic of 1918 that killed millions proved that the new "scientific" approach had a lot to learn about disease prevention. There was simply no cure, as the virus tore through the world's population. The still-unproven Germ Theory came to be accepted as policy largely because any opposition to it had little chance of getting published. A small group of scientists, however, aware that the work of Bechamp was a much more reasonable view of physical reality, continued to develop research in a direction other than germs as the cause of disease. "Science" was off and running, the thoroughbred of the new drug market, but the scientific method had been left in the dust. The Germ Theory was enshrined as the underlying dogma of the new Religion. J.H. Tilden, MD, among others, was not going to church services, apparently: "...doctors fight the imaginary foe without ceasing. The people are so saturated with the idea that disease must be fought to a finish that they are not satisfied with conservative treatment. Something must be done, even if they pay for it with their lives, as tens of thousands do every year. This willingness to die on the altar of medical superstition is one very great reason why no real improvement is made in fundamental medical science." - Toxemia Explained 1926 1926? Sounds like 2001. More deja vu.

Penicillin
In 1928, however, the Germ Theory got a power boost that has lasted almost to the present day. Dr. Alexander Fleming, a British scientist, accidentally discovered that his cultures were being destroyed by a certain mold. For the next 14 years, scientists in England and America were successful in isolating and testing penicillin, in secret. However, in 1942 a fire at The Cocoanut Grove,

Boston's oldest nightclub, killed and injured hundreds of people. Penicillin was rushed to Boston in time to prevent infection from burns in hundreds of patients. The news exploded, and the race to mass-produce penicillin, the Wonder Drug, was on. By 1944, all American military requirements for penicillin could be met. Merck to the rescue. This one event, the discovery of penicillin, did more to bring credibility to organized medicine than probably anything else in its history. To be able to prevent infection was certainly a miraculous and wonderful power. Thousands and thousands of people had died from infection down through the ages. Finally here was proof positive of the correctness of the Germ Theory: these patients had died from bad bacteria, and now if only the bacteria were killed with penicillin, the patients would live. Once again, nature was to show that she does not deal in black and white. In fact,

Mother Nature Always Bats Last

In his early research to formulate penicillin, Sir Alexander Fleming knew very well about the way living things could change or adapt when stressful substances were added. He knew, perhaps better than anyone, the dangers of resistance from overuse of penicillin, and warned against that overuse from the very beginning, as expressed in an interview Fleming gave to the New York Times in 1945: " The greatest possibility of evil in self-medication is the use of too-small doses, so that instead of clearing up infection the microbes are educated to resist penicillin..." Think of it this way: the oldest living things on earth are bacteria and viruses. They have been around for billions of years. They have persisted through myriads of changeful environments - hot, cold, wet, dry, with oxygen, without oxygen, earthquakes, volcanoes, glaciers - you name it. They're still around. Thousands of species of plants and animals have come and gone because they couldn't adapt. So it's pretty safe to say that on this planet, the masters of adapting are bacteria and viruses. Now suddenly in the 1940s, we introduce a new substance into the human population: penicillin, a substance which kills all bacteria. Do you think bacteria might have run into some other stresses in the past 10 billion years? Probably have. How did they survive? They changed - doctors say 'mutated.' The ones that mutated survived; the rest died. Even from the very beginning of the Antibiotic Age in the 1940s, doctors noticed the signs of MUTATION Exposed to antibiotics, if bacteria can change and survive, they are said to be drug-resistant. Superbugs. Since the 1940s, many antibiotics have been developed until today there are about 160 types. The problem is that most are just slightly different versions of a few main types. And resistance to those main types has increased year by year. Drug resistance is today one of the leading causes of deaths in the U.S.: More than 70 thousand patients die each year from it, according to the National Institutes of Health.(Garrett) These patients acquired the infection while they were in a hospital being treated for something else, according to the May 1997 documentary The Coming Plague. No known antibiotics can help these patients, and they die. Increased mortality from infectious disease is on everyone's mind. A 1992 study by the CDC's Institute of Medicine showed that mortality from infectious disease has risen 22% worldwide from 1980-1992. (Slavkin, p108) Here's a good example of drug resistance: in 1946, about 88% of Staphylococcus infections could be cured by penicillin. By 1950, only 61% of staph infections could be killed by penicillin In 1982, fewer than 10% of staph cases could be cured by penicillin. Today it is less than 5%.

The Plague Makers

In the 1960s, doctors switched the resistant staph patients to another antibiotic called methecillin. That worked for awhile, but not for long. By 1992, at least 40% of these staphylococcus infections were resistant to methecillin, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, 28 Apr 94. By 1993, only one sure fire Staphylococcus killer remained: Vancomycin was the big gun. However today that is no longer true. Today there are many strains of staphylococcus that are resistant to vancomycin. That means also resistant to penicillin and to methecillin. What's left? Nothing. Out of drugs. Let's talk strep. Many of the resistant Streptococcus infections have made headlines in the past few years if the patients die a particularly gruesome death. Examples of this are stories of the "flesh-eating disease" which appear from time to time in the news. This is a strain of Group A streptococcus that is resistant to all antibiotics and can attack flesh, muscles, and organs. Now we all

know that newspapers are generally not reliable sources of information because they tend to twist facts and over dramatize things and create crises in order to sell more papers. So things have not yet reached the state of affairs that we saw in the movie "Outbreak" with Dustin Hoffman. But many credible medical authorities have been quoted as saying that it's no longer a question of if a scenario like the Ebola epidemic portrayed in that movie could happen. Rather it's a question of when. Today 30% of Strep pneumoniae are resistant to penicillin, once the drug of choice with almost 100% results. Today 30% of gonorrhea cases are resistant to both penicillin and tetracycline, which ten years ago was almost 100% effective. The CDC no longer recommends these two drugs for gonorrhea. Fred Tenover, PhD of the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta has said: "We even have some strains [of streptococcus] now, although not all, that are resistant essentially to all of our clinically useful antibiotics."

The Superbugs
How serious is this problem of resistant bacteria? I guess death is a fairly serious outcome: 70,000 Americans are dying annually from bacterial infections they caught in the hospital, which no antibiotics could cure. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, Apr 94, of the 40 million patients hospitalized every year,2 million acquire infections after they get to the hospital. That's a one in 20 chance. As many as 60% of those 2 million infections involve antibiotic-resistant bacteria. In some ICUs, there can be as high as a 70% chance of nosocomial infection! Nosocomial means acquired IN the hospital.

Tuberculosis
Let's look at TB for a moment. At the turn of the century, tuberculosis was the leading cause of death in the U.S. Then drugs were found that controlled TB for several decades. Recently however, there is no more control, because of the increase in the amount of what doctors call MDR TB. That stands for multiple drug-resistant TB. When the immune system becomes suppressed, by junk food, prescription drugs, bad lifestyle, etc., mutant strains of TB are encouraged. That means resistant to one or more of the 5 drugs used to treat TB. The two main TB drugs are isoniazid and rifampin. In New York City by 1991, 42% of new TB patients were resistant to one drug, and 60% of relapses were resistant to them both. (Garrett, p521) Many strains of TB are resistant to all 5 drugs and that percentage is growing steadily. Such cases are generally fatal, according to the World Health Organization. The WHO is predicting that in the next decade, world deaths from TB will increase from 3 million to 30 million! (Slavkin, p 111) Doctors have actually gone on record saying that they personally would not venture into certain inner city areas of New York City for any amount of money because of the danger of TB infection. (Lindsay Williams) TB is a mycobacterium. Mycobacteria can survive in tissues for years, in a latent state, waiting for an opportunity such as a depressed immune system to become active and multiply. So what are most doctors doing about this situation of antibiotic resistance? They are in a very tough position, that is certain. Because of the control of information, most of the population today is unaware of the extent of drug resistance in this country. Even if they encounter a doctor who is cautious enough to tell them that perhaps they or their child do not need an antibiotic at the first sniffle, patients will often go to another doctor to get the antibiotic. So usually the physician will just come across: some recent studies have shown 10 out of 10 doctors will simply prescribe an antibiotic for minor colds, with no culture. It is astounding to learn that the average child of nine in this country has already had 17 runs of antibiotics in his lifetime! Why is that a problem? The word is attenuation. Attenuation means that the bacteria weren't killed; only half-killed. There are two reasons why this may have happened: 1. Most people stop taking the antibiotic as soon as they feel better. Isn't that true? They think they're fine, but what they just did was allow some bacteria to survive in a mutated form which is now resistant to the antibiotic they just took. Which means that next time the drug won't work 2. The bacteria mutated and survived the full course of antibiotics.

Just In Case
Here's another interesting word: prophylactic. We're not talking about birth control here. This is another sense of the word: if you have a cold, it's usually virus. So why do they give you antibiotics, which only kill bacteria? The word is "prophylactic"; we're gonna give you a prophylactic dose of antibiotics. That means just in case you develop a "secondary" bacterial infection as a "complication" of the viral infection. Is that likely? Not very. The problem is, antibiotics are not M&Ms. They are powerful drugs

which kill all your body's bacteria every time you take them. This is what is known as a Side Effect.

Leave Those Kids Alone

It starts almost at birth - you know, the ear infection thing. Otitis media, they call it. At the slightest redness around the ear, or the slightest little sniffle, any good mother will drag her baby into any good doctor for a checkup, right? Prescription? Antibiotics. Yes ma'am, we'll kill those bad bugs before they ever get a chance to get started. Antibiotics are for what? That's right - bacteria. But according to the NEJM, 28 Jan 99, at least 41% of otitis media is caused by virus. But they get antibiotics anyway, as often as not because the parents insist on getting them. And that's for the cases which actually are otitis media, not even counting all the rashes, allergies, or little traumas which are misdiagnosed as otitis media. Drug of choice: amoxicillin, even though doctors have known since 1991 that kids who take amoxicillin for simple otitis media have a 2-6 times greater chance of recurring infection than kids who don't. (JAMA, 18 Dec 1991) The whole scene is way out of control, and the real losers are the kids. Childhood is their one chance to prepare their own natural defenses for the environment they will live in their whole lives. Every time a child takes antibiotics unnecessarily, at least three things happen: - he gets better - his immune system gets weaker - recurrent infections likely - those same antibiotics won't work next time, because only the bugs that survived will stick around Almost 100% of the time, the child would have recovered anyway, without drugs, just like they did for all those centuries before 1940. Kids are supposed to be sick sometimes, just like trees are supposed to be in storms. That's how they build strength. The overdrugged, overprotected, artificially raised American kids are among the sickest, most allergic, most asthmatic, and most overweight children in the civilized world. Healthy kids don't get sick. And it starts with the infant's immune system being unnecessarily weakened by inappropriate antibiotics from oversolicitous parents and from doctors rightfully fearful of litigation and from drug companies hungry for a profit. Yes, yes, we know all about the dangers of spinal meningitis. But let's look at the natural incidence of meningitis in the undrugged, unvaccinated population. Miniscule, compared with the prodigious amount of actual immune system detriment which continues to be wrought by the excessive and inappropriate use of antibiotics. Leave those kids alone! What's wrong with killing all my body's bacteria a few times a year when it's not particularly necessary? Probiotics, that's what. Huh? Probiotics. Good bacteria. There are some 300 types of good bacteria at work in the colon which are necessary for many life functions, including complete digestion, absorption of vitamins and nutrients, and keeping the numbers of potentially pathological bacteria in check. Antibiotics kill all of them. It may take weeks or months for the body to rebuild its normal bacteria, which are called flora. This makes for incomplete digestion, also known as putrefaction, rancidity, or rotting of intestinal contents. Like John Wayne. Autopsy showed 44 pounds of undigested food in his intestines when he died! Think how heavy that would feel all those years. Guess nobody ever told The Duke about probiotics, because he sure didn't have any. Another problem with killing all the body's bacteria is that it is no longer possible. The pervasiveness of antibiotics through the human race by pills, food, and the animals we eat has promoted the survival of mutant (resistant) bacteria. Scientists have now made the amazing discovery of finding antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the bodies of African tribesmen who live in total isolation from 'civilization,' with no access to drugs whatsoever! (Garrett) The point is, in 50 years, virtually everyone has developed some degree of immunity to antibiotics, directly or indirectly. The mutant strains are now normal flora. So the more we now take "broad spectrum" antibiotics, the more we destroy the old non-resistant strains. What's left? The mutants. Most medical authorities in the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and the World Health Organization agree on one idea: antibiotic resistance will be the #1 health challenge of the 21st century. That will be the area in which we will see the greatest increase in the death rate: infections with no cure. One hidden source of antibiotics is FOOD. Half the antibiotics produced in this country, which totals 50 million pounds per annum, according to federal statistics, are given to animals like poultry and cattle. 80% of animal antibiotics are given to promote growth, not health. (Levy, p140) Antibiotics are also used extensively on fruit trees and other plants, and even in fish hatcheries. Food processing does not destroy the antibiotics. When we take them in with the food, many of these animal antibiotics are still strong enough to have an effect on our body's bacteria. This further complicates the problem of resistance. Today people may be resistant to antibiotics they never even got from the doctor. The animal antibiotics are getting stronger all the time. According to the Journal of the South American Veterinary Association, 1996, a recent antibiotic called salinomycin was given to a herd of cattle. The drug killed 10% of the cattle from heart failure! Even the FDA has known about the spillover of antibiotics from animals to humans for a long time. As far back as 1976, FDA Commissioner Donald Kennedy was publicly campaigning to ban antibiotics from animal feed. (New Eng J Med, 9 Sep 1976)

Lobbying from the drug companies won out, and high dosages in livestock continue to the present time.

The Big Boys

Antibiotics is a $23 billion/year industry in the U.S. Its overall purpose is not, nor ever was, health. Its purpose is market growth. As an industry, it is a victim of its own success. Stuart Levy, MD writes that having taken antibiotics as though they were M&Ms for so many years has "caused a destruction of the armor of antibiotic, what I call destroying the miracle." Now maybe you're saying, oh don't worry about drug resistance - they'll come up with something new. Think again. Nothing responds to change like a market growth industry. The drug companies know better than anyone about the advent of the Post-Antibiotic Era. An article in the journal Clinical Infectious Disease, 1997 Supplement, stated that : "...few new antibiotics are in the development pipeline, and indeed no novel class of antibiotics has been introduced into medical practice in more than 20 years. All recently introduced antibiotic compounds are permutations (improved versions) of pre-existing compounds." Two of the major limitations ... are the high cost - about $300 million per new chemical entity - and the observation that many of the larger multinational companies have actually decreased their activities or even ceased to invest in the discovery of new antibiotics." What a surprise. So much for selfless dedication to humanity. Thanks a lot, guys.

Jackpot!
Want to talk about money? Here is a chart of U.S. hospital purchases of antibiotics, published in Jeffrey Fisher's book The Plague Maker. 1962 1971 $94,000,000 $218,000,000

1991 $3,000,000,000 1997 $8,000,000,000 Any questions?

Whose Fault Is It?

In 1981, when James Curran of the CDC was being ignored by his superiors about the coming AIDS epidemic, Mark Lappe wrote a book called Germs That Won't Die, in which he explained antibiotic resistance. A classic paragraph on antibiotics from Lappe's book, quoted by Laurie Garrett, is this one: "Unfortunately, we played a trick on the natural world by seizing control of these chemicals, making them more perfect in a way that has changed the whole microbial constitution of the developing countries. We have organisms now proliferating that never existed before in nature. We have selected them. We have organisms that probably caused a tenth of a percent of human diseases in the past that now cause twenty, thirty percent of the disease that we're seeing. We have changed the whole face of the earth by the use of antibiotics."

A Great Gift: Misuse, Overuse, Abuse

You can make all sorts of excuses, but here's the way it looks to many researchers: Mankind took this incredibly fortuitous gift antibiotics - and let it be egregiously overprescribed and misused, for profit. And now we're down this road we can't come back from. Antibiotics have always had, and still have, only one proper application: the life-threatening situation. Not colds, not sniffles, not just-in-case anything. A life-threatening situation. Period. We screwed up.

The Party's Almost Over

Antibiotics really were a miracle drug and they really did save thousands of lives. But that time is coming to an end. The 1990s have brought a resurgence of bacterial and viral diseases, after almost 50 years of complete control over infectious diseases, according to the Apr 94 New England Journal of Medicine. If dissemination of antibiotics had been controlled by scientists instead of by drug reps and doctors and HMO execs, perhaps the epidemic of resistance which has now befallen us would not exist. At least not so soon. I'm talking about the scientists who have known all along what Fleming knew, what Bechamp knew, and what

Pasteur himself finally admitted: that bugs don't cause disease and that drugs don't cure them. Antibiotics were and are for one thing only: life-threatening infections. Not minor colds. Not minor ear infections. Children need to be sick sometimes. That's how they build their own immune defenses. It's OK to get a cold once in awhile; it gives the body a chance to use its powers of defense, like fever, inflammation, coughing, and swelling. These symptoms are not the illness. They are just signs that the body is successfully attempting to restore its own balance. To attack the symptoms is to fight the body itself and make it that much more difficult to return to a state of normal health. A body allowed to heal itself will be far more resilient, more RESISTANT in the future. That's the kind of resistance we want. What we call disease is very often simply Nature's method for ridding the body of poisons. For example, take FEVER. Fevers are generally good. The brain raises the temperature of the body for a reason - something has triggered an inflammation and the body is trying to make an inhospitable environment for the irritant and throw it off. Basic detox. Tylenol, ice baths, and drugs may interfere with the body's most instinctive first line of defense. Think how arrogant that is. Who knows better than your body when to turn up the thermostat? Now in that rare one in 5 million event where there's a danger of meningitis or the patient is delirious and remains in a very high fever for days on end - that may be the time to consider drugs. Like I said, life-threatening situations. But how often does that happen? When do we take antibiotics? Usually the first sign of a cold or fever. When we're young, they work. But most people use up all their ammunition early. Remember - average is 17 runs of antibiotics by the age of nine. Then when something serious happens, drugs fail. Not only are the bacteria now resistant; the body has never been given the opportunity to develop its own defenses, its own immune system. The result is just what the market growth drug industry wanted: a nation of people who are always sick, get colds a few times a year, have frequent headaches and digestive disorders and every few years get a "major" illness. Oh yes, and two thirds of whom will die either of heart disease or cancer. Or coughing. Why are we coughing in the first place? Coughing is a cleansing reflex of the respiratory system. It is good, not bad. An irritant such as dust or a chemical or an inflammation is disrupting the air passages. The body's natural response is to try and clear it by forcefully expelling air. Is this rocket science so far? The cough was not the problem. The irritant was the problem. OK, so what do we do? Go to the doctor or the drugstore for what? - a cough suppressant. Drug the body's ability to clear its own airways. But then we have two problems: first, the irritant is still in the airway and has now been protected by the cough suppressor and is allowed to become more entrenched. And second, these cough medicines have serious side effects on the digestive tract. They are not foods, but must be dealt with by the digestive system. And they destroy normal flora. Yes I hear you saying, but what about deep chest colds with coughing that might turn into bronchitis or pneumonia? Exactly. What about them? What will cough suppressants do to help the body clear itself? Same with infection. Infection follows inflammation. Some antigen has been identified and the body has mobilized its forces - the white cells - to wall off the area. The invader is attacked and many white cells are killed in the process. Pus is simply the accumulation of dead white cells that have done their job. Limited infection is not an emergency. It simply means that the body's defenses are working. Again Dr. Tilden nails it: "... every so-called disease is a crisis of Toxemia; which means that toxin has accumulated in the blood above the toleration point, and the crisis, the so-called disease - call it cold, flu, pneumonia, headache, or typhoid fever - is a vicarious elimination. Nature is endeavoring to rid the body of toxin. Any treatment that obstructs this effort at elimination baffles nature in her effort of self-curing." Not your average medical doctor. Bet he didn't get invited to give many keynote speeches at Harvard. The only way anyone gets better from most illness is the body figures out a way to restore balance. It's not showy, and it's not always immediate. But it lasts. No one who studies what is going on today in the area of antibiotic resistance comes away with the idea that things are going to be fine just as soon as some new drugs are invented. You come away with the idea that the party's almost over. Just as it was before penicillin, the only factor in disease control will be preparing a strong defense: bolstering the immune system. Those who continue to weaken their immune system will no longer be able to look to antibiotics to save them. They will die early.

So, What Is The Immune System?

Lot of people talk about it, but just ask them what it is and see what they say. The immune system is complicated, so let's just do the short version for now. In general the immune system consists of three things that continually circulate through the body and monitor every cell.. And the three are 1. Specialized blood cells, called lymphocytes or white cells 2. Specialized proteins called antibodies 3. Nerve communication

This constant monitoring of your cells is going on every second, 24 hours a day, all through the body. In the healthy immune system, the identification of something foreign triggers an attack. The attack usually takes the form of inflammation, swelling, or heat. If the attack turns into a battle, it may become an infection. These are normal physical responses and will be effective if left alone, in the vast majority of cases. They do not usually require drugs, surgery, or any freaking out. If the body's own defenses are allowed to do their job and to win, not only will the patient recover with no side effects, but more important, he will have built stronger resistance for the future. What helps the immune system? Only two things: protecting it and building it. Protecting and building. Not stimulating. Certain drugs may stimulate the immune system, but it's short-term and always involves side effects. The first consideration in protecting the immune system is to stop destroying it with: smoking alcohol prescription drugs processed foods dairy products sugar radiation toxins stress For further explanation of these stressors, see the chapters on Enzymes and on Antioxidants, and also on Vaccinations. To build the immune system is not easy, but it is simple. First, eliminate the above list of destroyers. Second, detox the colon and the blood. For information on how to do that, see the chapters on the Colon and on Enzymes. After that, keep further toxic intake to a minimum. Primarily, that means drugs and processed foods. Simple, huh?

The Cure For AIDS

is actually known: At the International AIDS Conference in Berlin in 1993, the minutes showed that "A large number of women prostitutes have been discovered in Africa. Each prostitute has had numerous encounters with men who have AIDS. Not one has contracted AIDS. Studies show that the women have exceptionally strong immune systems. This is the only difference between these prostitutes and others who have contracted AIDS." Drugs depress the immune system; not just antibiotics, but all pharmaceuticals. That's why no drug will ever be found that cures AIDS. That's why AZT has never been proven to extend anyone's life even one day. That's why the search for the ultimate AIDS drug is futile. The virus does not exist in isolation and cannot be selectively killed without affecting the entire system. The whole approach, the whole military philosophy of seek- and-destroy is fundamentally flawed. HIV is not the cause of AIDS; it's a sign of AIDS. In an article in USA Today, 26 Nov 97 the WHO revised its earlier estimate. Last year they said there would be 22 million people in the world with AIDS by this time. Now they have revised that figure to 30 million. Know what's going to happen with AIDS? Exactly what happened with every other disease ever encountered by the human race, except for the brief era of success with antibiotics: it will run its course through the species. It will kill those with the weakest immune systems, and then it will be gone. AIDS research? Politics. As with Pasteur's anthrax vaccine and his rabies vaccine, drugs can actually bring new diseases into the human race. Like the unlucky French mailman, Pierre Rascol. He and his friend were attacked by a dog. The friend was severely bitten, but not Pierre. The dog's teeth did not puncture Pierre's skin. The friend did nothing and was fine. The dog was fine. The postal authorities found out about the incident however, and forced an unwilling Pierre to be treated by Pasteur. After one week, Pierre was dead, a victim of Pasteur's inoculations. Look it up. (Hume)

Which Is It?
So are germs the cause of disease or aren't they? Bechamp said that there was enough truth in that notion to make it seem reasonable at first glance. Sure we can sometimes identify certain types of bacteria in certain disease conditions. And it's undeniable that organisms can be found rampant within populations suffering from epidemics and outbreaks, as Laurie Garrett describes in The Coming Plague. But consider this: what if many more people than those who actually get a disease have the "bug"? Usually the only people we test are the ones who get sick. So it looks like they're the only ones who have the 'causative' organism in measurable amounts. From Pasteur to the present, there is an entire other point of view that has been supported: maybe the bad bugs are commonly present in many normal people, but only multiply out of control when allowed to because of a weak immune system. They're harmless until they proliferate. This is a fundamental notion.

"Bacteria and parasites cannot cause disease processes unless they find their own peculiar morbid soil in which to grow and multiply." -Henry Lindlahr, MD - Founder of Lindlahr Sanitarium In view of the overall failure of the one-drug-one-disease approach, it's obvious there must be a bigger picture. So here it is: the body is poisoned year by year, leading to general toxemia (blood-poisoning.) The reasons are noted above: chemicalization of commercially available food, chemicalization of all medical drugs, and stressful toxic lifestyle. The body tries to detoxify itself by its normal processes of digestion and immune response. But it's too big of a job; there are too many weird chemicals. Digestion is blocked. The blood stagnates. The white cells and antibodies can't circulate. The colon backs up. And things breed. Favorable environments are created for the proliferation of normally harmless organisms. Result: disease. Totally different paradigm. In the early 1980s, before AIDS had been named and before HIV had been pronounced as the cause, the researchers like James Curran of the CDC were studying the new disease that was occurring among urban gays. There wasn't enough money or manpower to fully investigate the problem, but scientists realized that this was a unique disease and they knew it was going to be big. Collecting all the data they could, they studied the gay lifestyle in detail. One of the few things they could say for sure was that these people as a population had one of the most severely depressed immune systems ever studied. To find a group of people with worse immune defenses than theirs, you would have to look in a third world country. Curran found that urban gays didn't just get AIDS - they had astronomically higher than normal incidences of any immune-deficient condition you can name, including Herpes Simplex I, Herpes Simplex II, Gonorrhea, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, Cytomegalovirus, Mononucleosis, Syphilis, Influenza, Candida albicans, Entamoeba histolytica, Cryptosporidium, Tuberculosis, E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella, Pneumocystic pneumonia. - Garrett Why bother to list them? The patients got these diseases on their way to getting AIDS. They also had proliferation of many other bacteria that are normally harmless. The point is, when there's no immune system, anything can grow. Favorable environment. The terrain. Le terrain biologique. AIDS patients don't die of AIDS. They die of pneumonia or of flu. They die because they have no CD-4 cells, no immune system to fight off even the most harmless invader. And they die from drugs. When you start to look at the epidemiology of AIDS in Africa and then in Asia, all the talk is about genes and microbe vectors and modes of transmission and villages and patterns of migration of the virus, and numbers of the population already infected, and virulence, etc. But you can take the whole picture, all this information, and pick it up and rotate it 5 degrees to one side, and look at it just a little differently and something else comes into focus. What if we're wasting our time looking for a cure for AIDS or trying to figure out why it appeared in this or that village in Africa or this brothel in Thailand or trying to unlock the elusive patterns of recombinant viral DNA with computer sequencing or encouraging a new group of "disease cowboys" to get out there, or identifying Patient Zero, or even educating people about protection...? What good is all this? Look at the numbers: by July of 1982 there were 177 known deaths from AIDS. By summer 1997, over 7 million have died. An estimated 30 million people worldwide are now infected. Are we getting better or worse at holding this disease in check? Is the talent and research money thrown into the fight becoming more available or less available? What if this disease is simply going to run its course throughout Homo sapiens no matter what we do, just like the plagues did, just like the majority of all other diseases have? May sound fatalistic, but it's precisely what's actually taking place. Ask yourself this: what did urban gays and junkies have in common with the Africans and Asians who were being swept away by this deadly tidal wave? In a word, susceptibility. Why? Third world people are possessed of fragile, tenuous immune systems because of malnutrition, squalor, overcrowding, and appalling medical practices. They also have been targets for mass inoculations with unproven vaccines legislated upon them by government deals with drug giants. These people are physically stressed almost to the breaking point, normally. With overpopulation, all the adverse conditions are magnified. It's been proven that the AIDS virus has been around for decades both in monkeys and in humans. But not until 1982 did people start dying of it. And then who was it, and who is it that is dying? The ones with what? That's right - the ones with the worst immune systems on the planet. Then and now. Viruses don't care if you're gay or you're a monkey or you're living in squalor, or in a townhouse. They're just looking for a place to set up shop. This point of view redefines the problem. Instead of worrying about what are we going to do about AIDS, tracking it, fighting it, and relating it to antibiotic resistance, let's consider focusing instead on the only thing that will ever overcome AIDS or any other disease: a strong immune system. Oversimplification? Looks like it may be time for one.

What Now?
What does the future hold? Let's stop listening to the media magpie/spin doctors for a second and follow the pertinent literature to its logical conclusion - is antibiotic resistance becoming greater or less each year? Greater. Let's give antibiotics a best case scenario guess: another 20 years. OK, do bacteria cause disease? Definitely not always. What is always present in diseases? Answer: depressed immune system. With a healthy resilient immune system, disease is rejected, no matter how serious. J.H. Tilden, MD put it this way: "Normal persons are deadly to all germs and parasites peculiar to the human habitat." - Toxemia Explained So putting these ideas together, a notion comes into focus so clear that even a lawyer could see it: soon we will be living in the Post-Antibiotic Era. The paramount issue in health and survival will then be the immune system. Drugs, alcohol, smoking, air pollution, processed food, white sugar, white flour, radiation, stress, and bad living will still be doing their number on that immune system. But it will be performing without a net, this time. On its own. What will people turn to in order to strengthen their immune

system? Answer: Alternative Medicine, just like before all of this went down. Actually, it's already started. Ask your physician that one. Want to see a blank look? Ask your HMO doctor what he can give you to boost your immune system. Out of the $1 trillion/year medical budget, about one point four per cent is today being spent for Alternative Medicine. That's not much, but it's growing. Alternative medicine's purpose is to use natural means to strengthen the immune system. Whole food enzymes, antioxidants, natural herbs, aloe, probiotics, pure water, clean diet, spinal adjustment, massage, martial arts, and exercise have all been proven to be helpful. One reason things won't be completely the same as they were in the pre-antibiotic age is that our knowledge of holistic therapeutics has deepened exponentially, sort of as a by-product of the advances in biomedical technology in the past 50 years. An increasing number of people are learning what it feels like to build up their immune system, their resistance to illness. Once you've done that, even one time, you know you can overcome practically any health challenge out there by cleaning up your blood, simple detox, and following the basics. Taken as a whole complete self-regulating being, the body is simple and just needs a few things to maintain itself without disease, premature aging, or chronic poisoning. Things get complicated when the body is approached with what I call the Kragen Method - as in auto parts - meaning pretending that the body is simply a group of individual parts that can be treated in isolation from each other, one by one, like spark plugs and carburetors. Then we get into some heavy theorizing, dangerous chemical experimentation, and pathologically long words. Health then becomes a side issue, the focus is economic, and the patient becomes the mark. And this is the controlling philosophy in health care today. You get a funny feeling, like an awakening, when it finally dawns on you that all this time scientific "research" has not really been progressing along with an intent to uncover deeper knowledge of nature or physical things, or to seek the truth, or to serve mankind, like they always say it is. Such altruism is carefully crafted and presented as the motivation for research, but the actual way it works may be quite different. It is not negativity or paranoia but rather the loss of naivet that makes you realize that they don't really want a cure for cancer or AIDS or infectious disease or the common cold or obesity or depression or any other illness. No, for these drive the industry. The game is pharmaceutical economics.

A Normal Life
Here is what a normal life should be like: You're born. You get no drugs and no vaccinations. During childhood you have the usual illnesses, but conservative treatment gets you through them without antibiotics or drugs, and you build your natural immune defenses. You don't eat white sugar, white flour, too much meat or cheese, or drink milk or soft drinks. You concentrate on whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and a clean, natural diet. You never learn to drink coffee or to smoke cigarettes. The only pills you take are powerful whole food vitamins and enzymes and minerals, which are part of your daily intake. You drink at least 1 liter of water every day. Into adulthood, you never get sick: no colds, no flu, no headaches, no diabetes, no ADD, no "thyroid problems," no panic attacks, growing pains, fatigue, or digestive disorders, no high blood pressure. The only pains you experience come from accidental injury. Perhaps you do moderate exercise or sports activity to maintain mobility and general fitness. You look to the care of your spine. Your entire adulthood is spent in this disease-free mode. As you age, your mind gets sharper. You experience no arthritis or osteoporosis, no Parkinson's or Alzheimer's. Finally one day after 90 or 100 years, you flicker like a candle and go out. The above paragraph may be useful in choosing a doctor. Some will say all this is impossible; which for them is true. So don't choose them. All this is possible; moreover, thousands and thousands of people are living it. So listen only to those who can help you achieve such a condition of living health. Because now we've arrived at the threshold of a time when good health and a powerful immune system are not only advisable; they are the very determinants of survival. Coming soon to your town - the PostAntibiotic Age. - Tim O'Shea

References
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Guyton, Arthur - The Textbook of Medical Physiology Saunders 1996 Chopra, Deepak MD - Quantum Healing Bantam 1989 James, Walene - Immunizations: The Reality behind the Myth Bergin&Garvey 1995 CDC - "Emerging Infections: Microbial Threats to Health in the U.S." 1992 Garrett, Laurie - The Coming Plague Penguin Books 1994 Turner Broadcasting Network - The Coming Plague May 1997 Tilden, J.H., MD - Toxemia Explained 1926 Kessinger International AIDS Conference, Minutes 1993 Hadwen, Walter, MD - Microbes and War Lindlahr, Henry, MD - The Philosophy of Natural Therapeutics 1918 Hume, Edith - Bechamp or Pasteur? 1932 CW Daniel, London Howell, Edward, MD - Enzyme Nutrition 1985 Lappe Mark - Germs That Won't Die 1981 Whang, Sang - Reverse Aging 1990 Pearson, R.B. - The Dream and Lie of L. Pasteur 1942 Sumeria Press Robbins, John - Reclaiming Our Health 1996 H J Kramer, Inc Levy, Stuart MD - The Antibiotic Paradox Plenum Press NY 1992 Heikkenen T et al. - Prevalence of various respiratory viruses in the middle ear during acute otitis media. NEJMedicine 28

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

Jan 1999 vol 340:260 Cantekin E et al - Antimicrobial Therapy for Otitis Media With Effusion JAMA 18 Dec 1991 256;23:3309 Williams, G III - "Swearing Off The Miracle" Hencke, Howard - The Germ Theory: A Deliberate Aberration 1995 Dubos, Rene - Man Adapting 1965, USA Today- 26 Nov 97 Fisher, Jeffrey MD - The Plague Makers 1994 Simon & Schuster Murray, B MD - "Multiple Antibiotic Resistant pathogenic Bacteria" New England Journal of Medicine, vol.330;17 p1247 28 Apr 94 Preston, Richard - The Hot Zone 1994 Anchor Books, Doubleday Hancock, R - "Evolution and Dissemination of b-lactamases", Clinical Infectious Diseases, 1994 Supplement, S19 Slavkin, Harold, MD - "Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases" Journal of American Dental Association vol.128 Jan 97 Carrell, Alexis MD - Man, the Unknown Harper 1935 New York Chopra, Deepak MD - Quantum Healing 1989 Bantam Philllips, Alan - "Dispelling Vaccination Myths" http://chetday.com/vaccinationmyths.htm Jensen, Bernard - Empty Harvest 1990 Avery

Copyright 2008 Life Enthusiast Co-op, All rights reserved

Back

\\Server1\C\CPH CDROM\CPH MIDLANDS\FILES FOLDER\HANDOUTS FOR YEAR ONE\Y1W2 Exposing the Myth of the GERM THEORY.doc

Exposing the Myth of the GERM THEORY

PASTEUR'S GERM THEORY OF DISEASE CAUSATION

Not many people realize that bacteria and viruses are the result not the cause of disease

Self-Health Care Systems 1800 S. Robertson Boulevard, Suite 239-50 Los Angeles, CA 90035, USA Phone/fax: (310)2021170.
Extracted with permission from "Bactena, Germs and VIRUSES Do Not Cause Disease: Discriminating between Medical Myth and Biological Fact, excerpted from the book, Awakening Our Self-Healing Body.

by Arthur M. Baker

In 1864, French chemist Louis Pasteur fathered "The Science of Bacteriology" and "The Germ Theory of Disease Causation" by demonstrating the existence of various micro-organisms and concluding that these germs cause pathogenic changes in living cultures within the laboratory setting. The germ theory states that diseases are due solely to invasion by specific aggressive microorganisms. A specific germ is responsible for each disease, and micro-organisms are capable of reproduction and transportation outside of the body. With the germ theory of disease, no longer did we have to take responsibility for sickness caused by our own transgressions of the laws of health. Instead, we blamed germs that invaded the body. The germ theory effectively shifted our personal responsibility for health and well-being onto the shoulders of the medical profession who supposedly knew how to kill off the offending germs. Our own personal health slipped from our control. Almost everyone in the Western world has been nurtured on the germ theory of disease: that disease is the direct consequence of the work of some outside agent, be it germ or virus. People have been educated to be terrified of bacteria and to believe implicitly in the idea of contagion: that specific, malevolently-aggressive disease germs pass from one host to another. They also have been programmed to believe that healing requires some powerful force to remove whatever is at fault. In their view, illness is hardly their own doing. The 'germ era' helped usher in the decline of hygienic health reform in the 19th century and, ironically, the people also found a soothing complacency in placing the blame for their ill health on malevolent, microscopic 'invaders', rather than facing responsibility for their own insalubrious lifestyle habits and their own suffering. Pasteur was a chemist and physicist and knew very little about biological processes. He was a respected, influential and charismatic man, however, whose phobic fear of infection and belief in the "malignancy and belligerence" of germs had popular far-reaching consequences in the scientific community which was convinced of the threat of the microbe to man. Thus was born the fear of germs (bacteriophobia), which still exists today. Before the discoveries of Pasteur, medical science was a disorganised medley of diversified diseases with imaginary causes, each treated symptomatically rather than at their root cause. Up to this time, the evolution of medical thought had its roots in ancient shamanism, superstition and religion, of invading entities and spirits. The profession searched in vain for a tangible basis on which to base its theories and practices. Pasteur then gave the profession the "germ". By the 1870s, the medical profession fully adopted the germ theory with a vengeance that continues today. The advent of the microscope made it possible to see, differentiate and categorise the organisms. Invading microbes were now seen as the cause of disease. The medical-pharmaceutical industry began their relentless search for the perfect drug to combat each disease-causing microbeof which there are now over 10,000 distinct diseases recognised by the American Medical Association. The universal acceptance of the germ theory and widespread bacteriophobia resulted in frenzied efforts to avoid the threat of germs. A whole new era of modem medicine was then inaugurated, including sterilisation, pasteurisation, vaccination, and fear of eating raw food. Medical authorities advised the public to cook all food thoroughly and to boil water.

College of Practical Homoeopathy 2005 1 of 10

\\Server1\C\CPH CDROM\CPH MIDLANDS\FILES FOLDER\HANDOUTS FOR YEAR ONE\Y1W2 Exposing the Myth of the GERM THEORY.doc utilisation of food particles; for aiding in cellular nourishment; for stimulating peristalsis; for detoxifying and creating soft, smooth stools; and for keeping down pathogenic germs. (Antibiotics destroy these forms of useful bacteria). Bacteria and micro-organisms also form a vital part in the world's food chain. When organic matter within plants and animals decomposes throughout nature, bacteria and moulds of the Monera family disorganise the highly complex organic molecules into simple inorganic wasteswhose elements are excreted back into the soil to be taken up once again as food by plants, and reorganised via the process of photosynthesis into widely diverse forms of vegetable matter, including food for humans, such as fruits, nuts, and seeds. Pasteur Not the Originator of the "Germ Theory" Bacteria are actually primitive forms of life which subsist on Actually, the first "Germ Theory of Infectious Disease" was scavenging dead organic material. They break up and decompose published in 1762 (almost 100 years prior to Pasteur's theory) by a waste material in our system just as they do within the plant and Viennese physician, Dr M. A. Plenciz. In 1860, Louis Pasteur took animal kingdoms. the credit for the experiments and theory and became identified as Bacterial action renders some waste-matters usable in our body its originator. Read the books, Pasteur: Plagiarist, Impostor, by R. that would ordinarily be expelled and, as such, bacteria are essential B. Pearson, and Bechamp or Pasteur? A Lost Chapter in the History to our liveswithout them, our existence would not be possible. As of Biology by Douglas E. Hume, for all the details. intestinal flora, for instance, bacteria are a much needed symbiotic Claude Bernard (1813-1878) disputed the validity of the germ partner in life, responsible for synthesising vitamin B 12 and theory and maintained that the general condition of the body is the vitamin K within our body. principal factor in disease, but this idea was largely ignored by the Our body carries about a five-year supply of vitamin B12, and medical profession and the general public. Bernard and Pasteur had receives a constantly refurnished supply from bacterial activity in many debates on the relative importance of the microbe and the the lower intestine, just as is the case with other primates and internal environment in which they thrive. natural plant-eating animals, including man. Also, vitamin K does not need to be Pasteur Realises Mistake Around 1880, Pasteur himself admitted As a cause of disease, bacteria do supplied by food since bacteria which his mistake. According to Dr Duclaux not 'invade' the bodyfor they are live symbiotically in the human intestine are capable of producing this nutrient, (one of Pasteur's co-workers), Pasteur already present in the digestive which is required for normal functioning discovered that microbial species can of the body's blood-clotting agents. undergo many transformations. These tract. As needed bacteria are The Beneficial Role of Bacteria in facts were not consistent with his germ brought into the circulatory system Disease theory and destroyed its very basis. It is frequently overlooked that around to aid in the process of purging the As a cause of disease, bacteria do not 'invade' the bodyfor they are already 1880, Pasteur changed his theory. According to Dr Duclaux, Pasteur stated physiology of accumulated wastes. present in the digestive tract (which, by the way, technically is considered outside that germs were "ordinarily kept within the body proper). As needed, bacteria are bounds by natural laws, but when brought into the circulatory system to aid conditions change, when its virulence is in the process of purging the physiology exalted, when its host is enfeebled, the of accumulated wastes. germ is able to invade the territory which When the body creates a highly localised toxic condition in the was previously barred to it." This is the premise that a healthy body system, as occurs during inflammation, the body absorbs bacteria is resistant and not susceptible to disease. With the advent of Pasteur's mysterious germ, however, medicine from the intestines and/or other body cavities and transports them cloaked itself under the guise of 'science' and ever since has to where the accumulated poisons have been concentrated. During the inflammatory process, pus is formed from the aggresucceeded in keeping the public ignorant of the true nature of disgate of dead cells and from the healing, white blood cell activity ease. that takes place; and bacteria proliferate to feast on and process this BACTERIA AND THEIR SYMBIOTIC ROLE IN THE material which makes it easier for the body to expel. BODY In this way, bacteria symbiotically assist in breaking down these Bacteria are our symbiotic partners in life and are completely toxic materials for elimination. In the process, however, the excreta normal to the body. They work symbiotically with the host organ- of bacteria generated therein is toxic. The bacteria's own excretion ism by assisting in the breakdown and removal of toxic materials reflects the morbidity of the toxins they consume, in that these and in creating nutrients that are vital to our welfare. wastes are also highly virulent. If not eliminated from the body, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus bifidus and coli bacteria these accumulate to such an extent that the body initiates a are normally present in the human digestive tract and are sometimes cleansing/healing crisis. called "friendly, beneficial or symbiotic intestinal flora". They are Bacteria do not produce disease but are useful organisms that necessary within the body for the proper absorption and help decompose dead cellular material when the body's cells have completed their normal life cycle. With [he deprivation of raw foods, an inevitable deterioration of health ensued. The practice of killing germs with drugs was also initiated, resulting in iatrogenic (medically-induced) disease and further degeneration of health. Various programmes were instituted to confer 'immunity' against specific germs by way of vaccines and serums, with horrendous effects. Fortunately, the horror of consuming raw food as being dangerous and bacteria-ridden has largely been overcome, although the ban on unpasteurised dairy foods still exists in most of this country [USA]. And the acceptance of poisonous drugs and inoculations has not waned to any appreciable extent.

College of Practical Homoeopathy 2005 2 of 10

\\Server1\C\CPH CDROM\CPH MIDLANDS\FILES FOLDER\HANDOUTS FOR YEAR ONE\Y1W2 Exposing the Myth of the GERM THEORY.doc This process helps eliminate the dead matter from the body and, likewise, the bacteria aid in clearing toxic substances. This is why organic matter, that they cause its death is erroneous. they are seen regularly during the disease/purification process since When toxicosis exists and threatens the well-being of the organthese processes require the disintegration of accumulated poisonous ism, the body responds by purging the toxins, and disease symprefuse which the system is endeavouring to purge. toms appear. Bacteria are present to decompose metabolic wastes, Bacteria do not cause the death of the organic matter on toxins, dead cells and tissues and as such are a vitally important part which they act, however, as they are a part of the result of dis- of the healing process. ease, not its cause. Bacteria are capable of only one action in regard to the disease Bacteria and germs play an important role in the evolution of process: the processing of dead materials as their food. Bacteria disease but are not fundamental causes as commonly believed. proliferate because there is dead organic matter for them to feed on, Bacteria are intimately associated with serious illness, but merely not because they suddenly become malevolent. contribute secondary or tertiary complicating factors by elaborating In a relatively sterile environment they die due to lack of nourcertain powerful toxins already present in the toxic body due to the ishment, just as they similarly die off in an environment of their poisonous by-products of their own fermentative and putrefactive own creatingnamely, in the presence of their own toxic excreta actions. including lactic acid, acetic acid, alcohol, ammonia and numerous Lactic acid, acetic acid (vinegar), alcohol from the fermentation other protein decomposition by-products. process; and ammonias, indoles, skatols and purines, etc., from the It is inappropriate to call bacterial activity an 'attack' or an putrefaction process are toxicalthough our body, under normal 'invasion' on the part of germs, unless we mean it is an attack conditions of health, can easily eliminate these forms of bacterial on the toxins. The only real attack that takes place is the one we excreta. In fact, our faeces and urine are loaded with these protein make upon our own body as we continually assault ourselves on decomposition by-products from both the average of some 30 poisoning acts each bacterial activity and our own body Bacteria proliferate because dayincluding the devitalised 'foods' and metabolism. 'beverages' we consume, the drugs we take, Bacteria need nourishment to grow and there is dead organic matter constantly staying up late and overeating reproduce. When there is a dangerous needlesslyall of which create enervation for them to feed on, not accumulation of waste materials which is and exhaustion of the body. threatening body integrity, our symbiotic because they suddenly On the other hand, bacteria cannot thrive in bacteria go into action and perform their healthy blood. This is why a clean, wellbecome malevolent nourished body is not subject to their presence. Living in a germ-free environment is anitorial/scavenging function of clearing the body of filth and debris. Afterwards, they resume their passive state once again. impossible, however, and not even wholly desirable. Trillions of Bacteria have an important role to perform in the vital bacteria live in our body at all times. process of healing. Germs take part in virtually all disease phenomena that require the disintegration of refuse and toxic Bacteria Mutate According to Decomposing Soil in the matter within the body which the system is endeavouring to Environment There are no 'disease-producing' bacteria, germs, microbes, remove. They act as scavengers in clearing up the affected area of toxic saturation. As soon as their role is complete, their bacilli or viruses: it is the environment and the host which determine disease symptoms and the type of bacteria that proliferate. numbers decline. For this reason once again, bacteria are associated with disease Germs do not cause disease; rather, the body generates disease processes but are not its cause, for bacteria no more cause disease occasions for the germ proliferation that takes place. In order for a particular germ to exist, it has to have a suitable than flies cause garbage. To assume, because germs are present and environment created by the toxic and pathological pollution satuactive in the decomposition processes connected with dead rating the body. Systemic poisoning then creates the specific germ culture, depending upon where the body has accumulated the wastes and according to the unhealthful lifestyle habits of the sufferer. The key point is, however, that it is the diseased toxemic condition, where the body is overwhelmed with poisonous waste, which creates an environment favourable to the mutation of bacteria into those commonly associated with particular diseases. The disease condition favours proliferation and increasing virulence until their function of devouring toxic debris is accomplished. When you ask a bacteriologist what comes first, the soil or the bacteria, the answer is always the tainted environment, in order for the bacteria to thrive. Bacteria never exist in a proliferating state where there is no food or soil for their propagationbut they multiply rapidly when there is decomposing material to feast on, and then they die off when there is famine or adversity in their surroundings. Once again, bacteria no more create their food supply than flies cause garbage. The garbage or soiled state within our

College of Practical Homoeopathy 2005 3 of 10

\\Server1\C\CPH CDROM\CPH MIDLANDS\FILES FOLDER\HANDOUTS FOR YEAR ONE\Y1W2 Exposing the Myth of the GERM THEORY.doc body must pre-exist the presence of bacterial 'invasion': bacteria do Strep throat and sore throat are said to be caused by streptococcus not cause disease; they are present because of it. Bacteriologists themselves wrongly divide the germ population bacteria. This is a common form of bacteria in the lactobacilli into specific 'good germs' and 'bad germs' and overlook the fact that family, a round-shaped organism that also breaks down or sours 'good germs' have the ability to mutate and proliferate into 'bad' milk. You can easily prepare a culture containing billions of strep virulent germs when their soil is suitable for this change. In other words, germs can modify their structure and metabolic bacteria as in yoghurt, and any healthy person eating the yoghurt function according to the environment in which they find them- will not develop strep throat. Put them in a milk culture, and in selves. They exist in a multitude of strains, shapes and metabolic hours they multiply into trillions. It is difficult to find anyone who capabilities and may appear as rod-shaped or circular shaped does not contain this form of bacteria in their throat except in those using massive amounts of antibiotics or other life-destroying drugs. depending on the dictates of their environment. Streptococci are not in themselves dangerous, however, for milThe germ theory was founded on the assumption that disease germs are specific, unchangeable entities in their biological structure lions of them are found in the average person's throat and body and chemical characteristics. The 1968 Pulitzer Prizewinner and cavitiesbut their excrement can be highly toxic as they help break eminent bacteriologist Dr Rene J. Dubos contradicted this down, decompose and putrefy waste materials which the body then assumption, showing that the virulence of microbial species is eliminates through the lungs, throat, mucous membranes and/or skin. variable. A sore throat is actually an irritation of the tissues, caused either As far back as 1914 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, experiments by E. C. Risenow, M.D., of the Mayo Biological by what is being eliminated there or by some injurious substance Laboratories in Rochester, Minnesota, demonstrated that pus germs sent down it. Streptococcus bacteria use the exudates as soil. When (streptococci) can be transformed into pneumonia germs a concentration of toxic material is available, their reproduction is (pneumococci) simply by making minor alterations in their envi- tremendous. To reiterate, streptococci are not harmful bacteria as ronment and by feeding them on pneumonia virusdead organic they are always a normal portion of the body's flora. Scientists know that specific bacteria are not always found in matter characteristic with the manifestation of the disease. When the procedure was reversed, the bacteria quickly reverted to each case of the disease they are supposed to cause. Introducing the pus germs. In each case when the environment and food source germ cultures in a healthy body does not consistently generate were changed, the germs, regardless of type, quickly mutated into disease symptoms. Numerous experiments feeding pure cultures of typhoid, pneumonia, diphtheria, tuberculosis and meningitis germs other forms. produced no ill effects. Two New York City bacteriologists, in ...pus germs As mentioned before, in 28-40% of diphsimilar experiments, converted cocci (round, theria cases, diphtheria bacillus is absent. berry-shaped bacteria) into bacilli (long, rod(streptococci) can be Likewise, in about 20% of those suffering shaped bacteria) and back again. A coccus transformed into venereal disease (syphilis, herpes, gonorrhoea, (pneumonia germ) can change to a bacillus etc.) neither gonococcus nor spirochetes are (typhoid germ) simply by making minor pneumonia germs present. Saying that bacteria causes an ulcer, alterations in its environment and by feeding it typhoid virusspecific dead organic (pneumococci) simply pustule or pimple about the genitals disregards the fact that these result from the body's matter which is particular to this type of by making minor autolysis (self-digestion) of issue. The creation bacteria proliferation. of boils and inflammations characteristic of When the procedure is reversed, typhoid alterations in their are vital body actions, not bacterial or germs revert to pneumonia germs illustrating environment and by V.D. viral invasions. that, indeed, any bacteria can modify and Similarly, pneumonia is thought to be adapt its structure and metabolic function in feeding them on caused by the bacterium pneumococcus, accordance with its changing environment. The virulence of germs can likewise be altered in the laboratory at although it is absent in more than 25% of cases. Moreover, administering the bacterium to healthy organisms does not occasion will by the technician. the disease. The Toxic Body Produces the Virulent Germ Even during the early stages of the common cold, nasal secretions It is evident, then, that germs do not directly produce disease: are completely void of bacteria, as none are found in the thin watery rather, the body-generated healing crisis produces the germ by mucus in the first two to three days. When thick purulent secretion providing a suitable environment where non-toxic bacteria mutate begins, pneumococci, staphylococci and streptococci appear. Since into toxic micro-organisms within septic surroundings. For germs to bacteria are so conspicuously absent at the onset of a cold, another become dangerous, they must be intermingled with concentrated cause had to be found. Now, 150 different viruses are blamed for the affliction. waste products before a germ metamorphoses into a toxic entity. Colds are not 'caught'; rather, they develop from our enervating While it is true that germs and bacteria exist everywhere, the micro-organisms only proliferate in the body when a person way of life. Bacteria or viruses have nothing to do with the development of colds. They may be complicating features, since bacteria develops toxemia as a result of an unhealthy lifestyle. When high quantities of oxidized organic material are being function as saprophytes (scavengers) feeding on the debris being extraordinarily eliminated by the body via the throat, lungs or eliminated. As long as tissues remain abnormal, bacteria thrive. elsewhere, bacteria multiply geometrically. In hours, they may Once the eliminative and purging actions are completed, they number in the trillions but suitable 'soil' must be present before they subside. Physicians readily admit that they do not know exactly which virus can proliferate. causes colds, for when the cold virus is sprayed into throats

College of Practical Homoeopathy 2005 4 of 10

\\Server1\C\CPH CDROM\CPH MIDLANDS\FILES FOLDER\HANDOUTS FOR YEAR ONE\Y1W2 Exposing the Myth of the GERM THEORY.doc it causes inflammation in "susceptible hosts only"in those whose tissues are already irritated by foreign agents. In addition, so-called respiratory pathogenic bacteria are present in throat washings of those who have colds, but killing the microorganisms does not shorten the period of illness. Colds are preventable, but first we must learn their causes. As long as it is assumed that germs and viruses cause colds and that we 'catch' them, and as long as our efforts are directed against these microscopic entities, the cold will prevail. Colds are actually remedial efforts made necessary by the accumulation in the blood, lymph, and tissues of unexcreted metabolic waste, and by the intestinal absorption of toxic by-products of indigestion. The ultimate causes of the cold are habits of living which reduce digestive efficiency, check elimination and cause enervation, permitting the internal environment to become polluteda state of physiological smog, if you will. Unless a germ will cause a disease every time it 'infects' the body, it is not a cause. A cause must be consistent and specific in its influence. Germs are omnipresent and fail to have a specific influence all the time. Both laboratory evidence and empirical observations substantiate that disease is the body's reaction to intoxication, and not to germs bacteria do not invade nor control the body, for they are always within the physical domain.

ponderance of cooked foodall of which represent pathological phenomena. The body must exist in a toxic state before it will institute the disease process. Neither bacteria nor anything else can start and sustain a healing crisismicro-organisms are incapable of unified action and cannot exist where there is no food (soil) for them to survive. Living healthy cells are not soil for bacteria, but decomposing substances are. If a healthy body can 'catch' a cold or flu due to influenza germs and is unable to resist an 'attack' by these micro-organisms, then how can the subsequently debilitated body ever recover? How can the weakened organism repel the onslaught of trillions of proliferating micro-organisms? The inevitable result would be the death of the organism. If bacteria did invade organisms and subsequently laid them low, as medically supposed, the impetus and momentum they built up in the process would become progressively more pronounced and overwhelming as the organism receded further into disease. If germs and microbe 'attackers' overwhelmed a healthy body, then, once they laid a victim low, their proliferating reproduction would exponentially increase the 'devouring', which would cease only when they had exhausted their food supply. There would be no recovery. If bacteria and viruses cause disease and debilitate the body, how does the weakened individual recover? The Body Controls its Bacterial Population Were germs the cause of disease, there would be no remission, and Normal healthy organisms are actually deadly to germs and para- germ proliferation would continue unimpeded. sites and have innate, built-in resources to handle them. Bacteria are Once the invading entities have a head start, it does not seem they helpless against living cells, especially would stop their destruction but, white blood cells and others that instead, would further diminish the Colds are actually remedial efforts made compose our natural lines of defence. organism's ability to defend itself. We harbour countless billions of necessary by the accumulation in the When bacteria start decomposing a micro-organisms within our intestinal body, only complete exhaustion of all tract, within our skin, in our mouth, blood/ lymph, and tissues of unexcreted organic materials ends their course nose and other body cavities. The metabolic waste, and by the intestinal only when 'the bones are picked clean', celebrated Dr Lewis Thomas, who so to speak. absorption of toxic by-products of heads the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Logic Institute, said: "Pity not the man who tells us that if microbial organisms indigestion. has caught bacteria, rather pity the make someone sick' and proliferate by bacteria that was caught by the man." the billions as they become more Humans furnish a very rough numerous and stronger, they would environment for bacteria, keeping them progressively sap more and more tightly restricted and controlled. energy, vitality and resources from their victim. How can this Lymph nodesthe glandular tissue masses that occur along the process be reversed by a much weakened organism? lymphatic vessels throughout the bodyroutinely remove bacteria The whole concept of being laid low by microbes and then turning and foreign particles from the general lymph circulation and supply the tables on them makes for good fiction, but is physiologically lymphocytes to the circulatory system. The lymph nodes and spleen false. For once dominance is established in nature over a weakened form a portion of the body's reticuloendothelial system referring organism, it's downhill from there. Once zebras are overwhelmed by to those phagocytic cells scattered throughout the body which can carnivores, they rarely survive. Once bacteria start decomposing ingest bacteria, solid particles and other errant cells. This aids in organic matter, they continue until their food source is exhausted. keeping the body in a healthy, stable condition. The body does not suppress the growth and multiplication of For example, billions and even trillions of bacteria and fungi are 'disease germs' until the morbid toxins on which they subsist have incidentally absorbed from the intestinal tract into the portal blood been consumed, and until the inflammatory process has run its each day. These are so effectively apprehended and destroyed by course. our white blood cells and macrophages that scarcely any bacteria or When diseases are said by medical authorities to be 'limited', this fungi ever enter the circulating blood. really means the illness is a body detoxification process that is Leukocytes (white corpuscles) are the blood's defensive organ- terminated by the body when its purging objectives are reached. The isms that prevent intoxication by bacteria, cooked food debris or body is in control, and not at the mercy of hordes of microbes or other toxic materials. Leukocytosis (an excessive proliferation of some 'mysterious disease entity'. white blood cells in the circulation) occurs in response to inflam- Disease, once more, is not caused by germs but by the toxic state of mation, to excessive numbers of bacteria in the body, and to a prethe body which allows the germ to flourish. This

College of Practical Homoeopathy 2005 5 of 10

\\Server1\C\CPH CDROM\CPH MIDLANDS\FILES FOLDER\HANDOUTS FOR YEAR ONE\Y1W2 Exposing the Myth of the GERM THEORY.doc deranged state of the organism is the outgrowth of violating our biological requirements, and is no chance or haphazard condition. It is this diseased condition that creates an environment favourable to the mutation of bacteria into those associated with specific disease, and to their increasing virulence and proliferation. A state of internal cleanliness, therefore, is essential for health and well-being A pure bloodstream, free unimpeded circulation of all body fluids, and unobstructed excretion generate and maintain healthy tissue Virulent bacteria soon die in this environment for want of suitable nourishment If the microbe is to have any part in causing disease, it must find an organism that produces suitable soil for its metabolic activities We cannot avoid germs for they are everywherewe must be proof against them We avoid disease only by keeping ourselves in such a state of health that germs are powerless against us Medical Rationale of "Susceptibility" and "Resistance" Everyone has literally trillions of fungi, bacteria and viruses in their body even when healthy When physicians are confronted with this, they say that disease is not caused by these agencies because "you are not susceptible' or because "your resistance is high' This is a cop-out, saying that these agents do not cause disease, but those factors which dispose us to susceptibility do since the word "susceptible" means that the criterion which establishes susceptibility is the actual cause of disease, and not the micro-organism or the agency blamed This cop-out confirms that the supposed contagious agentsbacteria, viruses and fungi do not cause disease The actual cause is whatever causes susceptibility or low resistance If we maintain our body in a clean, healthy state then germs are irrelevant, for susceptibility does not exist. The concept of susceptibility is really the medical rationale which admits that bacteria only proliferate when the internal physiological condition warrants it To repeat, it is an admission that an unclean environment is really the cause of diseasefor if germs were the cause of disease, everyone exposed to the harmful germ would become sick with the same illness When the condition of susceptibility is introduced into medical theory to describe disease causation, the condition of the host is then of primary importance in the production of disease. Susceptible individuals are those with a high degree of body toxicity and sufficient vitality to conduct the disease/purification process When such sufficient vitality is waning, organic tissue damage occurs from the extraordinarily polluted internal state of the body which creates the foundation for chronic disease So long as our body is relatively pure, however, waste materials do not accumulate and the scavenging assistance of bacterial germs is not called upon Physicians say that our resistance against germs is our only protection to avoid disease, but they leave their patients ignorant of how to guarantee a high degree of resistance at all times We are told that germs invade only when resistance is lost. But what causes a loss of resistance? Obviously, loss of health means diminished resistance So if health is the best protection against disease, why not promote health by educating the populace in the requisites of health according to their biological mandate? Why not create a true "health care" system, instead of the prevailing "disease care" system that currently exists? We must promote health by living life according to those factors upon which health is generated.

College of Practical Homoeopathy 2005 6 of 10

\\Server1\C\CPH CDROM\CPH MIDLANDS\FILES FOLDER\HANDOUTS FOR YEAR ONE\Y1W2 Exposing the Myth of the GERM THEORY.doc

Exposing the Myth of the GERM THEORY

The Viral Theory of Disease Causation Initially, the word "virus" meant poison, and the word "virulent" meant poisonous. Today, virus means a submicroscopic entity, and virulent generally means contagious. Modem medicine has employed the term virus to mean an ultra-minute form of life that infects cells, and which is blamed for causing more and more of our diseases. According to the popular portrayal of the virus, it is a form of life that parasitises all life forms including animal, plant, and saprophytic (fungi and bacteria). In descriptions of viral disease, viruses are credited with such actions as "injecting themselves", "incubating", "laying in wait", "invading", having an "active stage", "commanding", "reactivating", "disguising themselves", "infecting", "conducting sieges" and being "devastating" and "deadly". Conventional medical theory explains that viruses come from dying cells which they have infectedthe virus "injects" itself into the cell and "commands" it to reproduce itself, and this occurs until the cell explodes from the burden. Viruses are then free to seek out other cells to repeat the process, thereby infecting the organism. Virologists admit, however, that although viruses are distinctive and definitely organic in nature, they have no metabolism, cannot be replicated in the laboratory, do not possess any characteristics of living things and, in fact, have never been observed alive!! "Live Viruses" Are Always Dead The term "live virus" means only those created from living tissue cultures in vitro (within the laboratory) since trillions of them result from "live" tissue. But herein lies the point: even though some laboratory cultures are kept alive, there is massive cell turnover in the process, and it is from these dying cells that "viruses" are obtained. They are always dead and inactive because they have no metabolism or life, except being molecules of DNA and protein. Viruses contain nucleic acid and protein but lack enzymes, and cannot support life on their own since they do not even possess the first prerequisites of life, namely metabolic control mechanisms (and even 'lowly' bacteria have these). Guyton's Medical Textbook acknowledges that viruses have no reproductive system, no locomotion, no metabolism, and cannot be reproduced as live entities in vitro. The Mitochondria Connection Since "viruses" are not alive, they cannot act in any of the ways as ascribed to them by medical authorities except as a functional unit of our normal genetic material inside the cell's nucleus or the mitochondrian nucleus within the cell. Mitochondria are living organismsjust one of many of the varying organelles (little organs) within each cell of our body. Mitochondria are about the size of bacteria, both of which have their own DNA and their own metabolism. The mitochondria metabolise glucose into ATP molecules, which is ready-made energy usable when called upon by the body. What do these facts have to do with "viruses" as such? Everything, as you will see in just a moment. For anyone who has studied cytology (cell structure), the greatest number of life-forms within a cell are the mitochondriathe creators of our energy. Simple single-celled protozoa have up to a half-million mitochondria within them. Human cells have lessfrom a few hundred in blood cells, to 30,000 or more in our larger muscletissue cells. Since the entire human body contains some 75 to 100 trillion cells,

Germs, viruses and bacteria are not the cause of disease Our best defence is good health

Part 2

College of Practical Homoeopathy 2005 7 of 10

\\Server1\C\CPH CDROM\CPH MIDLANDS\FILES FOLDER\HANDOUTS FOR YEAR ONE\Y1W2 Exposing the Myth of the GERM THEORY.doc each containing, on the average, thousands of mitochondria, there must be quadrillions or quintillions of them in our system. isms as the medical establishment would have us believe, since these When a cell dies, it is replaced by a daughter cell during the process so-called "viruses" are merely lifeless fragments of mito-chondrial of mitosis, and the spent cell is disintegrated by lysosomesthe potent generic debris. Because of this, viruses cannot cause disease unless self-destructing, self-digesting, intracellular enzymes that break up they accumulate as filth and pollute our cells, tissues and circulation cellular components into ultra-minute particles so that the body can upon cellular death. readily recycle them or excrete them as waste. Viruses, then, are dead genomes from disintegrated cells whose Each day, about 300 billion to over a half-trillion cells in our body cellular membrane is not completely broken down by cellular expire (depending on our level of toxicity), each containing an average lysosomes. of 5,000-20,000 mitochondria. When cells die they are self-destructed Genomes have no characteristics of life whatsoever, and are merely by their own lysosomes, but the nuclei and the genomes of bits of nucleic acid material normally recycled through phagocytosis or mitochondria are better protected than other cellular organelles and excreted as waste. protoplasm and often do not completely decompose. Photos of alleged viruses "injecting themselves" into a cell actually Genomes and nuclei are microscopic templates of genetic infor- show the cell literally engulfing the "virus" or proteinaceous debris. mation consisting of DNA or RNA that act as the control centre and A dent, called invaginarion, then forms and the organic matter is the storehouse of the very 'blueprints' of the cell. As such, they are to surrounded by cellular substance which closes off, forming an mitochondria and cells what brains are to our body. impromptu stomach, and the "virus" disappears. The stomach then fills Every cell and every mitochondrion contains this generic material with powerful lysosome enzymes which digest the organic material, which is actually the most protected pan of the cell (by virtue of its breaking it down into ammo acids and fatty acids for recycling or double-lipid protein sheath), just as our nervous system is the most elimination. vital and most protected portion of our physiology virtue ofnormal our feature of cell physiology called phagocytosis (literally, cell-eating) This (by process is a backbone and skull). the routine process of cellular inges-tion and enzymatic digestion of Upon cellular death, mitochondria are broken down by lysosomes bacteria, dead tissue debris and other errant cells. but not always completely, due to their highly protective doubleViruses are merely inert organic material totally devoid of all life membrane sheath. And here is where this explanation gets interesting. qualities and are never seen to act. Photographs purporting to show According to Guyton's Textbook of viruses in action are outright frauds: what is Medical Physiology, a virus is said to be actually shown is an ordinary physiological Since "viruses" are not alive, they a minute bit of genetic material (called a process of phagocytosis which occurs genome) which is literally about a cannot act in any of the ways as countless times daily within the body. billionth the size of a cell. Remember, according to medical texts on ascribed to them by medical The genome is surrounded by a capsid virology and microbiology, viruses have the covering that is usually a double lipidauthorities except as a functional following un-lifelike characteristics: protein sheath and is actually composed 1) Viruses have no metabolismthey of two unit membranes (almost identical unit of our normal genetic material cannot process food-stuffs or nutriment and to the cell membrane) which, incithey have no energy formation. They are inside the cell's nucleus or the dentally, is the very structure of the only a template, or pattern of information, mitochondrian nucleus within the as are all genomes. mitochondrian nucleus. Photos of "viruses" revealed through 2) Viruses have no faculties for action of cell. electron microscopes show their any kindno nervous system, no sensory membranes to be rough and jagged, apparatus, and no intelligence that may sometimes only pan of one layer and coordinate movement or "bodily invasion" of any kind. sometimes one layer and a portion of the second, which is consistent 3) Viruses cannot replicate themselvesthey supposedly depend with the self-digesting action of lysosomes when their job of breaking entirely upon "obligate reproduction"meaning, reproduction by a down cellular waste is partial and incomplete. As such, this description host organism, something totally unheard of in all biology. of a "virus" is virtually identical with the description of the remaining genomes of the cell's mitochondria as well. Obligate Reproduction At one point, viruses were once living matter and some physiology In the medical rationale to viral disease causation, we are told to texts hypothesise that they are the debris of spent cells. Lysosomes that believe in obligate reproduction, where one organism (the cell) is disintegrate the spent cell often fail to break up these "viruses" obligated to reproduce an alien organism (the "virus"). Nowhere in surrounded by the double-lipid coat membrane. nature, however, does any living thing reproduce anything other than It is surprising that researchers fail to recognise these for what they its own kind. apparently arespent mitochondrian generic material, particularly Do not forget that the size relationship of a virus to a cell is literally fragments of RNA and DNA. about one billionth the size. The viral rationale of disease-causation tells us to believe that the virus injects itself into the cell and "Viruses" Are Not Micro-organisms commands it to reproduce the virus hundreds of thousands of times, Even though medical authorities mistakenly attribute to this dead upon which the cell explodes. cellular debris the powers of life and malevolence, microbi-ologists When the virus "reproduces", its collective mass still equals far less acknowledge that viruses are dead bits of DNA in a protein-lipid than 1/lOOth of one per cent of the mass of the cell. That is like membrane coat, although failing it realise its source. saying if you inject yourself with half an ounce of a subAs such, genomes are control mechanisms but not micro-organ-

College of Practical Homoeopathy 2005 8 of 10

\\Server1\C\CPH CDROM\CPH MIDLANDS\FILES FOLDER\HANDOUTS FOR YEAR ONE\Y1W2 Exposing the Myth of the GERM THEORY.doc Stance, it will cause so much internal pressure that you will explode!! Only living micro-organisms are capable of acting and reproducing, which is under direct control of the nucleus, genome or "brain". A socalled "virus" is a detached pan of a once organically functioning entity whose genetic structure has the same relationship that a head has to a body: to ascribe any action to viruses is roughly akin to attributing actions to a dead person's decapitated head!

Drugs Are Counterproductive To kill off bacteria and viruses to enable the body a chance to recover, medics believe that they must administer drugs. They also believe that medicine assists in healing. Drugs indeed kill off bacteria, but they are just as deadly to all forms of metabolic life including human cells. The use of drugs and herbal medicines sabotage the body's detoxification efforts by posing an additional threat to the system Viruses Are Toxic Only As Accumulated Wastes Our blood and tissues may become saturated with these internally besides the vile substances it was ejecting via the disease process. generated waste materials, as well as from pollutants ingested from the Eliminating the newly-ingested offending substance now takes outside. Intoxication occurs as these overload the body beyond its precedence over those which caused the healing crisis in the first place. The medical practice of killing germs with drugs, antibiotics, antiability to eject them. Viruses do cause disease in as much as they are toxic waste inflammatory agents or serums to suppress germ activity is the cause of materials. In this sense, "viruses" do indeed occasion disease but not as increasing degeneration of the population and iatrogenic disease. Acute disease is self-limiting, according to the time and effort contagious agents. Remember, bacteria, germs, and viruses do not communicate or act required to rid the organism of injurious substances. The work in concert and are incapable of conducting joint operations like armies performed by scavenging bacteria during the disease process is both of attackersthey lack the intelligence and resources required to exhausting and unpleasant to the host but is vitally necessary for the conduct the disease process. Only the body can initiate such a healing preservation of life and health. After the detoxification process is complete, disease symptoms crisis since the body is the only unified intelligent entity capable of disappear and the organism again makes its energies amount for conducting physiological processes termed "disease". normal endeavours. Strength then returns to the extremities. The body, Avoid "Infections" Through Healthful Living although debilitated from the effort Boyd's Medical Textbook states that most made necessary by its toxic condition, normal persons harbour viruses without A so-called "virus" is a detached part of a regains its powers and functional developing the particular diseases the viruses are supposed to cause, and that enervating once organically functioning entity whose vitality and recovers without treatment. When the healing crisis is completed, influences overcome the body's protective genetic structure has recovery begins. The Illusion Of functions, "permitting the viruses to usurp the biological activities within the cell". the same relationship that a head has to a Contagion People have been educated to be More specifically, according to medical body: terrified of bacteria and viruses and to theory, for a parasite or virus to be implicitly in the idea of pathogenic it has to meet three criteria: to ascribe any action to viruses is roughly believe contagionthat specific, 1) It must be biochemically activeit akin to attributing actions to a dead malevolently-aggressive disease must have metabolic capacity in order to entities pass from one host to another. perform action. person's decapitated head! "Contagion" is medically defined as 2) It would have to infect or intoxicate the transmission of disease by more of the host's cells than the animal or contactan infectious disease is human organism could spare or regenerate for instance, you would only suffer from influenza if the virus kills or communicable by contact with one suffering from it, or with an object infects a significant portion of your lung's cells; the polio virus if it touched by them. The dictionary cites the mechanism as "viruses or affects enough of your nerve cells; or the hepatitis virus if it takes hold other infective agents" or "something that serves as a medium to of a large portion of your liver cells. (Latent infections are those that transmit disease either by direct or indirect means". Contagion is a medical myth, however, since toxic wastes cannot be involve a small percentage of our cells, like tuberculosis, which most passed from one body to the next via normal contact. The contagious of us have and do not even notice.) 3) The host must be genetically and immunologically permissive. It diseases are deceptive, for no one can give his or her disease to another has to accept the pathogen and cannot be "immune" to it it has to any more than one can give away his or her health. Something similar to contagion seems to occur when an extremely toxaemic person is "let it happen", so to speak. Humans are always "infected" with bacteria and "viruses" as they exposed to someone similarly ill thereby triggering a healing crisis. are present in the body at all timestherefore, one cannot say they "invade" the host. Diseases are not infections; rather, they are body What's Really Going On Here? purification processes and are not created by bacteria or "viruses". Bacteria or germs of such individuals are stimulated into action by Neither "viruses" nor bacteria can cause the illness/healing crisis. those devitalised elements upon which the bacteria thrive. When The real culprit is the biologically incorrect lifestyle of the sufferer. transferred to the mucus membranes or tissues of another person When debilitating habits are discontinued there are no further toxic equally toxaemic, the bacteria may begin working immediately in the accumulations, and the need for the body to generate the same manner as in the host carrier if adequate decomposition products healing/disease process will cease to exist. Health is the natural result exist as a food source for bacterial colonies to take hold and thrive. But a soiled environment is a prerequisite to such bacterial action.

College of Practical Homoeopathy 2005 9 of 10

\\Server1\C\CPH CDROM\CPH MIDLANDS\FILES FOLDER\HANDOUTS FOR YEAR ONE\Y1W2 Exposing the Myth of the GERM THEORY.doc The healthy individual with an uncontaminated, relatively pure bloodstream therefore need not be concerned nor apprehensive about "contagious disease". We usually cannot transfer our toxic load to someone else unless it is drawn out of us (as in donating blood) and then injected into another person (as in transfusion). This represents medically-induced contagion or iatrogenic disease, rather than those occurring within the realm of natural biological life processes. This is the true explanation of "contagion". The germ triggers, precipitates or excites the disease process in those who are tox-aemic. But in those who are not, contagion is not valid and does not exist so long as the body is pure for it is the soil in the system that prepares the body for "contagions" by our failure to keep our body fluids and tissues clean and nonpolluted.

Take colds for instance. How is it that infants have about eight colds per year while the parents only a few? How is it that those persons isolated at observation posts in the North and South Poles 'catch' colds during their stay? How is it that between 1965-67 the National Institutes of Health's cold laboratories in Bethesda, Maryland conducted experiments that showed everything but contagion? Volunteers were swabbed daily with supposed cold "viruses" taken directly from those suffering colds, and none became ill. More in the control group developed colds. In the meantime, shortly following traditional Thanksgiving feasts, the number of colds in both groups increased dramatically as would be expected when excessively rich food and drink is consumed during holiday festivities. Venereal disease is also supposed to be contagiousbut the socalled contagious factors (bacteria) are present because of the disease and are not the cause of the condition (and 20 per cent or so of those The Actual "Contagious" Factors and Influences In reality, there is no such thing as "contagion", for the only disease- suffering V.D. have neither gonococcus nor spirochetes which are said producing agents are biologically unhealthful habits such as to cause it). The US Navy conducted experiments which showed that so-called indulgence in alcohol, coffee, cigarettes, drugs, junk foods, refined "infected persons" could not infect those termed healthy. foods, too little rest and sleep, lack of exercise and sunshine, etc. In Japan, "infected" prostitutes had been with dozens of G.I.s, none It is the biologically incorrect lifestyle practices which cause diseases that are rampant throughout the population. It is not any 'bug of whom contracted the disease. Similarly, many individuals have "infections" in the genital area who have that is going around': it is what we do to our own body that violates its systemic needs. ... acceptance of the theory of contagion is not been in contact with anyone (as seen cases involving young children). "Susceptibility" Revisited contingent upon acceptance of the germ in The concept of contagion is medically The concept of "contagion" is closely related theory of diseasethat specific bacteria or unproven despite appearances to the to the equally erroneous notion of "viruses" produce specific disease contrary. The Bottom Line "susceptibility"for a contagion is supposedly So-called "contagious diseases" like symptoms. This theory has been "contagious" only if the individual is "susceptible". This medical rationale is really repeatedly demonstrated as incorrect in AIDS, venereal disease and athlete's foot an admission that germs do not cause disease. the scientific field, and was even admitted are no more contagious than any other diseasebut it does serve certain If they did, everyone exposed would become by Pasteur as being incorrect. commercial interests to make people sick with the same disease. believe that they are. Actually, a "susceptible" person is one with a Basically, acceptance of the theory of high degree of body toxicity, along with the contagion is contingent upon acceptance sufficient vitality to conduct the disof the germ theory of diseasethat ease/purification process. The individual may specific bacteria or "viruses" produce become ill whether exposed to a "contagion" or specific disease symptoms. This theory has been repeatedly not at any given time. When truly healthy individuals maintain their health while in the demonstrated as incorrect in the scientific field, and was even admitted midst of "communicable or epidemic diseases", then it must be self- by Pasteur as being incorrect. Nevertheless, the germ theory and the theory of contagion are evident that the theory of contagion is incorrect. The pan of the body most laden with toxins is the first to exhibit perpetuated by our modem medical system whose prestige, profits and disease symptoms, but the overall effect is systemic as all the organs power are largely based on belief in this erroneous theory. The belief in contagion is difficult to overcome since almost and glands of the system suffer impairment to some degree. everyone's mind has been similarly 'infected' by exploitive 'health care' industries that have a vested interest in disease and suffering and in And How About Our True "Epidemics"? Furthermore, the most prevalent diseases around are not even perpetuating such erroneous beliefs. Basically, the populace believes what the medical establishment contagious. Over 90 per cent of all Americans have plaque in their arteries, yet this is not considered contagious. (But AIDS, which is wants it to. The theory of contagion maintains the demand for their declared to be an epidemic, affects only l/10,000th the number of drug, medical and hospital practices. If you live healthfully you will likely never suffer disease. Diseases people!!) Is obesity considered contagious? It affects one of every are caused only by unhealthful lifestyle practices. three people. How about constipation? It affects about 90 per cent of Do not forget, only the drug, hospital and medical industries teach that our population. health is recovered by administering poisonous drugs. And is bad eyesight which affects two of every three persons This perhaps is one of the most prominent seeds of "contagious" contagious? The same can be said for bad teeth, high blood pressure, headaches, lower back problems, etc., as these diseases are extremely disease. The bottom line is that if germs play any role in the causation widespread. More than half of all Americans have cardiovascular of disease, it is never a primary one but is always secondary to those problems, but are they contagious? The most feared of all diseases is causes that lower our resistance or impair health. cancer. Is it contagious? Arthritis affects more people than herpes. Is Good health is the maximum insurance against all disease in all cases. it contagious? And how about asthma and acne?

College of Practical Homoeopathy 2005 10 of 10

Germ Theory vs Cellular Theory

January 17th, 2011 | Blog, References, Stories & News, Antoine Bechamp, bacteria, bion, cellular, darkfield, DNA, enzymes, Florence Nightingale, Gaston Naessens, germ, Guenther Enderlein, history, Louis Pasteur, medicine, microzyma, nanobacteria, nanobe, Olavi Kajander, orgone, Philippa Uwins, pleomorphic, RNA, Rosenow, Royal Rife, science, terraine, vaccine, virus, Wilhelm Reich by hellaD | 3 Comments

In 2003 when I first started writing for Healthy Options magazine in New Zealand I did a three day fast and spent a couple days at the Auckland library (some people do prayer and fasting, I do reading and fasting-heh). Now those of you who do fasts know that it is a good way to clear your mind and get great focus. I dont think I had any particular interest in the vaccine issue at the time, so it was some synchronistic event that made me pull a book on vaccines from the shelf and read it. At the time I was astonished to learn about Antoine Bchamp and his research on what is now termed the cellular theory. I photocopied the section from the book about Bchamp and filed it away for future reference. Disease is born of us and in us. Bchamp A few years later, after some rather traumatic personal experiences, I got back together with an old love from my college days. He is something of a genius and won some famous award in high school which got him an internship in a medical lab researching genetics or some such thing. As a result he was unconsciously tied to trusting our mainstream medical industry. He knew I didnt think highly of vaccines so at some point we had a huge argument over this issue. Since I had read about Bchamp years before and my immediate recall memory (especially under stress) is pretty sad, I didnt have the arguments on the tip of my tongue. I also suck at verbal debates in general, so I knew I had no chance as he had been debating with his father since a very young age. I did know that what I had read made a whole lot of sense and that I actually probably knew more about the topic than he did, so I stuck to my guns which resulted in him getting pretty pissed off.

The thing that disturbed me the most about our argument, was that he didnt really have anything logical to say to refute what I was trying to explain to him. Instead, it felt like he was relying on personal attack tactics, treating me as if I was some brainwashed, illogical, close-minded idiot who had never really researched the topic or even spent a minute thinking about it. He seemed to think I was just parroting something some science hater had told me. Now, that really pissed me off, since I knew that I had actually put in a fair amount of time researching the issue and he hadnt. In fact, I felt the opposite was truehe seemed to be simply using arguments that he had heard other people use about those quacks and charlatans who were germ theory denialists. Now one of the problems, when people start trying to argue about the germ vs cellular theory, is that you need to be able to step back and look at life and organisms from another perspective entirely. When you get involved in an argument and are unable to do this, you get stuck in various ruts and cant move forward. This is what happened to us. I kept trying to shut the argument down, but he, in his love for me and determination to help save me from the pure foolishness I had mindlessly succumbed to (his perspective) couldnt stop attacking me. Finally, I got fed up with the whole thing and decided we had probably better get some space between us so things could settle down and be examined in a different light. Plus the attacks he was levelling at me were getting increasingly personal and downright mean. When we were able to settle down and he realised I wasnt budging, he finally decided to try to understand where I was coming from and we were able to discuss the ability of our bodies to heal and even go online and find some sources of information that he could read and understand what I was trying to say. After he read about Bchamp and could see that the point I was trying to make was not that all science is stupid, and in fact I was actually defending a very good scientistwho had been forgotten because he wasnt interested in politikinghe has actually come out on the side of the cellular theory due to his own experiences and research. Now the reason I bring this argument up (even though my partner would prefer I didnt) is because this is a very typical experience that people face when trying to talk to each other about the differences between Bchamp and Pasteur. For some reason this argument really hits peoples buttons and gets them irrationally angry. The main way this comes out is that they then start to attack you personally, calling you names and passing you off for a brainwashed idiot. It is very hard to have a reasonable discussion. People on both sides of the argument think that they are in the right and are just trying to help the other person. It is a tough situation to try to deal with. Perhaps the best thing to do is to ask people to simply suspend their disbelief and to try to have an open mind as they take a look at the information that is available. Here is a quick list of some sources that give more information on the topic: A simple explanation of the differences between the Germ Theory and the Cellular Theory. Who is Antoine Bchamp? The Post-Antibiotic Age: Germ Theory Pasteur or Bchamp? Pleomorphic Organisms Bchamp or Pasteur? by Ethel Hume The Blood and its Third Element by Antoine Bchamp Biotensegritythis may not seem to have much to do with the topic, but biotensegrity demonstrates how damage to the shape of our body affects all the cells in our bodies Here are some favorite passages from the book, Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth by Walene James, that I originally read on the topic. Unfortunately I dont have the page numbers for reference: We might say that while Pasteur taught that germs cause disease, Bchamp taught that disease generates germs.

Germ Theory: To quote Rene Dubos of the Rockefeller Institute: The germ theory of disease has a quality of obviousness and lucidity which makes it equally satisfying to a schoolboy and to a trained physician. A virulent microbe reaches a susceptible host, multiplies in its tissues and thereby causes symptoms, lesions and at times death. What concept could be more reasonable and easier to grasp? Reasons why the germ theory became popular are: First, it fit neatly into the mechanistic theories of the universe that were popular in the nineteenth century. Second, it fit human nature. Man, apparently, ever ready to avoid responsibility and place causation outside himself, found an easy scapegoat in the bad little organisms that flew about and attacked him. After all, it wasnt too long ago that evil spirits had been responsible for mans ills. Third, it fit commercial nature. When we place causation outside ourselves, we create vast armies of attackers and defenders, assailants and protectors. Cellular Theory: Bchamp showed through innumerable experiments not only that the germ we associate with a particular disease is a product and not the cause of the disease but also that what some researchers would call different species of bacteria are really different stages of microzymian evolution into their bacterial forms. Bchamp showed that bacteria function in whatever medium they find themselves, even changing their shapes (see biotensegrity above) as well as their function to accord with that medium. In other words, bacteria are pleomorphic (form changing) rather than monomorphic (form fixed). They reflect the conditions in which they find themselves rather than create those conditions. Bodies in which pathogenic bacteria form are not healthy; merely fighting and killing bacteria will not bring health, for the condition that gave rise to the bacteria will do so again. Microzymas are constantly developing into bacteria. In fact, bacteria are an evolutionary form of microzymasactually microzymas fully grown. They develop from the cells of the host organism when that organism dies. So-called virulent or pathogenic bacteria are generated by decaying matter, their function being to reduce (decompose) matter back to its constituent elements. When their job is finished, they become microzymas again. Pathogenic bacteria could be thought of as natures undertakers or clean-up crew. If a tissue is healthy, the microzymas will function to support the life and integrity of the cells; if the cells have been damaged, they will produce morbid or diseased microzymas that may evolve into pathogenic (disease producing) bacteria. In short, the microzyma has two functions: to build or to disintegrate tissue. Another way of thinking about the function of microzymas is: They secrete ferments that aid digestion, and when they encounter dead or damaged cells, they evolve into bacteria. Regarding the germ theory, Florence Nightingale remarked: Is it not living in a continual mistake to look upon diseases, as we do now, as separate entities, which must exist, like cats and dogs, instead of looking upon them as conditions, like a dirty and clean condition, and just as much under our own control? I was brought up to believethat smallpox was a thing of which there was once a specimen in the world, which went on propagating itself in a perpetual chain of descent, just as much as that there was a first dog (or pair of dogs), and that smallpox would not begin itself any more than a new dog would begin without there having been a parent dog. Since then I have seen with

new dog would begin without there having been a parent dog. Since then I have seen with my own eyes and smelt with my nose smallpox growing up in first specimens, either in close rooms or in overcrowded wards, where it could not by any possibility have been caught, but must have begun. Nay, more, I have seen diseases begin, grow up and pass into one another. Now dogs do not pass into cats. I have seen, for instance, with a little overcrowding, continued fever grow up, and with a little more, typhoid fever, and with a little more, typhus, and all in the same ward or hut. For diseases, as all experience shows, are adjectives, not noun substantives.There are no specific diseases: there are specific conditions. In 1910, at the Mayo Biological Laboratories, Dr. Rosenow began a series of experiments in which he took bacterial strains from many different disease sources, such as puerperal sepsis, arthritis, and tonsillitis and put them into one culture of uniform media. After a while, there was no difference between the germs; they became all one class. The results of his studies were published in 1914 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases 14: 1-32. Rosenow demonstrated: that simple bacterial forms like streptococci (pus germs) could be made to assume all of the characteristics of pneumococci (pneumonia germs) simply by feeding them on pneumonia virus and making other minor modifications in their environment. And when Rosenow reversed the procedure and fed pneumonia germs on pus, they quickly changed into streptococci. Many other experiments were carried on, and, in every instance, the germs, regardless of type, changed into other types when their food and environment were altered. Dr. Rosenow wrote in his 1914 article, It would seem, therefore that focal infections are no longer to be looked upon merely as a place of entrance of bacteria but as a place where conditions are favorable for them to acquire the properties which give them a wide range of affinities for various structures. In reality, it is not the bacteria themselves that produce the disease, but we believe it is the chemical constituents of these micro-organisms enacting upon the unbalanced cell metabolism of the human body that in actuality produce the disease. We also believe if the metabolism of the human body is perfectly balanced or poised, it is susceptible to no disease. We have in many instances produced all the symptoms of a disease chemically in experimental animals without the inoculation of any virus or bacteria into their tissues. Dr. Rife Bchamp and Estor observed that cell granules (microzymas) associate and develop into threadlike forms. They were no doubt observing different stages of mitosis or cell division and the development of chromatin threads. Bchamp earlier had observed these rodlike groupings of microzymas, which now go by the name of chromosomes, and in his book Blood and Its Elements, he noted that the coming together of microzymas forms a figure eight (double-helix formation). What about viruses? We now know that a virus consists of simply a core of genetic materialeither a DNA or RNA moleculeand a protective envelope made of proteins. Unlike all life forms as we know them, the virus lacks a cell structure. It does not need and cannot metabolize nutrients, does not grow, and cannot replicate without the help of its host. In other words, a virus is completely dependent on its host (organismic environment), which gives it its characterharmful or harmlessand its ability to reproduce. If we think of microzymas, bacteria (single-cell microorganisms), and viruses as carriers of genetic materialDNA and RNAit becomes apparent that they can have important metabolic functions in the body. DNA, for instance, not only makes the enzymes that build the structures of the body and regulate

body. DNA, for instance, not only makes the enzymes that build the structures of the body and regulate cell metabolism, but it regenerates the body. RNA not only carries genetic instructions and helps assemble proteins for the vital processes of life, but it also serves as an enzyme, or biological catalyst, that governs some of the chemical reactions necessary for those life processes. In fact, RNA acts as a class of enzymes, those substances that regulate the chemical activities of every living cell. The most serious, even fatal, disorders may be provoked by the injection of living organisms into the blood; organisms which, existing in the organs proper to them, fulfill necessary and beneficial functionschemical and physiologicalbut injected into the blood, into a medium not intended for them, provoke redoubtable manifestations of the gravest morbid phenomena. Microzymas, morphologically identical, may differ functionally, and those proper to one species or to one centre of activity cannot be introduced into an animal of another species, nor even into another centre of activity in the same animal, without serious danger. Bchamp I am sorry that this is a rather long article. It is a very detailed topic which deserves much more understanding. I am doing my best to summarize it to some extent for you all. The following is from a very good article with lots more information that is posted on Squidoo. I have pulled out some of my favorite passages, but I recommend you follow this link and find out more information directly from the source as well. The following will give you more information about Antoine Bchamp and other honest and determined scientists who discovered these precursors of life on their own.

Professor Antoine Bchamp (1816-1908)

On April 15, 1908, Antoine Bchamp, one of the greatest scientists who ever lived died, aged 91. Antoine Bchamp was the foremost pioneer of science, medicine, nutrition and genetics of his generation, and his discoveries could have saved humanity immense misery and suffering. He was one of Frances most prominent and active researchers and biologists; he had degrees in biology, chemistry, physics, pharmacy, and medicine, and practised, researched and taught in all those fields. He first worked in Strasbourg as a Professor of Physics and Toxicology at the Higher School of Pharmacy, later as Professor of Medical Chemistry at the University of Montpellier and, later still, as Professor of Biochemistry and Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Lille, all in France. Nothing is lost, nothing is created all is transformed. Nothing is the prey of death. All is the prey of life. Antoine Bchamp Bchamps Science and the Microzymas: While working on fermentation (the breakdown of complex molecules into organic compounds via a ferment) Bchamp observed through his microscope a host of tiny bodies in his fermenting solutions. Bchamp, able to ascribe strong enzymatic reactions to them, coined a new word to describe them: microzymas, or tiny ferments. Bchamp went on to study microzymas found in the bodies of animals, and came to the startling conclusion that the tiny forms were more basic to life than cells, which had long been considered to be the building blocks of all living matter. Bchamp proposed that the microzymas were fundamental elements, responsible for the activity of cells, tissues, organsindeed every aspect of all living organisms. Most incredible to Bchamp was his discovery that when there occurred an event serious enough to affect the whole of an organism, disturbing the natural balance, the microzymas within the organism would begin working to disintegrate the organism, totally converting themselves to bacteria and other microbes, in an attempt to ensure their survival. These basic, and virtually indestructable, elements of

microbes, in an attempt to ensure their survival. These basic, and virtually indestructable, elements of which we and all our animal relatives are composed survive the death of the cells in our bodies. So seemingly indestructible were the microzymas that Bchamp could even find them in limestone dating back 60 million years. According to Bchamp, microzymas are the seeds of life. He demonstrated in his laboratory that by using different solutions as the environment he would grow totally different sets of germs in spite of the fact that all solutions had been kept in the same sterile conditions. The germs, he was convinced, could not have come from an outside source but had to be originating from within each solution itself. The microzymas, which are the same basic structures for all living material, transformed themselves according to the stimulation of the various environments in which they lived, into different life forms (in these experiments, germs) corresponding to the content of the solution itself. This changing of form pleomorphism is our next topic. Pleomorphism: The concept of pleomorphism is at the heart of Bchamps theories. He observed that one sort of bacteria could develop spontaneously into another type, given a change in the environmental conditions (or shape see biotensegrity above). According to Bchamp the microzyma, which was critical in supporting the life of cells, could be triggered into pathogenic states, depending on specific changes in the state of the internal (particularly the blood) environment. Therefore, the bacteria and other micro-organisms, such as viruses and fungi, that were being blamed as the cause of disease, were viewed by Bchamp as being part of natures clean-up crew, breaking down sick tissue and ultimately decomposing a no-longer-occupied body. Bchamp also viewed these micro-organisms as changing forms (pleomorphic) from seed to bacterial, viral and fungal states, rather than being seen as discrete species unto themselves. Once these bugs have done the job, they revert to the seed stage once again, ready to support new life. The very ground we stand on is teeming with these fundamental biological units. Bchamp and Pasteur:

Bchamp and Pasteur were both members of the French Academy of Sciences, and the papers they submitted, and their correspondence, both to each other and to other people, were all recorded. Even their verbal exchanges survive in the minutes of the meetings. Seldom has a lifetime of scientific and professional antagonism been so well and publicly documented. Bchamp said that microzymas arose from within the bodys cells because of changes occurring with the cell itself. The presence and state of the microzymas in other words their observed evolution to the state of being a virus or bacteria is therefore a symptom of disease, not the cause of it. Pasteur, on the other hand, and as the world knows, argued that germs from the external world enter the body and cause the disease. Instead of incorporating Bchamps discoveries to bring about a health revolution and save countless lives, greedy and power-hungry industrialists decided to ostracize his work and put their dollars behind Louis Pasteurs germ theory. This became a way for them to build a colossal and profitable pharmaceutical/medical empire. (See Robert Koch the tuberculin vaccine and the exclusive agreement the Prussian government made with him) The difference between Bchamp and Pasteur is clearly seen through examining the reports they submitted to the French Academy of Science. This leads to three indisputable and striking conclusions: 1. Pasteurs reports on experiments and consequent deductions are all preceded by Bchamps, in some cases by several years. When Pasteur proclaimed to have found the answer to a pressing question it turns out that Bchamp had already clearly answered that question. 2. The quality control on Pasteurs experiments was poor and allows for unaccounted interference. In contrast, Bchamp had a rigid and structured approach to his experiments, which allowed him to answer his contemporaries more clearly and directly. 3. The deductions Pasteur made from his experiments were often far beyond the scope of the actual experiment and often turned out to be more speculation than science. As a consequence, Pasteur was caught out on several occasions changing his interpretation and statements to suit his case. Bchamp, on the other hand, never made a claim that he had not substantiated with sound scientific proof. The reason why Bchamp was mainly ignored and Pasteur elevated to hero status is to be found in the different personalities and the lure of commercial success. Bechamp was a dedicated scientist and researcher, but he had no skills at politics and ass-kissing. Pasteur, on the other hand, was an expert at both. He ingratiated himself with the rich and powerful, and even became a favorite of French royalty. Pasteur himself recanted it in his private journal, writing the famous words which were revealed many decades after his death: It is not the germ that causes disease but the terrain in which the germ is found.

Bchamps heirs:
this section is still taken from the squidoo lense on Bchamp. The following are some of the many researchers who have followed in Bchamps footsteps, consciously or not. Wilhelm Reich: Do not automatically believe in anything , especially what you are told. Convince yourself of something by observing it with your own eyes. And, after having perceived a

yourself of something by observing it with your own eyes. And, after having perceived a new fact, do not lose site of it again until it is fully explained. Wilhelm Reich After first making his mark in psychoanalysis as Freuds protg and leading collaborator, Wilhelm Reich broke with the International Psychoanalytic Movement to take up an independent career. He began working with an unusual microscope equipped with special lenses that could magnify living organisms to 2 3000X their normal size, well over twice the magnification achievable with the ordinary microscopes of his day. Among his extraordinary discoveries were vesicles minuscule fluid containing bladder-like sacs that appeared in infusions of hay and other substances such as animal tissue, earth and coal. After much experimentation during which he noted a marked increase in the number of vesicles that could be cultured when the preparations containing them were boiled, he concluded that the strange forms he had discovered were transitional, lying midway between the realms of the animate and the inert. To these unrecognised elementary stages of life, he gave the name bions. He had, of course, rediscovered Bchamps microzymas. When Reich poured some of his boiled preparations onto nutrient culture media, the cultures began to generate peculiar looking bacteria and amoebae. To be sure they were sterilized, Reich superheated his bion cultures, to find that the ostensibly sterile mixtures continued to give rise to the higher microbic forms. This led him to the further conclusion that bions, as preliminary stages of life, were embodiments of an indestructible life force that defied death. Reich christened this life force orgone. His claims were already so heretical as to alarm orthodox science, but Reich wasnt finished. He claimed that bion structures could also be detected in, and cultured from, human blood, which, then as now, was considered to be sterile. This next led him to examine blood samples taken from persons suffering from cancer in which he saw extremely tiny bacterial forms that he connected to that lethal disease process. He labelled them T-bacilli, the T standing for Tod which in Reichs native German means death. It seemed to Reich that there was something unaccountable going on in the bodies of the cancerafflicted, a degeneration causing healthy life-promoting bions to develop into a death-dealing T-bacilli. Since he had also found these death bacteria in the excreta of healthy people, he assumed that these individuals were able to dispose of cancer causing particles, and that disposition to cancer was determined by a level of biological resistance. A question naturally arises at this point: Could germs appearing in the body be the result, rather than the cause, of afflictions? Reichs life ended tragically. He was submitted to virulent attacks for questioning sacred dogmas of medical science in general, and the cancer industry in particular. The story of this controversial, often cantankerous, scientist ended when he was brought to trial and sentenced to a term in a U.S. prison where, in 1964, he died. The US government also ordered that all of Reichs publications on which they could lay their hands including a privately printed journal, Journal of Orgonomy be incinerated. That order was carried out less than 20 years after the Nazi government in Germany had ordered all of Reichs then existing publications burned Guenther Enderlein: Working as a bacteriologist in a military hospital on the Baltic Sea, German zoologist Guenther Endedein, in 1917 finished a manuscript that opened a new door onto the world of microbes. It revealed many different pleomorphic developmental phases of bacteria, and showed that diseases and their healing processes are bound to precise cyclical and morphological laws. The manuscript was published as a book, Bakterien Cyclogenie, (The Life Cycle of Bacteria) in 1925, shortly after its authors appointment as curator of the Zoological Museum in Berlin.

authors appointment as curator of the Zoological Museum in Berlin. For inspiring his work, Enderlein gives great credit to Antoine Bchamp as well as several Germans who took up where Bchamp left off, including zoologist Robert Leuckart, founder of the science of parisitology, and Otto Schmidt, who first reported parasites in the blood of cancer patients as far back as 1901. Using a darkfield microscope, Enderlein discovered that microorganisms go through a form-changing cycle that, in his view, could take on countless variations, leading him to label the phenomenon a 1000-headed monster. He asserted that while different types of microorganisms normally live within the body in a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship, with severe deterioration of the bodys environment they can develop into disease-producing forms, to create what he called dysbiosis, or a fault in the life process. Their action, according to Enderlein, was not due to any perverse intent on the microbes part to harm the host, but to their urge to survive at its expense. In their early developmental phases, they lived in the blood to perform functions beneficial to health, while in the later phases, they abandoned that role to assure their preservation. Royal Rife: Dr. Royal Rife was arguably one of the greatest scientific minds of the twentieth century. His instrument, which he designed and manufactured himself, was able to view living matter at unheard of magnifications of up to 60,000X, also at excellent resolution. With this extraordinary device, Rife identified microbes in the blood of sick people which seemingly miraculously transformed, under various conditions, one into the other, in classic pleomorphist fashion. He saw sixteen stages in all the same number in Gaston Naessens somatid cycle. Rife was able to observe and prove the reality of pleomorphism. He was able to do this partly because of his advancements with optics, but also because he used light frequencies to highlight his samples, rather than chemical dyes. Using dyes kills the specimen, so tissues cannot be viewed in the natural living state. Studying dead samples to understand living processes is as useless as studying cadavers. Rife was also able to isolate the particular viral form involved in all forms of cancer, and most astonishing of all he discovered a particular frequency that would neutralize it. Maurice Fishbein, representing the AMA at the time, wanted to buy into Rifes discovery for personal gain. When Rife rejected Fishbeins offer, the once-supportive AMA establishment proceeded to vilify him in print, and his discoveries were driven underground. Government goon squads attempted to physically destroy all the evidence of Rifes work. As a result of his discoveries, Rife came to the independent conclusion to which others had come independently both before and after him that, depending on its inner state, germs arose within the body itself, and these germs were not the cause, but the result of disease states. This single conclusion completely overturns everything that modern mainstream medical theory is based on.

Gaston Naessens: Using a microscope that he designed himself, Canadian Gaston Naessens discovered ultramicroscopic, subcellular, living and reproducing microscopic forms which he called a somatid. This particle could be cultured outside the bodies of the host. Naessens also observed that the particle had a pleomorphic sixteen-stage life cycle. According to Naessens, only the first three stages of the somatid life cycle are normal. He maintains that when the immune system is weakened or disrupted, the somatids evolve through the other thirteen stages. The weakening of the immune system could be caused by such things as chemical pollution, ionising radiation, electric fields, diet, accidents, shock, depression, and other factors. Naessens research has resulted in the association of degenerative diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, cancer and AIDS) with the development of forms in the sixteen-stage pathological cycle. The ability to associate the disease with specific stages has enabled Naessens to prediagnose conditions in advance of when they clinically appear. His work is repeatable. The ability to culture somatids is a call to the rewriting of microbiology. Naessens has stated: Ive been able to establish a life cycle of forms in the blood that add up to no less than a brand new understanding of the basis of life. What were talking about is an entirely new biology, one out of which has fortunately sprung practical applications of benefit to sick people, even before all of its many theoretical aspects have been sorted out. Philippa Uwins: We fast-forward now to modern times. In 1996, a geologist studying sandstone core examples from an oil exploration project off the West Australian coast made a dramatic discovery one that seems to fit hand-in-glove with the work of Bchamp, Enderlein, Reich, Naessens, and Rife. Philippa Uwins called the entities she observed nanobes. She wasnt looking for the smallest bacteria known to science when she aimed her electron microscope at a chunk of rock extracted from thousands of metres below the Australian seabed, but she found something very interesting; tiny filaments that looked suspiciously like bacterial or fungal colonies, growing on the Triassic and Jurassic sandstone. Even so, Uwins, then a geologist from the University of Queensland, didnt jump to any conclusions. Its not unheard of for bacteria to live far below the Earths surface, but Uwinss nanobes seemed to adapt surprisingly easily to the totally different conditions of an above-ground lab. Most importantly, the organisms were incredibly small some no more than 20 nanometres (20 billionths of a metre) in diameter. That was a problem, because creatures that small arent meant to exist, according to conventional microbiology. Viruses can be that tiny because they rely on host cells to reproduce, but any free-living organism needs to have a diameter of at least 100 to 250 nanometres (depending on whose calculations you read), just to cram in the machinery necessary for life.

This initial discovery was curious enough, but when the team found that containers and equipment in their laboratory were being colonised by these structures, they realised that whatever they had found was growing. Samples were collected from petri dishes and examined in a powerful SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope). Uwins became convinced that her team had found an organism that breaks all the rules. Over the course of two years, she grew numerous nanobe colonies in her lab. And, with her University of Queensland colleagues, microbiologists Anthony Taylor and Richard Webb, Uwins says she has used three different stains for detecting DNA, with positive results, and made ultrathin sections of the organisms to reveal what appear to be cell walls findings that are consistent with these being living creatures, not an inorganic process masquerading as bacterial colonies. One of Uwins leading advocates is Dr Robert Folk of the University of Texas, whose work involved studying mineral deposits near volcanoes. He has claimed to have identified bacteria very much smaller than any previously discovered. He believes such bacteria form the bulk of living things on Earth and may be responsible for the rusting of metal and the greening of copper but the tiny organisms have eluded conventional tools and avenues of research. Olavi Kajander and Neva Ciftcioglu: Olavi Kajander and Neva Ciftcioglu, while working at the University of Kuopio in Finland, also found mini-bacteria, alive and kicking in kidney stones. Kajander was searching with an electron microscope for a contaminant that was stopping laboratory cell cultures growing well when he found what appeared to be a white film of tiny bacteria. Culturing the strange micro-organisms was difficult, because they had a remarkably slow metabolism about 10,000 times slower than normal. And although most of the spherical bacteria ranged in diameter from between 200 and 500 nanometres, huge numbers of them were between a mere 50 to 80 nanometres. That slow metabolism helps to explain how the bacteria can get by with so little space inside for the bare necessities of life, says Kajander. But he also suggests a far more radical explanation for their minuscule size. Each of the smaller forms could be a single piece of a whole nanobacterium a part of its genome would be stored in one cell, and a ribosome or two in another. These fragments could then link up, using molecules on their surfaces to create a complete organism that would be seen under the microscope as one of the larger cells in the population. One form they described is 20-100 nanometers in size with a unique cell membrane structure. This form secretes a calcific biofilm gooey slime around itself that provides protection as well as allowing for multiple nanobacteria to connect, collaborate and somehow function together as a unit or colony. This calcific biofilm allows the nanobacteria to act like slime molds that can expand, contract and move. This biofilm-phase of nanobacterial life appears to be present when the nanobacteria are chemically attacked, physiologically stressed, environmentally attacked, and when they are working together or reproducing. The calcific biofilm that is secreted by the nanobacteria is a potent endotoxin and mediator (cause) of inflammation and swelling. In other words, our bodies react aggressively in response to the presence of this nanobacteria-secreted biofilm with swelling and irritation, the release of cytokines, interleukins, leukocytes, mast cells, collagenase, matrix metalloproteinases, etc. Our bodies react by trying to wall off the area of nanobacterial infection. When nanobacteria are in an enclosed area, they cause chronic inflammation and swelling. Most of the commonly known medical markers of inflammation (C Reactive Protein, MMPs, MPO, Interleukins, etc.) are found to be elevated in response to the endotoxin in the nanobacterial biofilm. A note on kidney stones. Much revolves around the nanobacterias ability to build protective castles around themselves, apparently by precipitating carbonate apatite, the same substance that makes up most kidney stones. These castles, according to Kajander, could act in the kidneys like grains of sand

most kidney stones. These castles, according to Kajander, could act in the kidneys like grains of sand in a pearl-producing oyster, triggering the growth of stones. Using electron microscopy, Kajander and Ciftcioglu identified nanobacteria in kidney stones from 72 patients. Antibody staining confirmed that result, but the pice de rsistance was when they cultured living nanobacteria from the stones. And when they injected nanobacteria into the blood of rabbits, they later appeared in the kidneys and damaged the part of the organ where stones typically form. To kidney specialists, the idea that a bacterium can cause kidney stones doesnt seem so bizarre. Although the cause of most kidney stones has been a mystery, bacterial infections are known to cause a rarer kind of stone, the bacterium in question making urine more acidic, encouraging mineral precipitation. William Russell: On December 3, 1890 William Russell, a pathologist in the School of Medicine at the Royal Infirmary in Edinburgh, gave an address to the Pathological Society of London in which he outlined his histopathologic findings of a characteristic organism of cancer that he observed microscopically in fuchsine-stained tissue sections from all forms of cancer that he examined, as well as in certain cases of tuberculosis, syphilis and skin infection.