[Debunking] Pasteur, the Stalin of medicine

Adaryn

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
This is the translation of an article published in Michel Dogna's book Prenez en main votre santé, based on Philippe Decourt's book Les Vérités indésirables.

1st part :
Pasteur, the Stalin of Medicine (edit : removed the "e" in "Staline" - wrong spelling)

Who could doubt the history of medicine's great discoveries as they are taught in school, and the trends that gave rise to them?

Who hasn't heard of Claude Bernard without knowing, most often, what he did - whereas the name of Pasteur, praised, revered like a demigod, evokes in most minds capital discoveries such as the microbes, the vaccination against rabies, the rescue of the silk industry, pasteurization, asepsis, which place him among the greatest benefactors of humanity?

Between the legend of school books and historical reality, there is often a serious gap, generally aiming at serving religious and political ideologies - and in Pasteur's case, pharmaco-commercial ideologies.

The historical truncating, or even lie, is all the more easy as most biologists are never interested in the mere history of their field. They have, most of the time, never read a single line written by Cuvier, Linné or Darwin (the one who is descended from the ape), by Lamarck or Pasteur himself, even less by Claude Bernard - even if they sometimes quote them.

A short history of the Pasteur investigation

It's Jean Rostand who, having had in his hands part of Davaine's work in 1948, took the bold initiative in questioning the legendary paternity of Pasteur about the microbian origin of infectious diseases (see "L'Homme de Vérité", 2nd volume). Thus he entrusted a young zoologist keen on the history of sciences, named Jean Théodoridès, with the mission to look deeper into Davaine's work. This fascinating work brought Théodoridès to come into contact with an excellent historian of sciences - a physician retired in Limousin, Dr. Léon Delhoume, who had written 3 big volumes on the lives of Dupuytren, Cruveihier, d'Arsonval, and especially on the unpublished works of Claude Bernard, of a remarkable erudition.

On the basis of which documents had Delhoume worked?

D'Arsonval had been Claude Bernard's last assistant. Bernard, suffering at 65 from an acute fatal disease, and dismayed not to be able to finish his work, confided in his close friends before he died : "Pasteur was wrong". Then he delegated d'Arsonval, then aged 26, to have his (unfortunately unfinished) work published. Very impressed, d'Arsonval preferred to delegate the great chemist Berthelot who, immediately, had a publication issued at the Academy of Sciences.

Pasteur went into a mad fury, and young d'Arsonval, frightened, didn't dare to transmit anything any longer. That's what explains the withholding for 50 years of the Claude Bernard file, until d'Arsonval made the decision, at the end of his life, to transmit it to Dr. Delhoume, a historian.

Philippe Decourt, a member of the International Academy of the History of Medicine and a friend of Théodoridès, regularly visited Dr. Delhoume. Thus it is that one day, the doctor personally handed to him a document called : Béchamp or Pasteur ? with the subtitle : A lost chapter of the history of biology. Delhoume confided in him : "Now I'm too old. You should look into it further." This book had been written by an English woman, based on the notes of an American physician, a personal friend of Béchamp ; then it had been translated into French in 1948 (Le François Press) with the preface of two Swiss physicians who were very hostile to vaccination - which might have compromised the success of the book.

Philippe Decourt writes : "What I was seeing while reading these documents stupefied me. My stupefaction increased even more while I was gradually studying the other discoveries which are attributed to Pasteur. Reality is quite different from the legend. A myth had been created and was repeated without checking anything. We were the victims of a huge hoax."

Galtier, Duboué, Roux, then Toussaint and Fermi were the true architects of the anti rabies vaccination

On the 25th August 1879, Galtier, a teacher at the veterinary School of Lyon, presented at the Academy of sciences his works on the prevention of rabies thanks to a method of attenuation in vitro. For this, Galtier had used the thesis that Pierre Henri Duboué had presented in the beginning of that year, and which explained the incubation period of rabies by the slow nerve propagation of bacterial toxins between the bite locus and the medulla oblongata - a theory which would prove to be correct later. Dr Emile Roux, Pasteur's assistant, took over Galtier's work and devoted his thesis to it in 1883. Consequently, he set up an intracerebral inoculation process, with rabbit's spinal cord which was contaminated and dried out on potash.

In 1885, Pasteur seized Galtier and Roux's works and planned to carry out immediate tests on humans. Roux, panicked, refused to sign the contract note of October 1885, because he held the innocuousness method as uncertain, and its application as too early. The future would show that Roux was right. Pasteur's fame about rabies was to be based on two famous cases:

The Joseph Meister case

A 9 year old child saved thanks to the "Pasteur method" of prevention against rabies after a dog bite. (it was the title of his communication).

The dog was destroyed, and an autopsy was carried out. A few wood fragments were found in its stomach. It's common for dogs to gnaw at wood pieces. But at the time, according to the popular belief, this was taken as a sign of rabies. No inoculation tests on rabbits were carried out to demonstrate that the dog was truly rabid.

Moreover, what few know, according to Dr. de Brouwer's words, is that this nasty dog had bitten five other people who didn't receive any particular treatment and who never had any health problems afterwards.
Pasteur then made (intentionally or not) a tremendous mistake in his reasoning: as much as the death rate by rabies bite on the face is high and fast, the farther from the head the bite is inflicted, the more the death risk decreases. It drops to 15% for bites on the trunk and extremities, and to 3% through the clothes. Pasteur knew it just as everybody else. Yet, young Meister having been bitten on his right hand and on his legs through his trousers, the risk was then comprised between 3 and 15% in case the dog would have been rabid.

That's why Peter contested this recovery at the Academy of Medicine, saying : "How could you, Mr. Vulpian, a doctor, fail to see that young Meister's case doesn't prove anything, a single case being of null-significance in therapeutics, young Meister possibly having - as we all have - 5 chances in 6 of not becoming rabid after a rabies bite ?"

The Jupille case

This man went to Pasteur's laboratory on the 20th october 1885 to be vaccinated, after he had been bitten by a would-be rabid dog.

On the 26th october (6 days later), Pasteur was already telling his story of Jupille's recovery at the Academy of Science.

On the 27th october, he repeated his communication at the Academy of Medicine.

On the 29th october, he told the story again at the French Academy, asking for a courage prize for Jupille's courage in fighting a rabid dog.

The dog in question was a Picard shephard renowned for never attacking people. And it's Jupille who, accompanied by 6 children, attacked the dog with a whip, when it was just barking. The dog defended itself and bit Jupille on his left hand. Jupille, acording to Pasteur's own words, then fought with the dog, tied it up and drowned it (one may ask who was the most rabid).

Concerning Pasteur's declarations, one can only be dumbfounded by his incredible fickleness and his lack of intellectual integrity, when he dared to officially announce a recovery without even waiting for the required period of 15 days for a possible immunization to take place, on a morbidity which just had 1 chance in 6 to break out, and all this beginning with a dog who, as we have seen, had no reason whatsoever to be rabid.

The so-called results of Jupille's vaccination thus have no scientific value and it is surprising that the 3 academicians let themselves fooled so easily in front of so random facts.

Nervertheless, the fact remains that high-circulation scientific magazines, both french and english, passed on the advert and that the tout-Paris went completely delirious over Pasteur's medical feats.

Thousands of bitten (by non rabid dogs) people flocked to the Pasteur Institute.

On the 1st March 1886, Pasteur published his first statistics on 350 treated cases. He concludes : "It can be asserted that the method has proved its worth" (which proofs ?).

On the 2nd November 1886, he reports 2490 treated patients, 1796 of whom on the French and Algerian terrritory. There were 10 deaths. Pasteur concluded that his method was a total success, by the fact that he registered 1 death in 170 treated cases. Intellectual dishonesty again, since he reasoned as if the 1700 cases had been bitten by truly rabid dogs - which was rarely checked. But the matter went wrong when a complaint was made on the 17 November 1886 against the Pasteur Institute, by the father of a 12 year old child who died after the treatment. At the autopsy carried out by Dr. Loir, the child's medulla was extracted and submitted to inoculation on rabbits. Those died of rabies within the usual period. Had the child died of rabies, or the vaccine? Drs. Loir, Roux and Brouardel decided to dissimulate the result. It is Loir who revealed the truth later.

Brouardel submitted a report to the legal authorities, saying the animals who had been inoculated were in perfect health and that the child hadn't died of rabies.

There were many other similar cases where the subjects wouldn't have died if they hadn't receive inoculation. But when Peter did the diagnosis of rabies after the method had been applied, Pasteur got angry and claimed Peter was incompetent.

Contrary to what is commonly believed, present vaccines weren't created by Pasteur, but by Toussaint, a teacher at the Veterinary School of Toulouse.

His 3 methods of bacterial attenuation were :

- heating of the virulent matter at 55°C (131°F)
- great dilution
- action of an antiseptic (phenic acid or potassium dichromate).

In fact, the Pasteur vaccine, of a doubtful and irregular efficiency, based on dried out rabbit spinal cord (Roux method) was given up in 1908 when Fermi took over Toussaint's 3rd method, far safer.

Concerning the efficiency of vaccines, Peter declares in 1887 that, in France, death by rabies hadn't decreased since the Pasteurian method was applied on a big scale, on a period going from 1850 to 1876 - i.e. 28,5 cases per year, on a constant basis.

The anthrax vaccine was stolen from Toussaint

In 1850, a big medicine boss, Rayer, was called to Eure-et-Loir to study the anthrax disease which had been devastating sheep flocks. He took with him his student, Davaine. Together, they had the idea - original at the time - to observe the sheep's blood under a microscope. Thus, they could observe little rods twice as long as red corpuscles. Moreover, they discovered that blood could transmit the disease from one animal to the other.
Davaine was convinced that the rods in the blood were linked to the disease. Unfortunately, he didn't have a laboratory to confirm his thesis and had little spare time to think about the problem.

In 1860, another researcher intervened - Onésime Delafond, a veterinary teacher at the School of Alfort. He too started to observe under a microscope rods in the blood of infected animals. Then, he lay himself open to ridicule on the part of his colleagues, among whom was Bouley (his superior), which laughed at him because he was looking for diseases in a microscope. This didn't prevent him, on the 10th May 1860, from exposing the main body of his discoveries on the examined blood of 125 animals infected by the disease. The only question which remained to be understood was : did the rods come from outside, or were they produced by the disease ?

The following year, he died of a systemic erysipelas, which put a stop to his research.

Two years later, in 1863, Davaine was finally able to undertake research work thanks to a banker friend who allowed him to set up a mini laboratory inside a hall of his private mansion. It is there that, without help nor grant, with little available time, Davaine became the real inventor of microbiology.

Within a short time, he began to transmit several communications to the Academy, on the basis of countless forensic experiments.

In 1864, two fierce detractors, Leplat and Taillard, published a refutation of Davaine's commentaries. But the latter had more arguments than needed to confound them, the result of which was to win him great publicity and many followers. Also, a flood of discoveries were to be made based on his work.

Particularly, Robert Koch, a young German, invented the nutritional solid medium and the fixation of microbes on coloring, discovered the spores of the anthrasic bacterium in 1876, the cholera comma bacillus in 1883, then the tuberculosis bacillus which would take his name, then tuberculin which is now used to take skin tests, and finally he demonstrated the existence of acquired immunity.

It is also thanks to Davaine that Hansen would discover the leprosy bacillus in 1874, Neisser the gonococcus in 1879, Perroneito - in 1878 - and Toussaint - in 1879 - the hen cholera bacillus , Eberth the typhoid bacillus in 1880, Pasteur the staphylococcus and streptococcus in 1880, Klebs - in 1875 - and Loeffler - in 1882 - the diphtheria bacillus, Yersin the plague bacillus in 1894, Laveran the paludism haematozoa in 1880, etc.

Taking again Davaine's works as a starting point, as soon as 1877, Toussaint issued many publications on the anthrasic bacteria and, on the 12th july 1880, a historical date, he left a sealed envelope at the Academy of Medicine, which contained the means to acquire immunity against anthrax. He prescribed heating at 55°C (131°F) of anthrasic defibrinated blood, during 10 minutes. The numerous experiments he carried out on sheep and dogs, on which we won't elaborate here, gave a total reliability. It was the birth of the first modern vaccine.
On the 6th september 1880, Bouley, the general inspector of veterinary schools, confirmed and authenticated Toussaint's work.

When Pasteur heard about Toussaint's declaration, he was utterly stupefied. He wrote Bouley on the 10th august 1880 : "I am in awe and amazed by M. Toussaint's discovery. This turns upside down all the ideas I've had on viruses, vaccines, etc. It's beyond me... A dead germ cannot vaccinate".

But he didn't admit defeat for all that. He went into a raging feverishness, where his litteral obsession was to put Toussaint in the wrong. He prevented Chamberland and Roux from taking holidays. He bought hens and sheep and tried to hastily reproduce Toussaint's experiments. His hysterical fury made him commit huge technical errors. Thus, he wrote Bouley : "You know, the results have been absolutely negative. The hens which were inoculated immediately or after a variable time (1, 2 or 3 days ?) with infectious viruses have died without showing the least immunity".

At that moment, Pasteur ignored Jenner's principle on the time of reaction of the organism, which is 10 to 15 days. It is Roux who would tell him about it ultimately.

As soon as the 21st of August, Pasteur, helped by Roux and Chamberland, botched up, in the same manner, the same experiment with a few sheep. Still not waiting for the time of reaction, he wrote the Academy : " On the strength of numerous experiments which don't leave room to any doubt, I can assure you that M. Toussaint's interpretation must be reconsidered".

On the 29th August, for an experiment that was effective on the 21th August, Pasteur wrote Bouley :"Toussaint acted with a thoughtlessness which cannot be allowed in such a matter... The inoculation of fresh anthrasic blood causes all the sheep to perish..."

That was a lie, as in reality, despite the improper application of Toussaint's method, all the sheep hadn't perished. The experience was resumed from cold, later, by Pasteur, following a correct protocol, but he kept silent about it (according to Roux's and Chamberland's personal notes).

It was only on the following 21th March that Pasteur acknowledged the value of Toussaint's vaccine. However, he continued to accuse him about the interpretation of his experiment, claiming that the anthrasic germ was not killed in the vaccine (this upset his theories too much), but modified in its vitality. He even added that M.Toussaint's vaccine exposed the flocks to heavy losses (what a nerve !).

On the same day, he presented his own vaccine against anthrax, the marvelous simplicity of which he praised.
His idea had only been to limit the heating of the vaccine to 42-43°C (107-109°F) instead of 55°C (131°F), while increasing the heating time. But his declaration was just bluff, because he hadn't developed any actual vaccine.

The Pouilly-le-Fort experiment

A veterinary from Melun, M. Rossignol, being sceptical, invited Pasteur on the behalf of the Agricultural Society of Melun, to come to give a demonstration of what he asserted. On the 28th April, a protocol of experiment on 60 sheep was signed. Chamberland and Roux were stupefied and alarmed that Pasteur had signed such an agreement. Indeed : they had only undertaken one experiment on a sheep, and it had been uncertain and incomplete.

The official experiment of Pouilly-le-Fort was only carried out on 2 sheep. Roux and Chamberland decided to use a vaccine attenuated with potassium dichromate (Toussaint's 3rd method) without telling Pasteur (who was easily angered) about it.

Fifteen days later, virulent anthrax was injected. The sheep didn't manifest any trouble: they were properly vaccinated.

The Pouilly-le-Fort experiment had an enormous impact, and vaccine orders came flooding in from everywhere. But what most people ignore is that the experiment was carried out with Toussaint's method, not Pasteur's. Pasteur didn't want to know anyway (the essential thing being that Toussaint was "mud").

The hen cholera vaccine stolen, again, from Toussaint

Pasteur's first research on this disease began in 1879. Being convinced that protection against an infectious disease can only be obtained via the inoculation of an earlier harmless disease, this belief he never wanted to give up misled him much in his work - whereas Toussaint said and demonstrated that it was possible to vaccine with dead germs, therefore without the disease.

The second thing that is interesting to know, is that all the reports about the creation of the first vaccines originate in the book La Vie de Pasteur (Pasteur's Life), written by his son-in-law René Vallery-Radot, under the control of, and often dictated by Pasteur himself. This allowed Pasteur to fictionalize and embellish his story according to his natural tendency towards fame and paranoia.

Regarding his research on hen cholera, the fact is that, for more than a year, he prevaricated between various theories on the attenuation method, going from ideas about the alteration of acidity to ideas about the exhaustion of the germ's food (hence the old expression : "to feed the disease"), then to the idea about the action of oxygen on microbes, all those things being each time the subject of lengthy declarations at the Academy.

That didn't prevent him from praising his method of attenuation of the germs as a means to turn them into vaccines, yet without giving any detail about it. However, by the summer of 1880, Pasteur still didn't have any clear idea neither about the vaccines nor about the method of attenuation of hen cholera.

In August 1880, the English surgeon Lister urged him to reveal his method. But Pasteur excused himself, on the pretext that it was too early, in the name of scientifical probity.

On the 5th October, Jules Guérin, a member at the Academy, lost his patience and demanded that Pasteur finally reveal his mysterious method. Pasteur then got angry and violently took him to task. Guérin, feeling insulted, wanted to challenge him to a duel (though Guérin was 78). Pasteur refused. Things cooled down with time and Pasteur published, on the 26th October 1880, De l'atténuation du choléra des poules (On the attenuation of hen cholera). But still no glimpse of the vaccine formula, which didn't exist yet.

This didn't prevent Pasteur from telling, on the 21th March 1881, at the Academy of Sciences, that six months before Toussaint, he had demonstrated the possibility of attenuating the microbe of hen cholera and of preparing the vaccine virus in this way, thus placing himself as the first creator of that vaccine.


PASTEUR CRUSHES BÉCHAMP: THE TRIUMPH OF IMPOSTURE

French dictionaries mention Béchamp, briefly and contemptuously, as "Pasteur's adversary". In the new Larousse illustré published at the beginning of the XXth C., it is written that in all his works, Béchamp was opposed to the theory of microbian infection (!?). The same is written in the great Encyclopédie.

That is exactly the opposite which happened ; we're going to prove it later.

In l'Encyclopédie française (the French Encyclopedia), the most famous of all, it is mentionned : "Pasteur acknowledged that the visible corpuscles inside ill silkworms, which Cornalia had already observed without attaching importance to them (!?), were parasites". But in fact, Pasteur called fools those who acknowledged that. One can see how completely groundless historians' allegations are. According to them, for example, Claude Bernard would have been a "fierce adversary" of the microbian theory of diseases.

He would have "attempted to take the first data on microbiology", "denied the part played by ferments as living organisms", "considered fermentation as a purely chemical phenomenon". Ultimate reproach: he would have been "opposed to the pasteurian doctrine" and he's accused of having "delayed its spreading in France".
Yet, nothing in all this is actually true. Reality is even the exact opposite. As for his so-called opposition to Pasteur, on the contrary : he was the one who constantly supported him, had prizes awarded to him, and guided his first experiments (Pasteur himself admitted it). This is how the history of sciences is written. This is a shame.

The small history of silkworm in France

The silkworm industry, coming from Constantinople, was developed in France by Henri IV, who appointed a famous agronomist, Olivier de Serres, a high official in this national function. Also, de Serres published, in 1599, a remarkable work called La cueillette de la soye par la nourriture des vers qui la font (silk gathering, by the feeding of silkworms which make it), on what is essential to know to be successful in this culture. Nineteen successive editions were to be published in 73 years.

In 1806, magnaneries [silkworm farms] were so affected by muscardine (silkworm disease) that the French government appointed a Belgian physician, Pierre Humbert Nysten, to study on the spot this high-cost epidemy. Two years later, Nysten gathered a remarkable report not only on muscardine, but also on other silkworm diseases, and particularly the dead flat worm disease, or flachery (flaccid dead worms). As regards to muscardine, he had noticed that tworms affected by this disease were covered with a sort of white mold in which he could see grains (spores) under a microscope.

But it's only in 1835 that an Italian, Agostino Bassi (equipped with a better microscope), clearly isolated, for the first time, the agent responsible for muscardine - and which later would be called "microbe".
___
2nd part to be posted by Stardust
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Thank you for posting this piece. While reading it the following came to my mind:
I have a friend (university professor) who quite often explains to me how things are being done "in France". So, I hear from him: "In France we do this way" or "In France you do not do things in this way". I have learned about many of his past experiences with his teachers and colleagues. Well, I was amused. But one thing was particularly funny. He told me (only half-joking): "In France if you tell the truth, you will be considered an ass." Of course by telling this he certainly did not tell me the truth :)

Unfortunately the above is not specific to France. The insider look at science at large is not very optimistic. Yet what else do we have that is better? (I mean short of SOTT :) )
 

Deckard

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Thanks for the translation PFR,this was long overdue I remember when you ve promised it :)
but as thay say better ever then never.
We can see clearly that "father of modern microbiology" was exibiting quite a few psychopathic traits

Here is some more:

In the medical schools of the United States and many other Western countries today, doctors are taught a lie. This lie is a particular viewpoint about disease called The Germ Theory. The scientist credited with discovering it is Louis Pasteur, also credited with finding a cure for Rabies. Pasteur has been heralded as making some of the most important discoveries of all time. Yet, when we look at the historical evidence, we see that Pasteur was an incompetent fraud! Not only did he NOT understand the processes which he experimented with and wrote about, but most of what he is credited with discovering was plagarized from scientists previous to or contemporary with him. For a thorough rendition of this history, you can read the full text of the 1940's book "Pasteur, Plagarist, Imposter" by R.B. Pearson at The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur .
Basically, it boils down to this: Both Pasteur and a contemporary of his, Antoine Beauchamp, were experimenting with the process of fermentation. The prevailing theory was that fermentation was a simple chemical reaction, but the experiments of Beauchamp showed that fermentation was a process brought about by microorganisms in the air. Pasteur continued to insist for some time after Beauchamp's discovery that fermentation was a process that did not require oxygen because it was a lifeless chemical reaction (called spontaneous generation). It took Pasteur many years to finally grasp the concept that fermentation of sugars is caused by yeast fungus, a living organism. When he did grasp and write about these concepts, he presented them as his own discoveries, giving no credit at all to Beauchamp. So at the very least, he was a thief and a plagarizer, and at the most, a poor scientist (1).
And it is getting more interesting:

Throughout their lives, Pasteur and Beauchamp continued to experiment with microorganisms. Pasteur continued to adhere to the idea of Monomorphism, the belief that all microbes and bacteria have only one form. Beauchamp was able to prove, however, the existence of Pleomorphism, that microbes can alter their form to appear as different germs. This discovery was confirmed by many scientists that came after Beauchamp, including Gunther Enderlein.

In his experiments, Enderlein found that every living cell contains two distinct kinds of microorganisms called endobionts (which means "inside life"). These microorganisms live inside the cell and cannot be removed from it. They play an important role in cellular health. The state of a person's health is determined by the stage of development of these organisms. Enderlein found that all microbes that live permanently in our bodies go through three stages:

The Primitive Stage (microbe)
The Middle Stage (bacteria)
The End Stage (fungus)

Other scientists were later able to confirm that there was a fourth stage which occurs only after extreme toxicity in which the fungus goes through a transformation, mutating into the Virus.

Most of the diseases in modern society today are not caused by the "pathogenic bacteria" that enter from outside us, as was taught by Pasteur. Disease occurs as these endobionts are transformed from the microbe stage to more virulent forms of life. The state of development of these organisms depends upon the state of the medium in which the germ lives. In other words, the microbes which live in our cells and assist the cells in maintaining a healthy state will mutate into bacteria, fungus, and viruses when the tissues of our bodies in which they live change to provide a medium for their growth. They begin to become "pathogenic" when the pH of the tissues becomes more acidic.

Primitive phases live in a strong alkaline pH
Bacterial phases live in mild alkaline pH
Fungal forms live in a medium acid pH
Viral forms live in a strong acid pH (2)

These primitive organisms can live in our bodies in the microbe stage indefinitely, and do not cause disease, but rather perform a restorative function. Bacteria and other germs consume dead matter. That is their function. Experiments show that if you put a fresh, raw steak that still has active live enzymes in it, and a cooked steak outside in the open air, it is the cooked steak that will become infested with maggots. Microorganisms cannot live in living tissue. It is only when the tissue becomes dead that they move in to do their job.
Now this is very important, cos there is a lot of evidence lately that simply by changing the ph of our food we can significantly change our health.
Maybe thhis is the reason why CS's recommend alfa alfa or spirulina. Both of these can change ph to alcaline dramatically.
I can vauch for this from personal experience as since I have started taking alfa alfa I have noticed enormous improvement with my energy level.


At the end of his life, Pasteur admitted that his theory was a fraud. He said that it was not the germs that mattered, but the medium in which they lived. And yet, his so-called "work" is the basis of the whole medical model of disease and healing.

The Germ theory CANNOT account for the fact that if you expose 100 people to what he called "pathogenic bacteria" that 10 of the people in that room will NOT DEVELOP THE DISEASE. It's not that germs cause disease at all. The pH of those people's bodies' was not acidic enough to support the transformation of the germ into a bacteria, fungus or virus. Because the germ never mutates, the person never gets sick.

Because of what I know about Louis Pasteur and The Germ Theory, there is no way that I will allow myself to be treated by a medical doctor trained in the United States or other Western countries. Their diagnoses and treatments inevitably make the patient sicker by plunging the body into an even more acidic state, and encouraging the more rapid transformation of microbes into deadly pathogens.

In fact, if a person learns to alter their diet so that it encourages a more alkaline pH in the body, there is no need to ever visit a medical practitioner of any kind.

Everything I have said here is based upon sound scientific studies, and actual historical documents. And yet, many people who choose to refuse allopathic medical treatments are looked at as mentally unbalanced. And if a person refuses to allow their child to be given medical treatments, they are looked at as guilty of medical negligence and can have their children taken away. And for what? Because they don't agree with one particular interpretation of scientific data? The evidence I have given is sound and proven. I hope anyone who reads this can see that a person who chooses to reject The Germ Theory does so with much evidence to back them up, and they are not being negligent with their own health or their children's.

I choose to reject the Medical Model. I choose to take charge of my own health. And in doing so, I will avoid most all of the plagues of the 20th and 21st centuries, including Cancer, Anthrax, and AIDS.


That's what happens in your compost pile. You put your table scraps in there, along with some bacteria, and the bacteria decompose the food scraps into soil. Everything that exists on this earth eventually BIODEGRADES. It is really true that when we die, we will return to dust. Bacteria and other pathogenic microorganisms are only doing their jobs. They are able to sense chemically when dead matter is present, and they go about the business of breaking it down. That is where disease comes from. The microorganisms in your body are breaking down your dead tissues in preparation for biodegradation (3).

Most of the germs which enter our bodies from the outside are quickly killed by the immune system. But it is the microorganisms which live permanently in our bodies that cause us to get sick. And they cause sickness because we provide them with a rich growth medium so that they can mutate and transform themselves into deadly bacteria, fungus, and viruses.

So you see, whether or not we get sick and die has very little to do with what germ we catch, but has everything to do with whether we keep our bodies free of the dead matter which these germs feed on. The dead matter these germs feed on is produced when the pH in our bodies is altered from a slightly alkaline state to a progressively more acidic state. In the next lesson, we will learn how to properly equip our bodies so that these microorganisms cannot mutate into virulent forms. Most of the germs which enter our bodies from the outside are quickly killed by the immune system. But it is the microorganisms which live permanently in our bodies that cause us to get sick. And they cause sickness because we provide them with a rich growth medium so that they can mutate and transform themselves into deadly bacteria, fungus, and viruses.

So you see, whether or not we get sick and die has very little to do with what germ we catch, but has everything to do with whether we keep our bodies free of the dead matter which these germs feed on. The dead matter these germs feed on is produced when the pH in our bodies is altered from a slightly alkaline state to a progressively more acidic state. In the next lesson, we will learn how to properly equip our bodies so that these microorganisms cannot mutate into virulent forms.
References:

(1) Pearson, R.B. (2001). The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur. Available online: [http://www.sumeria.net/dream.html]. Taken from "Pasteur, Plagarist, Imposter" by the same author, 1940's.

(2) Poehlman, Karl H. (1997). Synthesis of the Work of Enderlein, Bechamps and other Pleomorphic
Researchers. Explore Vol. 8, No. 2.

(3) Logan, Cordell E. (2000). A Partially Unified Theory of Disease. Priority One Health and Nutrition. Available online: [http://www.priorityonevitamins.com/articles/theory_of_disease_Logan.htm].
 

Deckard

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I was first alerted to the lies my conventional education is based on when I digged into homeopathic studies.
It seems that our science has suffered significantly from the effects of ponerization, it takes a big effort to rid onesef of wrong concepts and ways of thinking that are systematically hammered into our psychee since the early childhood.Most of the people think that we live in scientifically advanced society while in reality we dont have a clue about some basic concepts of the world we live in.
If you look at our western medicine, be it human or animal you can observe the following:

All the treatments turn out to be more or less the same -antibiotics and steroids -the focus has turned to diagnosis as the place where skill and esthetic satisfaction can be experienced. There are so many limitations to treatment that allopathic practitioners put a tremendous amount of effort into diagnostic technique -all the little fine details, like making these clever distinctions between this diagnostic label and another. But ultimately it doesn't make a whole lot of difference to the eventual treatment. it really is just palliative, at best, and often quite suppressive. But that's what they set out to do. Without formulating it quite that clearly, you come to understand that this is the goal. Treatment is not really going to cure them anyway, and often it isn't even effective in palliation or suppression after a while, so it's not really that satisfying an experience for the practitioner. So I think for a lot of people it becomes rewarding to do the diagnostic part because that's all there is left. And they can be very clever at that, and intelligent with how they emphasize that. It's kind of amusing, in a way, because you can read an article or go to a veterinary conference, and somebody is talking about all this very, very detailed, intricate diagnostic work, and they all end up with the same suppressive treatment anyway -almost always antibiotics and steroids.

Therefore something must be terribly wrong here!

Pasteur seems to be one of the key figures in western science that have helped to push our medicine in literal Dark age- which still lasts nowdays in 21st century.

Was he a part of a big control plan? Who knows. But if you want to think about the control system and the state of our medicine and reflect on what could be the ultimate goal, the following statment made by the colleague of mine gives you more then plenty food for thoughts:

I can tell, in my teaching experience, that some people just don't seem to be able to grasp basic concepts, no matter how well I've explained it. And I think one reason for that is the chronic disease that we suffer from ourselves, on a miasmatic level. I've noticed a real difference in myself, that as my health improves, my mental capacity does, too -my level of understanding. I wanted to bring that in. I think it's a factor. I think there are some people that would like to understand, but they're not well enough to, they themselves need treatment. Then their mind works more properly. Because there are people who just can't follow a line of thought, they just can't form concepts very well, they can't hold it in their mind very long, sometimes they can't do the intellectual work required. You know what I mean?
 

stardust

Jedi Master
Please forgive me for not posted the second part now, I'm waiting for a little "correction" of my translation...

Deckard said:
We can see clearly that "father of modern microbiology" was exibiting quite a few psychopathic traits
I just want to say : it is only the beginning... what will follow is a "demolotion job"!
 

Adaryn

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
ark said:
Unfortunately the above is not specific to France. The insider look at science at large is not very optimistic. Yet what else do we have that is better? (I mean short of SOTT :) )
I don't think presently we have anything better than SotT :)
In France, we do things... just like everybody else. There's no "french exception" as far as seeking the truth is concerned. The medical world is very "patriarchal", and traditional. Anyone who questions the mainstream theories and the official history of science will be labelled a fool or a sect, or both. For anyone who wants to try, just go to a newsgroup like fr.bio.medecine and posts this text about Pasteur - I bet you'll be insulted or laughed out right away, or just ignored at the worse.

Thanks Deckard for your additional texts - I'm no specialist at all but I follow the line of what is exposed in your article - the disease coming from the inside - and just take as little medicine as possible when sick. My daughter had a urinary infection last year - the first time she had one such infection, about 2 years ago, I gave her the usual prescription : antibiotics - this time I didn't give her antibiotics, just homeopathy and massage on the lower belly; and she was fine afterwards, the infection was cured "naturally", tests she took after 2 weeks revealed it was gone.

PS : just to correct a mistake in your article :
Antoine Beauchamp
> it's Antoine Béchamp
Maybe thhis is the reason why CS's recommend alfa alfa or spirulina
Yeah I tried Spirulina. And I guess you mean "alfalfa".
natural Vitamin C is also good for health (acerola tablets).
 

stardust

Jedi Master
(Pasteur, the Stalin of medicine - part 2.)



INTRIGUES AROUND THE PEBRINE, THE NEW DISEASE OF SILKWORMS

An other unknown disease pounced on silkworm breeding in Gard area in which J.Baptiste Dumas, member of the Academy of Sciences, was senator. He asked to Pasteur in 1865 to go and study on the spot the new disease on the spot.

Pasteur obtained an official mission, all expenses were paid by the government, as well as several co-workers at his disposal full-time. In the meantime, Antoine Béchamp, professor of the Faculty of Medecine of Montpellier, began to study this disease too.

He did not receive any subsidy and could be devoted on this subject only during his spare time, voluntarily helped by his friend, Alfred Estor, surgeon.

Since 1865, Béchamp declared officially in presence of The Society of Agriculture of Hérault, that pebrine ( name given to the disease because of black points looking like peppercorn, which grow on silkworms) was a parasitic disease. We know now that he was right and this parasite is a protozoar called Nosema Bombycis. Béchamp made his first statement to the Academy of Science on september 25, 1865. Pasteur who was for the first time confronted with a microbial disease and who didn't made of that, questionned categorically this thesis. He also spoke about cancerous granulations, pus and starch granules etc... which were according to him , the fact of a constitutionnal disease. Documents of the time are damning for Pasteur who persisted in being mistaken for many years because of his paranoïac autism, bogged down in his vitalism theory.

Yet, on June 17, 1866, Béchamp published a new note confirming the previous one and advising the use of creosote steam, harmless to silkworms. He wrote : « The pebrine attacks the worms of outside. It's from air that parasite germs come. So the disease is not constitutionnal. »

In the meantime Pasteur floundered in his experiments. He persisted and declared to the Academy : « I will show you the mode of appearrence in the worm. Cellular tissue organize in corpuscles, on place » He went on to flound when he wrote to Dumas on June 27 « There is no current disease of silkworm. There's only an exaggeration of a situation which always existed. The so-called old diseases, less the muscardine and maybe the grassery ( flaccid dead worm disease), are only forms of the current disease. »

We can measure an extreme confusion in Pasteur 's mind who, apart that muscardine had been the subject of bacteriological studies ( Nysten and Bassi), he confused pebrine with flaccid dead worm disease. Everybody has been knowing the pebrine for a long time and it has nothing to do with it.

Indeed, this disease called silkworm dysentery, is caused by a putrid fermentation of food in worms intestines. It was known that it was due to the use of wet mulberry leaves which begun to ferment in the wet warm of silkworm houses. Olivier De Serres had already spoken a lot about theses informations.

This confusion did not prevent Pasteur to present a very long thesis about silkworm disease to the Academy on July 23, 1866, which gave anything new and Pasteur made it printed entirely in many copies.

When Béchamp presented his own thesis on August 13, Pasteur – member of the comity of selection ( it's handy!)- blocked it in publishing only one short extract of the study ( 1 ½ page) . Béchamp conclued : « The work I'm going on since four months is based on parasitic origin. »

On August 27, Béchamp sent a new communication to the Academy , in which he talked about a new notion ( which will win a following) on the receptive mode of organism, answering in the same time to the false thesis of Pasteur on the pathological production of corpuscles. Béchamp repeated his experiments, bringing evidences that were impossible to circumvent, while Pasteur was satisfied repeating incessantly his constitutionnal theory and maintained having found a very easy method to stop the disease. This method was the same as Olivier de Serres recommanded : it consisted in picking the ill butterflies out, to eliminate them of reproduction. Making believe that he had salvaged the french silkworm breeding, the government gave him huge sums of money, like any scientists had even got.

But Pasteur discovered nothing, neither principle of ill silkworms exclusion, nor the way to discover the sick worms ( work of Cornalia, an italian, in 1856, and Armand de Quatrefages de Bréau, naturalist, official recorder of the Academy of Science in 1860). Not even the method which did make easier its application ( technique of Béchamp and Balbiani).It had not stopped him from dsparaging the one he considered as a rival. « This poor Mr Béchamp is at the moment one of the most curious example of the influence of preconceived ideas, which transform little by little in obsession (sic). All his assertions are so much prejudiced that I wonder if he did ever watch more than ten silkworms in his life. »

But on March 18, Balbiani published this « In the work presented to the Academy the last 27 August, I've tried to show that the opinion which consists in giving the present disease of silkworms to a parasitic origin is the only one based on positive proofs. »

Pasteur did not forgive Balbiani to have confirm the work of Béchamp.

WITH THE « FLACCID DEAD WORM DISEASE » PASTEUR IS WRONG AGAIN

Contrary to Nicolas Joby's thesis who believed that the vibrios watched through a microscope were produced by disease, Béchamp maintained the reverse, showing that those vibrios were not the effect but the cause of silkworms putrefaction. That was the subject of a note to the Academy on April 29, 1867, following by another on June 8 , 1868, where Béchamp completed the description of the micro-organisms. He called them Microzyma Bombycis. On May 19, Pasteur, irritated, wrote to Dumas :

« What a bold lie that the corpuscles are outside of eggs and worms! Well, I believe these people (Béchamp, Estor and Balbiani) become insane ! »

However, they never contested that corpuscles were in worms or eggs at a moment of their cycle. On June 3, 1867, Pasteur made publish a long letter about the « flachery » (flaccid dead worms disease) by Dumas. Now , at this point, Pasteur was still not sure that the pebrine and the « flachery » were different diseases, nor that this disease could be from a microbian origin. His last reflexion was that the disease appeared when worms didn't sweat enough.

The fact that Pasteur was always wrong never stopped him to push him forward everywhere, with a huge sense of publicity. When he realized that his rivals were right, he claimed in academies and elsewhere that he were the author of the discovery and his rivals had fought against him. He untiringly repeated his false statements and made believe that the others were wrong. To support a demonstration or to criticize a rival, he quoted experiments results he had never done or gave imaginery results.

THE UNHAPPY DESTINY OF ANTOINE BECHAMP

Béchamp was a believer. That's why the ecclesiastical authorities which created the first catholic university of France, in Lille, asked him to create their new Faculty of Medicine, and to be the dean for it. Unfortunately, he accepted. On August 1876, he definitely left Montpellier after resigning from his teacher's job in the oldest and prestigious Faculty of Medicine of France. In Lille, he didn't find what was promised to him.

While Pasteur was receiving more and more subsidies, without counting the assistance of several highstandart co-workers paid by the State, Béchamp complained about not even having a lab assistant.

Two months after the experience of Pouilly-Le-Fort, in the beginning of August 1881, Pasteur and Béchamp were silmutaneouly in London for an international medical conference. There were 3 000 doctors from many countries. Glorified with the results of Pouilly-Le-Fort, Pasteur was acclaimed. In front of the participants of the conference and journalists, Pasteur attacked Béchamp. He accused him to believe in « spontaneous generations ».
However, Béchamp - a very long time before Pasteur – has always maintained to the contrary that microscopic organisms are never born spontaneously, their origin is so old that one cannot know it, and that they are derivated from organisms more or less similar which have probably been existed during geological eras.
It's Béchamp who had maintained the parasitical, microbic characteristic of pebrine against Pasteur who claimed that these corpuscles were spontaneously born in the silkworms body.

As usual Pasteur allotted to his adversaries his last errors, after appropriating their ideas and discoveries.

Béchamp wrote « I let him talk because I must have been talking after him. But soon, I was obliged to go down of my seat to go sitting in front of Mr Pasteur because he had dared to say that if there was something of exact in my way of seeing, I only conceived it in asssimilating his works and changing my ideas according to his ones, etc... In short, Mr Pasteur was just going to express a general claim of priority and the most incredible accusation of plagiarism. Indignant, I immediately defied Mr Pasteur to prove his assertion, warning him that I, I could proved to him the contrary was right...»

But Pasteur, who did not have anything to make but attend the conference, left the room before leaving Béchamp spoken. He fled the discussion because he knew very well that he had not said the truth. In the face of such a dishonesty, Béchamp was floored. The Times of August 8 , refered to the incident. (...) To answer to Pasteur, Béchamp wrote a big volume entitled « Les Microzymas ».

Published in 1883, he set his ideas out since nearly 30 years. But Pasteur had kept useful relationships in the catholic sphere of Lille ( he did stay some times to the university of Lille in the past). He persuaded the religious authorities – whom catholic university depends - that Béchamp, this great believer, was teaching materialism.

In the name of vitalism (whose Pasteur is the most famous representative), the old quarrel about the unity of the common chemistry to living creatures and inanimate matter ( that Béchamp maintained) came back again.
But above all, Pasteur desired to discredit the publications of the one who was often opposed to him, and that he had plagiarized. At this moment, he was made allotted a big national pension, to him and his family, for his so-called discoveries on silkworms diseases of which Béchamp, Estor and Balbiani were the real authors.

Not to mention Cornalia nor the report from the official commission of the Academy of Science ( 1859).

Béchamp, in addition to the religious grievance, explained to an irresponsible bishop of the catholic university « I'm obliged to be my own assistant, and often to make an unskilled work » Béchamp, the dean , was returned « I was not obliged to leave, I was ejected » he wrote later. His son, Joseph, was teacher in the same university. Considering the affront to his father, he resigned.

In the same year 1886, the great friend and co-worker of Béchamp, Alfred Estor died. He was 56 years old. Béchamp and his son bought a little drugstore to earn their living. They had troubles with dates of payment when in 1893 , Joseph died of a pulmonary disease. He was 44 years old and let five children. Misfortune is on Béchamp's old age. His wife and his four children died successively.

The contempt putting on by Pasteur for Béchamp 's ideas had brought fruit. No one dared to oppose the one who had all the favours.

A Nobel Prize was given for a Béchamp's discovery but it was not given to him.

The last years of Béchamp were hard. His friends were rare now, and he was almost blind. When he died in 1908, he was 92.

In september 1971, Philippe Decourt asked to Dr Henry Estor, surgeon on Montpellier, which documents had been preserved about his grand- father Alfred Estor. He was very amazed to learn that nothing was found , even a letter.

The fact was all the more amazing because Béchamp had been surely discussing with Estor by letters during 10 years at least, after leaving Montpellier to Lille, particulary for the preparation of his work on microzymas . A few time later, a letter to Paul Pagès gave an explanation. Old doctor of Montpellier hospitals and emeritus professor of the Faculty of Medicine, he answered :

« I'm afraid your hope to get some additionnal documentation from Béchamp's descendants or from one or another of his co-workers and friends, to be disappointed. When I asked to my master Eugène Estor , son of Alfred – co-worker of Béchamp- I was personnaly been sorry to hear that he had preserved any work of his father, and he told me to have been overawed by eminent people , members of the Institute whose he had forgotten the names, and who had pressed him to dissuade his father to go on the way where Béchamp wandered him. Otherwise he would definitely ruin his scientific reputation. And the son had achieved this duty in a stirring mind of filial devotion : he had been vigorously put in his place!»

Alfred Estor being prematurely dead in 1886, the approaching of the « eminent people » which had overawed his son, dates approximately back to the time when Béchamp published his book on microzymas and was ejected from the catholic Faculty of Lille. Then Pasteur was 61 or 62 years old and there's no doubt that these « eminent people » were his friends.

It was also the time when Pasteur and his son-in-law Vallery-Radot, prepared for the first book which related his life. One cannot talked about coincidences. All these go together. And what a contrast! In one hand, a family who works to glorify the life and the work of Pasteur for the public. But Béchamp was an awkward witness. So, in the same time, one tries to make disown this rival by his mainly co-worker and friend, one discredits his works until give to his son's friend bad conscience, so much that « by filial devotion » the son destroyed all his father's documents as to erase a familial flaw!

And still in the same time – a strange fact in the end of the XIXth century in France- a religious pretext is put forward to eliminate this rival from his position of teacher and dean of a Faculty of Medicine.


PASTEUR , SYCOPHANT OF NAPOLEON III AND EUGENIE'S COURT


Pasteur was welcomed by the Emperor and the Empress for the first time on November 29, 1865. At once, he knew how to draw attention in talking for a long time about all he was doing and created a sensation when he shew a blood drop of the Empress to a microscope. It was a full success. He answered to a thousand questions about diseases, cholera, and he wrote a very beautiful book about wine and its disease, dedicaced to the Emperor.

While his place was ensured at the court and he had gained trust and good reputation, Pasteur sent to the Emperor on July 17, 1869, a note which summarize the legend he'd like to susbtantiate about silkworm breeding. He lenghtily boasted about his so-called scientific success and came to his usual attacks against competing scholars (Béchamp etc...) « whose powerlessness find expression in envy and denial of progress which have escaped their investigation ».

How this poor Béchamp, stayed in Montpellier, deprived of support, could make himself heard? In Paris, Pasteur went every Mondays to the Academy of Sciences, where he was more believed because any members of the Academy were studying the silkworms disease. Everyone prefered believing Pasteur whose disdain for the provincial scholar was known, and who claimed that the theories of Béchamp , Estor and Balbiani were worthless.
Of course , Napoléon III was easily convinced of the greatness of Pasteur's work. In 1869, to thank him he proposed to him to go to Italia in the « Villa Vincentina » which belonged to his sister Elisa, duchess of Tuscany, to have a rest.

Pasteur has stayed there during 8 months and watched a silkworms breeding during his rest. He wrote the main part of his book ( 700 pages volume) about silkworms disease, published in 1870 and dedicaced to the Empress which finished to imposed the legend. From Béchamp, nothing would stay.

NATIONAL REWARDS


In october 1862, a doctor issued to Pasteur a medical certificate saying that his health had been impaired by his successive works on silkworms disease and previously on wine. This certificate from Dr Godelier, dating from October 21, and following by another from Dr Audral ( Institute Member) , dating from October 25, shown a brain haemorrhage which had taken place four years before, caused by overwork.

Pasteur sent this certificate to the new President of the Republic, Thiers, saying that he had contributed to increase the national wealth. The principle of national reward, granted by the Emperor, had not been applied, because of the events ( note : Napoleon III lose his throne in 1870).

Paul Bert, young doctor launched into policy, never imagined that Pasteur said anything else that truth, and proposed a law of reward for Pasteur on March 29, 1874 ( 532 votes in favour, 24 against ). So Pasteur received an allowance of 12.000 F a year, with half-payment to his wife , after his death.

In 1881, Gambetta named Paul Bert as minister. In 1883, Paul Bert got a new reward for his “protégé� , voted by the House of Commons and the Senate, on July 13 . It raised the allowance to 25.000 F to Pasteur, fully revertible to his wife after his death , and then to his children. At that time, 100 F (~ 15€) a month were enough to live comfortably. It is well-paid for discoveries he never made!

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO SILKWORMS DISEASE?

In 1850, cocoons harvesting raised to 25.000 tons. In 1865, when Pasteur and Béchamp begun their works on pebrine, the harvesting had fallen down to 5.000 tons. Then the yields stayed mediocre and even went under 2.000 tons in 1886. This year in this case, the section of silkworm breeding asked new studies on disease.
In the last decade of XIXth century, the harvesting was something like 8.000 tons.

Nevertheless, Vallery-Radot, Pasteur's son-in-law, published in 1899 the biography of Pasteur, shown him as a hero. He repeated the words of Paul Bert to the House of Commons about huge profits bringed to France thank to Pasteur who saved the silkworm breeding at the point of reaching the ransom of France beaten by Germany in 1870.(...)

THE VIOLENT CONTROVERSY OF ZYMASES


The question was important : how do germs operate? It was believed until then, that the ferments operated as living being with their own chemical process. These living processes were thinking to belong to a distinct chemistry from the usual. This was the theory of vitalism whom Pasteur was fiercely attached and which brought him to the main part of his mistakes.

But Béchamp (great doctor and chemist) thought the contrary that there's only one chemistry, one natural law « fermentations are not caused by direct action from living ferments but through chemical substances they secrete » He proved it in isolating active agents from some yeasts and which caused nevertheless a fermentation.

At the time, it was revolutionary. He explained these notions in his lectures in the Faculty of Medicine of Montpellier and in the book he published – 30 years before Büchner who got the Nobel Prize instead of him- which was entitled « De la circulation du carbone dans la nature » . Claude Bernard finally conclued the same things and said « Alcohol forms by a soluble ferment outside life »

When in 1878, Berthelot published the note of the late Claude Bernard, Pasteur came in an insane anger. He bought watertight greenhouse and made experiments on stocks of vine and graps in sterile middle. One more time, Pasteur made mistakes of artifacts (modern name of hidden interferences in laboratory) and made wrong conclusions.
So he said « the handwritten of Bernard is a sterile attempt to substituate to facts which are well laid down, deductions of a short-lived system »

Pasteur wasn't very nice with a deceased co-worker who only did him good.

Hard verbal sparrings went on for a long time in the Academy of Sciences between pasteur and Berthelot.
Berthelot spoke about « this perpetual and nearly inconscious confusion between what is proved and what is not » He said too « Until now, Mr Pasteur had maintained as established truths what he's now forced to recognize as simple conjectures » Pasteur answered « How Mr Berthelot have not felt that the time , only judge, brings his verdict? How can't he seen growing each day the fruitfulness of my previous studies? »
Not so , Mr Pasteur, because the time has proved you was wrong all along the line.

Many microbic toxines were isolated before the end of XIXth century (zymases or soluble ferments) intermediary agents of pathogenic germs. Unliving penicillin secreted from Penicillium is a straight and typical appication from Béchamp's works and was perfected 50 years later.

1907 was the year where the Nobel Prize of chemistry was awarded for the discovery of the alcoholic zymase, not to the author of the discovery , but to Büchner who applied the process of Béchamp. Büchner has even kept the name of « Zymase » created by Béchamp. The controversy Pasteur -Berthelot was then buried.

Source : Les Vérités indésirables de Philippe Decourt
 
Last edited by a moderator:

henry

The Living Force
stardust said:
When in 1878, Berthelot published the note of the late Claude Bernard, Pasteur came in an insane anger. He bought watertight greenhouse and made experiments on stocks of vine and graps in sterile middle. One more time, Pasteur made mistakes of artifacts (modern name of hidden interferences in laboratory) and made wrong conclusions.
So he said « the handwritten of Bernard is a sterile attempt to substituate to facts which are well laid down, deductions of a short-lived system »
Marcellin Berthelot was also a colleague of Jules Violle, also known as Fulcanelli, although of the previous generation. Berthelot had a very serious interest in alchemy. Some excerpts from Fulcanelli by Patrick Riviere:

Fulcanelli said:
Marcellin Berthelot

The learned chemist, Marcellin Berthelot, who dedicated more than twenty years to the laborious study of original alchemical texts in Greek and Arabic, reported the results of his works in three well-documented books entitled: Les Origines de l’Alchimie (Paris, 1885), Introduction a l’étude de la chimie des Anciens et du Moyen Âge (Paris, 1889) and, in collaboration with Ruelle, Collection des anciens alchimistes grecs (Paris, 1887). His son, Daniel Berthelot, stated in a monograph published in 1895 entitled, L’Allotropie des corps simples – allotropy being isomerism in “simple" bodies – that this notion naturally brought up the question of the unity of matter, a principle that was supported by mainstream science, although it had already been evoked time and again by the ancient alchemists throughout their writings. Like his eminent predecessors of old, Dom Pernéty wrote:

Matter is one and every thing, so say the philosophers, because it is the radical principle of every combined thing. It is in all things and similar to all things because it is likely [to adopt] any form, although it does so prior to its being specified into any individual species of the three realms of Nature.
[...]

Following this, Fulcanelli discusses the enigmatic labyrinths that are found in some churches such as those in Sens, Reims, Auxerre, Saint-Quentin, Poitiers, Bayeux, Chartres, and, above all, Amiens, to which he devotes an entire chapter later on in the book. Reminding us of the labyrinth’s presence in ancient times, mentioning, among others, the one in Cnossos, (Crete) . He calls the labyrinth of the cathedrals “Solomon’s Labyrinth" and gives the definition of it expressed by his prominent friend Marcellin Berthelot:

[It is] a cabbalistic figure found at the beginning of certain alchemical manuscripts, and which is part of the magical tradition associated with the name of Solomon. It is a series of concentric circles, interrupted at certain points, so as to form a bizarre and inextricable path.
[...]


Was Fulcanelli a Famous Scientist?

This question having been settled (contrary to Robert Ambelain’s allegations in the same issue of La Tour Saint-Jacques. See previous chapter.), let us re-examine another statement made by Eugène Canseliet, this one concerning Fulcanelli’s prestigious connections. On the back cover of Les Demeures philosophales, one finds the following text:

If, in Heliopolis, I personally always feel - and quite intensely so - pledged by my oath to the ancestral discipline of the secret, how many free, high-ranking and powerful persons exist who might have been able to talk, even in confidentiality, but kept silent as if bound by some tacit agreement! It is important in particular to be aware that, in his youth, Fulcanelli was received by Chevreul, de Lesseps and Grasset d’Orcet; that he was Berthelot’s friend, and that he knew Curie very well, who was his junior by twenty years….
And Eugène Canseliet added, in his Alchimiques Souvenirs (La Tourbe des Philosophes) that Fulcanelli was “too much of a laboratory man" to take any interest in or have any taste for occultism in general, as could at first be supposed.

Thus, with the exception of the illustrious Ferdinand de Lesseps and the original cryptologist, Grasset d’Orcet, the other names quoted were those of very high-ranking scientists, all of them members of the Institute. If Fulcanelli did indeed somehow associate with them, would this then not leave one with the understanding that he was a high-ranking scientist himself, and even perhaps a member of the Academy of Sciences? Or at least that he might have submitted some memoranda there about his own experimental theories?

If one questions the validity of this statement, given how daring it may appear, one should refer to the second book by the Master. Here, Fulcanelli bravely declared in what can be considered a confession that he did indeed belong to the scientific community:

François-Vincent Raspail was a confirmed alchemist and the works of classical philosophers were numerous among his other books. Ernest Bosc said that Auguste Cahours, a member of the Academy of Sciences, had told him that his revered master, Chevreul, professed the greatest esteem for our old alchemists. As a consequence, his library contained practically all of the significant writings of the hermetic philosophers.

[…] one of the most celebrated in chemical science, Marcellin Berthelot, did not merely adopt the School’s opinions. Contrary to many of his colleagues who boldly talked about alchemy without knowing anything about it, he devoted more than twenty years to the patient study of original Greek and Arab texts. And from that long relationship with the ancient masters, the conviction arose within him that, “hermetic principles are, overall, as sustainable as any of the best modern theories" .

[…]Were we not committed by the pledge we made toward them, we might add to [the list of] those scholars the names of certain leading scientific personalities who are entirely converted to the Hermetic Art, but whose very position obliges them to practice only secretly …
The Master’s avowal here is obvious. How indeed could Fulcanelli have been more eloquent as to the actual identity of his civil status?
 
I know this is a bit off-topic, but since the name of Claude Bernard was brought up in the original post, I'd like to bring folks' attention to the psychopathic nature of this individual - the Josef Mengele of 19th cent. medicine - and to encourage looking at his supposed "greatness" and "contribution" to medical knowledge.
He is pretty much the "father of 'scientific' vivisection", though known in medical schools as "father of experimental medicine". I recommend reading Hans Ruesch's books: Slaughter of the Innocent, and The Naked Empress.
Bernard, a "lazy" student in medical school, never had a medical practice but dedicated his life to torturing animals not only in his laboratory, but in his home. This resulted in his wife and daughters eventually leaving him and funding and establishing the earliest animal protection societies in Britain, dedicating their lives to anti-vivisection movement.
C. Bernard and believers/disciples' psychopathic views of their "scientific" "mission":

"JOYFUL EXCITEMENT". CHILLING ANALOGIES: DR. CARADEC, PROF. DE CYON, MICHAEL BALLS, CLAUDE BERNARD

If any further proofs were needed that vivisection springs from the darkest recesses of gravely disturbed minds, here are some examples of what some of its practitioners have themselves unconsciously revealed about it.

DR CARADEC This vivisector is quoted in the celebrated American anthology, The Millennium Guild, by M. R. L. Freshel (1933, 1937, 1954): "Let us leave aside the unwholesome theory of the utility or the application of Science. Let us cultivate it (vivisection) purely for itself, for the joy, for the discipline, the enlargement of the mind it gives the intelligence."

ELIA DE CYON Similar noises were made by one of Claude Bemard's most famous pupils, Elia de Cyon, who later became Professor of Physiology in Moscow. His unabashed descriptions of how he took unanesthetized dogs systematically apart, in operations that lasted several days, make up good part of his famed physiological treatise, Methodik der Vivisectionen, published in German, which was for some time the vivisectors' official language before the advent of English as the language of Scientism. Wrote de Cyon: "The true vivisector must approach a difficult vivisection with the same joyful excitement, with the same delight, with which a surgeon undertakes a difficult operation from which he expects extraordinary consequences."

MICHAEL BALLS A chilling analogy with this expression of "joyful excitement" that Cyon used to feel at the thought of cutting up his unanesthetised victims was found again by us in a recent article by Dr Michael Balls, the Bible-quoting vivisector, who described his own joyful state of mind when the infamous new British bill on vivisection of 1986, also referred to as "The Vivisectors' Charter", which he had helped to draft together with Judith Hampson of RSPCA and Cliff Hollands of Edinburgh' s AV's society, was about to become law in the United Kingdom, anchoring the practice of vivisection and ensuring its relentless spreading throughout the Common Market countries for many decades to come.

Wrote Dr. Michael Balls (who solicits contributions to his purported "Fund For the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments"), in that year's March issue of his FRAME News: "It was with feelings of excitement and anticipation that we approached the House of Commons on Monday, 17 February, the occasion of the second reading debate on the Government's Bill to reform [sic!] the Cruelty to Animals' Act of 1876. We had earlier witnessed the passage through the House of Lords."

This new 1986 Bill represented a considerable worsening of the one it was replacing, the one that had been enacted in Queen Victoria's time and had helped vivisection to grow, from a few hundred cases a year, to a macabre five and a half million in Great Britain alone! For example, the new Act now explicitly legalizes, for the first time in history, the use of one and the same animal more than once in cruel, surgical experiments. And Bible-thumbing Michael Balls actually looked forward to the passage of this new bill, which he was nursing on its way with "feelings of excitement and anticipation!"

CLAUDE BERNARD. For the fairly sane average citizen who might find it hard to understand what it is that causes some vivisectors, apart and beyond the money angle, to get pleasantly excited about their activity, let us recall the alibi of France's Claude Bernard, the Apostle of these scientistic exercises, in his most famous work, cited in SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENT, and proving to what extent vivisection is the manifestation of a worrisome mental condition. Wrote the Apostle:

"The physiologist is not a man of the world, he is a scientist, a man caught and absorbed by a scientific idea that he pursues; he no longer hears the cries of the animals, no longer sees the flowing blood, he sees only his idea: organisms that hide from him problems that he wants to discover. He doesn't feel that he is in a horrible carnage; under the influence of a scientific idea, he pursues with delight a nervous filament inside stinking and livid flesh that for any other person would be an object of disgust and horror."
And another quote, from a contemporary:
Despite a reserved demeanor, Bernard possessed great personal magnetism. His students loved him, though he had no great gift of oratory. Bernard’s close friend, George Barral, once described the physiologist thus: “Of solemn aspect, somewhat cold as a professor, somewhat wan in his chair, Claude Bernard showed himself incomparable in the laboratory, before the dissecting table. Standing, his head covered with a large hat under which were escaping long grey looks, his neck wrapped around with an immense mufller-grey and black, which he discarded only during the intense summer heat, he could be seen stooping a little, calmly plunging his fingers into the open abdomen of a dog, explaining the object of his research…
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I am missing your point. What exactly do you have against Claude Bernard?
a) That he was doing research using animals? Would you prefer humans?
b) That his wife left him? Did you research the sanity of his wife?
c) ?
 

Deckard

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I cannot say that I am familiar with Bernard's life and work but this has touched on the very interesting point.

Can you be sucessful scientist in 3D and still posses strong feelings of empathy and respect for every living thing?!

If we look into the life of many great scientists espcially those in the field of medicine we find striking fact - they exibit very little traits we like to characterize as human.
And this goes far beyond required attitude of naturalist which Lobaczewski nicely explains at the begining of his book.
Also quite disturbing is that we can very often observe that driving force which led these people to significant breakthroughs stems from anything but the desire to help others which should be the basic character foundation of every indivudal involved in medicine.

In my opinion sensitivity and strong empathy doesnt necesarily have to be hinderance to the science.
Here is an example;

Samuel Hahnemann -18th century German physician said:
My sense of duty would not easily allow me to treat the unknown pathological state of my suffering brethren with these unknown medicines. The thought of becoming in this way a murderer or malefactor towards the life of my fellow human beings was most terrible to me, so terrible and disturbing that I wholly gave up my practice in the first years of my married life and occupied myself solely with chemistry and writing.
That he did but he also started looking into another direction and from there a whole new science was born as he later become a founder of classical homeopathy.
 

stardust

Jedi Master
Henry, your quote about Berthelot is very interesting and, as I was searching more information about his life, I find he got a good friend named Ernest Renan ( 1823-1892). Beyond the fact Renan was interested in sciences, he is known to have wrote very controversial books about the origin of christianism. In studying the Bible, he found - as many others Laura mentionned in her work about " who wrote the bible" - that the history and the grammar of the Pentateuch is later to Moïse , the book of Daniel is apocryphal, and he said that the Bible should be treated as all books and submitted to critic.
In other words, he has provocated the wrath of Catholic Church ( I precise he received in his youth a "very good" catholic education...)

So, we can see that these persons - Béchamp , Berthelot , Renan - got some very awkward ideas for there time.


I'd like to say something about the PH of the body : you can search for the work of Vincent about his "bio-electronic" . You will see the relation between the pH, and the resistivity .

If too much acid in the body encourages the pathological germs, too much alcalinity encourages the apparition of degenarative diseases as...cancer! Cancerous cells CAN'T live or develop in acid middle.... repeated vaccinations for example are big factors of alcalinization of body.
 

Adaryn

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Bholanath's post is disturbing. I didn't know Bernard promoted actively vivisection. I'm no expert, but was there a way Bernard could have achieved what he achieved and discovered without causing other living beings to suffer ?
According to the-provivisection, certain discoveries would have been impossible without vivisection.
But does it justify it ? It's very STS : using beings of the lower levels, weaker and less conscious, for the benefits of the "human elite".
The way vivisectionists consider these animals is totally cold : they're blind to their sufferings because they're obsessed to find what they're looking for, all in the name of science (= replace by money, most of the time).
Yet, Bernard was not the only one, especially at that time, vivisection and tests on animals were spread for a long time. In the article on Pasteur, tests are carried out on rabbits.
A long time ago, vivisection was practised on human beings : http://www.cassiopedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Vivisection
The question of vivisection/tests on animals is very problematic. OK, it's a first start to begin by not taking allopathic remedies, BUT nearly every product on the market (not only meds) is tested on animals : cosmetics, washing powders, toothpastes,....and spatial and military research (french wikipedia), take your pick.
Yes, there are products labelled organic/natural guaranteed non tested on animals, but nearly all the time it's the finished product which is not tested, the raw materials ARE tested on animals. And nearly always, the animals suffer :
http://www.experimentation-animale.org/index_english.html
 
prayers for rain said:
I didn't know Bernard promoted actively vivisection.
Bernard is well known and considered notorious in the anti-vivisection/"animal rights" community.
See Ruesch's work and that of many others.
prayers for rain said:
Between the legend of school books and historical reality, there is often a serious gap, generally aiming at serving religious and political ideologies - and in Pasteur's case, pharmaco-commercial ideologies.
And in the case with Bernard.

I know this thread opened with Pasteur, and I brought up Bernard who was mentioned. I am sorry to have initiated a tangent, but now Ark and others have asked/challenged my post, so I will respond further.
Ark said:
I am missing your point. What exactly do you have against Claude Bernard?
a) That he was doing research using animals? Would you prefer humans?
b) That his wife left him? Did you research the sanity of his wife?
c) ?
Well, seriously, I don't know where to begin. Sorry, but I don't believe in the "god" of science. Nor do I follow the "religion" of modern medicine.
Are you saying that we only have two alternatives: experimenting on either animals or humans?
A real serious lack of imagination exists in our culture regarding health/healing/medicine. There are, and always have been, alternatives too numerous to list.
During late 80s-mid 90s I spent about 6 years researching the history of western allopathic medicine, and it's pretty apparent its based on the absolute separation of man/human-consciousness from all the rest of nature. History is full of conscious-targeting of traditional healers on every continent, kill the "witches" and the "shamans" FIRST! I became so sick and despairing from studying this subject I had to eventually leave it. (Though I moved into researching the medical experiments -human and animal- of the "doctors" of the Nazi camps; same psychopathic dynamic at work.) I worked for many years in forests of N. America, and with wildlife rehabilitation, and running a county animal shelter for 3 years, dealing with individual animals in states of stress. I have never met an animal I didn't admire and respect. Each is an individual, as much as each human. They have been some of my teachers. We (humans) are fully capable of communicating inter-species. These are things I know, not believe.
There are so many healing modalities still in existence that our need for "western" "modern" medicine's primacy is insane and should be seriously questioned. I have too much personal experience with ayurvedic, Tibetan, Chinese, homoeopathic, shamanic healing modalities - I don't need to see more "proof" of their effectiveness.
There is an individual in my town who has treated myself and 1000s others for 60 years with no degrees - he was simply born with the ability to see within the human body, and make the proper structural and organ adjustments. My feeling is that western medicine and the AMA and BMA, etc. are some of the evilest forces on the planet. As GB Shaw said, "There are hundreds of paths to scientific knowledge".

A list of informative books on the vivisection/animal-research question:
http://web.linkny.com/~civitas/page18.html
or just see: peta.org

We got the "Animal Enterprise Protection Act", the FBI considers Animal Liberation Front the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat, hundreds of non-violent genuinely intelligent activists are in prison at this moment.
Wonder why that is?

Umm, ok, Bernard and his wife: story goes that he was fond of keeping his sliced-open, unanesthesized animal subjects by his bed so he could "monitor" them. Would that make his wife of questionable sanity for leaving him to his screaming, tortured, terrorized animals? She and his daughters became campaigners and organizers for the first Humane Societies. (maybe she was insane for marrying him.)
How can we continue supporting a "civilization" and a "science" that disrespects "2nd density" life-forms, assumes "our" absolute right to "dominate/have dominion" over all the rest of life? This view has brought us to the brink of terra-cide. If we respected all life (as the group of govt-assaulted Navajo grandmothers we rallied for yesterday in New Mexico do), we wouldn't have the toxic environment and subsequent "diseases". (Not to even mention the use of disease as weapon historically)
All respect and blessings to the four-leggeds, the two-leggeds, the finned, the winged, and the rooted. We injure/take life only when all alternatives have been exhausted, and our continued survival depends on it.
(my own personal approach)
Best read: Doctor Rat, by William Kotzwinkle

_____________________________________________________________________

Bad dog! Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Don't you know what freedom means? - John Trudell
 

Third_Density_Resident

Jedi Council Member
Ark said:
I am missing your point. What exactly do you have against Claude Bernard?
I think Bhonalath's point was that Claude Bernard was most likely a psychopathic individual who set the world back many, many decades with his idea that you can only make scientific advances by cutting animals and people open, i.e. "reverse engineering". While it may be true that much has been learned about anatomy and physiology by the cutting open of people and animals, this does not require that they be alive while doing it.

To quickly answer your other questions:

a) That he was doing research using animals? Would you prefer humans?
This is too simplistic; it is not an either/or situation. And besides it misses the point, which is about other ways of conducting science, if you can call torturing animals "science".

b) That his wife left him? Did you research the sanity of his wife?
I think it is clear from Bhonalath's notes alone that the insane one was Bernard, not his wife. What sane, non-psychopathic person could possibly stand living with someone who derived pleasure from torturing animals? It is a known fact that people who torture animals for pleasure (disguised, in this case, as "science") are highly likely to be psychopathic.

I guess the best way to answer a general question like this is to answer: "He was a psychopath."
 
Top Bottom