Not sure if anyone caught Michael Behe discussing, in particular, the mechanisms of the coronal virus (ancient virus). He put this up June 13th. Behe does not say anything about its state of being in the now - a little on design and what it does to deliver its package into a cell and how it then copies (in various ways) within the cell. Of course he is also discussing Darwin and evolution, when in fact most of the time a mutation breaks rather than enhances.
It reminded me of this thread, insofar as the view down to the Bacteriophage T4 example by electron microscope, and how this thread stated off with older microscopes that could potentially see. T4 is really small, like corona, and it was only clarified (focused) by illustrations, as the photos are not sharp at this magnification. No photos of corona.
Not yet read all the thread, but will try to get time to read it, it's a so fascinating subjet.
I read one of Béchamp's book: he shows how Pasteur is so dumb about scientific reasonning ! And I think how today medical community stones at Pr Raoult about chloroquine in Covid, pretexting he didn't respect the MBE protocol (medecine based evidence).
But look at Pasteur, he didn't do anything in conformity with scientific spirit. He used children as guinea pigs! He took pieces of marrow and brain from rabbits with rabies and injected them directly into children by injection. He had asked the Brazilian Ministry of Health to carry out this experiment on death row inmates, and was refused. In contrast, in France, he's been allowed to do it on children!! he did it directly on healthy children (who had only been bitten by dogs - dogs that didn't even show signs of rabies!) ! Some of these vaccinated children died a few days later. Only one brave parent dared to file a complaint against this "great scientist". Pasteur was cleared, the expertise had been made by the dean of the Faculty of Medicine, one of his friends, and he falsified the data. He made believe that the child had died from another cause (uremia).
After that, he added adjuvents (toxic products) in order to kill a bit the virus (less virulent), not killing in so short time, but this leads to health problems later and he doesn't mind. All that matters is his fame. So disgusting
All this (and more) is explained in En finir avec Pasteur by Eric Ancelet (Let's finish with Pasteur). This author has read a ton of data about Pasteur (included biography by those who support Pasteur). It's an incredible book as Ancelet says things we share here since many years (like solar cycles, cosmic influence on our internal environment, the harm on humanity by Darwin too).
Here is a passage:
Avec le darwinisme inspiré de Malthus, nous avons cru à l'évi- dence de notre victoire dans cette « sélection naturelle ». En entrant dans l'ère pasteurienne, nous sommes entrés en guerre ouverte contre les microbes, contre la planète entière, contre la Vie, et il est temps aujourd'hui d'en mesurer les conséquences. Certes l'Occident parut un temps à l'abri, ses enfants bien nourris et calfeutrés dans des environnements aseptisés, largement vaccinés contre un ensemble impressionnant d'ennemis potentiels. Les épidémies ont en effet peu à peu reculé, du fait de l'amélioration progressive des conditions de vie, et pour certaines sans immunisation artificielle des populations (peste, choléra). Mais ce fut un bien court sursis, car les grandes faucheuses d'antan menacent de nouveau, vieilles dames ou jeunes premières « émergées » pour venir à pas de loup « au chevet d'une civilisation qui se meurt des sévices de l'intellectualisme et de l'irréalisme » [2]. Et ce n'est pas tout. De nouvelles pathologies apparaissent, qui ne sont plus ni infectieuses ni contagieuses. On cherche fébrilement le microbe ou le gène responsable, mais il est clair que ce n'est pas d'une agression extérieure dont nous sommes victimes, pas plus que d'une fatalité génétique, mais d'un processus morbide généré en chacun de nous par altération profonde de notre personnalité biologique. La maladie infectieuse, la mutation du gène, ne sont pas la cause mais la conséquence de cette altération. Il nous faut garder { l’esprit que la maladie n'est pas inéluctable, que la capacité à préserver la santé ou à guérir est en nous et non pas hors de nous, même si l'intérêt de certains est de nous convaincre de notre impuissance et de notre vulnérabilité. Pour cela nous devons aller de l'avant, et continuer à dénoncer tous les dogmes qui altèrent notre jugement. L'un des plus puissants est le mythe de l'ADN.
With Malthus-inspired Darwinism, we believed in the evi- dence of our victory in this "natural selection". By entering the Pasteurian era, we have entered into open war against microbes, against the entire planet, against Life, and it is time today to measure the consequences. Certainly the West appeared for a time to be safe, its children well-fed and caulked in aseptic environments, widely vaccinated against an impressive array of potential enemies. Epidemics have indeed gradually receded, due to the progressive improvement of living conditions, and for some without artificial immunization of populations (plague, cholera). But it was a very short respite, because the great reapers of yesteryear threaten again, old ladies or young first "emerged" to come at wolf's pace "at the bedside of a civilization that is dying from the ravages of intellectualism and unrealism" [2]. And that is not all. New pathologies are appearing that are no longer infectious or contagious. There is a feverish search for the microbe or gene responsible, but it is clear that we are not victims of an external aggression, nor of a genetic fatality, but of a morbid process generated in each one of us by a profound alteration of our biological personality. Infectious disease, the mutation of the gene, is not the cause but the consequence of this alteration.
We must keep in mind that disease is not inevitable, that the capacity to preserve health or to heal is within us and not outside of us, even if the interest of some is to convince us of our helplessness and vulnerability. For this we must move forward, and continue to denounce all dogmas that alter our judgment. One of the most powerful is the myth of DNA.
Also this passage about "junk" DNA and protein antennas:
These "useless" sequences, as unique to each individual as fingerprints, these long chains of temporarily silent DNA could be microbial nucleic acids in endosymbiosis, especially viruses that have gradually built up the chromosomes of higher beings. What is the purpose of these non-coding endoviruses? To "nothing" maybe today, but yesterday, but tomorrow?
They could be reception and memorisation sequences, because the spiral shape is an extraordinary antenna listening to all the telluric and cosmic information that is gradually building up the most gigantic data bank that can be conceived. All the memory of the species is probably contained in it, and probably the entire history of life since its appearance. In fact, there are many blank pages in the great book of DNA, where we progressively inscribe our own biography, where we engrave from birth to death, without being aware of it and without immediate usefulness, absolutely all the data concerning our environment, including viruses. These sedentary and personalized microbes, confederated since the dawn of the world, translate engrams into programs, express what we are, what I was, and can become in its race towards the future. Within us lie an infinite number of possible futures, an extraordinary evolutionary potential, and this process is still going on today through gene transfers, during "infections" and epidemics, which are indispensable for the resolution of conflicts in times of crisis, for the continuation of evolution until we have acquired the level of consciousness necessary to freely choose our destiny.
Ces séquences « inutiles », aussi uniques chez chaque individu que les empreintes digitales, ces longues chaînes d'ADN provisoirement silencieux pourraient être des acides nucléiques microbiens en endosymbiose, notamment des virus ayant peu à peu constitués les chromosomes des êtres supérieurs. À quoi servent ces endovirus non codant ? À « rien » peut-être aujourd'hui, mais hier, mais demain ?
Il pourrait s'agir de séquences de réception et de mémorisation, car la forme spiralée est une extraordinaire antenne à l'écoute de toutes les informations telluriques et cosmiques qui constituent peu à peu la plus gigantesque banque de données qui se puisse concevoir. Toute la mémoire de l'espèce y est probablement contenue, et sans doute toute l'histoire de la vie depuis son apparition. En effet, il existe de très nombreuses pages vierges dans le grand livre de l'ADN, où nous inscrivons au fur et à mesure notre propre biographie, où nous engrammons de la naissance à la mort, sans en avoir conscience et sans utilité immédiate, absolument toutes les données concernant notre environnement, y compris des virus. Ces microbes sédentarisés et personnalisés, confédérés depuis l'aube du monde, traduisent les engrammes en programmes, expriment ce que nous sommes, ce que JE fus, est et peut devenir dans sa course vers l'avenir. En nous sommeillent une infinité de futurs possibles, un extraordinaire potentiel évolutif, et ce processus se poursuit encore de nos jours par l'intermédiaire des transferts de gènes, au cours des « infections » et des épidémies, indispensables à la résolution des conflits en période de crise, à la poursuite de l'évolution tant que nous n'aurons pas acquis le niveau de conscience nécessaire pour choisir librement notre destin.
I haven't yet had time to dig into this properly, but I'll throw a few things out here...more like thinking out loud.
This morning I was reading about the Miasma Theory here, and even though the whole thing sound ridiculous for a 'modern' person, maybe we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss it altogether. The MT according to this site goes something like this:
Now, that theory at face value is surely off in many ways, but what I found interesting was that this view/theory had apparently developed more or less independently worldwide (remember, no phones or internet back then):
Okay, this miasma thing sounds ridiculous, but why did this belief dominate for so long and why was the belief so wide spread? Even if the explanation (miasma) is most likely off, maybe they did however observe something that made them seek an answer like this, and now as the Germ Theory is so accepted...maybe medical scientist aren't able to think outside the box anymore?
#
Another thing that I've been thinking is what Mikovits talks about, namely the possible and likely role of vaccinations in causing disease. She's famous of discovering the 'mouse retrovirus' that has contaminated the vaccines, and according to her (and others) this virus could be the cause of cancers and other serious maladies. So, this got me thinking that how could this be explained with the Terrain Theory?
Well, just a wild hypothesis, but maybe the enormously intelligent (or intelligently designed) human body with it's ability to repair itself is well equipped for 'cleaning up' it's environment if the stimulus comes the natural way through the air (by breathing) or by ingesting something (through the gut), but it's not equipped to deal with stuff that comes right into the bloodstream (vaccines)? 'Anti-vaxxers' have talked about this for long, about how inserting microbes directly into the blood stream is unnatural and difficult for the body to defend itself. Taking it further, maybe 'they' have known for a long time the fact - that I'm proposing - that vaccines and vaccinations are actually the main drivers of disease in the world, because the 'terrain clean up system' is not equipped to deal with them?
This theory about Miasma catch my eye when reading this thread. About 10 years ago I went to a Homeopath doctor with my son, and in a very short time, we have seen a big improvement.
My point is that in Homeopathy the main pillar for understanding the diseases is Miasma.
The source articles can be found here and here
The story of miasms begins with Samuel Hahnemann himself. As his experience of homeopathy brought him to understand its usefulness not only in acute but also in chronic disease, Hahnemann found that chronic diseases arise from a deep inner susceptibility that he called miasm. External causes of disease, he observed, can bear fruit only in the fertile ground of a miasmatic foundation, which passes by various means from person to person and creates the predisposition to particular kinds of disease states. Hahnemann identified three miasms, each with its own characteristics and disease propensities.
Psora
Hahnemann described psora as historically the first and pathologically the fundamental miasm. Psora creates the susceptibility to all other miasms and diseases. Hahnemann wrote in his great work on the miasms, The Chronic Diseases, that psora is contagious by the slightest touch, which explains why this miasm is present in every human being; some argue, in fact, that it is present in every living thing. It arises from the skin eruption that was called "itch" in Hahnemann's time and that is now known as scabies, and it reflects this origin by counting among its symptoms the kind of rash that itches more from being scratched. Like all miasms, psora contains a host of different symptoms and sensations but can be understood as a whole in terms of the themes and patterns that unite these.
It is clear, of course, that these activities are not all pathological. Psora can be very healthy for us, motivating us to prepare for the future and take reasonable precautions in life. This is in the nature of all miasms: they have a positive, adaptive effect when they are in a healthy state, creating problems only when they move into an unhealthy one.
Syphilis
Each miasm takes its name and certain aspects of its identity from a particular disease, as psora does from scabies. In each miasm, however, this is the extent of the disease identification. Everyone has psora, but not everyone has the skin disease from which it originated; the same principle is true of the syphilitic miasm, which affects many people but very few of those affected have had the actual disease called syphilis.
While the disease of syphilis was fairly common in Hahnemann's time, today the syphilitic miasm is acquired primarily by heredity. An ancestor who had syphilis can pass the miasm to his or her descendants, who in turn pass it on to theirs. Enmeshed with the psora that exists in everyone, the syphilitic miasm creates the predisposition to illnesses that reflect the deeper nature of syphilis without necessarily representing its common presentation.
Physically, the syphilitic miasm follows the same pattern, with diseases developing to a relatively serious state before they show themselves. A syphilitic kind of heart disease, for example, might be completely asymptomatic until a sudden and severe heart attack. Otherwise benign discharges from the body may be tinged with blood when the syphilitic miasm is active, giving evidence of deterioration within. While psora is worst after overexertion, illnesses in which the syphilitic miasm is a factor tend to be worst at night, a time when mental control is at its lowest and when the theme of hiddenness comes to the fore under cover of darkness.
Sycosis
Early in his understanding of miasms, Hahnemann observed the action of sycosis in male patients who had been allopathically "cured" of gonorrhea but who then developed a characteristic series of other health problems. These other problems seemed unrelated to the gonorrhea until Hahnemann noted that they typically occurred in men with a recent history of this disease. This observation led him to understand that, though the disease itself had ceased to show its characteristic symptoms, the gonorrhea had left its mark in a predisposition to a particular complex of ailments, a miasm. Moreover, Hahnemann found that there was a corresponding complex of ailments typical of these patients' wives, who themselves had never had gonorrhea at all and who developed their problems only after marrying a man who had been "cured" of gonorrhea. From this observation he realized that the miasm had passed to them independently of the disease itself. Today, like the syphilitic miasm, sycosis is acquired mainly by heredity, and it is a fairly common accompaniment to humanity's native psora.
"Chronic diseases arise from dynamic infection by a chronic miasm." —Samuel Hahnemann, Organon of the Medical Art, aphorism 72
The chronic miasms are a cornerstone of homeopathic philosophy. Their existence explains why acute and local treatments are not always effective, why people get sick more often and more severely after certain kinds of medical treatment, how the vital force becomes susceptible to disorder and illness, and even why disease and death exist at all. Gaining knowledge of the miasms is a lifetime endeavor, but these articles will explain some of the basic concepts about them and explore some of the ways an awareness of the miasms affects the practice of homeopathy.
To be honest I don't quite understand this concept. I just thought that It is interesting that the whole branch of a so-called alternative medicine called homeopathy is based on this theory about Miasms. And at the same time, I know that homeopathy works in most cases. Sometimes it doesn't work. There must be something, and I don't think that this is a complete theory but maybe there is something. If we take into account this theory, the pleomorphism and the theories of Bechamp about somatides, the modern virology, and theory of Intelligent design, maybe we could connect more dots and have a better perspective of the true nature of the diseases and pathogens.
It's more related to viruses and the current corona circus than germ theory etc., but it's pretty unique in terms of who's interviewed. Andy Kaufman and Judy Mikovits is pretty much exactly who I'd like to see discuss viruses.
Kaufman represents more or less the TT, and Judy, of course, is our favourite virus expert. The interesting thing is that they mostly agree with one another.
Judy makes it clear that exosomes are not viruses, but many details still seem unclear to me.
I've been thinking along the lines of viruses not 'causing' disease in the sense Koch's postulates define it, but probably playing some role. It could just be one ingredient in the creation of disease. It could be more 'contribute' than 'cause'. But I don't know. I have to read much more.
Also I have no idea how much of what scientists tell us about viruses I can believe since most of them are corrupt or under the influence of dumb ideologies like Darwinism. Too many assumptions, not enough real science. The big question is what viruses really are, and without a good microscope and a ton of work, it's hard to be sure about anything.
It reminds me a bit of the electric universe versus accretive model. There was some truth in the accretive model even though it missed electricity. On the other side, sometimes too much electricity and not enough astronomy.
What about the chicken pox parties people used to have? A child had chickenpox and then parents in the neighborhood brought their children over so they could all get chickenpox. It seems there was some sort of transmission of chickenpox virus from child to child that caused chickenpox.
Let's look at the seasonal flu. Does what we see require any contagion? I don't think so. These common viruses are everywhere and we all have them, so we don't have to 'catch' anything to have the flu. Plus, if there's a season when the disease appears, then that tells me the cause is not the virus but whatever happens in this season. And what happens is that it's Winter and it's cold, and during Winter holidays you eat all that sugary crap (or at least many people do), so your body is weakened, and that can trigger the process of cleansing.
Dr. Zach Bush was interviewed by Del Bigtree in Highwire, and Bush described people getting sick because plants were not soaking up carbon dioxide in the fall and winter. That was part of how Bush was able to predict a pandemic in Wuhan before it happened, due to air pollution and pesticides.
My point is, we can fairly well account for this corona thing with the TT. The key was stress, hysteria, and a sort of placebo effect where people were getting sick because they expected it. I don't see any reason this sickness would need to be 'caused by a virus'.
But even in such cases, not everyone is affected the same, which tells us the terrain makes a difference. If the bug was the cause, it should have the same effects in everyone.
The Cs indicated it was a tinkered virus that spread, with STO modifications of the virus by some of the infected. It seems to be a mix of germ theory and terrain theory. It was the interaction of the virus and the people that created the different results, an interactive process. Like an observer changing the observed. Virus reached a person with a bigger STO orientation, causing STO modifications to the virus. What happens is not the same for everyone, because what happens depends on the terrain of each person, though it was still a strain of the virus making those things happen. Bug does something to person, person does something to bug, and the something that happens depends on both the bug and the person. It's interactive both ways.
I just finished Béchamp's 2 books, 800 pages total. I don't recommend reading it as it is too long, too much detailed about experiments. I share here some relevant quotes.
When you read the real Pasteur's story, you're sad to see how science and medicine have been retrograded by people like Pasteur. It's disgusting to see that 150 years later, medicine is still based upon stupid Pasteurs's asumptions, not on real science. Real science was in Béchamp's work. century later, Naessens' work shows how much Béchamp was in the right path.
Béchamp shows in details how Pasteur's works were un-scientific, making experiments without respecting basic principles and stating conclusions according to his wishes not to the facts. You clearly see that man was a charlatan, interested not in people's health but in personal fame.
It's incredible to see that even with Béchamp's rigourous demonstrations and communications at the Academy of Medicine, showing the too numerous flaws in Pasteur's works, it's Pasteur who succeded. Same goes for Claude Bernard, another "father of medicine" and Pasteur friend. I nearly vomit on the screen when I read all this.
Pasteur was a great cheater. Instead of admiting he was wrong, he cheated in order to maintain (and impose) his ideas.
Example: Pasteur claimed that boiled milk is safer, holds better, and is nutritionally better than raw milk. Béchamp rigourously showed it was false. Pasteur, to maintain that boiled milk is healthier (because it is claimed to be germ-free), uses in addition to boiling, various chemicals to kill them (phenic acid, antiseptics, etc.) and dares to claim that boiled milk retains the same qualities as raw milk.
As he did with vaccines: to hide the virulence, aggressiveness of injected viruses (many deaths in his first trials on children!) , which showed in an evident way the dangerousness of vaccines, he cheated by delaying the vaccine-caused mortality and morbidity. How? By weakening his microbes with antiseptic adjuvants (eg: mercury, aluminum). With that delay, and replacing mortality by morbidity, it's much easier to deflect attention from vaccine's responsibility.
Let's come to microzymas, the great discovery by Béchamp. Unfortunately, he has been ridiculed by Pasteur and Co and microzymas has been put to rest
In next posts, I'll give some quotes. They can be usefull if we want to write an article.
Microzymas appear on a single microscope like tiny shining, lively, vivacious granulations. 1 century later, in the 1960's, Naessens calls them "somatides".
From Béchamp's observations, they appear to be THE fundamental vital unit, more than the cells which are transitory, whereas microzymas are quasi-eternal. Cells themselves are developped from the action of multiple microzymas .
Excerpts from : Microzymas et microbes - Communications à l'Académie de médecine - Antoine Béchamp - 1888.
Le microzyma est l’élément anatomique fondamental vivant per se, l’atome nécessaire de l’organisation. Non, ces microzymas ne sont pas des étrangers dans l’organisme, dans la cellule et dans le tout de l’être vivant; ils y sont ab ovo, avant même la naissance de l'ovule.
L’élément anatomique est vivant, la cellule est vivante parce que, comme la cellule de levure de bière, les cellules sont tissées de microzymas. Mais la cellule, l’élément anatomique, comme tout organisme vivant, y compris les vibrions et les bactéries, sont transitoires, tandis que le microzyma subsiste après leur totale destruction car il est, je le répète, l’élément anatomique fondamental, l’atome de toute organisation vivante."
Microzyma is the fundamental anatomical element living per se, the necessary atom of organization. No, these microzymas are not strangers in the organism, in the cell and in the whole of the living being; they are ab ovo, even before the birth of the ovula.
The anatomical element is alive, the cell is alive because, like the cell of brewer's yeast, they are woven of microzymas. But the cell, the anatomical element, like every living organism, including vibrions and bacterias, are transitory, while the microzyma remains after their total destruction because it is, I repeat, the fundamental anatomical element, the atom of every living organism.
" Les microzymas ne sont pas des étrangers, des parasites dans l'organisme pas plus que mon foie ou tel autre organe. "
" Je l'ai [le microzyma] retrouvé durant toutes les phases du développement de l'être, depuis l'ovule jusque dans tous les organes, tissus et humeurs de l'adulte; dans toutes les parties des végétaux, dans toutes les moisissures et dans la levure de bière, un être vivant réduit à l'état de cellule permanente. Il est l' "atome" organisé de l'organisation, l'être vivant per se, actif dans toutes les manifestations de la vie; ce par quoi une cellule, un tissu, une humeur sont vivants. C'est lélément anatomique fondamental, essentiel, que la physiologie doit considérer, en qui l'organisation et la vie sont indissolublement unies. Et c'est ^parce qu'il en est ainsi qu'il n'y a pas de matière vivante non morphologiquement définie, çàd sans structure".
"Microzymas are not foreigners, parasites in the body, nor is my liver or any other organ. "
"I found it [the microzyma] during all the phases of the development of the being, from the ovula to all the organs, tissues and humours of the adult; in all parts of plants, in all moulds and in brewer's yeast, a living being reduced to the state of a permanent cell. He is the organized "atom" of the organization, the living being per se, active in all manifestations of life; by which a cell, a tissue, a humor are alive. It is the fundamental, essential anatomical element that physiology must consider, in which organization and life are indissolubly united. And it is because of this that there is no living matter that is not morphologically defined, that is without structure".
The last sentence is because at that time, Pasteur, Claude Bernard, Koch and Co supported the theory of protoplasma, i.e. that it is this "gel" made of minerals that is at the origin of life, the spontaneous generation of organic molecules and cells. Béchamp debunked the theory of spontaneous generation, an atheist and darwinian view on life.
Here is a photo where you can see microzymas in the blood, near red cells (GR) and a leucocyte ie white cell (GB).
I circled them, on the picture.
the arrow is a bacteria formed from microzymas
" Quant au protoplasma, que M. Pasteur, avec tout le monde, a cru n’être qu’un pur mixte de principes immédiats sans structure, s’il est vivant, il ne l’est, lui aussi, que grâce à ses microzymas méconnus. C’est grâce à ces microzymas, qu’il renferme nécessairement et qui le constituent vivant, que les réactions chimiques et les phénomènes physiologiques et histologiques qui s’accomplissent en lui peuvent s’accomplir. Ce que les naturalistes appellent la respiration du protoplasma ne se manifesterait pas sans les microzymas, c’est-à-dire s’il était un pur mixte chimique. Sans les microzymas, les phénomènes chimiques du protoplasma seraient des effets sans cause et les phénomènes histologiques des effets de génération spontanée. "
"As for the protoplasma, which Mr. Pasteur, with everyone else, believed to be a pure mixture of immediate principles without structure, if it is alive, it too is only thanks to its little-known microzymas. It is thanks to these microzymas, which it necessarily contains and which constitute it alive, that the chemical reactions and the physiological and histological phenomena that are accomplished in it can be accomplished. What naturalists call the respiration of the protoplasma would not manifest itself without the microzymas, that is, if it were a pure chemical mixture. Without the microzymas, the chemical phenomena of the protoplasma would be causeless effects and the histological phenomena would be spontaneous generation effects. "
Bechamp uses the word "vibrionien"; at that time viruses were not known enough, so I think we can say "virus" today. Will read Naessens to see how he calls that.
There's a specificity in microzymas, probably due to the DNA inside them:
les microzymas, quelle que soit leur origine, sont des êtres vivants, et parce qu'ils sont doués d'activité chimique et parce que, par évolution, ils peuvent, les circonstances étant favorables, devenir Vibrioniens.
The microzymas, whatever their origin, are living beings, and because they are endowed with chemical activity and because, by evolution, they can, under favourable circumstances, become Vibrioniens.
Microzymas' properties demonstrated by Béchamp:
- they secrete like cells
- they are autonomous and belong, as structured anatomical elements, to the organ and to the organism of which it is a part
- they are capable, by evolution, of becoming vibrioniens
Much appreciated, @nature ! Thank you for taking the time to read and then distill the main points of those books. There certainly is something 'rotten in the state of Denmark' with the Germ Theory, and I'm looking forward to learning more.
Here he describes how numerous microzymases work together to form a cell. He says microzymas are factors of cells. It's an incredible team work
He first observed the phenomenon on brewer's yeast:
there were free cells in the liquor, but when you looked at the undisaggregated portions of the membrane, you could clearly see cells forming in the midst of microzymal clusters. These clusters were first seen to have a vague appearance of a cell without clearly defined contours; nearby there were others whose contours were clearly defined, like a finished cell. In the nutritive liquor formed by the sugar, the organic and mineral materials of the broth, the microsomas gather together, agglutinate according to a certain law depending on their nature, secrete or constitute the membrane which envelops them, and the cell is produced; a cell, a new organism, endowed with properties which the microzymas which are the factors in it did not possess.
He also says microzymas secrete enzymes. And it is this function that determines their specificity, not their shape.
The microzymas are morphologically identical and, therefore, their shape is not characteristic. It is by their activity and their chemical function that I was able to distinguish them. And as you well know, this is the case with your convenient microzymas: you can't always conclude from form to function.
...
Microzymas, which are endowed with chemical activity; are the only ones autonomously alive; by evolution, can become vibrionien, they are also what can be cell and tissue factors.
Microzymas are at the beginning of any organization. They are what makes an organism, a cell, alive. More generally still: every organism is reducible to the microzyma.
... les microzymas sont morphologiquement identiques et, par suite, que leur forme n'a rien de caractéristique. C'est par leur activité et leur fonction chimique qu'il m'a été possible de les distinguer. Et vous le savez bien, il en est de vos microbes comme des microzymas : vous ne pouvez pas toujours conclure de la forme à la fonction...
les microzymas, qui sont doués d'activité chimique; sont seuls autonomiquement vivants. Par évolution, ils peuvent devenir vibrioniens, sont aussi ce qui peut être facteur de cellules et de tissus.
...
Les microzymas sont au commencement de toute organisation. Ils sont ce par quoi un organisme, une cellule, sont vivants. Plus généralement encore : tout organisme est réductible au microzyma.
... les microzymas sont ce qui résiste à la destruction cadavérique de l'organisation, ils sont aussi, ce par quoi l'organisation est faite : en d'autres termes, les microzymas qui, par évolution, deviennent vibrioniens, soit hors de l'organisme, soit dans l'organisme pendant l'état pathologique, sont ce qui, dans l'état physiologique, construit les cellules et tous les autres éléments anatomiques.
The microzymas are what resist the cadaveric destruction of the organization, they are also, what the organization is made of: in other words, the microzymas which, by evolution, become vibrionien, either outside the organism, or in the organism during the pathological state, are what, in the physiological state, build the cells and all the other anatomical elements.
So microzymas all have the same morphology, shape, but not the same function. Here we see how much important is the information dwelling in a physical organism (within RNA/DNA)
After numerous and detailed experiments on salivary glands, Béchamp says:
Il résulte de ces faits cette conclusion inévitable, que les cellules épithéliales, les microzymas et les bactéries de la langue d’homme ont une spécialité d’action chimique toute personnelle, que ne possèdent pas les mêmes éléments anatomiques des langues de bœuf et porc. Il y a donc, malgré l’identité apparente de la structure, une différence incontestable de fonction chimique dans les organismes buccaux, comme il y a une différence entre les fonctions des parotides.
...
La conclusion qui se dégage de ces observations est, non seulement que l’organisme humain porte constamment en lui, naturellement, des microzymas innombrables— innombrables dans le sens absolu du mot — mais qu’ils ne sont pas fonctionnellement les mêmes dans tous les centres d’organisation et qu’il peut en exister de plusieurs sortes dans un même organe, un même tissu ou cellule. Le microzyma, en tant qu’élément anatomique fondamental, doit être réputé vivant puisque c’est lui qui tisse tes cellules, et de proche en proche les tissus et les organes. Il est vivant aussi en tant que pouvant évoluer pour devenir vibrionien : or, les vibrioniens sont réputés vivants.
It follows from these facts the inevitable conclusion that the epithelial cells, microzymas and bacteria of the human tongue have a very personal speciality of chemical action, which is not possessed by the same anatomical elements of beef and pig tongues. Therefore, despite the apparent identity of the structure, there is an unquestionable difference in chemical function in oral organisms, as there is a difference in the functions of the parotid glands.
The conclusion to be drawn from these observations is not only that the human organism constantly carries within it, naturally, innumerable microzymas - innumerable in the absolute sense of the word - but that they are not functionally the same in all centres of organisation and that there may be several kinds of them in the same organ, tissue or cell. The microzyma, as a fundamental anatomical element, must be considered alive, since it is the microzyma that weaves your cells, and gradually the tissues and organs. It is also alive as being able to evolve to become vibrionian: vibrionians are reputed to be alive.
Il explique ensuite cela: les microzymas restent morphologiquement identiques tout au long de la vie d'un être - depuis le zygote (première cellule résultant de la fusion du gamète mâle avec le gamète femelle) jusqu'à l'état adulte de l'être qui en provient - mais varient de fonction. Et cette notion du changement de fonction, fait comprendre comment les microzymas peuvent devenir morbides dans certaines circonstances, lorsqu'ils ne sont plus dans les conditions physiologiques de leur vie.
" La maladie naît de nous et en nous"
" Les conditions anormales peuvent naître d'accidents qui modifient le milieu en nous, de nos imprudences, de nos fautes, de nos excès comme de nos privations, du mal moral même ; mais dans tous les cas, c'est nous qui sommes malades, et la maladie, nous en avons l'intuition et souvent la démonstration, se traduit par un mal physique qui s'imprime en nous par des lésions "
"Le microzyma est non seulement compatible avec la vie, mais sans lequel la vie n'existe pas.
He goes on to explain that microzymas remain morphologically identical throughout the life of a being - from the zygote (the first cell resulting from the fusion of the male gamete with the female gamete) to the adult state of the resulting being - but vary in function. And this notion of change in function makes us understand how microzymas can become morbid under certain circumstances, when they are no longer in the physiological conditions of their lives.
"Abnormal conditions can arise from accidents which modify the environment in us, from our imprudence, our mistakes, our excesses as well as our deprivations, even from moral evil; but in all cases, it is we who are sick, and the illness, we have the intuition and often the demonstration of it, is translated by a physical evil which imprints itself in us by lesions.
He doesn't like the word "microbe" (invented by Pasteur, by the way) because it is pejorative, insulting towards microorganisms, towards life.
Today still, this term is widely used and makes us considering microorganisms as nasty beings, leadind us to make war to them.
En effet,il faut d’abord reconnaître que ce qu’on appelle les microbes du canal alimentaire, ne sont pas, en réalité dans l’organisme, mais lui sont extérieurs et, par suite, étrangers. Parmi ces prétendus microbes il y en a bien qui y viennent de l’organisme, de la muqueuse intestinale, par exemple, à l’état de microzymas; mais la plupart, microzymas ou microzymas évolués viennent d’ailleurs, de l’air si l’on veut, mais surtout des aliments végétaux ou animaux dont la plupart des microzymas ne sont pas digérés par le suc gastrique ou par les sucs intestinaux.
Cela posé, il est possible de démontrer que l’hypothèse de l’origine atmosphérique des microzymas de nos organes, tissus et humeurs, théoriquement et anatomiquement irrationnelle, est aussi expérimentalement insoutenable.
Si les microzymas simples ou déjà évolués, que l’on peut découvrir dans certaines humeurs, venaient de l’air et pénétraient si aisément dans les cellules, il y a une humeur où l’on devrait les retrouver, toujours les mêmes, chez tous les animaux. Cette humeur, qui est naturellement sans cesse en contact immédiat avec l’air que nous respirons, c’est la salive buccale.
Or, la salive de l’homme, aussi bien que celle des animaux, contient des microzymas, des vibrioniens et des cellules épithéliales en suspension dans un liquide complexe. Si les propriétés de la salive dépendaient des germes de l’air, ces propriétés seraient nécessairement les mêmes chez l’homme et chez les animaux. Eh bien, il n’en est pas ainsi.
First of all, it must be recognized that what we call intestinal microbes are not actually in the body, but are external and therefore foreign to it. Among these so-called microbes there are some that come from the body, from the intestinal mucous membrane, for example, in the form of microzymas; but most microzymas or advanced microzymas come from elsewhere, from the air if you like, but mainly from plant or animal foods, most of which microzymas are not digested by gastric or intestinal juices.
This being said, it is possible to demonstrate that the hypothesis of the atmospheric origin of the microzymas of our organs, tissues and humors, theoretically and anatomically irrational, is also experimentally unsustainable.
If the simple or already evolved microzymas, which can be discovered in certain humours, came from the air and penetrated so easily into the cells, there is a humour where they should be found, always the same, in all animals. This humor, which is naturally always in immediate contact with the air we breathe, is the oral saliva.
However, human saliva, as well as that of animals, contains microzymas, vibrionians and epithelial cells suspended in a complex liquid. If the properties of saliva depended on germs in the air, these properties would necessarily be the same in humans and animals. Well, this is not so.
He debunkes the germ theory.
He notices that pathological germs have never been isolated from air samples, only in tissu and organ samples. And yeah, today when doctors search for a responsible "microbe", they take a sample from your body! Example: you have a septicemia, they draw a blood sample. You have a sore throat, they rub your throat with a bottle brush, etc... They identify germs in your body, never in the air.
Example: If you have an active tuberculosis (the germ is named KB ie Koch Bacillus) and you cough, your KBs will be in droplets in air, and turn back into microzymas. A KB doesn't remain in that form, he has nothing to accomplish in air, he has no utility in air as a KB, so it returns into microzyma. As a microzyma, he's very usefull; microzomas are the core of Life. He'll become back a bacteria (KB again or another bacteria (? to check) according to the information provided by the milieu, to what is expected from them.
It's a STO view. Not considering micro-organisms as ennemis, killing them, being afraid of them, as we see it flagrantly today with the Covid hysteria.
Let's listen to Antoine again:
Le système des germes de l’air est impuissant à expliquer le développement de toutes nos maladies. J’avais distingué, en 1867, les maladies parasitaires des non parasitaires. Les maladies non parasitaires celles qui naissent de nous en nous, sont dues au changement de fonction, devenant morbide, de nos propres microzymas ; et le changement de fonction, la maladie étant déclarée, peut se traduire par le changement morphologique, lorsque tel microzyma de tel centre organique évolue et devient bactéridie, bacille, streptocoque, etc.
Pour donner à ma démonstration de l’impuissance du système des "germes de l’air" son critérium de certitude, je disais un jour à l’Académie, que M. Pasteur, ni personne, n’avait jamais démontré qu’il existât dans l’air normal le microbe d’aucune maladie du cadre nosologique : tuberculose, fièvre typhoïde, typhus, choléra, syphilis, lèpre, etc., et que, en fait, toutes les fois qu’on expérimente on est obligé de prendre le microbe, c’est-à-dire le microzyma non évolué ou le vibrionien qu’il est devenu, diplocoque, staphylocoque, streptocoque, bacille, bactéridie, etc., dans le corps malade ou dans le cadavre pendant qu’il en est temps encore. " Le microzyma est morphologiquement défini, a une fonction phyio, est vivant, alors que le protoplasme non. La doctrine de la génération spontanée (forme de vie qui nait à partir du protoplasme) est une vue d'esprit, elle est incorrecte.
[ ... ]
L'acier quelconque n'est pas et ne devient pas spontanément un aimant. De plus, l'étant devenu par l'influence d'un aimant, il ne conserve pas naturellement la force acquise. Pour que l'acier puisse devenir un véritable aimant, c'est-à-dire puisse conserver la force magnétique ou plutôt le mouvement transformé qu'elle représente, il faut, par certaines actions physiques, notamment par la trempe à un certain degré de température, lui communiquer ce que l'on a appelé la force coercitive, c'est-à-dire un certain arrangement moléculaire qui lui permet de retenir le magnétisme acquis par l'aimantation. Exactement de la même manière que la matière organisable ne devient vivante, capable de conserver et de communiquer la vie, que grâce à l'état morphologique défini appelé organisation dans un microzyma. Ce qu'il y a de certain, c'est que l'énergie actuelle, le mouvement vibratoire n'est pas plus spontanément acquis par la matière dont un aimant est fait que par la matière dont a été fait un microzyma; il faut, de part et d'autre, qu'il soit communiqué par ce qui le possède après l'avoir reçu. Seulement, la force coercitive peut être communiquée par l'intervention de l'homme; mais, pour faire l'organisation il a fallu celle de Dieu et c'est pour cela que l'organisation est le Tout de la physiologie.
" The system of germs in the air is powerless to explain the development of all our diseases. In 1867, I distinguished between parasitic and non-parasitic diseases. Non-parasitic diseases, those which are born from within us, are due to the change of function, becoming morbid, of our own microzymas; and the change of function, when the disease is declared, can be translated into the morphological change, when such and such microzyma of such and such an organic center evolves and becomes bacterium, bacillus, streptococcus, etc., which is the result of the change of function of our own microzymas.
In order to give my demonstration of the impotence of the system of the "germs of the air" its criterion of certainty, I said one day at the Academy, that Mr. Pasteur, nor anyone else, had ever demonstrated that there existed in normal air the microbe of any disease of the nosological framework: tuberculosis, typhoid fever, typhus, cholera, syphilis, leprosy, etc.., and that, in fact, whenever one experiments one is obliged to take the microbe, that is to say the unevolved microzyma or vibrionien that it has become, diplococcus, staphylococcus, streptococcus, bacillus, bacterium, etc., into the sick body or into the corpse while there is still time. "The microzyma is morphologically defined, has a physiological function, is alive, while the protoplasma is not. The doctrine of spontaneous generation (a form of life that is born from the protoplasm) is a view of mind, it is incorrect.
[ ... ]
Any steel is not and does not spontaneously become a magnet. Moreover, having become one through the influence of a magnet, it does not naturally retain its acquired strength. In order for steel to become a true magnet, that is to say, to retain the magnetic force or rather the transformed movement it represents, it is necessary, by certain physical actions, in particular by hardening at a certain degree of temperature, to impart to it what has been called the coercive force, that is to say, a certain molecular arrangement which enables it to retain the magnetism acquired by magnetization. Exactly in the same way that the organizable matter only becomes alive, capable of preserving and communicating life, thanks to the defined morphological state called organization in a microzyma. What is certain is that the present energy, the vibratory movement is not more spontaneously acquired by the matter of which a magnet is made than by the matter of which a microzyma was made; it must, on both sides, be communicated by that which possesses it after having received it. Only the coercive force can be communicated by the intervention of man; but to make the organization it took the intervention of God, and for this reason the organization is the Whole of physiology. "
Thanks, Debra. I do think that 'disease' as seen by our medical establishment basically doesn't exist. They see disease as something 'bad' that's 'happening to us' and that we need to stop. (Of course by paying money to people who will treat us with drugs.) But what seems to be really happening is that this is a process that is actually trying to fix something that had gone wrong before, which the doctors don't see at all and aren't even trying to discover, for the most part. Instead of stopping this process, we should probably somehow support it, but more importantly, we need to understand what it was that led to starting this process. And this relates to how we treat our bodies every day, from nutrition to interaction with the environment to exposure to toxic substances and radiation, etc.
And there is the issue of personal responsibility. In germ theory, you have no responsibility for your health. If you get 'unlucky', you get a disease, and you have to pay to get it fixed. In TT, you are responsible for the state of your body, and your health is the result of your choices. And right there we can see another clue for which theory is likely to have more merit, because one of these views makes sense and the other one doesn't. The GT view is the typical materialistic, mechanistic, dead universe nonsense. No role for consciousness, and everything is accidental. Where have we heard that...
Also I was amused when noticing your signature, amazingly fitting for this thread: Doctors are men who prescribe medicines of which they know little, to cure diseases of which they know less, in human beings of whom they know nothing. - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire (1760)
Well said. I had an interesting discussion the other day and I think it's important to remember this. There seems to be a difference between trauma medicine and what you might call "disease medicine", or "well-being medicine" if you prefer. Modern trauma medicine, i.e. patching people up after an accident, hammering people together, surgery, insidious mechanical devices etc., is simply awesome. The progression of medicine in that regard is truly great. And no wonder, given the materialistic and mechanical worldview that these things are based on. Basically, modern medicine excels whenever it's about treating humans as cars that need to be fixed. However, people usually assume that because of that, doctors must be just as good with everything related to diseases, long-term health, well-being, and so on. As we know, nothing could be further from the truth, not least because of the materialist philosophy that dominates everything.
Sure, we can't always control toxic exposures (air pollution, for example) but we have way more control over whether we get sick or not than Big Pharma would have you think. We are the ones primarily responsible for our health and when we expect a savior in the form of a doctor or a pill or a vaccine we're in for some lessons to say the least.
I had a 14 hours drive the other day, and at one point started to feel seriously ill. Itchy throat, no energy, headache etc. - I was completely sure that I will come down with the flu/cold. But 3 hours later - boom! Gone were the symptoms. Part of it may have had to do with mental exercises I did, kind of letting go of all anticipation, anger, feelings of "unfairness" for getting sick in a situation where it didn't suit me at all etc. Yes, you could frame it mainstream-style, like "I got some germ (but from where? I was just sitting in my car...), my body fought it off (hence the illness), succeeded, and then I was symptom-free again". But what happened to "the cold always lasts X days"? What happened to the usual progression, the usual stages? I don't know, but this mechanistic germ theory really seems to be missing a larger, perhaps huge chunk of what's really going on. And I agree that consciousness, and information, probably are the key. Just speculating here, but perhaps we can think about viruses and other things as some kinds of symbols that interact with the information field, that somehow 'connect' with certain intelligences/ideas/concepts; or that add to or modify the overall state of our nervous system, which is a physical symbol or representation of an information dynamic going on... I know, sounds a bit like word-salad, so hopefully we will eventually be able to put it in more precise terms.
Thanks again for the interesting contributions everyone.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
