Friday, October 16, 2009

Virology is Religion

by Emma Holister

I have taken the liberty of quoting several paragraphs, respectively, from Olivier Clerc's 'Modern Medicine: The New World Religion' and Sylvie Simon's chapter from the Ten Biggest Lies about Vaccines, 'Lie No. 1: Pasteur was the Benefactor of Humanity'.

I do this in the hope that friends, family and others will question their deep-rooted belief and trust in the dogma of medical industrial 'science', and more particularly that of virology. I believe the doctrines of virology to be at the heart of our culture's ideological and emotional fixations on disease, our relationship to authority and the nature of reality itself.

I would also strongly encourage people to read Anthony Brink's Letter to MEGA TV, 'Manufacturing Greek Consent' on the issue of HIV-AIDS and the corporate media.

It is a revelation in how easily and unthinkingly we have fallen into a state of trust in a racist, corporate regime.

The pdf file can be downloaded at this url: http://www.tig.org.za/MEGA%20TV%20letter.pdf

I have often shared Anthony Brink's eye-opening photographs of an AZT bottle, the substance that the governing bodies of the world are terrorising people into taking, or even forcing them.





I have tried again and again to point out that there is something fishy going on when world-wide drug-industry campaigns are targeting the gay, black and hispanic populations, coercing them into doing polyreactive tests where a sore throat, pregnancy or a run-down immune system can land you with a death sentence you'll never escape. Not to mention the accompanying barrage of harassment to take deadly, toxic drugs, mandates looming on the horizon, electronic data-basing and tracking of 'high-risk patients' top on every government's list of priorities.

Why is it so very hard to believe that the multinational drug giants who brought us the Nazi gas chambers, Agent Orange, pesticides and war funding galore would want anything other than to pursue their time-honoured mission of genocide? A mission focused most passionately on those of 'questionable sexual orientation' and black people - who for that matter are equally filed under 'questionable sexual orientation', since the sex disease HIV-AIDS is not only a 'gay disease' but a 'black disease'. One that is apparently spread by Africans who, despite starving in their millions, seem to be having non-stop, uncontrollable sex orgies, with monkeys even, and spreading their killer sex disease to the many alarmed white people in decent civilised society. What a shocking threat to national security indeed. Roll in the HIV testing mandates before we're contaminated and soil the sacred purity of our white bodies and souls. . .

I wish I knew why I haven't been able to shake this unmoveable faith that even my most intelligent friends have embraced. I take comfort in the work of people such as Anthony Brink, Sylvie Simon and Olivier Clerc who, unlike me, manage to find the words that explain this cultural, spiritual, in fact religious crisis that is tearing our world apart.

EXTRACTS from 'Modern Medicine: The New World Religion' by Olivier Clerc

. . . the hidden religious dimension of modern medicine inhibits the free debating of already fixed beliefs, preventing them from being properly re-examined and criticized. Indeed, dogmatism, irrationality, and passions - all characteristic of the religious experience - take precedence over any calm and carefully thought-out argument, even over the most tenuous facts. The same vehemence that led Galileo to be condemned by the Church for his theories, in spite of the scientifically demonstrable facts, is now being used by medicine to reject any thesis that is contrary to its own dogmas. Science has learned its lessons well from the Church, it seems.

***

With an obstinacy so stunning that it can truly only be described as religious, (Pasteur) defended the idea of "the quasi-virginal state of the human body, created in the image of God." By placing the cause of illness outside the human body, in the atmospheric environment, Pasteur was reaffirming man's original purity, in the Garden of Eden. God has created man pure, without contamination of any kind: thus "evil" - which, in this conception, takes the form of sickness - can only come from without. In this world-view, both health and sickness come from outside of man and are exterior and alien to him.

***

Equally, in this sense, it should be noted that the very name "Pasteur" (shepherd, in French) probably played a rather non-trivial role in the collective unconscious. Just as Jesus, the "Good Shepherd" who came to save his "lost sheep", Pasteur became the incarnation of the new Saviour who, instead of bringing redemption for the sins of the world, would bring the ultimate salvation from the ills of mankind (by vaccination). As a result, questioning Pasteur and his work became a form of heresy, an unconscious rejection of the Christian doctrine.

***

Without wishing to minimize the importance of these factors (the financial influence of the medico-pharmacological lobby), there are solid reasons to believe that they represent nevertheless a secondary factor. The essential element that has ensured the durability of the Pasteurian myth is precisely the very fact that . . . it is a myth! The continuing pull of Pasteur's doctrines and of the man himself as a medical celebrity are due to the strength of the religous elements that are unconsciously associated with them, in the public opinion as well as in the world of medicine. One of the beauties of this arrangement is that rational arguments make no inroads into disturbing the beliefs of those who put their faith into the pastoral myth, as we all do without knowing it. In fact, since rational ideas have little (or no) impact on irrational beliefs, the pertinent critiques that can be made from a rational point of view against the myth of pastoral medicine do not even manage to scratch the surface. Often, they actually reinforce the evangelical aspect of this doctrine by making the arguments of the detractors appear as dangerously heretical.

***

Almost imperceptibly, medicine has taken on a saving or messianic role, the characteristics of which we must examine. Medicine can be said to display qualities that have characterized the Roman Catholic Church for many centuries: autocracy, centralization, the control and manipulation of people, censorship, propaganda, total obedience, infallibility, the destruction of heretics, the stamping out of individuality. All this, of course, has been done in the name of public health and the general good, just as the Church acted for mankind's salvation.

***

Although medicine sees itself as exclusively scientific and rational, with no room for spiritual or human dimensions (such as psychic healers or shamans, who are dismissed as charlatans), it organizes itself and functions in a way that can be described as intrinsically religious. The paradox is that by rejecting any spiritual dimension, medicine, in fact, becomes the toy of the forces and myths it tries to ignore and cannot control. Mere denial of something's existence has never made it disappear, except perhaps in our conscious mind. Instead, it is banished to our subconscious mind, where, beyond our control, it can roam free, wreak havoc, and wield even greater power.

EXTRACTS from 'Lie No. 1: Pasteur was the Benefactor of Humanity' by Sylvie Simon:

In a 250-page thesis on Antoine Béchamp, Marie Nonclercq, doctor of pharmacy, explains the clear advantage that Pasteur had over Béchamp: "He was a falsifier of experiments and their results, where he wanted the outcomes to be favourable to his initial ideas. The falsifications committed by Pasteur now seem incredible to us. On deeper examination, however, the facts were in opposition to the ideas developed by Pasteur in the domain of bacteriology . . . Pasteur wilfully ignored the work of Béchamp, one of the greatest 19th-century French scientists whose considerable work in the fields of chemical synthesis, bio-chemistry and infectious pathology is almost totally unrecognised today, because it had been systematically falsified, denigrated, for the personal profit of an illustrious personage (Pasteur) who had, contrary to Béchamp, a genius for publicity and what today we call 'public relations. . .'"

***

As for Prof. Michel Peter, of the Academy of Medicine, he angrily criticised Pasteur's methods and wrote to Dr Lutaud, editor-in-chief of the Journal de médecine de Paris: "I agree with you on all points: the medication of Mr Pasteur, the so-called protector from rabies, is both an error and a hazard." For this eminent member of the Academy of Medicine, it was for reasons "little to do with science" that Pasteur was going to such pains to make people believe in the frequency of rabies. Indeed, Pasteur then conjured up hundreds of cases of rabies that could put lives in mortal danger.

"Now, rabies in humans is a rare disease, very rare: I have seen two cases of it in thirty-five years of hospital and civil practice, and all my hospital colleagues, in the town, as in the countryside, can count in single units and not in dozens (less still in hundreds) the cases of human rabies that they've observed. In order to exaggerate the benefits of his method and to mask his lack of success, Mr Pasteur has a vested interest in making people believe that there is a higher rate of mortality in France from rabies. But this is in no way in the interest of truth." This procedure based on fear would be taken up again later by the laboratories manufacturing vaccines and by their accomplices.

***

What was less forgivable was his animosity towards Béchamp, the founder of enzymology, who was able to identify minute corpuscles smaller than cells, microzymas. These microzymas are the elements that are truly responsible for life, whether human, animal or vegetable. Microzymas can span centuries but are also able to evolve throughout time. In humans, their form varies according to the general state of the biological terrain they inhabit and from which they feed. They are as constructive as they are destructive, capable as they are of transforming, mutating and evolving. Had this theory of polymorphism been recognised it would have shaken to its foundation our perception of health and disease. When an imbalance disrupts the normal functioning of microzymas - malnutrition, poisoning, physical or emotional stress - the microzyma transforms into a pathogenic germ, in other words a microbe, and illness follows. From this perspective, all that is necessary is to reinforce the health of the person in order for the internal pathogenic germs to regain their original form and their protective function. . .

. . . This research prompted Béchamp to judge vaccination as an outrage, because "It neglects the microzymas' own independent vitality within the organism."

In brief, for Pasteur the microbe is the origin of disease, for Béchamp it is the disease that permits the microbe to express itself. This duality of standpoints has lasted officially for more than 100 years. On his deathbed, Pasteur was said to have affirmed that it was Claude Bernard who was right, that the microbe was nothing and the biological terrain was everything. Indeed, if the microbe were the only agent responsible, how could it be explained that nurses treating tuberculosis were not contaminated whilst other people who were far less exposed to the bacillus rapidly fell ill? Claude Bernard, in pondering this question, came to develop the idea of receptivity to disease, admitting that there must be an innate or acquired tendency to develop certain pathologies.

And Prof. Jean Bernard is not far from adhering to this theory when he asks the question: "If, in the fight against cancer, we have not advanced as fast as in other domains, it is probably because we have been too attached to the theories of Pasteur. . . These viruses, are they really outside ourselves? Might they not in fact come from our own damaged organisms?"

In his work 'The Crack in the World', André Glucksmann attempts to explain the Pasteurian illusions: "The vanity of Pasteurism reveals - more than a certain science and less than an effective art - a religion. Pasteur has transposed into terms of biopower the constitutive equation of modern nations, cujus regio, ejus religio." (As goes the country, so goes the religion.)

Related articles:


Lie No. 1 : Pasteur is a Benefactor of Humanity - from ‘The Ten Biggest Lies about Vaccines’ by Sylvie Simon

Translated by Emma Holister from 'Les 10 plus gros mensonges sur les vaccins'



see also by Sylvie Simon: A Veritable Dictatorship

"Each and every problem we face today is the direct and inevitable result of yesterday's brilliant solutions." Henry Bergman


Praise for Pasteur is heard across the world and he is considered to be one of the most prestigious heroes of humanity, a reference to be reckoned with.

Although the story of vaccination began at the end of the 18th century when the English doctor Edward Jenner undertook to inoculate with cowpox, a disease specific to cows, in order to protect humans from smallpox, it is Pasteur (1822-1895) who remains the father of vaccination and it is with him that the long string of lies begins.

This clever, brilliant, hard-working man was an expert communicator and kept up to date with the work of his peers. His tactics never changed; he knew how to recognise good ideas but would begin by openly criticising them, then would shamelessly appropriate them to himself, claiming to be the discoverer. It is in this way that he became the benefactor of humanity and, above all, an untouchable myth.

And in April 2005, during a television programme that clearly illustrated the decline of information and cultural standards, he was represented as second only to Charles de Gaulle amongst the “greatest Frenchmen of all time”. Adding yet another to the lies surrounding Pasteur, Prof. Axel Kahn, member of the National Consultants Committee on French Ethics, Director of Research at Inserm and one of Pasteur's most faithful supporters, didn't hesitate to affirm that it was thanks to Pasteur that women no longer died of puerperal fever during childbirth. In reality this discovery belonged to the Hungarian doctor Ignace Semmelweis, who had observed that women no longer died when those assisting took hygiene precautions such as washing their hands. It is worth pointing out that he provoked ridicule amongst his colleagues and was unable to convince them despite clear evidence. They claimed that the statistics he'd published were false and faked and he was suspended. And it would seem that women in childbirth may possibly have been infected in an attempt to discredit the truth of this observation. A despairing Semmelweis committed suicide. His work, published in 1861, was only given recognition in 1890 and this delay cost lives. Revolted by the behaviour of Semmelweis’s colleagues, another doctor, this time a writer, Louis-Ferdinand Céline, hotly defended him in publishing his biography in 1937. Evidently Axel Kahn has not read it. It is clear therefore that the myth of Pasteur persists on a foundation of totally false assumptions, but that the public at large blindly believes it because they 'saw it on the television'.

However, numerous facts reported in perfectly authenticated texts, coming from those who were close to him or from historians such as Dr Lutaud, Dr Philippe Decourt, Dr Xavier Raspail, Adrien Loir, Ethyl Douglas Hume, Emile Duclaux, Gerald Geison and others, should suffice in pushing him from his pedestal. But the Pasteurian dogma is so deeply rooted in people's minds that nothing yet has been able to shake it and the French continue to idolise an imposter. It is forbidden, under pain of excommunication, to lay a finger on the man who vanquished rabies. And to date, as Pasteur is no longer here to pillage the work of his peers, it is others who pillage in his name.

The subject of vaccines is no different from the case of Pasteur: there is no end to the lies that are unveiled. I can therefore only suggest to readers that if they want to learn of them all, they should refer to the authors cited above and to Eric Ancelet's book 'Pour en finir avec Pasteur' ('To Finish with Pasteur'), which masterfully reveals what is hidden behind Pasteur’s character, in stark contrast to the idealised image that is portrayed officially.

Pasteur doctored the results of experiments that turned out unfavourably for him, in the manner of a true forger, with the aid of his accomplices. And in order to gain honours and glory, he appropriated to himself various works of other researchers, including Antoine Béchamp (1816-1908), one of the greatest scientists of the nineteenth century, doctor, biologist, naturalist, professor in medical and pharmaceutical chemistry at the Faculty of Montpellier and professor of bio-chemistry and physics at the University of Paris, as well as Dean of the Free Faculty of Lille. Béchamp proved the veracity of Claude Bernard's views on the importance of the biological terrain of each individual and was the first to understand the microbial cause of infectious pathologies.

However, his work is virtually unheard of these days, because it was systematically discredited and falsified to the profit and personal interests of Pasteur.

In June 1865, Pasteur was nominated by the government to study silkworm diseases, whereas Béchamp had already determined and published on the parasitic origin of pébrine (silkworm disease). Pasteur criticised the work of Béchamp, affirming that it was a matter of constitutional disease, that the small bodies (as they called microbes in those days) that Béchamp considered to be exogenous parasites, coming from the exterior, were only the diseased cells of the worm itself. In a letter addressed to a minister, Pasteur wrote: “It is an error to say that this disease is simply parasitic and not constitutional. In fact, I believe that these people (Béchamp and his co-worker) are insane. An unfortunate madness indeed that so compromises Science and the University with such culpable nonsense.”

In 1868, Pasteur realised that Béchamp was right – and since that time the 'parasitic' theory has been recognised universally – But Pasteur declared to the Academy of Science and to the Minister of Agriculture that he had been the first to demonstrate the parasitic origin of pébrine that was “entirely unheard of before my research”. An unparalleled impudence.

In 1870 he published an article on silkworm diseases that he dedicated to the Empress, as he had for a long time been cultivating relationships within the Imperial Court which allowed him to forge useful friendships with ministers and official representatives of foreign countries.

At that time, Pasteur pronounced himself strongly “pro-Napoleon”, but after the fall of the Empire and the arrival of the Republic, he did an about-turn, as the 9th February 1983 edition of the journal Impact Médecin pointed out. He obtained via the Republican physiologist Paul Bert, a member of the budget commission, approval from the National Assembly of a payment of a 'national reward' in the form of a yearly salary of 12 000 francs – later raised to a salary of 25 000 francs – for having saved the silkworm industry.

Indeed, Paul Bert, all-powerful at the time in government, ardently wished to be admitted to the Institute, which did not want in its ranks a man openly declaring his revolutionary and atheist ideas. According to Paul Bert, Pasteur sought him out and offered him a deal: he used his influence in the Academy of Science in order to get Paul Bert nominated, who in return guaranteed him the award of his salary. Which was effected, to the detriment of Davaine, for whom the chair at the Academy had been intended, and who consequently died, apparently of grief. Davaine, a friend and protector of Pasteur, also saw Pasteur attribute to himself part of his work.

Pasteur was thus rewarded for his lie on 'parasitic' theory, so stripping Béchamp of a part of his work. He then plotted to make his adversary lose his post at the University.

The 'soluble ferments' affair, that gave rise to a controversy in 1878 that lasted more than 18 months, between Pasteur and the chemist Berthellot, reveals a similar imposture, as Pasteur refused to recognise the evidence and held fast to his belief in the theory of spontaneous generation.

PASTEUR'S RABIES

At school we are taught that Pasteur “saved the little Joseph Meister, bitten on the hand by a rabid dog”. In fact, it was uncertain as to whether or not the dog was actually infected with rabies; no other bite had been reported. Furthermore, even had it been, the risk for the young Meister would have been small, as an animal that is genuinely infected with rabies – which is extremely rare – transmits the disease in only 5 to 15% of cases.

The rabies affair is a perfect example of Pasteur's lies being repeated and introduced by his admirers into the collective memory, to the point of becoming truth to the average mortal. Contrary to what we are taught, the anti-rabies vaccine was not created by Pasteur but by Henri Toussaint, professor at the Veterinary School of Toulouse, and whose name has not left its mark on history. This man succeeded in reducing the virulence of the virus by heating the preparation and adding to it an antiseptic.

Pasteur's vaccine, based on dessicated marrow, was very dangerous and was soon abandoned, and the young Meister was very fortunate to have escaped it. Moreover, Pasteur's collaborator, Emile Roux, had surmised that the application of the Pasteur vaccine was too dangerous and he refused to be associated with the first trials of the so-called “intensive-treatment”, consisting of several injections over a period of twelve days.

The most characteristic aspect of Pasteur's and his collaborators' dishonesty was the story of a twelve-year-old child who died from the effects of the vaccination adminstered by Pasteur. The young Edouard Rouyer was bitten on 8th October 1886 by an unknown dog. Pasteur inoculated him with his vaccine using the intensive method and on 26th October the child died. A legal enquiry was opened to determine the cause of his death and Professor Brouardel was put in charge of it. This man, a high-ranking official richly endowed with titles, was a friend of Pasteur's.

In Emile Roux's laboratory, they inoculated a part of the child's brain stem into rabbits' brains and, several days later, the rabbits died of rabies. But Brouardel, in agreement with Roux, decided to submit a false witness statement before a justice, to hide the truth. It was a question of avoiding official recognition of a failure that would entail, as Brouardel put it, “an immediate jump backwards of fifty years in the development of science”, as well as the dishonouring of Pasteur, as Philippe Decourt recounts in “The Undesirable Truth, the Case of Pasteur”. The report submitted to the procurer contained a monumental lie:

“The two rabbits are today, 9th January 1887, in good health, that is to say forty-two days after the inoculations. The negative results of the inoculations performed with the brain stem of this child allow us to dismiss the hypothesis that the young Rouyer succumbed to rabies.” Pasteur declared that the child had died of uraemia.

Not satisfied with falsifying the facts, Pasteur and his two accomplices, Roux and Brouardel, set about silencing their opponents who knew the truth. Brouardel even went so far as to affirm that of the fifty people treated with the intensive inoculations, no one had died.

In 1886, in France as abroad, the deaths officially counted amongst the failures of Pasteur's method had already risen to seventy-four: forty foreigners and thirty-four French people. Some died showing symptoms of classic rabies, others succumbed to a new condition that was called “laboratory rabies”. These showed symptoms of a rabid form of paraplegia that had been observed in rabbits being used in the culture of the Pasteurian virus (La Méthode Pasteur contre la rage par le Docteur Xavier Raspail 1888). Moreover, Pasteur himself pointed out that during the period of 9th November 1885 to 30th December 1886, out of the eighteen vaccinated of those infected, nine died within the three weeks following the bite.

In the month of March 1886, Pasteur declared to Dr Navarre: “From now on I will not permit the questioning of my theories and my method; I will not tolerate anyone coming and overseeing my experiments.” Thus Pasteur initiated the now institutionalised scientific lie, proffered with impudence by men of science haloed with an usurped prestige.

History has noted only the success of this vaccine, but neglects to mention that it had multiplied the deaths from rabies. In fact, far from triumph, it was a failure, because no one was ever able to prove its efficacy; first of all because it was practically impossible to demonstrate proof that the accused dogs were ill with rabies and second, because the number of those vaccinated who died was too high for anyone to want to take register it. Léon Daudet told of the dreadful deaths of six Russian land labourers bitten by a wolf and then vaccinated by Pasteur (Souvenirs des milieux littéraires, politiques, artistiques et médicaux de 1880 – 1905). On this issue, the writer protested at the time against what he called “la nouvelle morticoli” (French play on words, 'the new death') and wrote a series of articles on the subject.

As for Prof. Michel Peter, of the Academy of Medicine, he angrily criticised Pasteur's methods and wrote to Dr Lutaud, editor-in-chief of the Journal de médecine de Paris: “I agree with you on all points: the medication of Mr Pasteur, the so-called protector from rabies, is both an error and a hazard.” For this eminent member of the Academy of Medicine, it was for reasons “little to do with science” that Pasteur was going to such pains to make people believe in the frequency of rabies. Indeed, Pasteur then conjured up hundreds of cases of rabies that could put lives in mortal danger.

“Now, rabies in humans is a rare disease, very rare: I have seen two cases of it in thirty-five years of hospital and civil practice, and all my hospital colleagues, in the town, as in the countryside, can count in single units and not in dozens (less still in hundreds) the cases of human rabies that they’ve observed. In order to exaggerate the benefits of his method and to mask his lack of success, Mr Pasteur has a vested interest in making people believe that there is a higher rate of mortality in France from rabies. But this is in no way in the interest of truth.” This procedure based on fear would be taken up again later by the laboratories manufacturing vaccines and by their accomplices.

In addition, before his peers at the Academy, Prof. Peter accused Pasteur not only of having increased the incidence of rabies but of having “provoked cases of paralytic and even convulsive rabies”, rather than having made it disappear completely, as he had pompously announced. “The method of Mr Pasteur could not be less considered from the viewpoint of anaylsing the cases of death, the clinical analysis indicating that a certain number of these fatal cases are due to the Pasteurian inoculations, which explains the rise in deaths from rabies in humans.” Prof. Peter concluded: “Mister Pasteur does not cure rabies, he spreads it!”

THE VACCINE AGAINST ANTHRAX

It was in such a way, thanks to countless lies, that rabies became Pasteur's first great triumph, but before that there was the vaccine against anthrax, a disease that was ravaging livestock.

At the time, Pasteur firmly set up his theories in opposition to those of Henri Toussaint, who had discovered the inoculable nature of anthrax and the possibility of vaccinating against this disease with weakened cultures. Pasteur claimed Toussaint's procedure was ineffective and dangerous, and that his own vaccine was superior. In order to prove it, he authorised an experiment which took place on 28th August 1881 at Pouilly-le-Fort, near Melun.

Fifty sheep were selected of which only twenty five were vaccinated. All fifty were inoculated fifteen days later with the virulent strain of anthrax. Pasteur affirmed that the non-vaccinated sheep would die and the others would survive.

On the day of the experiment Pasteur confided in his collaborators that he was going to use, not his vaccine, but Toussaint's, which contained an antiseptic that reduced the virulence of the anthrax bacteria.

For a long time Pasteur had tried in vain to obtain this reduction using oxygen from the air. The sheep received the vaccine that Toussaint had developed to which potassium bichromate had been added, a powerful poison that kills microbes, but which induces cancer. Evidently no one was going to worry about the cancers that the sheep would later develop. As predicted, the twenty-five sheep who had received the vaccine diluted by potassium bichromate survived. It was a triumph for Pasteur and everyone believed once again that it was 'his vaccine' and not Toussaint’s antiseptic that had saved the sheep.

Pasteur's own nephew, Adrien Loir, reported these facts in detail in a work entitled 'In the Shadow of Pasteur' but few people have read it and even fewer today know that the Pouilly-le-Fort experiment was nothing more than a lamentable confidence trick.

Prof. Peter judged the anthrax vaccine quite as severely as the rabies one and reported to Dr Lutaud the results of the vaccinations used from 10th August 1888 at the Odessa Institute of Bacteriology where “following Paris' example, the vaccine is made in accordance to Mr Pasteur's model”. Indeed, an anti-anthrax vacine, made in Odessa and sent to Kachowka in central Russia, consequently brought about no fewer than 3,696 deaths out of the 4,561 sheep vaccinated and amongst the 1,582 ewes inoculated, 1,075 were killed by the inoculation, that is, 61%.

Prof. Peter comments also on another inoculation used on the flocks at the Spendrianow farm: “The first flock consisted of neutered sheep aged between 1, 2 and 3 years old, a total of 1,478, and the other 1,058, younger and older. . . Out of 4,564 sheep vaccinated, only 868 survived the inoculation, that is, 19%. This is what they are calling 'preventive inoculations'!” which could be added to the list of Pasteur's customary hoaxes. His methods were always the same. While denouncing the methods of others, he'd finish by appropriating them to himself and so manage to crown himself with glory.

In a 250-page thesis on Antoine Béchamp, Marie Nonclercq, doctor of pharmacy, explains the clear advantage that Pasteur had over Béchamp: “He was a falsifier of experiments and their results, where he wanted the outcomes to be favourable to his initial ideas. The falsifications committed by Pasteur now seem incredible to us. On deeper examination, however, the facts were in opposition to the ideas developed by Pasteur in the domain of bacteriology . . . Pasteur wilfully ignored the work of Béchamp, one of the greatest 19th-century French scientists whose considerable work in the fields of chemical synthesis, bio-chemistry and infectious pathology is almost totally unrecognised today, because it had been systematically falsified, denigrated, for the personal profit of an illustrious personage (Pasteur) who had, contrary to Béchamp, a genius for publicity and what today we call 'public relations. . .'”

An American historian of science, Gerald Geison, from the University of Princeton, for twenty years studied Pasteur's laboratory notes, until that date kept secret on the orders of Pasteur himself. He eventually communicated the result of his research to the annual Congress of the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science), and the English paper The Observer published it on 14th Februrary 1993. The following week, the medical magazine Science denounced what it called “The Pasteurian Deception”.

If this bickering between scientists had little consequence, one might consider it of only relative importance, but it was a far more serious issue for that era, for the industrial revolution was under way and opening up a matter of considerable economic stakes: that of the vaccine industry.

Between 1869 and 1872, Pasteur expounded three erroneous basic postulates that are still used today as the foundation of vaccination. The first put forward that asepsis reigns amongst our cells: the cell is clean, all microbes are exogenous (they come from outside) and attack it, and these germs have an existence that is independent from living organisms. The second is that each illness corresponds to a specific agent, microbial or viral, against which one can protect oneself, thanks to vaccines; the illness has one cause alone, therefore one remedy alone. Finally, immunity is aquired by the production of antibodies in response to the introduction of antigens via the vaccine and these antibodies give protection.

It has been well known for some time that these postulates are false, the latest discoveries in immunology contradict them totally. However, the vaccinators feign ignorance of these studies. If each germ provoked an illness, life on Earth would be long gone. Pasteur was wrong, but in this case he is forgiven, it was a simple case of human error.

What was less forgivable was his animosity towards Béchamp, the founder of enzymology, who was able to identify minute corpuscles smaller than cells, microzymas. These microzymas are the elements that are truly responsible for life, whether human, animal or vegetable. Microzymas can span centuries but are also able to evolve throughout time. In humans, their form varies according to the general state of the biological terrain they inhabit and from which they feed. They are as constructive as they are destructive, capable as they are of transforming, mutating and evolving. Had this theory of polymorphism been recognised it would have shaken to its foundation our perception of health and disease. When an imbalance disrupts the normal functioning of microzymas – malnutrition, poisoning, physical or emotional stress – the microzyma transforms into a pathogenic germ, in other words a microbe, and illness follows. From this perspective, all that is necessary is to reinforce the health of the person in order for the internal pathogenic germs to regain their original form and their protective function.

Thanks to his theory, Béchamp was able to take census of bacteria that were several million years old. The polymorphism of microzymas can therefore transform them into viruses, bacteria, mycelium, prions or other, as yet unknown, organisms. But they can also set off the opposite process and transform back into basic microzymas. This research prompted Béchamp to judge vaccination as an outrage, because “It neglects the microzymas' own independent vitality within the organism.”

In brief, for Pasteur the microbe is the origin of disease, for Béchamp it is the disease that permits the microbe to express itself. This duality of standpoints has lasted officially for more than 100 years. On his deathbed, Pasteur was said to have affirmed that it was Claude Bernard who was right, that the microbe was nothing and the biological terrain was everything. Indeed, if the microbe were the only agent responsible, how could it be explained that nurses treating tuberculosis were not contaminated whilst other people who were far less exposed to the bacillus rapidly fell ill? Claude Bernard, in pondering this question, came to develop the idea of receptivity to disease, admitting that there must be an innate or acquired tendency to develop certain pathologies.

And Prof. Jean Bernard is not far from adhering to this theory when he asks the question: “If, in the fight against cancer, we have not advanced as fast as in other domains, it is probably because we have been too attached to the theories of Pasteur. . . These viruses, are they really outside ourselves? Might they not in fact come from our own damaged organisms?”

In his work 'The Crack in the World', André Glucksmann attempts to explain the Pasteurian illusions: “The vanity of Pasteurism reveals - more than a certain science and less than an effective art - a religion. Pasteur has transposed into terms of biopower the constitutive equation of modern nations, cujus regio, ejus religio.” (As goes the country, so goes the religion.)



Monday, October 12, 2009

Why Macrobiotics is my Favorite Big Word - A children's book by Emma Holister

Originally published in 1998 in black and white by the Kushi Institute. Now available here online, in colour and free!



Hello, my name is Lucy and I like big words. Sometimes people don't understand what I'm saying . . .



. . . So I'll try not to use too many big words.

One of my first ever favorite big words was 'vegetarian'. I'm a vegetarian. I don't eat meat because I like animals and I don't want to eat them, if you see what I mean.

My Mum and Dad used to eat a lot of meat, especially beef and pork. So from time to time I would try to offer them a little friendly information . . .





This is the story of how the word 'macrobiotics' became my favorite big word.

My Mum wasn't feeling well so she went to the doctor's. He told her she had cervical cancer. A serious illness in the place in her tummy where babies come from

We were all very worried.



When Mum's friend, Brenda, found out she had cancer, she came round right away and gave Mum a book on the macrobiotic diet. She said it could get rid of the cancer.



Mum was very happy that she could do something to help herself. She decided to give it a try.

She gave up meat, sugary food and drinks, processed food and dairy products like cheese, milk and cream.

And she started cooking whole foods including lots of fresh, organic, green vegetables.

At first it didn't go too well. . .



But Mum doesn't give up easily and she asked Brenda, who knew a lot about the macrobiotic diet, to come over and help her.

Dad made fun of Brenda and said she ate 'macro-slime' and that Mum was going on the 'macro-slime-diet'.

Mum said she would show him he was wrong and sent him out of the kitchen.

And before long she proved that she was right. She began to make delicious, healthy meals. All she needed was patience, determination, and support from us.



The person who wrote the book said it was also important to chew every mouthful at least fifty times, preferably a hundred. This is to make sure that when the food is swallowed it is completely liquid. This improves digestion a lot and helps the body fight illness. It is also important not to overeat, if the tummy is too full its job of digesting food is made harder.



Going out and enjoying the beauty of nature was recommended too, so going out for walks everyday is a good idea. Walking is an excellent form of exercise.



The author also encouraged other forms of gentle exercise.



He said it was good to develop spiritually.

My Mum is a Buddhist. She believes in the mystic universal law of life. And my Dad is a Christian. He believes in God.

I like to see myself as an agnostic. . . I choose not to practise a religion. . . also, it's a really good big word.

So, while my Mum chants more. . .

And my Dad prays more. . .



I like to develop my skills in levitation*


*to lift yourself into the air through the power of your mind

I didn't have much success with levitation, but something else happened which was really good.

Mum and Dad lost weight!



They seemed to be falling in love with each other all over again, which was great. Although I was a little concerned when they began to talk vegetable language. . .



It wasn't just that they were slimmer and falling in love again. They had more energy in general. What's more, Mum stopped being so crabby and Dad stopped getting so stressed all the time.

In fact, I was amazed. They seemed so much younger altogether.



When Mum went back to the doctor's, he said that the cancer was regressing. That means that it was shrinking. She seemed to be getting better.



Now that she knew for sure that the macrobiotic diet was working, she continued even harder, as well as trying out the other natural therapies that were recommended such as hip baths. . .



. . . and singing everyday. . . although I never understood why they said it is supposed to be relaxing. They keep telling me that their favorite song is an old Motown classic. Well, if that's what music from Motown sounds like, I never want to go there!



Apart from the horrible singing, a couple of good things happened. First of all, my eczema went away when I stopped eating sugar and cheese and drinking milk. Eczema is when your skin goes dry, red and itchy. Sometimes mine got so bad it would bleed. you can imagine how pleased I was that it went away.

And my Dad was delighted when his dandruff went away too. . . so was Mum.



In fact, Dad was so pleased about his dandruff that he decided to take up cooking too. Although this did have a rather strange effect on Mum. . .



It wasn't just us that changed. The house changed too. Dad had the house filled with plants, because they help clean the air and provide lots of oxygen for us to breathe. Mum had read that doing daily yoga breathing exercises was excellent for purifying the blood. . . she got quite carried away sometimes. . .



The next time we went to the doctor's he was off sick, but the lady who was replacing him gave us some wonderful news.



We were all very happy!

Mum even said that she was glad she had got the cancer because thanks to her illness she was able to change lots of negative things in her life.

She sometimes says to me, ' Just think Lucy, if I hadn't got cancer your Dad would never have got rid of his dandruff!' And then she laughs a lot. . . although I don't exactly know why.

I'm pleased because I learnt a new big word. That wasn't a snake after all in the doctor's office. It's what they use to hear people's hearts and lungs.