Pasteur's Germ Theory Is Wrong

I always thought science was about questioning what we think we know
Not just accepting it

This maybe a wild goose chase but

a reply to: LiberateEarth

"Mainstream science" has thousands of scientists from multiple disciplines supplying data and conclusions. Fields like homeopathy is generally only supported by "studies" done by people whose livelihood depends on their claims being right.

So I should believe that every scientist in the world is in on a conspiracy and that every strip mall "doctor" knows the secrets of the universe?

originally posted by: LiberateEarth
The germ theory of “infectious disease” is entrenched in mainstream medicine. The general public is programmed to believe alleged authority figures. There is hell to pay for enlightened seekers who try to share opposing views with the world.

We’re in the 21st century, but believe it or not, we have to rewind to the 19th century and start over again if we’re going to undue the harm that has been done and continues to be done.

People need to learn about the work of a contemporary of Louis Pasteur, Pierre Bechamp. Bechamp was a scientist who worked with live plant and animal tissues and discovered within them tiny indestructible, eternal bodies he named Microzyma. These Microzyma changed their form to become microbes if the tissue they were in became unhealthy.

Plant and animal tissues become unhealthy because of poor nutrition and exposure to toxins.

This is what we should be focusing on.

There is an excellent book that all parents should read. It is entitled Good-Bye Germ Theory: ending a century of medical fraud and how to protect your family by Dr. William P. Trebing.

If you don't read books, an alternative is to do searches and at least read articles on the subject.

Educate yourself about the work of Pierre Bechamp.

Lol...so i'm guessing you never looked at bacteria under a microscope at all?? Or watched what penecilin does to it. Or seen any kind of pictures of a bacterial or viral infection? Honestly what the # is with idiots today and believing years and years of research done by hundreds if not thousands of people is bull#?

a reply to: LiberateEarth

It sound's very much like he was a quack, had we not followed Pasteur's model many more people would have died and with human population density would would already have seen plagues to make the bubonic plague look like a common cold.
Also your milk would go sour a lot faster.

I don't think the two theories are mutually exclusive are they?

Bechamp felt that providing a good environment for disease was the root cause of illness, whereas Pasteur felt that it was the microbes themselves were the root cause.

Clearly Pasteur was correct - we have used his theories to develop cures and prevent disease.

However, that does NOT mean that Bechamp was incorrect. Providing hostile environments to disease, ie. having a healthy, well-fed body, will prevent you from getting ill.

From our perspective, this surely seems obvious, so why is it an issue?

The issue is that the medical industry cannot make money by telling you that actually, you could probably improve your health or drastically lower your chance of contracting an illness if you were to eat, x, y & z, or by having a daily walk, because then they have nothing to sell you.

Actually, basing medicine on the Pasteur theory has put us where we are now, lots of medication that DOES work, but that causes a plethora of it's own problems.

I am not fond of high temperature Pasteurization of milk, I would rather drink milk that is made from cows that eat out in the pasture and eat mostly grasses, then have the milk minimally pasteurized and no homogenization. That way the lactoferrin and monolauring and some other chemistry stays intact to help protect us with their properties. I am not a big milk drinker, the wife and I buy Grassmilk and it tastes so much better to us than regular milk. We do not buy the ultrapasteurized kind, it needs to be shaken before using, which attracts our blind cat from anywhere in the house. Also minimally pasteurized milk retains way more taurine which is a good amino acid to consume. At high temperature pasteurization, the taurine falls apart or is bound to the albumin and can't be utilized.

a reply to: rickymouse

Good point and I absolutely agree with you but in today's Monsanto/Big Pharma bleeding puss filled udder milk world it is not only bacteria we have to worry about but.

What has that grass been sprayed with, what is in the water the cow's are drinking and what hormones and other injections have the cow's been given that all end up in that milk.

At least pasteurizing it kill's the majority of bacteria but it can do nothing for those other thing's.

But you are correct if you have fine cattle, well fed on wholesome natural grass and not pumped full of artificial enhancers and hormone's AND they are healthy then that is the finest milk you can get, in fact that is the way much of the elite get there's while they are poisoning the rest of us.

So really speaking unless you own a private country estate with oodles of land filled with rolling green lush rich grassy pastures or preferably upon a private island somewhere then getting your hand's on such healthy milk will most likely be very problematic in today's supermarket mass produce factory farming world.

Today they are starting to link milk to Cancer but is it really the milk or is it those artificial hormone's, growth enhancers and lactation enhancers which are fed to the poor beast's and then enter our body's when we ingest the milk they produce and into which then pass all of these compound's.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: rickymouse

Good point and I absolutely agree with you but in today's Monsanto/Big Pharma bleeding puss filled udder milk world it is not only bacteria we have to worry about but.

What has that grass been sprayed with, what is in the water the cow's are drinking and what hormones and other injections have the cow's been given that all end up in that milk.

At least pasteurizing it kill's the majority of bacteria but it can do nothing for those other thing's.

But you are correct if you have fine cattle, well fed on wholesome natural grass and not pumped full of artificial enhancers and hormone's AND they are healthy then that is the finest milk you can get, in fact that is the way much of the elite get there's while they are poisoning the rest of us.

So really speaking unless you own a private country estate with oodles of land filled with rolling green lush rich grassy pastures or preferably upon a private island somewhere then getting your hand's on such healthy milk will most likely be very problematic in today's supermarket mass produce factory farming world.

Today they are starting to link milk to Cancer but is it really the milk or is it those artificial hormone's, growth enhancers and lactation enhancers which are fed to the poor beast's and then enter our body's when we ingest the milk they produce and into which then pass all of these compound's.

Here is the milk we buy. It talks about the 161 degree pasteurization they use there. It does not tell why low heat pasteurization is better though, nor does it talk about lactoferrin and taurine degredation at their site.

www.organicvalley.coop...

I like it because it tastes good, it tastes as good as the milk we used to get from the farmer years ago. We bought milk from good farmers. Listeria makes milk taste like a barn. I have had milk and pork a few times that smelled and tasted like a barn over the years. I did not get sick from the listeria though, I guess I lived on a farm when I was young so learned how to deal with the microbes. Now I am older, I may have less resistance, but I also do not think the barn taste is safe for me anymore because I am over sixty now.

a reply to: rickymouse

That look's delicious and I like it, sadly I am on the other side of the pond so not quite as pure as your source but we do have several farm's as people are wising up a little these day's.
Here is one.
www.organicmilk.co.uk...
And here is a study suggesting organic milk is far better for you by the British NHS.
www.nhs.uk...

originally posted by: LiberateEarth
There is a 10 page PDF entitled "Exposing the Myth of Germ Theory" that is housed on The Homeopathy College - Birmingham website.

This is from page 2:

Pasteur Not the Originator of the "Germ Theory"

Actually, the first "Germ Theory of Infectious Disease" was published in 1762 (almost 100 years prior to Pasteur's theory) by a Viennese physician, Dr M. A. Plenciz. In 1860, Louis Pasteur took the credit for the experiments and theory and became identified as its originator. Read the books, Pasteur: Plagiarist, Impostor, by R. B. Pearson, and Bechamp or Pasteur? A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology by Douglas E. Hume, for all the details.

Claude Bernard (1813-1878) disputed the validity of the germ theory and maintained that the general condition of the body is the principal factor in disease, but this idea was largely ignored by the medical profession and the general public. Bernard and Pasteur had many debates on the relative importance of the microbe and the internal environment in which they thrive.

Pasteur Realises Mistake

Around 1880, Pasteur himself admitted his mistake. According to Dr Duclaux (one of Pasteur's co-workers), Pasteur discovered that microbial species can undergo many transformations. These facts were not consistent with his germ theory and destroyed its very basis.

It is frequently overlooked that around 1880, Pasteur changed his theory. According to Dr Duclaux, Pasteur stated that germs were "ordinarily kept within bounds by natural laws, but when conditions change, when its virulence is exalted, when its host is enfeebled, the germ is able to invade the territory which was previously barred to it." This is the premise that a healthy body is resistant and not susceptible to disease.

With the advent of Pasteur's mysterious germ, however, medicine cloaked itself under the guise of 'science' and ever since has succeeded in keeping the public ignorant of the true nature of disease.

BACTERIA AND THEIR SYMBIOTIC ROLE IN THE BODY . . .

www.homoeopathytraining.co.uk...

Just NO!

Sounds like diluted wishful thinking for the Anti-Vaxxers.

I'll stick to real science.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: rickymouse

That look's delicious and I like it, sadly I am on the other side of the pond so not quite as pure as your source but we do have several farm's as people are wising up a little these day's.
Here is one.
www.organicmilk.co.uk...
And here is a study suggesting organic milk is far better for you by the British NHS.
www.nhs.uk...

The company that makes this milk also has regular organic milk and their standard is that they are pasture grazed cows. We have tried that milk but this milk is much better for some strange reason. I get all mucusy from milk, so it better be good milk or I won't use it other than in my coffee. I actually drink this one. It is worth the suffering. I also learned that when I drink milk I can get rid of the headache by eating a little pineapple or a half a grapefruit, it works within five minutes. The pineapple needs to be fresh pineapple or real grapefruit. The proteinase is heat sensitive, being pasteurized destroys it. I do have bromelain pills now, one of those will stop the headache within ten minutes derived from milk or ice cream. I stock those now.

originally posted by: LiberateEarth

This is from page 2 . . .

This is from page 4:

As far back as 1914 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, experiments by E. C. Risenow, M.D., of the Mayo Biological Laboratories in Rochester, Minnesota, demonstrated that pus germs (streptococci) can be transformed into pneumonia germs (pneumococci) simply by making minor alterations in their environment and by feeding them on pneumonia virus—dead organic matter characteristic with the manifestation of the disease.

When the procedure was reversed, the bacteria quickly reverted to the pus germs. In each case when the environment and food source were changed, the germs, regardless of type, quickly mutated into other forms.

Two New York City bacteriologists, in similar experiments, converted cocci (round, berry-shaped bacteria) into bacilli (long, rod-shaped bacteria) and back again. A coccus (pneumonia germ) can change to a bacillus (typhoid germ) simply by making minor alterations in its environment and by feeding it typhoid virus—specific dead organic matter which is particular to this type of bacteria proliferation.

When the procedure is reversed, typhoid germs revert to pneumonia germs illustrating that, indeed, any bacteria can modify and adapt its structure and metabolic function in accordance with its changing environment. The virulence of germs can likewise be altered in the laboratory at will by the technician.

The Toxic Body Produces the Virulent Germ . . .

www.homoeopathytraining.co.uk...

a reply to: rickymouse

I have a similar reaction to milk though not too bad, don't drink anywhere near as much as I used to though but every now and then I do like a good bowl of cereal.

a reply to: Annee

Actually I doubt it has anything to do with anti vaccination and on that count I respect people's opinion's, many of those vaccinations don't even work and those that do often make there recipient's ill which even for a short term is not an ideal solution is it now, also a lot of vaccinations are known to have a risk of causing serious problems for there recipient such as autism for example.

If a plague was on the loose then it is fine, a law forcing vaccinations though at any other time when that was not a direct threat would simply be wrong and it should be up to the parent/guardian of the child as any and all vaccination's are actually calculated risk, a small percentage of sick are seen as better than an epidemic in the reasoning behind taking that risk with other people's children's lives.

Also remember how the Gates foundation (and others) was linked to illegal and unethical sterilization compound's hidden within a free vaccination they were handing out in Africa.
www.naturalnews.com...
vaccinefactcheck.org...
www.collective-evolution.com...
www.drcurtisduncan.com...

Remember politicians and corporations have never sworn the hypocratic oath and also most doctors that do simply say the words so they can get there diploma so how binding is it on them, especially when they push certain corporations products whom of course pay them to do so when there are better medicine's available.

a reply to: LiberateEarth

I work in healthcare and have grown microbes. The germ theory is right, sorry to burst your bubble but happy 4th.

originally posted by: LiberateEarth
This is from page 4 . . .

This is from page 7:

The Viral Theory of Disease Causation

Initially, the word "virus" meant poison, and the word "virulent" meant poisonous. Today, virus means a submicroscopic entity, and virulent generally means contagious. Modem medicine has employed the term virus to mean an ultra-minute form of life that infects cells, and which is blamed for causing more and more of our diseases.

According to the popular portrayal of the virus, it is a form of life that parasitises all life forms including animal, plant, and saprophytic (fungi and bacteria).

In descriptions of viral disease, viruses are credited with such actions as "injecting themselves", "incubating", "laying in wait", "invading", having an "active stage", "commanding", "reactivating", "disguising themselves", "infecting", "conducting sieges" and being "devastating" and "deadly".

Conventional medical theory explains that viruses come from dying cells which they have infected—the virus "injects" itself into the cell and "commands" it to reproduce itself, and this occurs until the cell explodes from the burden. Viruses are then free to seek out other cells to repeat the process, thereby infecting the organism.

Virologists admit, however, that although viruses are distinctive and definitely organic in nature, they have no metabolism, cannot be replicated in the laboratory, do not possess any characteristics of living things and, in fact, have never been observed alive!!

"Live Viruses" Are Always Dead

The term "live virus" means only those created from living tissue cultures in vitro (within the laboratory) since trillions of them result from "live" tissue. But herein lies the point: even though some laboratory cultures are kept alive, there is massive cell turnover in the process, and it is from these dying cells that "viruses" are obtained. They are always dead and inactive because they have no metabolism or life, except being molecules of DNA and protein.

Viruses contain nucleic acid and protein but lack enzymes, and cannot support life on their own since they do not even possess the first prerequisites of life, namely metabolic control mechanisms (and even 'lowly' bacteria have these). Guyton's Medical Textbook acknowledges that viruses have no reproductive system, no locomotion, no metabolism, and cannot be reproduced as live entities in vitro.

The Mitochondria Connection . . .

www.homoeopathytraining.co.uk...

a reply to: LiberateEarth

Virulent does not mean contagious. This person writing this shows a complete lack of understanding on the subject they are speaking on.

Virologists admit, however, that although viruses are distinctive and definitely organic in nature, they have no metabolism, cannot be replicated in the laboratory, do not possess any characteristics of living things and, in fact, have never been observed alive!!

I have witnessed in the lab a virus injecting itself and replicating in a live cell. This person is clueless or flat out lying.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Annee

Actually I doubt it has anything to do with anti vaccination and on that count I respect people's opinion's, many of those vaccinations don't even work and those that do often make there recipient's ill which even for a short term is not an ideal solution is it now, also a lot of vaccinations are known to have a risk of causing serious problems for there recipient such as autism for example.

If a plague was on the loose then it is fine, a law forcing vaccinations though at any other time when that was not a direct threat would simply be wrong and it should be up to the parent/guardian of the child as any and all vaccination's are actually calculated risk, a small percentage of sick are seen as better than an epidemic in the reasoning behind taking that risk with other people's children's lives.

Also remember how the Gates foundation (and others) was linked to illegal and unethical sterilization compound's hidden within a free vaccination they were handing out in Africa.
www.naturalnews.com...
vaccinefactcheck.org...
www.collective-evolution.com...
www.drcurtisduncan.com...

Remember politicians and corporations have never sworn the hypocratic oath and also most doctors that do simply say the words so they can get there diploma so how binding is it on them, especially when they push certain corporations products whom of course pay them to do so when there are better medicine's available.

I question certain vaccines out there. The flu vaccine for example. Even in highschool I learned why there was no flu vaccine. It's pointless. The flu virus mutates ridiculously fast. By the end of a flu season the virus spreading is usually pretty different than the beginning and every year the virus is slightly different.

But no, # like the polio vaccine and those ones they've been giving for years are like #ing super powers that save you from horrible diseases. Seriously. Vaccines are #ing great.

On the other hand, i'll never get a flu shot or a vaccine that doesn't give me an immunity to a terrible disease because if it doesn't do that it's not really a vaccine.

A vaccine is a bunch of deactivated virus cells that allow your immune system to develop antibodies to destroy that virus. If a vaccine isn't that and doesn't do that...then yeah it's probably some bull#. But seriously, those ones that they've been giving to people for years that have eradicated horrible diseases...those are awesome...

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: rickymouse

I have a similar reaction to milk though not too bad, don't drink anywhere near as much as I used to though but every now and then I do like a good bowl of cereal.

We went to the store twice this week to buy chickens. They had a good price on Miller Amish chickens, a buck a pound off. They were only eighty nine cents a pound, we ate one of the eight chickens we bought the first time, it was really tasty, so we went and bought seven more. A four pound chicken gets the wife and I two suppers, plus some soup. Not bad for around three dollars and seventy five cents average per chicken. We were down to three chickens in the freezer and two small turkeys, now we are back up to snuff again. We eat a chicken a week usually, these are certified GMO free, all natural, Amish, no hormones, and best of all they are some of the best tasting ones we have gotten in a long time.

Just picked up twenty four quarts of strawberries from a farmer I know, they were four fifty a quart when you buy over a flat of eight. That comes out to about three bucks a pound. I know the farmer, he does use some insecticides when definitely needed and he uses the least that does the job, but never after the blossoms start. Great berries. He sells only to Yoopers, he does not like worrying about poisoning people he knows. We made lots of Jam and froze six zip lock bags with a couple of quarts in each. Berries taste so good when picked ripe. I like to get the best quality foods I can find, I do not like commercial foods much, foods done right sure have lots of flavor to them, I feel sorry for most people, they have never even tasted real foods, just commercial foods pumped full of unnatural chemistry from the getgo.