Germ Theory Fraud
|The Dream & Lie of Louis Pasteur
by R. B. Pearson (originally Pasteur, Plagiarist, Imposter 1942)It is a rather serious matter to attack the reputation of a famous man, one who has posed and been accepted as one of the world’s greatest scientists. For many years, Pasteur has been looked upon as a founder and leader in serology; but it is always pertinent to look into the beginnings of any subject on which there is a difference of opinion, with the hope of finding the truth in the matter.
The writer has made an effort in his prior books and pamphlets to show that the germ theory is false, and that illness was practically always due to errors of diet or manner of living, the germs being present solely as scavengers of dead and waste tissues and foods, and not as the cause of the disease.
However, the erroneous belief that germs cause disease and must be controlled or eliminated before it can be cured is so widespread as to close the minds of many people to any other ideas on this subject.
For this reason it seems that a thorough investigation of this idea, the grounds on which it is based, and even the bona-fides of those who started it on its way, is necessary before any sane ideas as to the proper treatment of disease can be widely promulgated.
When Miss Ethel Douglas Hume brought out Bechamp or Pasteur? in 1923, it appeared to be just the thing that would fill this gap and end the use of serums and other biologicals forever. But it is now 19 years since that book, which should have marked an epoch in the healing arts, appeared. It did not receive the attention it deserved in medical circles and, though it is now in its second edition,* the medical profession are pushing biologicals harder than ever.
Hence it seems appropriate to go over the subject in order to show the truth regarding the falsity of Pasteur’s ideas and claims to fame, and the fraudulent basis on which the germ theory rests, as was so well shown by Miss Hume in B«champ or Pasteur?, and to add other facts and statistics that support the idea that the germ theory is false, in the hopes that it may receive wider circulation and more general attention, and possibly lead to a complete overhauling of the question of the treatment of disease, especially regarding serology.
The translations from the French, and other material in chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5 not otherwise credited, are from Beauchamp or Pasteur? by Ethel Douglas Hume.
In closing, I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to the Reverend and Mrs Wilber Atchison of Chicago for many suggestions and valuable assistance in the preparation of the manuscript. Miss L. Loat, secretary of the National Anti-Vaccination League of London, has also been very kind, responding to every request for information with more than could be used, some of it being especially compiled at the cost of considerable effort.
R. B. Pearson
1. PRIOR HISTORY OF THE “GERM THEORY”
If you back into the history of the medical profession and the various ideas regarding the cause of disease that were held by leading physicians before Pasteur first promulgated his notorious “germ theory”, you will find convincing evidence that Pasteur discovered nothing, and that he deliberately appropriated, falsified and perverted another man’s work.
The ‘germ theory’, so-called, long antedated Pasteur – so long, in fact, that he was able to present it as new; and he got away with it!
F. Harrison, Principal Professor of Bacteriology at Macdonald College (Faculty of Agriculture, McGill University), Quebec, Canada, wrote an Historical Review of Microbiology, published in Microbiology, a text book, in which he says in part:
“Geronimo Fracastorio (an Italian poet and physician, 1483 – 1553) of Verona, published a work (De Contagionibus et Contagiosis Morbis, et eorum Curatione) in Venice in 1546 which contained the first statement of the true nature of contagion, infection, or disease organisms, and of the modes of transmission of infectious disease. He divided diseases into those which infect by immediate contact, through intermediate agents, and at a distance through the air. Organisms which cause disease, called seminaria contagionum, he supposed to be of the nature of viscous or glutinous matter, similar to the colloidal states of substances described by modern physical chemists. These particles, too small to be seen, were capable of reproduction in appropriate media, and became pathogenic through the action of animal heat. Thus Fracastorio, in the middle of the sixteenth century, gave us an outline of morbid processes in terms of microbiology.”
For a book published more than three hundred years before Pasteur ‘discovered’ the germ theory, this seems to be a most astonishing anticipation of Pasteur’s ideas, except that – not having a microscope – Fracastorio apparently did not realize that these substances might be individual living organisms.
According to Harrison, the first compound microscope was made by H. Jansen in 1590 in Holland, but it was not until about 1683 that anything was built of sufficient power to show up bacteria. He continues:
“In the year 1683, Antonius van Leenwenhoek, a Dutch naturalist and a maker of lenses, communicated to the English Royal Society the results of observations which he had made with a simple microscope of his own construction, magnifying from 100 to 150 times. He found in water saliva, dental tartar, etc., what he termed animalcula. He described what he saw, and in his drawings showed both rod-like and spiral form, both of which he said had motility. In all probability, the two species he saw were those now recognized as bacillus buccalis maximus and spirillum sputigenum.
Leenwenhoek’s observations were purely objective and in striking contrast with the speculative views of M. A. Plenciz, a Viennese physician, who in 1762 published a germ theory of infectious diseases. Plenciz maintained that there was a special organism by which each infectious disease was produced, that micro-organisms were capable of reproduction outside of the body, and that they might be conveyed from place to place by the air.”
Here is Pasteur’s great thought in toto – his complete germ theory – and put in print over a century before Pasteur thought of it(?), or published it as his own!
Note how concisely it anticipates all Pasteur’s ideas on germs. While there seems to be no proof that Plenciz had a microscope, or knew of Leenwenhoek’s animalcula, both are possible, and likely, as he was quite prominent; and he, rather than Pasteur, should have any credit that might come from such a discovery – if the germ theory has any value. This idea, which, to the people of that time at least, must have accounted easily and completely for such strange occurrences as contagion, infection and epidemics, would have been widely discussed in the medical or scientific circles of that time, and in literature available to Pasteur.
That it was widely known is indicated by the fact that the world-famous English nurse, Florence Nightingale, published an attack on the idea in 1860, over 17 years before Pasteur adopted it and claimed it as his own.
She said of ‘infection’:
Diseases are not individuals arranged in classes, like cats and dogs, but conditions growing out of one another.
Is it not living in a continual mistake to look upon diseases as we do now, as separate entities, which must exist, like cats and dogs, instead of looking upon them as conditions, like a dirty and a clean condition, and just as much under our control; or rather as the reactions of kindly nature, against the conditions in which we have placed ourselves?
I was brought up to believe that smallpox, for instance, was a thing of which there was once a first specimen in the world, which went on propagating itself, in a perpetual chain of descent, just as there was a first dog, (or a first pair of dogs) and that smallpox would not begin itself, any more than a new dog would begin without there having been a parent dog.
Since then I have seen with my own eyes and smelled with my own nose smallpox growing up in first specimens, either in closed rooms or in overcrowded wards, where it could not by any possibility have been ‘caught’, but must have begun.
I have seen diseases begin, grow up, and pass into one another. Now, dogs do not pass into cats.
I have seen, for instance, with a little overcrowding, continued fever grow up; and with a little more, typhoid fever; and with a little more, typhus, and all in the same ward or hut.
Would it not be far better, truer, and more practical, if we looked upon disease in this light (for diseases, as all experience shows, are adjectives, not noun-substantives):
– True nursing ignores infection, except to prevent it. Cleanliness and fresh air from open windows, with unremitting attention to the patient, are the only defence a true nurse either asks or needs.
– Wise and humane management of the patient is the best safeguard against infection. The greater part of nursing consists of preserving cleanliness.
– The specific disease doctrine is the grand refuge of weak, uncultured, unstable minds, such as now rule in the medical profession. There are no specific diseases; there are specific disease conditions.”
Here you have Florence Nightingale, one of the most famous nurses in history, after life-long experience with infection, contagion and epidemics, challenging the germ theory 17 years before Pasteur put it forward as his own discovery! (See Ch.8, p.61).
She clearly understood it and its utter fallacy better before 1860 than Pasteur did, either in 1878 or later!
And, to see what a parasite Pasteur was on men who did things, let us digress and go back a few years, to the time when the study of germs was an outgrowth of the study of fermentation.
5 REASONS TO END OUR WAR ON GERMS BEFORE IT KILLS US ALL.
by Kim Cools on Friday, 26 October 2012 at 12:34 ·
*PLEASE READ and CIRCULATE*
5 REASONS TO END OUR WAR ON GERMS BEFORE IT KILLS US ALL.
Our war against germs is doing more harm than good.
Western civilization guards its health as if constantly menaced by a giant public toilet handle. That’s because we know how to read statistics, like we carry between two to 10 million bacteria from fingertip to elbow, or that germs can stay alive for up to three hours. As the Food and Drink Federation of Great Britain cheerfully points out, there can be as many germs under your ring as there are people in Europe.
We are a culture of germaphobes, spending as much as $930 million on antibacterial chemicals and $2.4 billion on soap at the end of the last decade. But is it possible that our war against germs is doing more harm than good?
Antibacterial or antimicrobial products do have a place in our society: in hospitals, on the surgeon’s table, in your nurse’s hands. But stationed in our handbags, waiting to be daily lathered up at the first touch of a subway pole? Not so much. Studies show that some antimicrobial products not only contain potential hormonal disruptors, but they are enabling superbugs to breed beyond our ability to smite them. Here are five reasons you should trade in some of your antibacterial sprays, gels and liquid soaps for just plain old soap and water.
1. Triclosan. For more than 30 years, triclosan has been used in hand soaps, cosmetics, deodorants, toothpastes, clothes, detergents, and more. The Centers for Disease Control reports that triclosan is found in the urine of nearly 75 percent of people tested. Other studies have shown it to be in the breast milk and blood samples of the general population. It is marketed under other names such as Microban, Irgasan DP-300, Lexol 300, Biofresh, Ster-Zac, Cloxifenolum, and more.
So now that we know we’re likely hosting triclosan like Times Square hosts tourists, let’s look at its safety. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently does not list triclosan as a hazardous ingredient; however, in light of several recent studies showing adverse effects in animal testing, the FDA is currently reviewing this position. Triclosan is shown to alter hormone regulation in frogs, resulting in altered behavior and possible infertility. A recent study in 2012revealed that triclosan is “linked with muscle function impairments in humans and mice, as well as slowing the swimming of fish.”
Liquid soap manufacturers, which as the New York Times points out, represent half of the $750 million market for liquid hand soaps in the United States, continue to claim triclosan has no harmful effects on humans. But while companies such as Dial keep using the questionable antimicrobial, others, such as Colgate-Palmolive, have started to replace tricolsan with different ingredients.
2. Natural selection. So imagine you’re slathering your hands with antibacterial soap. While most of the bacteria on your skin reacts like it’s Armageddon, a few remain. These hardy bacteria—now resistant to your soap—adapt and mutate to successfully ward off your next sudsy assault on their existence. Microbiologistsrefer to this process as “selection,” and several studies show that it’s causing some bacteria to resist antibiotics.
Then you get a bacterial infection, and your doctor prescribes antibiotics. As Discovery Health points out, “some antibacterial agents go after the same physiology of bacteria that prescription antibiotics do.” This means that if the bacteria making you sick already has a resistance to antibacterial agents because of previous exposure, it’s not going to work as well or at all.
Think of it this way—do you really want superbugs playing out War of the Worlds in your body?
3. They are harming our ecosystem. The Natural Resources Defense Councilshares that triclosan and its close cousin triclocarban “are found in high concentrations in sediments and sewage sludge where they can persist for decades.” Further, triclosan is one of the most frequently detected chemicals found in U.S. streams. The hormonal disruptions it enables are thought to be damaging the reproductive health of certain fish. Meanwhile, some experts are concerned about the additional exposure to humans eating contaminated fish.
4. They are making us sick. It turns out our war on germs is having an ironic side effect—in some cases, it’s actually making us sick. Because our bodies no longer need to fight germs like they did in bubonic times, studies show that some children are developing allergies. Apparently, allowing our bodies to rarely detect germs has made them more sensitive to everyday substances, like pollen and dust.
Marc McMorris is a pediatric allergist at the University of Michigan Health System. As he told LiveScience, “As a result, the immune system has shifted away from fighting infection to developing more allergic tendencies.” Studies show that allergy rates in Americans from 1988 to 1994 are two to five times higher that rates from 1976 to 1980.
5. Soap and water works just as well. Why do colds, viruses and plagues spread in the first place? As much as we’d like to blame it on Gwyneth Paltrow shaking hands with a Chinese chef and then cheating on Matt Damon (as took place in the film Contagion), it’s largely because we of the so-called civilized world don’t like to wash our hands. In fact, as many as half of all men and a quarter of women fail to wash their hands after they have been to the bathroom.
As it turns out, what we learned in kindergarten is true—the CDC urges us to wash our hands with soap and water to prevent the spread of germs. But we do not need said soap to contain antibacterial agents. The FDA shares that it has no evidence that antibacterial soaps containing triclosan provide any extra health benefits.
So What Should We Use?
Luckily, there are many products out there which do not have worrisome studies attached to their ingredients lists. Plain soap and water are your best friends in the fight against colds and flu. Start reading ingredient labels, weeding out anything with triclosan and triclocarban.
If you need to wash your hands and nary a sink or soap dish is to be found, use antibacterial gels that contain alcohol as the primary germ-fighting ingredient. According to the CDC, they should work well if they contain at least 60% alcohol and your hands are not visibly dirty.And if you really want to go natural (and have some extra dollars to spend), consider a line of clean (so to speak) soaps.
Tracy Perkins, creator of the handmade soap company Strawberry Hedgehog, uses essential oils in her line. As she tells AlterNet, “essential oils derived directly from plants are powerfully antibacterial on their own, and used in appropriate dilution they are much gentler than the harsh antibacterial detergents available on the market.”
So the next time you find yourself reaching for your antibacterial spray, ask yourself “to triclosan or not to triclosan?” And then wash the heck out of your hands with simple soap and water.