Debunking... Are Germs really the cause of disease? (natural)

[richrf]

Originally Posted by katjonjj

Even more interesting than the tenets of each theory is the qualifications of each man.

Pasteur earned a BA then a general science degree (second try) and held positions that he was certainly not qualified for (given his education and probably only got the positions due to relationships with higher ups) such as Professor of Physics (with a general science BA?), Professor of Chemistry (???), Professor of Geology (???).

In contrast, Bechamp had earned a Doctorate in Science and a Doctorate in Medicine (wow...he was actually more educated) and held positions that he was actually qualified for such as Professor of Chemistry (took the position from Pasteur) and Dean of Medicine. He also owned a pharmacy which is quite interesting.

So which man is more qualified to come up with the correct theory? Bechamp of course! But Pasteur was more popular and even had Napoleon III as a backer. It's too bad really. If science had gone with Bechamp's theory, the medical field would be radically different and capable of actual cures rather than just inadequate (and sometimes harmful) treatments.

Those of you who think the germ theory is FACT should really read about Pasteur more thoroughly. He was a plagiarist (taking Bechamp's findings as his own) and a falsifier of findings not a scientist. Do you really think he was correct in this one aspect of his career or was is just a great way for his Institute to make money?

Pasteur's ideas were adopted because it appeals to the fundamental human desire for simple answers to complex problems. Everyone wants a some drug to solve their problems. It never has and never will, but hope springs eternal.

Rather than adopt lifestyles that almost always leads to better health, people prefer their trip to their local pharmacy for a quick fix. So be it. I've taken a different road as have my family. Result, no need for those daily slogs to the pharmacy or to a hospital for some meaningless test.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by katjonjj

"On his deathbed, Pasteur recanted, saying that Bernard [Claude Bernard] was right; "the Terrain is everything, the Germ is nothing!" However, since the "Germ Theory of Disease" is so profitable, the medical world has written off his final statements as the madness of a dying man. We should all be so mad!"

Pasteur did not "recant" on his deathbed:

Pasteur's Last Words

His son in law wrote in a biography:

"The last week in September he was no longer strong enough to leave his bed, his weakness was extreme. On September 27, as he was offered a cup of milk: 'I cannot,' he murmured; his eyes looked around him with an unspeakable expression of resignation, love and farewell. His head fell back on the pillows and he slept; but, after this delusive rest, suddenly came the gaspings of agony. For twenty-four hours he remained motionless, his eyes closed, his body almost entirely paralyzed; one of his hands rested in that of Mme. Pasteur, the other held a crucifix.

This, surrounded by his family and disciples, in this room of almost monastic simplicity, on Saturday, September 28, 1895, at 4:40 in the afternoon, very peacefully, he passed away."

If Bernard and Bechamp were right then "germs" are actually beneficial and can morph into yeast, fungus, virus, and bacteria.

No, fungi, viruses, and bacteria are by definition "germs". They do not "morph".

Another problem with the Germ Theory of medicine is discovered when we look at Koch’s Postulates as they apply to Pasteur's experiments:

• The bacteria must be present in every case of the disease.
• The bacteria must be isolated from the host with the disease and grown in pure culture.
• The specific disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the bacteria is inoculated into a healthy susceptible host.
• The bacteria must be recoverable from the experimentally infected host.Source

We all know that there are cases where the bacteria was not found in cases of disease and has been found where cases of disease are absent. How can a person take the germ theory seriously?

Yes, science, including microbiology, has made massive strides since Koch derived his postulates. Not all disease is caused by germs, and the germ theory in no way implies that. It is possible to be colonized with germs and not be sick. All of us are. That fact does not mean Koch's postulates do not hold.

Originally Posted by richrf

Most people who have the TB virus do not get TB .

The actual cause had to be something else. For some reason the body's terrain is impaired and allow viruses and bacteria to grow. The rapid growth of viruses and bacteria in a body is a symptom not a cause. You could kill every TB virus in a body (and in the process destroy all natural defenses of the body), and the person would still have fundamental problems and in all probability will get get even sicker because of badly compromised immune system

Alternative medicine teaches physicians to treat the fundamental problems not symptoms. The reason why the U.S. is now spending $9500 per capita per year on medicine (almost twice as much as other developed companies) with the worse results (measured in life expectancy). Physicians here for the most part are treating symptoms and not the underlying problems. Alternative medicine not only treats disease it cures.

Your ignorance about the difference between viruses and bacteria suggests perhaps you should not be commenting on the germ theory at all.

Everyone who is infected with TB bacteria has TB. It may remain latent and not cause disease, and impairment of the immune system may cause it to activate and become symptomatic, but you have to be infected with TB germs in the first place in order for that activation and symptoms to happen.

Originally Posted by katjonjj

Also, the author of the paper and Bechamp (who said the germ theory was nonsense) lived into their 90s while Pasteur died in his 70s. His "germ theory" didn't seem to do him any good.

If the body is not well it will be in a state of dis-ease... blaming everything on germs makes a great premise for pharmaceuticals but not for healing.

Pasteur died of a stroke. What does the germ theory have to do with that?

No one is "blaming everything on germs."

Gah, our science education in this country stinks.

Originally Posted by katjonjj

Many may not have even heard of the alternate theory of disease by Bechamp so here is a comparison:
GERM THEORY (PASTEUR)
1. Disease arises from micro-organisms outside the body.
2. Micro-organisms are generally to be guarded against.
3. The function of micro-organisms is constant.
4. The shapes and colours of micro-organisms are constant.
5. Every disease is associated with a particular micro-organism.
6. Micro-organisms are primary causal agents.
7. Disease can "strike" anybody.
8. To prevent disease we have to "build defences."

1. Yes
2. No. Many microorganisms do not cause disease. The germ theory does not imply that "micro-organisms are generally to be guarded against". it just explains how microorganisms cause disease.
3. This is made up. What on earth do you mean by the "function of micro-organisms"?
4. Another peculiar idea. "Shapes and colours" are irrelevant to the germ theory. However, some organisms do have more than one physical state depending on their environment.
5. No, every disease is not associated with a particular microorganism. Many diseases are not caused by microorganisms at all. However, the constellation of symptoms we know as measles is caused by a particular organism, as are the symptoms we call tuberculosis, rabies, polio, diphtheria, whooping cough ... Some diseases, such as pneumonia, can be caused by many different organisms. You will not see infection with rabies virus cause symptoms like those caused by measles.
6. Yes, microorganisms can cause disease.
7. Yes, anyone can get infectious diseases. Prior to the advent of vaccines, most of us caught the "usual childhood diseases", regardless of our underlying state of health. Some strains of flu actually cause more severe illness in people with vigorous immune systems.
8. The success of vaccines demonstrates the efficacy of preventing certain infections. I guess that if you do not think germs cause disease, you do not believe it is necessary to wash your hands after toileting or before eating.

CELLULAR THEORY (BÉCHAMP)
1. Disease arises from micro-organisms within the cells of the body.
2.These intracellular micro-organisms normally function to build and assist in the metabolic processes of the body.
3. The function of these organisms changes to assist in the catabolic (disintegration) processes of the host organism when that organism dies or is injured, which may be chemical as well as mechanical.
4. Micro-organisms change their shapes and colours to reflect the medium.
5. Every disease is associated with a particular condition.
6. Micro-organisms become "pathogenic" as the health of the host organism deteriorates. Hence, the condition of the host organism is the primary causal agent.
7. Disease is built by unhealthy conditions.
8. To prevent disease we have to create health.

1. This actually the germ theory of disease. Some, not all, diseases are caused by micoorganisms.
2. Those microorganisms that assist us are not normally found inside cells. If they get inside cells, they make us sick. For example, e. coli is normally found in the gut contents, not inside cells of the gut. If it gets outside the gut, say into the urinary system, it can cause illness.
3. Gut bacteria are indeed involved in metabolism. Healthy skin has many bacteria on it. Catabolism? You bet your sweet bippy. When we die, bacteria immediately start turning us to dirt. None of that refutes the germ theory of disease.
4. Microorganisms can exist in different forms according to their environment. That says nothing about the germ theory of disease. This fascination with "shapes and colours" suggests an understanding of microbiology that is on the level of a kindergartner.
5. What is the difference between a "disease" and a "condition"?
6. Microorganisms can and do cause disease in healthy people.
7. "Unhealthy conditions" may increase the risk of an infectious disease, but they are neither necessary nor sufficient. Healthy people get infections. You will not get measles if you do not get infected with the measles virus.
8. You can be the "healthiest" human on the face of the earth and still catch infectious diseases and get sick.

I believe the cellular theory makes much more sense.

Not to anyone who has actually studied microbiology.

[katjonjj]

Originally Posted by katjonjj

Even more interesting than the tenets of each theory is the qualifications of each man.

Pasteur earned a BA then a general science degree (second try) and held positions that he was certainly not qualified for (given his education and probably only got the positions due to relationships with higher ups) such as Professor of Physics (with a general science BA?), Professor of Chemistry (???), Professor of Geology (???).

In contrast, Bechamp had earned a Doctorate in Science and a Doctorate in Medicine (wow...he was actually more educated) and held positions that he was actually qualified for such as Professor of Chemistry (took the position from Pasteur) and Dean of Medicine. He also owned a pharmacy which is quite interesting.

So which man is more qualified to come up with the correct theory? Bechamp of course! But Pasteur was more popular and even had Napoleon III as a backer. It's too bad really. If science had gone with Bechamp's theory, the medical field would be radically different and capable of actual cures rather than just inadequate (and sometimes harmful) treatments.

Those of you who think the germ theory is FACT should really read about Pasteur more thoroughly. He was a plagiarist (taking Bechamp's findings as his own) and a falsifier of findings not a scientist. Do you really think he was correct in this one aspect of his career or was is just a great way for his Institute to make money?

I missed a few for Bechamp, here is the complete list:
Master of Pharmacy
Doctor of Science
Doctor of Medicine
Professor of Medical Chemistry and Pharmacy at the Faculty of Medicine at Montpellier
Fellow and Professor of Physics and of Toxicology at the Higher School of Pharmacy at Strasbourg and Professor of Chemistry of the same town.
Corresponding Member of the Imperial Academy of Medicine of France and of the Society of Pharmacy of Paris
Member of the Agricultural Society of Hirault and of the Linnaean Society of the Department of Maine et Loire
Gold Medalist of the Industrial Society of Mulhouse (for the discovery of a cheap process for the manufacture of aniline and of many colours derived from this substance).
Silver Medalist of the Committee of Historic Works and of Learned Societies (for works upon the production of wine).
Professor of Biological Chemistry and Dean of the Faculty of Medicine of Lille.
Honorary Titles:
Officer of Public Instruction.
Chevalier of the Legion of Honour.
Commander of the Rose of Brazil.
Source pg 108-109
He was indeed a great man who has been forgotten by a society that believed in Pasteur's fraud.

[richrf]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

Pasteur did not "recant" on his deathbed:

Your ignorance about the difference between viruses and bacteria suggests perhaps you should not be commenting on the germ theory at all.

Everyone who is infected with TB bacteria has TB. It may remain latent and not cause disease, and impairment of the immune system may cause it to activate and become symptomatic, but you have to be infected with TB germs in the first place in order for that activation and symptoms to happen.

So laughable I have no idea where to begin. If there is no disease there is still a disease.

And what if someone develops symptoms that are exactly the same as a person with TB but without the TB bacteria? Well the medical profession just v gives it a different name! Problem solved!! But luckily, since the TB bacteria is so common, that the medical profession can find it very easily and pronounce their diagnosis with ease. Unfortunately, while diagnoses are easy for the medical profession, simple cures are a myth and millions still die. Why? Because the person's illness preceeded the growth of TB bacteria, and unless the fundamental problem is resolved the person's health will continue to deteriorate.

What a mess.

2. Those microorganisms that assist us are not normally found inside cells. If they get inside cells, they make us sick. For example, e. coli is normally found in the gut contents, not inside cells of the gut. If it gets outside the gut, say into the urinary system, it can cause illness.

There are 10X more microorganisms in the human body than there are human cells. We ARE microrgasms.

The problem is that the microorganisms are getting into the cells where they don't belong because there is a problem with the cellular defense. This is what has to be addressed. The terrain! You can kill every been in the body (which would kill the body) and the cellular defense problems will still exist. Cells can repair themselves but it takes lots of wisdom and rest to assist in the repair, not lots of drugs which actually create more damage

8. You can be the "healthiest" human on the face of the earth and still catch infectious diseases and get sick.

Of course. Everyone gets I'll and everyone eventually dies. The objective is to minimize the amount and severity of disease. This is where knowledge of health (not drugs) cromes in handy.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by katjonjj

If the body is not well it will be in a state of dis-ease... blaming everything on germs makes a great premise for pharmaceuticals but not for healing.

Medicine does not "blame everything on germs."

Originally Posted by richrf

Exactly. It is a fantastic marketing pitch from by a lazy medical industry that really doesn't have the inclination or incentive to really find out what is ailing the person and seeking cute

"Here, pop a drug. Drugs cure everything."

Except it cures nothing. It just hides, suppressed, and in all probability makes things worse

Since Pasteur preceded the discovery of antibiotics by about 60 years, how did the pharmaceutical industry benefit from the germ theory at that time?

Would you take rabies vaccine if you were bitten by a rabid dog?

Infectious diseases are cured every day with antibiotics.

Originally Posted by richrf

Pasteur's ideas were adopted because it appeals to the fundamental human desire for simple answers to complex problems. Everyone wants a some drug to solve their problems. It never has and never will, but hope springs eternal.

Rather than adopt lifestyles that almost always leads to better health, people prefer their trip to their local pharmacy for a quick fix. So be it. I've taken a different road as have my family. Result, no need for those daily slogs to the pharmacy or to a hospital for some meaningless test.

I am glad your family seems to be a strain of superhumans. If a family member were to be bitten by a rabid dog, what would you do? See a naturopath or bless Dr. Pasteur and head to the ER for rabies vaccine?

Originally Posted by katjonjj

Even more interesting than the tenets of each theory is the qualifications of each man.

Pasteur earned a BA then a general science degree (second try) and held positions that he was certainly not qualified for (given his education and probably only got the positions due to relationships with higher ups) such as Professor of Physics (with a general science BA?), Professor of Chemistry (???), Professor of Geology (???).

In contrast, Bechamp had earned a Doctorate in Science and a Doctorate in Medicine (wow...he was actually more educated) and held positions that he was actually qualified for such as Professor of Chemistry (took the position from Pasteur) and Dean of Medicine. He also owned a pharmacy which is quite interesting.

So which man is more qualified to come up with the correct theory? Bechamp of course! But Pasteur was more popular and even had Napoleon III as a backer. It's too bad really. If science had gone with Bechamp's theory, the medical field would be radically different and capable of actual cures rather than just inadequate (and sometimes harmful) treatments.

Those of you who think the germ theory is FACT should really read about Pasteur more thoroughly. He was a plagiarist (taking Bechamp's findings as his own) and a falsifier of findings not a scientist. Do you really think he was correct in this one aspect of his career or was is just a great way for his Institute to make money?

It seems you left out quite a bit about Pasteur's education. That indicates you either did not do your research or are trying to be deliberately misleading:

Louis Pasteur | French chemist and microbiologist | Britannica.com

"After attending primary school in Arbois, where his family had moved, and secondary school in nearby Besançon, he earned his bachelor of arts degree (1840) and bachelor of science degree (1842) at the Royal College of Besançon."

"In 1843 Pasteur was admitted to the École Normale Supérieure (a teachers’ college in Paris), where he attended lectures by French chemist Jean-Baptiste-André Dumas and became Dumas’s teaching assistant. Pasteur obtained his master of science degree in 1845 and then acquired an advanced degree in physical sciences. He later earned his doctorate in sciences in 1847. Pasteur was appointed professor of physics at the Dijon Lycée (secondary school) in 1848 but shortly thereafter accepted a position as professor of chemistry at the University of Strasbourg."

"Pasteur’s academic positions were numerous, and his scientific accomplishments earned him France’s highest decoration, the Legion of Honour, as well as election to the Académie des Sciences and many other distinctions. "

That makes the rest of your post nothing but unsubstantiated speculation on your part.

How do you two account for the fact that infectious diseases are contagious?

[richrf]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

I am glad your family seems to be a strain of superhumans. If a family member were to be bitten by a rabid dog, what would you do? See a naturopath or bless Dr. Pasteur and head to the ER for rabies vaccine?

You are confusing superior powers with superior knowledge. But rather that to admit that superior knowledge about health begaths superior health, you as most in the medical profession promote fear of germs so as to maintain your position on a pedestal which also reaps good money. Well save your fear mongering on someone that it works on. After 35 years of extremely successful experience I am immune.

How do you two account for the fact that infectious diseases are contagious?

Very simple. Lots of people have extremely poor lifestyle habits including unhealthy food, not enough rest, too much stress, not enough movement, and way, way to much consumption of damaging drugs which leads to a compromised immune system. The illness itself is symptomatic of an unhealthy terrain and if the terrain is not properly nurturers the illnesses of all types, both acute and chronic, will increase.

Treat you body as you would your garden. Nurture it. Don't bury it with a dumpster of unhealthy chemicals.

[suzy_q2010]

[quote]

Originally Posted by richrf

You are confusing superior powers with superior knowledge. But rather that to admit that superior knowledge about health begaths superior health, you as most in the medical profession promote fear of germs so as to maintain your position on a pedestal which also reaps good money. Well save your fear mongering on someone that it works on. After 35 years of extremely successful experience I am immune.

You did not answer my question. What would you do if you were bitten by a rabid dog?

Very simple. Lots of people have extremely poor lifestyle habits including unhealthy food, not enough rest, too much stress, not enough movement, and way, way to much consumption of damaging drugs which leads to a compromised immune system. The illness itself is symptomatic of an unhealthy terrain and if the terrain is not properly nurturers the illnesses of all types, both acute and chronic, will increase.

Treat you body as you would your garden. Nurture it. Don't bury it with a dumpster of unhealthy chemicals.

Another non-answer. How do communicable diseases spread from one person to another if the body creates the disease?

[richrf]

[quote=suzy_q2010;42180382]

You did not answer my question. What would you do if you were bitten by a rabid dog?




Another non-answer. How do communicable diseases spread from one person to another if the body creates the disease?

I have many experienced alternative health practitioners that I consult with when I have new and unexpected health problems. I also research issues myself. One thing I don't do is run to an M.D. who in my experience has very little to offer in terms of useful knowledge.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news...all-study-says

As for diseases, you just don't get it. I don't get these communicable diseases that you are so frightened of. Rather than to try to push your own agenda I would suggest you ask me why. You may actually learn something.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by richrf

I have many experienced alternative health practitioners that I consult with when I have new and unexpected health problems. I also research issues myself. One thing I don't do is run to an M.D. who in my experience has very little to offer in terms of useful knowledge.

Untreated Rabies May Not Be Lethal for All, Study Says - US News

As for diseases, you just don't get it. I don't get these communicable diseases that you are so frightened of. Rather than to try to push your own agenda I would suggest you ask me why. You may actually learn something.

From your link:

"I think the same recommendations and advice still hold -- that anyone with a bite exposure to a bat or other carnivore needs to seek out post-exposure [injections]."

I guess from your response that you would not seek medical treatment if bitten by a potentially rabid animal?

You still have not explained how people pass infectious diseases to one another.

[in_newengland]

Closed again so the mod can get some sleep. Anyway, this is not alternative medicine, it is a fight about infectious diseases. You could just as well fight it out in Health & Wellness.