bhaktajan

She has a Gandharva's Voice with not so handsome a face. She has at least one of the feminine opulences "vak" [fine speech]. Good karma accrues fortune that is 'extra-ordinaire' See with your own eyes a sort of mystic opulence! ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Susan Boyle, a 47-year-old contestant on 'Britain's Got Talent,' unexpectedly wowed Cowell and the other two judges, including Simon-like Brit Piers Morgan, with her rendition of 'I Dreamed a Dream' from 'Les Miserables.' <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> In her pre-audition interview, Boyle admits she's never been married or kissed, wants to be a professional singer like Elaine Paige and elicits a few eye rolls from Simon before singing and ultimately earning a spot in the next round.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> "Without a doubt, that is the biggest surprise I've had in three years of the show," Morgan told Boyle.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> "I knew the minute you walked out on that stage that we were going to hear something extraordinary and I was right," Cowell said.<o:p></o:p> Boyle, who hails from a small village called West Lothian, has become an international Internet sensation, the YouTube video of her performance has reached over 5.5 million viewers.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY<o:p></o:p>

Thank you for taking the time to respond. In regards to that, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami has written thus: ... There are those who engage themselves in the studies of different Vedic literatures, specifically the Upanishads and Vedanta-sutras, or the Sankhya philosophy. All of these are called svadhyaya-yajna. or engagement in the sacrifice of studies. Also, remember where God says, "And I declare that he who studies this sacred conversation of ours worships Me by his intelligence." [Of course you are familar with that conversation.] :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::; For if one thoroughly studies the different descriptions of the opulences and expansions of Krishna’s energy, then one can understand without any doubt the position of Lord Sri Krishna and can fix his mind in the worship of Krishna without deviation. The Lord is all-pervading by the expansion of His partial representation, the Supersoul, who enters into everything that is. Pure devotees, therefore, concentrate their minds in Krishna consciousness in full devotional service --therefore they are always situated in the transcendental position. “The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding by the knower of the Absolute Truth, and all of them are identical. Such phases of the Absolute Truth are expressed as Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan.” These three divine aspects can be explained by the example of the sun, which also has three different aspects, namely the sunshine, the sun’s surface and the sun planet itself. One who studies the sunshine only is the preliminary student. One who understands the sun’s surface is further advanced. And one who can enter into the sun planet is the highest. Ordinary students who are satisfied by simply understanding the sunshine—its universal pervasiveness and the glaring effulgence of its impersonal nature—may be compared to those who can realize only the Brahman feature of the Absolute Truth. The student who has advanced still further can know the sun disc, which is compared to knowledge of the Paramatma feature of the Absolute Truth. And the student who can enter into the heart of the sun planet is compared to those who realize the personal features of the Supreme Absolute Truth. Therefore, the bhaktas, or the transcendentalists who have realized the Bhagavan feature of the Absolute Truth, are the topmost transcendentalists, although all students who are engaged in the study of the Absolute Truth are engaged in the same subject matter. The sunshine, the sun disc and the inner affairs of the sun planet cannot be separated from one another, and yet the students of the three different phases are not in the same category.

Where do these bacteria come from...?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> To modern science, this is still an unanswered question.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> * * *<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Regarding stomach ulcers;<o:p></o:p> In 1981 Barry J. Marshall became interested in incidences of spiral bacteria in the stomach lining. The bacteria were assumed to be irrelevant to ulcer pathology, but Marshall and J. R. Warren noticed, serendipitously, that when one patient was treated with tetracycline for unrelated reason, his pain vanished, and in endoscopy, revealed the ulcer was gone.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> An article by Marshall and Warren on their culturing of "unidentified curved bacilli" appeared in the British medical journal, The Lancet in 1984. No one listened until finally <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Marshall</st1:City></st1:place> personally ingested a batch of the spiral bacteria and came down with painful gastritis, thereby fulfilling all of Koch's postulates.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> There is now little doubt that Helicobacter pylori, found in the stomachs of a third of adults in the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region></st1:place>, cause inflammation of the stomach lining. In 20 percent of infected people it produces and ulcer, Nearly everyone with a duodenal ulcer is infected. H. pylori infections can be readily diagnosed with endoscopic biopsy tests, a blood test for antibodies, or a breath test. In 90 percent of cases the infections can be cured in less than a month with antibiotics.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> * * *<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Where do these bacteria come from?<o:p></o:p> You don't "catch" them, so infectious is not the correct word.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> * * *<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Regarding arteriosclerosis;<o:p></o:p> It has recently been discovered that arteriosclerosis is also a bacterial process. Notice I did not say, 'caused by bacteria'. The plaques of 99% of patients with hardening of the arteries have the bacteria Chlamydia pneumoniae in them.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> According to The Atlantic Monthly, Feb. 1999, Chlamydia pneumoniae is a newly discovered bacterium that causes pneumonia and bronchitis. The germ is a relative of Chlamydia trachomatis, which cause trachoma, a leading cause of blindness in parts of the <st1:place w:st="on">Third World</st1:place>. C. trachomatisis perhaps more familiar to us as a sexually transmitted disease that, left untreated in women, can lead to scarring of the fallopian tubes.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Pekka Saikku and Maija Leinonen of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Finland</st1:country-region></st1:place> discovered the new type of chlamydial infection in 1985 though its existence was not officially recognized until 1989. Saikku and Leinonen found that 68 percent of Finnish patients who had suffered heart attacks had high levels of antibodies to C. pneumoniae, as did 50 percent of patients with coronary heart disease, in contrast to 17 percent of the healthy controls.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> While examining coronary-artery tissues at autopsy in 1991, Allan Shor, a pathologist in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Johannesburg</st1:City></st1:place>, saw "pear-shaped bodies" that looked like nothing he had seen before. Cho-Chou Kuo, of the University of Washington School of Public Health, found that the clogged arteries were full of C. pneumoniae. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Everywhere the bacterium lodges, it appears to precipitate the same grim sequence of events: a chronic inflammation, followed by a buildup of plaque that occludes the opening of the artery (or, in the case of venereal Chlamydia, a buildup of scar tissue in the fallopian tube).<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Recently a team of pathologists at MCP-Hahnemann School of Medicine, found the same bacterium in the diseased section of the autopsied brains of seventeen out of nineteen Alzheimer's patents and in only one of nineteen controls.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Whether antibiotics help any of these diseases or not remains to be seen. The first major clinical trial is under way in the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region></st1:place>, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the Pfizer Corporation: 4000 heart patients at twenty-seven clinical centers will be given either the antibiotic azithromycin or a placebo and followed for four years to gauge whether the antibiotic affects the incidence of further coronary events.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Whether the antibiotic helps coronary heart disease or not does not explain where these bacteria come from and thereby how to effect a causal or real cure. That this issue of Chlamydia in the tissues, is still being pursued by the modern pharmaceutical firms as "infectious" in nature, amenable to the treatment with antibiotics and/or vaccines, is an another example of how entrenched Pasteur's and Koch's ideas are in the whole of medicine from the profit orientation of the petro-chemical pharmaceutical companies on down.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The above reference to the article from The Atlantic Monthly, does add to its credit,<o:p></o:p> "Even if heart patients can be shown to have antibodies to C. pneumoniae, and even if colonies of the bacteria are found living and breeding in diseased coronary arteries, is it certain that the germ caused the damage? Perhaps it is there as an innocent bystander, as some critics have proposed."<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> As will be shown, the above bacteria, Chlamydia pneumoniae and Helicobacter pylori come out the red blood cells themselves The blood is teaming with microorganisms, especially if it sits on the microscope slide for a few hours. You can watch this process under any microscope, anywhere, anytime.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> * * *<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> This is a funny situation really. Modern, allopathicly trained physicians <can't see these things, literally. You can see all these organisms in the blood with any microscope, so its not a matter of "seeing is believing". More, it's a mater of "believing is seeing", so you can even dare to take a look in the first place.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> In summary:<o:p></o:p> 1. The blood is not sterile, as we were led to believe after the Second World War with Hitler's ideology of the creation of a 'pure' blooded race.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 2. The cell is not the smallest living thing.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 3. Organisms come of the blood and tissues to decompose those tissues when they can no longer live and support their own metabolism within the environment they find themselves in, in their internal milieu.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 4. These same organisms can also come out of the blood and regenerate new tissues and organs; depends on which way we want to go. One needs a source of Protits in the diet, organ meats provide these, organ specific Protits/Somatides. (See Live Cell Therapy )<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>

For some researchers, it all boils down to this...<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> Mycrozyma<o:p></o:p> HEALTH & SURVIVAL IN THE 21st CENTURY <o:p></o:p> "Before Bechamp's time the theory of the cell being the basic unit of life was well established, but Bechamp's investigations showed that the cell itself was made up of smaller living entities capable of intelligent behavior and self-reproduction. He referred to these as 'molecular granulations' and gave them the name of microzymas, which he said were the real basic units of life. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Monomorphism vs Pleomorphism<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> "Bechamp described how in certain conditions microzymas could develop into bacteria within a cell and could, if the right conditions persisted, become pathological, so that infection could develop in the body without the acquisition of the germ from an outside source. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> These observations supported the belief of Professor Claude Bernard (1813-78), who contended that no matter where germs came from they presented a danger only if the body was in a run-down state due to a disturbed milieu interieur." <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> "Because other researchers without Bechamp's finesse, had not observed the changes in form capable by various microbes, it was believed in orthodox circles that each form of the same microbe, at the time it was observed, was an entirely different microbe in its own right which remained always the same. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Thus as the 19th Century came to a close, two schools of thought existed: pleomorphism as propounded by Bechamp and Ernst Almquist (1852-1946) of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on">Sweden</st1:country-region>, and monomorphism as propounded by Pasteur and Robert Koch* (1843-1910) of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Germany</st1:place></st1:country-region>. <o:p></o:p> "About this time <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Germany</st1:country-region></st1:place> became predominant in world medical research, and because the germ theory of disease had become firmly entrenched in the minds of orthodox doctors, the research into microbiology became focused more on medical problems than on the general study of biology." <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"><v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v:path o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></v:path><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype><v:shape id=_x0000_i1025 style="WIDTH: 450pt; HEIGHT: 7.5pt" alt="" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href=" " src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\jtrapani\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image001.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape><o:p></o:p> Monomorphism <o:p></o:p> Monomorphism is the cornerstone of Robert Koch (1843-1910) and Louis Pasteur's (1822-1895) Germ Theory of disease. This theory professes that disease has a microbial cause that is "caught" from the outside;<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> "that there are differences among pathogenic bacteria (ones that can make you ill), and each has a constant nature ... each distinct bacterial form corresponds to a specific disease and that the form of this microbe always stays the same - monomorphism, and causes the same disease however often the disease is transferred from one animal to another, the kind always remains the same and never changes into other kinds". How You Rot and Rust by Steve Denk <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> In 1878 Robert Koch wrote Etiology of Wound Infections which was the beginning of the Germ Theory of Disease. Where Pasteur's views were shaped by the study of fermentation, Koch was affected by his contact with wounded soldiers. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> He noted that the bodies of animals that die of artificially infected wound diseases (pus from an infected animal injected into a healthy one) invariably contained many bacteria ... In each case a definite organism corresponded to a distinct disease ... and that for every individual, traumatic, infective disease, a morphologically distinguishable microorganism could be identified.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> In 1880 Koch built on an essay of the relations between microbial diseases and their causes from the work of Jacob Henle, his professor of anatomy. These became known as the>Koch-Henle Postulates.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The following are these postulates which revolutionized medical epidemiology at the turn of the century, by laying out the standard proof of infectivity to the present day. The postulates dictate that a microbe must be:<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 1. found in an animal (or person) with the disease, 2. isolated and grown in culture and 3. injected into a healthy experimental animal, producing the disease in question; and then recovered from the experimentally diseased animal and shown to be the same pathogen as the original. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p></o:p> * * *<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> By the early twentieth century the whole landscape of medicine had changed. Most of the common killer diseases, including smallpox, diphtheria, bubonic plague, flu, whooping cough, yellow fever, and TB, were understood to be caused by pathogens. Vaccines were devised against some, and by the 1950s antibiotics could easily cure many others.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> By the 1960s and 1970s the prevailing mood was one of optimism. At least in the developed world, infectious diseases no longer seemed very threatening. Far more scary were the diseases that the medical world said were not infectious: heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and so on. That these diseases are now considered to be "infectious" (See Atlantic Monthly, A New Germ Theory, February 1999) , is what this web page is about.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Also, no one foresaw the devastation of AIDS, or the serial outbreaks of deadly new infections such as Legionnaire's disease, Ebola and <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Marburg</st1:City></st1:place> hemorrhagic fevers, antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis, "flesh-eating" staph infections, and Rift Valley fever.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> "The infectious age is, we now know, far from over. Furthermore, it appears that many diseases we didn't think were infectious may be caused by infectious agents after all. These include stomach ulcers, heart disease. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The first cancer virus discovered in 1910 called the Rous sarcoma virus, certain leukemias, lymphomas, nasopharyngeal cancer common in south China, cervical cancer, stomach cancer, liver cancer, Kaposi's sarcoma with Herpes virus 8, mammary-gland tumors in mice, childhood obsessive compulsive disorder, Sydenhams's chorea which is a rare complication of streptococcal infection. Streptococcal antibodies find their way into the brain and attack a region called the basal ganglia, causing characteristic clumsiness along with obsessions. Schizophrenia has long been considered to be possibly "infectious" in nature."<o:p></o:p> The Atlantic Monthly, A New Germ Theory by Judith Hooper, February 1999, pg. 44.<o:p></o:p> The catalogue of suspected chronic diseases caused by "infection"/bacteria to David A Relman, an assistant professor of medicine, microbiology, and immunology at <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Stanford</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">University</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>, now includes;<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> "sarcoidosis, various forms of inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, Wegener's granulomatosis, diabetes mellitus, primary biliary cirrhosis, tropical sprue, and Kawasaki disease. Likely suspects include many forms of heart disease, arteriosclerosis, Alzheimers's disease, most major psychiatric diseases, Hashimoto's thyroiditis, cerebral palsy, polycystic ovarian disease, and perhaps obesity and certain eating disorders. Multiple sclerosis has been linked to the human herpes virus 6, the agent of Roseola infantum, a very mild disease of childhood" (ibid.)<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>

Some Call it the Kleptic Microbe <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Darkfield microscopic studies conducted by Dr. Rudolph Alsleben and Dr. Kurt Donsbach of the Hospital Santa Monica clearly illustrated the proliferation of mutated microorganisms in the blood of their sick patients. What they observed was the dance of these microbes in their pathogenic rage. They called it the 'kleptic microbe'. Examining their patients live blood revealed many of these microbes darting to and fro in the blood plasma. The more ill the patient, the more microbes observed. The sickest patients had swarming hordes of these parasitic mutated microorganisms within the blood, causing great stress to their immune systems. The doctors learned that cleaning the blood of these kleptic microbes allowed the rejuvenation of the immune system to progress in an orderly and rapid fashion. Curious scientists who spend a lot of time in the laboratory looking at live blood under the microscope often start to wonder about the pleomorphic concept. When they see the changes in the blood taking place and correlate it with the progression of the disease process, many begin to see a pattern unfolding that prompts them to state that... <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The over-acidification of the body, caused by an inverted way of eating and living, causes a proliferation of the "fungus among us" which debilitates the body and, if not corrected, will ultimately cause our demise. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Looked at in this light it could be said that all illness is but this one constitutional disease, the result is mycotoxicoses - toxicity caused by mycotic infection, or in other words, by a yeast and fungus infection. These are the great decomposers of living and dead bodies. From ashes to ashes and dust to dust, this is nature's decomposing mechanism at work. Fascinating isn't it? If you begin to understand this concept, you will begin to understand a prime reason why we get sick and how we get sick, and you will realize that much of modern medicine is looking under the wrong stones for answers to many disease questions. For years now, medicine has considered blood to be a sterile environment. But they're wrong. Unfortunately, dead wrong for some of their patients. Blood is not a sterile environment, nor is it a static environment. That environment can change (most notably through diet) and microorganisms in the blood can evolve and change too. The fact is, we can see this type of evolution and change going on throughout all of nature. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> If you leave a bowl of milk out on the kitchen table for a few days without refrigeration, it will turn sour fairly quickly. Did it turn sour because there was an outside germ that got into the milk? No it did not. It turned sour because tiny microbes already in the milk changed their form to adapt to a changed environment.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The Disease Paradigm Shift <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> One school of thought (modern medicine and the monomorphic perspective) says most disease is caused by germs or some form of static, disease-causing microbe (the germ theory). In order to get well, you should KILL the germs. KILL the microbes. KILL whatever is making you sick. Drugs, antibiotics, chemotherapy, radiation, surgery. The other school of thought (which encompasses most other forms of the healing arts unrelated to mainstream medicine) says most disease is caused by some unbalance in the body. The unbalance occurs in some nutritional, electrical, structural, toxicological or biological equation. In order to get well, you need to re-establish balance in your body by working with your body, not against it. For the pleomorphic scientists like Enderlein, Naessens, Livingston, and others, disease is in large measure a function of biology. It is a biologically driven event that takes place in the body when metabolic processes are thrown off. These metabolic processes are thrown off largely by dietary, nutritional and environmental factors. Embracing the biological view gives new insights into the disease process and is truly another paradigm for understanding health.

The Pioneering Microbiology of Guenther Enderlein<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Protits - Flourish in the blood cells, plasma body fluids, tissues.<o:p></o:p> The body's smallest organised biological unit. It can change and adopt to its environment.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Other researchers have continued along the path blazed by Enderlein and have come to similar findings. Gaston Naessens discovered the protit and watched its life cycle. He calls the protit a "somatid". <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Naessens believes this protit/somatid predates DNA and carries on genetic activity. It is the first thing that condenses from light energy, and is the link between light and matter. Virginia Livingston-Wheeler also researched the protit but called it "progenitor cryptocides." Progenitor, meaning it existed through millennia, and cryptocides being a cellular killer - essentially the ancestral hidden killer, cancer. Like Naessens, <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">Livingston</st1:place> did some excellent cancer research. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Some of her best research was done along with two other women, Eleanor Alexander-Jackson and Irene Diller. They referred to this microbe as the cancer microbe. But in truth it is much more than that. From all indications, Enderlein laid out some of the best and most original findings and others took his lead and furthered the research. Unfortunately, many scientists work in isolation and for one reason or another a lot of information known by one is unknown by the others. Because information is not shared, or given hierarchical credit, many who follow are left in the dark and without the full picture.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Blood is under pH control<o:p></o:p> Ideal around 7.3<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> If blood shifts outside the "perfect" range, the micro-organisms in the blood (protits) must change in order to survive.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 1000's of forms - overcome defense mechanisms - multiple disease situations.<o:p></o:p> Remember that blood is under pH control. Ideally it has a pH in a narrow range around 7.3, which is slightly alkaline. pH around 7.3 is the perfect environment in which the protit lives in harmony with the body. But when blood pH is disturbed and is shifted out of that narrow range, these tiny micro-organisms can no longer live. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> In order to survive, they will change to a form which can survive. It is these new forms that can become aggressive, parasitic and pathogenic agents within the blood. Dr. Enderlein contended there are thousands of forms and many of these are able to overcome the body's defense mechanisms, causing multiple disease situations.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>

How you rot and rust <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> Fortunately there have been and are today scientists who have continued along the other road - the road ignored by Pasteur. They have continued the pleomorphic line of research with great veracity, though it is largely suppressed and unknown in the United States. The American medical establishment does not look at live blood. Their practice of staining blood with chemicals kills it. It also kills the ability to really "see" what is going on. But in looking at live blood, you can clearly "see" that there are bacteria, microorganisms and parasites that not only are in the blood, but that over time can grow and can change their shapes. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Research has proven that they can become pathogenic (disease producing). This ability of microorganisms to change is the concept of pleomorphism we've been discussing. Understanding this concept is essential to the understanding of cancer and its cure, and the cure of many other diseases.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> American Medical Establishment does not look at live blood.<o:p></o:p> Looking at live blood under a microscope is an incredible learning tool and begins an incredible journey whereby we come to understand that there are living, creepy crawly organisms that live in the environment of our blood. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> These are the microorganisms and parasites that truly constitute "the fungus among us." DARKFIELD MICROSCOPY Today, researchers who look for organisms in live blood use standard laboratory microscopes with high magnification that are specially set up to view the blood under "darkfield" or "phase contrast" conditions. With darkfield this means that the blood sample being viewed is actually in front of a dark background and light is being angled onto the blood sample from the sides. Under phase contrast conditions, the light coming through the specimen is shifted into two beams, one slightly out of phase with the other. These techniques allow nearly invisible micro-organisms within the blood to be "lit up" and seen. They also clearly delineate the blood cells. This method is in contrast to the standard microscope "brightfield" conditions where light shines directly through the viewed sample. Using this kind of microscope technology, German bacteriologist Guenther Enderlein (a student of Bechamp) discovered tiny micro-organisms which he called protits. These tiny micro-organisms flourished in the blood cells, in the plasma body fluids, and in the tissues, living in harmony with the body in a symbiotic or mutually beneficial relationship. He considered the protit as one of the body's smallest, organized, biological units. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The most interesting thing about this micro-organism is its ability to change and adapt to its environment. It was observed that when there was severe change or deterioration in the body's internal environment (mostly noted by changes in pH), these microorganisms would pass through several different stages of cyclic development, advancing from harmless agents to disease producing (pathological) bacteria or fungi. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> His book 'The Life Cycle of Bacteria' (Bakterian Cyclogenie) presented his theory. From his research he was able to produce natural biological answers to many of the degenerative disease processes plaguing western civilization today.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>

Louis Pasteur was wrong!<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> His idea of the bacterial cause of disease was wrong!<o:p></o:p> If "germs" are there as a result, not a cause, then to treat the resultant germs with antibiotics is, in theory and in fact, wrong! This basic misconception about disease effects all aspects of medicine. This is why this is a "new"... biology.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Louis Pasteur is said to have said on his death bed that really he had been wrong about his "Germ Theory" of disease. He said then, in so many words, that, it is not the germ that is the problem, it is the internal environment, the internal milieu that allowed the germ to develop in the first place that is the problem.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Add to this the error of William Harvey, who stated in 1651 that the cell is the smallest unit of life and the magnitude of this issue becomes even more apparent. That was more than 300 years ago!! and still, to this day, this fallacy has not been corrected even though Bechamp (1816-1908) demonstrated that the smallest unit of life was what he called the microzyma and Enderlein again published in 1921 and 1925 that the smallest unit of life is not the cell but the Protit.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> One should treat the cause, not the result. The idea of anti-biosis, anti-biotic (anti-life) is one way. The opposite of anti-biosis is PRO-BIOSIS (for-life), which is what Eclectic Medicine is about. It's not "alternative", it's Eclectic. "Alternative medicine" is just a popular anachronism for Eclectic. None of this is new and it isn't alternative.<o:p></o:p> As these "little dots", Protits, change form, they can change into organisms that are more and more detrimental to the body, they become independent and no longer live in harmony and in support of their host body. As they develop their individual form, they create their own metabolism and waste products of that metabolism, which is harmful to the local body fluids, causing pain and inflammation. Finally, this 'local' process, which develops in the body's "weakest organ", effects the Whole body.<o:p></o:p> It is not the organisms that make you sick, it is the waste products of the metabolism of those organisms that make you sick.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> "In reality, it is not the bacteria themselves that produce the disease, but we believe it is the chemical constituents of these microorganisms enacting upon the unbalanced cell metabolism of the human body that in actuality produce the disease. We also believe if the metabolism of the human body is perfectly balanced or poised, it is susceptible to no disease." (from the Annual Report of the Board of Regents of The Smithsonian Institution, 1944, The Rife's Microscope, The Smithsonian Report, 1944). <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> * * *<o:p></o:p> These disease processes, these changes in the blood, are difficult to fathom at first as they make themselves known in the beginning as functional disturbances (effecting the functions but not yet the structures of the body) in the most diversified organs such as by;<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> * headaches, * high or low blood pressure, * inability to maintain chiropractic adjustment, * feeling poorly, * unmotivated attitude, * lack of appetite, * drab complexion, * coated tongue, * wounds in the mouth, * pimples, sores, * hoarseness, * runny noses and the like, * ear noises, * diarrhea, * lowered capacity for seeing and hearing, * depressions, * weak concentration or poor memory. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Later, these disturbances manifest as the chronic diseases we know so well today. See How You Rot and Rust by Steve Denk for another discussion on pleomorphism, pH balance, and oxidation/reduction which is another part of this whole process.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Medicines based on these ideas have been available and well researched in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">Europe</st1:place> for the last 150 years. Many of these medicines are available in this country now. See the Web-site What Is Pleomorphism and Isopathic Homeopathy for a discussion on medicines that are available in the United States now, this because of the heroic work of some very dedicated and wonderful people. There is more known about these older medicines than about modern drugs, simply because these ideas have been around for so long. Just because these scientists lived in the 1800s or before doesn't mean they were stupid The small dots again are the Protits, the large white rings, red blood cells. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The long organisms in the middle of the slides are bacterial forms that the Protits have turned into. Modern Biology claims this is not so, even though it is there for anyone to see.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Pleomorphism is a concept that today sounds very strange. What pleomorphism is, however, cannot be denied as the vast amount of data that has been obtained over the last 180 years confirms what modern microbiologists are discovering, re-covering today. As noted, many people have been involved in this debate for a long time. Why things are like this is explained in the topic History on the Home Page. We will cover the main progenitors of this idea beginning with Günther Enderlein.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>

Pleomorphability of all germs (bacteria, viruses, fungii)<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Pleo-morphism means many forms, many or more (pleo-), forms or bodies (morph-). This is in contradistinction to Monomorphism which means one (mono-) body or form. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Modern medicine, bacteriology, is founded on the idea of Mono-morphism where once a germ is a particular germ it always stays that way. According to this way of thinking a streptococcal germ is always a streptococcus. It only has one (mono-) form, it doesn't change into anything else.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Pleomorphism on the other hand maintains that "germs" occur in many forms beginning with the Protit, which can change into a virus, which can change into a bacteria, which can change into a fungus. Any of these forms, bacterial, viral or fungal can and do eventually, break all apart, and turn back into the Protits from whence they came. It starts all over again, life. The Protit never dies. This is a nature of life, It goes on no matter what. A germ is 'a beginning', that's all.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> These Protits or colloids of life in our blood, develop or change according to the condition (pH, etc.) of the blood. At some stages of their development they are outright pathogenic (make you sick) and parasitic. These are our internal parasites. These Protits can go in the other direction too and turn into cells we need. See Live Cell Therapy They can help regenerate organs.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The internal parasite, which exists in us always, is in contrast to external parasites with which we occasionally come in contact. This is where the germ theory actually holds relevance. This is the area of external microbes and parasites that when taken to extremes, intensifies into infectious diseases and epidemics which overwhelm the system.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Surprisingly, without having even the slightest idea of pleomorphic biology, medicine through hygiene, has accomplished much in this area. The fact is, opportunistic bugs, bacteria and viruses are all over the place, in our blood even which modern science says is not so, even though they are easily seen. Some of us get sick and some of us don't. As far back as the plagues of the dark ages some lived and some died. One third of the people didn't get plague. Nobody knew why.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Pleomorphism is a concept discovered in the early 1800's. It shows that 'germs' come from inside the body, from the "tiny dots" you can see in the blood with any microscope. These "tiny dots" of course are the colloids of life or Protits.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> As the environment that surrounds the cells becomes acid, toxic, polluted, these "tiny dots", Protits, change form, into the microorganisms that clean up the garbage, dead cells, toxins and the like, that are the result of the toxic condition. This is what bacteria, 'germs' are for.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> When the host balance is destroyed, when the internal environment the Protits and cells live in, the internal milieu, becomes toxic and acid, the Protits lose their symbiotic (live harmoniously together) and life giving qualities and devolve downward, changing first into viruses, then into bacteria and finally into fungal forms, each stage of which is progressively more hostile to surrounding tissue cells.<o:p></o:p> Germs, all microorganisms, (viruses, bacteria, fungi and everything in-between) are the result, not the cause of disease!<o:p></o:p>

Logical Flaw in Germ Theory<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> If you think about it carefully, you will realize there is actually a logical flaw in the idea that germs cause disease: all people exposed to these “causative” germs do not succumb to the disease. If germs actually cause disease, then anyone exposed to the causative germs should get the disease. In fact, healthy individuals usually have many if not most of these “causative” germs constantly residing in their bodies, and yet continue to be healthy. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> So the germs themselves are not in and of themselves causative. As the scientists say, germs cause disease in susceptible individuals. This statement actually puts the causative factor squarely in the arena of host resistance: if you are healthy, if your terrain is balanced, you will not develop disease, even if you are exposed to, or even harbor, the associated germs. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> We must note here that medical commerce is driven by the profit motive. There is little profit on the side of this equation that has to do with increasing individual resistance, thereby decreasing susceptibility. There is a great deal of profit to be made on the side of the equation that is pushing the war on germs and the chemical suppression of symptoms. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> So of course the vast majority of the research by western scientists (largely funded both directly and indirectly by pharmaceutical companies) has been aimed at the germ side of this statement, identifying the germs as causative agents and finding the correct weapon, a medicine/drug, to kill them off, often ignoring that weapon’s potentially damaging or even lethal effect on the host! <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> This is very similar to the way we conduct modern warfare: we often seem willing to demolish a country in order to “liberate it”! In fact most of the language of modern medicine reads like a war story, with valiant researchers continuously inventing and adding more and more powerful drug/weapons to the doctor’s arsenal against disease. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Each new weapon causes escalation of the warfare, which becomes more and more horrific, and the use of the ever-escalating weapons more and more unthinkable. Western medicine is indeed very much like western war, with iatrogenic or physician-induced illness now among the leading causes of death! <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Rather than focusing on the germs and the weapons, how much more appropriate and effective to look at what makes some people susceptible and others immune. If we learn to build and support immunity, we can avoid the chemical warfare of modern medicine and the resultant poisoning and crippling of our bodies by toxic medicines which have no natural function in the body, and which so often produce multiple side effects, sometimes unto death. By making the neighborhood (the bodily terrain) unattractive to pathological organisms, perhaps they will simply leave, or better, not show up in the first place. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> This approach to health and disease parallels ecological approaches to pest control or agriculture. If you have cockroaches in your house, you can spray for them with poisons and pesticides, which also poison your home, your pets, your children, yourself, and eventually your planet—or you can put all the food in jars and keep the place clean—control their food supply! As organic farmers have learned, pest outbreaks are related to monoculture cropping patterns and to plants weakened by loss of soil fertility. Modern agriculture pumps itself up on chemicals and biocides, yet produces food devoid of vitality while wasting the natural world. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Could we, by adopting healthy patterns of living, cleaning up our environments, and strengthening our natural immunities, avoid the war all together, and spend our precious lives in better health and with time for more interesting and rewarding pursuits than fighting cockroaches, spraying weeds, or popping pills? <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> With an emphasis on keeping the terrain healthy and balanced as opposed to killing the enemy germs, we can begin to see the world as an interdependent web of organisms, each contributing to the vibrant and balanced life of the other; building sustainable health, perhaps we can create peace. <o:p></o:p>

The Progression of Disease<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> According to natural health theory, “disease”—the body’s attempts to right itself—proceeds in a natural progression in response to the ways we moderns care for our bodies. In our modern lifestyles we accumulate many toxins. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> A toxin is any substance that our bodies cannot use to build health, and must therefore eject, burn, or store in some part of the body. Toxins, which our body itself creates, are called endotoxins (dead cells, used hormones, etc); external toxins, those that come to us from outside our bodies, are called exotoxins (pesticides, air pollution). Almost anything that we are not adapted to by evolution is likely to act as a toxin in our bodies. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Getting rid of these toxins is a very high priority for our bodies, because high levels of toxins interfere with normal function, and can eventually interfere to the point of death. The more toxins we accumulate, the more energy the body has to expend to get rid of them, and the less energy the body has available for other purposes. If toxins accumulate faster than we are able to process and eliminate them, our body stores them in the best place it can find at the time—a joint, fat tissue, or an area of the body that has poor circulation and cannot move the toxins out as fast as other areas.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> According to Hygienist theory, at a certain level of toxicity, a vital body will make an attempt to throw off its toxins. The energy with which a body attempts to throw off the toxins is proportionate to the amount of vitality that the body still possesses. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Children are usually strong and vital, and are notorious for the sudden violence but short duration of their acute illnesses. As the body ages, it usually loses vitality and its attempts at detoxification will be fewer and weaker. The body learns to live with the toxins, but only at a tremendous compromise, with corresponding loss in health and vitality. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> When the body attempts a “housecleaning” and tries to throw off its accumulated toxins, fluids, and crud exude from the body and we say we have a cold, flu, fever, diarrhea, eczema, etc: we are describing the symptom or form the self-cleaning reaction is taking. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> But instead of allowing the body to expel its toxins, we try to stop the process, which we view as a symptom of disease. We take some allopathic medicine like aspirin, a cold medicine, an anti-diarrheal, or a skin cream. In short, rather than supporting the process of cleansing, we call it a disease and stop it as fast as possible! <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> By suppressing the symptom, we actually interfere with the body’s attempt to heal itself. As we continue to suppress the symptoms, our vital and valiant body registers increasing toxicity and tries again to dump the growing toxic load—harder! We get a more serious symptom, which prompts more aggressive symptom suppression, and then the beleaguered body has to try harder again! <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Not only is the body struggling with an increasing load of the “normal” toxins accumulating from the modern lifestyle, but now the body is being laced with even more toxins: the medicines that our modern pharmacist has in his arsenal of symptom-suppressive weapons. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> When a substance has no normal function in the body’s biochemical and metabolic processes—in other words, when it is not part of our biologically mandated or evolutionarily adapted environment—the body has to work at throwing it off so as not to become overloaded in a tremendous internal traffic jam. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Hygienists believe that when a drug is administered to suppress a symptom, what actually happens is that the body stops trying to cleanse and directs its attention to ejecting the drug, which has become the greater threat. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The body expends its precious vitality getting rid of the drug, and then has to rest while it accumulates enough energy to try to cleanse again later. But instead of being stronger, as it might have been had it been allowed to decrease its toxic load through the cold or flu, the body is now weaker. The vicious cycle of symptom suppression continues, and the body wastes its precious vitality in a struggle that is futile in the face of our continuous suppression of its cleansing efforts. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> For example, a body overladen with toxic debris musters the energy to attempt a housecleaning. When it chooses the mucous membranes of the head as a dumping vehicle and the nose as exit, we have a cold. We suppress the symptoms with antihistamines, leaving an accumulation of toxins in the body while the body rallies its resources for another attempt at cleansing. Now perhaps the body tries for a flu, which is an escalated pathway, enabling the body to dump toxins faster than a mere cold. So we take cold and flu medicine with a nice fever suppressant. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> After we have suppressed the flu, perhaps the body will try a chronic sinus infection, or perhaps pneumonia; or, unable to jettison the toxins, maybe it will try to store them in the joints as arthritis or in the tissue as cellulite, or even cancer. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The process of escalation continues, and our body uses up its limited vitality in a pointless, destructive, and ultimately futile war with our efforts to suppress the symptoms. Eventually the body lacks the energy or vitality even to try throwing the toxins off, and we move from a series of acute diseases into the chronic degenerative diseases from which most of us eventually die. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> We have all been so conditioned to think in terms of the dominant allopathic paradigm, that it is very difficult to wrap our brains around the idea that disease symptoms are actually the body’s attempt to heal, and NOT the evidence of bacteria winning a battle for our bodies. <o:p></o:p>

Health Theory of Natural Hygienists Natural Hygiene proposes some extremely interesting and provocative theories. Practitioners assert that what we call disease is actually the body trying to purge itself of toxins or, failing that, to store them in the body in the way least likely to interfere with function. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Since disease is merely the process of a toxic body trying to clean itself out, any “treatment” to stop the symptom is actually counter productive because it interferes with the body’s efforts to reestablish healthy balance through tissue detoxification. They believe that any medication that produces disease in a healthy body should be withheld from a sick one, and that only those conditions producing health in a healthy body—vital food, clean air, pure water, sunshine, exercise, and adequate rest—should be supplied to a sick one. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Natural Hygienists deal with “disease” by carefully supporting it and allowing it to run its course, trusting the body’s innate drive to create health. In this modality, there is no attempt to cure, only to supply the conditions of health, thereby supporting the body’s natural drive to return to normal healthy function. To do anything else, the natural hygienists believe, just gets in the way of the body healing itself. Basically, that means no medication. Period. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Hygienists claim that the apparent beneficial action of medications in stopping symptoms is due to the body’s having to shift gears to get rid of the medicine, forcing the body to put its cleansing efforts on the back burner to take care of the greater evil, the drug you just gave it in your misguided attempt to “help.” By stopping the symptom, you have handicapped and burdened your body’s self healing capacity and forced the body to resort to increasingly desperate means to jettison its toxins. Any substance you would not be taking when healthy will just be one more toxin the beleaguered body must eject. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> So, in the system of natural hygiene, you assist the ailing body, not by trying to make it get well, but by facilitating its being “sick”! To do this, you must both supply everything necessary to support healthy function and remove all those influences and foods that the body cannot use. And then you must leave the body alone to heal itself. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Of course, this approach goes against our every instinct, conditioned as we are by the allopaths. But when you consider that animals generally take this approach when sick, refusing food, and retreating to a cave to sleep, perhaps you will be willing to consider this theory further. <o:p></o:p>

See Your Blood via Dark-field Microscope!<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> There are many dark-field microscopists around today, and if you want to get motivated to take care of your health, go visit one! You will be able to see your live blood on video, and I guarantee you one of the most fascinating office visits of your “medical” career! You will witness the state of your moving red blood cells, and whether or not they are all clumped together, which makes oxygen exchange with the tissue difficult. You will see the activity level of your wiggling macrophages as they gobble down debris. You may see cholesterol or parasites. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> You will learn about the state of your liver. You may meet the endobiant, the mutating symbiotic bacteria in your blood, which serves you in a healthy state, and composts you in the pathological state! You will see how your blood ages over the time of your visit, which gives an indication of how your body is aging. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Your practitioner will very likely give you a list of recommended diet and lifestyle changes as well as a video of your blood, so that you can compare it with future readings. Then later you can come back and see how those changes have changed your blood picture, and what you may still need to work on. If you can, take a friend, and at least one of you may be not so healthy, so you can actually observe the differences in your blood pictures. Your attitude toward health care will never be the same! <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> For more information on dark-field microscopy, see Steven Denk’s excellent website "www.biomedx.com", where you can also order his small but excellent book How You Rot and Rust, one of the most succinct, understandable, and downright helpful explanations of the pleiomorphic biology of disease I have ever read. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> These brilliant microscopists have developed methods for observing the blood and for interpreting what they see. This enables them to advise you about diet and life style changes that will help you improve your body’s terrain, and so discourage, perhaps even eliminate, the diseases which your present diet and lifestyle have created. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>

Pleiomorphism: Rife, Enderlein, and Naessens<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> Since Bernard and Bechamp’s day, a number of scientists have pursued pleomorphic study, among the most notable, Royal Rife, Gaston Naessens, and Gunther Enderlein. Because the medical establishment has suppressed pleomorphism, we in the West have not heard much about the developments in this arena, and the following reports may sound far-fetched. But before you discount them, take the time to do some research. It will be fascinating, and it may save your life! <o:p></o:p> In the 1920s a self-taught genius named Royal Rife developed an ingenious microscope capable of much greater magnification than even the electron microscope. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> He was also able to view blood and tissue in a live state, because he used light in a way that illuminated cells without their having to be stained. Because the electron microscope requires the use of stained cells, and because staining kills the cells, the electron microscope can only view dead material. Using super magnification of light-illuminated live cells, Rife was able to confirm the pleomorphic nature of bacteria. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Because he could actually see the bacteria, he was able to track their development. He invented a method of aiming a sound frequency at the bacteria and was able to tune the pitch of the frequency to what he called the mortal oscillatory frequency—similar to the soprano holding a high note that shatters a glass. Rife developed tuned frequency treatments to selectively eliminate many types of bacteria from the body. Although his research was initially hailed as “the end of disease,” the medical establishment eventually suppressed it. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Using a microscope similar to Rife’s the French scientist Gaston Naessens has independently verified the pleomorphic nature of bacteria, and developed immune stimulating injections that can in some cases turn the pathological bacterial forms back to normal benign forms. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> German bacteriologist Gunther Enderlein was a student of Bechamp, and continued to research the pleomorphic organisms, observing them under a dark-field microscope, which also is able to observe the blood in a live state. Viewed under these ingenious microscopes, the blood that allopathic medicine calls sterile is revealed to be a world teeming with life forms that aren’t in the books. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Microbes mutate according to the pH of the blood, and if the pH varies too far from balance, fungus and yeast overgrows first the blood, and then the body, and, unless the pH is reversed, the body dies. <o:p></o:p>

The Road Less Traveled: Addressing the Terrain If symptom-driven blocking of bodily function does not sit well with us, if we are concerned with cumulative side effects of toxic drugs, if we are seeking the reality, and not the mere appearance of health, where do we turn? Are there alternate models that effectively address “the terrain” to which Claude Bernard pointed? There are indeed! <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> Even before Pasteur, many traditional disciplines addressed whole body balance: five phase , Ayurvedic, and Tibetan medicines are examples. Natural Hygiene, homeopathy, aromatherapy, and Bach flower essence are examples of more recent approaches. (Of course it is important to remember that each of these modalities can also be used merely to treat symptoms rather than establish balance from a whole body perspective.) <o:p></o:p> In fact before Pasteur and the advent of antibiotics, most successful medical treatments were aimed at bringing the sick person back into balance with the environment through the use of enhanced cleanliness, pure food, hydrotherapy and mineral baths, sunshine, fresh air, and, primarily, rest. The modalities that did not seek to do this, those that applied drugs like mercury and arsenic, and practices like bloodletting, tended to kill the patient. <o:p></o:p> After Pasteur, when the medical majority went off chasing the illusion of dominion over bacteria, charging down the allopathic road of antibiotics and chemical pharmaceuticals, the pleiomorphs and the natural hygienists set out instead on the road less traveled. <o:p></o:p>

Allopathic Model Follows from the Germ Theory<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> The advent of antibiotics and their phenomenal initial success cemented the place of allopathic medicine as the dominant modality in the treatment of disease. Even now as the idea of dominion over microbial disease is revealing itself as sheer fantasy, and infectious disease is rejoining chronic disease at center stage in the medical arena, allopathic medicine remains myopically focused on destroying disease. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> It comes up dismally empty-handed when pressed for a theory of health. For allopathic medicine, health is the absence of disease, as defined by laboratory test results “within normal limits.” If you ask your doctor how to be healthy, she or he will probably say something like “Eat a good low-fat diet, get moderate exercise, and get a medical checkup once a year.” <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> At the yearly checkup, your doctor will test your blood and body functions to see if you are functioning within normal parameters. If you are not, if your blood pressure, liver enzymes, or blood glucose are abnormal, he will probably write you a prescription for a drug that he hopes will bring that parameter back within normal limits: the drug will most likely block some function of your body to do this. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Your body is in error and the physician hopes to get it back on track. If illness prompts your visit to the doctor, he will write you a prescription aimed at altering your body’s function to eliminate the symptoms that are making you uncomfortable. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Allopathic treatment pits itself against “abnormal” function of the body, which it calls disease, and feels victorious when the targeted body function falls back into line. If some other function moves into the abnormal range as a result of, or at least at the same time as the treatment, the doctor will treat that function with yet another drug: and another, and another... And, “well after all, what do you expect? After all, you are getting older...” Fast! <o:p></o:p>

Two Roads Diverge... The scientists debated their theories publicly at great length. Pasteur prevailed, less due perhaps to the validity of his theory than to his commanding personality: “Pasteur was a chemist and physicist and knew very little about biological processes. He was a respected, influential, and charismatic man, however, whose phobic fear of infection and belief in the ‘malignancy and belligerence’ of germs had popular far-reaching consequences in the scientific community, which was convinced of the threat of microbes to man. Thus, was born the fear of germs (bacteriophobia) which still exists today.” (Baker, p. 212) Not only did Pasteur’s theory give rise to the fear of germs, but at this crossroads an entire medical strategy was birthed, modeled on war, a strategy which resulted, like war, in untold devastation. Humanity began its War on Germs. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> In his excellent book, Awakening Our Self-Healing Body, Arthur Baker aptly summed up the results of the natural evolution of this change in our understanding: “With the germ theory of disease, no longer did we have to take responsibility for sickness caused by our own transgressions of the laws of health. Instead we blamed germs for invading the body. The germ theory effectively shifted personal responsibility for health and well-being onto the shoulders of the medical profession which supposedly knew how to kill off the offending germs. Our own health slipped from our control.” <o:p></o:p> On the surface, this approach has served us pretty well. Modern antibiotics have saved many lives in the 70 years since Alexander Fleming stumbled across penicillin mold on an orange. But the crows are coming home to roost: the experiment has changed the subject. Not only has modern medicine (and agriculture) bred resistance into bugs, it has bred it out of us! As medicine has made its seductive claims to protect us from illness, we have allowed the real supports for health to crumble beneath us. Three generations of erosive chemical intensive farming has stripped both our soils and food of their vitality. During the same period we have poisoned our bodies and the biosphere with a myriad of toxic chemicals, drugs, radiation, and now feral DNA. We are just now beginning to comprehend the grim and far-reaching effects of our capitulation both to the germ theory and to the tender and lucrative ministrations of its proponents, allopathic medical doctors and pharmaceutical companies. <o:p></o:p>

Setting the Stage: Theories of Disease Ideas about the cause of disease have changed down through the ages. Disease used to be blamed on angry gods, or on the spells and curses of powerful enemies. Before the 1880s disease was largely seen as the result of people being out of tune with their environment. While some doctors treated disease with blood letting and mercury, many doctors relied on rest, sunshine, fresh air, and nourishing food or fasting, knowing that the body must cure itself and that the physician’s role was to facilitate that process to the best of his or her ability. Modern western medicine has another perspective entirely. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> Current western medicine tends to look at infectious disease as a foreign invader to be fought to the death. Each disease is seen as being caused by the invasion of specific germs, which can reproduce themselves and travel to infect other host organisms. The treatment of disease then, consists of identifying the germs causing the disease, analyzing the appropriate weapon to kill those germs, and using that weapon effectively; killing the germs is considered the cure for the disease. This model of the Magic Bullet Instant Cure has spread contagiously from the treatment of infectious disease into every aspect of health care: eradicate any symptom with a drug or quick-fix surgery, and that’s all there is to it—you are cured. <o:p></o:p> This understanding of disease dates from the mid-1800s when Louis Pasteur associated pathological changes in laboratory cultures with microorganisms he identified in them. He concluded that the “germs” were causing those pathological changes. Pasteur claimed that a particular microorganism uniquely caused each disease; this was the monomorphic germ theory of disease. A cure resulted when the particular microorganism associated with the disease was eliminated. <o:p></o:p> At the same time Pasteur was putting forth his germ theory, Antoine Bechamp held an opposing theory which was also in the spotlight: he asserted that microbes naturally evolve through different stages of development during their life cycle. These microbes respond to a toxic body by altering their normally healthy forms into forms associated with disease. But the microbes, he argued, do not cause disease. They are just responding to the toxicity of the body. This was the pleiomorphic theory of disease. <o:p></o:p> Another scientist of the day, Claude Bernard, argued that disease was caused by variations in the host’s internal milieu, or “terrain,” to which the microbes responded by changing form in order to survive. According to this theory, the vitality of the host was the principal factor in disease. Relatively small changes in the internal environment made the “terrain” attractive and hospitable to different types of invading organisms: a weak host not only “invited” invading organisms to take up residence, but actually cultured them, inducing their changes into pathological forms. A strong and vital host, on the other hand, was inhospitable and would keep pathological organisms and disease at bay. This is the pleomorphic terrain theory of disease. <o:p></o:p> Not only did pleomorphism deny the causative role of germs in the development of disease, it also claimed that bacteria actually changed form in response to changes in the bodily terrain. Benign bacteria, under suitable conditions, could change into a “deadly” form, becoming benign again if conditions in the body changed back to support the benign form. The changes in terrain could be very subtle, as little as 0.01%; the body’s pH, or measure of acidity/alkalinity, was the primary determinant of health. A neutral pH kept microorganisms in benign or even beneficial forms. <o:p></o:p>

Bacteria: Pathogens or Agents of Decay?: An Ecological Approach to Health <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> Suppose for a moment that 150 years ago medical scientists made a great error and set off in a tragically wrong direction, one that has caused untold suffering to millions of people, even endangering our very existence as a species, while its proponents line their pockets with gold. <o:p></o:p> Suppose also that although misinformation, ignorance, and corporate greed have obscured it, the true path to health is still open to us. Suppose that we can easily understand the superiority of this path, and that all we need to do to turn the tide is to initiate a series of small changes in our lifestyles and values? What if our survival as a species actually depended upon big changes? If we knew what they were, would we be willing to make them? Would we have the courage? <o:p></o:p> Could we, the people, person by person, decision by decision, fly in the face of medical error and corporate greed, defy our own complacency and addiction, reverse the process of decay, and regenerate not only our own health, but the health of the planet? Here is the story. You decide.<o:p></o:p>

Pleomorphism, Its Discovery and Suppression <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> When Louis Pasteur (1822 – 1895) went public with his Germ Theory of disease, ffice:smarttags" /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comEurope</st1:place> continued to be ravaged by waves of infectious plagues, including Cholera, Typhus, Pneumonia (‘consumption’) and Tuberculosis; not to mention the not-too-distant memory of the Black Death. Pasteur’s discovery was due to the invention of the microscope. <o:p></o:p> The officials and public of the era were ripe for a simple and direct explanation from the emerging world of the Natural Sciences for these tragic and decimating diseases. However, at the time Pasteur was formulating and publicizing his work, a quiet, much more qualified and experienced researcher, Pierre Bechamp, was also looking at the new frontier-world of microbes, and came up with a more complex, but thorough, understanding of these miniature marvels. <o:p></o:p> He identified a fundamental unit of microbiological life, named the ‘microzyma’, which he said was critical in supporting the life of cells, but could be triggered into pathogenic states, depending on specific changes in the state of the internal (particularly the blood) environment. Therefore, the bacteria and other micro-organisms; viruses and fungi, that were being blamed as the cause of disease, were viewed by Bechamp as being part of Nature’s ‘clean-up crew’, breaking down sick tissue and ultimately decomposing a no-longer-occupied body. Bechamp also viewed these micro-organisms as ‘changing forms’ (pleomorphic): from seed to bacterial, viral and fungal states, rather than being seen as discrete species unto themselves. <o:p></o:p> Once these bugs have done the job, they revert to the ‘seed’ stage once again ready to support new life. The very ground we stand on is teeming with these fundamental biological units. I once saw a video of a microzma expiring and emitting a photon of light in the process. Perhaps these units represent the transitional point where Light becomes living Matter. <o:p></o:p> The consciousness of the era, however, was, as noted, looking for a simpler, more linear explanation for disease, and as Pasteur was more of a PR man than Bechamp, he won the recognition of academia and society. Also, the simplistic notion of ‘kill the bug, cure the disease’ was very appealing for the emerging Pharmaceutical trade, and continues to provide a major illusion in support of one of the newest ‘plagues’, the overuse of antibiotics. <o:p></o:p> Pasteur’s conscience, however, moved him to say on his deathbed, “Bechamp was right!”. As Bill Nelson, developer of the QXCI machine likes to say, "the Germ theory proposes you get rid of the flies, while it makes more sense to clean up the garbage attracting them." As a result of the entrenchment of the Germ Theory in the western mind, other research pioneers who (often independently) corroborated Bechamp’s work, operated on the fringes of mainstream science and did not receive the financial support that would have promoted their findings. One of the reasons there is some confusion about the concept of Pleomorhism is the language used to describe the various forms was drawn from different researchers who each used their own terminology, unaware of their colleague’s work. Thus, the "Micozyma" of Bechamp is also referred to as a "Protit", "Bion", or "Vion" by other researachers. <o:p></o:p>

The Argument that Changed the Course of Medicine<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> Dr. Louis Pasteur is one of the most known and most influential chemists in the history of the field. He is usually thought of as being one of the founders of the field of microbiology along with fellow doctors Robert Koch and Ferdinand Cohn. He was influenced by Dr. Agostino Bassi in many regards and one of those influences occurred when Dr. Pastuer came out with a vaccine against rabies, Pierre Paul Emile Roux, a fellow doctor and colleague gets lesser credit. Although a few other doctors came up with a microbe - causing disease theory, this was one of the few instances in which Dr. Pasteur developed his concept of microbes causing diseases that he is usually credited for almost alone by the scientific community. But there is another doctor who held a view that microorganisms can go through various stages of development and can evolve into a multitude of growth forms within their life cycle. This doctor was Pierre Bechamp. And he held a theory which was known as pleomorphism. Although silk worm diseases and how to treat them was initiated by Dr. Agostino Bassi, it is Dr Bechamp ( Pierre Jacques Antoine Béchamp 1816 - 1908) a reknown biologist who gets the credit for diagnosing the silk worm parasites responsible for silk worm disease which was killing the silk worms at the time. He watched microbe - like particles in the blood known as microzymas. What these microbes did was changed shape as people contract diseases. Dr. Bechamp entertained a view that microorganisms can go through many stages of development and can evolve into various forms of growth within their life cycle. This theory was known as pleomorphism, a monomorphic theory which would eventually rise up to become the dominant paradigm within the modern medical science world.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Entering into the Bechamp - Pasteur face off was Dr. Claude Bernard (1813 - 1878) known as the "Father of Physiology" who was responsible for the establishment of the scientific method within medicine. He said that the environment was the most important aspect in the life of a disease process. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Dr. Bernard went on to state that microbes do change and evolve which is tied to the environment in which they strive to live in. So Dr. Bechamp added that microbes being pleomorphic will change according to their environment to which they are exposed. Thus, he concluded that disease in the body, as a biological process, will develop and manifest its self - dependency upon the state of the internal biological pH terrain, which was at the center. Both Pasteur and Bechamp are great men who contributed much to the microscopic scientific world. Both men respected each other's work and research too. But because Pasteur came from a more affluent background, he had more of an influence on the inner - workings of the scientific community and its members. This is something Dr. Bechamp could not contest with, and his version of the "germ theory" lost out, even though it was accurate. When Dr. Pasteur was facing death, he went on to acknowledge the work of Dr. Bechamp by stating that terrain was everything while the microbe is nothing. He also admitted that his "germ theory" was flawed in many ways. But the mainstream scientific community was more dedicated to the theory put forth by Dr. Pasteur. Allopathic (drug based) medicine was firmly entrenched on the road which was paved by Louis Pasteur as well. Presently, we can see traces of what Dr. Louis Pasteur had done for the scientific community with his use of pasteurizing of milk to kill diseases which can make people sick, and what can be seen now is how doctors operate within their health community. Doctors attempt to put the human body back into balance when it is out of balance through drugs and surgery. Removing the symptom is the general effect which does not deal with the cause of the ailment. <o:p></o:p>

Overview of other work <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> "Chemistry is in a singular position in that one part is taught synthetically: mineral [or inorganic] chemistry. It was LAVOISIER who thus conceived it. The other part is taught analytically, organic chemistry; it awaits its LAVOISIER." -- Claude BERNARD, The red notebook (notes, 1850-1860)<o:p></o:p> The sort of narrow cloistering that encloses the present-day researcher in a particular specialty did not exist a century ago. That allowed BECHAMP's inquisitive and universal spirit to seek out the greatest problem of all time, that of the origin and organization of life.<o:p></o:p> That meant that, from pure chemistry and the "Toxicological studies on arsenic and antimony" he went on to - organic chemistry from 1857, with his opening lecture to the course in medical chemistry at the Faculty of Montpellier : "A test of the progress of organic chemistry since LAVOISIER" <o:p></o:p> - the action of metals on organic liquids, and the primordial influence of infinitesimal doses of some mineral substances : phosphorous, potassium, magnesium, sulphur, manganese, zinc, on the development of moulds. <o:p></o:p> "Is it not remarkable that Aspergillus niger needs, not only for its development but for the whole of its existence, of such a small proportion of zinc sulphate that the quantity in the mixture, related to unity, is hardly 44 microgrammes. The plant can live without this, no doubt, but in the end it does not give the most abundant harvests unless zinc is to be found in the medium of its culture. Certainly, analysis will not find the zinc in a complete little plant. Who knows if all of the media where Aspergillus <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<st1:place w:st=" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">niger</st1:place></st1:country-region> grows, a slice of lemon, for example, do not contain some zinc which [our] analysis is unable to discern ?" <o:p></o:p> - the role of the nature of the soil for the successful completion of the phenomena of the life of plants. <o:p></o:p> "The chestnut, for example, prospers only in those soils where silica is abundant." <o:p></o:p> He made numerous analyses of different thermal and mineral waters, original studies on farmyard milk and the milks of the mammals, from which he drew a troubling conclusion : <o:p></o:p> "It is never permissable to make a conclusion from the identity of the structure of a gland to the identity of [its] chemical function, nor to always make conclusions from animals to humans." <o:p></o:p> His observations on plants led him, as we have already seen, to deduce the evolution of micro-leavens into bacteria. <o:p></o:p> His perception of the penetrating odour spread by the fruit of Gingko biloba in the Botanical Garden at <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Montpellier</st1:place></st1:City> lead him to study : <o:p></o:p> "The existence of several odiferous fatty acids and their homologues"<o:p></o:p> in the fruit of this singular tree. <o:p></o:p> BECHAMP asked himself questions about everything; he retained, up to his death, a young and impassioned spirit, as was remarked by his Romanian biographer, Doctor Constantin ISTRATI : <o:p></o:p> "He worked quietly, but with a youthful ardour which could serve as an example to young people who get tired and discouraged too quickly.<o:p></o:p> "In 1882, I had occasion to overhear him speaking with verve and a perfect understanding of the subject with regard to some work presented a great many years earlier to the <ST1:PlaceType w:st="on">Academy</ST1:PlaceType> of <ST1:PlaceName w:st="on">Sciences</ST1:PlaceName> of <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Paris</st1:place></st1:City>. All of the assistants were stupefied by his memory and the clarity of his exposition." (130) <o:p></o:p> He was still working at the Sorbonne two weeks before his death, impoverished and subject to general indifference. <o:p></o:p> The Scientific Monitor devoted eight pages to publishing the list of his works; but the general French press was silent, while American, British, Belgian, and Romanian journals deplored the death of the great French scholar, "whose works have powerfully enriched biology, physiology, pathology, and chemistry, Antoine BECHAMP, the immortal author of the discovery of the micro-leavens." <o:p></o:p> We cannot cite all of his works; there is one of them, however, in which the scientific and philosophical ideas light up so particularly the personality of the man and of the scholar that we think it necessary to reserve it a development a little more important: it deals with his conferences of the winter of 1866-67, published at Montpellier in 1867 under the title On the circulation of carbon in nature and the intermediaries of that circulation. Explanation of a chemical theory of life and of the organized cell. <o:p></o:p> In this publication, where the professor<o:p></o:p> "Has decided to put into popular form some of the ideas which are part of his teaching at the Faculty of Medicine and are the fruit of his research into fermentations and that generation which has been called spontaneous..." <o:p></o:p> ...he astonishes us with his experimental successes and enchants our imagination with his philosophical conceptions and his prophetic perspectives; amongst other points, he demonstrates :<o:p></o:p> "There is only one chemistry. <o:p></o:p> Matter is not given anything but chemical and physical activity.<o:p></o:p> There is no "matter" that is organic by nature, there is nothing but inorganic matter. <o:p></o:p> What is called organic matter is no more than mineral matter of which carbon makes a part. <o:p></o:p> The "organic" matter thus comprised is profoundly distinct from organized matter." <o:p></o:p> Thus it was, for many years,<o:p></o:p> "we have not known how to produce, by synthesis, any compound supposedly organic". <o:p></o:p> He gives numerous examples of "a great number of compounds which we have not until now refined other than from the organized realm...." such as cyanide, cyanhydric acid, oxalic acid, formic acid, urea, etc. <o:p></o:p> "There is nothing to prevent us thinking that soon we will be able to make all that plants produce, in the same way that we know how to make a great number of compounds that the plants and the animals never produce. <o:p></o:p> "The carbon compounds, organic matter, are thus formed from mineral matter and can be obtained by the processes of inorganic chemistry. Thus we see the confirmation of the opinion expressed in 1843 by M. DUMAS."<o:p></o:p> and we may add the successes of BERTHELOT. <o:p></o:p> But living, organized matter is something else entirely, the chemist cannot create a cell, <o:p></o:p> "Every living being is an isolated assembling of the world, a whole having in itself a seed of reproduction." <o:p></o:p> Of his study showing the facts admitted and verified to date :<o:p></o:p> "Carbon is the support of organized life. <o:p></o:p> Oxygen is the limiting condition for the life of organized beings. <o:p></o:p> Displace carbon, and you abolish with the same stroke the organized world.<o:p></o:p> Displace oxygen, and you annihilate all life on the earth." <o:p></o:p> Life is no more than fermentation and combustion, the interlinking of which he affirms in concluding : <o:p></o:p> "In creation, a great current flows from mineral nature to the organized world, to the vegetal at first, then from vegetal to animal and from there again to the mineral world. In the preformed and living tissues of plants, organic matter is created with the aid of raw or mineral material, and it organizes itself and becomes alive. <o:p></o:p> "In the cells of the preformed and living tissues of animals, organic matter becomes disorganized, is destroyed, and ceases to be alive; but the conversion of organic matter into mineral matter is not entirely complete; microscopic organisms, present everywhere, function like animal cells but with a surprising intensity, consuming the leavings, and they finish by returning to the mineral world the material that had been borrowed from it by the plants."<o:p></o:p>

SOLUBLE LEAVEN: ZYMASE<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> "We can accept neither, not the conformity that perpetuates injustice, nor the indifference that tolerates it." -- Doctor Philippe DECOURT<o:p></o:p> We have seen that for BECHAMP the study of fermentation opened the road to the essential role of the infinitesimally small. <o:p></o:p> In a note to the Academy of Science, 4 April 1864, he gave a clear definition of the mechanism of fermentation and gave the soluble agent of fermentation all of its importance : "The complete picture of alcoholic fermentation seems to me to take the following form: when we look at the action of the yeast on cane sugar, this agent changes first, outside of itself, the cane sugar into glucose by means of a product which it contains already formed inside itself, a product that I have named "zymase" (from the Greek, leaven): this is digestion, it then absorbs this glucose and draws nourishment from it; it assimilates, multiplies, grows, and brings forth. It assimilates, that is to say a part of the fermentable material, modified, now becomes part of its being and serves for its growth and its life. It brings forth, that is to say it puts outside itself the worn-out parts of its tissues, in the form of numerous compounds which are the products of fermentation which it suits us to call alcoholic. One has to ask whether these compounds come from the sugar or from the yeast. They must come from the yeast, in the same way as the urea and the other compounds that we expel come always from us, that is to say materials which have previously been part of our organism, whatever the nature of previous nourishment or present lack of nourishment. In the same way that the sugar which M. Claude BERNARD saw formed in the liver came from the liver and not from foods, so the alcohol comes from the yeast." <o:p></o:p> In that same year of 1864, in various notes, BECHAMP showed that there are in microzoa and microphyta some zymases, which he extracted, as PAYEN and PERSOZ extracted diastase from sprouted barley (diastase being the only soluble leaven known until then); these zymases had a variable chemical role, but in general they rapidly transformed sugar into glucose. <o:p></o:p> They exist in the plant kingdom as well as in the animal kingdom. He demonstrated anthozymase in flowers and morozymase in the mulberry, etc.... <o:p></o:p> sialozymase in saliva<o:p></o:p> pancreazymase (known now as "pancreatic extract")<o:p></o:p> nephrozymase in the kidney, etc.... <o:p></o:p> In 1865, BECHAMP could say : <o:p></o:p> "I use the word "zymase", used as a generic term, to designate all of the soluble leavens. These compounds are albuminoid material in a particular state, soluble, and thus not organized."<o:p></o:p> He indicates that, in animals, they are also secreted by the glands and the mucosa. <o:p></o:p> "There are thus a number of animal zymases as there are a number of vegetable origin. The functional goal of both of these groups is the isometric or chemical transformation of material that serves as food."<o:p></o:p> He makes another remark: <o:p></o:p> "The majority of acids, notably sulphuric acid, even heat, cause the same transformations as the zymases, or somewhat less than certain zymases. This is no reason to call them leavens, nor to call the phenomena that they produce fermentation." <o:p></o:p> Doctor Hector GRASSET mentions that nephrozymase produced by the kidney exists also in pus. <o:p></o:p> "This nephrozymase that BECHAMP has studied for a long time in relation to the sex, age, and diet of the individuals under study, pathological states of the most diverse sort (the leaven is lacking in some cases, and seems to be in inverse proportion to the severity of the case): it has had a bizarre fate. It has been denied, vilified; one can do no other, however, than to suggest that the physiologists turn their attention to it and review BECHAMP's work; there exists there a whole field of discoveries for physiopathology. You will not find nephrozymase mentioned in treatises of physiology; one of the most recent, that of MORAT and DOYON, which cites three soluble leavens in the urine, mentions only amylase as discovered by BECHAMP. We are more familiar with the German studies which are less valuable than those of BECHAMP and his students." <o:p></o:p> Returning to the present day, "that tidy name, zymase" is forgotten and replaced by that of soluble yeast or enzyme. Why ? Doctor Hector GRASSET explains : <o:p></o:p> "ESTOR, professor at Montpellier, saw since 1865 the revolution that BECHAMP's ideas brought to the comprehension of vital phenomena, he put them in view in a little brochure on fermentation, and a whole school was formed about this sage. Let us insist on this fact: it wasn't until 1876 that PASTEUR and his school realized the role of soluble leavens and their importance. Then there happened something quite extraordinary: that tidy word zymase, that had begun to be used generically, was replaced by that of diastase (which was specifically the product of germinated barley) in order not to have to promote the ideas of BECHAMP, which were starting to become embarrassing; even more, since KUHNE had given in 1878 the name of enzymes to the soluble leavens, this term was employed instead. Finally, in another inversion of sense, DUCLAUX gave the name of zymase to the alcoholase discovered by BUCHNER (1897); justice requires that we cannot consider the word zymase other than generically, if only to do homage to the one who had first imagined and demonstrated the important general role of these products; apart from that it would result in less confusion." <o:p></o:p> The years have passed, and we now have plenty of other bothersome definitions. <o:p></o:p> First off, BUCHNER received for his discovery of zymase the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for 1907. <o:p></o:p> The work of Doctor Adrien LOIR, appearing in 1938, as well as the study by Doctor Philippe DECOURT on Antoine BECHAMP, published in the "Claude Bernard International Archives", permit us to re-establish the chronology of the events which led PASTEUR to order "in all haste" the construction of three glassed greenhouses to be brought into the Jura in order to give an experimental base his "Critical Examination of a posthumous paper by Claude BERNARD" on the fermentation of grapes, in which the deceased scholar brought out again : <o:p></o:p> "The condemnation of PASTEUR's work on alcoholic fermentation - the non-existence of life without air, the leaven not coming from exterior germs, the alcohol being formed by a soluble leaven outside of life." ("The Life of Pasteur", by René Vallery-Radot) <o:p></o:p> In his notes, all of Claude BERNARD's conclusions agree with those of BECHAMP who, in the course of his studies on vinous fermentation, had clearly shown that the key element in the fermentation of vinous must is found in the seed of the grapes, while PASTEUR denied the existence of this soluble leaven and attributed the fermentation to germs from the air. After having affirmed that his grapes came from greenhouses where the clusters, being wrapped up, did not ferment, due to the lack of ultra-violet rays (103), PASTEUR did not change his mind and declared : <o:p></o:p> "The question of soluble leaven is settled, it does not exist, BERNARD is the victim of an illusion." <o:p></o:p> People seemed content with this conclusion, and d'Arsonval, Claude Bernard's young apprentice, who inherited the scientific papers of his Master, fearing unpleasant consequences for his career, kept the manuscript hidden for more than fifty years. <o:p></o:p> It was only shortly before his death that he spoke of it to his friend from Limousin, Doctor Léon DELHOUME, a historian. DELHOUME, himself aged, was unwilling to investigate the question, but passed the material to Doctor Philippe DECOURT at the same time as the book by the Englishwoman Ethel DOUGLAS HUME with the provocative title: "BECHAMP or PASTEUR ?, or A lost chapter in Biology", saying to him, "I am too old, now, you ought to see this". <o:p></o:p> And Doctor DECOURT, impassioned for justice and truth, did not hesitate to write : <o:p></o:p> "The story was falsified from the start, the falsifications were repeated from book to book, without the historians noticing. All of the writers, ignoring the work of the other scientists of the epoch, particularly that of BECHAMP and his collaborators, contented themselves with the affirmations of PASTEUR and his family. <o:p></o:p> "With BECHAMP we saw the unexpected emergence of a very great sage quite un-looked-for. The story is extraordinary - the way that PASTEUR claimed for himself the merits of his adversaries, and, on the other hand, attributed to them his own errors, surpasses anything that one could imagine." <o:p></o:p> Adrien LOIR, while he admired his uncle without the smallest qualification, and never spoke of BECHAMP, tells many other "personal memories" which support the opinion of Doctor Philippe DECOURT. <o:p></o:p> A look at certain communications between scholars in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<ST1<st1:place w:st=" /><st1:City w:st="on">Paris</st1:City> and <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Montpellier</st1:place></st1:City> confirms as well this unusual situation.<o:p></o:p>

This was a scientific demonstration of the truth of the prescience of GOETHE when he wrote: <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> "Death is an artifice of nature to produce an abundance of life."<o:p></o:p> In that same conference at <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comLyons</st1:City>, the professor from <st1:City w:st=" /><st1:place w:st="on">Montpellier</st1:place> made reference to Hippocrates' aphorism : "Quae faciun in homine sano actiones sanas, eadem in oegroto morbosas". He added : That which makes us live is also that which makes us ill." and turned his lecture first to the consideration of the healthy processes that take place in the healthy organism, as : <o:p></o:p> "Before looking to understand the abnormal conditions of life that lead to illness, it is necessary to understand the normal conditions which lead to health. It is only after this double study that we may try to penetrate the mystery of death." <o:p></o:p> He insisted on the importance of the micro-leavens which animate the healthy actions of which Hippocrates spoke, and then he specified that as well, <o:p></o:p> "In the micro-leavens themselves, the cells, the tissues, the organs, there are materials which, not being structured, are not living.... These materials, varying according to the regions, the different departments of the organism in question, are mixtures of numerous substances as much organic (first causes) as minerals, either in a state of solution in aqueous liquids or semi-liquids, or in very aqueous insoluble masses ... this is the matter that we call intercellular, intertissual, or that part of the intracellular mass that is not organized. This constitutes what I have called plasma in the cell and the micro-leaven." <o:p></o:p> And it is by his discovery of the micro-leavens which gave the proof of the life and the function of the cells, of which the juxtaposition formed, since TURPIN, the living organism. <o:p></o:p> "It is because the micro-leavens are gifted with an independent and individual life, each according to its type, that there are some of them, functionally different and able to change function, in the different centres of organization, and that the [theory of] the protoplasmic system, false in its principle, is as false in its consequences as it is experimentally. It is because it is false that the [theory of] the microbial system is equally false. Finally, because this is so it is necessary to be cautious when one wants to practice the supposed microbial vaccinations to induce immunity; because they do not know what it is that they do, neither do those who suppose that there is in the living organism only matter comparable to must, to wine, or to beer; because one does not know in what sense these practices may change the aptitude to change function which exists in the micro-leavens of the organism." <o:p></o:p> Going further with his postulate : <o:p></o:p> "The micro-leavens are that by which an organism, a cell, is alive; any organism is reducible to micro-leavens."<o:p></o:p> BECHAMP continues : <o:p></o:p> "It is because any organism is reducible to micro-leavens; it is because the micro-leavens are able to change functions that we find explained not only the phenomena which precede birth, assuring the incessant rejuvenation of the species, of the race, but birth itself and the sum of processes which we have understood under the name of maturation. It is thanks to the properties of the micro-leavens and the cells that we are able to explain how the irritability and the spontaneity of the organism may lead to a cure after having lead to an illness. It is also thanks to the histological strength of the micro-leavens that after the incidence of lesions, traumatic or otherwise, repairs or surgical cures come to be effected." <o:p></o:p> All of these new notions seemed so very surprising coming from the amiable researcher that they were bitterly contested and reviled. We plan to follow closely the verifications and the applications which followed over time, and we find ourselves in sympathy with Professor Paul PAGES when he wrote, in 1959, to the grand-daughters of the sage he revered : "The abundant richness of his work is far from being exhausted" (143), and when, in 1938, in his inaugural lecture at the Faculty of Medicine of Montpellier, he bravely summed-up his thought in these terms : <o:p></o:p> "The pasturian era has been surpassed, We are beginning the era of BECHAMP."<o:p></o:p>

ORIGIN OF BACTERIA <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> "The difficulty is not to know the truth, but to substitute it for error." -- HAECKEL <o:p></o:p> It cannot be doubted that BECHAMP looked to many experiments to deduct his "majestic theory of micro-leavens" (141bis), and every one confirmed it to him. <o:p></o:p> A fortuitous observation from nature showed him the transformation of normal micro-leavens into bacteria. In his third conference, the professor told his students: <o:p></o:p> "The pulp of the green and soft parts of vegetables is not slow to be invaded by myriads of bacteria, of different sizes and doubtless different species. This pulp, before the appearance of these bacteria, shows under the microscope only cells and molecular granulations. To explain the presence of these bacteria, we invoke the germs in the air or perhaps spontaneous generation. You will judge [for yourselves] a bit of the foundation of these two explanations. <o:p></o:p> In Montpellier, during the coldest times of the winter of 1867-1868, I happened to notice two whole plants of Echinocactus which were frozen. Several weeks after the thaw, I examined the sort of histological changes which freezing had caused to the tissues of the plant. Its epidermis showed no lesion, it was as firm as before the frost. You know how this epidermis is tough, thick, strong, and smooth: evidently, the great density of tissue and the thickness of the epidermis is a sufficient obstacle to the penetration of bacteria, of microbes, or of their atmospheric germs; you will admit it that much easier than M. PASTEUR assures us that the body of an animal is not penetrable by these same bacteria and germs. However, an incision having been made in the frozen portion, matter taken from the depth of the wound, or from immediately below the epidermal layer, contains hordes of bacteria, with the extremely mobile ones named Bacterium termo and putridinis being predominant. This observation was too important for me not to try to verify it." <o:p></o:p> There follow descriptions of eleven cases, from which BECHAMP concludes that it is clear that : <o:p></o:p> "vegetable micro-leavens are among those which easily produce bacteria, and the bacteria found did not come from any sort of inoculation, but rather from a natural evolution of the micro-leavens due to a perturbation of nutrition or a change in the medium caused by the frost." <o:p></o:p> He confirmed this conclusion by the examination of another cactus which had not been frozen, but might have been watered too much, in which he found only normal micro-leavens. <o:p></o:p> He became interested in the chemical state of the frozen tissue and in that of the tissue kept in its normal state. <o:p></o:p> Doctor Joseph BECHAMP, his son, who worked with him, completed the experiment with the artificial freezing of a fatty plant (with precautions against accidental inoculations), followed by thawing in a kiln: bacteria appeared rapidly in the tissues. <o:p></o:p> From plants, BECHAMP turned to animals, in the case of which the question is a great deal more complex, as: <o:p></o:p> "Animals admit air and its germs into their lungs, and other apertures may be supposed to give them access, to say nothing of foods and drink, etc."<o:p></o:p> He was thus greatly interested to learn whether, yes or no, bacteria could be generated in animal tissues without the admission of germs from the exterior. <o:p></o:p> With his experiments with eggs which, shaken, decomposed without presenting the normal strong odour of hydrogen sulfide, BECHAMP proved the existence of an organized element within this completely closed system, and explained its role in putrefaction by a change in the milieu, the unusual mixture of the white and the yolk of the egg. <o:p></o:p> In 1869, at the Scientific Congress (<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<st1:place w:st=" /><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Montpellier</st1:place></st1:City> session) BECHAMP and ESTOR, in a memorandum on the micro-leavens of the higher organisms, repeated their theories. <o:p></o:p> "In nearly all animal cells, there exist molecular granulations observed by all histologists. These granulations have rarely been studied; Professor ROBIN distinguished four types of granulations: first, fatty ones soluble in ether, insoluble in acetic acid and gallic acid; second, granulations more or less similar to those above, but soluble in the two acids named; third, grey granulations, or those of organic powders showing low refraction, not showing, like the first two types, a closed contour and a brilliant centre, yellowish, soluble in acetic acid, potash, soda, etc .....; fourth, pigmentary granulations .... The molecular granulations we have observed fall into none of the classes studied by M. ROBIN." <o:p></o:p> and Hector GRASSET added : <o:p></o:p> "It was clear, [but] that did not stop those critics who were motivated by malice or poorly familiar with the work of BECHAMP to accuse him of considering matters which are not related. What characterizes BECHAMP's micro-leavens is their role as agents of fermentation." <o:p></o:p> In all of the publications on the subject, BECHAMP insisted on this primordial quality of a non-specific agent of fermentation which could turn into a bacterium, or something else that could: <o:p></o:p> "Move across the finest filters and membranes such as those made from the intestinal lining or the swim-bladders of fishes."<o:p></o:p> To his students, the professor explained that: <o:p></o:p> "The micro-leavens do not change into bacteria without any transition, one can observe a number of intermediate forms between the micro-leaven and the bacterium." <o:p></o:p> Elsewhere, he took care to specify that bacteria have a refractive power greater than that of the micro-leavens, and that is why it is easier to see bacteria than micro-leavens under the microscope; this helps us to understand how some authorities have been able to deny the existence of the molecular granulations [observed by] the Montpellerian scholars. <o:p></o:p> CHAVEAU, who had followed closely the teaching of BECHAMP, said that he<o:p></o:p> "would be pleased to adhere BECHAMP's theory, if he did not look too much on granulation as an agent of fermentation, in effect, a yeast (that is just what gave the theory its value), and most of all if he didn't insist on the evolution of micro-leavens into bacteria. Later, CHAVEAU amalgamated micrococci, micro-leavens, and yeasts." <o:p></o:p> Charles ROBIN, in his Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Medical Sciences,<o:p></o:p> "Let us look a bit beyond theory and specify the role of putrefaction in these terms: M. BECHAMP explains in advance why putrefaction is seen much more rapidly in animals which have died of exhaustion, rather than by other means; it is, if you will, exhaustion which makes the substance of the tissues and the humours more easily fermentable or putrifiable, and at the same time brings on more quickly the transformation of natural micro-leavens into the state of bacteria of putrefaction." <o:p></o:p> In 1868, in a conference on nutrition at <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Lyons</st1:place></st1:City>, BECHAMP had clearly explained how the cell is an association of micro-leavens, and sketched its evolution after the death of the organism, as the micro-leavens are freed from that association. <o:p></o:p> "The micro-leavens do not die, they continue their action; however, as the products of this action are not removed according as they are formed, some new conditions are formed, the milieu becomes cluttered with material which was destined to be used or to be eliminated, and the function of the micro-leavens changes as a result of this very cause or as they turn into bacteria. Thus appears what we call putrefaction, a phenomenon which the best minds have, from early on, considered as a fermentation. However, in the balance, what eats us and destroys us after death, is that same thing that lived in us, without us .... Life is a succession of little deaths, or, if you prefer, a continued putrefaction."<o:p></o:p>