Origin of Germs 2


Now then! Who needs more proof?

The Test of Time

Pasteur himself, the father of the “germ-theory”, proclaimed, “the only sovereign judge must be history!” And who could argue with that? So let’s see what time can teach us.

We already know the ocean of difference that separated Pasteur from Béchamp. And we read in the Memoirs of the Academy of Science how different their experimental work was both in timing and execution. Let’s remind ourselves of the principles on which the germ-theory is based and its implications for the treatment of diseases following infestation.

Each bacterial species is rigidly fixed and invariable. It exists as a stable organism and there is no likelihood of the transformation of the typhoid bacillus into the cholera vibrio. Time has already proven this to be false.

Each specific illness is caused by an invasion of a specific aerobic bacterium into the body of the animal or human. The infection occurs when the bacterium is passed from one diseased body to another body via the air. The theory was based on the experimental proof that air contained “germs”; and on the fact that the anthrax bacillus had been cultivated from the blood of infected cattle and had reproduced the disease when other animals had been injected with the cultivated anthrax bacillus. (April 30th 1878)

Dr Robert Koch, discoverer of the tuberculin bacillus, formulated a set of rules for the recognition of supposed disease-germs. These must be:

  1. Found in every case of the disease.
  2. Never found apart from the disease.
  3. Capable of culture outside the body.
  4. Capable of producing by injection the same disease as that undergone by the body from which they were taken.

Here we see the basic theory of the air-borne disease-germ doctrine contradicted by the last postulate, for if to invoke disease, organisms are required to be taken from bodies, either directly or else intermediately through cultures, what evidence is adducted of the responsibility of invaders from the atmosphere? It is noteworthy that neither Pasteur nor any of his successors have ever induced a complaint by the inoculation of air-carried bacteria, but only by injection from bodily sources. Furthermore, the verdict of time is pronouncing upon the microbian rules very fatally, and even medical orthodoxy has reluctantly to acknowledge that “Koch’s postulates are rarely, if ever, complied with”.

Experts have been educated from the start to consider micro-organic life from the Pasteurian standpoint and to accept these theories as though they were axioms. Thus it is perhaps understandable why it is only from an unbiased vantage ground that the contradictions of the germ-theory of disease are seen to make it ridiculous. Its rules, the postulates of Dr Robert Koch, state, inter alia, that a causative disease-germ should be present in every case of a disease and never found apart from it. What are the facts? One of the original props of Pasteurian orthodoxy, the Klebs Loefler bacillus, arraigned as the fell agent of diphtheria, was, by Loefler himself, found wanting in twenty-five percent of the cases; while on the other hand, it is constantly revealed in the throats of healthy subjects.

The followers of Pasteur, however, have their method of overcoming the theoretical difficulty, namely, the carrier-theory, by which healthy people are accused of propagating certain “germs” which they are supposed to disseminate. This accusation has been brought against those who have never in their whole life suffered from the complaints that they are accused of distributing. This carrier-theory is also constantly invoked in connection with diphtheria. At Alperton in Middlesex 200 children were, after examination, accused of being diphtheria carriers and were put in isolation. One outstanding weakness of the theory is that we never seem to hear of the isolation of prominent bacteriologists, who obviously should set the example in undergoing microscopic and chemical tests and the subsequent quarantine, so far, apparently, only advocated for other people! In the same way that obstetricians are not vaccinated against rubella, but are surely a major possible source of contact infection for any pregnant woman.

Pasteur then proceeded to announce that he had found a real preventative, a vaccine, all the while dodging questions and remarks regarding the unsound testing procedure that was used to prove the validity of the vaccine-approach. At the Academy of Medicine voices were raised against the germ-theory of disease, and in particular M. Peter ridiculed the all-conquering microbe. It was easy for him to do this as in March 1882 the boasted success of the vaccine for anthrax had met with a disastrous downfall. In Italy a Commission composed of Members of the University of Turin thought it worthwhile to perform experiments such as Pasteur had described and thus test the prophylactic. As a result, all the sheep, vaccinated and unvaccinated, had succumbed to the inoculation. However, bacteriological institutes for experimentation upon living animals and for the production and sale of vaccines and sera came into being all over the world, modelled upon the one opened in 1888 in Paris.


Kachowka (Southern Russia) – 4,564 sheep vaccinated; 3,696 deaths.

Many vaccination victories were claimed, none were real. As far back as January 1st 1920, Pasteurian statistics were criticised in The Times by no less an authority than the eminent statistician Professor Karl Pearson, well known as the Galton Professor of Eugenics and Director of the Laboratory for national Eugenics at the London University. Questioning the boast of Pasteur’s “conquest of hydrophobia” (rabies), he wrote:

Full statistical data for the Pasteur treatment both in Europe and in Asia are not available. What data are published permit of no prudent statistical judgement. If the Indian Government is in possession of information on this point, why is it withheld? If it does not possess it, why does it not obtain it and issue it? Is there any cause for dissatisfaction with the results obtained, and have any changes been made in the treatment on the basis of such dissatisfaction or for any other reason? These are questions for which answers should be demanded in the House of Commons. No Government is to be blamed for adopting a course recommended by its scientific advisers. But it sins not only against science and humanity, but against the brute world as well, if it does not provide the material it must possess for a judgment of the success or failure of its efforts. In our present state of knowledge I venture to assert that it is not wise to speak of the “conquest of rabies”.”

For the fifteen years subsequent to the introduction of the diphtheria anti-toxin the number of deaths in England and Wales from diphtheria became twenty per cent greater than it had been for the fifteen years prior to the serum-treatment.

Early inoculation, sometimes even before symptoms occur, has always been advocated. Surely, before clinical symptoms are manifest it is impossible to tell whether the trouble would ever be serious, if indeed the disease would be genuine. If, on the other hand, it were asserted that the prompt administration of anti-toxin has prevented dangerous illness, it is easy to assert, on the other, that through anti-toxin a mere mild sore throat has been aggravated into severe sickness, sometimes complicated by heart trouble and paralysis. The one method of argument is no more inexact and unscientific than the other.

In regard to the decline of diphtheria in Great Britain during 1943 and 1944, we are reminded that fifty-eight British physicians, who signed a memorial in 1938 against compulsory immunisation in Guernsey (Channel Islands), were able to point to the virtual disappearance of diphtheria in Sweden without any immunisation. However, Dr Frick’s order in April 1940 made mass-immunisation compulsory in Guernsey and by 1945 the number of diphtheria cases had risen from 40,000 to 250,000. In Paris the rise was thirty per cent; in Lyons it was 48% in one year; in Hungary, 35% in two years; and in the canton of Geneva, the numbers trebled in three years.

Dr Walter R. Hadwen in a pamphlet Microbes and War, comments: “In short, the toll of disease and death in these modern days of serums and vaccines, with all their protecting influences against microbes, was, in proportion to the period and the respective number of troops employed, nearly six times greater in the last six months of the Gallipoli disaster than in the whole three years of the Boer War.” The sick (96,684) far outclassed the number killed (25,270) and even the number wounded (75,191). We have to remember that of this great host of invalids almost every man has been rigorously inoculated.

But of course, I hear you say, that was in the old days. Vaccines have improved an awful lot since then and a lot of the mishaps in the early days were due to impurities within the vaccines produced. Now we don’t have these problems anymore.

That is if you ignore the recent evidence produced on effects of MMR vaccination. And the medical authorities have been quick to ignore it, and to force the doctor who produced the reports out of the country.

Surely, it is right just to ask two simple questions. Is it safe? – And: Is it effective? Well, this is a quick guide through the literature.

Is immunisation safe?

  • Dr Archie Kalokerinos: “There has only been one controlled trial of smallpox vaccine and that was in the Philippines at the turn of the century when they were under Australian control. The figures were clearly startling. There were twice as many deaths amongst the vaccinated as amongst the unvaccinated. The only people who got smallpox twice were the vaccinated ones.
  • Between 1973 and 1984 one quarter of all reported cases of paralytic polio occurred soon after vaccination, with 94% of these after the first dose of oral vaccine. 36% occurred in people who were in contact with vaccinated children, with 82% of these after the contact person had received the first dose of oral vaccine.
  • In 1982 and 1983 all cases of paralytic poliomyelitis in the USA were vaccine associated. Only one case caused by wild virus has been reported.                                                                                                                                                                     (Centres for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia)
  • An outbreak of paralytic polio occurred in Germany in the early 1980’s following a vaccination campaign. The investigation into this concluded that diphtheria-whooping cough-tetanus injections should not be given at the same time as the live polio vaccine because of the risk of triggering “provocation polio”. (A practice which is still in use today!)
  • Dr Robert Mendelsohn states after extensive research, that “the use of either, live or killed virus, in vaccines will increase, not diminish, the possibility that your child will contract the disease. In short it appears that the most effective way to protect your child from polio is to make sure that he doesn’t get the vaccine.”
  • Reports in the US suggest that one out of every 100,000 children receiving mumps vaccination will develop meningitis as a direct result. A study in Yugoslavia puts the figure at an astonishing one in 1000. British experience has been equally dramatic – with a suggestion of between one child in 4,000 to 11,000 likely to develop meningitis following a form of mumps vaccination.
  • Drs Kalokerinos and Mendelsohn say that the measlesvaccine itself carries a high risk of producing encephalitis, as well as other serious conditions such as subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, which is almost always fatal, involving as it does a hardening of the brain substance. There is also evidence that measles vaccination may produce such severe reactions as ataxia (lack of co-ordination of movement), mental retardation, meningitis, convulsions, one-sided paralysis and blindness.
  • From “Science” magazine in America (26-3-1977): “The HEW reported in 1970 that as much as 26% of children receiving rubella vaccination, in national testing programs, developed arthralgia or arthritis. Many had to seek medical attention and some were hospitalised to test for rheumatic fever and rheumatoid arthritis. In New Jersey this same testing programme showed that 17% of all children vaccinated developed arthralgia and arthritis. – The report points out that during the previous year there had been, in the entire USA, 87 cases of congenital birth defects, resulting from rubella infection in the expectant mother, but that the figures quoted above indicated that in the state of New Jersey alone 340,000 children were placed at risk of serious ill-health by virtue of immunisation against the disease which had resulted in but 12 cases of birth defect in that state in the previous year.”
  • Glen Dettman PhD is quoted in the book “Dangers of Immunisation” as describing a figure of 30% of adults in Canada, given rubella vaccine, suffering from arthritic attacks within four weeks. Some of these were crippling in intensity. Dr Dettman states that live rubella viruses have been found in one third of children and adults suffering from rheumatoid arthritis.
  • It is often possible to isolate the virus from affected joints in children, vaccinated against rubella, many months after vaccination. Similarly, it is often possible to isolate rubella viruses from the peripheral blood of women with prolonged arthritis, which followed vaccination. These viruses were found up to eight years after the vaccination procedure, although there had been a normal immune response. This, it is suggested, could account for the chronic joint problems of many people.
  • The greatest threat of rubella is to the unborn child and one would anticipate that obstetricians would be sure to have had immunisation to prevent them infecting their female patients. The American Medical Association Journal reported that more than 90% of the obstetricians and gynaecologists had refused vaccination.
  • Professor Stewart writes in the British Medical Journal in 1983: “Pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine has a consistent record in the published work, and in the unpublished reports since 1933, of neurotoxic and other sequelae unmatched by other vaccines long before there was any adverse publicity about it in the media.” Professor Stewart concludes that the risks of vaccination to first-born babies in the average household are as great as those of catching whooping cough itself.
  • It was noted by Dr William Torch, of the University of Nevada School of Medicine, that the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus vaccine) might be responsible for many cot deaths. He noted in one survey that two thirds of 103 children who died of cot death had been immunised with DPT vaccine within the previous three weeks.
  • Professor Stewart’s views on the dangers of pertussis vaccination in 1980 were as follows: “If reference be made to events in the USA and UK at the time of the earlier trials of pertussis vaccine when given alone, it becomes clear that the inclusion of pertussis vaccine makes the triple vaccine (DPT) much more likely to be followed by adverse reactions involving heart and nervous system. Such reactions include shock, collapse, convulsions and screaming fits, all of which had been recorded in some children who received pertussis vaccine alone in the earlier trials.”
  • A study undertaken in 1979 at the University of California Los Angeles under the sponsorship of the Food and Drug Administration, and subsequently confirmed by other studies, suggests that in the USA approximately 1,000 infants die annually as a direct result of DPT vaccination, and these are classified as cot deaths. These represent about 10 to 15 per cent of the total number of cot deaths occurring annually in the USA (between 8,000 and 10.000 depending on which statistics are used).
  • The health histories of over 3,500 people who had received measles vaccination in 1964 were evaluated and compared with the histories of over 11,000 people who had not been vaccinated against measles and around 2,500 of the partners of the vaccinated individuals (a total of over 17,000 people altogether). The results showed that measles vaccination leads to a 300% increased risk of developing Crohn’s disease and a 250% greater chance of ulcerative colitis.
  • By the middle of the 20th century there was evidence that smallpox was already in slow and progressive decline and that smallpox vaccination was causing more deaths than the disease itself. Its incidence dropped in all parts of Europe, whether or not vaccination was being or had been employed.
  • Tuberculosis reached its peak over two generations. In New York the death rate was certainly very high indeed in 1812, but had declined to 37 per 1,000 by 1892, when Koch cultured and stained the first bacillus. The rate was down to 18 per 1,000 when the first sanatorium opened in 1912. After World War II, before antibiotics came into general use, it had slipped to 5 per 1,000.
  • Cholera, dysentery and typhoid similarly peaked and dwindled outside medical control. By the time their aetiology was understood, or their therapy had become specific, they had lost much of their relevance.
  • The combined death rate for scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles from 1860 to 1965 for children up to 15 years of age shows that nearly 90% of the total decline in the death rate over this period had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunisation against diphtheria. The explanation for this decline could relate to altered virulence in the micro-organisms themselves as well as improved sanitation, better housing and, of course, greater resistance to disease, due to improved nutrition.
  • Dr Bernard Greenberg, head of the Department of Biostatistics at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health, has gone on record to say that cases of polio increased by 50% between 1957 and 1958 and by 80% between 1958 and 1959 after the introduction of mass immunisation. In five New England states cases of polio roughly doubled after polio vaccine was introduced. Nevertheless in the midst of the polio panic of the 1950’s, with pressure to find a magic bullet, health authorities, to give the opposite impression, manipulated statistics. Cases of polio were renamed as “aseptic meningitis” or coxsackie virus infection. Doctors often simply do not believe that what they are seeing is a disease, which has been protected against, and therefore it must be something else. In 1954 the requirements for an official diagnosis of polio were changed which means that you simply cannot compare the numbers in the epidemic years with those cases after the change in criteria.
  • In 1958 there were about 800,000 cases of measles in the USA, but by 1962, the year before a vaccine appeared, the number of cases had dropped by 300,000. During the next four years, while children were being vaccinated with an ineffective and now abandoned “killed” virus, the number of cases dropped another 300,000. In the UK, despite almost complete immunisation of infants the rate is rising again.
  • The death rate from measles had declined equally dramatically, independently of vaccination. In 1900 there were 13.3 measles deaths per 100,000 population. By 1955, before the first measles vaccination, the death rate had declined by 97.7%, to only 0.03 deaths per 100,000 of the population. In 1978 a survey of 30 states showed that more than half of the children who contracted measles had been adequately vaccinated.
  • A measles epidemic, during which 130 children were hospitalised and six died, occurred in St Louis City and County, during 1970 and 1971-74. 430 cases occurred, during a forty-week period. In one school, out of 90 children known to have been vaccinated, 19 developed measles, a failure rate of 20%. Clinical data sheets were returned from another 125 children in another school; 28% of these had been vaccinated.
  • During the winter of 1967-68 an epidemic of measles occurred in Chicago, from which two lessons were learned. One, there was a high percentage of cases among vaccinated pre-school children. Two, the failure of the intensive school immunisation program to terminate the measles epidemic.
  • Dr Beverley Allan, of the University Department, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia conducted trials on army recruits, who were immunised with an attenuated virus and sent to a training camp known for regular epidemics of rubella. Four months later an epidemic occurred which affected 80% of the men who had been “protected”.
  • Annual deaths, per million children, from whooping cough over the period from 1900 to the mid-1970’s dropped consistently from a high point of just under 900 deaths per million children in 1905. By the time immunisation was introduced on a mass scale, in the mid-1950’s, mortality had dropped by 80% or more and this decline has continued, albeit at a slower rate, ever since.
  • A report in The Lancet (5-10-85) described a group of children infected with whooping cough (confirmed by identification of the micro-organism) the majority of who had been immunised.
  • According to Professor Gordon Stewart, formerly head of a department of community medicine at Glasgow University, ”vaccination has been at best only partially effective in controlling whooping cough, and has never been proved to be adequate in protecting infants below one year of age who are, in the United Kingdom, the only group of children whose health is seriously menaced by whooping cough”.
  • Professor Stewart states that in the 1974/5, and 1978/9 outbreaks in the UK, and in the 1974 outbreaks in the USA and Canada, the proportion of children developing whooping cough who had been fully vaccinated was between 30 and 50%.
  • Flu-vaccine to protect against a coming influenza epidemic does not even contain the current influenza virus responsible for the outbreak, and can therefore not provide any protection against the new strain of influenza.

Is vaccination effective?

Tissot concludes that artificial immunity is both worthless and injurious on the basis of the following points.

First, there is a vast difference between test tube phenomena and reactions in a living body. Second, a standard reaction in a horse, guinea pig or rabbit is absolutely different from the corresponding reaction in man. Third, since there are no two human beings who are the same, no two persons can have identical reactions to similar environmental changes (including inoculations). Fourth, the introduction of any product of one living organism into another organism, even of the same species, is the introduction of foreign material and always causes some reaction, frequently producing very dire results.


Another problem is the use of statistics: very impressive in the eyes of the ordinary person and a very powerful tool to the beleaguered scientist or politician. Let’s examine how we can try and make sense of the wide variety of statistical results we are confronted with within the medical field. And does all of that help to strengthen the case for the germ-theory?

The Problem: - Doctors in the past have used the declining death rate from smallpox, typhoid fever, and diphtheria as proof of the efficacy of serum therapy. In order for such statistics to furnish valid proof of their theories it would be necessary for them to prove: (1) that the decline in the death rate is not due to other causes; (2) that the statistics used in the periods compared are identical; (3) that inoculations actually prevent the disease as claimed. After the preceding points have been proved, it still behoves the medical profession to prove that such serum therapy causes no other serious change or sequelae.

Political Interest in Statistics: - So far as the politician is concerned, it may be said that this is not the proper place for a discourse on human liberty, but one cannot help but remark the powerful medical lobbies that “guide” the laymen legislators into enacting pro-medical statutes. The “tribune” of the people is used to protect and enhance the economic status of the physician. Trust in a popular fallacy is responsible for the attitude of the elected legislators; but it is difficult to explain this trust when it is realised that they must be fully aware of the fact that medical news is censored, and statistics altered.

Lay Lethargy in the Matter of Statistics: - Even when statistics discredit vaccination, there is a mental reservation held by the trusting and lethargic majority. The medical “head-fixing” department is influential because it so glibly appropriates such terms as “science”, “scientific”, “newest discovery”, “latest development”, “great progress”. So we find the paradox of minds closed to facts which require a little reasoning, and at the same time open to the lying ballyhoo of interested exploiters of public health.

Dishonest Statistical Reports: - There is abundant evidence that figures prepared by interested parties show a bias. Questionable practices in the preparation of health and vital statistics render conclusions drawn from such figures invalid. Repeatedly health scares are met with “reassuring” statements from Health Officials and Government, based on “the latest research” which clearly shows that there is no truth in those fears. Very often, this “latest research”, which is alluded to, seems to have become available within days following the publication of a scientific study which took years to complete. We have witnessed this in the United Kingdom recently during the Foot-and-Mouth outbreak, the BSE crisis, the MMR controversy, the fear about emissions from masts for mobile phones, and the Gulf-Syndrome.

Faking Statistics: - Statistics showing death rates per x number of people living in that particular area are subject to the knowledge of the exact population number at the time of the statistics being compiled. More often than not, this information is not available and the living population number is either taken from a previous census, or extrapolated from a previous growth or decline in numbers. Neither is accurate, but can be used to either deflate or inflate statistical death rate. It may be added that a lower birth rate would also tend toward a lower death rate, as well as people’s movements such as emigration. It all indicates how sceptical one must be of figures supplied by interested persons. They base them upon whatever suits their purpose and they make much about what really amounts to very little.

Conflicting Interpretations of Statistics: - From what follows with reference to diphtheria we see how the same tables of case statistics lead different students to diverse conclusions. Dr Walter R. Hadwen, of England, in commenting on a lay article, in 1921, said:

“The death rate from diphtheria to the living population is today higher than it was before antitoxin was introduced. The Registrar-General’s statistics of my country show that antitoxin, instead of decreasing has increased the death rate, and the only way by which the statistics can be made to appear lower is by juggling with the case mortality figures, calling common sore throats “diphtheria” and so “curing” harmless cases by antitoxin, cases that would have got well without any treatment at all. If, for instance, you have a death rate of twenty-four per cent from genuine diphtheria, and you would add two harmless sore throats to every one of diphtheria you reduce the death rate to 8%. That is how the trick has been done and the public deceived. The cases have been trebled and the death rate fictitiously brought down. They cry: “Look what antitoxin has done!” I reply, “Look what your statistical jugglery has accomplished!”

“The “first day” cases are nothing more than common sore throats; they don’t wait to see if the child will have diphtheria, they are satisfied by finding a fictitious germ. The other figures are all arbitrary. In the so-called fourth day cases, he says the death rate is sixteen and one-half per cent. Those are genuine diphtherias from which they die (unless killed by antitoxin), and when they die from the disease itself they die chiefly from suffocation, which this reckless writer says no longer exists.”

War Typhoid Not Reduced by Serum: - World War I sickness and death were as great as in any other war, except in so far as sanitation and hygiene have been conceded to be responsible for their reduction. Deducting whatever percentage the statisticians wish for these measures leaves the total in sickness and death no better than in former conflicts.

War typhoid was reduced in the camps by sanitary and hygiene measures, yet according to the British Royal Society of Medicine, there were, up to October 1916, in the French Army alone 113,465 cases of typhoid fever with 12,380 deaths, despite the fact that all these soldiers had been inoculated against typhoid. What matters here is the absolute, not the relative number of cases. That in any group which has complied with the requirements of compulsory inoculation, this so-called preventive, should fail in so many instances is sufficient reason to question the value thereof or even to discredit the agent.

Statisticians Claim Infallibility: - And why not, I ask. The layman has been led to believe that certain diseases could be definitely and specifically immunised against. We are not speaking of a merely proportionate decrease, but of the absolute elimination or stamping out of the disease. Infallibility has been claimed.

If anyone expects that vaccination will always and unfailingly confer immunity, such expectation has been and is being fostered by the proponents of the theory, but unless very definite benefits can be demonstrated at this time, the sooner the theory is revised to fit the facts, the better for all concerned. On the statements of many of its own proponents one can deny its touted efficacy.

If you don’t get the disease, the vaccination gets the credit. If you do, it’s just too bad. What a science! The inoculation is useless against the severe type – epidemic – typhoid; but is effective against the mild type – endemic – typhoid (Revue de la Presse Médicale Polonaise, Vol. I, No. 2, p. 154), the kind which sanitation and hygiene reduces to a minimum anyway.

Statistics of a Sanitary Engineer: - On page 654 of Chemistry in Medicine, Ashford, in an article on hookworm, states that the mere building of latrines in the South was responsible for 65% reduction in typhoid. This fact alone challenges any statistics, which might be presented to prove the efficacy of vaccines and sera. Why vaccinate and suffer vaccination’s admitted injurious after-effects when it can be shown that vaccines and sera do not guarantee protection, while elementary sanitation does?

Disease Increasing: - Cancer, renal and cardio-vascular diseases are admittedly all on the increase. The totality of sickness is the important fact – not the itemizing of it. Dr. Oliver T. Osborne, professor emeritus in the Yale School of Medicine, has written a sensational article in The Medical Mentor entitled “The Patient Pays”. From it The Literary Digest of February 25th, 1933, quotes as follows:

“A patient cares little what you call his disease; he is interested only in what the physician is going to do to cure him, or at least, to make him comfortable.

“This highest object of medicine, the object for which medical men are created, is now forgotten by the first class medical schools. The patient pays the price of such neglect. Were it not for the great advances in the science of public health, which teaches how to prevent disease, and especially epidemics, the criticism of medical education today would be far more severe than it is.

“ The number of persons who are ailing is increasing. This is due to the speed of our era. Men and women do not rest. Even children suffer from this speedy and restless age; too little sleep, too many side issues in school, too much competition, regulated exercises and games, noises, bright lights, dust, radios, etc., not only make children restless, but impair their health.

“Children have many infections in spite of preventive measures, and are ailing in spite of sunbaths, cod liver oil, spinach, raw carrots, tomato juice, etc. Adults read the health journals, do their “dailies”, count their calories, take vitamins, and go on diets, also to no avail.

“The medical schools of today are producing “doctors”, but are they producing physicians? The recent M.D.’s do not know how to evaluate the symptoms of incipient disease or to cure the symptoms of functional troubles.

“Students see in the hospitals only the terminal stages of chronic disorders, a few of the acute diseases, some unusual disease, and the disturbances that may occur in post-operative cases. In the dispensaries they see an ever-moving picture of ailments of all types but rarely ascertain the termination of really ill cases.”

Written in 1933, more true today!

Trickery in selecting Statistics: - Interpretation of figures can be controlled if the compiling of the figures is controlled. The public is exposed to this possibility by allowing an interested profession to prepare its own statistics, interpret them according to its whim or fancy, and secure legislation to enforce its edict on the strength of its favoured position. In short, the members of this profession decide what caused death; they select from total mortality or vital statistics what suits their purpose; they put their own interpretation upon the figures; they request and secure power from the legislature to compel compliance with their programme. There is no check or control at any point. Those who challenge or question are anathematised; they are condemned and vilified as ignorant obstructionists of scientific progress.

Here are some of the serious influences on medical statistics.

The Will-to-Believe in preparing Statistics: - Just as the will-to-believe attitude is evident in much of the statistical data, so it is also present in the mental process of the suffering public. The astute “scientist” prepares patients wholesale to expect a popular disease. “Concern about high blood pressure is one of the chief factors in maintaining it, and this holds good whether the concern be on the patient’s part or upon the part of the doctor.” (Sir Thomas Horder) “Another instance is the propaganda for early diagnosis of cancer”, says the editor of the American Journal of Public Health. This attitude influences the compilation of vital statistics, and since the compilation of vital statistics may be affected by the tactics of the compiler, so the conclusions drawn there from may be highly questionable.

Dr. Logan Clendening, in the The New York Post (October 21st, 1933), writes: “We think we drove smallpox off with vaccination, and the evidence for that belief is very good. But taking a long historical view, we see that it was very prevalent in the eight- and sixteenth centuries. It died down at the end of the nineteenth century. We ascribe this to the introduction of vaccination, but perhaps the cause was that it had come to the end of one of its cycles. Perhaps it is only sleeping again.”

This cyclic phenomenon certainly seems to be the case for many diseases that are enjoying a revival right now, such as tuberculosis, polio, malaria and rabies.

Re-classification of Specific Diseases Statistically Dishonest: - Figures from military campaigns show an almost complete disappearance of numbers of typhoid cases, for which there is a compulsory inoculation. At the same time the numbers diagnosed as paratyphoid and dysentery have risen dramatically. The medical authorities had the audacity and crass unfairness to draw sharp lines of demarcation between certain disease “phases”, as though they were, pathologically, entirely distinct, when no such distinction could by any manner of means be truthfully said to exist.

Statistics Should be Prepared by Disinterested Persons: - The preparation of statistical data together with the development of such conclusions as may be derived there from should be undertaken with the purpose of establishing certain definite facts. That such information may merit the consideration of those to whom it is made available requires, first, that the sources from which the data arte obtained be representative, accurate, and reliable; and, second, that the logic of the derived conclusions be clearly demonstrated. Considerable responsibility is assumed by persons disseminating information of this nature. They may induce, directly or by implication, the public to accept as factual conclusions those that are controversial or even decidedly erroneous.

The use of questionable statistics and debatable conclusions drawn there from for propaganda is a most reprehensible practice. Therefore, statistics must be prepared and presented by disinterested persons and the conclusions drawn must be subjected to the same rigorous and comprehensive examination before acceptance, which is customary in other departments of science. Credit and blame are inseparable, when a profession presumes to take entire charge of a problem, and the claim for credit must be examined very closely.

Damaging Statistics Suppressed: - The citing of 47,369 cases of smallpox in the Philippines with 16,447 fatalities, and 1,326 cases with 869 fatalities in Manila in 1918 after about ten years of the biggest and most vigorous vaccination campaign ever conducted anywhere in the world, reported by the Philippine Health Service for 1918, is generally received with a shrug of the shoulders, as something about which there are two sides, with science in the directing role and the sceptic blocking progress. In fact, there is much evidence to show that this report with its appalling figures on smallpox was suppressed by officials. It is small wonder then that specific figures and their implications are frequently minimized through prejudice.

What about the Milk

                 Let’s not forget the milk!

                Admirers of Pasteur may point in pride to the preservative methods called by his name which immortalises his memory. But even here the praise is so faint as to be damning. If we turn to the Journal of the Royal Society of Arts for September 19th, 1919, we find an article of “Problems of Food and our Economic Policy”, by Professor Henry E. Armstrong, Ph.D., LL.D., D.Sc., F.R.S. Here we are told that “the great reformer of recent times has been the chemist Pasteur – the extent to which he has influenced our doings is astounding.” Professor Armstrong then shows how, owing to him, “wines were sterilised and the Grand Vin, the result of some fortuitous concourse of organisms, became a great rarity; the quality of wines was thereby reduced to a low general average, though of course much was saved from the sewer. Beer suffered a like fate, though on the whole the changes were much to the public advantage. But the real harm was done when milk was tampered with….. Dilution became a general practice; the public suffered less from occasional dishonest tradesmen, but it was deprived of the advantages up till then derived from dealing with the large body who were honest purveyors of the natural article. The blow was made all the heavier by the introduction of clever engineering appliances for the separation of the cream. Then Pasteur’s teaching became operative once more, aided this time by Koch; milk was not only diluted, but also sterilised. Some lives may have been saved, but the step has undoubtedly been productive of untold misery. Not a few of us have long held, on general grounds, that a material produced as milk is, cannot be heated above blood-heat without diminishing its dietetic value. Recent observations show indeed that the anti-scorbutic advitant, which is none too abundant a constituent, is affected, although apparently the fat-soluble anti-rachitic and water-soluble anti-neuritic factors are not destroyed; but difficulties have been encountered in localities where the milk supply has been systematically sterilised, and it may well be that it suffers in quality in ways not yet elucidated. The inquiries thus far held into the effect of sterilising are in no way satisfactory and are open to criticism on account of their incompleteness and unscientific character. The risk from typhoid and other infections are now slight, and the main object of sterilising milk is to secure the destruction of the organism which conditions tubercular disease. But it may well be that in destroying some one or other mysterious constituent of the advitant class, the food value is so lowered that effects are produced which render the system specifically sensitive to tubercular infection; such infection seems always to be with us apart from milk. Moreover, when milk is sterilised the lactic organism is destroyed and it becomes a particularly favourable nidus for the growth of putrefactive organisms: it is therefore a potent cause of infantile diarrhoea.”

                More than eighty years later we are still facing the same problems, only worse. More and more allergies against cow’s milk have become prominent, with more and more childhood disease ranging from chronic respiratory problems, to allergic skin diseases and digestive problems. With more babies not being breastfed and being brought up on an artificial milk formula the problem has grown, not diminished. Not only do we pasteurise all the milk, we now also advocate drinking the artificially produced low-fat milk. The more artificial we become in a vain attempt to lessen the problems we are faced with, the worse the situation becomes. Yet, the industry is not ready to capitulate. Are you?

Four False Dogmas of Pasteur

  1. Pasteur held that germs are found everywhere in the air, and that these atmospheric organisms are the cause of fermentation, putrefaction and many of the diseases of mankind.
  2. Pasteur held that each type of bacterium is a distinct species; that this species and this alone causes a corresponding specific disease; that there is no transmutation of bacteria – cocci cannot possibly become rods.
  3. Pasteur held that a normal healthy animal has bacteriologically sterile tissues; that there are no bacteria normally found within the body proper, and that putrefaction is caused exclusively by contamination, the invasion of external germs.
  4. Since Pasteur believed that animal tissues are aseptic, then any disease must be caused by invasion of external germs through direct or indirect contact with a pre-existing case of the disease. There is to him no such thing as an endogenous disease.

Tissot has presented voluminous material in the nature of indisputable evidence that Pasteur was not only absolutely wrong about these four points, but also vicious in the promotion of these falsehoods exclusively for the benefit of Pasteur, his own fame and fortune.

Contrast the above to the teachings of Béchamp.

Disease is born of us and in us.

The microzymas may undergo bacterial evolution in the body without necessarily becoming diseased.

Diseased microzymas may be found in the air, earth, or waters and in the dejecta or remains of beings in which they were once inherent.

Germs of disease cannot exist primarily in the air we breathe, in the food we eat, in the water we drink, for the diseased micro-organisms, unscientifically described as “germs”, since they are neither spores nor eggs, proceed necessarily from a sick body.

The microorganisms known as “disease-germs” are thus either microzymas or their evolutionary bacterial forms that are in or have proceeded from sick bodies.

Diseased microzymas should be differentiated be the particular group of cells and tissues to which they belong rather than the particular disease-condition with which they are associated.

And Then there is the Small Matter of a Conclusion

The world still flounders in the confusion created by Pasteur, champion go-getter of the nineteenth century. When we shall have finally uprooted the dogmas with which he enchained us, and acquired a broad, well-integrated, philosophic view of the entire matter, then we may look for progress. In the mean time, we draw some simple conclusions from the evidence before us.

Germs are made by your body in an effort to clear up a messy environment. Once this has been achieved they will automatically disappear again. Proven several times in the last 150 years alone, and still not accepted in our world.

Don't be cynical: it has nothing whatsoever to do with vaccines and germ killing substances, and the financial lucrative businesses of making and selling them; not to mention the high regard in which all these cleaver brains are held and the jobs they are holding onto.

Do you feel ill? - Want to know what to do about it? - Answer: clean up!

January 2003


Patrick Quanten has been a general practitioner since 1983. The combination of medical insight and extensive studies of Complementary Therapies have opened new perspectives on health care, all of which came to fruition when it blended with Yogic and Ayurvedic principles. Patrick gave up his medical licence in November 2001.
Patrick also holds qualifications in Ayurvedic Medicine, Homeopathy, Reiki, Ozon Therapy and Thai Massage. He is an expert on Ear Candling and he is also well-read in the field of other hard sciences. His life's work involves finding similarities between the Ancient Knowledge and modern Western science.

Order your copy