Health is not a state of war

 

Woodstock, 1969

 

Jesús García Blanca

23/02/2022 

The medical model that currently dominates the vast majority of the world's health systems is totally subject to a concept of disease devised more than a century ago and which, despite its false nature, was successfuly imposed by vested interests. This is a warmongering health model that sees disease as a fight between armies of invading pathogenic microbes and a defensive army that fights them.

For thirty years I have been critically analysing the problems of health and ecology —which means ultimately the health of the planet— focusing on the instruments of power at work in these fields. At present these instruments have reached an absolute crescendo, and are sustaining an authentic global health dictatorship. But already in those earlier years, whilst I was learning about Natural Hygiene from Dr. Enero Landaburu and the last survivors of traditional medicine (among whom Dr. Enric Costa stands out) it seemed clear to me that one of the pillars of modern medicine was the so-called Microbial Theory, a false theory proposed by Louis Pasteur that had turned medicine around some 180 degrees and which had been imposed in the interest of power.

Since then, I have held innumerable debates on the subject which all follow the same invariable process: my interlocutors always begin horrified that someone could question something so "obvious" and so absolutely "proven", even disqualifying those who dare to raise this question. And then finally, they end up acknowledging that they do not have evidence or simply withdrawing when they realise that this supposed "overwhelming evidence" does not appear anywhere.

I am going to pose a radical critique of this visibly paranoid conception of illness, and by extension, of health, from three different angles. I aim to provoke readers to doubt, to ask questions, to look for other approaches and to form their own opinions on this pseudoscientific dogma that prevents biology and medicine from progressing towards new paradigms. First, I will show how the theory, based on plagiarism, manipulation and scientific fraud, was already refuted in its time, paradoxically by one of its principle defenders, the celebrated Robert Koch. Secondly, I will briefly explain how the opposite theory —Pleomorphism— has indeed been empirically and rigorously demonstrated; and lastly, we will see how biological research over the last fifty years is incontrovertibly showing that the Microbial Theory does not reflect the reality of how life functions.

ROBERT KOCH PROVED THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT HE INTENDED

Koch's Postulates were developed by the German doctor as a method or protocol to verify or demonstrate that a particular microbe was the cause of a given disease. Essentially these postulates state the following: 

1. The causative organism must be found in sick people and not in healthy people.

2. The pathogen must be grown in an axenic (pure) culture outside of the infected animal.

3. If we inoculate that pure culture into a healthy animal, we should be able to reproduce the same disease.

4. The pathogen must be isolated from the inoculated and diseased animal
and found to be identical to the original microorganism.

When Koch began to apply these protocols, he realised that the second part of the first postulate was not fulfilled, as he found the microorganisms in both sick and healthy individuals. Later, in an international congress held in 1880, he said that it was not necessary for the third and fourth postulates to be fulfilled, and that with the first two —in fact with one and a half— the supposed causal relationship was fully proven [1]. Later, the epidemiologist Alfred Evans recognised that the postulates did not hold for numerous particles, but that Koch "felt that they were strongly implicated in the cause of the disease" [2].

For its part, the then-prestigious Lancet magazine dedicated an article [3] to the postulates in 1909 in which, among other things, it was claimed that the postulates "are rarely, if ever, met", that microbes "are found in healthy people” and that when inoculated “they cause a disease that bears no resemblance to the original”. In other words: the theory was refuted. The rigorous postulates showed that the germ theory was false. What did Koch, Pasteur and the rest do? Would they perhaps abandon them and find another explanation? No. Since the postulates were not met, they changed them to make them fit and went ahead with the theory regardless...

If this sounds like a mockery of the scientific method, wait untill you see Pasteur. There are three rigorous and devastating analyses, carried out in 1923, 1940 and 1995, that reveal the man behind the myth of Louis Pasteur [4]. ​​These documents show how Pasteur plagiarised his predecessor, the biologist and professor of pharmacy Pierre Jacques Antoine Béchamp and other scientists and appropriated the work of his collaborators by personally taking full credit for their discoveries. Of course, he misrepresented and distorted their findings so that Béchamp's idea about the role of microbes in diseases and their changes in form and function went from being a consequence to being a cause. But even this idea was not Pasteur's, since a hundred years earlier, in 1762, Dr. M. A. Plenciz had already published a book entitled Germ Theory of Infectious Disease.

Furthermore, Pasteur "fixed" the results of his experiments to fit the mental jumble resulting from his borrowed ideas. All very scientific, as you can see. That would perhaps explain why, when he was 55 years old, he asked his family never to make his laboratory workbooks public. Why would someone who spent years feeding his own legend, who introduced all his works by quoting himself, who denied his collaborators all credit, who was considered a national hero to whom the French state stipulated a pension of 25,000 francs left to his offspring (paying for a research center that is still considered one of the finest in the world and even a luxury burial following the man's death) not want to show the most genuine testimony of his genius, the testimony of his legendary daily work for over forty years?

The work notes of other scientists, such as Michael Faraday or Claude Bernard, have served to admire and learn about his work in depth or to observe weaknesses that have inspired new research. However, we did not have the 102 notebooks with the notes that Pasteur kept for forty years until the death of his grandson in 1971. Four years later, a Princeton historian, Professor Gerald Geison, carried out an exhaustive study of the ten a thousand hidden pages for eight decades. In 1993, Geison submitted a report to the American Association for the Advancement of Science revealing that Pasteur published fraudulent information and was guilty of scientific misconduct by violating the rules of medicine, science, and ethics.

Perhaps for this reason, Dr. M. L. Leverson, during a conference in London on May 25, 1911, said the following words: «The entire fabric of the germ theory of disease rests upon assumptions which not only have not been proved, but which are incapable of proof, and many of them can be proved to be the reverse of truth.» [5].

PLEOMORPHISM HAS BEEN AMPLY DEMONSTRATED

Contrary to what occurred with pasteurised Microbial Theory, the few scientists who continued the research on Pleomorphism – beginning around 1980 and followed by Bechamp – have not been placed on pedestals and can barely be found in the annals of science and medicine.

In the 1920s, Royal Raymond Rife designed and built a microscope capable of reaching sixty thousand magnifications while keeping cultures alive. Unlike the electron microscope that reaches half a million but kills with its radiation anything that comes under its lens, Rife's microscope could observe vital processes in vivo and this allowed Rife to observe microscopic elements in fungi and yeasts that could be the "microzymes" that eighty years earlier Bechamp had proposed as the smallest units of life. Gunter Enderlein described the same thing in his 1925 book The Life Cycle of Bacteria, calling them "protids," which were the "bions" discovered  by Wilhelm Reich in the 1930s, and the "somatids" seen by Gaston Naessens in the 1960s [6].

The point is that the phenomenon that all these researchers theorised under different names and from different perspectives has been rigorously experimentally tested. None of these perspectives consider microbes to be the cause of diseases but rather as biological elements that function when disease occurs. And these ideas include the ability of bacteria to change their form according to the conditions in which they are found and the functions they must perform.

In 1914, Dr. Edward C. Rosenow conducted a controlled experiment at the Mayo Biological Laboratory, Rochester, Minnesota, during which he observed streptococci transform into pneumococci by altering the medium with the introduction of dead organic matter. When this change was reversed, the bacteria returned to their original form. This experiment has been repeated on other occasions, confirming the transformation of cocci into bacilli or of coccus from pneumonia into typhus bacillus [7].

RESEARCH IN BIOLOGY EXPOSES THE FALSEHOODS

The biology that is studied in institutes and universities was conceived almost two centuries ago based on the ideas of the economist Thomas Malthus and the naturalist Herbert Spencer, two pillars of inequality, racism and the survival of the fittest, as well as the application of these ideas to all species by Charles Darwin who sought to explain evolution as a constant struggle in which the strongest survive.

These retrograde ideas were combined with a mechanistic view of nature that has nothing to do with the marvelous complexity of life that other researchers were revealing, and the ultimate meaning of the data and observations that the new biology has been accumulating For decades, it has been confirming that the origin of life, its evolution and the secret of its permanence lie in symbiosis, that is, in cooperation.

In fact, one of the key discoveries occurred in the middle of the 20th century [8] and little by little, it is gaining the respect of ever more professionals and academics. The biologist Lynn Margulis provided evidence that our cells are the result of a fusion of different microorganisms that continue to live in symbiosis, so that our DNA incooporates the genetic information of bacteria and viruses, and ancient bacteria continue to live in our cells, making it possible to obtain energy from oxygen. This is the function of the cellular mitochondria, which have their own DNA and are just as sensitive to antibiotics as any other bacteria in our microbiome.

The first description of the microbiome—which includes bacteria, archaea, yeasts, unicellular eukaryotes, helminths, fungi, and viruses—had earned microbiologist Joshua Lederberg a Nobel Prize, although the specific term was proposed in 2001 [9]. Now, many years later, we know that populations of microbes are transmitted from the mother to the fetus during its stay in the womb—bacteria have been found in the placenta, umbilical cord, amniotic fluid, fetal membranes, and meconium. Others come later during vaginal delivery and after the baby is born, through skin-to-skin contact and through the colostrum and breast milk containing 700 bacterial species, whose function is still unknown but which are most likely related to the coexistence and balancing mechanisms that are characteristic of symbiosis [10].

Moreover, the entire deterministic conception of genetics has been shattered by new discoveries and in particular by the so-called ENCODE Project [11] which has shown that what was called a «gene» has been conceptually hollowed out, as genetic information it is the result of the coordinated work of a multitude of elements scattered throughout the genome. Genes are subject to changes from different ecosystems, from the internal environment to the planetary ecosystem, and microbes play a key role, both current microbes and those that have evolved for billions of years, even integrated as parts of our cells, each of them with key regulatory functions for organic life and its development [12]. It is a vision that does not fit at all with the supposed pathogenic invaders and it forces us to question the meaning of so-called "immunity". I will answer this one in a future article.

I will end with a lesson learned in 27 years of research on power relations: the more "obvious" a claim seems, the less it seems to need any proof or data and evidence to support it because it seems so common sense that the mere fact of questioning it is presented as madness or even worse as irresponsibility. Thus, the more people defend a claim whilst barely understanding it, the more aggressively they react against those who question it and the more likely it is that it has little to do with the truth and a whole lot to do with the interests of power.

 

REFERENCES:

[1] Koch, R. “Acerca de la investigación bacteriológica”. En: Negociaciones del X Congreso Médico Internacional, Berlín 1890. Volumen I. Verlag August Hirschwald, Berlín 1891, p. 655. https://edoc.rki.de/bitstream/handle/176904/5173/650-660.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

[2] Evans, A. “The Henle-Koch Postulares Revisited”. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 49(2): 175-195, may 1976. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2595276/.

[3] “Bacteriology tested by Epidemiology”. Lancet, 173, 4464, 20 march 1909.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140673600668538.

[4] Hume, Ethel Douglas. Béchamp or Pasteur? A lost chapter in the History of Biology, 1923; Pearson, R.B. Pasteur: Plagiarist, Impostor. The Germ Theory Exploded, 1942. Reeditados por Bechamp.org en 2006: http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/history/biographies/Bechamp-or-Pasteur.pdf. Geison, Gerald L. The private science of Louis Pasteur. Princeton University Press, 1995. Dos capítulos claves disponibles en la red: http://www.mini4stroke.tweakdsl.nl/Histmedsc/Geison.pdf

[5] Pearson, R.B. Pasteur: Plagiarist, Impostor. The Germ Theory Exploded, 1942.

[6] Blog La Ciencia Perdida, de Artur Sala: https://artursala.wordpress.com/

[7] Rosenow, E. “Transmutations within the streptococcus Pneumococcus group”.1914 J. Infect. Dis., 14,1.

https://academic.oup.com/jid/article-abstract/14/1/1/882100?redirectedFrom=fulltext

[8] Margulis, L. “Origin of Eukaryotic Cells”. Yale University Press, 1970.

[9] Ledenberg, J. Y McCray, AT. “Ome Sweet Omics. A Genealogical Treasury of Words”.

Scientist. 2001;15(7):8. https://lhncbc.nlm.nih.gov/LHC-publications/pubs/OmeSweetOmicsAGenealogicalTreasuryofWords.html

[10] Aagaard, K et al. “The placenta habors a unique microbiome”. Science Translational

Medicine, 21 May 2014: Vol. 6, Issue 237, pp. 237ra65.

Funkhouser, LJ. y Bordenstein, SR. “Mom Knows Best: The Universality of Maternal Microbial Transmisión”. PLoS Biol 11(8): e1001631: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001631.

Cabrera-Rubio, R. Et al. “The human milk microbiome changes over lactation and is shaped by maternal weight and mode of delivery”. Am J Clin Nutr September 2012 vol. 96 no. 3 544-551: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/3/544.full.

[11] Sandin, M. “Qué son los genes?”. http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/quesonlosgenes.pdf

[12] Sandín, M. “Una nueva biología para una nueva sociedad”. Política y Sociedad, vol. 39, nº 3, 2002.http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/nuevasociedad.pdf.

 

Source (en castellano): https://diario16.com/la-salud-no-es-una-guerra/

Translation: David Montoute