Hello Professor,
?Three hundred years is not a very long time, but it is long
enough for us to try to evaluate the results of the growth of science
and to decide if it has been of service to humanity. Indeed, several
objections have been voiced. For example, both the beginning of the
Industrial Revolution and the discovery of nuclear energy increased
opposition to scientific advancement. The naysayers shouted, ?Enough!
Stop everything! Let us not endanger mankind! Let us return to the
good old days!? Obviously, scientists themselves have a different
perspective. They believe that scientific enterprise has led to
mankind?s greatest achievements. Science, along with the arts, has
truly allowed humanity to pursue its most splendid visions.
But what has been accomplished so far is only a beginning. Although
science had its start 300 years ago, systematic scientific
developments really began only a century ago, and it is just within
the past 50 years that science has hit its stride as a group of
disciplines flourishing throughout the world, without the artificial
borders of geography, nationality or religion.?
http://www.pasteurfoundation.org/perspectives/Perspectives3.pdf
?Before we can discuss what is possibly wrong with the current
theory of biogenesis, we must be sure as to not merely ascribe it to
the controversy over spontaneous generation, or autogenesis. There is
a difference between the spontaneous generation of today and that of
antiquity. The words ?spontaneous generation? immediately invoke
images of worms from waste, maggots in meat, and rodents from refuse.
We then imagine this superstitious nonsense being swept away by the
sanitizing influence of ?real? science.
St. Augustine, Newton, Descartes, and others were believers, until
the likes of Francesco Redi in the seventeenth century and Lazzaro
Spallanzi in the eighteenth century began to undermine the foundations
of the notion that matter, especially putrefying matter, could
instantly induce life. The issue was complicated by the beginnings of
the Scientific Revolution and the invention of the microscope that
revealed swarms of seemingly spontaneous micro organic life. In the
end, Louis Pasteur was the one to land the decisive blow against
spontaneous generation with his swan-neck experiments that proved that
microorganisms came from the air and not from decaying substances. He
predicted that spontaneous generation would never recover now that the
paradigm had shifted to the belief that all life must come from
previous life.?
http://www.stanford.edu/group/STS/techne/Fall2002/srinivasan1.htm
?While many of Pasteur's contemporaries must have known of his
plagiarisms from Bechamp's work, they were probably cowed into
silence, or kept out of the press by Pasteur's bully-ragging tactics,
as well as by his prestige, not only in the public eye and with
royalty, but also with the "academies and public bodies" Dr Lateud
refers to.
Miss Hume goes on to show that his treatment for rabies and his
anthrax serum were the same colossal failure and fraud, as will be
shown in Chapter Eight, and she discusses other plagiarisms on
Pasteur's part, but it hardly seems necessary to go into all of these
matters here. We have seen enough evidence of incompetence and fraud
to forever doubt any further statements that bear his signature, but
there is one more piece of work that is worth looking into.
Some years after the events we have described, Dr M. L. Leverson,
M.D., Ph.D., M.A., an American physician, discovered some of Professor
Bechamp's writings in New York and immediately realized that they
anticipated Pasteur in certain important points. He went to France,
met Professor Bechamp, and heard the story of the plagiarism from him,
since which time he has done a great deal to bring Bechamp's work to
public attention.
He was one of the first in the United States to recognize Bechamp's
priority in regard to most of the discoveries generally credited to
Pasteur, and in a lecture entitled Pasteur, the Plagiarist, delivered
at Claridges Hotel, London, on May 25, 1911, outlined briefly
Bechamp's claim to priority, and added the charge that Pasteur had
deliberately faked an important paper!?
http://www.sumeria.net/dream/6.html
?With these glimpses of the breadth and diversity of the microbial
world, Pasteur was drawn into considering the issue of the origin of
microorganisms. An impassioned and famous debate around 1860 involving
many of the leading intellectuals of the period was finally ended by
Pasteur's demonstration that all the experiments supporting the theory
of spontaneous generation were faulty. This posed in clear terms the
problems of the origin of life and subsequent evolution, which was
discussed at the symposium in Rio de Janeiro, entitled "From
Spontaneous Generation to Molecular Evolution."
http://www.rockefeller.edu/pubinfo/Pasteur/Pasteur_preface.html
?In 1881 Koch was invited to address the Seventh International
Medical Congress in London. With a magic lantern and his photographic
slides he demonstrated his technique for obtaining pure cultures on
solid media. Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister were among the members of
the audience, and the gentle, friendly Lister decided to introduce
Pasteur to Koch.
This was not a simple task. The mutual antagonism between the Germans
and the French was so deep that Lister could not have both to dinner
at his home on the same day. And there was no more rabid anti-German
than Pasteur, who wrote during the Franco-Prussian War, "I want to see
France resisting to the last man and the last defense work. I want to
see the War prolonged into the depths of winter, so that, with the
elements rallying to our side, all those vandals confronting us shall
perish of cold and hunger and disease. All my work, to my dying day,
will bear as an inscription, ?Hatred towards Prussia! Revenge!
Revenge!??
Somehow, Lister managed to get the two scientists together. Pasteur
gritted his teeth, took Koch's hand, and mumbled with suppressed
jealousy, "That's great progress, Monsieur." These were the last civil
words that the Frenchman ever spoke to his German colleague. Pasteur
by this time had repeated and embellished Koch's anthrax work, and in
addition had developed an effective anthrax vaccine. Koch's haughty
response: Pasteur really hadn't accomplished what he claimed and had
added nothing new.
Certainly Koch could have afforded to be more charitable, for he had
long since finished with anthrax. In strictest secrecy, not telling
even some of his closest friends, he had begun work on an even more
formidable disease, tuberculosis. His celebrated studies of this
fierce epidemic illness were to bring him both fame and a certain
measure of disgrace.?
?One man not delighted by this string of sudden triumphs was Louis
Pasteur. He met Koch again at the International Congress of Hygiene in
Geneva in 1882, and the antagonism between the two was intense. After
Koch asserted that Pasteur had contributed nothing new to science,
Pasteur furiously demanded a face-to-face confrontation, a debate.
When Koch refused, Pasteur spent Christmas Day 1882 writing a biting
letter to his German adversary. Thus the two most prominent
bacteriologists had shown themselves to be small, petty, jealous men.?
http://stevenlehrer.com/explorers/chapter_6.htm
?Unfortunately, the "scientific establishment" was not providing
much help to the brewers of wine, beer and vinegar. These
manufacturers were plagued by serious economic problems related to
their fermentations. Yields of alcohol might suddenly fall off; wine
might unexpectedly grow ropy or sour or turn to vinegar; vinegar, when
desired, might not be formed and lactic acid might appear in its
place; the quality and taste of beer might unexpectedly change making
quality control a nightmare! All too often the producers would be
forced to throw out the resultant batches, start anew, and sadly have
no better luck!
Into M. Bigot's factory, microscope in hand, came Pasteur. He quickly
found three clues that allowed him to solve the puzzle of alcoholic
fermentation. First, when alcohol was produced normally, the yeast
cells were plump and budding. But when lactic acid would form instead
of alcohol, small rod like microbes were always mixed with the yeast
cells. Second, analysis of the batches of alcohol showed that amyl
alcohol and other complex organic compounds were being formed during
the fermentation. This could not be explained by the simple catalytic
breakdown of sugar shown by Lavoisier. Some additional processes must
be involved.
Third, and this may have been the critical clue to Pasteur, some of
these compounds rotated light, that is they were asymmetric. As we
said earlier, Pasteur suspected that only living cells produced
asymmetrical compounds. He concluded and was able to prove that living
cells, the yeast, were responsible for forming alcohol from sugar, and
that contaminating microorganisms turned the fermentations sour!?
http://www.labexplorer.com/louis_pasteur.htm
?The tell-tale notebooks reveal the "secret of Pouilly-le-Fort":
namely, that Pasteur used a vaccine prepared not by himself but by his
assistant Chamberland, who had attenuated the anthrax with potassium
bichromate rather than by Pasteur?s method of exposure to oxygen. Of
course Pasteur never actually said he had used an oxygen-attenuated
vaccine. He merely implied it, and he did so in part because his
commitment to a vitalist (anti-heterogenist) philosophy had led him to
question the work of a rival, Jean-Joseph Toussaint, who had attempted
to produce a vaccine by exposing the anthrax bacillus to carbolic
acid. Such a vaccine, containing only the chemical residue of dead
bacilli, would have contradicted Pasteur?s understanding of immunity.
As it turns out, Toussaint?s vaccine didn?t work, Pasteur?s
understanding of immunity was incorrect, he later did produce an
oxygen-attenuated vaccine in any case, and Chamberland?s method of
attenuation borrowed from Toussaint?s approach, albeit with a
different chemical agent and to a different end. Should we be grateful
that we now possess the event in all its richly dispiriting confusion,
or peeved that the stark dramatic contrast between the bleating
survivors and the lifeless animals in the next pen has been spoiled by
so much harsh new light? Historians of science will admire Geison?s
industrious sleuthing, yet the faithful will continue to believe in
Pasteur?s miracle. Though the caravans have long since passed, the
dogs still bark.?
http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Eagoldham/articles/pasteur.htm
?Beginning in the 17th century with William Harvey's frustrating
effort to persuade his colleagues that blood circulates, the narrative
closes in the 1980's, relating the scandalous dispute between Robert
Gallo and Luc Montagnier over who discovered the AIDS virus. Only one
chapter concerns a genuine scientific feud (the lifetime quarrel
between Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin over the superiority of injectable
versus oral polio vaccine); the others recount the noisy contention
that accompanies a controversial new idea. All these ideas eventually
triumphed, but the speed of their victory depended less on evidence
than the personality of the scientist who discovered them. Pugnacious
Louis Pasteur loved a fight and generally won by a knockout.?
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471347574,descCd-reviews.html
?News of these dramatic human and scientific developments was spread
far and wide by a remarkable outpouring of stones, both in the popular
press and in
medical publications. While some of the accounts, both in France and abroad, were
critical of Pasteur and the early inoculation processes, many others
recognized the break- through that Pasteur had achieved. Most
Frenchmen, for their part, still smarting from their crushing military
defeat in the Franco- Prussian War of 1870, welcomed the discovery as
a major boost to their national morale and
prestige.?
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/pdf/newage.pdf
?To do otherwise is to live in the dark. To rely on the past
century's conventional punditry and their understanding of real bills
is akin to relying on the conventional doctors of the 1870s as
possessing a correct theory of health and disease. This we know they
did not possess, of course, because conventional doctors of that era
were operating from a flawed basic premise. They thought disease
originated from "vicious humors" and other fantasies. They subscribed
to putting leeches on the skin to bleed the patient in their treatment
of his ailments. They did not understand the real nature of health and
disease - that there are microbes out there that cause infection. But
all intellects of that day subscribed to conventional medicine's
flawed basic premise and went along with bloodletting as a "credible"
means of treatment. It took Louis Pasteur to come along and challenge
this basic premise as dangerously false before truth could be
perceived.?
http://www.shoemakerconsulting.com/GoldisFreedom/goldcranks.htm
?The parallel of child-bed fever in surgical wards was hospital
gangrene. Erysipelas and pyaemia were other serious problems. The
mortality rate following amputations was about 40 per cent. No wonder
that Sir James Young Simpson of Edinburgh (who introduced chloroform)
said: 'A man laid on the operating table in one of our surgical
hospitals is exposed to more chances of death than was the English
soldier on the field of Waterloo.' Mr Joseph Lister, who held a chair
of surgery in Glasgow, happened to discuss putrefaction with a
colleague in the chemistry department, and was advised to read the
papers of Pasteur.
He quickly realised that suppuration, too, was caused by germs.
Pasteur's heat sterilisation being inapplicable to human tissues, he
decided to use chemicals, and selected carbolic acid which had been
used to treat sewage in Carlisle. The first of a series of successful
cases began treatment of 12 August 1865. Two years later his paper 'On
the Antiseptic Principle in the Practice of Surgery' was published in
the Lancet.
Younger open-minded men accepted his theories and adopted his methods,
but his contemporaries in the United Kingdom were sceptical, losing
sight of the basic principle of antisepsis and quibbling about the
carbolic acid, or frankly opposing the new-fangled 'germ theory'. A
colleague in Glasgow said, 'those who mount a hobby generally allow it
to carry them too far!' Another spoke of 'the carbolic mania'.
The parallel of child-bed fever in surgical wards was hospital
gangrene. Erysipelas and pyaemia were other serious problems. The
mortality rate following amputations was about 40 per cent. No wonder
that Sir James Young Simpson of Edinburgh (who introduced chloroform)
said: 'A man laid on the operating table in one of our surgical
hospitals is exposed to more chances of death than was the English
soldier on the field of Waterloo.' Mr Joseph Lister, who held a chair
of surgery in Glasgow, happened to discuss putrefaction with a
colleague in the chemistry department, and was advised to read the
papers of Pasteur.
He quickly realised that suppuration, too, was caused by germs.
Pasteur's heat sterilisation being inapplicable to human tissues, he
decided to use chemicals, and selected carbolic acid which had been
used to treat sewage in Carlisle. The first of a series of successful
cases began treatment of 12 August 1865. Two years later his paper 'On
the Antiseptic Principle in the Practice of Surgery' was published in
the Lancet.
Younger open-minded men accepted his theories and adopted his methods,
but his contemporaries in the United Kingdom were sceptical, losing
sight of the basic principle of antisepsis and quibbling about the
carbolic acid, or frankly opposing the new-fangled 'germ theory'. A
colleague in Glasgow said, 'those who mount a hobby generally allow it
to carry them too far!' Another spoke of 'the carbolic mania'.
Despite the fact that London remained a bastion of opposition, Lister
took a chair of clinical surgery at King's College in 1877. In due
course, the vindication accorded by time to Pasteur, was to be
Lister's reward, too, in token of which he was the first medical man
raised to the peerage.
http://www.rcsi.ie/library/History_of_Medicine/Infection/index.asp?id=1094&pid=1094&jid=33&jpid=1086
?Back then, there were no committees which said you cannot be a
science teacher or a scientist, because you are not an evolutionist.
We did not then have a tightly controlled scientific community, as we
do today.? ?Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was a research chemist who made
major contributions in chemistry, medicine, and industry. He was also
a creationist. At a time when evolution was gaining control of the
scientific community, Pasteur fought it vigorously, declaring that God
made everything.?
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist02.htm
?In 1854 Pasteur was appointed Dean and professor of chemistry at
the Faculty of Sciences in Lille, France. Lille was an industrial town
with a number of distilleries and factories. The Minister of Public
Instruction was not completely sold on "science for science's sake".
He reminded university faculty that (and here I quote the Minister's
words) "whilst keeping up with scientific theory, you should, in order
to produce useful and far reaching results, appropriate to yourselves
the special applications suitable to the real wants of the surrounding
country."
Pasteur, in contrast to other faculty, needed no prodding. He enjoyed
taking his students on tours of the factories and was quick to advise
the managers that he was available to help solve their problems. In
the summer of 1856, M. Bigot, father of one of his students in
chemistry, called upon Pasteur to help him overcome difficulties he
was having manufacturing alcohol by fermentation of beetroot. Often,
instead of alcohol, Bigot's fermentations yielded lactic acid.?
http://www.louisville.edu/library/ekstrom/special/pasteur/cohn.html
?A classic and often cited example of medicine's reluctance to
change occurred last century when Lord Joseph Lister advised surgeons
to wash their hands before operating (Lister, 1979). Even well after
Louis Pasteur's discovery of bacteria, surgeons were still not willing
to believe and accept the need to be clean into the early part of this
century (Lyons & Petrucelli, 1987). In fact, Pasteur could have been
considered an unconventional practitioner when he insisted surgeons
wash their hands before operating on his daughter. The Johnson
brothers were the real driving force behind the widespread use of
sterilization which resulted from their starting a company to
manufacture antiseptic bandages. It was only after industry took the
initiative that doctors came to accept the reality and consequences of
our microbacterial cohabitants.?
http://users.med.auth.gr/~karanik/english/electro.htm
?I really love chapter four. There are so many examples of new
scientific ideas, rejected by science, but later resurrected and
heralded as some of the best inventions of the century. Just to cite
an example,
"'He ought not to risk his reputation by presenting the learned body
anything which appears so much at variance with established knowledge,
and withal so incredible.' England's Royal Society rejecting Jenner's
smallpox vaccine." Id. at 31.
Those notable names that were initially ridiculed include Louis
Pasteur (microbiology and rabies cure), Joseph Lister (germs cause
sickness), Albert Einstein, Lord Kelvin (X-rays), the Wright Brothers
(flight), Thomas Edison (phonograph and light bulb). Id. 31-33.?
http://www.nderf.org/Best%20Evidence%20book%20review.htm
?In Medical Heroes and Heretics, Wayne Martin further notes that
"in 1673, Anton Van Leeuwenhoek in Holland built one of the first
microscopes and began reporting on living microorganisms which he saw
with it. Over 170 years later, Ignaz Semmelweis ... interested himself
in puerperal infection (childbed fever) which was killing one out of
four mothers in the lying-in hospitals of Vienna .... Semmelweis
organized one ward where all the doctors were required to wash their
hands with soap and water and later, with chlorinated lime, before
they touched a woman in labor. Two things happened. Death from
childbed fever dropped dramatically, and Johann Klein, his superior
... drove Semmelweis from Vienna."
Thirty years later, Louis Pasteur developed a vaccine for anthrax and
claimed that Semmelweis was right. "Microorganisms indeed cause
disease," Pasteur declared, "and now it has been proven." Wayne Martin
recalls: "The anti-infectionist orthodoxy then made itself vulnerable
... it challenged him [Pasteur] to a test before the public's
searching eyes.
Pasteur promptly and utterly devastated the orthodox medical
establishment, and, as a result, we then had the pro-infectionist
orthodoxy."?
http://www.vitaminb17.org/often_ostracized.htm
?The medical establishment's indifference at a time when thousands
were dying of cholera was quite astounding. In spite of his extensive
researches, plus the demands of his medical practice, he was finally
able to publish his correct hypothesis about the alimentary mechanism
of cholera and how the disease was spread, in a medical journal. His
prescience is shown in his recommendation to boil water used for
drinking and culinary purposes long before Pasteur was to become a
household word.
While Dr. Snow met with rebuffs and indifference, more than two
decades later, Louis Pasteur was holding Paris audiences spellbound
with his discoveries and demonstrations. He showed that putrefaction
occurred only in material which is exposed to air in which millions of
germs of many species are present. His first researches were with
wine, beer, then silkworms and he was also the first to vaccinate
sheep against anthrax. Only around 1876 did Pasteur turn to the
infection of humans. Today, pasteurization is a synonym for health
around the world in many languages, a memorial any scientist would
envy. Louis Pasteur received many honours, including professorial
appointments, induction into the French Academy of Medicine and a life
pension from the French National Assembly.
Though Dr. Snow's work on germ theory was published in 1855, it was
not until the 1870s that Robert Koch published his findings after
visiting Calcutta and Alexandria. He recovered the comma-shaped
bacteria of vibrio cholerae from the intestines of people who had died
of cholera, then learned how to cultivate them outside the body on
beef-broth jelly. In 1884 he received a hero's welcome in Berlin, a
medal and 100,000 marks from the Reichstag.
http://www.esemag.com/0100/editorial.html
Additional Information:
=======================
This book discusses Pasteur?s detractors, but I?d read the rest of
this book with a grain of salt: ?The history of allopathic medicine
began with Louis Pasteur's "germ theory," the idea that organisms
which cause illness enter the body from the outside environment,
therefore killing off the germ invaders with a "silver bullet" (drug)
became the medical paradigm of the 20th century. Pasteur's mechanistic
idea of disease - finding the right cure (drug) for each germ,
engendered the growth of the pharmaceutical empire and its dominance
over medicine today.
About the same time, in the second half of the 19th century, two other
men were investigating the causes of illness and coming to different
conclusions. They were Claude Bernard and Antoine Bechamp, who
believed that organisms already in the body caused illness only when
the body became unbalanced and unable to maintain homeostasis, and
they became toxic. The microscopy and laboratory science of the 1800's
was inadequate to establish their claim, and the flam boyant Pasteur,
with (since disclosed) fraudulent science and viewed the reigning
medical authorities that his simple paradigm was a solution to the
ills of man.?
http://www.lightparty.com/Health/ScienceGoneWRong.html
?Throughout the history of science, there have been many claims that
scientists have fudged data, which today might be deemed misconduct.
Michael Kalichman, of the University of California, San Diego, points
to a few examples: Isaac Newton may have adjusted calculations to fit
observations; Gregor Mendel's results with pea plants were cleaner
than what is observed experimentally, indicating that he might have
changed the data; and Robert Millikan, in a research paper describing
the charge of an electron, failed to mention that he eliminated some
data points although he probably should have reported why he removed
some data in the publication. Others have noted that Louis Pasteur
failed, in his studies, to cite that he used the vaccine against
anthrax made by a competitor, saying instead that he used his own
vaccine to inactivate the bacilli by oxygen.?
http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/rcr_misconduct/foundation/
?In 19th century France, two giants of science collided. One of them
is now world-renowned - Louis Pasteur. The other, from whom Pasteur
stole many of his best ideas, is now essentially forgotten - Pierre
Bechamp.
One of the many areas in which Pasteur and Bechamp argued concerned
what is today known as pleomorphism - the occurrence of more than one
distinct form of an organism in a single life cycle. Bechamp contended
that bacteria could change forms. A rod-shaped bacterium could become
a spheroid, etc. Pasteur disagreed. In 1914, Madame Victor Henri of
the Pasteur Institute confirmed that Bechamp was correct and Pasteur
wrong.?
http://www.trunkerton.fsnet.co.uk/royal_raymond_rife.htm
?It's the day Louis Pasteur gave the first inoculation against rabies,
in 1885. On July third, a rabid dog bit a nine-year-old named Joseph
Meister. Pasteur and his associates injected the boy thirteen times in
ten days with stronger and stronger suspensions of dried virus, and he
never developed symptoms. Neither did a fifteen-year-old shepherd who
Pasteur inoculated the same way a couple of months later. The idea
that rabies could be treated was a tremendous relief, particularly to
the researchers in Pasteur's laboratory. They had been forced to keep
a loaded revolver in the laboratory at all times in case one of the
dogs they were trying to treat turned on them. Joseph Meister, the boy
whose life Pasteur saved, returned to the Pasteur Institute as an
adult, and became the Gatekeeper there. In 1940 the Nazis ordered him
to open Pasteur's crypt. Rather than comply, Meister committed
suicide.?
http://writersalmanac.publicradio.org/programs/2002/07/01/
?In 1926, Dr W.R.Hadwen wrote: ?Ever since the BBC has been controlled
by government authorities, all questions approaching a medical nature
have been submitted to the Ministry of Health and anything which runs
counter to the prevailing fashion...has been promptly rejected...Upon
the other hand, the Ministry of Health has permitted...medical matters
to be broadcast...We have had Pasteur and Pasteurism extolled,
vaccination vindicated, the filthy useless and dangerous vaccines and
serums...crudely advertised. These things have been worked into
lectures in the most subtle way. We have complained again and again,
the BBC officials have always been ready with an excuse...It is a
burning scandal...? ?The old fraud, Louis Pasteur?s death-bed
recantation: ? The germ is nothing: the soil is everything? came too
late. The Germ Theory was born ? the bug hunters were up and running
towards a multi-trillion dollar empire of vaccines, antibiotics,
antiseptics, and disinfectants: all built on the ?germs cause disease?
hoax.
??if the germ theory were founded on facts there would be no living
being to read what's written.? Dr George White?
http://www.truthcampaign.ukf.net/articles/health/vaccination.html
?Bechamp was one of France's most prominent and active researchers and
biologists. He taught in universities and medical schools, and
published widely on cell biology, disease, botany and related
subjects. His would probably be a household name today if it wasn't
for the activities of one Louis Pasteur, who history has treated very
kindly indeed, considering his fake science, his tendency to steal
ideas (mainly from Bechamp), falsify experimental data, and in general
make claims which had no basis in fact.
I'm not running off at the mouth by saying the above. It's all quite
well documented - Bechamp and Pasteur were both members of the French
Academy of Sciences, and the papers they submitted, and their
correspondance, both to each other and to other people, were all
recorded. Even their verbal exchanges survive in the minutes of the
meetings.
To cut a long story short, and it is a long story, Pasteur basically
dug up the germ theory of disease and put his name on it. It wasn't a
new idea, although he claimed to have "discovered" germs all the same.
The concept had actually been outlined by other people many years
before, but of course, the whole idea is wrong anyway, so it hardly
matters who thought of it first. In a few years, the germ theory of
disease will out there with the flat earth theory where it belongs.
Bechamp wrote several books. The last of these was The Third Element
of the Blood, which outlines his hassles with Pasteur, and also the
details of his own theories.
Another good book is Pasteur Exposed, written by Ethel Hume and first
published in 1923, which goes into all the details of exactly how
Bechamp's ideas were twisted beyond recognition by Pasteur. None of
this would matter a toss, of course, except for the minor point that
western chenistry-based medicine is built on a foundation of
unquestioning "Pasteurism".?
http://www.sumeria.net/bechamp/bechamp.html
?The great French chemist, Louis Pasteur, with his wife and daughter,
had to hide out in one of the isolated provinces of France to avoid
imprisonment on account of his theories, but today, much of modern
medicine is founded upon his theories and he gave to the world a cure
for hydrophobia infection and other diseases and invented the method
of pasteurization which renders bacteria sterile by long exposure to
heat and oxygen?
http://www.libraries.psu.edu/do/digitalbookshelf/30630209/30630209.part_039.pdf
?Once upon a time there was a disagreement between two biologists,
and the outcome changed the perspective of medicine for ever after . .
. or has it? It happened in the 19th century; the biologists were
Antoine Bechamp and Louis Pasteur, and the controversy was about the
cause of disease. Bechamp held that the cause of disease lay within
the body, while Pasteur was convinced that it had an external cause as
presented in his germ theory. According to Pasteur, disease comes
about when bacteria, viruses, or other microorganisms foreign to the
body invade and attack it. His view has dominated medical science and
its philosophy ever since.
Yet there was always something in the blood that eluded definition. As
they had no means to examine it more closely and no explanation for
it, researchers called it "dross" in the blood and it was generally
ignored. This was still the case even when instruments were
constructed that allowed a much closer examination, such as the
microscope invented in the 1920s by Royal Raymond Rife, which could
magnify 30,000 times and could detect microorganisms in living blood
that no one had seen before.?
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/death/he-ibel.htm
?The Pasteur Institute was opened in 1888. During Louis Pasteur's
lifetime it was not easy for him to convince others of his ideas,
controversial in their time but considered absolutely correct today.
Pasteur fought to convince surgeons that germs existed and carried
diseases, and dirty instruments and hands spread germs and therefore
disease. Pasteur's pasteurization process, kills germs and prevents
the spread of disease.?
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blpasteur.htm
?The medical field has not always welcomed new ideas. Pierre Pachet, Professor
of Physiology at Toulouse, in 1872 dismissed Louis Pasteur?s theory of germs as
absurd fiction. Queen Victoria?s Surgeon-Extraordinary, Sir John Eric Eriksen,
pronounced that, ?The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut
from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon.?
http://www.asis.org/Conferences/Summit2000/horton/Horton.pdf
?Spontaneous generation was rather conclusively disproved by
Pasteur (et al; it just was not accepted as settled until his
experiments). This does not mean that life has no origin ? barring the
concept of an infinitely cyclical repition of time, life had to start
somewhere.?
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/08/29/ucsuit
?Summary: One of the dark secrets of modern medicine is that we
still do not know what makes the smallpox vaccine (discovered 200
years ago) to function as a vaccine. It's an ancient tabooed theme:
the fact is that none other than Louis Pasteur was ostracized and even
challenged to a duel after he attempted to debate EXACTLY this same
problem back in 1880 in French Academy.
It is also still not known what makes any other live "attenuated"
vaccine to work. This gap in our knowledge seems to be the most
obvious cause of the failure to find an AIDS vaccine and, more
generally, for failure of the whole 'new generation' of high-tech
vaccines. So to say, new vaccines do not work because it is not known
why old ones work.
This speculative paper shortly reviews the entangled political and
historical background of this problem and presents a hypothetical
solution involving a simple explanation of the transmutation of
virulent viruses into vaccines (called 'attenuation' by L.Pasteur).?
http://www.orc.ru/~yur77/toward.htm
?'In spite of occasional dietary victories...nineteenth-century
biologists refused to believe that a disease could be cured by diet,
particularly after Pasteur's germ theory of disease came into its own.
In 1896, however...Christiaan Eijkman convinced them almost against
his own will.?
http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/history1.htm
Pasteur?s speech, 1878
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1878pasteur-germ.html
?Pasteur, a French chemist in the 1860's is ridiclued and scorned by
the French Academy of Medicine for his theories postulating the
microbial origins of infectious disease. With the rates of death
during chilbirth soaring, Pasteur feels compelled to determine why.
Although presenting convincing evidence that lack of sterilization is
to blame, he is cast out from Paris at the insistence of Emperor Louis
Napolean.
Pasteur settles in Abois where he perfects a vaccine for the
prevention of an anthrax epidemic that is decimating the cattle and
sheep population of the country. His discovery is hailed by the
scientific community but there are still doubters.
His fiercest critic Dr. Charbonnet played superbly by veteran actor
Fritz Lieber mocks him when he encounters difficulty formulating a
vaccine for rabies. Muni finally successfully discovers a treatment
for the dreaded disease. He uses his newly developed vaccine on an
unfortunate lad played by Little Rascals regular Dickie Moore, in it's
first human trial. The boy's recovery and use of the vaccine on a
group of Russian peasants infected by rabid wolves wins Pasteur
worldwide acclaim.
He is heralded by the French Academy lead by Dr. Charbonnet and noted
epidemiologist Dr. Joseph Lister, as a monumental credit to humanity.?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/6301976274/104-7472269-1049517?%5Fencoding=UTF8
"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction"
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/pierre_pachet/
http://www.bact.wisc.edu/Microtextbook/index.php?module=Book&func=displayarticle&art_id=27
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/creationist.html
http://www.godswatcher.com/pasteur.htm
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Philosophy/PSCF6-99Touyran.html
There you go Professor! If any part of my answer is unclear, please
request an Answer Clarification, before rating, and I will be happy to
respond.
Regards, Crabcakes
Search Terms
==============
Louis Pasteur + ostracize
Louis Pasteur + ridicule
Louis Pasteur + setbacks
Louis Pasteur + naysayers
Louis Pasteur + detractors |
,
0 Comments
)