The name Pasteur is a household word.
Do you know why? He was born in Dole a little town in eastern France nestling up to the Jura hills close to the Swiss border. He is feted as the father of the “Germ Theory” which has become the mainspring of modern Western Pharmaceutical Medicine. You could argue he is the father of the movement. Why is this?
His early work focused on the fermentation of wine. Dole lies at the eastern edge of the Burgundy region so he would have grown up amongst grapevines and the “vendange” or gathering of the grapes in early autumn. The winegrowers found that their “cru” could often go off and become vinegar-like if exposed to the air. This could easily ruin a crop and result in financial disaster for the grower. Pasteur was able to help the winemakers by heating the “mulch” to between 80 – 100C which killed the ‘germs; that caused the high lactic acid content in the fermenting grapes which made the wine undrinkable. This process took his name and is known even today as “pasteurization”. It was also used in milk products to increase shelf-life. Milk becomes sour very quickly but his heat treatment held that at bay for a little longer. The higher the temperature the longer the milk will remain “fresh”. UHT treated milk will last almost indefinitely.
His radical findings flew in the face of the scientific theory of the time.
This insisted fermentation was the result of decomposition and not alteration. His theories produced so much heated controversy particularly when he showed a sterile grape could not be turned into wine that the French Academy of Sciences offered a 2,500 Francs prize to whoever could prove their theory using a scientific base. Pasteur won, which probably made him even more unpopular.
Another argument that was causing heated debate at the time involved the washing of hands.
Today this seems obvious but then the medical profession found that many mothers were falling prey to “puerperal fever” which often proved fatal. It was not Pasteur but a German doctor of Hungarian descent called Ignaz Semmelweiss who urged the physicians to wash their hands in chlorinated water before delivering babies. He found that the non-hygienic practices of the Doctors led to 3 times more fatalities than that of the midwives who had the good sense to deliver the infants with clean hands! The Medical Profession is historically staunchly conservative and resists change at all costs so they hounded Semmelweiss for his “outrageous” suggestions to such an extent he had a nervous breakdown and was imprisoned for his erratic behavior. The prison guards took an immense dislike to him and beat him up. His wounds turned gangrenous which caused his death shortly afterwards. Twenty years later much to his credit, Pasteur spoke out strongly supporting the clean hands theory and physicians began to pay more regard to personal hygiene which reduced the rate of infection amongst their patients.
Pasteur’s attention then turned to “chicken cholera”.
In the lab, they were able to grow the culture of the disease in a broth that was cultivated in Petri dishes. They found they could infect the chickens with cholera but were stumped on what to do to cure the disease. Like in so many cases serendipity stepped in. Due to some accident in one case, the bacterial soup spoiled but the lab assistants continued to feed the mixture to the chickens. Something remarkable happened, they found the poultry did not contract cholera. Instead, however hard the researchers tried to infect the birds, they failed. They had become immune. Pasteur’s work in this field led to the whole concept of immunization which later gave birth to the growth of vaccines.
Immunization was not new.
Englishman Edward Jenner had found a way to protect the populace from “Cowpox” almost 100 years earlier. Cowpox which literally means smallpox of the cow was halted when Jenner took a mild form of the disease which he then inoculated into the patient’s bloodstream. Pasteur had done much the same thing with his chickens. They found that this procedure stimulated the immune system to send out antibodies that protected the patient from becoming seriously ill. Again this was something Pasteur developed but did not invent.
It’s his work with rabies that gave him most of the publicity which helped him to fame and fortune
Rabies is a virus is transmitted in the saliva of infected animals. It affects the brain leading to paralysis and more often than not death. Domesticated dogs are the most notable carriers as they have close contact with humans, but it can be found in cats and foxes, too. The 1936 Dieterle feature film “ The Story of Louis Pasteur”. Told the story of Pasteur’s brave work in formulating the rabies vaccine.
. In 1885 13-year-old Joseph Meister was bitten by a rabid dog. Pasteur had been working with a rabies vaccine for some time but his result has been variable. In this case, he was able to introduce a milder form of the disease to the boy’s system and he survived. This brought him great publicity and he was hailed as a hero. This insured his work got pushed into the mainstream and the name Pasteur became a household word.
The “germ theory” led to the work of Joseph Lister who developed antiseptics all of which came together in the development of pharmaceutical medicine which was in its nascent form in the last decade of the nineteenth century. The time was ripe for ‘the germ theory”. The last decade of the nineteenth century was a time of magnificent developments in the healing arts. Many treatments came to help people heal. Commercial giants like Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller saw this trend as a great business opportunity. This was to gel into its current form thanks to the Flexner Report of 1910., which came out staunchly in favour of developing the pharmaceutical treatment of symptoms as the accepted and orthodox path that medicine should follow. This was a far cry from Hippocrates’ fervent appeal of 2400 years previous when he exclaimed:
“Leave your drugs in the chemist’s pot if you can cure your patient with food.”
Pasteur’s work might have flown in the face of Hippocrates’ philosophy but he was not the only one.
Many contemporary detractors denounced his work claiming he had plagiarized many of his findings in order to enhance his reputation. To be fair the focus on cleanliness and improved hygiene led to vastly enhanced standards. Sanitation improved, clean running water became available in the industrial cities that had once been the hotbed of disease. The result was a sudden decrease in the acute killers like smallpox, typhus and cholera.
Did Pasteur focus attention on the prevention of these health hazards?
The answer is probably “yes”. But the story goes deeper The main opposing view came from Antoine Beachamp another eminent biologist. Today it is easy to find lots of information on Pasteur but much more difficult to find facts about his critics. Ethel Douglas Hume’s Béchamp or Pasteur: A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology, which was published in the 1920s sheds light on the issue. Bechamp, unlike Pasteur, was a medical Doctor but like Pasteur held the chair of microbiology at the University of Strasbourg for a while in the 1850s. Another critic was Claude Bernard; a true scientist who worked tirelessly in the field of experimental medicine. He set out to disprove that the germ was the prime cause of disease when he drank down a glass of water containing cholera bacteria whilst exclaiming
“The terrain is everything; the germ is nothing.”
Fortunately, he survived to prove his point. But that poses another question. Not everybody falls victims to the sickness when exposed to the germ. That suggests there is another factor that Pasteur’s theory has overlooked. In other words, when exposed to the germ, not everybody gets sick? Why?
Dr. Robert Young in his book Sick and Tired?: Reclaim Your Inner Terrain
quotes Rudolph Virchow (Father of Pathology).
“If I could live my life over again, I would devote it to proving that germs seek their natural habitat—diseased tissue—rather than being the cause of the diseased tissue; e.g., mosquitoes seek the stagnant water, but do not cause the pool to become stagnant.”
This quotation is crucial. It also brings to clear light the difference between modern pharmaceutical medicine and the other side of the coin which is natural medicine. You can call this naturopathy, holistic medicine and it is the basis of functional medicine, too. In order, to.truly understand this statement we turn Pasteur’s “Germ Theory” completely on its head. He is not saying the immune system protects the body. Germs do not cause disease. An unhealthy body allows germs to develop because their function is to clean up the diseased state. Natural medicine pushes the patient/client into taking responsibility for their health. To some, this is inconvenient as they would prefer a pill to magic away the symptoms. But all illness is a wake-up call signifying some sort of change needs to be made.
Yes, there are good germs and bad germs. If we take a quantum leap to the biome theory or what it is that presents a healthy gut. Findings that are almost a century in advance of Pasteur’s thinking. We see that the biome and its bacterial interaction is responsible for 60% of digestion and more than 70% of the immune function Here is the rub, germs cause disease in unhealthy terrains.
This has nothing to do with the immune system, it has everything to do with the inner state of the body
Before we go any further, we need to know this…
Take a piece of fruit, something that is living. One the other side take a piece of food that is not living, like a piece of bread.
Place them on your kitchen counter. Let’s say your fruit is a banana put it on a counter next to a piece of bread. Place a glass over the bread so it doesn’t dry out too quickly. Now watch them both over the next few days. What do you think will happen? The banana starts to turn black and the bread begins to mold. They go bad. They rot.
Next, cut into the bread. On its outer surface, it has gone moldy but inside it’s still fine. Slice open the banana. It’s rotten inside. Smell the banana and you’ll smell a hint of alcohol. It’s fermenting. Back to Pasteur and his work with wine.
Something that perhaps only a few of you already knew is: The bread molds form the outside in, but the banana rots from the inside out.
The banana was alive. The bread was not alive. What can we learn from this simple experiment?
Take a walk in the woods. You will see trees that have fallen to the ground. They are rotting and dying. The wood crumbles between your fingers and fungus is growing between the branches. The trees are dead. They are breaking down and decaying and the rot and fungus are there to recycle the dead wood.
This is the terrain and it’s in decomposition. It’s breaking down so it can be fed back to the earth, nourish the soil and complete a cycle. It is not a healthy terrain. It is not building up a life force. It’s in a state of catabolism
This is a VERY important concept for us to know and remember, always.
This is a state of anabolism. It’s building up The body passes through both states each day. It is. catabolic between midnight and midday. In this state, it sheds its toxins and breaks down poisons. From mid-day to midnight it builds up and is said to be anabolic. If it does not shed the toxins it breaks down and eventually dies.
So what is healthy terrain? Béchamp began to describe it nearly two hundred years ago, but Claude Bernard finally put it this way. It consists of two internal factors:
1. Alkalinity. Contrary to popular belief not much of this comes from food. We become over-acidic when we become over toxic. Once these toxins begin to build up we start on the path to disease. For instance, if we block any of the eliminatory pathways the rest of the poisons in the body and disease begins to take root. This always makes the system more acidic. For instance, the skin is the second largest organ of elimination. Sweat and lymph fluid exit from the armpit area. If you apply an antiperspirant you block the exit of the toxins. A secondary symptom then develops. It might well be acne. Acne is unsightly and various topical medicines are applied and perhaps even antibiotics This leads to the deposition stage when moles and other nevi spring up. The toxins are now being forced deeper into the system and they emerge as impregnation symptoms which might come out as allergies. Again antihistamines are given to counteract the allergies and they symptoms change once again as the degeneration stage is entered. Then we see scleroderma which is a gamut of symptoms that range from skin thickening to cold hands and feet and the build-up of calcium deposits. These symptoms are again deemed bad and suppressed by antihistamines. They go underground, worsen and the appear in the final of differentiation stage as skin cancer or melanoma. I think you get the picture. As things die off they become oxygen-depleted or anaerobic. Oxygen is key in alkalinity. High Oxygen content equals alkalinity but low oxygen creates acidity.
By the way, negative emotions and limiting beliefs affect. It’s no good pushing them under the carpet. They are acidic and contribute to illness.
2. Negative Electrical Charge. Is present in all stages of deterioration
Contributing to a healthy terrain are two factors, according to Bernard:
One must have proper nutrition and be free of toxins to maintain a healthy terrain. We work to make this happen at Health Ambit Consultancy where our Wellness Consultant and Detox expert Alister Bredee coaches you face to face or via internet phone calls, Skype, What’s App or whatever application is most suitable for you to reverse the rot and re-establish true good health but improving the “terrain” which has an incalculable value. If you would like to explore this further drop an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
We can then arrange a cost-free telephone, Skype or What’s App call to determine the best way to work to rescue the “terrain” and return it to a healthy state.
If you have comments or feel you would like to add to the discussion write below. Thanks so much.
PS It is said that Pasteur recanted his “germ theory” on his deathbed but this cannot be proven.