Re: germ vs. immunity theory

[Guest guest]

Pretty dangerous philosophies. It goes hand in hand - period.

We have bacteria we carry with us constantly and our immune system can fight it

unless otherwise compromised or has built no resistance for.

However, there is many bacteria and yeast that does over - run our bodies when

we can't fight it no longer AND OR we come

across bacteria / viruses / yeast for which we have not built immunity for or

over ran our bodies.

Germs can be introduced into our bodies through poor hygiene - and not washing

hands.

Handling bad meat etc - spiders, insects can all inject things foreign.

They both go hand in hand - hands down.

I have worked with major illnesses and surgeries for over 24 years and

involved in Research studies after studies.

Herbs and nutrition is a way to support our immune system through

infections.

It is black and white - no gray in this matter.

Chris

From: greatyoga

Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010

I got a link and I believe it was from this group. It looked interesting and I

clicked it and it took me to another candida group that has over 7000 members. I

asked a question about herbs and candida. The group owner asked why I asked

about herbs as they do not kill candida and she went on about the immunity

theory ( as advocated by Bechamp)being the only theory. I countered and posted

that the immunity theory of disease was the most important of the two theories

but both were valid and they went hand in hand. She called Pasteur and others

" frauds " and " impostors " . Maybe they were not 100% legit but those are strong

words. I asked her if she believed in washing hands, disinfecting before

surgery, " bugs " had nothing to do with

flu, etc. She just restated her immunity theory. I said that one does not need

to think in terms of black or white but shades of gray. After that I was banned

from posting again. Has anyone else run into this kind of thinking?

Happy New Year,

GB

[Guest guest]

Dear GB,

Take heart, you are not alone! Although, the 2 1/2 years I've been in this group

I have never heard it called a candida group. I stay with this group because

there is a freedom to discuss anything regarding cancer, along as it is done

with respect. I'm not sure where you got that link and I'm sorry they were so

tenacious about their " short-sightedness. " I run into " short-sighted " thinking

in too many places, especially when it comes to health discussions.  That is

proof, I think, that we are all different and that what works for one doesn't

work for all. It's very sad, I think, that some people consider that their way

is the only way.  I used a great many alternative methods to cure my stage IV

cancer and have lived past my doctors 6-12 month death sentence. However, there

is no part of me that would ever concede that what I did would work for

everyone. Besides the respectful atmosphere, which sometimes gets lively, what I

appreciate most from this group is their willingness to share what worked. I'm

going to spend my New Year in complete gratitude that I'm still here to continue

doing research. Happy New Year to you, too, GB!

 

I got a link and I believe it was from this group. It looked interesting and I

clicked it and it took me to another candida group that has over 7000 members. I

asked a question about herbs and candida. The group owner asked why I asked

about herbs as they do not kill candida and she went on about the immunity

theory ( as advocated by Bechamp)being the only theory. I countered and posted

that the immunity theory of disease was the most important of the two theories

but both were valid and they went hand in hand. She called Pasteur and others

" frauds " and " impostors " . Maybe they were not 100% legit but those are strong

words. I asked her if she believed in washing hands, disinfecting before

surgery, " bugs " had nothing to do with flu, etc. She just restated her immunity

theory. I said that one does not need to think in terms of black or white but

shades of gray. After that I was banned from posting again. Has anyone else run

into this kind of thinking?

Happy New Year,

GB

[Guest guest]

I don't believe that germs " cause " disease; however, I do believe that

when/if viruses, bacteria, parasites are in a body that is fertile for

replication (because the immune system is not healthy) then disease can

develop.

An accurate comparison of the Germ Theory and Cellular Theory is below. I

believe the Cellular Theory is the most correct. I do believe that

bacteria, germs, parasites live outside the body and can invade the body

(usually through the intestinal tract where at least 75% of the immune

system is located) but I don't believe they actually " cause " disease. It is

" proven " that hand-washing (basic hygiene) and staying away from sick people

is beneficial for most people. Why? Because bacteria and viruses tend to be

" environment-specific " (thus why some get sick when around sick people and

some don't) and unless we are absolutely sure that our immune system is

working at peak performance then our body terrain may indeed be " fertile "

for disease. I suggest hand-washing BECAUSE most people have depressed

immune systems; the same goes for avoiding sick people. It is ALL about the

health of one's body - the terrain - the inside. There is a huge list of

conditions that mean the immune system is compromised. One of the biggest

is yeast over-growth and many have no idea that this compromises the immune

system big-time.

A good explanation - The Post-Antibiotic Age: Germ Theory by Tim O'Shea

http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/post-antibiotic-age-germ-theor

y.html

Below are some quotes from the above article:

What exactly was this Germ Theory? Very simply, the Germ Theory stated that

there were separate diseases and that each disease was caused by a

particular micro-organism. It was the job of science, then, to find the

right drug or vaccine that would selectively kill off the offending bug

without killing the patient.

Bacteria and viruses tend to be " environment-specific. " (terrain) That's why

some people get colds and others don't. That's why some survived the Bubonic

Plague. That's also why some doctors and nurses seem to be immune to disease

even though they're surrounded by it every day. However, it depends on

one's immune system and how healthy it is. So prudent hand-washing and

keeping a distance from sick people is wise for most people because most

people have compromised immune systems.

It was Bechamp's view that it was not the bug that caused disease, but

rather the condition (terrain) in which bugs lived. Disease happens when an

imbalance causes some of the more pathological that is, bad, bacteria to

take over. What causes that? Low resistance, weak immune system. Seems like

such a simple idea, but that is really the foundation of the whole

controversy all along. In the end, everyone, even Pasteur, agreed that bugs

- bacteria and viruses - do not alone cause disease.

Conventional medicine puts no credence on how healthy one's terrain is or is

not. This is why they recommend vaccines be given even to those with

compromised immune systems or babies whose immune system has not fully

developed.

So are germs the cause of disease or aren't they? Bechamp said that there

was enough truth in that notion to make it seem reasonable at first glance.

Sure we can sometimes identify certain types of bacteria in certain disease

conditions. And it's undeniable that organisms can be found rampant within

populations suffering from epidemics and outbreaks, as Laurie Garrett

describes in The Coming Plague. But consider this: what if many more people

than those who actually get a disease have the " bug " ? Usually the only

people we test are the ones who get sick. So it looks like they're the only

ones who have the 'causative' organism in measurable amounts. From Pasteur

to the present, there is an entire other point of view that has been

supported: maybe the bad bugs are commonly present in many normal people,

but only multiply out of control when allowed to because of a weak immune

system. They're harmless until they proliferate. This is a fundamental

notion.

" Bacteria and parasites cannot cause disease processes unless they find

their own peculiar morbid soil in which to grow and multiply. "

-Henry Lindlahr, MD - Founder of Lindlahr Sanitarium

What is always present in diseases? Answer: depressed immune system. We

live in a time where a HUGE percentage of the population have a depressed

immune system.

So putting these ideas together, a notion comes into focus so clear that

even a lawyer could see it: soon we will be living in the Post-Antibiotic

Era (we are getting there fast as so many of the newer antibiotics are

proving inefficient). The paramount issue in health and survival will then

be the immune system. Drugs, alcohol, smoking, air pollution, processed

food, white sugar, white flour, radiation, stress, and bad living will still

be doing their number on that immune system. But it will be performing

without a net, this time. On its own. What will people turn to in order to

strengthen their immune system? Answer: Alternative Medicine, just like

before all of this went down. Actually, it's already started.

Alternative medicine's purpose is to use natural means to strengthen the

immune system. Whole food enzymes, antioxidants, natural herbs, aloe,

probiotics, pure water, clean diet, spinal adjustment, massage, martial

arts, and exercise have all been proven to be helpful. One reason things

won't be completely the same as they were in the pre-antibiotic age is that

our knowledge of holistic therapeutics has deepened exponentially, sort of

as a by-product of the advances in biomedical technology in the past 50

years. An increasing number of people are learning what it feels like to

build up their immune system, their resistance to illness. Once you've done

that, even one time, you know you can overcome practically any health

challenge out there by cleaning up your blood, simple detox, and following

the basics. Taken as a whole complete self-regulating being, the body is

simple and just needs a few things to maintain itself without disease,

premature aging, or chronic poisoning. Things get complicated when the body

is approached with what I call the Kragen Method - as in auto parts -

meaning pretending that the body is simply a group of individual parts that

can be treated in isolation from each other, one by one, like spark plugs

and carburetors. Then we get into some heavy theorizing, dangerous chemical

experimentation, and pathologically long words. Health then becomes a side

issue, the focus is economic, and the patient becomes the mark. And this is

the controlling philosophy in health care today.

PASTEURIAN GERM THEORY vs BECHAMP CELLULAR THEORY by Walene

GERM THEORY (PASTEUR)

1. Disease arises from micro-organisms outside the body.

2. Micro-organisms are generally to be guarded against.

3. The function of micro-organisms is constant.

4. The shapes and colors of micro-organisms are constant 5. Every disease is

associated with a particular micro-organism 6. Micro-organisms are primary

causal agents.

7. Disease can " strike " anybody.

8. To prevent disease we have to " build defenses "

CELLULAR THEORY (BECHAMP)

1. Disease arises from micro-organisms within the cells of the body.

2. These intracellular micro-organisms normally function to build and assist

in the metabolic processes of the body.

3. The function of these organisms changes to assist in the catabolic

(disintegration) processes of the host organism when that organism dies or

is injured, which may be chemical as well as mechanical.

4. Micro-organisms change their shapes and colors to reflect the medium 5.

Every disease is associated with a particular condition.

6. Micro-organisms become " pathogenic " as the health of the host organism

deteriorates. Hence, the condition of the host organism is the primary

causal agent.

7. Disease is built by unhealthy conditions.

8. To prevent disease we have to create health.

Be Well

Dr.L

[Guest guest]

Gb :

Pasteur was indeed a fraud. Before his death he admitted that most of his work

was false or " borrowed " . Many countries will not allow a Pasteur institute on

their soil.

Excerpt from website article:

" Who was this man Pasteur? What did he actually discover? The answer to the

first is that he was a chemist of sorts. The second question can be answered

only with the reminder that he separated L & D tartic acids. That is absolutely

all he did. The rest of his work, even the silkworm disease and bacterial

work, was plagiarized from that, not too well-known and much neglected professor

of Montpellier, Antoine Bechamp. Professor Bechamp's writings, when properly

studied, will be found to have afforded the solution to many of the problems

which had puzzled biologists, physiologists, pathologists and philosophers for

many years. "

Speaking of Professor Bechamp's works, Dr. Leverson of England says, " I also

found in those truths absolute proof of the absurdity of the germ theory of

disease; and, by the study of the writings of Pasteur, to which Bechamp’s

works

unavoidably led me, I found full proof that the great god of the (supposedly)

men of science of the latter half of the last century and of many of the

present, was in fact, the most astonishing of plagiarists and distorter of other

men's discoveries; chiefly those of Professor Antoine Bechamp, and of his

collaborators and pupils; and that this plagiarist was the most monumental

charlatan, whose existence is disclosed to us, in the entire recorded history of

medicine. "

" You have already surmised who was this plagiarist and charlatan. It was Louis

Pasteur, to whose memory France has erected statues all over the land and

endowed the Pasteur Institute. "

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/rabies.html

Vic

________________________________

From: greatyoga

Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010

.....candida group that has over 7000 members. I asked a question about herbs and

candida. The group owner asked why I asked

about herbs as they do not kill candida and she went on about the immunity

theory (as advocated by Bechamp)being the only theory.....She called Pasteur and

others " frauds " and " impostors " . Maybe they were not 100% legit but those are

strong words........

[Guest guest]

I certainly believe that a strong immune system can fight off much. That being

said, I think the alarming rise in cancer rates is due to the pressure of

modern-day carcinogens--both chemical and electro-magnetic. Let's face it: until

the Industrial Revolution humans had not been exposed to this type of pressure

on their immune systems. I read that study on Dr. Mercola's site about forensic

examination of 300 Egyptian mummies--only one showed any evidence of cancer. If

the same study were done today on the corpses of people from industrialized

countries, 75-100 would show evidence of cancer. Are our immune systems inferior

to those of our ancestors?

Really if a strong immune system was all it took to fight off these

environmental pressures then a person could pitch a tent in the ruins of

Chernobyl for a couple of months without radiation protective gear. Then not get

leukemia. I don't think any sane person would try that (maybe Deepak Chopra

could do it--you know, yogic fly around the place for a while).

One reads about repressed feelings or lack of forgiveness as the cause of

cancer--that's arguing from ignorance with no data to back it up. Humans haven't

changed since the Cro-Magnons--it doesn't make any sense. One-third of dogs die

of cancer; we must remember that we are in fact mammals and still subject to

physical law no matter how enlightened our spiritual beliefs or aspirations.

No doubt modern stress weakens immune systems. There's no evidence yet that it

causes cancer, but a weakened immune system--under pressure from

carcinogens--and no wonder. The " planets must be in alignment, " so to speak.

[Guest guest]

I do not think anyone can argue that stress does in fact weaken the immune

system. Junk foods, processed meats, white bread, antibiotics, pasteurized

milk, are all contributors. Add in intentional misinformation like staying out

of

the sun and cancer is compounded. Low vitamin D levels are a major cause. The

CDC knew this is the 60's and it is on their web site. One soda contains 9 times

the sugar needed for one day. Sugar turns off the immune system for two hours.

In the late 1800's the average sugar consumption was 3 pounds per year per

person. Today it is 120 pounds per person.  

 

The immune system will not function properly no matter the diet or gut flora

with low levels of vitamin D. Look at many of the jobs today, they are inside.

No one wants to sweat anymore, a excellent detox. Windows block the UVB rays

which produce vitamin D on the skin. Add the toxic sunscreen fad and even less

sun reaches the skin. Yes too much sun is no good either, one should never allow

themselves to burn. The cancer rates skyrocket north of 20 degrees latitude.

Many if not most cancers are developed over the winter when the sun is at an

angle where it does not produce vitamin D on the skin. There is no vitamin D

being made on the skin at this time of the year in the US. 

As far as dogs go, most that develop cancer are kibble fed. A dog is a carnivore

and to feed a dog a diet that is not species appropriate is a major cause of

disease. Kibble is known to contain many cancer causing chemicals. Raw fed dogs

do not have the cancer rates of kibble fed dogs. Add useless vaccines, toxic

flea and tick treatments, poison heart worm treatments, poison wormers and

wonder why dogs get cancer? Many forward thinking breeders have long switched to

natural rearing. A neighbor had 7 dogs over the years and everyone died of

cancer. I said to him maybe you should try something different, the light never

lit. He knows I am a raw feeder. One can not expect a different result by doing

the same things.

Vic

 

[Guest guest]

Vitamin D? No doubt, reflecting the move from agrarian society to office/factory

environments. I take it every day, and do my qigong outside even in the cold.

Dogs? Sure--no doubt subject to the same carcinogens as the rest of us in

" civilized " society. But, of course, dogs are the most " breeded " species on

earth. Perhaps genetic instability?

The point of my rant? It's not easy. No easy answers. To every complex question

there is an easy answer--and it's always wrong.

....The immune system will not function properly no matter the diet or gut flora

with low levels of vitamin D.....

As far as dogs go, most that develop cancer are kibble fed. A dog is a carnivore

and to feed a dog a diet that is not species appropriate is a major cause of

disease. Kibble is known to contain many cancer causing chemicals. Raw fed dogs

do not have the cancer rates of kibble fed dogs......

Vic

 

[Guest guest]

We can go round and round with semantics and theories but we do not know enough.

Some believe they know that nothing, outside the body, causes anything. It is

the body that acts upon whatever it is exposed to whether or not internally or

externally. The bullet may be the primary cause of bleeding, but it is the loss

of blood that kills. If any one thing caused cancer then it should cause

cancer in everyone., Oh, some might say, but a strong immune system can fight

it off. ?? There is no common germ that can cause anything. Germs are

omnipresent, around us all the time, but we don’t always get affected/infected

by them because, other factors come into play. At best, a germ can only be a

secondary cause the first being the host’s ability to deal with it or not deal

with it. I suspect one can have a strong immune system and still become ill

because illness in itself is the body’s attempt at wellness. Doubt that?

Ingest something the body wants to get rid of in a

hurry.................heaving, diarrhea, a cough, a fever....and on and on and

on. Yet modern medicine still treats these things as illness and tries to

suppress them. They have it all wrong, backwards. Start from the premise it is

the body that reacts not the other way around.

There isn’t a laxative in the world that can cause a cadaver to have a

movement. However, put that poison laxative in our body and behold the wonders

of nature. A couple of years ago I read an article from one of the larger

research organizations that stated, “30% of practicing physicians do not know

that a fever is generally beneficialâ€. One Third of practicing physicians

did not know that a fever is generally beneficial. I have forgotten which

teaching hospital made that statement but it is no longer to be found. Lots of

fever reducing meds are sold aren’t they? I suspect that there are some germs

that we have not encountered that are so virulent the body has not developed a

defense against them and one just cannot fight them.

But in the end, you can introduce that germ into a cadaver and nothing happens.

Nothing.

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

Hi Joe,

My favorite book which discusses the benefits of fevers, is " How to raise a

healthy child in spite of your doctor " , by Dr Mendelsohn

http://www.amazon.com/Raise-Healthy-Child-Spite-Doctor/dp/0345342763 This is

a good book in general, see the readers comments.

Just wondering what those cancer associated night sweats mean?

Best wishes

Fern

[Guest guest]

Joe you are quite correct. That is the problem with cancer, the body does not

produce a fever with cancer. For this reason far infrared is helpful for many as

it heats the body from the inside. I think the answer is somewhere inbetween

both theories as a cut will get infected if dirt or bacteria gets past the line

of defense, the skin. Toxins come into play as well. Toxins shut off certain

sections of the DNA. Only detoxing and a good diet can turn the sections of DNA

on again. No drug can do this. Western medicine treats symptoms. Symptoms are

not the cause. You have a fever take this drug. You have diarrhea take this

drug. Doctor's love this method as many drugs for blood pressure, diabetes and

so forth require return visits and drug companies love to get someone hooked on

a drug for life. The cause is never addressed.  

Vic  

________________________________

From: JoeCastron <jcastron1@...>

Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 9:29:49 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] germ vs. immunity theory

 

We can go round and round with semantics and theories but we do not know enough.

Some believe they know that nothing, outside the body, causes anything. It is

the body that acts upon whatever it is exposed to whether or not internally or

externally. The bullet may be the primary cause of bleeding, but it is the loss

of blood that kills. If any one thing caused cancer then it should cause cancer

in everyone., Oh, some might say, but a strong immune system can fight it off.

?? There is no common germ that can cause anything. Germs are omnipresent,

around us all the time, but we don’t always get affected/infected by them

because, other factors come into play. At best, a germ can only be a secondary

cause the first being the host’s ability to deal with it or not deal with it.

I

suspect one can have a strong immune system and still become ill because illness

in itself is the body’s attempt at wellness. Doubt that? Ingest something the

body wants to get rid of in a hurry.................heaving, diarrhea, a cough,

a fever....and on and on and on. Yet modern medicine still treats these things

as illness and tries to suppress them. They have it all wrong, backwards. Start

from the premise it is the body that reacts not the other way around.

There isn’t a laxative in the world that can cause a cadaver to have a

movement.

However, put that poison laxative in our body and behold the wonders of nature.

A couple of years ago I read an article from one of the larger research

organizations that stated, “30% of practicing physicians do not know that a

fever is generally beneficialâ€. One Third of practicing physicians did not

know

that a fever is generally beneficial. I have forgotten which teaching hospital

made that statement but it is no longer to be found. Lots of fever reducing meds

are sold aren’t they? I suspect that there are some germs that we have not

encountered that are so virulent the body has not developed a defense against

them and one just cannot fight them.

But in the end, you can introduce that germ into a cadaver and nothing happens.

Nothing.

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

 The history of Pasteur reveals that Pasteur's side kick had no formal training

what so ever and paid $75 for a degree. Just a bit of history. I was sent this

article and it pertains.

An article about the post antibiotic age

Go forward now a few centuries to France in the 1870s. Three scientists were

conducting experiments in the area of chemistry, particularly having to do with

fermentation, yeast, and the new discovery of little organisms called bacteria.

All were involved in similar research but there was much competition and

" borrowing " of discoveries, always with the undercurrent of politics and

influence, as usual. The men were Louis Pasteur, Antoine Bechamp, and

Koch, a German. These individuals were not colleagues, but worked independently.

Each one knew that he was onto a whole new area of human discovery, and the race

was on to influence the medical world.

It was Pasteur who won the race of politics and influence. Today students

memorize that Louis Pasteur " discovered " the Germ Theory. Not only is this not

accurate, and not only is the Germ Theory itself unsubstantiated even today, but

Pasteur himself in one of the most quoted deathbed statements perhaps of all

time, recanted the Theory and admitted that his rivals had been right, and that

it was not the germ that caused the disease, but rather the environment in which

the germ was found: " Bernard acail raison; le terrain c'est tout, le germe c'est

rien. "

The Germ Theory

What exactly was this Germ Theory? Very simply, the Germ Theory stated that

there were separate diseases and that each disease was caused by a particular

micro-organism. It was the job of science, then, to find the right drug or

vaccine that would selectively kill off the offending bug without killing the

patient.

That would be great, but nature rarely is so black and white about things, ever

notice that? For one thing, bacteria and viruses tend to be

" environment-specific. " That's why some people get colds and others don't.

That's why some survived the Bubonic Plague. That's also why some doctors and

nurses seem to be immune to disease even though they're surrounded by it every

day.

Deepak Chopra tells us of a study in which the influenza virus was isolated and

implanted directly onto the mucous membranes of a group of subjects, with only

12% of them getting the flu. (Quantum Healing)

The Germ Theory has as many holes as a Swiss cheese, and it is likely that

Pasteur knew it. But a little research shows us that Pasteur had a gift for PR.

He rarely let his research keep him away from an opportunity to address royalty

or medical society in the most prestigious university settings. He was quoted

and published and offered practically every honorary title and chair in Europe.

The records however not only cast suspicion, but seem to establish fairly

clearly that Pasteur " borrowed " the research for some of his most famous

discoveries, and then capitalized on the celebrity of being there first.

What's The Big Secret?

Before he died, Pasteur instructed his family not to release some 10,000 pages

of lab notes after his death. Not until 1975, after the death of his grandson,

were these " secret " notes finally made public. An historian from Princeton,

Professor Geison made a thorough study of the lab notes. He presented his

findings in an address to The American Association for the Advancement of

Science in Boston in 1993. Dr. Geison's conclusions: Pasteur published much

fraudulent data and was guilty of many counts of " scientific misconduct, "

violating rules of medicine, science, and ethics.

Like Koch, Pasteur was very motivated by money. In the race for a vaccine for

anthrax, for example, not only did Pasteur not test it on animals before using

humans; it was also established that Pasteur actually stole the formula from a

colleague named Toussaint. Unable to prove his claim at the time, Toussaint died

a few months later of a nervous breakdown. (Hume)

Hume

There was a book published in 1932 that is still in print today: Bechamp or

Pasteur? This book was written by E. Hume, who it turns out was actually

a woman who had to disguise her name as male to get the book published. Hume

chronicles a contemporary of Pasteur, Antoine Bechamp, the most respected

researcher and teacher in France at the time, department head at the University

at Lille.

Bechamp was too busy to be bothered with conventions and awards and politics. He

was a professor and a researcher, and that took every moment of his time until

his death at 93. It was Bechamp's view that it was not the bug that caused

disease, but rather the condition in which bugs lived. Disease happens when an

imbalance causes some of the more pathological that is, bad, bacteria to take

over. What causes that? Low resistance, weak immune system. Seems like such a

simple idea, but that is really the foundation of the whole controversy all

along. In the end, everyone, even Pasteur, agreed that bugs - bacteria and

viruses - do not alone cause disease.

A little research uncovers the following amazing possibilities about Pasteur,

which the reader is encouraged to further investigate:

* Pasteur had no training or credentials in either medicine or physiology; he

was a chemist

* Pasteur very likely created the disease known as " hydrophobia, " rather than

found a cure for it.

* Pasteur initiated the practice of vivisection with horrific animal

experiments. Hundreds of thousands of laboratory animals have been needlessly

killed by atrocious experiments in the name of " science, " not only at Pasteurian

Institutes, but pervasively throughout the entire empire of medical research

laboratories worldwide, even to the present time.

* Rather than protect the human race from disease, Pasteur was directly

responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people who were inoculated with

unproven vaccines and injections, and indirectly for thousands more in whom

disease was introduced by the administration of unproven Pasteurian procedures.

* Pasteur may be seen more as a merchant than a scientist, with his frequent

reporting of false test findings and data, which had two designs: self-promotion

and profiteering from the sale of drugs and vaccines that were often made

mandatory by legislators.

* Pasteurian treatment for a disease he did not even have actually killed

, the King of Greece.

* Pasteur did not work on naturally diseased subjects, but instead introduced

the idea of inducing sickness by giving morbid (diseased) injections into

healthy subjects.

As far as his Germ Theory goes, there was much opposition to it among many

researchers of his own time. In a lecture given in London on 25 May 1911, M.L.

Leverson, MD stated:

" 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. The basic one of these unproven

assumptions, wholly due to Pasteur, is the hypothesis that all the so-called

infectious and contagious disorders are caused by germs. "

 

http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/post-antibiotic-age-germ-theory.ht\

ml/?utm_source=newsletter & utm_medium=email & utm_campaign=oaw-dec10

 

Vic

[Guest guest]

Vic and ,

I said before that I don't know if Pasteur was completely legit. i am not

saying he was a saint. However, the Germ theory still has some merit and it

became popular because of Pasteur. Just like Columbus may not have discovered

the New World but his expedition changed the world. I still think immunity is

more important than the germ theory but I don't see how you can separate them.

Suppose a person takes a few hundred " germs " of name your bacteria. They may or

may not get sick depending on their immunity. Suppose they take a tablespoon of

a petri dish filled with that bacteria. My guess is that anyone on earth would

get sick. Maybe it would take more but my point is that there is a breaking

point for EVERYONE so it is not one theory or the other. Take arsenic. Some

people might get sick and die with a few atoms. It might take 100 times that

much to kill someone else but again the immune system can only take so much.

How much anthrax is anyone willing to take? How many cancer cells is anyone

willing to have injected to see how well their immune system is working? How

many parasites can you injest?

I think this is the same type of arguement as nature vs. nurture concerning

health and mentality. You can't separate them and both interact with each

other.

GB

>

> Gb :

>

> Pasteur was indeed a fraud. Before his death he admitted that most of his work

> was false or " borrowed " . Many countries will not allow a Pasteur institute on

> their soil.

>

> Excerpt from website article:

>

> " Who was this man Pasteur? What did he actually discover? The answer to the

> first is that he was a chemist of sorts. The second question can be answered

> only with the reminder that he separated L & D tartic acids. That is

absolutely

> all he did. The rest of his work, even the silkworm disease and bacterial

> work, was plagiarized from that, not too well-known and much neglected

professor

> of Montpellier, Antoine Bechamp. Professor Bechamp's writings, when properly

> studied, will be found to have afforded the solution to many of the problems

> which had puzzled biologists, physiologists, pathologists and philosophers for

> many years. "

> Speaking of Professor Bechamp's works, Dr. Leverson of England says, " I also

> found in those truths absolute proof of the absurdity of the germ theory of

> disease; and, by the study of the writings of Pasteur, to which Bechamp’s

works

> unavoidably led me, I found full proof that the great god of the (supposedly)

> men of science of the latter half of the last century and of many of the

> present, was in fact, the most astonishing of plagiarists and distorter of

other

> men's discoveries; chiefly those of Professor Antoine Bechamp, and of his

> collaborators and pupils; and that this plagiarist was the most monumental

> charlatan, whose existence is disclosed to us, in the entire recorded history

of

> medicine. "

> " You have already surmised who was this plagiarist and charlatan. It was Louis

> Pasteur, to whose memory France has erected statues all over the land and

> endowed the Pasteur Institute. "

>

> http://www.whale.to/vaccine/rabies.html

>

> Vic

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> From: greatyoga

> Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010

>

> ....candida group that has over 7000 members. I asked a question about herbs

and candida. The group owner asked why I asked

> about herbs as they do not kill candida and she went on about the immunity

theory (as advocated by Bechamp)being the only theory.....She called Pasteur and

others " frauds " and " impostors " . Maybe they were not 100% legit but those are

strong words........

>

[Guest guest]

Loretta,

Maybe one could say that germs don't cause disease but one could also say that

having inmmunity does not free one from disease either so one cannot be right to

say it is only immunity. Everyone has a point where immunity will be

compromised. It is a combination of germ and immunity theory. It is along a

spectrum but not black or white.

GB

>

> I don't believe that germs " cause " disease; however, I do believe that

> when/if viruses, bacteria, parasites are in a body that is fertile for

> replication (because the immune system is not healthy) then disease can

> develop.

>

> An accurate comparison of the Germ Theory and Cellular Theory is below. I

> believe the Cellular Theory is the most correct. I do believe that

> bacteria, germs, parasites live outside the body and can invade the body

> (usually through the intestinal tract where at least 75% of the immune

> system is located) but I don't believe they actually " cause " disease. It is

> " proven " that hand-washing (basic hygiene) and staying away from sick people

> is beneficial for most people. Why? Because bacteria and viruses tend to be

> " environment-specific " (thus why some get sick when around sick people and

> some don't) and unless we are absolutely sure that our immune system is

> working at peak performance then our body terrain may indeed be " fertile "

> for disease. I suggest hand-washing BECAUSE most people have depressed

> immune systems; the same goes for avoiding sick people. It is ALL about the

> health of one's body - the terrain - the inside. There is a huge list of

> conditions that mean the immune system is compromised. One of the biggest

> is yeast over-growth and many have no idea that this compromises the immune

> system big-time.

>

> A good explanation - The Post-Antibiotic Age: Germ Theory by Tim O'Shea

> http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/post-antibiotic-age-germ-theor

> y.html

>

> Below are some quotes from the above article:

>

> What exactly was this Germ Theory? Very simply, the Germ Theory stated that

> there were separate diseases and that each disease was caused by a

> particular micro-organism. It was the job of science, then, to find the

> right drug or vaccine that would selectively kill off the offending bug

> without killing the patient.

>

> Bacteria and viruses tend to be " environment-specific. " (terrain) That's why

> some people get colds and others don't. That's why some survived the Bubonic

> Plague. That's also why some doctors and nurses seem to be immune to disease

> even though they're surrounded by it every day. However, it depends on

> one's immune system and how healthy it is. So prudent hand-washing and

> keeping a distance from sick people is wise for most people because most

> people have compromised immune systems.

>

> It was Bechamp's view that it was not the bug that caused disease, but

> rather the condition (terrain) in which bugs lived. Disease happens when an

> imbalance causes some of the more pathological that is, bad, bacteria to

> take over. What causes that? Low resistance, weak immune system. Seems like

> such a simple idea, but that is really the foundation of the whole

> controversy all along. In the end, everyone, even Pasteur, agreed that bugs

> - bacteria and viruses - do not alone cause disease.

>

> Conventional medicine puts no credence on how healthy one's terrain is or is

> not. This is why they recommend vaccines be given even to those with

> compromised immune systems or babies whose immune system has not fully

> developed.

>

> So are germs the cause of disease or aren't they? Bechamp said that there

> was enough truth in that notion to make it seem reasonable at first glance.

> Sure we can sometimes identify certain types of bacteria in certain disease

> conditions. And it's undeniable that organisms can be found rampant within

> populations suffering from epidemics and outbreaks, as Laurie Garrett

> describes in The Coming Plague. But consider this: what if many more people

> than those who actually get a disease have the " bug " ? Usually the only

> people we test are the ones who get sick. So it looks like they're the only

> ones who have the 'causative' organism in measurable amounts. From Pasteur

> to the present, there is an entire other point of view that has been

> supported: maybe the bad bugs are commonly present in many normal people,

> but only multiply out of control when allowed to because of a weak immune

> system. They're harmless until they proliferate. This is a fundamental

> notion.

>

> " Bacteria and parasites cannot cause disease processes unless they find

> their own peculiar morbid soil in which to grow and multiply. "

> -Henry Lindlahr, MD - Founder of Lindlahr Sanitarium

>

> What is always present in diseases? Answer: depressed immune system. We

> live in a time where a HUGE percentage of the population have a depressed

> immune system.

> So putting these ideas together, a notion comes into focus so clear that

> even a lawyer could see it: soon we will be living in the Post-Antibiotic

> Era (we are getting there fast as so many of the newer antibiotics are

> proving inefficient). The paramount issue in health and survival will then

> be the immune system. Drugs, alcohol, smoking, air pollution, processed

> food, white sugar, white flour, radiation, stress, and bad living will still

> be doing their number on that immune system. But it will be performing

> without a net, this time. On its own. What will people turn to in order to

> strengthen their immune system? Answer: Alternative Medicine, just like

> before all of this went down. Actually, it's already started.

>

> Alternative medicine's purpose is to use natural means to strengthen the

> immune system. Whole food enzymes, antioxidants, natural herbs, aloe,

> probiotics, pure water, clean diet, spinal adjustment, massage, martial

> arts, and exercise have all been proven to be helpful. One reason things

> won't be completely the same as they were in the pre-antibiotic age is that

> our knowledge of holistic therapeutics has deepened exponentially, sort of

> as a by-product of the advances in biomedical technology in the past 50

> years. An increasing number of people are learning what it feels like to

> build up their immune system, their resistance to illness. Once you've done

> that, even one time, you know you can overcome practically any health

> challenge out there by cleaning up your blood, simple detox, and following

> the basics. Taken as a whole complete self-regulating being, the body is

> simple and just needs a few things to maintain itself without disease,

> premature aging, or chronic poisoning. Things get complicated when the body

> is approached with what I call the Kragen Method - as in auto parts -

> meaning pretending that the body is simply a group of individual parts that

> can be treated in isolation from each other, one by one, like spark plugs

> and carburetors. Then we get into some heavy theorizing, dangerous chemical

> experimentation, and pathologically long words. Health then becomes a side

> issue, the focus is economic, and the patient becomes the mark. And this is

> the controlling philosophy in health care today.

>

> PASTEURIAN GERM THEORY vs BECHAMP CELLULAR THEORY by Walene

>

> GERM THEORY (PASTEUR)

>

> 1. Disease arises from micro-organisms outside the body.

> 2. Micro-organisms are generally to be guarded against.

> 3. The function of micro-organisms is constant.

> 4. The shapes and colors of micro-organisms are constant 5. Every disease is

> associated with a particular micro-organism 6. Micro-organisms are primary

> causal agents.

> 7. Disease can " strike " anybody.

> 8. To prevent disease we have to " build defenses "

>

> CELLULAR THEORY (BECHAMP)

>

> 1. Disease arises from micro-organisms within the cells of the body.

> 2. These intracellular micro-organisms normally function to build and assist

> in the metabolic processes of the body.

> 3. The function of these organisms changes to assist in the catabolic

> (disintegration) processes of the host organism when that organism dies or

> is injured, which may be chemical as well as mechanical.

> 4. Micro-organisms change their shapes and colors to reflect the medium 5.

> Every disease is associated with a particular condition.

> 6. Micro-organisms become " pathogenic " as the health of the host organism

> deteriorates. Hence, the condition of the host organism is the primary

> causal agent.

> 7. Disease is built by unhealthy conditions.

> 8. To prevent disease we have to create health.

>

> Be Well

> Dr.L

>

[Guest guest]

We’re probably beating the subject to death because, in the end, what does it

matter to us BUT, to the medical profession there entire existence has been

built upon a false premise and that is, germs cause disease. At best (worst),

they can only be a secondary cause just as it was brought out that sometimes

they do and sometimes they don’t based upon what some call, The Immune

System. In that event we have the primary cause.....an inadequate defense.

However, exactly what are we attributing to this germ? A cold? The Flu? A

sore throat? Diarrhea? A cough? With all of these measures obvious bodily

defenses that keep us alive by eliminating unwanted toxins. Do we think that

germs are not everywhere all the time? They are yet we don’t get sick all the

time but we have toxins in us all the time.

The Scientific community has all but ruled out what many of us might believe,

that being our body, when overloaded with toxins, brings about heroic means to

save its existence bet that a fever, diarrhea...... blah blah blah. Time after

time, on this list, we read from people that “only the body can

healâ€..........and they are correct and those so-called illnesses mentioned

above are just as much the body healing itself but no, many want to give a germ

the credit for all this havoc and not blame the things bringing about the toxins

which ultimately kill us..........hopefully many moons down the road. In the

final analysis, when cancer develops (not strikes), none of what any of us have

written about germs matters until we deal with the cancer. Yes, I believe I

have added to the beating to death of this subject.

Joe C.

From: greatyoga

Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 6:16 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: germ vs. immunity theory

Vic and ,

I said before that I don't know if Pasteur was completely legit. i am not saying

he was a saint. However, the Germ theory still has some merit and it became

popular because of Pasteur. Just like Columbus may not have discovered the New

World but his expedition changed the world. I still think immunity is more

important than the germ theory but I don't see how you can separate them.

[Guest guest]

Maybe this is an area to consider the view of Chinese medicine, Yin and Yang.

All disease is a result of a problem with the immune system .This includes

auto-immune diseases. But on the other hand the immune system is only as strong

as its exposure to " germs " . Without the exposure to less dangerous germs of

everyday ;we would never build the defense against more dangerous pathogens .

This is a danger of all these anti bacterial soaps .We are weakening our defense

mechanism . On the other hand, an immune system that is so compromised even the

most friendly bacteria can be fatal. With saying this it is mostly the immune

system that counts . No matter the germ it can only thrive where there is a

breach in the immune system . Why can you expose a room with the rhino virus and

not everyone gets a cold? Parasites are often a big cause in the breaching of

the immune system . These parasites get under the radar!

>

> I don't believe that germs " cause " disease; however, I do believe that when/if

viruses, bacteria, parasites are in a body that is fertile for replication

(because the immune system is not healthy) then disease can develop...........

>

[Guest guest]

 When you make your money from selling drugs, the only approach is the germ

approach .Follow the money trail.

We're probably beating the subject to death because, in the end, what does it

matter to us BUT, to the medical profession there entire existence has been

built upon a false premise and that is, germs cause disease. At best (worst),

they can only be a secondary cause just as it was brought out that sometimes

they do and sometimes they don't based upon what some call, The Immune System.

In that event we have the primary cause.....an inadequate defense.

However, exactly what are we attributing to this germ? A cold? The Flu? A sore

throat? Diarrhea? A cough? With all of these measures obvious bodily defenses

that keep us alive by eliminating unwanted toxins. Do we think that germs are

not everywhere all the time? They are yet we don't get sick all the time but we

have toxins in us all the time.

The Scientific community has all but ruled out what many of us might believe,

that being our body, when overloaded with toxins, brings about heroic means to

save its existence bet that a fever, diarrhea...... blah blah blah. Time after

time, on this list, we read from people that only the body can

heal..........and they are correct and those so-called illnesses mentioned

above are just as much the body healing itself but no, many want to give a germ

the credit for all this havoc and not blame the things bringing about the toxins

which ultimately kill us..........hopefully many moons down the road. In the

final analysis, when cancer develops (not strikes), none of what any of us have

written about germs matters until we deal with the cancer. Yes, I believe I have

added to the beating to death of this subject.

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

It's always about the terrain of the body....always....and this is where

conventional medicine really misses the boat. I think what you are saying

seems correct. However, we live in a world in which a very high percentage

of people do have compromised immune systems -- mainly because of lifestyle

choices and because of the 24/7 on-slaught of chemicals/toxins (man-made)

that continually attack the immune system. Add to this the fact that our

precious drugs/vaccines (actually brings the immune system down) are

becoming more and more inefficient and we then begin to see epidemics on the

rise in which we have no good solution. In my opinion, one of these

epidemics is cancer.

A healthy immune system doesn't mean one will never get sick. It does mean

that when one does get sick the down-time will be minimal. In fact, some

illness actually helps to rev-up the immune system.

Could we be on the way to a time when absolutely no one possesses a healthy

immune system? Most likely. Our air and water are already toxic and now the

government wants to control all foods from backyard gardens to seeds. Could

it be that government's know that people will " follow " better when they are

sick? Well, I won't go there but I think we all know the answer to that. We

have an Immune System Calculator at

http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/products/immune-calculator.html This

list shows health concerns that can indicate the immune system is not

working properly. It's amazing how many people have at least 1-2 of these

concerns.

I believe the information below answers your concerns:

So are germs the cause of disease or aren't they? Bechamp said that there

was enough truth in that notion to make it seem reasonable at first glance.

Sure we can sometimes identify certain types of bacteria in certain disease

conditions. And it's undeniable that organisms can be found rampant within

populations suffering from epidemics and outbreaks, as Laurie Garrett

describes in The Coming Plague. But consider this: what if many more people

than those who actually get a disease have the " bug " ? Usually the only

people we test are the ones who get sick. So it looks like they're the only

ones who have the 'causative' organism in measurable amounts. From Pasteur

to the present, there is an entire other point of view that has been

supported: maybe the bad bugs are commonly present in many normal people,

but only multiply out of control when allowed to because of a weak immune

system. They're harmless until they proliferate. This is a fundamental

notion.

" Bacteria and parasites cannot cause disease processes unless they find

their own peculiar morbid soil in which to grow and multiply. " -Henry

Lindlahr, MD - Founder of Lindlahr Sanitarium

Personally, I believe we MUST begin to think outside of the box and realize

that we are at a time when the " disease theories " of science and

conventional medicine are no longer valid. It's imperative that we change

directions...and not look back.

Be Well

Dr.L

[ ] Re: germ vs. immunity theory

Loretta,

Maybe one could say that germs don't cause disease but one could also say

that having inmmunity does not free one from disease either so one cannot be

right to say it is only immunity. Everyone has a point where immunity will

be compromised. It is a combination of germ and immunity theory. It is

along a spectrum but not black or white.

GB

>

> I don't believe that germs " cause " disease; however, I do believe that

> when/if viruses, bacteria, parasites are in a body that is fertile for

> replication (because the immune system is not healthy) then disease can

> develop.

>

> An accurate comparison of the Germ Theory and Cellular Theory is below. I

> believe the Cellular Theory is the most correct. I do believe that

> bacteria, germs, parasites live outside the body and can invade the body

> (usually through the intestinal tract where at least 75% of the immune

> system is located) but I don't believe they actually " cause " disease. It

is

> " proven " that hand-washing (basic hygiene) and staying away from sick

people

> is beneficial for most people. Why? Because bacteria and viruses tend to

be

> " environment-specific " (thus why some get sick when around sick people and

> some don't) and unless we are absolutely sure that our immune system is

> working at peak performance then our body terrain may indeed be " fertile "

> for disease. I suggest hand-washing BECAUSE most people have depressed

> immune systems; the same goes for avoiding sick people. It is ALL about

the

> health of one's body - the terrain - the inside. There is a huge list of

> conditions that mean the immune system is compromised. One of the biggest

> is yeast over-growth and many have no idea that this compromises the

immune

> system big-time.

>

> A good explanation - The Post-Antibiotic Age: Germ Theory by Tim O'Shea

>

http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/post-antibiotic-age-germ-theor

> y.html

>

> Below are some quotes from the above article:

>

> What exactly was this Germ Theory? Very simply, the Germ Theory stated

that

> there were separate diseases and that each disease was caused by a

> particular micro-organism. It was the job of science, then, to find the

> right drug or vaccine that would selectively kill off the offending bug

> without killing the patient.

>

> Bacteria and viruses tend to be " environment-specific. " (terrain) That's

why

> some people get colds and others don't. That's why some survived the

Bubonic

> Plague. That's also why some doctors and nurses seem to be immune to

disease

> even though they're surrounded by it every day. However, it depends on

> one's immune system and how healthy it is. So prudent hand-washing and

> keeping a distance from sick people is wise for most people because most

> people have compromised immune systems.

>

> It was Bechamp's view that it was not the bug that caused disease, but

> rather the condition (terrain) in which bugs lived. Disease happens when

an

> imbalance causes some of the more pathological that is, bad, bacteria to

> take over. What causes that? Low resistance, weak immune system. Seems

like

> such a simple idea, but that is really the foundation of the whole

> controversy all along. In the end, everyone, even Pasteur, agreed that

bugs

> - bacteria and viruses - do not alone cause disease.

>

> Conventional medicine puts no credence on how healthy one's terrain is or

is

> not. This is why they recommend vaccines be given even to those with

> compromised immune systems or babies whose immune system has not fully

> developed.

>

> So are germs the cause of disease or aren't they? Bechamp said that there

> was enough truth in that notion to make it seem reasonable at first

glance.

> Sure we can sometimes identify certain types of bacteria in certain

disease

> conditions. And it's undeniable that organisms can be found rampant within

> populations suffering from epidemics and outbreaks, as Laurie Garrett

> describes in The Coming Plague. But consider this: what if many more

people

> than those who actually get a disease have the " bug " ? Usually the only

> people we test are the ones who get sick. So it looks like they're the

only

> ones who have the 'causative' organism in measurable amounts. From Pasteur

> to the present, there is an entire other point of view that has been

> supported: maybe the bad bugs are commonly present in many normal people,

> but only multiply out of control when allowed to because of a weak immune

> system. They're harmless until they proliferate. This is a fundamental

> notion.

>

> " Bacteria and parasites cannot cause disease processes unless they find

> their own peculiar morbid soil in which to grow and multiply. "

> -Henry Lindlahr, MD - Founder of Lindlahr Sanitarium

>

> What is always present in diseases? Answer: depressed immune system. We

> live in a time where a HUGE percentage of the population have a depressed

> immune system.

> So putting these ideas together, a notion comes into focus so clear that

> even a lawyer could see it: soon we will be living in the Post-Antibiotic

> Era (we are getting there fast as so many of the newer antibiotics are

> proving inefficient). The paramount issue in health and survival will then

> be the immune system. Drugs, alcohol, smoking, air pollution, processed

> food, white sugar, white flour, radiation, stress, and bad living will

still

> be doing their number on that immune system. But it will be performing

> without a net, this time. On its own. What will people turn to in order to

> strengthen their immune system? Answer: Alternative Medicine, just like

> before all of this went down. Actually, it's already started.

>

> Alternative medicine's purpose is to use natural means to strengthen the

> immune system. Whole food enzymes, antioxidants, natural herbs, aloe,

> probiotics, pure water, clean diet, spinal adjustment, massage, martial

> arts, and exercise have all been proven to be helpful. One reason things

> won't be completely the same as they were in the pre-antibiotic age is

that

> our knowledge of holistic therapeutics has deepened exponentially, sort of

> as a by-product of the advances in biomedical technology in the past 50

> years. An increasing number of people are learning what it feels like to

> build up their immune system, their resistance to illness. Once you've

done

> that, even one time, you know you can overcome practically any health

> challenge out there by cleaning up your blood, simple detox, and following

> the basics. Taken as a whole complete self-regulating being, the body is

> simple and just needs a few things to maintain itself without disease,

> premature aging, or chronic poisoning. Things get complicated when the

body

> is approached with what I call the Kragen Method - as in auto parts -

> meaning pretending that the body is simply a group of individual parts

that

> can be treated in isolation from each other, one by one, like spark plugs

> and carburetors. Then we get into some heavy theorizing, dangerous

chemical

> experimentation, and pathologically long words. Health then becomes a side

> issue, the focus is economic, and the patient becomes the mark. And this

is

> the controlling philosophy in health care today.

>

> PASTEURIAN GERM THEORY vs BECHAMP CELLULAR THEORY by Walene

>

> GERM THEORY (PASTEUR)

>

> 1. Disease arises from micro-organisms outside the body.

> 2. Micro-organisms are generally to be guarded against.

> 3. The function of micro-organisms is constant.

> 4. The shapes and colors of micro-organisms are constant 5. Every disease

is

> associated with a particular micro-organism 6. Micro-organisms are primary

> causal agents.

> 7. Disease can " strike " anybody.

> 8. To prevent disease we have to " build defenses "

>

> CELLULAR THEORY (BECHAMP)

>

> 1. Disease arises from micro-organisms within the cells of the body.

> 2. These intracellular micro-organisms normally function to build and

assist

> in the metabolic processes of the body.

> 3. The function of these organisms changes to assist in the catabolic

> (disintegration) processes of the host organism when that organism dies or

> is injured, which may be chemical as well as mechanical.

> 4. Micro-organisms change their shapes and colors to reflect the medium 5.

> Every disease is associated with a particular condition.

> 6. Micro-organisms become " pathogenic " as the health of the host organism

> deteriorates. Hence, the condition of the host organism is the primary

> causal agent.

> 7. Disease is built by unhealthy conditions.

> 8. To prevent disease we have to create health.

>

> Be Well

> Dr.L

>

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Of course--man-made carcinogens are the cause of the alarming rise in cancer

rates in industrialized nations. I don't think the government is behind this to

control the population through illness--the ruinous price of health care is

helping to ruin our economy. That would seem to be cutting off one's nose to

spite one's face.

But what of native populations as I've written about twice? Healthy, robust

immune systems with a diet better than that of European populations at the time.

Yet died in the millions from smallpox, etc. That seems to support an aspect of

the germ theory.

It's always about the terrain of the body....always....and this is where

conventional medicine really misses the boat. I think what you are saying seems

correct. However, we live in a world in which a very high percentage of people

do have compromised immune systems -- mainly because of lifestyle choices and

because of the 24/7 on-slaught of chemicals/toxins (man-made) that continually

attack the immune system. Add to this the fact that our precious drugs/vaccines

(actually brings the immune system down) are becoming more and more inefficient

and we then begin to see epidemics on the rise in which we have no good

solution. In my opinion, one of these epidemics is cancer.

A healthy immune system doesn't mean one will never get sick. It does mean that

when one does get sick the down-time will be minimal. In fact, some illness

actually helps to rev-up the immune system.

Could we be on the way to a time when absolutely no one possesses a healthy

immune system? Most likely. Our air and water are already toxic and now the

government wants to control all foods from backyard gardens to seeds. Could it

be that government's know that people will " follow " better when they are sick?

Well, I won't go there but I think we all know the answer to that.............

[Guest guest]

Germ vs. immunity theory? Life is rarely black or white; proponents on both

sides of the question often have vested interests. Certainly the voracious greed

of big pharma (a microcosm of American culture--one shudders and thinks of

Mussolini's statement: " Facism is corporatism. " ). But, the obverse is true: many

alternative practitioners pimp a host of products they either create or endorse

to help people--and make a lot of cash in the process. Out-of-pocket, of course.

You know--Deepak Chopra: five grand a week for a stay at a " wellness center; "

$400 for a " personal " mantra. Significantly more for instruction in the art of

" yogic flying; " which apparently is supposed to promote perfect health and world

peace. And material abundance and the perfect soulmate. And save a fortune on

airfare. Most importantly, one may never again need to sit on a dubious toilet

seat: just hover.

From: Dr. Loretta Lanphier <drlanphier@...>

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: germ vs. immunity theory

Date: Tuesday, December 28, 2010, 7:58 PM

 

It's always about the terrain of the body....always....and this is where

conventional medicine really misses the boat. I think what you are saying

seems correct. However, we live in a world in which a very high percentage

of people do have compromised immune systems -- mainly because of lifestyle

choices and because of the 24/7 on-slaught of chemicals/toxins (man-made)

that continually attack the immune system. Add to this the fact that our

precious drugs/vaccines (actually brings the immune system down) are

becoming more and more inefficient and we then begin to see epidemics on the

rise in which we have no good solution. In my opinion, one of these

epidemics is cancer.

A healthy immune system doesn't mean one will never get sick. It does mean

that when one does get sick the down-time will be minimal. In fact, some

illness actually helps to rev-up the immune system.

Could we be on the way to a time when absolutely no one possesses a healthy

immune system? Most likely. Our air and water are already toxic and now the

government wants to control all foods from backyard gardens to seeds. Could

it be that government's know that people will " follow " better when they are

sick? Well, I won't go there but I think we all know the answer to that. We

have an Immune System Calculator at

http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/products/immune-calculator.html This

list shows health concerns that can indicate the immune system is not

working properly. It's amazing how many people have at least 1-2 of these

concerns.

I believe the information below answers your concerns:

So are germs the cause of disease or aren't they? Bechamp said that there

was enough truth in that notion to make it seem reasonable at first glance.

Sure we can sometimes identify certain types of bacteria in certain disease

conditions. And it's undeniable that organisms can be found rampant within

populations suffering from epidemics and outbreaks, as Laurie Garrett

describes in The Coming Plague. But consider this: what if many more people

than those who actually get a disease have the " bug " ? Usually the only

people we test are the ones who get sick. So it looks like they're the only

ones who have the 'causative' organism in measurable amounts. From Pasteur

to the present, there is an entire other point of view that has been

supported: maybe the bad bugs are commonly present in many normal people,

but only multiply out of control when allowed to because of a weak immune

system. They're harmless until they proliferate. This is a fundamental

notion.

" Bacteria and parasites cannot cause disease processes unless they find

their own peculiar morbid soil in which to grow and multiply. " -Henry

Lindlahr, MD - Founder of Lindlahr Sanitarium

Personally, I believe we MUST begin to think outside of the box and realize

that we are at a time when the " disease theories " of science and

conventional medicine are no longer valid. It's imperative that we change

directions...and not look back.

Be Well

Dr.L

[ ] Re: germ vs. immunity theory

Loretta,

Maybe one could say that germs don't cause disease but one could also say

that having inmmunity does not free one from disease either so one cannot be

right to say it is only immunity. Everyone has a point where immunity will

be compromised. It is a combination of germ and immunity theory. It is

along a spectrum but not black or white.

GB

>

> I don't believe that germs " cause " disease; however, I do believe that

> when/if viruses, bacteria, parasites are in a body that is fertile for

> replication (because the immune system is not healthy) then disease can

> develop.

>

> An accurate comparison of the Germ Theory and Cellular Theory is below. I

> believe the Cellular Theory is the most correct. I do believe that

> bacteria, germs, parasites live outside the body and can invade the body

> (usually through the intestinal tract where at least 75% of the immune

> system is located) but I don't believe they actually " cause " disease. It

is

> " proven " that hand-washing (basic hygiene) and staying away from sick

people

> is beneficial for most people. Why? Because bacteria and viruses tend to

be

> " environment-specific " (thus why some get sick when around sick people and

> some don't) and unless we are absolutely sure that our immune system is

> working at peak performance then our body terrain may indeed be " fertile "

> for disease. I suggest hand-washing BECAUSE most people have depressed

> immune systems; the same goes for avoiding sick people. It is ALL about

the

> health of one's body - the terrain - the inside. There is a huge list of

> conditions that mean the immune system is compromised. One of the biggest

> is yeast over-growth and many have no idea that this compromises the

immune

> system big-time.

>

> A good explanation - The Post-Antibiotic Age: Germ Theory by Tim O'Shea

>

http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/post-antibiotic-age-germ-theor

> y.html

>

> Below are some quotes from the above article:

>

> What exactly was this Germ Theory? Very simply, the Germ Theory stated

that

> there were separate diseases and that each disease was caused by a

> particular micro-organism. It was the job of science, then, to find the

> right drug or vaccine that would selectively kill off the offending bug

> without killing the patient.

>

> Bacteria and viruses tend to be " environment-specific. " (terrain) That's

why

> some people get colds and others don't. That's why some survived the

Bubonic

> Plague. That's also why some doctors and nurses seem to be immune to

disease

> even though they're surrounded by it every day. However, it depends on

> one's immune system and how healthy it is. So prudent hand-washing and

> keeping a distance from sick people is wise for most people because most

> people have compromised immune systems.

>

> It was Bechamp's view that it was not the bug that caused disease, but

> rather the condition (terrain) in which bugs lived. Disease happens when

an

> imbalance causes some of the more pathological that is, bad, bacteria to

> take over. What causes that? Low resistance, weak immune system. Seems

like

> such a simple idea, but that is really the foundation of the whole

> controversy all along. In the end, everyone, even Pasteur, agreed that

bugs

> - bacteria and viruses - do not alone cause disease.

>

> Conventional medicine puts no credence on how healthy one's terrain is or

is

> not. This is why they recommend vaccines be given even to those with

> compromised immune systems or babies whose immune system has not fully

> developed.

>

> So are germs the cause of disease or aren't they? Bechamp said that there

> was enough truth in that notion to make it seem reasonable at first

glance.

> Sure we can sometimes identify certain types of bacteria in certain

disease

> conditions. And it's undeniable that organisms can be found rampant within

> populations suffering from epidemics and outbreaks, as Laurie Garrett

> describes in The Coming Plague. But consider this: what if many more

people

> than those who actually get a disease have the " bug " ? Usually the only

> people we test are the ones who get sick. So it looks like they're the

only

> ones who have the 'causative' organism in measurable amounts. From Pasteur

> to the present, there is an entire other point of view that has been

> supported: maybe the bad bugs are commonly present in many normal people,

> but only multiply out of control when allowed to because of a weak immune

> system. They're harmless until they proliferate. This is a fundamental

> notion.

>

> " Bacteria and parasites cannot cause disease processes unless they find

> their own peculiar morbid soil in which to grow and multiply. "

> -Henry Lindlahr, MD - Founder of Lindlahr Sanitarium

>

> What is always present in diseases? Answer: depressed immune system. We

> live in a time where a HUGE percentage of the population have a depressed

> immune system.

> So putting these ideas together, a notion comes into focus so clear that

> even a lawyer could see it: soon we will be living in the Post-Antibiotic

> Era (we are getting there fast as so many of the newer antibiotics are

> proving inefficient). The paramount issue in health and survival will then

> be the immune system. Drugs, alcohol, smoking, air pollution, processed

> food, white sugar, white flour, radiation, stress, and bad living will

still

> be doing their number on that immune system. But it will be performing

> without a net, this time. On its own. What will people turn to in order to

> strengthen their immune system? Answer: Alternative Medicine, just like

> before all of this went down. Actually, it's already started.

>

> Alternative medicine's purpose is to use natural means to strengthen the

> immune system. Whole food enzymes, antioxidants, natural herbs, aloe,

> probiotics, pure water, clean diet, spinal adjustment, massage, martial

> arts, and exercise have all been proven to be helpful. One reason things

> won't be completely the same as they were in the pre-antibiotic age is

that

> our knowledge of holistic therapeutics has deepened exponentially, sort of

> as a by-product of the advances in biomedical technology in the past 50

> years. An increasing number of people are learning what it feels like to

> build up their immune system, their resistance to illness. Once you've

done

> that, even one time, you know you can overcome practically any health

> challenge out there by cleaning up your blood, simple detox, and following

> the basics. Taken as a whole complete self-regulating being, the body is

> simple and just needs a few things to maintain itself without disease,

> premature aging, or chronic poisoning. Things get complicated when the

body

> is approached with what I call the Kragen Method - as in auto parts -

> meaning pretending that the body is simply a group of individual parts

that

> can be treated in isolation from each other, one by one, like spark plugs

> and carburetors. Then we get into some heavy theorizing, dangerous

chemical

> experimentation, and pathologically long words. Health then becomes a side

> issue, the focus is economic, and the patient becomes the mark. And this

is

> the controlling philosophy in health care today.

>

> PASTEURIAN GERM THEORY vs BECHAMP CELLULAR THEORY by Walene

>

> GERM THEORY (PASTEUR)

>

> 1. Disease arises from micro-organisms outside the body.

> 2. Micro-organisms are generally to be guarded against.

> 3. The function of micro-organisms is constant.

> 4. The shapes and colors of micro-organisms are constant 5. Every disease

is

> associated with a particular micro-organism 6. Micro-organisms are primary

> causal agents.

> 7. Disease can " strike " anybody.

> 8. To prevent disease we have to " build defenses "

>

> CELLULAR THEORY (BECHAMP)

>

> 1. Disease arises from micro-organisms within the cells of the body.

> 2. These intracellular micro-organisms normally function to build and

assist

> in the metabolic processes of the body.

> 3. The function of these organisms changes to assist in the catabolic

> (disintegration) processes of the host organism when that organism dies or

> is injured, which may be chemical as well as mechanical.

> 4. Micro-organisms change their shapes and colors to reflect the medium 5.

> Every disease is associated with a particular condition.

> 6. Micro-organisms become " pathogenic " as the health of the host organism

> deteriorates. Hence, the condition of the host organism is the primary

> causal agent.

> 7. Disease is built by unhealthy conditions.

> 8. To prevent disease we have to create health.

>

> Be Well

> Dr.L

>

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Loretta,

I understand your concern and agree. I want to take your analogy a step

further. A germ is like a seed. You cannot have an aster flower without an

aster seed. You cannot have an aster flower without nourishment like soil,

light, water, etc. If it lands on a desert rock, it will not grow. You cannot

have the flu without a flu virus or anthrax without Bacillus anthracis. If a

person's immune system is strong enough to withstand the virus or bacteria, then

one will not get the disease. If one has an acid blood stream or undigested

food in the colon, etc., that person will be more Susceptible to that certain

" bug " . If the germ does not exist, one cannot get that disease. Smallpox is

supposedly eradicated so no one can get it anymore. You need both the germ and

the terrain. There are many more variables in the terrain and that is why it is

more controversial and more complicated.

GB

>

> It's always about the terrain of the body....always....and this is where

> conventional medicine really misses the boat. I think what you are saying

> seems correct. However, we live in a world in which a very high percentage

> of people do have compromised immune systems -- mainly because of lifestyle

> choices and because of the 24/7 on-slaught of chemicals/toxins (man-made)

> that continually attack the immune system. Add to this the fact that our

> precious drugs/vaccines (actually brings the immune system down) are

> becoming more and more inefficient and we then begin to see epidemics on the

> rise in which we have no good solution. In my opinion, one of these

> epidemics is cancer.

>

> A healthy immune system doesn't mean one will never get sick. It does mean

> that when one does get sick the down-time will be minimal. In fact, some

> illness actually helps to rev-up the immune system.

>

> Could we be on the way to a time when absolutely no one possesses a healthy

> immune system? Most likely. Our air and water are already toxic and now the

> government wants to control all foods from backyard gardens to seeds. Could

> it be that government's know that people will " follow " better when they are

> sick? Well, I won't go there but I think we all know the answer to that. We

> have an Immune System Calculator at

> http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/products/immune-calculator.html This

> list shows health concerns that can indicate the immune system is not

> working properly. It's amazing how many people have at least 1-2 of these

> concerns.

>

> I believe the information below answers your concerns:

>

> So are germs the cause of disease or aren't they? Bechamp said that there

> was enough truth in that notion to make it seem reasonable at first glance.

> Sure we can sometimes identify certain types of bacteria in certain disease

> conditions. And it's undeniable that organisms can be found rampant within

> populations suffering from epidemics and outbreaks, as Laurie Garrett

> describes in The Coming Plague. But consider this: what if many more people

> than those who actually get a disease have the " bug " ? Usually the only

> people we test are the ones who get sick. So it looks like they're the only

> ones who have the 'causative' organism in measurable amounts. From Pasteur

> to the present, there is an entire other point of view that has been

> supported: maybe the bad bugs are commonly present in many normal people,

> but only multiply out of control when allowed to because of a weak immune

> system. They're harmless until they proliferate. This is a fundamental

> notion.

>

> " Bacteria and parasites cannot cause disease processes unless they find

> their own peculiar morbid soil in which to grow and multiply. " -Henry

> Lindlahr, MD - Founder of Lindlahr Sanitarium

>

> Personally, I believe we MUST begin to think outside of the box and realize

> that we are at a time when the " disease theories " of science and

> conventional medicine are no longer valid. It's imperative that we change

> directions...and not look back.

>

> Be Well

> Dr.L

[Guest guest]

On Wed, Dec. 29, 2010, Dr. Loretta Lanphier wrote:

[Excerpt from message] 

" It's always about the terrain of the body....So are germs the cause of disease

or aren't they?...Sure we can sometimes identify certain types of bacteria in

certain disease conditions. And it's undeniable that organisms can be found

rampant within populations suffering from epidemics and outbreaks...But consider

this: what if many more people

than those who actually get a disease have the " bug " ? Usually the only

people we test are the ones who get sick. So it looks like they're the only ones

who have the 'causative' organism in measurable amounts. "

>--------

But this is just not true, is it? Innumerable outbreaks of  infectious illness

have been traced to a single infected person or carrier importing the

microrganism into a suceptible population - smallpox, typhoid, etc.

As others have said, sometimes personal immunity is dominant, most obviously

in those who have had the infection before, or who have been effectively

vaccinated against it. At other times, devastating clinical infection is almost

inevitable, as when isolated tribes were exposed to unfamilar diseases such as

smallpox, TB etc.

PM

[Guest guest]

I thought I was going to not address this subject any longer but I must.

The following e-mail actually supports Dr. Loretta’s contention that It is all

about the Terrain with the statement, “

“ importing the microrganism�into a “susceptible population†- smallpox,

typhoid, etc.â€

The truth is glaring. Even this post admits that it is a “susceptible

Population†otherwise known as ‘Terrain’. What was said here is that the

germ must first have a “susceptible population†(person). At best,

(worst), the germ can only be a secondary cause because it must first have the

proper terrain and regardless, not all illnesses are related to germs in the

first place. Since this is a cancer list we need to get back to issues

relative to cancer but it is important to know that it is the terrain.

Joe C.

From: Moran

Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:36 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: germ vs. immunity theory

On Wed, Dec. 29, 2010, Dr. Loretta Lanphier wrote:

[Excerpt from message]�

" It's always about the terrain of the body....So are germs the cause of disease

or aren't they?...Sure we can sometimes identify certain types of bacteria in

certain disease conditions. And it's undeniable that organisms can be found

rampant within populations suffering from epidemics and outbreaks...But consider

this: what if many more people

than those who actually get a disease have the " bug " ? Usually the only

people we test are the ones who get sick. So it looks like they're the only ones

who have the 'causative' organism in measurable amounts. "

>--------

But this is just not true, is it? Innumerable outbreaks of� infectious illness

have been traced to a single infected person or carrier importing the

microrganism�into a suceptible population - smallpox, typhoid, etc.

As others have said, sometimes personal immunity is dominant, most obviously

in�those who have had the infection before,�or who�have been effectively

vaccinated against it. At other times, devastating clinical infection is almost

inevitable, as when�isolated tribes were exposed to unfamilar diseases such as

smallpox, TB etc.

PM

[Guest guest]

,

It is good to see you back on the list. All too often those in the

alternative world like to resurrect the debates of yestercentury. Another

example would be those who argue whether cancer is one disease or many

diseases. Too often these arguments are among those who don't understand or

accept molecular or evolutionary biology. I don't quite understand so much

of today's aversion to today's science. So many practitioners skip right

over it and go straight to some visionary quantum energy science of the

future.

I think that one of the main weaknesses of any argument is the intention

to win the argument rather than to seek the truth. Real science knows this

and this is why you find a " Discussion " section at the end of most

peer-reviewed published research. Sometimes the conclusions are

wrong-headed, but at least the mechanisms are in place for eventual

correction.

My own pet peeve is the lack of an adequate review system in patent

literature. It is our nature to assume that if something is patented there

must be some merit to it. I don't bother to read fiction because I get more

than my fair share of such entertainment by reading all the speculative and

plausible science in patent applications. But, I am addicted to such

reading because of the occasional gem.

And speaking of gems I want to thank Joe Castronovo who sent me a

delightful quote from Orwell: " They had their cynical code worked

out. The public are swine; advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a

swill-bucket. " I can no longer see or hear advertising without this image

coming to mind.

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of Moran

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:36 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: germ vs. immunity theory

On Wed, Dec. 29, 2010, Dr. Loretta Lanphier wrote:

[Excerpt from message]

" It's always about the terrain of the body....So are germs the cause of

disease or aren't they?...Sure we can sometimes identify certain types of

bacteria in certain disease conditions. And it's undeniable that organisms

can be found rampant within populations suffering from epidemics and

outbreaks...But consider this: what if many more people

than those who actually get a disease have the " bug " ? Usually the only

people we test are the ones who get sick. So it looks like they're the only

ones who have the 'causative' organism in measurable amounts. "

>--------

But this is just not true, is it? Innumerable outbreaks of infectious

illness have been traced to a single infected person or carrier importing

the microrganisminto a suceptible population - smallpox, typhoid, etc.

As others have said, sometimes personal immunity is dominant, most obviously

inthose who have had the infection before,or whohave been effectively

vaccinated against it. At other times, devastating clinical infection is

almost inevitable, as whenisolated tribes were exposed to unfamilar diseases

such as smallpox, TB etc.

PM