$cientism and Louis Pasteur as a case study. Part II: Theories and fraud in lieu of real science and proof – Germs, Viruses, Stabbinations.

Ethel D Hume ‘Béchamp or Pasteur’, a simple summary. Flying viruses and ambling germs don't exist.

In Part I about Louis Pasteur, it was offered that much of his work was of great scientific value and merit.  A long list of real scientific discoveries is certainly attributable to Pasteur and his associates, many of them beneficial, verifiable, and reproducible.  However, when the trained chemist strays into diseases, immunology and poisoned concoctions named after the cow, he is supremely out of his depth, reflected in the fraud, misuse of data, and even outright mendacity in forwarding claims around the germ theory of disease, flying viruses which spread infections and stabbinations which provide succour and safety for the afflicted. 

In short, Pasteur made the unfortunate but predictable journey from scientist to Scientism.  Like the unimpressive venal corrupt quack Edward Jenner, Pasteur became a Public Relations salesman, a sophist and hand-waver, eager to accrue credit, assets and attract the adoring gaze of a redeemed, sacralised, and saved public.  The rush to fame if not fortune prevented the Catholic Pasteur from entering the narrow gate. 

Hume’s criticism

We now turn our attention to a very dense and excitable book on this aspect of Pasteur by Ethel D Hume ‘Béchamp or Pasteur’ first published in 1923.  The investigator is very hostile to Pasteur and his ‘science’, and this should be borne in mind.  Transparently she does declare this bias, which is unlike ‘modern science’ which hides their worldviews and sources of finance and the power cliques which direct their ‘research’.  No need for transparency in ‘modern science’.

This book ravages all of Pasteur's work and discoveries which seems rather excessive.  In essence, fermentation, silkworm infection, viniculture spoilation, biogenic life creation and other claimed discoveries by Pasteur are alleged frauds, with Pasteur stealing the ideas, conclusions, and even experimental proofs from Béchamp and others.  It is more likely that many researchers were involved in the same domains, doing different varieties of experimentation, and given that most were writing letters and sharing information it is rather intolerable that we ascribe fraud to all of Pasteur’s work.  It is better to discern the good from the bad.  So, we will skip much of the book and focus on the 3 main areas of controversy, germs, viruses, stabbinations and the related fraud and deceit.  Hume’s detail is meticulous and much of it has been confirmed by observations and research since 1923. 

Hume and Antoine Béchamp

Hume adores Béchamp and sets him up as the protagonist against the ‘Machiavellian’ if not demonic Pasteur.  A summary of Béchamp’s life and accomplishments renders the man as great a scientist as Pasteur, perhaps greater.  Yet he is not remembered, was never feted, nor even applauded.  He spent his entire career in the shadow of Pasteur dying some 13 years after Pasteur, but never receiving due approbation.  Béchamp declared throughout his career that Pasteur purloined many of his ideas and conclusions from his own research.  Disagreements between the two men included the following as found in Hume’s book.

1.     In 1858 Béchamp was the first to prove that moulds accompanying fermentation contained living organisms and could not be spontaneously generated.  He recorded his experiments in his 1858 memoir, six years before Pasteur came to the same conclusions publicly, declaring that spontaneous generation was impossible.  Pasteur did acknowledge that Béchamp’s work was ‘meticulous’ and correct and had preceded his but gave no indication if Béchamp’s experiments directly affected his own or were copied in some way.  Béchamp never received recognition that he had in fact disproven spontaneous generation before Pasteur (a central tenet still held by Darwinists, many atheists and ‘scientists’).

2.     Pasteur offered his germ theory of disease during the early 1860s, stating that each kind of ‘pathogen’ or germ which he described as airborne ‘animals’ or microorganisms, produces one specific ‘fermentation’ or disease-like effect.  Béchamp however proved that a microorganism might vary its fermentation based on the surrounding medium or environment.  Béchamp’s experiments showed that these ‘microforms’ as he called them, under varying conditions, might even change their shape.  These observations were reproduced by Felix Loehnis and N.R. Smith of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1916.

3.     By 1866, after very thorough experimentation, Béchamp had discovered that chalk rock which is common in the Paris basin, seemed to be formed mostly of mineral or fossil remains of a ‘microscopic world’ containing organisms of infinitesimal size, which he named ‘microzymas’ and which he believed were or had been alive.  In 1866, he sent the Academy of Science a memoir called On the Role of Chalk in Butyric and Lactic Fermentations, and the Living Organisms Contained in it. After more geological examinations, he wrote a paper in 1870 entitled, On Geological Microzymas of Various Origins.  He was convinced that these microorganisms were alive, and possessed life cycles and complexity that were not understood.

4.     Béchamp’s discovery of microzymas refuted Pasteur’s germ theory.  He referred to microzymas as the builders and destroyers of cells.  It is the destructive aspect, or the “end of all organization,” which causes disease, not perambulating, flying germs or viruses.  In his very meticulous and professional manner, Béchamp always found microzymas remaining after the complete decomposition of a dead organism and concluded that they are the only non-transitory biological elements.  In addition, they seem to carry out the vital function of decomposition (or they are the precursors of bacteria, yeasts and fungi which decompose a dead body).  These ideas are opposed to those of Pasteur who blamed diseases on exogenous factors, namely poisoned ‘germs’ and ‘viruses’ who ‘transmitted’ their poison through the air or through touch.

5.     Microzymas became the foundation for Béchamp’s principle of pleomorphism, which was in direct conflict with the monomorphic theory of Pasteur.  Today the monomorphic view is the only accepted paradigm of disease generation, premised on the theory that through a binary fission, most bacteria divide transversely (crosswise), to produce two new cells which eventually achieve the same size and morphology as the original.  Pleomorphists accept the transverse division of bacteria but maintain that bacteria demonstrate complex life cycles including filterable and pathogenic (see Felix Lohnis, 1922, entitled Studies upon the Life Cycle of Bacteria).

6.     For Béchamp and pleomorphists, disease occurs when the ‘terrain’ or internal environment of the body becomes favourable to pathogenic organisms.  Human disease occurs as a malfunction of physiology due to changes which take place when metabolic processes (such as pH levels), are out of balance.  Pathogens which have complex life cycles (a fact confirmed from the 1960s onwards) will take the opportunity to stimulate symptoms within a human body when an imbalance erupts, and if uncorrected, a disease.  In this view, the human body is a ‘mini-eco system’ to quote Béchamp, and not a sterile static state as evinced by Pasteur. 

7.     For Béchamp, microbes or microzymas naturally exist in the body (a fact since confirmed, we have billions of them), and it is the disease that reflects the deteriorated condition of the host and changes the function of these microbes or microzymas.  The terrain of the body, once distorted and affected, generates disease endogenously meaning that exogenous factors in disease generation such as ‘germs’ or ‘viruses’, cannot be accountable nor valid. 

8.     Based on the above, if the pleomorphist-microzymas theory is true, all stabbinations of chemical cocktails into the blood stream will do nothing except weaken the terrain of the body further, adding more misery and dislocation to the host, along with disease and incapacity (a proven fact with mRNA injections which have led to SADS, cancer, blood disease and many other ailments).

This is the essence of Hume’s work when you strip out the rather tedious references to endless fraud and plagiarism.  Many researchers work on the same problem at the same time.  Not all of them are stealing and plundering from each other.  But fraud most certainly did exist, and Pasteur undoubtedly lied, disseminated, made up data and ignored contrary evidence (all of this is provided by Hume in much detail). 

Perambulating Germs

It is ‘germ theory’ which has led to the ‘prostitution’ of government and pharmaceuticals to quote Hume.  On the lack of evidence for flying germs, Hume references Béchamp’s book ‘Les Microzymas’ p. 819, on its incoherence:

‘In all the experiments of recent years, it has been the microzyma proper to an animal and not a germ of the air that has been found to be the seat of the virulence.  No one has even been able to produce with germs obtained from the atmosphere any of the so-called parasitic diseases.  Whenever, by inoculation, a typical known malady has been reproduced, it has been necessary to go and take the supposed parasite from a sick animal; thus to inoculate tuberculosis, the tubercle has to be taken from the subject affected.’

Béchamp raises two points which are true today.  First no one has isolated a pathogenic air-borne ‘germ’ or ‘virus’.  Not a single government has an isolated ‘SARS II Corona virus’ on display in a human cell.  Second, when people are stabbed with an ‘inoculation’ or ‘vaccination’ containing a live pathogen, they often become ill, sometimes with the disease they are being ‘protected’ against, or with another issue or disease.  In essence these injections are poisoning the body with a live virus, foreign RNA and DNA tissues, chemical adjuvants and heavy poisonous metals.  Why is this ‘healthy’? 

The same is true for animals.  As Hume relates, an Italian experiment was performed in 1882, to test the ‘safe and effective’ Pasteur anthrax solution.  It resulted in all the sheep dying.  A more damning indictment could hardly have been made, ignored by Pasteur and his well-connected friends of course.  Stabbing husbandry is as mindless as stabbing humans.  It reminds one of the quack Jenner and his cabal who declared that the dead and injured from their cow pus injections did not die from the stab but from the wrong ‘spurious’ cow pox, or from an unprofessional injector.  The stabbinations are never to blame – a war cry heard loud and long during the Corona plandemic.

Ravaging Rabies

Pasteur’s rabies nonsense – an invented disease from a non-existent ‘virus’ – was no better.  As Hume reports, ‘there is considerable doubt of there being any such specific disease as rabies, and a ‘mad dog’…same category as the ‘witch’ of the Middle Ages…when we contemplate the chained existences of numbers of dogs in Europe our only wonder is that more do not develop madness’.  Indeed, chained, some abused, fed junk, disinterested idiotic owners, no wonder some dogs appear insane and salivate.  Pasteur’s ‘proof’ of ‘madness’ was to take blood or saliva, and sometimes part of the brain or spinal cord from the suspect animal and inject it into a rabbit.  It never occurred to Pasteur that when you inject tissue from one creature to another you will likely either kill the target or injure it gravely.  We see this with the mRNA Corona concoctions.  Pasteur never proved that rabies existed and his experimental proofs were frauds (Hume details this nicely).  Yet here we are, with yearly stabbinations for our pets and husbandry, based on no evidence of ‘efficacy’ whatsoever all to the profitable gain of lying corporations. Many of us pet owners refuse to stabbinate our pets and they are perfectly healthy, normal and well behaved.

Koch’s Postulates

Robert Koch (1843-1910) was a German microbiologist who praised Pasteur as the discovered of ‘germ theory’.  He was a rival to Pasteur and is famous for his ‘Koch’s postulates’ (1890) which can be applied to microbiology as providing guard-rails for proof and veracity.  None of Pasteur’s work on germs, viruses or stabs satisfy these postulates.  Not a single modern vaccine or mRNA stabbination fulfils the postulates.

1.     The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease but should not be found in healthy organisms.

2.     The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in a pure culture.

3.     Cultured microorganisms should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.

4.     The microorganism must be re-isolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

The ‘fact checkers’ will tell you that these postulates are only guidelines and that when applied to ‘germs’ and ‘viruses’ they prove and do not disprove the theory.  But if you ask a quack to apply the postulates to say tuberculosis, or Corona SARS II, you are met with a blank stare.  Either the postulates mean something or they don’t.

But Koch is also a criminal player in the germ theory drama.  It should be stated that Koch was also a quack and a part of the germ theory fraud.  In 1882, in an attempt to usurp Pasteur, he identified a tubercle bacillus as the cause tuberculosis, thereby ‘confirming’ Pasteur’s germ theory.  Applause all around.  Spurred on by the lure of profits, in 1890 Koch introduced the drug, tuberculin, to save the people from tuberculosis.  Applause all around.  But his drug only killed the recipients and did nothing to stop tuberculosis.  Silence all around.  Koch refused to transparently disclose his drug’s formula.  But what is murder and deceit?  Koch was a star and received the 1905 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, for his work on tuberculosis.  A grateful German government funded the still existing and very powerful Koch Institute (1891).  All online material endlessly praises this criminal.  What is there to choose from between the frauds Jenner, Pasteur and Koch?  Not much. 

Bottom Line

I don’t think we have much of a clue about disease, its true creation, its transmission if any, or how microzymas or microorganisms operate.  But such humility is never found within the Churches of ‘The Science’.  The priests with their incense and magic intone that all is known and understood. I believe based on the evidence, that Béchamp is right and that most diseases are caused by bacterium within our bodies. I see no evidence for flying viruses, walk-about-germs or magic dissemination of scary microbe monsters who travel miles and survive out of host for years, mutating, shape shifting, biting, infecting, killing.

Hume is spot on that Pasteur is a central figure in the creation of the monstrous evil called the Pharmaceutical industry, and she was writing a 100 years ago.  What would she have said about the Corona plan-demic other than ‘I told you so’.  Pasteur, Koch and Jenner are the unholy Trinity who helped erect the corporatist madness of drugs and governmental power over health and the related mantra of ‘safety’.  We are slaves to the state since they can invoke an emergency for whatever reason, whenever they want and correlate it back to health and safety with the only solution being stabbinations to ward off the flying ‘viruses’. 

None of the theories around ‘germs’, ‘viruses’, flying and perambulating poisons withstands scrutiny.  Even Koch’s own postulates disprove these theories.  Béchamp’s terrain theory would mean a complete overturning of ‘modern medicine’ and a complete rethink about health care.  Entire industries would need to disappear and be rebuilt.  Agencies deconstructed and hospital systems repurposed.  The entrenched totalitarianism of public health – abetted by Pasteur et al – is now however, so overwhelmingly powerful, that nothing will be reformed and the only sure forecast one can offer is to expect another Corona scamdemic to arrive in the future, albeit less gently and of longer duration.  Disease X or Scariant Ignoramus.

==========

NB:

"The Private Science of Louis Pasteur," by Dr. Gerald L. Geison of Princeton University, is based on an examination of Pasteur's 102 laboratory notebooks. These notebooks show a different side to the man - information left out, data scrubbed, observations which contradicted expected conclusions ignored, some plagiarisation of ideas etc. The NY Times and the WaPo reported on this book and published 1990s editorials which stated in effect, that much of Pasteur’s work was fraudulent. This is likely true, but we need to recognise where Pasteur was right and innovative and where he was deceitful and dishonest. He was in some ways like Jenner - a PR man and salesman. Much of ‘science’ today is just the same. Scientism is not a modern idea.