Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease

DRCEEPHD

>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>From: wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright)
>Date: 11/19/03 9:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <sGVub.22710$4a3.20062@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>

> I don't suppose it could be
>that Bechamp was culturing much more recent bacteria that had managed
>to colonize his sample?

He covers that in his work. Nope. He is correct.

Dr. C.

Rich

On 19 Nov 2003 20:33:03 GMT, jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:


>There is no need to make a post personal just because you disagree. We have
>far too much of this here.

Indeed. And ironically it is usually from the keyboard of Jan Drew. No
surprise there.

Aloha,

Rich

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

The best defense to logic is ignorance.

Rich

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 20:37:09 -0500, Orac <orac@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <qp4orv0spqfdddhb6rqbk9mrgs1vb91mve@4ax.com>,
> Happy Oyster <happy.oyster@ariplex.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 07:56:58 -0500, Orac <orac@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Homeopathy is quackery. Period. Just from the laws of physics and
>> >chemistry alone, its main principle of dilution is indefensible.
>>
>>
>> And, dear Mr. Orac, MANY of the so highly acclaimed homeopathic
>> medicaments are fraud, ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN RULES... ;O)
>>
>> See details in
>> http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_amp.htm
>
>It would help if I could speak German...

Was da los?

Aloha,

Rich

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

The best defense to logic is ignorance.

Matthew Cline

DRCEEPHD was touched by the minds of the terrible Old Ones, and imparted unto
us these blasphemous ravings:

>> From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net

>> Every living cell in the body (except for red blood cells) contain
>> mitochondria, which convert acetic acid into ATP, the energy source
>> for the rest of the cell.

> Are you sure that the enzymes convert vinegar, acetic acid into ATP?
> First I heard of this. Sugar yea, but vinegar?

Oops, that's not quite right; it's been a while since I've taken biology.
Inside of a cell, yet outside of the mitochondrion, glycosis turn sugar
(glucose) into pyruvic acid. Pyruvic acid travels into the mitochondrion,
gets turned into acetic acid (vinegar), which combines with coenzyme A and
enters the Krebs Cycle. The Krebs Cycle spits out a molecule of GTP, which
is used to make ATP.

I had thought that sugar was reduced to acetic acid before it entered the
mitochondrion; my mistake.

>> Mitochondria look like bacteria, and even have their own DNA, which
>> looks like bacterial DNA.

> This is in complete agreement with Be'champs theories. The microzymas are
> the building blocks of the cells and possess their own DNA and life force.

In non-bacterial cells, only mitochondrion and the nucleus have their own DNA
(plus chloroplasts, in plants). Other organelles, such as ribosomes, the
endoplasmic reticulum, and Golgi bodies have no DNA. (See
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/cells.htm) And what exactly is
meant by "life force"? Something that has chemical reactions happening in
it?

> Bechamp was able to successfully culture the critters back to life
> out of 200 million year old chalk deposits. As far as normal
> processes go, they are IMMORTAL!!!

If mitochondrion could live "in the wild" (outside of cells) 200 million years
ago, and were immortal, then we'd still be able to find them out there;
there's nothing that would have caused them to become extinct. Also, how did
Bechamp distinguish whatever came out of the chalk from ordinary bacteria?

[snip]

> I don't think you have read or understand one thing that Be'champ
> and his followers researched and published.

Looks like I haven't read enough of the material; I'll read more when I get
the occasion.

--
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on
fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Advanced SPAM filtering software: http://spamassassin.org

Happy Dog

"DRCEEPHD" <drceephd@aol.com> wrote in message news:>

> The external bacteria, if given entry to the
> tissues, are always fatal to the organism. The internal bacteria arise
from
> even smaller organisms he called microzymas. Once the need for the
beneficial
> bacteria was overcome, the bacteria regenerated to their former identities
and
> size, that is, back to the microzyma. Hence, we "recover" from a disease.
> Otherwise a bacterial disease would always be fatal just as it can be with
> gangrene.

Bacterial don't regenerate to their former identities. That statement is
nonsense. You can't defend it, so switch tactics. It is lost on you and
your insane lot that malevolant infectious agents threaten everything they
can possibly infect. They don't give a damn about which theory of
physiology you subscribe to.
>
> >What would you say occurs after abdominal surgery, when normally
> >friendly bacteria from the large intestines infect the wound?
>
> The same thing that happened to my mother following abdominal surgery.
She
> died.

Is your point that the risk she took was unjustified?

>
> The bacteria on our skin are not interal, nor friendly bacteria. The
bacteria
> in our GI tract are not interal, nor friendly, yet they are absolutely
> necessary for our survival. The bacteria are on one side of our membranes
and
> we are on the other side. This is true of the membrane called the skin
and the
> one called the GI tract.

Bacteria in the GI tract aren't internal? OK what bacteria are internal?

le moo

Matthew Cline

DRCEEPHD was touched by the minds of the terrible Old Ones, and imparted unto
us these blasphemous ravings:

>> From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net

>> There seems to be some debate as to whether he really said this;
>> however, it doesn't matter, one way or another.

> The heck it doesn't matter. A death bed confession is accepted in a
> court of law.

It would be taken as evidence about what Pasteur *himself* did. If Pasteur
lied about his experimental results, those were *his* experiments; others
have done their own experiments, and gotten their own results. If he
repudiated his chain of reasoning regarding the germ theory as illogical or
flawed, that does not make them so, any more than him saying that they are
logical makes them logical, simply by his assertion; once someone has
asserted has asserted a chain of reasoning, other scientists weigh it on it's
own (or should do so), regardless of what that someone later says, or who
that someone is. The originator of a scientific theory doesn't have any
special insights or knowledge about that theory that others don't, and he/she
doesn't have any sort of primary authority over that theory; if the
originator of a theory has some special insights into, or authority over,
their theory that other people don't, then it isn't science. The originator
of a theory, and the experiments he himself did (as opposed to the same
experiments duplicated by other people) don't form the foundation of the
theory; the theory itself, plus the experimental results, form the
foundation, regardless of who originated it.

>> Allopathy is not the whole of modern medicine. Modern medicine
>> includes things like nutrition

> Yuk, yuk, yuk. Modern medicine has always said "there is no
> scientific connection between diet and disease."

Always? Where? Who?

>> surgery

> Yeah, the blood sacrifice to their God.

So, if someone had appendicitis, you wouldn't recommend that get the appendix
surgically removed? If someone had a malignant cancer, you wouldn't
recommend it be surgically removed?

>> the use of insulin to treat diabetes,

> I would rather state it as " the improper use of insulin to treat
> diabetes thus converting people to being insulin addicts."

So then, injections of insulin further reduce the ability of diabetic's
pancreas to produce insulin, and a homeopathic treatment could instead
stimulate the pancreas into producing normal levels? Or are insulin levels
irrelevant to diabetes?

>> The homeopath will give you water

> Not all the "remedies" are just water. Some do have herbal
> contents.

Ah, I wasn't aware of that.

>> I've read http://www.unhinderedliving.com/germtheory.html; is it a
>> good summary of Beauchamp's ideas? If so, I'm unimpressed.

> I visited the site and your link does not work. I found nothing of
> interest there.

Oops, shouldn't have put a semicolon after it:

http://www.unhinderedliving.com/germtheory.html

--
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on
fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Advanced SPAM filtering software: http://spamassassin.org

Matthew Cline

DRCEEPHD was touched by the minds of the terrible Old Ones, and imparted unto
us these blasphemous ravings:

>> Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease

>> I assume that Bechamp's includes an immune system that fights
>> external bacteria,

> Yes, but contrary to your belief a pure blood system would have very
> few circulating white blood cells. The more polluted your blood and
> poisonous your lifestyle and dietary, the more white blood cells are
> required to fight off bacteria and chemical poisons.

If external bacteria managed to get into your blood, the blood would provide a
very good nutrient broth for them to replicate in. Is there something about
pure blood that kills of external bacteria without white blood cells
attacking them? I'm not aware that laboratory nutrient broths need poisons
in them to keep the bacteria alive...

Also, white blood cells don't remove poison from the blood. That what the
liver and kidneys do.

>> that death only occurs when the immune system isn't strong enough
>> to fight off those bacteria?

> Death occurs when the needs of the body require it. The physical
> body dies and returns to the earth. The microzymas go on living.
> They survive after our physical death.

What? So the microzymas (mitochondrion and other organelles) go "It's crowded
in here" and induce the body into dying?

>> And that the immune system simply ignores the measles virus,

> The virus is an excuse for the doctor that you are sick and he has
> no bacteria to blame it upon. Think of disease as dis-ease. The
> body is not at ease. It needs to clean house to keep you alive.

Viruses are correlated with the presence of certain diseases. In the case of
measles, one of the following is true:

A) The virus causes measles.
B) Measles causes the virus.
C) Some third thing causes both measles and the virus.

So far as I can tell, the Bechamp theories propose B. But in that case, why
are the viruses produced? They don't do anything outside of a cell, so they
can't aid in any cleanup. It might make sense for cells to pump out virii if
they contained toxins the cells were getting rid of, but they don't contain
toxins, but genetic material (DNA and RNA). Genetic material which encodes
for, among other things, the proteins that make up the part of the virus
which contains the genetic material. Which makes sense, if the virus is
trying to replicate itself...

> Your diseases are the efforts of a vital body to prolong life by
> cleansing the body of accumulated poisons and toxins.

When the human body contains some sort of poison, like ethyl alcohol (booze),
the liver and kidneys continuously work to get rid of it until none of it are
left. You are proposing an additional toxin cleaning system which is
non-continuous, but rather waits for toxins to build up, and then suddenly
decides to get rid of these toxins all at once, in a manner that causes such
symptoms as a runny nose and sores/pustules/poxes.

> Internal diseases where bacteria are present have beneficial
> bacteria at work assisting the body in its housecleaning.

So then, the immune system does *not* attack these bacteria, but *only*
external ones?

>> So then, wouldn't giving antibiotics to someone suffering from,
>> say, tuberculosis or syphilis make the disease even *worse*, by
>> killing off the beneficial bacteria? Or are those cases of
>> external bacteria?

> Taking antibiotics internally gives the body three choices. If the
> administered poison ( the antibiotic ) is not too strong, the body
> will persist in keeping you alive another day and the disease will
> go on.

So then, when scientists where first able to extract penicillin from bread
mold and tested it out on some patients, the patients who got penicillin
stayed sick longer and died more often then the patients not receiving it?
And after noticing this, the scientists all said "Oops. Oh well, we'll cover
up the evidence and lie about the results"?

> The virus is an excuse that we have no bacteria to blame your
> illness upon. No scientist has ever seen the first live virus.
> They are always dead organic matter with a partial DNA strand. Dead
> organic matter cannot come to life and make you sick any more than
> your next hamburger can come back to life and make you a cow...or a
> bull if you wish.

It doesn't come back to life. It injects the genetic material into a living
cell (or induces the cell to absorb the genetic material), and the cell then
reads that genetic material just like the genetic material it already had.
This leads to the production of proteins, proteins that form into new viruses
and get ejected from the cell. At no point in the cycle is the virus ever
alive; it doesn't need to be. It simply needs to spread its genetic material
into living cells.

--
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on
fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Advanced SPAM filtering software: http://spamassassin.org

Happy Oyster

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 03:42:09 GMT, Rich<,@.> wrote:

>>> And, dear Mr. Orac, MANY of the so highly acclaimed homeopathic
>>> medicaments are fraud, ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN RULES... ;O)
>>>
>>> See details in
>>> http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_amp.htm
>>
>>It would help if I could speak German...
>
>Was da los?

Dear Mr. Rich,

DHU, the German producer of homeopathic "remedies", in public admits
that some (extent unknown) of his medicines are NOT proven in a
homeopathic proving. Nonetheless the sell that material AND they claim
that it works. But, as there are no provings, the materials CAN NOT be
used in the homeopathic way ! The homeopathic method FUNDAMENTALLY
needs the simile. But this simile cannot be found without provings.

Quite a confession by them, isnt' it ?

Regards,

Aribert Deckers
--
Schwerer Pfusch Arzneimittelprüfung

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_amp.htm

DRCEEPHD

>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>From: "Happy Dog" happydog@sympatico.ca
>Date: 11/19/03 11:32 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <ytXub.13160$iT4.1579911@news20.bellglobal.com>

Well, Happy Dog. I see that you have not choked on a chicken bone and died
yet.

>> The same thing that happened to my mother following abdominal surgery.
>She
>> died.
>
>Is your point that the risk she took was unjustified?

No, just that her foreign doc was an incompetent. She died from perotinitis.
I sued and won. Still, I would rather have mom.

>Bacteria in the GI tract aren't internal? OK what bacteria are internal?

Nope. From the opening in your mouth to the opening in your anus, there is a
membrane separating you from the outside. The bacteria are then "external" to
you, although there are in your GI tract.

Dr. C.

DRCEEPHD

>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net
>Date: 11/20/03 12:05 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <7YXub.13173$M02.9221@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>

In science you better not lie. Others will catch you and disgrace you. In
math, chemistry, or physics you better play it straight. In medicine it is
another ball game. Better to lie than to rock the boat. If your data supports
the concept that the germ theory of disease is false, then scrap your data,
redesign your experiments, and do it again. We do it all the time.





>> Yuk, yuk, yuk. Modern medicine has always said "there is no
>> scientific connection between diet and disease."
>
>Always? Where? Who?

I thought everyone was aware of that.

>So, if someone had appendicitis, you wouldn't recommend that get the appendix
>
>surgically removed?

Welllll, maybe. The orthopaths rarely ran into actual appendicitis and even
more rarely had to resort to surgery unless the individual had put ice on the
area. Even today, when appendicitis is diagnosed, they rarely find an abcessed
appendix, but since the doc is there, he cuts it out anyway.



>If someone had a malignant cancer, you wouldn't
>recommend it be surgically removed?

Cannot agree here. Some cancers, like skin cancer can be successfully treated
( not cured ) by surgery. Still the cause of your cancers ( plural ) is still
there and future cancers are in your future.

Diabetes is a dibilitating condition. It can be treated short term with
insulin. However, the orthopaths would have used diet and lifestyle
modification to allow the person to live a life free of diabetes and insulin
thus avoiding the blindness, amputations and death from heart disease that
modern victims suffer. Diabetes is not fatal. Insulin overdose sure is.

>> Not all the "remedies" are just water. Some do have herbal
>> contents.
>
>Ah, I wasn't aware of that.

I am not aware of anyone dying from a homeopathic remedy. However, some claim
that over 300,000 die yearly from the allopath's drugs. Big, big difference.
And that is just in the U.S.

>> I visited the site and your link does not work. I found nothing of
>> interest there.
>
>Oops, shouldn't have put a semicolon after it:
>
>http://www.unhinderedliving.com/germtheory.html

Thanks, I revisited the site. They do have a decent summary. However, the
work of Nassenes in Canada has put to rest the concept of a virus. He has
reported some 12 stages in the life cyle of what he calls somatids (
Be'champ's microzymas ). Be'champ knew of three cycles. He characterized the
critters by their protein chemistry ( DNA was not known then ). He was able to
culture, isolate, and chemically identify each type according to whatever organ
they were in. That was really some excellent medical/scientic work.

Dr. C.

WB

On 21 Nov 2003 03:31:01 GMT, drceephd@aol.com (DRCEEPHD) wrote:

>>Bacteria in the GI tract aren't internal? OK what bacteria are internal?
>
>Nope. From the opening in your mouth to the opening in your anus, there is a
>membrane separating you from the outside. The bacteria are then "external" to
>you, although there are in your GI tract.
>
>Dr. C.

Strictly anatomically speaking that is correct.
Yet the GI organs themselves are internal.

WB
--


Take out the G'RBAGE to reply
wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com

DRCEEPHD

>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net
>Date: 11/19/03 11:18 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <kgXub.32736$Q37.16695@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>
>

>And what exactly is
>meant by "life force"? Something that has chemical reactions happening in
>it?

Ah, yes. What is "life force"? I don't know. Every living thing has it.
Every dead thing does not. It is not electricity. It is not chemical. Who
knows what it is?

>Also, how did
>Bechamp distinguish whatever came out of the chalk from ordinary bacteria?

You would need to read his work. Too complicated for a general debate.
Additionally I remember a 14 year experiment he did on a cat. After burying
the cat for 7 years he examined what remained. Very little was left, except
for a teeming amout of microzymas in the lower portion of the burial material,
not the upper material. He repeated the experiment to verify his results.
Thus 14 years of study.

>Looks like I haven't read enough of the material; I'll read more when I get
>the occasion.
>
What I would like to know is exactly what kind of microscope was he using?
What kind of illumination? What kind of magnification was needed. What kind of
technique did he use to see these extremely small critters? ( He actually
measured them and reported their sizes ).
Since Pasteur's group were not able to use his techniques, and Pasteur would
not allow them to be taught, they must have been very unique for the time.

Oh, yeah. To the orthopatic M.D. the virus was nothing more than the
enzymatically cleaved genome of the mitochondria following cellular death. The
virus, or the viral particle, cannot invade a living host or inject its
material into a living cell. Only a doctor or scientist using a needle can do
this. I do not doubt what these viral particles can do to a cell so infused
whether injected or just bathed in a broth of the stuff. However, in the real
world it just don't happen that way, just in the never never land of the lab.


Dr. C.

DRCEEPHD

>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net
>Date: 11/20/03 2:36 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <I9_ub.9594$VU1.4026@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>

>If external bacteria managed to get into your blood, the blood would provide
>a
>very good nutrient broth for them to replicate in. Is there something about
>pure blood that kills of external bacteria without white blood cells
>attacking them?

A healthy, vital body would sense any foreign body ( foreign protien?) and
dispatch it very quickly. The white blood cells would attack in droves. What
I was telling you is that in a clean, alkaline body there is little need of
massive amounts of white blood cells.

>I'm not aware that laboratory nutrient broths need poisons
>in them to keep the bacteria alive...
>
If you read the work of one Nobel prize winner, Dr. Rosenow, you find that by
changing the media in which he was growing bacteria, he could change strep into
staff and staff into strep. Can you not see that this is polymorphysim?
Polymorphysim destroys the one germ- one disease theory of the monomorphs.
Once again you see the medical goofballs ignoring their own data to perpetuate
a very profitable but fatal lie.
>Also, white blood cells don't remove poison from the blood.

Wanna bet?

>What? So the microzymas (mitochondrion and other organelles) go "It's
>crowded
>in here" and induce the body into dying?

Not quite. The microzymas can sense their surroundings and do respond to it.
They can sense when death is immenent and act accordingly the same as you or I
might run from a fire.

>Viruses are correlated with the presence of certain diseases. In the case of
>
>measles, one of the following is true:
>
>A) The virus causes measles.
>B) Measles causes the virus.
>C) Some third thing causes both measles and the virus.
>

>So far as I can tell, the Bechamp theories propose B.

I think C fits better. The body, in its effort to clean its house, institutes
the dis-ease we call measles. A virus is claimed only because we cannot blame
the illness upon nonexisting bacteria, yet the virus is just as nonexisting.
>But in that case, why
>are the viruses produced?
They aren't produced, only claimed.

>They don't do anything outside of a cell

You got that right. They cannot invade us to make us sick. They can, however,
like all organic matter, be food for bacteria.

> It might make sense for cells to pump out virii if

Cells produce viral particles only upon their own death and enzymatic
destruction. ( this destruction is what causes the viral particles to be
present.) They do not excrete them as part of their functioning. You will
find that their genetic material is incomplete due to enzymatic cleavage of
their DNA into fragments.



> You are proposing an additional toxin cleaning system which is
>non-continuous, but rather waits for toxins to build up, and then suddenly
>decides to get rid of these toxins all at once, in a manner that causes such
>symptoms as a runny nose and sores/pustules/poxes.

Fortunately for us this is how it happens. The body wants to be pure and keep
clean house. If you allow this you can live to 120 and always be free of
sickness and disease. I know of only one man in the last century to do this.
The body can tolerate an accumulation of poisons and toxins by storing them in
the tissues. As we get more and more toxic, we tolerate more and more junk in
our internal house. The best proof of this accumulation is the new disease of
amylodosis. The pathologists can now visualize these accumulations in the
tissues of sick people. However, not recognizing them for what they are, they
have instituted a new disease process, called amyloidosis. Yuk, yuk, yuk.
These clowns in white coats never learn.

Dr. C.

Happy Dog

"DRCEEPHD" <drceephd@aol.com> wrote in message
> >From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net >
>
> >And what exactly is
> >meant by "life force"? Something that has chemical reactions happening
in
> >it?
>
> Ah, yes. What is "life force"? I don't know. Every living thing has it.
> Every dead thing does not. It is not electricity. It is not chemical.
Who
> knows what it is?

Who can detect it? Hint: Not you. Another hint: Nobody in a controlled
setting.
>
> >Also, how did
> >Bechamp distinguish whatever came out of the chalk from ordinary
bacteria?
>
> You would need to read his work. Too complicated for a general debate.

IOW, you have knowledge of this similar to your knowledge of the "life
force".

> >Looks like I haven't read enough of the material; I'll read more when I
get
> >the occasion.
> >
> What I would like to know is exactly what kind of microscope was he using?
> What kind of illumination? What kind of magnification was needed. What
kind of
> technique did he use to see these extremely small critters? ( He actually
> measured them and reported their sizes ).
> Since Pasteur's group were not able to use his techniques, and Pasteur
would
> not allow them to be taught, they must have been very unique for the
time.

Would not allow what to be taught?
>
> Oh, yeah. To the orthopatic M.D. the virus was nothing more than the
> enzymatically cleaved genome of the mitochondria following cellular death.
The
> virus, or the viral particle, cannot invade a living host or inject its
> material into a living cell. Only a doctor or scientist using a needle
can do
> this. I do not doubt what these viral particles can do to a cell so
infused
> whether injected or just bathed in a broth of the stuff. However, in the
real
> world it just don't happen that way, just in the never never land of the
lab.

Then where do all the viruses come from in an infected person? Why do viral
loads correspond with disease progression?

le moo