Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease

Say not the Struggle nought Availeth

Questions:

Are we talking about the research of a person contempraneous to Pasteur?

J.

Matthew Cline

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

> You may be correct. However, he did research, published that
> research, and did prove that bacteria are pleomorphic and not
> monomorphic. This adequately disproves the germ theory of disease
> at the scientific level. Now....if we can only get down to the
> level of medicine.

A single researcher, or single group of researchers, can't conclusively prove
something. They could have had a flaw in their methodology, made mistakes in
the setup of the experiment, or made mistakes in their observations; this is
why reproducibility and peer-review is required. If a single group *could*
prove something, then both N-rays and cold fusion would be scientifically
accepted facts.

--
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:

>> From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net

>> The theory of contagious diseases would require the second part (specific
>> germs being unalterable), but the theory of contagious diseases isn't the
>> same thing as the germ theory of disease

> Let's not confuse contagion with the germ theory of disease.

I wasn't, but I thought you were, since the germ theory doesn't require germs
to be monomorphic. Rosenow's results (assuming they're valid) would only
invalidate the germ theory if a single person's blood supply had enough
variation in blood chemistry such that, if he was infected with bacteria,
that there would *always* be several different types of bacteria in different
infected portions of the body, leading to several different diseases at once.
However, even then I don't think that would really invalidate it, since the
effects the different bacteria were causing would be observed by a doctor as
a single cluster of symptoms, and hence a single disease. (Plus, I don't see
how a single person's blood supply could have that much variation in blood
chemistry from one portion of the blood supply to the next, save for the
variations in oxygen and carbon dioxide)

If bacterial polymorphism invalidates the germ theory in some other manner,
please explain how it does so in detail. It may be obvious to you, but it's
not obvious to the rest of us.

>> Also, having not read Rosenow's works, I don't know if his
>> experiments used extreme environments to induce bacterial
>> transformation, or mild environments.

> Rosenow simply changed the bacteria's food source proving that
> depending upon the available food supply, the bacteria could and
> would transform into a type that could exist on that food. First
> comes the food, then the specific bacteria not the reverse.

So the bacteria would change it's form, along with it's DNA. Punctuated
evolution, indeed.

>>> How could we ever concoct a flu vaccine two years before the virus
>>> exists?

>> I don't understand exactly what you're getting at.

> It is a matter of production and delivery. If modern medicine
> waited for the flu to show up, identified the culprit virus, then
> began to culture the virus and produce the vaccine, they would be at
> least two years behind since it would take that long to produce it.

It really takes that long to produce? What I've read suggests it takes 6 to 8
months. See
http://www.who.int/emc-documents/in...x.htm/sec10.htm

>> Huh? What I said that a virus can *reproduce* only once it's gotten it's
>> genetic material into a living cell.

> The virus cannot reproduce. Only the living cell can.

I'm saying that viruses reproduce *indirectly*, as opposed to living cells,
which do it directly. Are you saying that indirect reproduction is
impossible?

> Show me where any data has ever been published whereby viral particles can
> reproduce outside the living cell.

They can't, that's *why* they're viruses; it's their defining trait.

> Secondly, show me where the data is published that these dead viral
> particles can cross our membranes and get into us.

What sort of evidence would you accept? Imagine a world in which the germ
theory *does* hold, and viral particles *do* get their genetic materials into
living cells. In that world, what sort of experimental results would happen,
that are currently lacking? Since viruses are too small to make a video of
them infecting a living cell, any experiments/observations would be indirect.

I'll take a stab at summarizing some published data: take certain strain of
cells. Look at it's DNA. Expose that strain to a retrovirus to which
they're susceptible. Before they die, look at their DNA again; it will now
contain genetic material that wasn't present before, but that matches the
genetic material to be found in the viruses. The retroviruses have managed
to get their genetic material into the nuclei of the cells, which implies
that they must have been able to get past the membranes of those cells.

> I suggest that they would be digested like any other material
> containing DNA.

You mean that all living cells contain in their plasma (except in the
mitochondrion and nucleus) enzymes which break down any strands of DNA they
encounter?

>> Of course, the scientists could be lying, and making up all these
>> observations out of whole cloth.

> The experiments are done to fit the theory. The conclusions are
> made to fit the theory. All of this is done in a lab and not in the
> real world. The experiments and the conclusions do not fit the model
> for the real world.

Wait, wait. The experiments by Bechamp and Rosenow were done in labs, so why
do *those* count? Is it that, for some reason, lab experiments can be used
to disprove the germ theory, but a much higher standard must be used to prove
it?

>> I thought the mitochondrion were supposed to be immortal.

> Nope. Just the microzymas.

>> Eh? I've seen videotapes of living cells dividing and doing other things.
>> What are you talking about?

> You can see cells easily with a microscope. You cannot see living
> processes by observing dead cells as is the usual case. The
> microzymas are not visible by our normal microscopic techniques.

Didn't Bechamp observe microzymas contained within chalk via a microscope? If
so, looking at a living cell with a microscope, the microzymas ought to be
visible inside the cell, like the various organelles are; seems to be they
ought to *be* the organelles. Or are there a variety of microzymas, with the
ones constituting cellular life being too small to be seen with a microscope?

> You have never see a live virus, have you, nor a videotape of it because it
> cannot be done.

What exactly would a live virus *be*? You have viral particles (viral genetic
material surrounded by protein), and living cells infected by the viral
genetic material; that's it. Nowhere does a "live virus" need to come into
the equation.

Plus, there's no videotapes of non-living viral particles either, because
they're too small. Does the fact that viral particles are too small to be
videotaped mean that they can't do certain things? Or does it mean that
certain things can't be proven about them? (Sort of a Godel's incompleteness
theorem of medical science)


>>> The study of living cells and cellular processes lies beyond our
>>> scientists. It takes too much time and money, not to mention
>>> intelligence and ability.

>> How should they go about doing it?

> First, prove that they can reproduce the published work of Bechamp.
> If they can't do that, they are incompetents and none of their work
> can be trusted.

Right, it's simply not *possible* that Bechamp could have used a faulty
methodology, or made mistakes in setting up his experiments, or made mistakes
in his observations. We can throw away concepts like reproducibility and
peer-review, because what *really* matters is what type of person the
researcher was. Bechamp was a genius and a saint and had several degrees and
was respected in the medical field, therefore any medical theory he proposed
*must* be true. If other scientists can't reproduce his works, it's not
because he was a fallible human who made a mistake; no, he was infallible,
and it's all the other scientists who are at fault.

--
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:

> The virus cannot reproduce. Only the living cell can. The living cell can
> reproduce not the virus.

[snip]

> You have never see a live virus, have you, nor a videotape of it because it
> cannot be done.

I think I might see what you're saying. Are you saying that, for something to
reproduce, somewhere in the reproductive cycle it *must* be alive? And since
a viral particle containing viral DNA is a "live virus", and neither is a
living cell infected with viral DNA a "live virus", a "live virus" never
exists, and hence it can't reproduce? In other-words, a reproducing virus is
a logical impossibility?


--
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

Carole

drceephd@aol.com (DRCEEPHD) wrote in message news:<20031117193552.29219.00000376@mb-m10.aol.com>...

> >You're misunderstanding is in the "(white blood cells and such)"
> >part. The term, "immune system" means something different to
> >alternative-health practitioners than it does in scientific
> >medicine. To the alts, the term "immune system" is a recent
> >replacement for the older term "vital force."
> >
> >If you read the homeopathic literature with that in mind, the
> >contradiction goes away.
> >
> Sorry, you in the quackwatch group still cannot or do not understand.
>
> Refer to the published work of A. Bechamp, BS, PhD, MD., once head of a medical
> school in France. He proved Pasteur was a dunce, a charlatan, a con artist.
> You are still deceived by Pasteur’s effort.
>
> Bacteria are of two types. Those internal and beneficial and those external
> and deadly.

Are you sure about that? From what I can gather germs mutate according
to the environment they find themselves in. So everybody can be
exposed to the same germs, which will make some people very sick and
others will not be affected.
If a person has a good internal flora the germs mutate to become
harmless, and vice versa.

This is like the soil theory as it applies to agriculture. I once read
a book which described how different weeds grow in different deficient
soils, that they were masters at adapting to soils that others
couldn't tolerate and at the same time they provided that element by
being able to extract it more efficiently. For instance, bracken fern
grows in potassium deficient soil.

Pleomorphability of all germs (bacteria, viruses, fungii)
http://www.euroamericanhealth.com/pleo.html

Germs, all microorganisms, (viruses, bacteria, fungi and everything
in-between) are the result, not the cause of disease!

> The deadly, external type area the cause of gangrene and other fatal diseases
> related to bacteria. The friendly, internal type, are those which surface and
> then dissipate with your recovery ( since they are at least partially
> responsible for your recovery ).

According to my thinking, gangrene can possibly be treated by
correcting the condition of the blood.

> Bechamp’s microzymal theory still stands as the supreme medical work of the
> 19th and 20th century.
>
> Dr. C.

Pleomorphability of all germs (bacteria, viruses, fungii)
http://www.euroamericanhealth.com/pleo.html

"Louis Pasteur is said to have said on his death bed that really he
had been wrong about his "Germ Theory" of disease. He said then, in so
many words, that, it is not the germ that is the problem, it is the
internal environment, the internal milieu that allowed the germ to
develop in the first place that is the problem.
"Add to this the error of William Harvey, who stated in 1651 that the
cell is the smallest unit of life and the magnitude of this issue
becomes even more apparent. That was more than 300 years ago!! and
still, to this day, this fallacy has not been corrected even though
Bechamp (1816-1908) demonstrated that the smallest unit of life was
what he called the microzyma and Enderlein again published in 1921 and
1925 that the smallest unit of life is not the cell but the Protit."

Carole
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/pleomorphism.htm

Carole

drceephd@aol.com (DRCEEPHD) wrote in message news:<20031120224721.27838.00000693@mb-m06.aol.com>...


> >
> >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.

Basic units of life
Guenther Enderlein - Protits
Antoine Bechamp - microzyma
Gaston Naessens - somatid
Virginia Livingston-Wheeler progenitor cryptocides (see pleomorphism
section)
Wilhelm Reich - bions

Carole
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/soil.htm
"At the heart of science lies discovery which involves a change in
worldview. Discovery in science is possible only in societies which
accord their citizens the freedom to pursue the truth where it may
lead and which therefore have respect for different paths to that
truth,"
-- John Polanyi, Canadian Nobel Laureate (Chemistry); commencement
address, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, June 1990

Carole

Orac <orac@mac.com> wrote in message news:<orac-D9E118.07565819112003@host9.newsfeeds.com>...

>
> Homeopathy is quackery. Period. Just from the laws of physics and
> chemistry alone, its main principle of dilution is indefensible.

Its quackery to current material science ... but what does that tell
us, hmmm?
There are actual studies which say it works, if you go to different
homeopathic websites.
Instead of saying it doesn't fit in with the theories of science, they
should be trying to work out why it works. The reason science doesn't
want to acknowledge it though, is because its a science they deny has
any validity --- ether based science. They only accept the validity of
material-based science, there is too much security surrounding any
science which is ether based to allow the public to go into it.

Carole
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/conspiracy.htm
"The mind is like a parachute. In order to function, it first has to
open." --Thomas Dewar

Carole

wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote in message news:<sGVub.22710$4a3.20062@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>...

> >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.
> >Be'champ 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!!!
> >
> >Kinda neat, don't you think?
>
> Kind of a neat example of self-delusion. I don't suppose it could be
> that Bechamp was culturing much more recent bacteria that had managed
> to colonize his sample?

I thought you would have known about this Dave. Read about how the
microzymas are immortal and can't be killed with sterilising methods.

TO BE OR NOT TO BE? 150 Years of Hidden Knowledge
by Christopher Bird 1991 (Nexus Magazine April 1992)
http://www.whale.to/p/bird.html

Carole
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/soil.htm
"Nothing would be what it is,*
Because everything would be what it isn’t.
And contrary-wise: what it is, it wouldn’t be.*
And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?"
-- Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland, 1865, by Lewis Carroll,
English writer and mathematician.

Anth

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ar...cgi?artid=27460
Anth

Anth

Why do you say this?
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ar...cgi?artid=27460
Anth

D. C. Sessions

In <fcb180f1.0311230343.199fa787@posting.google.com>, Carole wrote:

> Are you sure about that? From what I can gather germs mutate according
> to the environment they find themselves in. So everybody can be
> exposed to the same germs, which will make some people very sick and
> others will not be affected.

No, that implies contagion: if you aren't exposed to it, you
can't get the disease. Chuckles denies this.

--
begin signature.exe
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

D. C. Sessions

In <fcb180f1.0311230429.16479644@posting.google.com>, Carole wrote:

> I thought you would have known about this Dave. Read about how the
> microzymas are immortal and can't be killed with sterilising methods.
>
> TO BE OR NOT TO BE? 150 Years of Hidden Knowledge
> by Christopher Bird 1991 (Nexus Magazine April 1992)
> http://www.whale.to/p/bird.html

I'm impressed. Finally something has been found that
resists thermonuclear temperatures.

--
begin signature.exe
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

WB

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 06:34:53 -0700, "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

>In <fcb180f1.0311230343.199fa787@posting.google.com>, Carole wrote:
>
>> Are you sure about that? From what I can gather germs mutate according
>> to the environment they find themselves in. So everybody can be
>> exposed to the same germs, which will make some people very sick and
>> others will not be affected.
>
>No, that implies contagion: if you aren't exposed to it, you
>can't get the disease. Chuckles denies this.


Unless you are hyper-somatic. You can get the disease by just
reading about it.

8-]]
--


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

Happy Oyster

On 23 Nov 2003 03:43:32 -0800, hubbca@austarmetro.com.au (Carole)
wrote:

>Germs, all microorganisms, (viruses, bacteria, fungi and everything
>in-between) are the result, not the cause of disease!

That is idiocy.

Aribert Deckers
--
Schwerer Pfusch Arzneimittelprüfung

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