A plagiarist is someone who uses another person’s words or ideas as if they were his own.
An imposter is someone who attempts to deceive.
Louis Pasteur was a French microbiologist and chemist, born on December 27, 1822 in Dole, in the region of Jura, France. His discovery that most infectious diseases are caused by germs, known as “the germ theory of disease,” became the foundation for the science of microbiology, and a cornerstone of modern medicine.
“Pasteur also developed ‘pasteurization’, which was named after him. Pasteurization is a process by which harmful microbes in perishable food products are destroyed using heat, without destroying the food.” However, this is not true. Pasteurization does NOT kill ALL “supposedly” harmful microbes (harmful according to the medical industry) and it definitely DOES damage the food by destroying natural enzymes and nutrients.
However, Louis Pasteur was not an honest creditable individual. If you look back into the history of the medical profession and the various ideas regarding the cause of disease that were held by leading physicians before Pasteur first promulgated his notorious “germ theory”, you will find convincing evidence that Pasteur discovered nothing, and that he deliberately appropriated, falsified and perverted another man’s work.
His true character and methods were brought to light by Miss Ethel Douglas Hume in her book “Pasteur or Béchamp” written in 1923, the title of which has since been changed to “Pasteur Exposed.”
Another book by R.B. Pearson “Pasteur, Plagiarist, Impostor” was originally published in the 1940s, with a new edition entitled “The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur.”
Interestingly enough Pasteur instructed his family never to release his lab notes. After his grandson died in 1975, they were finally released. Gerald Geison, a science historian, was among the first people to thoroughly review those notes.
In 1995, which was “ironically” proclaimed “The Year of Pasteur,” Geison’s article was published in the New York Times proclaiming that Pasteur had lied about his research on vaccines and germs and that most of his ideas had been plagiarized from his contemporaries. His article, “Pasteur’s Deception” claimed that Pasteur was, in the end, a fraud.
It was Antoine Béchamp (1816-1908), a contemporary of Pasteur, who discovered the true nature of germs, bacteria, viruses, etc., and that they were pleomorphic (capable of changing from one type of organism to another). Later on another colleague of Pasteur’s colleague’s, Claude Bernard, described the “milieu” or environment that affected/caused those changes.
On his deathbed, Pasteur recanted, saying that Bernard
Another problem with the germ theory of disease is discovered when we look at “Koch’s Postulates” [Dr. Robert Koch]:
Postulates means accepted statements of fact.
The germ which causes a disease must be found in every case of the disease under the conditions which could explain the disease.
The germ must not be found in other diseases or healthy people.
The germ could be isolated and used to induce an experimental disease in animals which resembles (is like) the original disease in humans.
Pasteur never quite fulfilled all of thise rules. He was not able to find the germ in all cases of a disease and this is where his research became fraudulent. Additionally, many so-called pathogenic germs are often found in healthy people.
And finally, when Pasteur passed a germ from one animal to another to cause the disease, he did not pass the germ alone, but took some blood with it. Injecting toxic blood from one animal to another will guarantee the receiving animal becomes sick.
Antoine Béchamp’s Discoveries
Professor Antoine Béchamp, a French biologist (1816 – 1908), who was Pasteur’s contemporary (lived at the same time and they knew each other), developed and demonstrated a pleomorphic (many forms – see a more complete description below) theory – essentially that bacteria change form and are not the cause of, but the result of, disease, arising from tissues rather than from a germ of constant form. This has also been called the “cellular disease theory.”
Béchamp discovered that these micro-organisms (germs) feed upon the poisonous material which they find in the sick organism and prepare it for excretion. These tiny organisms are derived from still tinier organisms called microzyma.
These microzyma are present in the tissues and blood of all living organisms where they remain normally quiescent (quiet and not acting) and harmless. When the welfare of the human body is threatened by the presence of potentially harmful material, a transmutation (change) takes place [also called pleomorphism].
The microzyma changes into a bacterium or virus which immediately goes to work to rid the body of this harmful material. When the bacteria or viruses have completed their task of consuming the harmful material they automatically revert to the microzyma stage.” –Béchamp. Sourced: Vaccination The “Hidden” Facts by Ian Sinclair, p62
Béchamp himself wrote: “I draw the conclusion that normal air never contains morbid microzymas, or what used to be called germs of diseases and are now called microbes; maintaining, in accord with the old medical aphorism (general truth) that diseases are born of us and in us, that no one has ever been able to communicate a characteristic disease of the nosological class [scientific classification of disease], such as anthrax, smallpox, typhoid fever, cholera, plague, tuberculosis, hydrophobia, syphilis, etc., by taking the germ in the air, but they are isolated from a patient, at some particular moment.”
Béchamp’s academic record includes:
Master of Pharmacy
Doctor of Science
Doctor of Medicine
Professor of Medical Chemistry and Pharmacy at Montpellier
Fellow and Professor of Physics and Toxicology – Strasbourg Higher School of Pharmacy
Professor of Chemistry at Strasbourg
Professor of Biological Chemistry and Dean of Faculty of Medicine of Lille; etc., etc.
Pleomorphism versus Monomorphism
Pleo-morphism means many forms; many or more (pleo-), forms or bodies (morph-), capable of changing from one type of organism to another.
This is in contradistinction (distinction by contrast) to Mono-morphism which means one (mono-) body or form.
Modern medicine, bacteriology, is founded on the idea of Mono-morphism where once a germ is a particular germ it always stays that way. According to this way of thinking, a streptococcal germ is always a streptococcus. It only has one (mono-) form; it doesn’t change into anything else.
However, that is not true. Streptococcal germs and many other kinds of germs, bacteria and viruses can, and do, change into other forms, proven to occur by many eminent researchers since the early 1800s, including Gaston Naessens, Gunther Enderlein, Royal Rife, Antoine Béchamp, and others. Even modern medicine recognizes that bacteria, viruses change into stronger ones, becoming resistant to antibiotic drugs.
Pleomorphism is a concept discovered in the early 1800’s. It shows that germs, bacteria and viruses come from inside the body; from the “tiny dots” you can see in the blood with any microscope. These “tiny dots” of course are the colloids of life or protits.
Pleomorphism is a concept that today sounds very strange. What pleomorphism is however, cannot be denied as the vast amount of data that has been obtained over the last 180 years confirms what modern microbiologists are discovering, re-discovering today. As noted, many people have been involved in this debate for a long time.
Tiny microbes are “tiny dots” in our blood that change form into microorganisms that clean up the garbage, dead cells, toxins and the like. This is what bacteria, germs, and viruses are for. They change first into viruses, then into bacteria and finally into fungal forms. Each of these stages is progressively more hostile to surrounding tissue cells.
Germs, all micro-organisms, (viruses, bacteria, fungi and everything in-between) are the result, not the cause of disease!
Louis Pasteur was wrong! His idea of the bacterial cause of disease was wrong!
If “germs” are there as a result, not a cause, then to treat the resultant germs with antibiotics is in theory and in fact, wrong! This basic misconception about disease affects all aspects of medicine.
This is why this is a “new”… biology, even though it has been proved by many doctors and scientists starting in the early 1800s.
Béchamp stated, in an address before the Academy of Medicine on the 3rd of May, 1870, “that nothing is more obscure than the cause which presides over the development of diseases and their communicability.
But what we can affirm is that when we are sick, it is we who suffer, and that the suffering is a cruel reality. This is because the cause of our diseased condition is always within ourselves.”
External causes contribute to the development of the affliction and hence of the disease only because they have brought about some material modification of the medium (our body, animals, and even soil) in which live the ultimate particles of the organized matter which constitutes us, namely, the microzymas.
These external causes, by a succession of changes brought about, and depending on a crowd of variables, bring about correlatively a further change, which then bears precisely upon the physiological and chemical status of the microzymas. The living being, filled with microzymas, carries in itself the elements essential for life, disease, death and destruction.
Note: Béchamp called these tiny microbes microzymas, while Gaston Naessens called them somatids, and Gunther Enderlein called them protits.
Antibiotics, Immunization or Improved Nutrition?
In 1973 Dr. D. Powles observed: “The major contributing factor toward improved health over the past 200 years has been improved nutrition. Nearly 90% of the total decline in the death rate in children between 1860 and 1965 due to whooping cough, scarlet fever, diphtheria and measles occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization against diphtheria” (Powles, 1973).
Epidemiologist Dr. G.T. Stewart made a similar statement which was reported in Lancet of May 18,1968; and prior to this Sir Robert McCarrison, the great English physician, wrote:
“Obsessed with the invisible microbe, virus, protozoa as all important excitants of disease, subservient to laboratory methods of diagnosis, hidebound by our system of nomenclature, we often forget the most fundamental of all rules for the physician, that the right kind of food (nutrition) is the most important single factor in the promotion of health and the wrong kind of food the most important single factor in the promotion of disease” (McCarrison, 1936).
In a personal communication (1974), Dr. Klenner made the following important observations: “Many here voice a silent view that the Salk and Sabin vaccine, being made of monkey kidney tissue, has been directly responsible for the major increase of leukemia in this country.
Your own Dr. Nossal from the Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia made the statement which was published in our Medical Tribune that, ‘Most killed vaccine in use today was not fit for a mouse.’ ”
Elsewhere in the same communication Dr. Klenner astutely sums up some pertinent reasons for our inability to make successful viral vaccines as follows: “I am of the opinion that virus units have the potential of going from one type to another by just altering their protein coat.
We see chicken pox at Thanksgiving, mumps by Christmas, red measles in the spring and polio and what we now know was Coxsackie in the summer. When the red measles vaccine was given to the children in our community we immediately had an epidemic of sore throats and many of the older people demonstrated Koplik’s spots” (Klenner, 1974).
These viewpoints appear to constitute food for thought. Moreover, it is disappointing to observe the futility and ineffectiveness of many “flu” vaccines that have been accepted by an unwary public.
If we consider Béchamp’s thesis that viruses and bacteria can be extensions of enzymes (“microzymas”), that there are specific disease conditions rather than specific diseases, that the virus and the bacterium are the concomitants, not the antecedents of disease, is it not conceivable that these entities may become, by evolution and nutritional breakdown, the viruses and bacteria we are studying so intently? Is Klenner right? Was Béchamp right? Is this why we cannot make a successful vaccine?
Disease and Béchamp’s Hypothesis: A Final Consideration
A further search of the relevant literature produced the following: “S. Typhi has been isolated from surgical wounds and gall bladders of patients not known to be typhoid carriers” (Arch. Surg., 1972).
Showing the influence of orthodoxy the article then concludes that these patients are infection hazards. We wonder aloud how many “infection hazards” we would detect if we did a bacteriological survey upon all the passengers of a jumbo jet?
Surveys that we have participated in show that a large percentage of the sample may indeed “carry” so-called pathogens without any clinical symptoms of disease. Perhaps it is time we revised the word pathogen?
W. A. Altemeier describes the increase of mixed infections which he alleges are due to indiscreet use of antibiotics, which produces viral, fungal and L-forms which are much more difficult to control.
Altemeier then describes how the bacterial flora is ever changing and cites a case of septicemia: this commenced as a staphylococcal infection and then successively became pseudomonas, bacteroides. E. Coli. Enterobacter, aerogenes, anaerobic streptococci, serratia and finally proteus (Altemeier, 1975).
How many realize that the results of a culture and sensitivity collected from a patient the day before may have changed by the time the result is readable in the laboratory? In other words, yesterday’s tests may be today’s mistakes!
This behavior of the micro-organism might appear much less strange if we adopt more the viewpoint of Béchamp who described the microzymian endogenous (developing inside the body) evolution of micro-organisms some 100 years ago.
If a child develops measles, chicken pox, whooping cough, mumps, rubella or any of the other common childhood infections, it is not because of germs, but because of the accumulated toxic waste within the body, a condition known as Toxaemia.
Royal Raymond Rife’s Discoveries
One day, the name of Royal Raymond Rife may ascend to its rightful place as the giant of modern medical science. Until that time, his fabulous technology remains available only to the people who have the interest to seek it out.
While perfectly legal for veterinarians to use anything to save the lives of animals, Rife’s brilliant frequency therapy remains taboo to orthodox mainstream medicine because of the continuing threat it poses to the international pharmaceutical medical monopoly that controls the lives – and deaths – of the vast majority of the people on this planet.
Rife’s inventions include a heterodyning ultraviolet microscope, a microdissector, and a micromanipulator. When you thoroughly understand Rife’s achievements, you may well decide that he has the most gifted, versatile, scientific mind in human history.
The result of using a resonant wavelength is that micro-organisms which are invisible in white light suddenly become visible in a brilliant flash of light when they are exposed to the color frequency that resonates with their own distinct spectroscopic signature.
Rife was thus able to see these otherwise invisible organisms and watch them actively invading tissues cultures. Rife’s discovery enabled him to view organisms that no one else could see with ordinary microscopes.
By 1920, Rife had finished building the world’s first virus microscope. By 1933, he had perfected that technology and had constructed the incredibly complex Universal Microscope, which had nearly 6,000 different parts and was capable of magnifying objects 60,000 times their normal size.
With this incredible microscope, Rife became the first human being to actually see a live virus, and until quite recently, the Universal Microscope was the only one which was able view live viruses.
Modern electron microscopes instantly kill everything beneath them, viewing only the mummified remains and debris. What the Rife microscope can see is the bustling activity of living viruses as they change form to accommodate changes in environment, replicate rapidly in response to carcinogens, and transform normal cells into tumor cells.
But how was Rife able to accomplish this, in an age when electronics and medicine were still just evolving? Here are a few technical details to placate the skeptics…
Rife painstakingly identified the individual spectroscopic signature of each microbe, using a slit spectroscope attachment. Then, he slowly rotated block quartz prisms to focus light of a single wavelength upon the microorganism he was examining. This wavelength was selected because it resonated with the spectroscopic signature frequency of the microbe based on the now-established fact that every molecule oscillates at its own distinct frequency.
The atoms that come together to form a molecule are held together in that molecular configuration with a covalent energy bond which both emits and absorbs its own specific electromagnetic frequency. No two species of molecule have the same electromagnetic oscillations or energetic signature. Resonance amplifies light in the same way two ocean waves intensify each other when they merge together.
More than 75% of the organisms Rife could see with his Universal Microscope are only visible with ultra-violet light. But ultraviolet light is outside the range of human vision; it is ‘invisible’ to us. Rife’s brilliance allowed him to overcome this limitation by heterodyning, a technique which became popular in early radio broadcasting.
He illuminated the microbe (usually a virus or bacteria) with two different wavelengths of the same ultraviolet light frequency which resonated with the spectral signature of the microbe. These two wavelengths produced interference where they merged.
This interference was, in effect, a third, longer wave which fell into the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. This was how Rife made invisible microbes visible without killing them, a feat which today’s electron microscopes cannot duplicate.
By this time, Rife was so far ahead of his colleagues of the 1930’s(!), that they could not comprehend what he was doing without actually traveling to San Diego to Rife’s laboratory to look through his Virus Microscope for themselves. And many did exactly that.
One was Virginia Livingston. She eventually moved from New Jersey to Rife’s Point Loma (San Diego) neighborhood and became a frequent visitor to his lab. Virginia Livingston is now often given the credit for identifying the organism which causes human cancer, beginning with research papers she began publishing in 1948.
In reality, Royal Rife had identified the human cancer virus first…in 1920! Rife then made over 20,000 unsuccessful attempts to transform normal cells into tumor cells. He finally succeeded when he irradiated the cancer virus, passed it through a cell-catching ultra-fine porcelain filter, and injected it into lab animals.
Not content to prove this virus would cause one tumor, Rife then created 400 tumors in succession from the same culture. He documented everything with film, photographs, and meticulous records. He named the cancer virus ‘Cryptocides primordiales.’
Virginia Livingston, in her papers, renamed it Progenitor Cryptocides. Royal Rife was never even mentioned in her papers. In fact, Rife seldom got credit for his monumental discoveries. He was a quiet, unassuming scientist, dedicated to expanding his discoveries rather than to ambition, fame, and glory.
His distaste for medical politics (which he could afford to ignore thanks to generous trusts set up by private benefactors) left him at a disadvantage later, when powerful forces attacked him. Coupled with the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in purging his papers from medical journals, it is hardly surprising that few heave heard of Rife today.
Nevertheless, many scientists and doctors have since confirmed Rife’s discovery of the cancer virus and its pleomorphic nature, using darkfield techniques, the Naessens microscope, and laboratory experiments.
Rife also worked with the top scientists and doctors of his day who also confirmed or endorsed various areas of his work.
They included: E.C. Rosenow, Sr. (long-time Chief of Bacteriology, Mayo Clinic); Arthur Kendall (Director, Northwestern Medical School); Dr. George Dock (internationally-renowned); Alvin Foord (famous pathologist); Rufus Klein-Schmidt (President of USC); R.T. Hamer (Superintendent, Paradise Valley Sanitarium; Dr. Milbank Johnson (Director of the Southern California AMA); Whalen Morrison (Chief Surgeon, Santa Fe Railway); George Fischer (Children’s Hospital, N.Y.); Edward Kopps (Metabolic Clinic, La Jolla); Karl Meyer (Hooper Foundation, S.F.); M. Zite (Chicago University); and many others.
By increasing the intensity of a frequency which resonated naturally with these microbes, Rife increased their natural oscillations until they distorted and disintegrated from structural stresses. Rife called this frequency ‘the mortal oscillatory rate,’ or ‘MOR’, and it did no harm whatsoever to the surrounding tissues.
Today’s Rife instruments use harmonics of the frequencies shown on the display screen. The wavelength of the actual frequency shown (770hz, 880hz, etc.) is too long to do the job.
This principle can be illustrated by using an intense musical note to shatter a wine glass: the molecules of the glass are already oscillating at some harmonic (multiple) of that musical note; they are in resonance with it.
Because everything else has a different resonant frequency, nothing but the glass is destroyed. There are literally hundreds of trillions of different resonant frequencies, and every species and molecule has its very own.
It took Rife many years, working 48 hours at a time, until he discovered the frequencies which specifically destroyed herpes, polio, spinal meningitis, tetanus, influenza, and an immense number of other dangerous disease organisms.
In 1934, the University of Southern California appointed a Special Medical Research Committee to bring terminal cancer patients from Pasadena County Hospital to Rife’s San Diego Laboratory and clinic for treatment. The team included doctors and pathologists assigned to examine the patients – if still alive – in 90 days.
After the 90 days of treatment, the Committee concluded that 86.5% of the patients had been completely cured. The treatment was then adjusted and the remaining 13.5% of the patients also responded within the next four weeks. The total recovery rate using Rife’s technology was 100%.
On November 20, 1931, forty-four of the nation’s most respected medical authorities honored Royal Rife with a banquet billed as The End To All Diseases at the Pasadena estate of Dr. Milbank Johnson.
But by 1939, almost all of these distinguished doctors and scientists were denying that they had ever met Rife. What happened to make so many brilliant men have complete memory lapses?
It seems that news of Rife’s miracles with terminal patients had reached other ears. Remember our hypothetical question at the beginning of this report: What would happen if you discovered a cure for everything? You are now about to find out….
At first, a token attempt was made to buy out Rife. Morris Fishbein, who had acquired the entire stock of the American Medical Association by 1934, sent an attorney to Rife with ‘an offer you can’t refuse.’ Rife refused. We may never know the exact terms of this offer.
But we do know the terms of the offer Fishbein made to Harry Hoxsey for control of his herbal cancer remedy. Fishbein’s associates would receive all profits for nine years and Hoxey would receive nothing. Then, if they were satisfied that it worked, Hoxsey would begin to receive 10% of the profits.
Hoxsey decided that he would rather continue to make all the profits himself. When Hoxsey turned Fishbein down, Fishbein used his immensely powerful political connections to have Hoxsey arrested 125 times in a period of 16 months. The charges (based on practice without a license) were always thrown out of court, but the harassment drove Hoxsey insane.
But Fishbein must have realized that this strategy would backfire with Rife. First, Rife could not be arrested like Hoxsey for practising without a license. A trial on trumped-up charges would mean that testimony supporting Rife would be introduced by prominent medical authorities working with Rife.
And the defense would undoubtedly take the opportunity to introduce evidence such as the 1934 medical study done with USC. The last thing in the world that the pharmaceutical industry wanted was a public trial about a painless therapy that cured 100% of the terminal cancer patients and cost nothing to use but a little electricity. It might give people the idea that they didn’t need drugs.
And finally, Rife had spent decades accumulating meticulous evidence of his work, including film and stop-motion photographs. No, different tactics were needed…
The first incident was the gradual pilfering of components, photographs, film, and written records from Rife’s lab. The culprit was never caught.
Then, while Rife struggled to reproduce his missing data (in a day when photocopies and computers were not available), someone vandalized his precious virus microscopes. Pieces of the 5,682 piece Universal microscope were stolen.
Earlier, an arson fire had destroyed the multi-million dollar Burnett Lab in New Jersey, just as the scientists there were preparing to announce confirmation of Rife’s work. But the final blow came later, when police illegally confiscated the remainder of Rife’s 50 years of research.
Then in 1939, agents of a family which controlled the drug industry assisted Philip Hoyland in a frivolous lawsuit against his own partners in the Beam Ray Corporation. This was the only company manufacturing Rife’s frequency instruments (Rife was not a partner).
Hoyland lost, but his assisted legal assault had the desired effect: the company was bankrupted by legal expenses. And during the Great Depression, this meant that commercial production of Rife’s frequency instruments ceased completely.
And remember what a universal cure meant to hospitals and research foundations? Doctors who tried to defend Rife lost their foundations grants and hospital privileges.
On the other hand, big money was spent ensuring that doctors who had seen Rife’s therapy would forget what they saw. Almost no price was too much to suppress it. Remember that, today, treatment of a single cancer patient averages over $300,000. It’s BIG business.
Thus, Arthur Kendall, the Director of the Northwestern School of Medicine who worked with Rife on the cancer virus, accepted almost a quarter of a million dollars to suddenly ‘retire’ in Mexico. That was an exorbitant amount of money in the Depression.
Dr. George Dock, another prominent figure who collaborated with Rife, was silenced with an enormous grant, along with the highest honors the AMA could bestow. Between the carrots and the sticks, everyone except Dr. Couche and Dr. Milbank Johnson gave up Rife’s work and went back to prescribing drugs.
To finish the job, the medical journals, support almost entirely by drug company revenues and controlled by the AMA, refused to publish any paper by anyone on Rife’s therapy. Therefore, an entire generation of medical students graduated into practice without ever once hearing of Rife’s breakthroughs in medicine.
The magnitude of such an insane crime eclipses every mass murder in history. Cancer picks us off quietly…but by 1960 the casualties from this tiny virus exceeded the carnage of all the wars America ever fought. In 1989, it was estimated that 40% of us will experience cancer at some time in our lives.
In Rife’s lifetime, he had witnessed the progress of civilization from horse-and-buggy travel to jet planes. In that same time, he saw the epidemic of cancer increase from 1 in 24 Americans in 1905 to 1 in 3 in 1971 when Rife died.
He also witnessed the phenomenal growth of the American Cancer Society, the Salk Foundation, and many others collecting hundreds of millions of dollars for diseases that were cured long before in his own San Diego laboratories. In one period, 176,500 cancer drugs were submitted for approval.
Any that showed ‘favorable’ results in only one-sixth of one percent of the cases being studied could be licensed. Some of these drugs had a mortality rate of 14-17%.
When death came from the drug, not the cancer, the case was recorded as a ‘complete’ or ‘partial remission’ because the patient didn’t actually die from the cancer. In reality, it was a race to see which would kill the patient first: the drug or the disease.
Gaston Naessens’ (1924 – ) Discoveries
What Rife accomplished optically in the 1930s with his Universal Microscope, Gaston Naessens accomplished with a combination of optics and electronics in the 1940s in his Somatoscope.
Born on 16 March 1924 in Roubaix, France, Gaston displayed a predisposition to be an inventor when at the age of five he built a little moving autolike toy from a Meccano set and powered it with an alarm clock spring. Later, he built a home-made motorcycle and a mini-airplane!
Gaston Naessens is a Québec biologist who, many believe, has made fundamental discoveries relating to cancer, AIDS, and the nature of life itself. Through the use of a unique microscope of his own invention, the Somatoscope, the 70-year-old French-born Canadian has discovered a primitive biological entity, which he calls the “somatid.”
While attending the University of Lille, Gaston nearly had his education disrupted by the German invasion. Fortunately, Gaston and his fellow students escaped to Nice where they carried on their education in exile.
He was awarded a diploma from the Union Nationale Scientifique Francaise–a quasi-official institution under whose auspices the education of the displaced students continued. He did not bother seeking an equivalency degree from the de Gaulle government when French rule was restored.
At the young age of twenty-one, frustrated by the limitations of conventional microscopes, Gaston set out to build a superior microscope. Technical assistance was provided by German craftsmen from Wetzlar, Germany, who checked out many of Gaston’s original ideas on optics.
Privately, Gaston devised the electrical manipulation of the light source. Once the technical aspects were resolved, Gaston had the body of his microscope constructed by Barbier-Bemard et Turenne, technical specialists and defence contractors near Paris.
Naessens claims that the somatid is found in all biological fluids he has looked at, including plant sap and human blood.
In a long lost chapter of history in science, a violent controversy took place in France between the illustrious Louis Pasteur and Antoine Béchamp, a noted professor of physics, toxicology, medical chemistry, and biochemistry. Béchamp’s work led him to discover ‘microzymas’ (tiny ferments) which were characterised by a host of small bodies in his fermenting solutions.
After years of study, Béchamp came to the conclusion that these microzymas were more basic to life than cells. Even with his crude equipment, he was able to observe that the microzymas underwent dramatic transformations during their life cycle.
This caused Béchamp to champion the idea that the cause for disease lay within the body. Pasteur’s germ theory held that the cause came from without, so Pasteur’s outspokenness helped the germ theory win out and dominate medical philosophy for the past century.
Now, a hundred years later, Gaston Naessens has discovered an ultramicroscopic, subcellular, living and reproducing microscopic form which he christened a ‘somatid’ (tiny body).
This new particle could be cultured outside the bodies of the host. Naessens also observed that the particle had a pleomorphic (form-changing) life cycle, and had a sixteen-stage life cycle. Only the first three stages of the somatid life cycle are normal.
Naessens discovered that when the immune system is weakened or disrupted, the somatids go through the other thirteen stages. The weakening of the immune system could be brought about by a number of reasons such exposure to chemical pollution, ionising radiation, electric fields, poor nutrition, accidents, shock, depression, and many more. See this illustration The Somatid Cycle of Life by Naessens.
Incredibly, Naessens’ research has resulted in the association of degenerative diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, cancer and AIDS) with the development of forms in the sixteen-stage pathological cycle. The ability to associate the disease with specific stages has enabled Naessens to ‘prediagnose’ conditions in advance of when they would clinically appear.
This discovery puts Gaston Naessens at odds with the orthodox medical philosophy today which has embraced Pasteur’s germ theory wholeheartedly. Naessens’ work is repeatable. The ability to culture somatids is a bellwether (a person or thing that assumes the leadership or forefront) to the rewriting of microbiology!
Naessens stated: “I’ve been able to establish a life cycle of forms in the blood that add up to no less than a brand new understanding of the basis of life.
What we’re talking about is an entirely new biology, one out of which has fortunately sprung practical applications of benefit to sick people, even before all of its many theoretical aspects have been sorted out.”
Gunther Enderlein’s (1872 – 1968) Discoveries
Enderlein maintains that “germs” occur in many forms beginning with the protit (the same microbe found by Béchamp, Naessens, Rife & others, but called different names by each researcher), which can change into a virus, which can change into a bacteria, which can change into a fungus.
Any of these forms; bacterial, viral or fungal can and do eventually break all apart and turn back into the protits from whence they came, and so it starts all over again, life. The protit never dies. This is a nature of life. It goes on no matter what.
These protits in our blood develop or change according to the condition of the body. At some stages of their development they are outright pathogenic (make you sick) and parasitic.
These are our internal parasites. These protits can go in the other direction too and turn into cells we need, i.e. Live Cell Therapy. They can help regenerate organs.
These adaptive necessities are called diseases, but they are healing processes, attempts to shunt a disturbed symbiosis (a relationship between two organisms defined as ‘living together”) back to the original healthy track.
As these “little dots,” protits, change form, they can change into organisms that are more and more detrimental to the body. They become independent and no longer live in harmony and in support of their host body.
As they develop their individual form, they create their own metabolism and waste products of that metabolism, which is harmful to the local body fluids, causing pain and inflammation. Finally, this local process, which develops in the body’s ‘weakest organ’, affects the whole body.
It is not the organisms (germs, viruses, bacteria) that make you sick, it is the waste products of the metabolism of those organisms that make you sick.
“In reality, it is not the bacteria themselves that produce the disease, but we believe it is the chemical constituents of these micro-organisms enacting upon the unbalanced cell metabolism of the human body that in actuality produce the disease.
We also believe if the metabolism of the human body is perfectly balanced or poised, it is susceptible to no disease.” (From the Annual Report of the Board of Regents of The Smithsonian Institution, 1944).
These disease processes, these changes in the blood, are difficult to fathom at first because they only effect functioning but not yet structures of the body. This happens in the most diversified organs such as manifesting as; headaches, high or low blood pressure, feeling poorly, unmotivated attitude, lack of appetite, drab complexion, coated tongue, wounds in the mouth, pimples, acne, sores, hoarseness, runny nose, ear noises, diarrhea, lowered capacity for seeing and hearing, depression, weak concentration or poor memory.
Bacteria are being found in the diseased tissues of all chronic, degenerative diseases; from The Atlantic Monthly, A New Germ Theory by Judith Hooper, February 1999. These bacteria are there as a result, not the cause.
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was wrong, these organisms are not caught from the outside, they come from within.
These germs come from inside the body, from “tiny dots” that you can see in the blood of any living thing, with any microscope. All microorganisms, all living things come from these “tiny dots” and all living things turn back into these “tiny dots”.
These “tiny dots” themselves, never die. The cell is not the smallest living thing, these “little dots” are. These “tiny dots” are called Protits in German and Somatides in French. There isn’t even a name for them in the English language. Isn’t that strange?
If the environment in the body becomes toxic, polluted, or doesn’t have the nutrients it requires to maintain health these “tiny dots” hook together into long threads and change into the viruses, bacteria and finally the fungi (candida albicans) that clean up a corpse, if things get that bad.
This is what the bacteria, viruses and germs are there for. They clean up old, diseased tissues. The germs are not the problem, the conditions, environment they are in IS. Do you treat the problem or the result?
Thought Provoking Conclusions
If the “Germ Theory of Disease” were true no one could ever get over a cold or flu, or any other disease caused by bugs, since they would constantly be re-infecting themselves.
Also, if “Germ Theory of Disease” were true we would ALL have ALL of the bugs ALL of the time since they are “everywhere” and so would all other life on Earth have them, i.e. plants, animals, insects, bird, etc., so life on Earth could not have happened.
- “Louis Pasteur And the Myth of Pasteurization”
- “The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur”
- “Antoine Béchamp.org”
- “History of the Germ Theory of Disease”
- “Second Thoughts on Disease – A Controversy and Béchamp Revisited”, by Drs Kalokerinos & Dettman 1977
- “The Amazing Wonders of Gaston Naessens” by Steven R. Elswick. Editor, Extraordinary Science –
- “The persecution & Trial of Gaston Naessens”
- “Somatid Cycle Revealed: Naessens’ Discoveries Open New World of Hope for People with Cancer.” From The Cancer Chronicles #24-25, Dec. 1994 by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
- “Vaccine Website