The Magic Eraser
There have been several notable occasions in history when persons offering invaluable contributions to the advancement of human understanding have been ignored, ridiculed and even persecuted in their time. In most cases, however, their work has subsequently been given a deserved measure of recognition. Some great ones, though, have not enjoyed such rejuvenation and have “suffered the slings” of obscurity.
So it is with Antoine Bechamp. Had the profound voice of his science not been silenced, much of humankind may have been spared the worst aspects of the infectious stresses of the 20th century. Since the case can be made that the approved but improper and dangerous treatment of infectious “diseases” over the last century has in large part given rise io the present epidemic wave of degenerative “disease,” including cancer and AIDSyndroine, we might have been spared these miseries as well. At the least, we would have understood much more clearly why we have them. Fortunately, however, Bechamp’s work has been kept alive by small, successive bands of truth-seekers.
The adoption by science of Louis Pasteur’s germ theory as the whole truth, without regard to the subtleties and deep insight of Bechamp’s microzymian principle, represents one paraphrased: “There is no medical doctrine so potentially dangerous as a partial truth implemented as whole truth.” Any medical professional, bioscientist, health care practitioner, or lay person for that matter, who wishes to gain insight into the origins and nature of infectious and chronic illness, against the backdrop of a marvelous view of the life process, must consider Bechamp. And they must entertain one of the most important concepts to come out of his illustrious career-microbiological pleomorphism as it relates to disease and its symptoms.
There are four books written about him of which this writer is aware (although there are very likely more) and many works published by him. Of the ones by him, all except one are in the original French. Fortunately, his last book, The Blood and Its Third Anatomical Element, was translated into English in 1911 by Montague R. Leverson, M.D., Ph.D., M.A., although it has been difficult to obtain. Of the two major books about him, one is in French and the other (E. Douglas Hume’s Bechamp or Pasteur?) is also rare. The other two books about Bechamp are by R.B. Pearson. The Hume book, one Pearson book, and The Blood are once again available as reproductions in the U.S. after a hiatus of several years.
Bechamp considered The Blood his crowning work, and therein he describes an amazing microanatomical entity and its participation in the clotting process. He also includes details of his work and his experiences with the plagiarisms and “pettifogging ratiocinations” of Louis Pasteur. The French book about him, which author Christopher Bird praised highly to this writer, is by Marie Nonclercq, entitled Antoine Bechamp, 1816- 1908: L’Homme et le Savant, Originalite et Fecondite de Son Oeuvre. The latter part means, The Man and the Scientist, the Originality and Productivity of His Work. According to Bird, in an account given at a 1991 facts that did not set well with reigning theory, many questions arose … as I read essays and books, of a heretical nature, one could say, written by researchers whose names I never heard mentioned in my classes.
Twenty years ago, the World Health Organization proudly declared recently the discovery that the single greatest factor in heart disease is a vitamin E deficiency.
Also perversely awe-inspiring is the fact that a person of Bechamp’s extraordinary accomplishments has been written out of history books, textbooks and all encyclopedias. It is sobering to consider the required degree of authoritarian control over key academic elements in our culture. It is not my intention to belabor the politics, but as the wonders of Bechamp’s work unfold to the mind, the question simply arises, “Why is this not common knowledge?” Yet, we must be grateful that his “erasure” was far from complete.
It is difficult to do full justice to Bechamp without recourse to a book. His work was incessant and prodigious, and his observations prolific. I will attempt to convey some essentials of his biological work-only a part of the picture, as the total output includes chemistry, medicine and pharmacy. He left a remarkable legacy of scientific insight that borders on the spiritual, yet died in relative obscurity with virtually no recognition by peers or the public. Having outlived his wife, his beloved associate Professor Estor, and his four children, he had to endure those hard lessons of life in addition to the one of professional anonymity. However, in keeping with his extraordinary mind, he never lost conviction that the truth would come to light, as would his role in its revelation.
I’m not sure why, when his life touched mine through E. Bechamp is known among a coterie of modern and contemporary admirers, and his work has been followed up, knowingly or not, by perhaps a total of 50 scientists. This group includes such names as Gunther Enderlein; Wilhelm Reich; Royal Raymond Rife; the courageous Australian team of Glen Dettman, Ph.D. and Archie Kalokerinos, M.D. (who for many years published information in the Toorak Times, an Australian newspaper); and Gaston Naessen, including myself, who have brought the Bechampian locomotive to a full head of steam.
It is at once unbelievable and understandable that the superficial dogma of Louis Pasteur could have prevailed over Bechamp’s insights in the 19th century French Academy of Science. Unbelievable because of the meticulous documentation and presentation Bechamp made of his prolific work. Understandable because Pasteur stole enough of the truth to make it pass, while having on his side upper class connections and a doctrine that more suited the cultural (especially religious) moods of the time. Abetting, if not creating, an atmosphere repressive to truth was a mood of impassioned ignorance among ecclesiastic authorities at the University of Lille, where Bechamp had moved in 1875 to teach. In a manner similar to that which devastated Galileo, they vigorously opposed the “heresy” of the microzymian view. Heightening the poignancy of this tragedy was the depth of that ignorance, which was unable to realize that the view was not heretical at all. In fact, Bechamp was a devout Christian who felt his inquiries merely to be revealing the Creator’s modus. But it is perversely awe-inspiring to see such bias having persisted for a century, supported by the structure of authority in bioscience, so that Bechamp’s principles have not yet (2015) been given fair examination in the mainstream.
Things may soon change-for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that research in the medical literature is now burning a raging blaze below the lofty suite in which the few powerful controllers lurk. They will soon have to surrender themselves at the window, or be consumed by the flames. Of course, one way in which they surrender is to rediscover the truth, that is, claim credit for making scientific “discoveries” about matters long ignored or repressed by them and long held as principle in alternative venues. For example, “science” has just discovered that antioxidants are good for asthma, especially vitamins C and E. And after the tireless, definitive work on vitamin E by the Shute brothers probably 20 years ago, the World Health Organization proudly declared recently the discovery that the single greatest factor in heart disease is a vitamin E deficiency.
Also perversely awe-inspiring is the fact that a person of Bechamp’s extraordinary accomplishments has been written out of history books, textbooks and all encyclopedias. It is sobering to consider the required degree of authoritarian control over key academic elements in our culture. It is not my intention to belabor the politics, but as the wonders of Bechamp’s work unfold to the mind, the question simply arises, “Why is this not common knowledge?” Yet, we must be grateful that his “erasure” was far from complete.
It is difficult to do full justice to Bechamp without recourse to a book. His work was incessant and prodigious, and his observations prolific. I will attempt to convey some essentials of his biological work-only a part of the picture, as the total output includes chemistry, medicine and pharmacy. He left a remarkable legacy of scientific insight that borders on the spiritual, yet died in relative obscurity with virtually no recognition by peers or the public. Having outlived his wife, his beloved associate Professor Estor, and his four children, he had to endure those hard lessons of life in addition to the one of professional anonymity. However, in keeping with his extraordinary mind, he never lost conviction that the truth would come to light, as would his role in its revelation.
I’m not sure why, when his life touched mine through E. Douglas Hume’s historical biography, such a strong feeling arose in me-the need to “exonerate” him, to bring his name and work to their deserved place of honor in history. Part of it, I’m sure, as with M. Nonclercq, is realizing the health benefits society might reap from understanding him, not to mention the inspiring, if not magical, insight into life and being that his views represent. But I’m still not quite sure why I want to be able to say (if in some way my various expositions about him over the last decade, added to the voices of others who have seen with his eyes, contribute to open re-evaluation of his science), “There, Antoine! Rest in peace, my friend.”
Principles of Micromorphology
While some of the ideas Bechamp addressed predated him, they had not been so clearly described, fully developed, or strongly supported by experimentation. It is said there is nothing new under the sun. If true, it may be because all things, or situations, exist at once in the Creation. It is a matter of perspective, much like looking at a tapestry. Bechamp’s perspective allows us to step back from tight focus and see the loose threads of the germ theory amidst a harmonious and astounding pattern of the life process. He had his “finger” on the magic of life. According to Hume, the essence of what he brought to us was as follows:
First, he demonstrated that the air is filled with microscopic organisms capable of fermenting any suitable medium on which they happen to land. He showed that the chemical change is carried out by a soluble ferment produced by the organism, and this ferment is analogous to the digestive juices of the stomach. Thus, he identified fermentation as a digestive process. (Dr. Young theorizes that all decomposition, even the rusting of steel, is mediated by ferments. It is known, for example that bacteria decompose rock into soil. Microorganisms are at or near the foundation of all life and life processes on Earth. For example, fungal forms are indispensable parts of the roots of most plants, including the largest trees.)
Secondly, the most profound conclusion to which Bechamp’s untiring and painstaking research led him is that there is an independently living microanatomical element in the cells and fluids of all organisms. This element precedes life at the cellular level, even the genetic level, and is the foundation of all biological organization. What originally piqued Antoine’s procreative curiosity was the discovery, somewhat by accident, that pure chalk from geological deposits at least 11 million years old would liquefy starch and ferment sugar solutions, while man-made chalk would not. After years of work tracking down the cause (fermentation was not understood at the time), he attributed the action to the living remains of organisms long dead. He called this tiny living element a “microzyma,” or small ferment.
Thirdly, he claimed that microzymas routinely become forms normally referred to as bacteria, and that bacteria can revert or devolve to the microzymian state. (This is the principle of pleomorphism, which is central to understanding the appearance of “infectious” and degenerative disease symptoms in the body.)
Fourthly, he explained that atmospheric germs are not fundamental species, but are either microzymas, or their evolutionary forms, set free from their former vegetable or animal habitat by the death of that “medium.”
Bechamp explained: “The microzyma is at the beginning and end of all organization. It is the fundamental anatomical element whereby the cellules, the tissues, the organs, the whole of an organism are constituted.” He referred to microzymas as the builders and destroyers of cells. The quotation emphasizes the constructive aspect of microzymian activity and purpose, but it is the destructive aspect, or the “end of all organization,” which concerns us in disease. He 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 carry out the vital function of decomposition, or they are the precursors of beings (bacteria, yeasts and fungi) which do so. Thus, he clearly presented the idea that the physical life of higher biological forms arises from, is dependent upon, and is recycled by, microscopic beings. Simple, immediate proof of dependence is the indispensable bacterial population in the human GI tract. And it adds piquancy to the whole matter to consider that our digestive and metabolic associates are plants.
The crucial “catabolic” aspect of microzymian behavior enters the picture when the body becomes diseased, for, according to Bechamp:
In a state of health, the microzymas act harmoniously and our life is, in every meaning of the word, a regular fermentation. … In a condition of disease, the microzymas which have become morbid, determine in the organism special changes . . . which lead alike to the disorganization of the tissues, to the destruction of the cellules and to their vibrionien evolution during life.
The microzyma is an organized (insoluble) ferment: a living element. Controlled fermentation is a vital physiological process. For example, it is utilized as a means of breaking down toxins in intercellular fluid and the lymphatics. Also, some commercial dietary fiber products contain acacia and slippery elm. These soluble fibers ferment in the gut, resulting in short-chain fatty acids such as butyrate and acetate, which are highly beneficial to the colon wall. Bechamp published a paper (still in French) about the role of microzymas in the production of salivary diastase (ptyalin). Since there are microzymas in every cell, in the blood and intercellular milieu, it is likely that many vital substances, mostly enzymes, are produced by them or by their complexes.
Bechamp said that the process of cellular breakdown is mediated by microzymian fermentation-even in a healthy body. Though there is renewal happening as well, breakdown fermentation (aging) eventually takes over, greatly increasing in intensity upon death. When oxidative metabolism ceases and a body dies, negative surface charges are lost and the terrain goes acid. Microzymas respond to biochemical signals, the most important being pH. The condition of disease is a milieu which presents to the microzymas a premature biochemical signal that the organism is dead. They consequently change their function and evolve into forms capable of more vigorous fermentative breakdown-forms that reflect disease-what Bechamp called “morbidly evolved microzymas.” If the host pays no attention while it is still feasible to adjust, s/he will be recycled sooner than would otherwise be the case.
And further:
“… In disease, it is the elementary tissues or cellules that are affected….
It should result therefrom that tissue and cellular pathology are in reality microzymian pathology. In disease, the cellules have been seen to change, be altered and destroyed, and these facts have been noted. But if the cellule were the vital unit living per se, it would know neither destruction nor death, but only change. If then the cellule can be destroyed and die, while the microzyma can only change, it is because the microzyma is really living per se, and physiologically imperishable, even in its own evolutions, for, physiologically nothing is the prey of death; on the contrary, experience daily proves that everything is the prey of life, that is to say, of what can be nourished and can consume.”
Further Conclusions by BeChamp
“That there is produced in the organisms of all living beings, including man, in some part and at a given moment, alcohol, acetic acid, and other compounds that are the natural products of the activity of organized ferments, and that there is no other natural cause of this production than the microzymas of the organism. [Emphasis added. Here is where, in a compromised terrain, the culminate forms described by Dr. Young in the main text of his book Sick and Tired, could play a role. As described by Bechamp-i.e., in an apparently healthy organism-it would likely be the initial development phase.] The presence of alcohol, acetic acid, etc. in tissues reveals one of the causes, independent of the phenomenon of oxidation, of the disappearance of sugar in the organism, and of the disappearance of the gluco-genic matters and that which Dumas called the respiratory foods.”
“That, without the concurrence of any outside influence except that of a suitable temperature, fermentation will go on in a part withdrawn from an animal, such as the egg, milk, liver, muscle, etc., or, in the case of plants, in a germinating seed, or in a fruit which ripens when detached from the tree, etc. The fermentable matter that disappears earliest in an organ after death is the glucose, gluco-genic matter or some other of the compounds called carbohydrate, that is to say respiratory food. And the new compounds that appear are the same as produced in the alcoholic, lactic acid and butyric fermentations of the laboratory; or, during life, alcohol, acetic acid, lactic or sarcolactic acid, etc.”
“That the microzymas, after or before their evolution into bacteria, attack albuminoid or gelatinous matters only after the destruction of the … carbohydrates.”
“That the microzymas and bacteria, having effected the transformations before mentioned, do not die in a closed apparatus in the absence of oxygen; they go into a state of rest, as does the beer yeast in an environment of the products of the decomposition of the sugar, which products it formed.”
“That . . . the necessary destruction of the organic matter of an organism is not left to the chance of causes foreign to that organism, and that when everything else has disappeared, bacteria-and finally the microzymas resulting from their reversion-remain as evidence that there was nothing primarily living except themselves in the perished organism. And these microzymas, which appear to us as the residuum of what lived, still possess some activity of the specific kind that they possessed during the life of the destroyed being.”
Microzymas Unique to Each Organism and Organ
The microzymas were too minute to differentiate with the microscope (even for today’s equipment), and Bechamp knew he was not going to see them in detail. His brilliance shows again, however: “The naturalist will not be able to distinguish them by description, but the chemist and also the physiologist will characterize them by their function.” Having masterful skill in chemistry, he utilized that ability, accompanied by ingenious use of the polarimeter, to draw many of his conclusions. He was led to conclude that an organism’s microzymas are unique to it, and are not interchangeable with those of another. He went further to say that even within a single organism, each organ and tissue has functionally unique microzymas, and that, for example, those of the kidney do not belong in the liver. What, therefore, did he have to say about inoculation?
The most serious, even fatal, disorders may be provoked by the injection of living organisms into the blood; organisms which, existing in the organs proper to them, fulfill necessary and beneficial functions-chemical and physiological-but injected into the blood, into a medium not intended for them, provoke redoubtable manifestations of the gravest morbid phenomena.
“. . . Microzymas, morphologically identical, may differ functionally, and those proper to one species cannot be introduced into an animal of another species, nor even into another center of activity in the same animal, without serious danger.”
How much more foolhardy is it then, when vaccinal microzymas are not only from another species, but are already morbidly evolved and are accompanied by preservatives, formaldehyde, and other chemicals? There is no sanity whatever to this practice. The best that can be said about it is that it may prevent, against the odds, the appearance of varying sets of symptoms. But this is at the price of weakening the immune system, toxifying the body, and possibly setting the stage for degenerative symptoms later in life-all the while doing absolutely nothing for, except perhaps worsening, the underlying disease condition.
As indicated in the above quotation concerning “granulations of the protoplasm,” it would seem that microzymas are also closely related to, and perhaps precursors of, genetic molecules. In an August 8, 1977 address to the (now defunct) International Academy of Preventive Medicine, Drs. Dettman and Kalokerinos had the following to say:
“It became increasingly apparent to us that the problems relating to infection and immunization were, to say the least, oversimplified by organized medicine. Perhaps Bechamp was thinking in advance of our modern molecular biologists who refer to genes controlling enzymes! We wondered whether Bechamp’s writing anticipated, in some respects, the discovery of RNA and DNA? It now appears to us that the experimental data described in Bechamp’s work has, in part, been independently and unknowingly repeated by Professor Bayev of the USSR Academy of Sciences.”
In a personal communication with Prof. Bayev (1974) concerning the common factors of his and Bechamp’s work, Bayev states:
“Self-restoration of the molecule from its parts was obtained with pure transfer RNA from baker’s yeast. It is a rather simple organic substance of molecular weight 30,00 daltons. Its chemical structure is now identified exactly. I think the microzyma by Bechamp has a more complex chemical nature than a simple organic molecule, but our experiments with transfer RNA molecules prove that self-restoration is possible already at the molecular level.” [Emphasis added.]
Finally, might we not ask ourselves how much our uncritical acceptance of Pasteur’s work has retarded the development of medical science to this day? In our own work we found that when we became aware of Bechamp’s arguments we were better able to understand some of the puzzles of ourfindings with Aboriginal infant death in Australia, which initially led us into conflict with the prevailing medical models of disease and immunization. We feel that we have gone too far to turn back, and that we need the help of all health care professionals who dare to think for themselves in working through the tangled web of relationships that govern disease-immunization- nutrition interactions.
Bechamp and Pasteur
Bechamp never denied that the so-called germs of the air or other causes may be contributory, either to decomposition or illness, but only that these have not been expressly created, nor are they needed, for these purposes. As noted, the germs of the air are nothing other than microzymas or their evolved forms from fermentatively destroyed organisms. Their destructive or morbid influence may be added to that already faced by the organism’s endogenous microzymas, which may or may not have initiated morbid evolution. This is a crucial departure from germ theory. That is, without the predisposition of inherent microzymas-which condition is engendered primarily by a faulty internal environment-the germs of the air, or those of other sick bodies, will not produce illness in a person. One can see how this holistic view confers responsibility and power on the individual, as opposed to making him a victim to be saved (by a medical science powerless to do so). In addition to microzymas in the atmosphere, “The spores of the entire microscopic flora may intrude, as well as all the molds that may be born of these spores.”
In the earlier phase of his career, as Professor of Medical Chemistry and Pharmacy at the Faculty of Medicine at Montpellier University, Bechamp and his tireless colleague Professor Estor had many opportunities to test microzymian theory in practice. Examination of an amputated arm and many examinations of frozen plants during a particularly cold winter, convinced them that upon injury, bacteria developed internally without any outside influence. Bruising an apple without breaking the skin is an example; the broken cells will autoferment. This is one basis for the surgical cleaning of wounds.
Pasteur, on the other hand, a non-physician and proponent of the germ theory, seems to have lacked a certain understanding of living systems. He considered the body to be a collection of inert chemicals, and therefore after death he expected nothing living in it. When life would inevitably appear in dead organisms, he had to draw the conclusion that it resulted from invasion from without by the beings whose existence had been taught to him and the world by Bechamp. Either he saw but would not admit, or he simply could not fathom, that microorganisms are already inherent to humans and every other organized medium on the planet, all of which contain, are composed of, and have developed from, microzymas. Unfortunately, the persuasiveness of Pasteur’s superficial conclusions held sway over the deeper, rather elusive, complex, profound, even mystical workings of life and pathology.
Bechamp:
Long before Davaine considered the inside of the organism to be a medium for the development of inoculated bacteria, Raspail said,
“The organism does not engender disease: it receives it from without..
. . Disease is an effect of which the active cause is external to the organism.” In spite of this, the great physicians affirm, in Pidoux’ happy words, “Disease is born of us and in us.”
But M. Pasteur, following Raspail . . . maintains that physicians are in error: the active cause for our maladies resides in disease-germs created at the origin of all things, which, having gained an invisible entry into us, there develop into parasites. For M. Pasteur, as for Raspail, there is no spontaneous disease; without microbes there would be no sickness, no matter what we do, despite our imprudences, miseries or vices! The system, neither new nor original, is ingenious, very simple in its subtlety, and, in consequence, easy to understand and to propagate. The most illiterate of human beings to whom one has shown the connection between the acarus and the itch understands that the itch is the disease of the acarus. Thus it comes about that it has seduced many people who give unthinking triumph to it. Above all, men of the world are carried away by a specious, easy doctrine, all the more applicable to generalities and vague explanations in that it is badly based upon proved and tried scientific demonstrations.
Much of Pasteur’s refusal to accept microzymian theory may have arisen from pure rivalry which came into focus when Bechamp solved, right under the Pasteur’s nose, a disease crisis threatening the French silkworm industry. Since the two must have known each other previously, we must be open-minded enough to allow that Bechamp, though concerned for his country’s important industry, may have indulged himself in a little one- upmanship in his embarrassment of Pasteur, who gained more privilege from social connection than from earned merit (thus, in most books, Pasteur is given credit for solving the crisis). If so, it may have cost Bechamp dearly, because it earned him the eternal resentment of the volatile chemist, who took every future opportunity to oppose his tormentor. And it was primarily the “specious easiness” of germ theory that allowed Pasteur to get away with it, because few scientists of the time were sufficiently skilled to probe deeply enough beneath the superficialities. Few possessed enough knowledge or insight to understand the elusive complexities. And Bechamp warned against facile judgments when he wrote in 1869:
“In typhoid fever, in gangrene, in anthrax, the existence has been proved of bacteria in tissue and in the blood, and one was very much disposed to take them for granted as cases of ordinary parasitism. It is evident, after what we have said, that instead of maintaining that the affection has had as its origin and cause the introduction into the organism of foreign germs with their consequent action, one should affirm that it only has to do with an alteration of the function of the microzymas, an alteration indicated by the change that has taken place in their form.”
Again:
“An egg contains nothing organized except microzymas; everything in the egg, from the chemical point of view, will be necessary for the work of the microzymas; if in this egg its ordered procedure should be disturbed by a violent shaking, what happens? The albuminoid substances and the bodies of fat remain unchanged, the sugar and the glycogen disappear, and in their place are found alcohol, acetic acid and butyric acid; a perfectly characterized fermentation has taken place there. That is the work of the microzymas, the minute ferments, which are the agents and the cause of all observed phenomena. And when the bird’s egg has accomplished its function, which is to produce a bird, have the microzymas disappeared? No, they may be traced in all the histological elements; they pre-exist-one finds them again during the functioning and the life of the elements; one will find them yet again after death; it is by them that the tissues are made alive.”
“The part of organized beings essentially active and living, according to the physiologists, is the granular protoplasm. We went a step farther and said it is the granulations of the protoplasm, and though for their perception a sort of spiritual insight is required, we have based our conclusions upon experimental proofs of the most varied and positive nature. Bichat looked upon the tissues as the elements of the bodies of higher animals. With the help of the microscope, very definite particles, cells, were discovered, and were regarded in their turn as elementary parts, as the last term of the analysis. . . . We have said in our turn: The cell is an aggregate of a number of minute beings having an independent life, a separate natural history. Of this natural history we have made a complete description.”
Bechamp apparently had a good sense of place in the scientific pursuit (“in our turn”) of the ever-retreating Ultimate Secret. He realized that the truth of empiricism is for the time, or is in the process of evolving. No doubt he would willingly have given up microzymian theory in face of right evidence of a newer observation. I am presenting science with a newer, though highly correlative, observation. For, as Bechamp attributed all fermentation in the body to microzymas, we now are able to see that it is also carried out by higher evolutionary forms-yeast and fungus. He would have been open to the idea that bacteria also evolve, and that there may even be a step or two between microzymas and bacteria, e.g., viruses. However, as I have suggested, functionally the virus form is very likely something other than what it is thought to be in the mist-ified Pasteurian version of bioscience.
In this article the distinction has repeatedly been made between the disease condition and its symptoms. This idea is inherent in microzymian principle, and it is interesting that Bechamp alludes to the source of the disease condition as “imprudences, miseries or vices.” This is a close approximation in different terms of the holistic gamut of precursors to physiological ill-being: improper diet, emotional upheaval and various selfdestructive behaviors. Yet it is a testimony to the power and skill of the propagandists of mainstream medicine and the Pasteurian decalogue itself that serious illness remains such a mystery in the mind of the masses.
Cosmic Microzymas
It is also interesting to hear the scientist speak of “spiritual insight.” And it is interesting as well to consider microzymas in terms of Eastern modes of spiritual thought, such as yoga, in which it is felt that our creation is an ongoing process. That is, life was not put here and simply proceeds, but it, and we, are coming into being in the moment. Thus, there is constant “turnover,” or renewal and healing. In this scenario, the microzyma may be seen as an early, if not the primary, transmutation from the fine vibrations of the Cosmic Life Force into a denser form or pattern of life-something not explainable by biochemistry, certainly. Due to the colloidal nature of these nascent elements, they carry high levels of energy and may also be receptive to frequencies of light and radiation asactivating or informational signals. During formation, or once formed, they may be stimulated by cosmic energy, which comes directly into our being, which provides energy that cannot be accounted for in the Krebs cycle, which is ionizing, and which has been interpreted as carrying part of the holographic human archetypal information. Is the microzyma Colloidal Intelligence, or a modus of the Creative Intelligence-a living transducer for the Idea in Consciousness, which it translates into the cellular anatomy? It was said earlier that microzymas respond to the pH of the surrounding medium, reforming when appropriate. However, the chemical aspect may be just an obvious way for us to qualify the situation. Perhaps the change in pH alters vibrations or resonant frequencies, changing the microzymian quality of reception, transmittal or transduction of the Life Force and cosmic rays.
Bechamp said the microzyma is imperishable. Canadian microscopist Gaston Naessens says his analogous somatid particles have survived carbonizing temperatures, 50,000 rems of radiation, and all acids. If these claims are true, could such imperishability stem from being at the interface of energy/matter and Consciousness, i.e., from the imperishability and constant materialization of life itself? It may therefore be that only the Mystery of life stands prior to the microzymian patterns.
Elaborate Colonies
An interesting corollary to microzymian principle is the idea presented by Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan in their book Micro-Cosmos-that all higher forms of life are elaborate colonies of microforms that have undergone a natural assimilation into the more complex whole, thus becoming cells or cooperative parts of cells. Some forms have not, or not yet, become assimilated into tissue, and so appear as separate symbionts. The intestinal bacteria are an excellent example. Based on this theory, an entertaining conjecture is that since the primordial, colonizing forms are plant life, animals don’t exist per se, so that humans are complex, mobile, talking vegetation.
Unfortunately, Micro-Cosmos lacks the insight microzymian principle might bring to it. It fails to recognize life prior to the cell, and therefore cannot consider what may be the primary orchestrative tools of the colonization process. It discusses DNA repair enzymes with no suggestion as to their origin.
This article also does not take into account the rapid functional changes of microforms in response to terrain imbalance, and is mystified by cancer:
“It is as if the uneasy alliances of the symbiotic partnerships that maintain the cells disintegrate. The symbionts fall out of line, once again asserting their independent tendencies. . . . The reasons, of course, are not all that clear, but cancer seems more an untimely regression than a disease.” Here is what seems a struggle with the bonds of the Pasteurian decalogue. The symbionts falling out of line might easily have been expressed, “The microzymas change their function.”
Confirmation of Bechamp
There have been many modern and contemporary confirmations of various aspects of Bechamp’s work. One of the earliest and most piquant was reported in an article in The Times, a London newspaper, on April 8, 1914. A French bacteriologist, Mme. Henri, had succeeded in transforming an anthrax bacillus into a coccus form having entirely different functional properties. It could easily have been explained by Professor Bechamp, who sat virtually unrecognized at the London Medical Congress in 1881, where plagiarist Pasteur appeared amidst outbursts of cheering as his country’s representative, and where, as reported in The Times, August 8, 1881, he categorically denied the pleomorphism of B. anthracis.
Pasteur also jumped to the conclusion that each kind of germ produces one specific fermentation, while Bechamp proved that a microorganism might vary its fermentation effect in conformity with the surrounding medium. Bechamp’s assertion that these microforms, under varying conditions, might even change their shape was proved conclusively by F. Loehnis and N.R. Smith of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1916 {Journal of Agricultural Research, July 31,1919, p. 675).
And, for evidence that the biological terrain is the determinant factor over the mere presence of a symptogenic microform, we may return to Kalokerinos and Dettman:
It should come as no surprise to discover that almost every pathogen may be isolated from the majority of so-called “healthy” people: Candida is such an example, and here we quote from the Manual of Clinical Mycology (Conant, Smith, Baker & Calloway, 1971): “Since pathogenic strains of C. albicans can be isolated from (1) normal skin, (2) normal oral and vaginal mucous membranes and (3) stools of normal individuals, it is obvious that most infections have an endogenous source, and the determination of the source of the infection is as difficult as it is with Staphylococcus aureus infections.
This revelation also highlights a recent example of the false conclusions to which one is led by germ theory: The news in research on atherosclerosis is that scientists have isolated a chlamydia-type organism in the plaque, and have concluded that it is the cause of this symptom. The plan is to use antibiotics to combat this “pathogen.” There is only one guarantee in this folly: at the very best they may achieve atherosclerosis without the chlamydia. At worst, they will exacerbate the mounting crisis in health caused by a half-century of antibiotic abuse.
R.R. Rife
Perhaps the most profound confirmation of pleomorphism was executed by another nearly obliterated genius, this time an American microscopist with the alliterative name of Royal Raymond Rife. His story was told in an impressive piece of work called “The Rife Report” by investigative reporter Barry Lynes. It has been published in book form as The Cancer Cure That Worked!, which is highly recommended from several standpoints-for its revelations about Rife’s research and technology, which would be astounding for these times, never mind for the late 1920s to mid-30s; for a wonderful background on many pioneering figures in biology; for anyone interested in a deeper understanding of where medicine has gone in the United States; and not least, for a wonderful Foreword by John W. Mattingly of Colorado State University, whose writing has always been an inspiration whenever encountered.
Rife’s extraordinary microscope (with 31,000 diameters resolution), reported on in great detail in the Feb. 1944 Journal of the Franklin Institute (Vol. 237, No. 2), was capable of detail and clarity surpassing the newly emerging electron microscopes. Its use of prismatically dispersed natural light frequencies, rather than electron beams and acid stains, allowed clear views of living subjects. Weighing 200 pounds, standing 2 feet high, and consisting of 5,682 (!) parts, the Rife Universal Microscope was an unsung wonder of the world, and the world has thus far been robbed of this absolutely elegant design.
In 1920 Rife began doing research in the electronic treatment of “disease,” specifically to find a way to destroy the tubercle bacillus by means of radio frequency (r.f.) radiation. Attempts to do so were trial and error because the organism’s resonant frequency was unknown. Lynes tells us that when the frequency was finally found and the bacteria killed, the subjects (poor guinea pigs!) died of toxicity. Rife reasoned that there was a viral form in the bacteria that survived the beam because it had a different frequency. But the virus was beyond the reach of his current microscope, which relied on chemical stains. Through an intuitive flash, he “conceived first the idea and then the method of staining the virus with light.’’’’ The idea was based on the principle of resonant frequency. Each microorganism has its own fundamental frequency of light, something Bechainp apparently took advantage of with his polarimeter. Rife arrived at the conclusion that light could be used, instead of fatal chemicals, to “stain” the subject. This was brilliant. Equally brilliant was its execution. A brief, partial description of the instrument, taken from the Journal’s review, is irresistible:
The entire optical system-lenses and prisms, as well as the illuminating units-are made of block-crystal quartz. The illuminating unit used for examining the filterable forms of disease organisms contains fourteen lenses and prisms, three of which are in the high-intensity incandescent lamp, four in the Risley prism, and seven in the achromatic condenser, which incidentally has an aperture of 1.40. Between the source of light and the specimen are subtended two circular, wedge-shaped, block-crystal quartz prisms for the purpose of polarizing the light passing through the specimen, polarization being the practical application of the theory that light waves vibrate in all planes perpendicular to the direction in which they are propagated. When light comes into contact with a polarizing prism, it is split into two beams, one of which is refracted to such an extent that it is reflected to the side of the prism, without, of course, passing through the prism, while the second ray, bent considerably less, is enabled to pass through the prism to illuminate the specimen. When the quartz prisms on the Universal Microscope, which may be rotated with vernier control through 360 degrees, are rotated in opposite directions, they serve to bend the transmitted beams at variable angles of incidence while, at the same time, since only a part of a band of color is visible at one time, a small portion of the spectrum is projected up into the axis of the microscope. It is possible to proceed this way from one end of the spectrum to the other-infra-red to ultra-violet. Now, when that portion of the spectrum is reached in which both the organism and the color band vibrate in exact accord with one another, a definite, characteristic wavelength is emitted by the organism. In the case of the filterpassing form of the Bacillus typhosus, for instance, a blue light is emitted, and the plane of polarization is deviated plus 4.8 degrees. … A monochromatic beam of light corresponding exactly to the frequency of the organism is then sent up through the specimen and the direct, transmitted light, enabling the observer to view the organism stained in its true chemical color and revealing its own structure in a field which is brilliant with light.
Recall that Bechamp said the chemist would identify microzymas by their function. Their evolved forms would also have a chemical function, or in this case, a signature. Thus, we evolved scientifically from analysis based on light polarizations to that based on the emission of light frequencies, which Rife referred to as the organism’s “true chemical refractive index.”
The Journal then explains that instead of light rays from the specimen passing through the objective and converging, they pass through a series of special prisms which keep the rays parallel:
It is this principle of parallel rays in the Universal Microscope, and the shortening of projection distance between the prisms, plus the fact that three matched pairs of ten-millimeter, seven-millimeter and four-millimeter objectives in short mounts are substituted for oculars, which make possible not only the unusually high magnification and resolution, but which serve to eliminate all distortion as well as all chromatic and spherical aberration….The coarse adjustment, a block thread screw with forty threads to the inch, slides in a one and one-half inch dovetail which gibs directly onto the pillar post. The weight of the quadruple nosepiece and the objective system is taken care of by the intermediate adjustment at the top of the body tube. The stage, in conjunction with a hydraulic lift, acts as a lever in operating the fine adjustment. A six-gauge screw having a hundred threads to the inch is worked through a gland into a hollow glycerine-filled post, the glycerine being displaced and replaced as the screw is turned, allowing a five to one ratio on the lead screw. This, accordingly, assures complete absence of drag and inertia. The fine adjustment being seven hundred times more sensitive than that of ordinary microscopes, the length of time required to focus ranges up to one hour and a half.
A major upshot of Rife’s work was his ability, through several pleomorphic stages, to transform a virus he found in cancer tissue into a fungus, plant the fungus in an asparagus- based medium, and produce a bacillus E. coli, the type of microform indigenous to the human intestine. This was repeated hundreds of times. By this accomplishment, Rife showed that the pleomorphic capacity of microforms goes beyond the bacterial level to the fungal level. Dr. Young has observed this cycle, and is suggesting that its progression to the last stage-mold-is critical. And he includes in this cycle the very important stages intermediate to microzymas and bacteria, the protein complexes usually referred to as viruses, and their immediate descendants, the cell-wall deficient forms detailed by Lida Mattman, Ph.D.
What’s more, Rife identified 10 families in the whole spectrum of microlife. Within each family, any form/member could become any other. Also, the fact that organisms have resonant frequencies allowed Rife to further develop his r.f. “beam ray,” which helped rid the body of cancer symptoms.
Apparently, Rife was not aware of Bechamp. Had he been (he was about 20 years old when Bechamp died on the other side of the Atlantic), a light of another frequency might have been thrown on his research, What a marvelous and beneficial revelations might have arisen with Rife’s technology guided by Bechamp’s vision? However, even though saddled i the beginning with a germ-theory mindset, he managed to rise above its worst effects. Demonstrating an instinctive understanding of the disease process, Rife made the following statement: ” We do not wish at this time to claim that we have cured cancer, or any disease, for that matter. But we can say that these waves, or this ray, as the frequencies might be called, have been shown to possess the power of devitalizing disease organisms, or ‘killing’ them when tuned to an exact wavelength, or frequency, for each different organism.” And again: “In reality, it is not the bacteria themselves that produce the disease, but the chemical constituents of these microorganisms enacting upon the unbalanced cell metabolism of the human body that in actuality produce the disease. We also believe if the metabolism . . . is perfectly balance or poised, it is susceptible to no disease.”
While he was making the classic error (perhaps a semantic one) of referring to symptoms as the disease, he seemed aware that disease-associated microorganisms do not originally produce the condition which has supported their morbid evolution in the animal or human body. This fine, but critical, distinction is missing in the views of all the researchers reported on in Lynes’ book. Even as they stood opposed to the orthodoxy, they still pursed these morbidly evolved symptoms with the intent of curing the visible, or diagnosed “disease.”
When Rife first destroyed the tubercle bacillus, the guinea pigs died of toxic poisoning. Could that poison have been bacterial debris, including endotoxin, and the death a severe Herxheimer reaction? Rife went on to search for a virus he assumed was released when the bacteria died, but if he had understood what Bechamp explained and what I am emphasizing now, he would have known that the organism’s microzymas were thus set free in the medium. And we can now understand that there was no virus per se, but only variously complexed microzymas.
As a poignant insight into the passion of a man of brilliance whose revelations were denied to the world by avarice, Lynes presents a report given in 1958 by one of Rife’s coworkers, who had known him from the early days of his career:
“He finally got to a point where from years of isolation and clarification and purification of these filterable forms, he could produce cancer in the guinea pigs in two weeks. He tried it on rats, guinea pigs and rabbits, but he found finally that he could confine his efforts to guinea pigs and white rats, because every doggone one was his pet. And he performed on them . . . the most meticulous operations you ever want to see in all your born days. No doctor could ever come near to it.
“He had to wear a big powerful magnifying glass. He performed the most wonderful operations you ever saw. Completely eradicating every tentacle out from the intestines, and sewed the thing up and it got well and didn’t know anything about it at all. Did it not once but hundreds of times. This is a thing that again and again I wish was published. I wish with all my heart that all the detailed information that he developed could be published because the man deserves it.”
“He finally got these cultures on the slide. He could look through this thing and you could see them swimming around absolutely motile and active.”
Then he’d say, ‘Watch that.’ He’d go turn on the frequency lamps. When it got to a certain frequency, he’d release the whole doggone flood of power into the room. The doggone little things would die instantly.’
“He built the microscopes himself. He built the micro-manipulator himself. And the micro-dissector and a lot of other stuff.”
“I’ve seen Roy sit in that doggone seat without moving, watching the changes in the frequency, watching when the time would come when the virus in the slide would be destroyed. Twenty-four hours was nothing for him. Forty-eight hours. He had done it many times. Sat there without moving. He wouldn’t touch anything except a little water. His nerves were just like cold steel. He never moved. His hands never quivered.
“Of course he would train beforehand and go through a very careful workout afterward to build himself up again. But that is what I would call one of the most magnificent sights of human control and endurance I’d ever seen.
“I’ve seen the cancer virus. I have seen the polio virus. I’ve seen the TB virus. Here was a man showing people, showing doctors, these viruses of many different kinds of diseases, especially those three deadly ones-TB, polio and cancer.
“Time and time again since that time some of these medical men have made the proud discovery that they had isolated we will say one of the viruses of cancer, had isolated one of the viruses of polio. Why, that was one of the most ridiculous things in the world. Thirty-five years ago Roy Rife showed them these things.
“These machines demonstrate that you could cure cancer- all crazy notions of usurping the rights of the AMA notwithstanding. They definitely could take a leaf out of Roy Rife’s book and do an awful lot of good to this world for sickness and disease. As a consequence, we have lost millions of people that could have been healed by Rife’s machines.”
“I like Roy Rife. I’ll always remember Roy as my Ideal. He had a tremendous capacity for knowledge and a tremendous capacity for remembering what he had learned. He definitely was my Ideal. Outside of old Teddy Roosevelt, I don’t know of any man any smarter than him and I’ll bank him up against a hundred doctors because he did know his stuff with his scientific knowledge in so many lines. He had so many wrinkles that he could have cashed in and made millions out of it if he had wanted to and I do mean millions of dollars. Which would have benefited the human race, irrespective of this tremendous thing that he built which we call the Rife ray machine.”
“In my estimation Roy was one of the most gentle, genteel, self-effacing, moral men I ever met. Not once in all the years I was going over there to the lab, and that was approximately 30 years, did I ever hear him say one word out of place.”
“All the doctors used to beat a path to Rife’s lab door and that was a beautiful lab at one time. It was beautifully arranged inside. The equipment was just exactly right; his study was just wonderful. It was a place of relics and the atmosphere could not be duplicated anywhere.”
(It is noteworthy that even though Rife entered the realm of vivisection, he at least showed the compassion to fix the damaged animals.)
More Cosmic Tones
For some time there have been “Rife instruments” on the market, using his frequencies in an electrode-pad configuration, and sold for research purposes. But that r.f. beam ray, that was the “magic,” technologically speaking, at least. And now an instrument has appeared claiming to be a re-creation of the original (see “Revival and Caution” below). Rife would probably have been the first to question whether the beam deals with the underlying disease condition. In this respect, I would like to suggest a consideration of the beam in terms of both the microzyma and the yogic principle of the chakras.
In yoga, the chakras (“wheels” or vortices of energy) are said to be the “organs” of the subtle body (the energy blueprint of the being). They are tuned to light frequencies corresponding to the colors of the rainbow. One’s personality, physical and physiological qualities, and even the health of the individual are said to arise from their infinitely complex configurations and their interactions with other fields. They are also spiral vortices through which the meridians of acupuncture flow. By way of the neurolymphatic reflexes and neurovascular points of the body, these flowing energies are intimate with the systems, organs, cells and chemistry of the physiology.
In terms of what was suggested earlier about the cosmic microzyma, consider what Christopher Hills, yogi and physicist, has written:
“… (It is) very likely that the chromosome, when exerting its biochemical effects in replication is NOT an indivisible unit with all its many constituents, in a precise, unchanging hereditary chemical pattern existing from one generation to the next. It is, of course, subject to evolutionary CHANGE. Yet in their function, these chromosomes have to be capable of precise replication, so they must spontaneously aggregate into patterns of LIFE (consciousness of form), which is characterized by the chemical environment in the nucleus of the cell. Any change in this immediate environment, such as a change in the specific frequency of a sharply selected energy, of radiation, of light, of electromagnetic waves or of sound, may alter not only the structural relationship of the molecules in the cell nucleus, but also their biochemical and genetic activity.”
(Taken from pp. 813-814 of Nuclear Evolution, a work on the physics of Consciousness published in 1977, almost one century after Bechamp created the name “microzyma.”)
“Consequently, what if the Rife beam, in addition to its resonant effect on microforms, was influencing the frequency balance of the chakras or the balance and freedom of flow in the meridians, perhaps doing what might be called R.F. Acupuncture, and perhaps ultimately “tuning” the microzymas? This might constitute a sufficient rebalancing of the being, or an altering of its vibrational condition, to be considered curative; and it might be maintained if the individual were subsequently to nurture their psychobiological terrain, which includes “the chemical environment in the nucleus of the cell.”
Leading the Horse to Water
What more could the scientific world have been waiting for than what Rife showed it? Significantly, he was not working in a vacuum but had the attention and support of respected biomedical scientists and doctors, including Dr. Edward C. Rosenow of the Mayo Clinic; Dr. Arthur I. Kendall, Director of Medical Research at Northwestern U. Medical School; and Dr. Milbank Johnson, member of the board of directors at Pasadena Hospital in California. As Lynes informs us, newspapers reported on Rife’s work, including significant clinical success. And as noted, no less a prestigious organization than the Franklin Institute did a detailed report on him. But, not only did the medical establishment (AMA) turn its back on Rife and his safe, effective means of eradicating cancer symptoms, but it systematically conspired to destroy him-which it did not once, but twice. Thus, Bechamp and then his unwitting supporter, Rife, geniuses of the caliber of Copernicus, Galileo and Lavoisier, were rubbed into obscurity. (While on this note, we might remember another genius pleomorphist, Wilhelm Reich, who died miserably in an American prison for attempting to bring truth to light.)
It didn’t take much to see that if Pasteur’s noxious poisons could garner even a semblance of success, the monetary potential would be stupendous. Thus, his greatest claim to fame ought to have been the inauguration of the “calamitous prostitution of science and medicine to commercialism” (Hume). Research facilities modeled after the one opened in 1888 in Paris, and used for brutal experimentation on living animals, as well as the production and sale of vaccine drawn from sickened bodies, came into existence all over the world. Bechamp’s brilliant expositions took second place to the dawning of a “new” era. It was the era of stone-hearted torture of fellow creatures and cruelty to our own species. It was the era in which bacterial disease symptoms were supplanted over time with a second wave of modern chronic fungal “infection.” Surfing this wave of degenerative mycotic infestation-officially unacknowledged as such-partially comprising heart disease, cancer, diabetes, so-called autoimmune disease and AIDSyndrome, were the profiteers, supported by arrogant, single-minded adherence to a scientifically and philosophically flawed, superficially plausible, and financially exploitable model of life and health.
Lynes tells us that Rife found himself in the path of Morris Fishbein, the Hitlerian ruler who headed the AMA from the mid-1920s until 1949, when he was forced from his position by a revolt among doctors. In Chicago, Fishbein had gotten wind of a clinic in San Diego using Rife’s beam-ray method of eliminating cancer symptoms. When refused a buy-in, he used his influence to bring the manufacturing company down in court for operating without a license. This blow to medicine in the late 1930s was a major step in suppressing the knowledge of pleomorphism, the mind-boggling Rife Universal Microscope, and the amazing radio frequency beam instrument used in the clinical setting.
In the second wave of suppression, the establishment (FDA) “Elliot-Nessed” a factory established in the 1950s by Rife and associate John Crane to manufacture the beam ray instrument. Everything was destroyed, records confiscated, and every practitioner possessing a unit was pursued and forced to surrender it as illegal.
Many other courageous individuals have been a part of the process of bringing the hidden truth about microorganisms and their symptogenic properties to light. One of the most significant is Dr. Virginia Livingston-Wheeler. Though she is discussed in the main text, she deserves another mention as a key figure who also faced suppression-the stress of being made invisible-by the sciomeds (power structure of scientific medicine). She published a book in 1983, The Conquest of Cancer, and, according to Lynes, wrote many articles and made presentations to science societies, including the New York Academy of Science, and international conferences. Lynes reports that she once returned from a presentation at an international symposium in Rome to find that her research funds with a major hospital had been canceled and the laboratory closed. During the four or five decades following the first establishment backlash at Rife, several other scientists, including Dr. Eleanor Alexander-Jackson, Dr. Irene Cory Diller, and Lida Mattman, Ph.D. (cell-wall deficient forms), stood in the face of intimidation to continue the valiant, yet feeble, tradition of unbiased biomedical science.
Revival and Caution
There is now afoot, as recently shown on the television show “Strange Universe” (March, 1997), a movement to revive the Rife beam-tube technology. Equipment was shown, as were moving pictures of the lysis of several unidentified microorganisms implied to be culprits in disease. Testimonies were given by a few people saying that they, or people they knew, have been helped by this beam ray. While this is an interesting and promising development, a note of caution is very much in order, so that folks do not end up like Rife’s guinea pigs, being put to death by a violent Herxheimer reaction. I believe the approach I recommended by is safer-more holistic and harmonically based in that we make the environment dissatisfactory to these symptoms of disease, so that instead of exploding on the spot and spewing poisons, they simply “pack their bags and leave.” That is, they will, of themselves, devolve into stages of the pleomorphic cycle consistent with the frequencies natural to a harmonious terrain; or will become so devitalized that the immune system can easily trash them.
It is hoped that this overview has given a provocative taste of what lies obscured in the history of biology. The reader is encouraged to explore the Hume and Lynes books especially, as well as that of the beacon of 19th-century bioscience, Antoine Bechamp: The Blood and Its Third Anatomical Element.
A Note of Emphasis:
In this writer’s opinion, it is a poverty of compassion, the utmost arrogance, faultiness of perspective, and an error of science to inflict self-generated human miseries on innocent animal species in research laboratory experiments. Each year some 100 million animals are killed. Though many such experiments are used as references in this book, this is not a sanction. It is done to show the kind of results being ignored by “authorities” who believe in these methods, to accommodate professionals who live by them, to appease reductionist minds, and to suggest that enough is enough. Human development and quality of life are unlikely to improve in any way by this torture of fellow creatures, unless such change occurs in the heart to make such practice unthinkable. The benefit to science and society is highly speculative and frequently negative. Let the experiments be done on human volunteers, whose physiology at least lends some logic to the process. Thalidomide was animal tested. Aspirin will kill a cat. Sheep can eat arsenic.
The habitual basis for vivisection is not founded in true science, but in profound alienation from nature and detachment from the nature of being. It continues out of species prejudice and an egocentric machismo that feeds on conquering nature via destructive analysis. It continues out of a merry-go-round intent to keep laboratories busy, researchers working, and to keep the research supply industry rolling in money. And it continues out of the habitual ignore-ance of the principles of wellness, which have long been in place in many forms. The fault for our rampant “diseases” may be ascribed to such ignorance and not laid at the feet of helpless animals, who play no part except to suffer for us and to die by the hundreds of millions. This is an insult to the Creation, not to mention an ecological disaster from the disposal of bodies. And to make matters worse, much of the research is based upon biased and erroneous science.
But the bottom line is, though we have the power over these creatures to inflict our cruelty on them, to do so may have dire consequences, given a Universe that operates on balance. Individuals of compassion and conscience may wish to consider opposing, through words and actions, this Frankensteinian madness.
General References
[1] Bechamp, Pierre Jacques Antoine. The Blood and Its Third Anatomical Element .(Montague R. Leverson, translator). London: John Ouseley Limited, 1912.
[2] Bird, Christopher. Gaston Naessens. Tiburon, Cal.: H.J. Kramer, Inc., 1991.
[3] Bird, Christopher. To Be or Not to Be?. A paper presented in an address to L’Orthobiologie Somatidienne Symposium 1991, Sherbrooke, Quebec, hosted by Gaston Naessens.
[4] Hills, Christopher. Nuclear Evolution. Boulder Creek, Cal.: University of the Trees Press, 1977 (out of print).
[5] Hume, E. Douglas. Bechamp or Pasteur? Ashingdon, Rochford, Essex, England: The C.W. Daniel Co. Ltd., 1923.
[6] Kalokerinos, A. and Dettman, G. Second Thoughts About Disease/ A Controversy and Bechamp Revisited. Warburton, Victoria, Australia: Biological Research Institute [booklet published from an article in Journal of the International Academy of Preventive Medicine-, July 1977; 4(1)].
[7] Lynes, Barry. The Cancer Cure That Worked! Fifty Years of Suppression. Queensville, Ontario, Canada: Marcus Books, 1987.
[8] Margulis, Lynn and Sagan, Dorion. Micro-Cosmos. New York: Summit Books, 1986.
[9] R.O. Young, Sick and Tired, Reclaim Your Inner Terrain. Woodland Publishing, Orem, Utah, 1999.
[10] R.O. Young, S.R. Young, The pH Miracle, Hachette Publishing, New York, New York, 2010.
Like this:
Like Loading...
[Figure 1: Cloves of garlic]
{Figure 2: Cyenne pepper]
[Figure 3: Milk Thistle]
[Figure 4: Turmeric root and spice]
[Figure 5: Bloodroot plant and flower]
[Figure 6: Feverfew plant and flower]
[Figure 7: Wheatgrass}
[Figure 8: Ruscus Aculeatus or Butchers Broom]
[Figure 9: Sheep’s Sorrel}
[Figure 10: Astragalus}
[Figure 11: Ginger root]
[Figure 12: Research Shows The Efficacy of Ginger Root as a non-toxic form of chemotherapy]
[Figure 11: Cannabis plant with buds]
The Cure for Cancer? That’s an easy question to answer! The Cure for Cancer is Found in its Prevention NOT in its Treatment! – 
pHorever Young Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.