Russian bacteria hunter Dimitri Iwanowski, who gathered fluid from diseased tobacco plants, achieved the first isolation of a virus in 1892. He passed this liquid through a filter fine enough to retain bacteria; yet to Iwanowski’s surprise, the bacteria-free filtrate easily made healthy plants sick. In 1898, a Dutch botanist, Martinus Willem Beijerinck, repeating the experiment, also recognized that there was an invisible cause and named the infectious agent “tobacco mosaic virus.” In the same year as Beijerinck, report, two German scientists purified a liquid containing filterable viruses that caused foot-and-mouth disease in cattle (viruses were at one time called filterable viruses, but eventually came to apply only to viruses, and was dropped). Walter Reed followed in 1901 with a filtrate responsible for yellow fever, and soon dozens of other “disease-causing” viruses were found. In 1935, another American, Wendell M. Stanley, went back to the beginning and created pure crystals of tobacco mosaic virus from a filtered liquid solution. He affirmed that these crystals could easily infect plants, and concluded that a virus was not a living organism, since it could be crystallized like salt and yet remains infectious. Subsequently, bacteriologists all over the world began filtering for viruses, and a new area of biology was born–virology. Historically, medical science has vacillated on the question of whether a virus is alive. Originally it was described as nonliving, but is currently said to be an extremely complex molecule or an extremely simple microorganism, and is usually referred to as a parasite having a cycle of life. Commonly composed of either DNA or RNA cores with protein coverings, and having no inherent reproductive ability, viruses depend upon the host for replication. They must utilize the nucleic acids of living cells they infect to reproduce their proteins, which are then assembled into new viruses like cars on an assembly line. Theoretically, this is their only means of surviving and infecting new cells or hosts.
Underlying the birth of virology was the doctrine of monomorphism–that all microorganisms are fixed species, unchangeable; that each pathological type produces only one specific disease; that microforms never arise endogenously, i.e., have absolute origin within the host; and that blood and tissues are sterile under healthy conditions. Theoretically, under ideal health conditions, the blood might be sterile, though it has the inherent potential to develop morbid microforms, as discussed earlier. Long and repeated observation of live blood in the phase-contrast, dark-field microscope, however, shows that the blood can contain various microforms in an otherwise asymptomatic host, or in a condition, or in a condition defined as normal or healthy in orthodox terms. Monomorphism was the cornerstone of developments in 20th-century medical research and treatments. Refusal by the mainstream to examine fairly, much less accept, the demonstrated facts of pleomorphism—that viruses and bacteria, yeast, fungi and mold, are evolutions from microzyma; that microforms can rapidly change their form (evolve and devolve) in vivo, one becoming another, dependent upon conditions in the biological terrain (environment); that blood and tissues are not necessarily sterile; and that there are no specific diseases, but only specific disease conditions–was the foundation of the debate. It is so called because those who wore the “robes” of scientific authority would not be swayed from folly when resented with its contrary proofs. These proofs began in earnest with Antoine Béchamp in the nineteenth-century.
In the early third of the 20th-century, the heated debate took place over filterable bacteria versus non-filterable. This was a major battle concerning micromorphology. The orthodox view prevailed: bacterial forms were not small enough to pass, or did not have a smaller, earlier stage. What passed through “bacteria-proof” filters was something else, i.e., viruses. Standard medical textbooks long made this filtering distinction between bacteria and viruses. Subsequently, however, the cellular nature of many filterable forms originally thought to be viruses, such as some mycoplasmas, rickettsias, and various other groups, has been established. With the victory of the monomorphic view, deeper understanding of infectious “disease” was lost, setting the stage for cancer, degenerative symptoms and AIDS.
A typical bacterium is about 1 micron in size. Most filterable forms now called viruses range in size from 0.3 micron to 0.01 micron–partially in the colloidal range. Most of the larger viruses are a third to a quarter the size of the average bacterium. Size is critical because 0.3 microns is the resolution limit of modern-day light microscopes. Thus, as viruses were discovered, they required an electron microscope to be seen, especially given the fact that Royal Rife’s microscope technology and career were destroyed by vested interests. Unfortunately, electron microscopes and the process of chemical staining disorganize all specimens, whereas Rife’s technology allowed life to proceed and thus evolve under its lens. As viruses became visible to advancing technology, the ramification was that the technology revealed, to minds infected with monomorphism, protein structures deemed foreign to the body. What is really known about viruses is that they are, according to Biochemistry, Lubert Stryer, 2nd Edition, 1981…”the most efficient of the self-reproducing intracellular parasites.” Yet, in the next sentence: “Viruses are unable to generate metabolic energy or to synthesize proteins.”–It’s a paradox! Maybe someday soon, with improvements in the electron microscope, we will find out that what are now being called and classified as viruses will prove to be intracellular crystallizations of protein catabolism–meaning the destructive process by which complex substances are converted into simple compounds.
The 7th edition of Russell L. Cecil’s A Textbook Of Medicine (1947), said then, what is still the case today: “The nature of viruses is not yet definitely known, but certain facts appear well established. At the present time it is convenient to think of viruses as though they were obligate intracellular parasites of extremely small size.” From whatever cause, when the proteinaceous structure of cellular cytoplasm is damaged, the bags of enzymes inside the cell, called lysosomes, release proteolytic enzymes that digest the dead protein of the cytoplasm. With death of the cell and disintegration of the cell nucleus, ribonuclease and deoxyribonuclease enzymes catalyze the depolymerization of RNA and DNA–providing the free strands of nucleoprotein which “mimic viruses” when viewed with the electron microscope. Volumes could be written about the assumptions, theories and hypothesis associated with immunology, the germ theory and the virus theory. Virologists today will state that the “virus” remains dormant and hidden in the body and some leading authorities reveal that these little trick-or-treaters are actually hiding in the nerve sheaths.
Immunology
If the concept of immunology can in any way be substantiated, then evolution has really let us down. The only thing that benefits from evolutionary progress is the microbe that outsmarts man, the virus that outsmarts the cell membrane and the rodent that by-passed man 65 million years ago (approximate time that man supposedly lost his ability to manufacture vitamin C)! If the antigen/antibody reaction is true…we have also been outwitted by anaphylaxis (an exaggerated reaction of an organism to an injected foreign protein. Such an injection renders the animal or human hyper-susceptible to a subsequent injection) which cannot exist under the circumstances. Dr. W. H. Manwaring, Professor of Bacteriology and Experimental Pathology at Leland Stanford University proclaimed: “Not only is there no evidence of these so-called antibodies being formed. But there is ground for believing that the injected germ proteins hybridize with the body proteins to form new tribes, whose characteristics and effects cannot be predicted. Even non-toxic bacterial substances sometimes hybridize with serum albumins to form specific poisons which continue to multiply, breed and cross-breed, ad infinitum, doing untold harm as its reproductivity may continue while life lasts.” He continued, “In spite of millions of dollars spent on research and tens of millions spent in commercial exploitation, of 100 theoretically logical monovalent, polyvalent, prophylactic and curative anti-sera, 95% of them were thrown into the clinical discard. The same thing is true of vaccines…and we call this scientific medicine. Twelve years of study with immuno-physiological tests have yielded a mass of experimental evidence contrary to, and irreconcilable with, the Ehrilich theory, and have convinced me that his conception of the origin, nature and physiological role of the specific “anti-bodies” is erroneous.”
Many harmful and unexpected reactions occurred during the original experimentation. Nevertheless, it was assumed that since man and animal derived from the same evolutionary beginnings, the disease residues could first be injected into animals and animal serum would produce antibodies acceptable to humans. That particular concept was not appetizing to the average scientist until Charles Darwin (1809-1882) assumed the “evidence” that man and lower animals were indeed blood brothers. According to Dr. Frances K. Widmann, M.D., Associate Professor of Pathology at Duke University said in her 1979 printing of Clinical Interpretation of Laboratory Tests page 439: “The fact that a patient’s serum contains a particular antibody does not prove that his ongoing or recent illness was due to that organism. If serum has little or no antibody at the beginning of an illness, and if high levels are present in the “convalescent” sample drawn several weeks later, there is strong circumstantial evidence only, that the illness was due to that organism.” She continues on page 401: “The war between microorganisms (germ and viruses) continues unremittingly. “Wonder drugs” have not eradicated infectious disease; they have merely changed the conditions and natural history of many infections. Organisms (microbes) display remarkable adaptative capacity, so that drugs effective today become ineffective against the same type of infection tomorrow.” Isn’t it strange that modern scientists have become so deeply entrenched in the microbial infection theory of disease causation that they are unable to comprehend that infection is not infection…but inflammation. Few people will consider chronic poisoning and/or malnutrition as possible factors in the futile search for disease eradication.
“From dust you are and to dust you shall return” Genesis 3:19
Thirty years prior to the rise of monomorphism, Béchamp brought his attention to tiny “molecular granulations” found in body cells, which other observers had noted before him. They had been scantily defined, and no one had identified their status or function. After 10 years of careful experimentation, Béchamp brought to the world in 1866 the profound revelation that the granules were living elements. He renamed them microzymas, meaning “small ferments.” During the following 13 years, Béchamp, with his devoted co-worker, Professor Estor, developed and refined the Theory of Microzymas.
The essence of this theory is that the microzyma, an independently living element, exists within all living things, and is both the builder and recycler or organisms. It inhabits cells, the fluid between cells, the blood and the lymph. In a state of health, the microzymas act harmoniously and fermentation occurs normally, beneficially. But in the condition of disease, microzymas become disturbed and change their form and function. They evolve into microscopic forms (germs) that reflect he disease and produce the symptoms, becoming what Béchamp called “morbidly evolved” microzymas. This occurs due to modification of our terrain by an inverted way of eating and living. Béchamp observed granules linking together and lengthening into bacteria. He therefore observed, explored and expressed the concept of pleomorphism first. Being at the foundation of organization in the body, microzymian transformations build up cells and eventually the whole organism in which they exist. Their function is twofold, and they are poised to recycle the physical body upon death. It is matter, which cannot be created or destroyed, and is the precursor to all living organized matter.
The microzyma is a ferment: a living element capable of fermenting sugar. This is a digestive (chemical) process carried on by enzymes (from Greek, meaning “to ferment”). There are various classifications of fermentations, based on the final products. Alcohol is one such product, so there are alcoholic fermentations. There are also lactic fermentations, resulting in the production of lactic acid. This kind of fermentation happens in muscle, creating the fatigue and pain we’re all familiar with. Béchamp saw the life process as a continual cellular breakdown by microzymian fermentation–even in a healthy body. Renewal is happening as well, which is also being done by the microzymas. When illness is present, fermentative breakdown is not only accelerated, but is taken over by morbid evolutions, including bacteria, yeast, fungus and mold. These are the upper development forms of the microzyma, which feed on vital body substances. This results in degenerative disease symptoms.
Enzymes
Not only fermentation, but nearly all chemical reactions in the body are carried out, or controlled, by enzymes. Enzymes are catalysts–substances that assist chemical processes. They are complex proteins and perhaps the most amazing body substances. They quickly accomplish complex reactions at body temperature that would take days in a lab with very special equipment, or would be impossible altogether. According to Béchamp‘s discoveries, it is possible that enzymes create, or themselves become, microorganisms. It is known that enzymes take part in repairing damaged genes–the elements that define and control our heredity and function. Béchamp suggested that microzymas coagulate to become genetic material. Enzymes, then, are quite magical and mysterious substances. Behind every enzyme is a microzyma. In one sense, the gene may be seen as the tool of the microzyma. The mechanism for repair could be that enzymes construct or become repair proteins, which are then spliced into the gene. There is a good possibility that this is what “viruses” are–repair proteins, or structures that do gene repair, not forms that cause symptoms. Most viruses are made of a core of genetic material surrounded by a protein coat.
The repair process has been misconstrued by mainstream bioscience as a disease, and its tools, the repair proteins, have been called viruses, particularly retroviruses. Retroviruses have the ability to insert themselves into our DNA. Supposedly, this is what the retrovirus HIV does. Observers with a certain bias could easily assume the thing shouldn’t be there. Such is the kind of error to which the conditioned scientific mind can be led by germ theory. Since viruses don’t have a reproductive mechanism, they must use the host cell to reproduce. But perhaps the reason they can’t replicate outside the cell is that they’re not intended to. Perhaps something in the cell is producing or becoming viruses for a reason. There is the possibility that a virus may have a complex of microzymas in the center. And, as with bacteria, monomorphic medical science offers no explanation as to where these forms come from in the first place. Pleomorphism, however, easily suggests an answer.
Disease conditions weaken our enzyme system so that “improper” repair structures can be formed. Since enzymes must have minerals to function, even a simple mineral deficiency could be involved in the failure of gene repair. A faulty protein structure may still have the ability to get into the DNA, but it may cause malfunction. If so, it would fail to fulfill properly its original purpose, and possibly instigate another morbid situation in the cell as well. Another possibility is that even if the repair structure is correct, nutritional deficiency or depletion of the enzyme potential may prevent proper function. Once a protein structure is floating around, it could evolve into a higher morbid form itself, depending on circumstances. It may evolve into a bacterium. This has been well documented in the lost chapters in the history of medical biology. And in a compromised terrain, today’s bacterium can be tomorrow’s terrain-poisoning yeast, fungus, or mold. Pasteur denied that bacteria could change their form. Only the unchanging, specific germs of the air were the cause of disease, he said. Béchamp, on the other hand, never denying that the air carried germs, maintained that airborne forms were not necessary for disease. Pasteur wished to establish that we must be invaded (and therefore be protected by profitable vaccination). But the true scientist showed that an independently living element, which could morbidly evolve, already exists in all cells of the body, and showed evidence that it is all that is needed for the appearance of symptogenic organisms. The body naturally has within it the factors and potential necessary to produce the symptoms of disease, including microorganisms. It means we also have the innate ability to become, and to stay, healthy.
Whether Pasteur or Béchamp is correct may still be an issue for some people. It does seem unusual, though, that Antoine’s name, and the controversy itself, have been omitted from history, medical and biology books–even encyclopedias. Given the magnitude and number of Béchamp‘s discoveries, it is more-than-likely that this omission is more than oversight. The historical assassination of Antoine Béchamp resulted in medical science drawing conclusions from a half-truth. This has meant untold misery for the human race, especially in the West. The resulting concept of diseases as entities that attack us is highly questionable and is a major block to resolving health care issues today.
The odd thing is, Pasteur himself was reported to have admitted on his deathbed that, “Claude Bernard was right–the microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything.” But, even as he way dying, he would not give credit for the demonstration of this fact to whom it was due–Antoine Béchamp! One organism can rapidly assume many forms and it may be in several stages at once. The toxins (acids) from the whole spectrum of these microforms combine to produce symptoms, or provoke the body to produce them. The toxic output of yeast, fungus and mold is a primary disruptive influence in the body. But, it is not the microforms themselves that initiate disease. They only show up because of a compromised biological terrain. Pleomorphism is observable if only medical science will take the trouble to look. Once this cycle of development has begun, it further compromises the terrain, creating a vicious circle of imbalance. As explained earlier, humans rely on certain microorganisms for life, as does every higher organism on Earth. They reside primarily in our digestive tract. This is an incontestable fact. It isn’t much of a stretch to imagine that other forms could take over if the habitat changes. Invasion is not necessary for this to happen. They can evolve right out of any cell. To understand the principles of pleomorphism and terrain is to understand why we are sick and tired. Once we understand WHY we are sick and tired, we can start making the necessary changes in our lifestyle to bring our bodies back into balance.
Dark-Field Microscopy
By reviewing living blood under a dark-field, phase-contrast microscope, pleomorpic forms can be seen. This type of live-cell analysis is also used in marine biology for observing tiny sea life with fragile outer skins. The high-powered microscope can magnify objects up to 28,000 times, enabling one to clearly view bacterial and fungal forms in exact detail in the blood! The blood specimen is lit by a special apparatus in the microscope called a phase-contrast condenser. Objects under the lens show up against a black and/or gray background. This provides superior quality images. One can see red and white blood cells; crystallized exotoxins, mycotoxins, cholesterol, metals; blood clots; signs of oxygen deprivation; undigested fats; bacteria, yeast, mold, and many other things–all in ONE drop of live blood! Watching live blood on a slide, or on a video, one can actually see bacteria, yeast, fungus and mold feeding and growing as the blood loses its nutrition and oxygen. Most amazing is to see these forms coming right out of previously healthy red and white blood cells! They live off your body’s vital nutrients: glucose, protein, fats, hemoglobin, tissues and organs. They disorganize, or change form, in the presence of oxygen.
The American medical establishment does not look at live blood. They focus primarily on chemical analysis to make their diagnosis, and in doing so, are missing the show. Also, when looking at blood, their practice of “staining” samples disorganizes them. In fact, biological forms and elements have been defined by the artificial convention of staining, thus throwing that bias on the whole subject. This approach is an ingrained habit religiously taught in medical schools and practiced in research. But it is narrow and restricted, virtually blinding those who rely on it. The action of the chemical stain visually enhances certain things, such as the cell wall and nucleus. But this is at the cost of disturbing and disorganizing all the living, moving, feeding microforms–they become invisible or unidentifiable. Consequently, observers of dead blood refer to these forms as “artifacts,” “organelles,” “microsomes,” etc. Once a person has made the corrections necessary to reclaim their inner terrain, their blood is again examined under the microscope. It’s plain to see when the symotogenic microforms are reduced or have been completely eradicated. The bottom line is that we must provide an appropriate environment for our tiny life units. We must deal with them on their level, for after that they will become what they must, and no amount of manipulation with drugs will stop their evolution or completely subdue their progeny. If it could, it would be the end of the host as well.
Yeast, Fungus and Mold
Yeast and fungus are single-celled forms of plant life. Inhabiting land, air and water, they are everywhere. Mold, which is closely related to them, is the end-stage of all pleomorphic cycles in the body. Single fungal cells can be seen only under a microscope, but a colony of them make a visible presence I the form of mushrooms, toadstools, and the sometimes fuzzy molds we’ve seen growing on things. For hundreds of millions of years, yeast, fungus and mold have developed into over 500,000 different identifiable forms. For that period of time, they’ve undergone little genetic change. Apparently, they haven’t needed it, because they’re created as opportunists and survivalists, and perfectly suited for what they do. They can go from rapid growth to thousands of years of dormancy. This has been seen I their living spores which have been found in Egyptian tombs. There is a sound biological basis for our inherent ability to produce these pleomorphic forms. While humans, higher plants and animals are alive; bacteria, yeast, fungus and mold are unable to overcome entirely the natural balancing mechanisms that higher forms of life possess. But once the host organism dies, these microforms are the principal “undertakers” which reduce the higher life form into basic materials.
In biology, this is known as the carbon cycle, and it is a natural, necessary life process. The recyclers have evolved from, and are actually a scavenging form of, microzymas. And microzymas naturally reside within all pleomorphic microforms as they do within all living things. They are the ultimate imperishable form to which organic matter is reduced. Yeast and fungus can start their takeover while we’re still living. Because the microzymas are getting the chemical signal, from an acid terrain, that this organism is dead or disorganizing! The body naturally goes acid when it dies or when the cells begin to disorganize. And without respiration, oxygen is lost. One of the symptoms of terrain imbalance is lack of oxygen. These morbidly evolved organisms thrive without oxygen, i.e., they are anaerobic. We predispose ourselves to this takeover with various stresses. The main ones are chronic improper diet and/or other chronic toxicity. Emotional upheaval and unloving thoughts, anger, etc., have a strongly acidifying effect in the tissues.
These morbidly evolved organisms are literally eating us alive and polluting us. The thing is, we pollute ourselves first, thus creating the one physiological disease: pH imbalance/toxicity in our biological terrain. Toxins and an acid-forming diet disrupt body chemistry, and this loss of balance in turn disturbs the central balance of the microzyma. Nutritional deficiencies can have the same effect, but can also be created by acidification. Unless fatal or permanently damaging, an acute toxicity in a healthy terrain will only temporarily disrupt things and minimally disturb the microzymas, with a quick return to balance. Otherwise, in the chronic situation the one sickness follows: the evolution of microzymas into bacteria and ultimately into a yeast and fungus infestation. Yeast and fungus can infest the blood and any cell or tissue, resulting in a wide range of symptoms. The primary diet of yeast and fungus in our bodies is glucose for energy, plus fats and protein (even our genetic nucleic acids) for development and growth. As these organisms feed, they produce waste, just like you do. Their “urine and feces” are called mycotoxins (myco = fungus; toxin = poison), and they are very poisonous to humans! This poisoning of the body by mycotoxins is called mycotoxicosis. Being acids themselves, mycotoxins greatly worsen the acidity caused by diet. They are released into the blood as well as inside cells. The blood poisoning results in more cell and tissue poisoning, and all of this further disturbs the microzymas, making us sick and tired. Also, since many of these poisons are acids, they chemically destroy or break down our cells and tissues.
The symptoms of disease show up in two primary modes: (1) an attempt by the body to deal with toxic poisoning, and (2) a result of the action of toxins on body chemicals, cells and tissues. A combination of these two primary modes is also common. Most toxins are the metabolic waste of yeast and fungus, and this includes a large number of environmental chemical poisons we are exposed to. Primary mycotoxins are produced directly by the organisms, and secondary mycotoxins are either breakdown products or products resulting from combination. Although yeast and fungus wreak most of the havoc in the body, the earlier, or bacterial stages can produce considerable effects themselves by means of their metabolic wastes (exotoxins) and chemical contents (endotoxins). Bacterial forms don’t always evolve into fungus, nor does fungus always become mold, the end-stage form. It depends on the particular form and the condition of the terrain. In addition to our own ability to generate various microforms, we also have them entering the respiratory system and intestinal tract due to our exposure to the world at large. Béchamp saw that in plants, bacterial “invaders” appear to grow in the host as they would in a lab culture. But he concluded that what is really happening is that their presence initiates similar development in the plant’s own bacterial/fungal precursors. He suggested that the same thing happens in humans, and that both cases depend on prior susceptibility. Thus, we may or may not experience such a result from these “intruders.” One might contract a yeast and/or fungal infection such as athlete’s foot, vaginal yeast infection, strep throat, or ringworm on the skin. But s/he must be predisposed to it internally. At the other extreme is the person with AIDS, who faces major, death-threatening yeast and fungus infection because of a highly compromised terrain.
Although the immune system can become stressed and lose its effectiveness against yeast and fungus, anti-infectivity is not its primary role. It cannot be the “first line of defense,” as is commonly thought. By the time it comes into play to deal with infectious agents in the body, the terrain’s pH has already been compromised. The only part of the immune system that could be called a “line of defense” is that which stands between our inner terrain and the planetary environment–the mucosal barrier. The primary, ongoing role of inner immune function is that of an elegant janitorial service. It must constantly pick up and discard filth, including the body’s metabolic waste. It also deals with remnants of the 24 billion cells that die and are replaced everyday! It is so amazing that it not only picks up this waste, but recycles a good deal of it. Without this service, we’d get rather choked up inside with debris. But immunity to infection does not, and cannot, create wellness. Thus, infectious immunity is a back-up system–a spare tire, if you will. A balanced biological terrain is the primary discouragement to morbid microforms. The misplaced emphasis on immunity and stimulating immune function is an unfortunate hangover from germ theory. The result can be over-reliance on the system, so that most of us are riding around on the spare tire all the time.
Between the extremes of athlete’s foot and AIDS are the yeast and fungus overgrowths underlying symptoms such as diabetes, cancer, atherosclerosis, osteoporosis, chronic fatigue, and more, including infections which appear to be transmitted among humans. Most disease symptoms, chronic and degenerative ones, follow bacteria, yeast and fungus, and their associated exotoxins and mycotoxins. In the 1930s and ’40s, as many as one thousand compounds, classifiable as mycotoxins, were studied by the pharmacology industry as potential antibiotics. Most were discarded as too poisonous for higher life forms to be of value in treating bacterial symptoms. These toxicity studies actually outlined the dangers of these substances. What was identified was the whole spectrum of symptomologies produced by mycotoxins! Some researchers believe there are more than a thousand toxins produced by yeast, fungus and mold. One common mycotoxin that is particularly troublesome is acetaldehyde. It is quite detrimental itself, yet also breaks down to other products (called metabolites) including oxalic acid, lactic acid, uric acid, and alcohol. All are disruptive waste products of yeast and fungus and are found in the flood and tissues of a compromised terrain. Compounding the situation is the fact that the presence of acetaldehyde and other mycotoxins causes the liver to increase low density lipoprotein in the blood. This high-cholesterol complex is used to bind with toxins, thereby deactivating them. The binding process is often referred to as chelation. However, the resulting substance also has the tendency to become oxidized and stick to lesions (toxin damage) in the artery walls, producing atherosclerosis. Minerals are used for chelating purposes also. Acetaldehyde can reduce strength and stamina, cause excessive fatigue, cloud thinking and take away ambition. One mechanism for these problems is that it directly destroys neurotransmitters, which are chemicals responsible for completing all nerve impulses. Another mechanism is that it can bind to the walls of red blood cells, making them less flexible and therefore less able to get into and through the capillaries of the circulatory system. This causes starvation and oxygen deprivation in the tissues. An added difficulty is that the liver converts acetaldehyde to the mycotoxin alcohol.
Sources: Laleva.org, Principia-scientific.com
Continue: Louis Pasteur Vs Antoine Bechamp and The Germ Theory of Disease Causation – Part 2
See also:
- https://www.naturalnews.com/030384_Louis_Pasteur_disease.html
- Pasteur Vs. Bechamp: The Germ Theory Debate
- CONTINUED LOOK INTO THE FRAUDULENCE OF LOUIS PASTEUR, VIRUS THEORY AND GERM THEORY
- VIRUSES AND GERM THEORY: EXPOSED BY DOCTORS – WHAT BIG PHARMA AND MAINSTREAM NEWS WON’T TEACH YOU
- The Fallacies of Germ Theory with Dr. Cowan
- INVERSION OF TRUTH – THE GERM & VIRUS THEORY – DR LORRAINE DAY
- Germ Theory Versus Terrain: The Wrong Side Won the Day
- Louis Pasteur’s Junk Science Germ Theory
- Dr. Andrew Kaufman on Koch’s Postulates
- Dr Andrew Kaufman explaining the relationship between Exosomes and Viruses
Recommended reading:
- Béchamp or Pasteur? A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology (Free PDF version HERE)
- What Really Makes You Ill?: Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong
- The Truth About Contagion: Exploring Theories of How Disease Spreads
