Taking Back Our Stolen History
Pasteur, Louis
Pasteur, Louis

Pasteur, Louis

(Dec. 27, 1822-Sept. 28, 1895) was a French chemist and microbiologist who gained his celebrity scientist position by popularizing germ theory. His process of experimentation included finding sick people, isolating the bacterium (so he claimed), and giving the “pure” culture to animals — typically by injecting it into their brains. When the animals inevitably became sick, Pasteur claimed successful infection and disease caused by bacteria. For Pasteur, to fight illness is to treat the symptoms with a vaccination or by killing all bacteria such as the process we now call Pasteurization as done in milk and juices. This approach has shaped modern medicine, pharmacology, and beverage industrialization.

Historian Dr. Gerald Geison investigated Pasteur’s work by comparing his personal notebooks to his published papers. Of his findings, he wrote in 1995, the very year that UNESCO had proclaimed the year of Pasteur, in his book The Private Science of Louis Pasteur, “During his lifetime, Pasteur permitted absolutely no one — not even his closest co-workers — to inspect his notes… [He] arranged with his family that the books should also remain closed to all even after his death.

Truly, it’s remarkable that anyone could have taken an ounce of Pasteur’s science seriously with this level of secrecy shrouding his work. Scientific theories require reproducibility by unbiased third parties, and Pasteur did not allow anyone to see his notes, double check his conclusions based on his own data, or perform their own duplications of his work to confirm accuracy.

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that Pasteur deliberately deceived those with whom he shared his work, scientists and the public alike. We only know the intimate details of Pasteur’s work now because one of his grandsons ignored his wishes and donated Pasteur’s notebooks to the French national library in 1914, making them available for public viewing. These notebooks revealed the extensive fraud that Pasteur had committed in his studies.

His claims of purifying bacteria cultures for his studies were false, as that was an impossible task at the time. The Contagion Myth by Thomas S. Cowan and Sally Fallon Morell reveals “the only way [Pasteur] could transfer disease was to either insert the whole infected tissue into another animal (he would sometimes inject ground-up brains of an animal into the brain of another animal to “prove” contagion) or resort to adding poisons to his culture which he knew would cause the symptoms in the recipients.

As discussed in The Lost History of Medicine, the Terrain is more important than the Germ.

Pasteur described germs as non-changeable. We know today, from the use of Darkfield Microscopes that microorganisms are pleomorphic, that they can change and often do. A virus can become a bacterium which can mutate into a yeast or fungus. Modern medicine has yet to acknowledge this because it would turn the pharmaceutical interests on their backs like a helpless tortoise. Again, we follow the money….”

“…It was Bechamp who discovered the pleomorphic nature of germs, and later on Bernard described the “milieu” or environment that affected/caused those changes. Bernard is the one responsible for our theories today on pH and how the nature of the microorganisms change as the body moves from an alkaline pH to an acidic pH. (This is covered in depth in our article The Lost History of Medicine.)

Béchamp was the more brilliant thinker, but Pasteur had political connections, including Emperor Napoleon III. Reportedly not above “plagiarising and distorting Béchamp’s research,2 Pasteur achieved fame and fortune largely because his views “were in tune with the science and the politics of his day.1 Meanwhile, mainstream medical historians relegated Béchamp’s ideas—not as attractive to conventional thinkers—to the intellectual dustbin.3

History awarded renown to the reductionist Pasteur for being the “father of immunology14 and popularizing the theory that disease involves “a simple interaction between specific microorganisms and a host.” In his singleminded focus on the germ side of the equation, Pasteur ignored the host and discounted the influence of environmental factors, thereby “conveniently dismissing social responsibility for disease.15

Both at the time and thereafter, the public and most fellow scientists found germ theory easy to embrace, perceiving Pasteur’s model of life and health to be not only “superficially plausible” but also “financially exploitable.3 In fact, most of the big-name pharmaceutical companies that we know today got their start in Pasteur’s era, often by merging with chemical firms, united in their goal of developing and selling synthetic products to “selectively kill or immobilize parasites, bacteria, and other invasive disease-causing microbes.16 Quoting comments by Ethel Douglas Hume in 1923,17 one author has remarked that Pasteur’s “greatest claim to fame ought to have been the inauguration of the ‘calamitous prostitution of science and medicine to commercialism.’

Pasteur’s Vaccine Studies

The two most celebrated achievements in Pasteur’s career:

  1. his bold public demonstration of a vaccine against anthrax in sheep at Poully-le-Fort in 1881, and
  2. the first known application of his rabies vaccine to a human subject, young Joseph Meister, in July 1885.

In the first case, Pasteur deliberately deceived the public and the scientific community about the nature of the vaccine used in the experiments at Poully-le-Fort. In the second case, the nature of Pasteur’s deception is less clear-cut, but here too there are some striking discrepancies between the public and private versions of the famous story of Joseph Meister.

By 1885, five years after starting work on rabies, Pasteur and his colleagues had developed a live viral preparation, which, Pasteur claimed, not only protected dogs from rabies infections, but prevented the disease from becoming symptomatic if administered post exposure. Still, it was not without reluctance—or concern from his peers—that he agreed to administer a series of viral injections to the asymptomatic young Meister. “This will be another bad night for your father,” wrote Pasteur’s wife Marie to their children during the treatment. “He cannot come to terms with the idea of applying a measure of last resort to this child.

But it seemed to work—Meister didn’t develop rabies. And after starting treatment of another boy that October, Pasteur declared the vaccine a success before the French National Academy of Medicine. The story became international news; even patients from America were soon shipped over to Europe to receive the miracle cure.

Pasteur’s secretive attitude further fueled his opponents. His papers were only three or four pages long. There were no details, and no way you could reproduce to prove the efficacy of the vaccine.

When Pasteur’s private notes were finally made public by his grandson in the 1970’s, they revealed startling discrepancies between Pasteur’s research and his claims. Gerald Geison, a science historian, was among the first people to thoroughly review Pasteur’s notes. In 1995, The Year of Pasteur as proclaimed by UNESCO due to it being the 100th anniversary of Pasteur’s death, Geison published his book entitled THE PRIVATE SCIENCE OF LOUIS PASTEUR.

In the case of Pasteur’s widely publicized anthrax vaccine, Geison reveals its initial defects and how Pasteur, in order to avoid embarrassment, secretly incorporated a rival colleague’s findings to make his version of the vaccine work. Pasteur’s premature decision to apply his rabies treatment to his first animal-bite victims raises even deeper questions and must be understood not only in terms of the ethics of human experimentation and scientific method, but also in light of Pasteur’s shift from a biological theory of immunity to a chemical theory — similar to ones he had often disparaged when advanced by his competitors.2

Modern medical practitioners, including alternative and functional medicine doctors, have accepted germ theory as law. The manner in which the medical establishment talks about germ theory would lead anyone who didn’t know better to believe that all germs have been thoroughly investigated and that their ability to cause disease has been absolutely proven. Neither of these statements are true.

In fact, every effort made to prove germ theory has failed and provided bountiful evidence in direct contrast. Pasteur himself knew this to be true based on his dying admission. On his deathbed, Pasteur admitted the truth about his life’s work and studies, “The germ is nothing; the terrain is everything.” However, since the Germ is so profitable, the medical world has written off his final statements as the madness of a dying man. We should all be so mad.

But, by that point the damage was done. Germ theory had been swept into the mainstream and embedded in every facet of treatment protocols or recommendations for healthy living. Pharmaceutical manufacturers saw huge potential in Pasteur’s ideas which presented real money-making opportunities in both preventative and curative medicine by way of developing, marketing and selling expensive petroleum-based drug therapies and vaccinations programs. This is where University funding from the Rockefeller Foundation went, to no ones surprise.

For those who are able to steel themselves against medical propaganda, it is abundantly clear that the Pasteurian paradigm has failed to deliver. With Americans in such a shocking state of ill health, we cannot afford to let the profit-driven pharmaceutical perspective continue to dominate. Two decades into the twenty-first century, dismal national and international health statistics utterly belie the hype about medical advances. In the U.S., for example, over half of all children have one or more chronic conditions, as does a comparable proportion of millennials9 and up to 62 percent of Medicaid-population adults.10 Most health care dollars spent in the U.S. (86 percent) are for patients with at least one chronic condition. Similar trends are on the rise around the world.11 As one writer more bluntly puts it, “The sooner we get over the legacy of Pasteur’s fake science and get back to reality the better.13


Pasteur developed ‘pasteurization’, a process by which harmful microbes in perishable food products are destroyed using heat, allegedly without destroying the food. This is not entirely true. Pasteurization does NOT kill ALL harmful microbes in milk and it DOES harm the milk.

In her book, The Medical Mafia, Dr Lanctôt debunks pasteurization with a one-two punch:

  1. The temperature is not high enough.
  2. The temperature is too high.

First off, Dr Lanctôt points out that germs that bring us typhoid, coli bacillus, and tuberculosis are not killed by the temperatures used, and there have been a good number of salmonella epidemics traced to pasteurized milk. Secondly, the heating process injures the milk. She points out that pasteurization destroys milk’s intrinsic germicidal properties, not to mention healthy enzymes. She goes on to state that 50% of milks calcium is unusable (the body cannot assimilate it) after pasteurization. So much for all those milk commercials.

Here’s something we found online that was drawn up for a Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors concerning outbreaks from pasteurized milk:

  • 1997, 28 persons ill from Salmonella in California, ALL FROM PASTEURIZED MILK.
  • 1996, 46 persons ill from Campylobacter and Salmonella in California.
  • 1994, 105 persons ill from E. coli and Listeria in California
  • March of 1985 19,660 confirmed cases of Salmonella typhimurium illness FROM CONSUMING PROPERLY PASTEURIZED MILK. Over 200,000 people ill from Salmonella typhimurium in PASTEURIZED MILK
  • 1985, 142 cases and 47 deaths traced to PASTEURIZED Mexican-style cheese contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. Listeria monocytogenes SURVIVES PASTEURIZATION!
  • 1985, 1500 persons ill from Salmonella infection
  • August of 1984 approximately 200 persons became ill with a Salmonella typhimurium from CONSUMING PASTEURIZED MILK
  • November of 1984, another outbreak of Salmonella typhimurium illness from CONSUMING PASTEURIZED MILK
  • 1983, over 49 persons with Listeria illness have been associated with the consumption of PASTEURIZED MILK in Massachusetts.
  • 1993, 28 persons ill from Salmonella infection
  • 1982, 172 persons ill (100 hospitalized) from a three Southern state area from PASTEURIZED MILK.
  • 1982, over 17,000 persons became ill with Yersinia enterocolitica from PASTEURIZED MILK bottled in Memphis, Tennessee.

Pasteurization is simply a quick fix that allows large cartels to profit from the sales of milk. Instead of relying on safe, sterile handling procedures of raw milk (which would make the costs of milk much more expensive and allow small localized farms to compete), we’ve incorporated this quick fix, which might or might not work, but certainly helps the cartels profit… Read the Wickedpedia article on milk if you haven’t already.