by Patrick Quanten MD
Physicist, Beverly Rubik Ph.D., Director of the Centre for Frontier Sciences at Temple University in Philadelphia wrote:
Perhaps the greatest obstacle that frontier scientists are unprepared for but inevitably face is political - the tendency for human systems to resist change, to resist the impact of new discoveries, especially those that challenge the status quo of the scientific establishment ...
... "Science" has become institutionalised and is largely regulated by an establishment community that governs and maintains itself ... In recent times there has been a narrowing of perspectives resulting in a growing dogmatism, a dogmatic scientism. There is arrogance bordering on worship of contemporary scientific concepts and models ... taught in our schools in a deadening way which only serves to perpetrate the dogma ...
Strangely, the contemporary scientific establishment has taken on the behaviour of one of its early oppressors: the church. Priests in white lab coats work in glass-and-steel cathedral-like laboratories, under the rule of bishops and cardinals who maintain orthodoxy through mainstream "peer review".
This unfortunate situation within the scientific establishment, although worsening fast, has always been a feature. New ideas are readily dismissed and ridiculed and their proponents persecuted and prosecuted. Yet, only through the introduction of new discoveries can we evolve and grow with a better understanding of nature and the way it functions. What is holding us back is a form of "democracy" whereby the majority decides what is right or wrong, very often without even wanting to examine the evidence they are presented with. The main argument being: "It can't be right because nobody has ever said anything like that before!"
Well, very often a little excursion into the past reveals that somebody somewhere has actually mentioned it before. To illustrate this, let's take the "germ"-theory.
Louis Pasteur became famous for his demonstration that bacteria were the cause of diseases. As these germs were found in diseased tissues and not in healthy ones, he postulated that they invaded the system from the outside. The medical establishment accepted this, set out to find ways to "kill" these invaders and to this day is pursuing the same goal, mostly unsuccessfully. On his deathbed, Louis Pasteur was reported to have said, with reference to the ideas of an eminent French physiologist, Claude Bernard: "Bernard is right ... the terrain is everything! The microbe is nothing!" Claude Bernard championed the notion the terrain was much more significant than the germs in the onset of the disease. This was based on the work of a contemporary of Pasteur, named Antoine Béchamp.
Béchamp first worked in Strasbourg as a Professor of Physics and Toxicology at the Higher School of Pharmacy, later as Professor of Medical Chemistry at the University of Montpellier and, later still, as Professor of Biochemistry and Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Lille, all in France.
While labouring on problems of fermentation - the breakdown complex molecules into organic compounds via a "ferment" - Béchamp, at his microscope, seemed to be able to visualise a host of tiny bodies in his fermenting solutions. Even before Béchamps time other researchers had observed, but passed off as unexplainable, what they called "scintillating corpuscles" or "molecular granulations". It was Béchamp who, able to ascribe strong enzymatic reactions to them, was led to coin a new word to describe them: microzymas, or "tiny ferments".
Among these ferments' many peculiar characteristics was one showing that microzymas were abundantly present in natural calcium carbonate, commonly known as chalk, whereas they did not exist in chemically pure calcium carbonate made in a laboratory under artificial conditions. This was the reason why chalk could easily invert cane sugar solutions, while pure calcium carbonate could not. In other words, although chemically the artificial "pure" calcium carbonate is exactly the same as the natural calcium carbonate, yet only the latter has a life which allows it to interact with its environment. With this knowledge it becomes easy to explain why natural vitamin C has so many health stimulating properties, which the researches have not been able to reproduce in their experiments because they used artificially made vitamin C. Once again a clear indication is that the "impurities" within the substance are essential to its function in nature.
Béchamp went on to study microzymas located in the bodies of animals and came to the startling conclusion that the tiny forms were more basic to life than cells, long considered to be the building blocks of all living matter. Béchamp thought the microzymas to be fundamental elements responsible for the activity of cells, tissues, organs, indeed whole living organisms, from bacteria to whales, and larks to human beings. He even found them present in life-engendering eggs, where they were responsible for the eggs' further development while themselves undergoing significant changes.
Most incredible to Béchamp was the fact that when there occurred an event serious enough to affect the whole of an organism disturbing the natural balance, the microzymas within the organism would begin working to disintegrate the organism totally converting themselves to bacteria and other microbes, while at the same time continuing to survive. As proof of such survival, Béchamp found them in soil, swamps, chimney soot, street dust, even in air and water. These basic, and apparently eternal, elements of which we and all our animal relatives are composed survive the remnants of living cells in our bodies. So seemingly indestructible were the microzymas that Béchamp could even find them in limestone dating back 60 million years. They are to be considered the seeds of life.
He demonstrated in his laboratory that by using different solutions as an environment he would grow totally different sets of "germs" in spite of the fact that all solutions had been kept in the same sterile conditions. The germs, he was convinced, could not have come from an outside source but had to be originating from within each solution itself. The microzymas, which are the same basic structures for all living material, transformed themselves through the stimulation of the various feeding grounds in which they lived, into different life forms (in these experiments, germs) corresponding to the content of the solution itself.
He also clearly demonstrated that one sort of bacteria would develop spontaneously into an other type given a change in the environmental conditions. So it was seen that the diphtheria bacteria transformed into a coccus. This is something that in the Pasteur bacteriology is impossible!
The controversy between the two scientific views is easily settled when we examine the reports from these two researches submitted to the French Academy of Science. It leads to three indisputable and striking conclusions:
1. Pasteur's reports on experiments and consequent deductions are all preceded by Béchamp's, in some cases by several years. When Pasteur proclaimed to have found the answer to a pressing question it turns out that Béchamp had already clearly answered that question.
2. The quality control on Pasteur's experiments is very poor and allows for unaccounted interference which is invariably completely ignored even when pointed out by his peers. In contrast, Béchamp seems to have had a more rigid and structured approach to his experiments, which allowed him to answer his contemporaries more clearly.
3. The deductions Pasteur made from his experiments were often far beyond the scope of the actual experiment and turned out to be more speculation than science. As a consequence, Pasteur was caught out on several occasions changing his interpretation and statements as it suited his cause. Béchamp was never seen to have made a claim he had not substantiated with sound scientific proof.
The reason why Béchamp was mainly ignored and Pasteur elevated to hero status is to be found in the different personalities and the lure of commercial success. Again that's no different now, as we still continue to ignore the facts and figures and continue our search for the outside invader to be blamed for an illness. Not only have we had the opportunity right at the emergence of this dogma to refute it once and for all, but ever since, personal experience as well as facts and figures on the effects of the treatments based on this dogma have time and time again shown the invalidity of the system itself. Yet, pushed on by commercial and social rewards we continue to ignore reality and refuse to question in real scientific terms the fundamentals on which our view of disease is based.
It has been generally accepted, even in Pasteur's time, that for a specific micro-organism to be responsible for a specific disease the following conditions have to be fulfilled:
- The said organism has to be found in each in every case of the disease.
- The said organism can not be found with any other disease or in the absence of any disease.
- The said organism can be isolated from the diseased tissue in a pure culture.
- Injected into a healthy system the said organism grown in culture always produces the disease again.
It is quite clear that these conditions have never been met in any known infective disease! Not now and not in Pasteur's days, as many complaints and arguments with his fellow scientists attest to.
And there is more!
In February 1944 the Franklin Institute of Philadelphia (USA) published an article, "The New Microscopes", in its prestigious journal devoted to applied science. The article included a long dissertation on the "Universal Microscope", the brainchild of a San Diego autodidact, Royal Raymond Rife. This microscope, developed in the 1920's, overcame the greatest disadvantage of the electron microscope, which had just been put on the market by the Radio Corporation of America. Because in the electron microscope tiny living organisms are put in vacuum and are subjected to protoplasmic changes induced by a virtual hailstorm of electrons, it is unable to reveal specimens in their natural living state.
The Rife microscope has several arresting features, the most important of which are the crystal quartz out of which the entire optical system as well as the illuminating unit is made, and the extraordinary resolution it achieves. With a resolving power of 31,000 diameters - as opposed to 2,500 for the microscopes in use at that time and at least double the magnification available with optical solutions presently in use, Rife's device could focus on five lines of a standardized grid whereas an ordinary microscope could do no better than examine fifty lines, and that with considerable aberration.
Rife maintained that he could select a specific frequency, or frequencies, of light which co-ordinated and resonated with a specimen's own chemical constituents so that a given specimen would emit its own light of a characteristic and unique colour. Specimens could easily be identified this way.
With his invention Rife was able to look at living organisms. What he saw convinced him that germs could not be the cause, but the result of disease; that, depending on its state, the body could convert a harmless bacterium into a lethal pathogen; that such pathogen could be instantly killed, each by a specific frequency of light; and that cells, regarded as the irreducible building-blocks of living matter, are actually composed of smaller cells, themselves made up of even smaller cells, this process continuing with higher and higher magnification in a sixteen step, stage by stage journey into the micro-beyond.
Thousands of still pictures and hundreds of feet of movie films were made to reveal these facts.
Once again, as was the case with Béchamp, the use of better equipment and the acceptance of the observed, in spite of it being contradictory with the established scientific knowledge, led to a significant discovery. Rife not only described what he saw, as opposed to having a guess at what he believed to be the truth, but he documented every step of his discovery with photographs and motion pictures. His contemporaries decide that it was impossible to "see" these minute organisms as they did not have the technology and the end result is that neither you nor me had ever heard of Rife and his microscope. Furthermore, his microscope together with most of his scientific writings and evidence was taught to have been destroyed. Recently, however, some of it has been recovered but alas in a very sorry state. To this day, no one has succeeded in rebuilding the exact Rife microscope as the specific details have never been found.
The consequence of Rife's discovery is that cells are not the basic building blocks of life, as believed by the medical profession; and bacteria originate from within the diseased tissue, and not, as the profession believes, invades the system from the outside.
The French born biologist who lived and worked for many years in Quebec (Canada) invented a microscope in the 1950's, unaware of Rife's invention and his work, that was capable of viewing living entities far smaller than can be seen in existing light microscopes.
With his exceptional instrument, Naessens went on to discover in the blood of animals and humans, as well as in the sap of plants, a hitherto unknown, ultramicroscopic, sub-cellular, living and reproducing microscopic form which he christened a somatid. This particle could be cultured - grown - outside the bodies of its host. And, strangely enough, it was seen to develop in a "form-changing" cycle. The first three stages - somatid, spore and double spore - are perfectly normal in healthy organisms, in fact crucial to their existence.
Even stranger, over the years the somatids were revealed to be virtually indestructible! They have resisted exposure to temperatures of 200C and more. They have survived exposures to 50,000 rems of nuclear radiation, far more than enough to kill any living thing. They have been totally unaffected by any acid. Taken from centrifuge residues, they have been found impossible to cut with a diamond knife.
The eerie implication is that the new minuscule life-forms are imperishable. At the death of their hosts, such as ourselves, they return to the earth where they live on.
Naessens went on to discover that if, and when, the immune system of an animal, or human being, becomes weakened or destabilised, the normal three stage cycle goes into a thirteen more successive growth stages to make up a total of sixteen separate forms, each evolving into the next. All of them have been clearly revealed in detail by motion pictures, and stop-frame still photography. From the double spore stage, mentioned above as the third stage in the normal cycle, it can transform into a bacterial form (4) which includes the viral forms, then a double bacterial form (5), then a rod form (6), a bacterial form with double spores (7), a bacterial form with granular double spores (8), and (9) and (10) being microbial globular forms. At stage (11) this form bursts open and turns into a yeast form (12), then an ascopore form (13), with (14) and (15) being mycelial forms. Within this cycle one finds the basis of all known "germs", having emerged from a previous less developed stage, given the right environmental circumstances. In a rich, clean, environment the (15)th form will burst and release somatids into the environment, whilst the outer membranes will remain as a fibrous thallus (scar-tissue). These somatids will resume the normal three stage cycle. In simple terms, the diseased tissue develops from within itself a micro-organism that will clear up the unhealthy decayed matter and disappear once this is done, leaving the tissue healthy and clean again, with the same "life" qualities it had before it became diseased.
By studying the cycle, as revealed in the blood of human beings suffering from various degenerative diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, particularly cancer, and most recently, AIDS, Naessens has been able to associate the development of the forms in the sixteen stage pathological cycle with all of these diseases. More importantly, he has been able to predict the eventual onset of such diseases long before any clinical sign of them have put in an appearance. And most importantly, he has come to demonstrate that such afflictions have a common functional principle, or basis, and must therefore not be considered as separate, unrelated phenomena as they have been for so long in orthodox medical circles.
Naessens concluded that the somatid is no less than what could be termed a concretisation of energy. This particle, which has materialised in the life process, possesses genetic properties transmissible to living organisms, animal or vegetal, as in the absence of the normal three-stage cycle no cellular division can take place. Why can it not? Because it is this normal cycle that produces a special growth hormone that permits such division. The somatids are simply precursors of DNA. Now there's a new one!
Not only has Naessens proved the dictum that "germs are a result, not the cause of the disease", but he had also shown that DNA is not the "independent" ruler of life as it has been portrayed by the medical authorities. DNA is built from bits that come before it, and specifically those bits correspond directly to the environmental vibrational energetic state.
Hippocrates, and well before his time, the Hebrews and the Egyptians, already attributed the major part of morbid incidents to troubled humours. By "humour" we mean the extra-cellular liquids of the organism. In modern science we can now demonstrate the existence of inhibitors in the cell surroundings which keep the powerful special growth hormone under control, and stops the somatid cycle at stage three (normal). The first stage of an impending illness shows itself as a diminished level of inhibitors which allows the natural evolution to move on to the appearance of diverse forms of germs grown out of the environment itself. This lack of inhibition occurs when any kind of stress is put upon the system; the more prolonged, the greater and longer lasting the effect. Illness now prevails.
Germs are made by your body in an effort to clear up a messy environment. Once this has been achieved they will automatically disappear again. Proven several times in the last 150 years alone, and still not accepted in our world.
Don't be cynical: it has nothing whatsoever to do with vaccines and germ killing substances, and the financial lucrative businesses of making and selling them; not to mention the high regard in which all these cleaver brains are held and the jobs they are holding on to.
Do you feel ill? - Want to know what to do about it? - Answer: clean up!
1. "Béchamp or Pasteur?", by E. Douglas Hume.
2. "The Cancer Cure that worked", by Barry Lynes (Rife's saga).
3. "The Life and Trials of Gaston Naessens", by Christopher Bird.
4. "Rational Bacteriology", by J.R. Verner, C.W. Weiant and R.J. Watkins.