Germ Theory v. Terrain Theory: Why You've Probably Never Heard of Antoine Bechamp
- Louize Small
- Nov 24, 2020
- 5 min read
Updated: Jun 26
Can germ THEORY really be 100% correct?
Terrain Theory has become a talking point recently, after being spoken about by health professionals and scientists in the wake of the current pandemic.
A quick search for 'terrain theory' on the internet yields a top-listed Wikipedia entry of ‘Germ Theory Denialism’, which is not helpful at all.
A deeper dive reveals that terrain theory essentially proposes the idea that disease is created within the body and suggests that disease cannot flourish in a healthy body - therefore maintenance of a healthy body—terrain—is paramount.
EXTERNAL INVADERS?
Modern Western / allopathic medicine aligns with germ theory.
Germ theory posits that we become ill when infected by microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, viruses, algae) from our external environment; that a pathogenic agent from outside of our bodies invades our system and makes us ill.
It is a theory that was disproven in 1918 when the Boston Health Department failed to infect 300 healthy patients with Spanish Flu —they could not intentionally replicate the virus though they tried various (natural) ways of transmitting it (which may also quash contagion theory).
Yet germ theory continues to be the basis for many modern medical treatments.
It has been said (quite widely) that not a single virus has been proven to exist and/or cause disease, and that for a virus to be properly identified it has to be isolated, reproduced, reintroduced elsewhere (a second host) and for symptoms to develop in line with expectation (Koch’s Postulates). This has reportedly never taken place with any virus.
In 2017, German microbiologist Dr Stefan Lanka offered €100,000 to anyone who could prove the existence of the measles virus. There was an initial claim but it was overturned by the Supreme Court due to the composite nature of the evidence – meaning it was a faked image made from different components of damaged cells. You’d think specialists and experts would be falling over themselves to claim the money, but they weren’t and have not been able to do so.
I have heard that Koch's Postulates don't apply to viruses though I'm not sure why that would be — is it because they are too tiny or because they are not alive in the technical sense? Do Koch's Postulates apply to fungi and algae, or are they excluded, too?
Also, shouldn't these things should be studied in vivo rather than in vitro, as in vitro changes the natural biological dynamics and interplay of the thing(s) being studied?
I'm not sure whether that is even possible...
HEALING FROM WITHIN
In the mid-late 1800s Antoine Béchamp was able to see bacteria and other material coming out from cells (endogenous), rather than entering them (exogenous) using high-magnification microscopes. He suggested that illness is the body’s way of ridding itself of toxins and is the result of a weakened immune system. His findings were largely ignored by the mainstream but other scientists have since picked up where he left off (see footnote).
Béchamp was a lifelong rival of Louis Pasteur. It was Béchamp, not Pasteur, who brought the process of fermentation to understanding, but his ideas were stolen. The French Academy of Sciences accused Pasteur of suppressing and plagiarising Béchamp’s work and he was called an 'impostor' for passing off other people's work as his own.
Of course, Pasteur went on to enjoy greater commercial recognition than Béchamp because he was credited with the discoveries that catalysed medical advancement in the late 1800s.
Pasteur was instrumental in bringing germ theory to the front lines of modern healthcare.
THE END OF NATUROPATHY
The Flexner Report of 1910 (funded & published by Rockefeller-Carnegie) further imposed microbe medicine on the masses and sought to rid the world of ‘quackery’.
Medical schools, which had up until then been vast and varied, were forced to follow strict rules in terms of what they could / could not teach and if they didn’t comply, they were shut down. Naturopathic practitioners were discredited and pushed out of the new system.
Prior to the report, schools had a choice about what they could teach and even taught naturopathic methods, but afterwards, there was no choice. It was the Flexner rules or nothing.
The new way was one of research laboratories and drugs. Medical schools became affiliated with universities. Industrial giants funded studies. And as microbes and pathogens were identified, drugs and vaccines were created to combat them.
Now we have a paradigm where pharmaceutical success is judged by profit, not by the amount of people a drug has helped or cured.
A wise man once said that excellence in science is not the same as excellence in care.
Hippocrates, often considered the father of modern medicine, is quoted as saying: “It is more important to know what sort of person has a disease than to know what sort of disease a person has”, meaning that we should examine the person, not the disease.
During the current pandemic we’ve heard of those with existing conditions not doing so well. Of those affected, some experienced mild symptoms, and others, more unpleasant / protracted ones, but only a (relative) few truly suffered. Why is this so? If germ theory were 100% correct then surely everyone would respond the same to the same pathogenic agent. Instead, we have mixed reactions, which appear to support terrain theory.
Germ theory cannot account for many diseases, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and degenerative and chronic conditions. Are these conditions caused by pathogenic microorganisms, or are they caused by toxins, unhealthy environments, stress, bad habits, and/or poor choices?
And why do some people who appear to make terrible choices go on to live to a stunningly ripe old age while others who are seemingly 'fit and healthy' perish far too young?
Naturopathic practitioner, Dr. Robert O. Young, believes that one origin of common modern disease is chemical poisoning, which invades our bodies from myriad sources – air, food, water, vaccines, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, etc., therefore it makes sense to limit exposure to such things as much as is possible and practical to do so.
Yes, we can get angry about the selfish, greedy, controlling, deceitful medical-money-makers, but we can also reclaim responsibility for the wellbeing of our vessels.
We can (if we can) get out in the fresh air, move, drink pure water, and eat clean, fresh, nutritious food for greater vitality.
We don't have to load our vessels with dead weight or more than we can carry physically, emotionally, mentally, or spiritually.
Too often, we behave as lazy consumer junkies and want a quick fix for our ailments so we take a tablet and outsource our health to medical establishments whose main concerns are their bottom line / targets / profitability. We want our problems to disappear quickly because they are inconvenient and disruptive, but in the long run, making changes to our diet, forming better habits and eliminating / avoiding toxins in our internal + external environments might be a better choice.
Stay informed.
Do the work.
:-)
*For more information on the science behind terrain theory, see the work of Antoine Béchamp (pleomorphism), Raymond Rife (frequency medicine), Günther Enderlein, Gaston Naessens and Archie Kalokerinos.
Alfa Vedic: Béchamp vs. Pasteur & the Germ Theory Hoax (Part 1):
Alfa Vedic: Béchamp vs. Pasteur & the Germ Theory Hoax (Part 2):
(c) Louize Small, November 2020
All Rights Reserved
An earlier version of this article appears in Issue 4 of The Light newspaper
Comentarios