The Germ Theory

A Faulty Medical Model: The Germ Theory

In the medical schools of the United States and many other Western countries today, doctors are taught a lie. This lie is a particular viewpoint about disease called The Germ Theory. The scientist credited with discovering it is Louis Pasteur, also credited with finding a cure for Rabies. Pasteur has been heralded as making some of the most important discoveries of all time. Yet, when we look at the historical evidence, we see that Pasteur was an incompetent fraud! Not only did he NOT understand the processes which he experimented with and wrote about, but most of what he is credited with discovering was plagarized from scientists previous to or contemporary with him. For a thorough rendition of this history, you can read the full text of the 1940's book "Pasteur, Plagarist, Imposter" by R.B. Pearson at The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur .

Basically, it boils down to this: Both Pasteur and a contemporary of his, Antoine Beauchamp, were experimenting with the process of fermentation. The prevailing theory was that fermentation was a simple chemical reaction, but the experiments of Beauchamp showed that fermentation was a process brought about by microorganisms in the air. Pasteur continued to insist for some time after Beauchamp's discovery that fermentation was a process that did not require oxygen because it was a lifeless chemical reaction (called spontaneous generation). It took Pasteur many years to finally grasp the concept that fermentation of sugars is caused by yeast fungus, a living organism. When he did grasp and write about these concepts, he presented them as his own discoveries, giving no credit at all to Beauchamp. So at the very least, he was a thief and a plagarizer, and at the most, a poor scientist (1).

Throughout their lives, Pasteur and Beauchamp continued to experiment with microorganisms. Pasteur continued to adhere to the idea of Monomorphism, the belief that all microbes and bacteria have only one form. Beauchamp was able to prove, however, the existence of Pleomorphism, that microbes can alter their form to appear as different germs. This discovery was confirmed by many scientists that came after Beauchamp, including Gunther Enderlein. In his experiments, Enderlein found that every living cell contains two distinct kinds of microorganisms called endobionts (which means "inside life"). These microorganisms live inside the cell and cannot be removed from it. They play an important role in cellular health. The state of a person's health is determined by the stage of development of these organisms. Enderlein found that all microbes that live permanently in our bodies go through three stages:

The Primitive Stage (microbe)

The Middle Stage (bacteria)

The End Stage (fungus)

Other scientists were later able to confirm that there was a fourth stage which occurs only after extreme toxicity in which the fungus goes through a transformation, mutating into the Virus.

Most of the diseases in modern society today are not caused by the "pathogenic bacteria" that enter from outside us, as was taught by Pasteur. Disease occurs as these endobionts are transformed from the microbe stage to more virulent forms of life. The state of development of these organisms depends upon the state of the medium in which the germ lives. In other words, the microbes which live in our cells and assist the cells in maintaining a healthy state will mutate into bacteria, fungus, and viruses when the tissues of our bodies in which they live change to provide a medium for their growth. They begin to become "pathogenic" when the pH of the tissues becomes more acidic.

Primitive phases live in a strong alkaline pH

Bacterial phases live in mild alkaline pH

Fungal forms live in a medium acid pH

Viral forms live in a strong acid pH (2)

These primitive organisms can live in our bodies in the microbe stage indefinitely, and do not cause disease, but rather perform a restorative function. Bacteria and other germs consume dead matter. That is their function. Experiments show that if you put a fresh, raw steak that still has active live enzymes in it, and a cooked steak outside in the open air, it is the cooked steak that will become infested with maggots.

Microorganisms cannot live in living tissue. It is only when the tissue becomes dead that they move in to do their job. That's what happens in your compost pile. You put your table scraps in there, along with some bacteria, and the bacteria decompose the food scraps into soil. Everything that exists on this earth eventually BIODEGRADES.

It is really true that when we die, we will return to dust. Bacteria and other pathogenic microorganisms are only doing their jobs. They are able to sense chemically when dead matter is present, and they go about the business of breaking it down. That is where disease comes from. The microorganisms in your body are breaking down your dead tissues in preparation for biodegradation (3).

Most of the germs which enter our bodies from the outside are quickly killed by the immune system. But it is the microorganisms which live permanently in our bodies that cause us to get sick. And they cause sickness because we provide them with a rich growth medium so that they can mutate and transform themselves into deadly bacteria, fungus, and viruses.

So you see, whether or not we get sick and die has very little to do with what germ we catch, but has everything to do with whether we keep our bodies free of the dead matter which these germs feed on. The dead matter these germs feed on is produced when the pH in our bodies is altered from a slightly alkaline state to a progressively more acidic state. In the next lesson, we will learn how to properly equip our bodies so that these microorganisms cannot mutate into virulent forms.

At the end of his life, Pasteur admitted that his theory was a fraud. He said that it was not the germs that mattered, but the medium in which they lived. And yet, his so-called "work" is the basis of the whole medical model of disease and healing.

The Germ theory CANNOT account for the fact that if you expose 100 people to what he called "pathogenic bacteria" that 10 of the people in that room will NOT DEVELOP THE DISEASE. It's not that germs cause disease at all. The pH of those people's bodies' was not acidic enough to support the transformation of the germ into a bacteria, fungus or virus. Because the germ never mutates, the person never gets sick.

Because of what I know about Louis Pasteur and The Germ Theory, there is no way that I will allow myself to be treated by a medical doctor trained in the United States or other Western countries. Their diagnoses and treatments inevitably make the patient sicker by plunging the body into an even more acidic state, and encouraging the more rapid transformation of microbes into deadly pathogens.

In fact, if a person learns to alter their diet so that it encourages a more alkaline pH in the body, there is no need to ever visit a medical practitioner of any kind.

Everything I have said here is based upon sound scientific studies, and actual historical documents. And yet, many people who choose to refuse allopathic medical treatments are looked at as mentally unbalanced. And if a person refuses to allow their child to be given medical treatments, they are looked at as guilty of medical negligence and can have their children taken away. And for what? Because they don't agree with one particular interpretation of scientific data? The evidence I have given is sound and proven. I hope anyone who reads this can see that a person who chooses to reject The Germ Theory does so with much evidence to back them up, and they are not being negligent with their own health or their children's.

I choose to reject the Medical Model. I choose to take charge of my own health. And in doing so, I will avoid most all of the plagues of the 20th and 21st centuries, including Cancer, Anthrax, and AIDS.


(1) Pearson, R.B. (2001). The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur. Available online: []. Taken from "Pasteur, Plagarist, Imposter" by the same author, 1940's.

(2) Poehlman, Karl H. (1997). Synthesis of the Work of Enderlein, Bechamps and other Pleomorphic Researchers. Explore Vol. 8, No. 2.

(3) Logan, Cordell E. (2000). A Partially Unified Theory of Disease. Priority One Health and Nutrition. Available online: [].


"Actually bacteria are our symbiotic partners in both health and disease. They serve a useful role. As scavengers they make harmless or remove undesirable substances within our bodies. They also elaborate certain of our body needs. That is, they help build complex organic compounds from simple ingredients. "

"Do mosquitoes make the water stagnant; or does stagnant water attract the mosquitoes? We should all we taught that germs are friends and scavengers attracted by disease, rather {than} enemies causing disease...As their internal environment is, so will be the attraction for any specific micro-organism...The germ theory and vaccination are kept going by commercialism."


By Dr. Bernarr, D.C., D.D.

T.C. Fry wrote, "Actually bacteria are our symbiotic partners in both health and disease. They serve a useful role. As scavengers they make harmless or remove undesirable substances within our bodies. They also elaborate certain of our body needs. That is, they help build complex organic compounds from simple ingredients. A notable example of this is the production of vitamin B-12 in our intestines."

Fry also wrote, "'Infection' is no war in which the body is fighting invaders. The bacteria that come to these sites are symbiotic and help the body in elaborating dead cells and tissues for expulsion-they are partners in the cleanup process. When this has been accumulated the bacteria disappear and the wound heals. a body-cleaning process for a body burdened with toxic materials."

Dr. Paul Goldberg writes, "We need to re-direct our perspectives of microbes and see them in a new light. In terms of bacteria, for example, we need to appreciate them as: Bodily inhabitants who assist us in such ways as protecting us from other organisms (e.g. fungi), assisting in digestion and metabolism of food, synthesizing vitamins, and helping to eliminate waste materials."

Dr. Alec Burton writes, "DO GERMS CAUSE DISEASE? Or could it be the other way around...first, the disease, then the germs. Natural Hygiene contends that germs do not cause disease. They are not the originators. Most diseases occur when people allow themselves to become enervated, that is, low in nerve energy. As a consequence, the organs of excretion fail to function normally and waste material accumulates in the body. When this waste continues to build up, exceeding the body's toleration point, a crisis arises. The body, to offset this overabundance of poisonous matter, begins to react. The result of this reaction is sometimes a cold, the flu, pneumonia, or some such, depending on the individual. At this crisis point of elimination, germs may or may not be present. They are sure to come later, not to attack, but to assist in the cleanup or cleansing process."

Dr. Virginia Vetrano writes, "Hygienists object to the germ theory of disease because germs do not cause disease. They may be present in disease processes, and they many complicate a disease with their waste products which can be very toxic at times, but the germ or virus alone is never the
sole cause of disease."

"Germs are saprophytes; that is, they live off dead and decaying organic matter. Bacteria are actually our benefactors. They decompose our excretions, helping to rid the system of them. Bacteria are non-toxic, and non-virulent as long as body secretions and excretions are normal. When
toxemia exists, that is, when metabolic wastes accumulate in the system in excess, causing the secretions and excretions of the body to become abnormal and poisonous, a non-pathogenic bacterium can turn into a so-called pathogenic one simply by feeding on toxic wastes. Bacteria excrete toxic waste only when human secretions are abnormal and when the cells of the body are killed by excessive toxic saturation, bacteria go to work to disorganize them and help the body rid itself of dead tissue. 'Disease producing' germs are often present in the absence of the disease they are supposed to cause. They are often found when an individual has not had the disease that a particular germ is supposed to cause and when the individual never develops the disease. Furthermore, in myriads of cases, a particular pathogenic germ is not present when the disease it is supposed to cause exists."

Dr. Robert R. Gross wrote, "Germs do not cause disease! Nature never surrounded her children with enemies. It is the individual himself who makes disease possible in his own body because of poor living habits...

Dr. Herbert Shelton wrote, "Warmth, moisture, food-these are the causes that activate latent germs and arouse them to activity. They exist, all except the food, in the mouth, nose and throat at all times. The food is thrown out into these, as excretions, in disease. The germs feed on the excretions. They are scavengers. They were never anything else and will never be anything else. They break up and consume the discharge from the tissues. This is the function ascribed to germs everywhere in nature outside the body and is their real and only function in disease. They are purifying and beneficial agents. The medical profession has worked itself into hysteria over the germ theory and is using it to exploit an all too credulous public. Germs are ubiquitous. They are in the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink. We cannot escape them. We can destroy them only to a limited extent. It is folly to attempt to escape disease by attempting to destroy or escape germs. Once they are in the body the physician has no means of destroying them that will not, at the same time, destroy the patient. We cannot avoid germs. We must be proof against them. We have to accept them as one of the joys of life."

Rudolph Virchow, a great German scientist, repudiated the germ theory of disease. He said that disease brought on germs rather than the germs caused disease. Claude Bernard, Bechamp and Tissot-great French scientists-all disproved the germ theory of disease. In Hans Selye's book Stress of Life (Page 205), an account is recorded that Louis Pasteur, inventor of the germ theory of disease, admitted he was wrong. Sanitation is the only factor that has reduced the spread of the old-time scourges. If the germ theory were founded on facts, there would be no living being to read what is herein written, for germs are ubiquitous-they exist everywhere. In many diseases supposedly caused by a specific germ, that germ is not present. Contrariwise, specific germs said to cause a specific disease are present in huge proportions without the specific disease manifesting itself. Dr. Virginia Vetrano writes, "Just remember that there are no contagious diseases, just contagious habits which lower your vitality. There have been many people who have had diphtheria and yet no germ could be found. The same can be said of tuberculosis and other diseases. This is why the virus had to be discovered-to save the germ theory. Now we have virus infections instead of germ infections because pathologists could not find a germ for all the diseases of mankind. If a germ does not cause disease, what does? Soon everyone will learn that it is the individual's way of life that
produces disease and not the saprophytes of earth, which are actually beneficial to us. Without them we would all succumb. They do so many jobs for us that it would take volumes to tell you about them. In fact without bacterial life, all animal and plant life would soon wither and die. On second thought, without bacteria we can't even wither."

Dr. Vetrano adds, "A truly healthy child can sleep with a person 'infected' with scarlet fever, mumps, measles or some of the other virulent so-called infections diseases, night after night, and still not develop the disease. But overfeed that same child and he will now develop a so-called infectious
disease. This disease will not be due to germs, but due to putrefactive toxins absorbed from the digestive tract in an enervated and toxemic individual."

"Hygienists do not use the term infection to mean 'invasion' of the organism by pathogenic micro-organisms, but recognize the element of poisoning in all so-called 'infections.' Tilden said that all infections stem from one source-protein decomposition. The term septic infection covers the whole field of infection and means protein decomposition. Pioneer (Natural) Hygienists said specific infections have no place in biological abnormalities or disease and any infection is only septic infection arising from absorbed protein putrefactive toxins from the digestive tract. Dr. Shelton states that 'sepsis is the only infecting agent in all the so-called specific diseases.'"

Disease Names are Misleading and Misinform
Patients about Disease Prevention

Disease names like diabetes and osteoporosis are misleading and misinform patients about disease prevention.

There is a curious tendency in conventional medicine to name a set of symptoms a disease. I was recently at a compounding pharmacy having my bone mineral density measured to update my health stats. I spotted a poster touting a new drug for osteoporosis. It was written by a drug company and it said exactly this: "Osteoporosis is a disease that causes weak and fragile bones." Then, the poster went on to say that you need a particular drug to counteract this "disease."

Yet the language is all backwards. Osteoporosis isn't a disease that causes weak bones, osteoporosis is the name given to a diagnosis of weak bones. In other words, the weak bones happened first, and then the diagnosis of osteoporosis followed.  The drug poster makes it sound like osteoporosis strikes first, and then you get weak bones. The cause and effect is all backwards. And that's how drug companies want people to think about diseases and symptoms: first you "get"
the disease, then you are "diagnosed" just in time to take a new drug for the rest of your life. 

But it's all hogwash. There is no such disease as osteoporosis. It's just a made-up name given to a pattern of symptoms that indicate you've let your bones get fragile.  As another example, when a person follows an unhealthy lifestyle that results in a symptom such as high blood pressure, that symptom is actually being assumed to be a disease all by itself and it will be given a disease name. What disease? The disease is, of course, "high blood pressure." Doctors throw this phrase around as if it were an actual disease and not merely descriptive of patient physiology.

This may all seem silly, right? But there's actually a very important point to all this.  When we look at symptoms and give them disease names, we automatically distort the selection of available treatments for such a disease. If the disease is, by itself, high cholesterol, then the cure for the disease must be nothing other than lowering the high cholesterol. And that's how we end up with all these pharmaceuticals treating high cholesterol in order to "prevent" this disease and lower the levels of LDL cholesterol in the human patient.

By lowering only the cholesterol, the doctor can rest assured that he is, infact, treating this "disease," since the definition of this "disease" is high cholesterol and nothing else.  But there is a fatal flaw in this approach to disease treatment: the symptom is not the cause of the disease. There is another cause, and this deeper cause is routinely ignored by conventional medicine, doctors, drug
companies, and even patients.

Let's take a closer look at high blood pressure. What actually causes high blood pressure? Many doctors would say high blood pressure is caused by a specific, measurable interaction between circulating chemicals in the human body. Thus, the ill-behaved chemical compounds are the cause of the high blood pressure, and therefore the solution is to regulate these chemicals. That's exactly what pharmaceuticals do -- they attempt to manipulate the chemicals in the body to adjust the symptoms of high blood pressure. Thus, they only treat the symptoms, not the root cause.

Or take a look at high cholesterol. The conventional medicine approach says that high cholesterol is caused by a chemical imbalance in the liver, which is the organ that produces cholesterol. Thus the treatment for high cholesterol is a prescription drug that inhibits the liver's production of cholesterol (statin drugs). Upon taking these drugs, the high cholesterol (the "disease") is regulated, but what was causing the liver to overproduce cholesterol in the first place? That causative factor remains ignored.

The root cause of high cholesterol, as it turns out, is primarily dietary. A person who eats foods that are high in saturated fats and hydrogenated oils will inevitably produce more bad cholesterol and will show the symptoms of this so-called disease of high cholesterol. It's simple cause and effect. Eat the wrong foods, and you'll produce too much bad cholesterol in the liver which can be detected and diagnosed by conventional medical procedures.

Yet the root cause of all this is actually poor food choice, not some bizarre behavior by the liver. If the disease were to be accurately named, then, it would be called Fatty Food Choice Disease, or simply FFCD. FFCD would be a far more accurate name that would make sense to people. If it's a fatty foods choice disease, then it seems that the obvious solution to the disease would be to choose foods that aren't so fatty. Of course that may be a bit of simplification since you have to distinguish between healthy fats and unhealthy fats. But at least the name FFCD gives patients a better idea of what's actually going on rather than naming the disease after a symptom, such as high cholesterol. You see, the symptom is not the disease, but conventional medicine insists on calling the symptom the disease because that way it can treat the symptom and claim success without actually addressing the underlying cause, which remains a mystery to modern medicine.

But let's move on to some other diseases so you get a clearer picture of how this actually works. Another disease that's caused by poor food choice is diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is the natural physiological and metabolic result of a person consuming refined carbohydrates and added sugars in large quantities without engaging in regular physical exercise that would compensate for such dietary practices.

The name "diabetes" is meaningless to the average person. The disease should be called Excessive Sugar Disease, or ESD. If it were called Excessive Sugar Disease, the solution to it would be rather apparent; simply eat less sugar, drink fewer soft drinks and so on. But of course that would be far too simple for the medical community, so the disease must be given a complex name such as diabetes that puts its solution out of reach of the average patient.  Another disease that is named after its symptom is cancer. In fact, to this day, most doctors and many patients still believe that cancer is a physical thing: a tumor. In reality, a tumor is only a side effect of cancer, not its cause. A tumor is simply a physical manifestation of a cancer pattern that is expressed by the body. When a person "has cancer," what they really have is a sluggish immune system. And that would be a far better name for the disease: Sluggish Immune System Disease or SISD. 

If cancer were actually called Sluggish Immune System Disease, it would seem ridiculous to try to cure cancer by cutting out tumors through surgery and by destroying the immune system with chemotherapy. And yet these are precisely the most popular treatments for cancer offered by conventional medicine. These treatments do absolutely nothing to support the patient's immune system and prevent further occurrences of cancer. That's exactly why most people who undergo chemotherapy or the removal of tumors through surgical procedures end up with yet more cancer a few months or a few years later. It's also another reason why survival rates of cancer have barely budged over the last twenty years. (In other words, conventional medicine's treatments for cancer simply don't work.)
This whole situation stems from the fact that the disease is misnamed. It isn't cancer, it isn't a tumor and it certainly isn't a disease caused by having too strong of an immune system that needs to be destroyed through chemotherapy. It is simply a sluggish immune system or a suppressed immune
system. And if it were called a sluggish immune system disease or a suppressed immune system disorder, the effective treatment for cancer would be apparent.  There are many other diseases that are given misleading names by western medicine. But if you look around the world and take a look at how diseases are named elsewhere, you will find many countries have disease names that actually make sense.

For example, in Chinese medicine, Alzheimer's disease is given a name that means, when translated, "feeble mind disease." In Chinese medicine, the name of the disease more accurately describes the actual cause of the disease, whereas in western medicine, the name of the disease seems to be intended to obscure the root cause of the disease, thereby making all diseases sound far more complex and mysterious than they really are.  This is one way in which doctors and practitioners of western medicine keep medical treatments out of the reach of the average citizen. Because, by God, they sure don't want people thinking for themselves about the causes of disease!

By creating a whole new vocabulary for medical conditions, they can speak their own secret language and make sure that people who aren't schooled in medicine don't understand what they're saying. That's a shame, because the treatments and cures for virtually all chronic diseases are actually quite simple and can be described in plain language, such as making different food choices, getting more natural sunlight, drinking more water, engaging in regular physical exercise, avoiding specific food toxins, supplementing your diet with superfoods and nutritional supplements and so on.
See, western medicine prefers to describe diseases in terms of chemistry. When you're depressed, you aren't suffering from a lack of natural sunlight; you are suffering from a "brain chemistry imbalance" that can only be regulated, they claim, by ingesting toxic chemicals to alter your brain chemistry. When your bones are brittle, it's not brittle bones disease; it's called osteoporosis, something that sounds very technical and complicated. And to treat it, western doctors and physicians will give you prescriptions for expensive drugs that somehow claim to make your bones less brittle. But in fact, the real treatment for this can be described in plain language once again: regular physical exercise, vitamin D supplementation, mineral supplements that include calcium and strontium, natural sunlight, and avoidance of acidic foods such as soft drinks, white flour and added sugars.

In fact, virtually every disease that's prominent in modern society --diabetes, cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, clinical depression, irritable bowel syndrome and so on -- can be easily described in plain language without using complex terms at all. These diseases are simply misnamed. And I believe that they are intentionally misnamed to put the jargon out of reach of everyday citizens. As a result, there's a great deal of arrogance in the language of western medicine, and this arrogance furthers the language of separation. Separation never results in healing. In order to effect healing, we must bring together the language of healers and patients using plain language that real people understand and that real people can act upon.  We need to start describing diseases in terms of their root causes, not in terms of their arcane, biochemical actions. When someone suffers from seasonal affective disorder or clinical depression, for example, let's call it what it is: Sunlight Deficiency Disorder. To treat it, the person simply needs to get more sunlight. This isn't rocket science, it's not complex, and it doesn't require a prescription.
If someone is suffering from osteoporosis, let's get realistic about the words we use to describe the condition: it's really Brittle Bones Disease. And it should be treated with things that will enhance bone density, such as nutrition, physical exercise and avoidance of foods and drinks that strip away bone mass from the human body. All of this information, of course, is rather shocking to old-school doctors and practitioners of western medicine, and the bigger their egos are, the more they hate the idea of naming diseases in plain language that patients can actually comprehend. That's because if the simple truths about diseases and their causes were known, health would be more readily available to everyday people, and that would lessen the importance of physicians and medical researchers.

There's a great deal of ego invested in the medical community, and they sure don't want to make sound health attainable to the average person without their expert advice. It's sort of the same way that some ultra-conservative churches don't want their members talking to God unless it all goes through their priesthood first. Doctors and priests all want to serve as the translators of "truth" and will balk at any attempts to educate the public to either practice medicine or talk to God on their own. But in reality, health (and a connection with spirit) is attainable by every single person. Health is easy, it is straightforward, it is direct and, for the most part, it is available free of charge. A personal connection with our Creator is the same if we ask humbly in prayer for a relationship with Him, and guidance.

Don't believe the names of diseases given to you by your doctor. Those names are designed to obscure, not to inform. They are designed to separate you from self-healing, not to put you in touch with your own inner healer. And thus, they are nothing more than bad medicine masquerading as modern medical practice.


Disease names like diabetes and osteoporosis are misleading and misinform patients about disease prevention


Challenging the theory of Artificial Immunity


By Keith W. Wassung


The practice of vaccination against disease began in 1796 by Edward Jenner, who used the pus of blisters from cowpox to vaccinate people against smallpox.

Despite the fact that vaccination is perhaps viewed as the strongest preventive measure against disease in modern health care, its practice and protocol has been challenged in recent years by a growing number of doctors and scientists, as well as a large number of parents. Recent immunology research and the availability of health information have caused the challenge of the foundational tenets of vaccination.



“The control or even eradication of childhood disease has been heralded as one of medicine’s finest accomplishments, yet there is a growing suspicion that infection intervention may have an adverse effect on the patients. As childhood infections have decreased, chronic afflictions have increased” 1

 The Economist, Nov 22, 1997

Lately, there has been a swell of complaints from groups and individuals about vaccine side effects and the lack of long-term scientific studies and safety data on vaccines. And, at a time when there are more than 200 vaccines in the pipeline, concern is mounting that high-profile vaccine advocates and the lobbies they represent, exert an inordinate influence on the setting of government vaccine policy.” 2 

ABC News


It may seem incredulous to challenge the practice of vaccination. After all, it has claimed responsibility for the eradication of many diseases in the past 100 years including polio, smallpox, whooping cough and diphtheria. But these claims are largely based on epidemic studies, rather than on clinical evidence of effectiveness. Europe for example, experienced the same rise and decline of polio cases yet never had the polio vaccine. In addition, many diseases that were once thought to be eradicated, simply take on different forms and are given different names. For example, spinal meningitis and polio have almost identical symptoms. We have learned an incredible amount of information in recent years about the complex workings of the immune system, mostly due to advances in cancer, genetics and AIDS research.

 This has shed new light on the inner workings of the immune system. One thing we have learned is that simply altering the natural physiology of the body may temporarily give the appearance of resolution of disease, but may actually create more problems in the end. Virtually all studies of effectiveness of vaccines are based on statistical data and the presence or absence of disease. There have never been any medical studies that have been performed that clearly demonstrate that vaccines increase the immune system competence of the human body, nor has there been any medical study on the long-term effects of vaccines. 

It must be understood that vaccine studies are economically influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, which has tremendous influence on the outcome of these studies. Vaccine sales represent a huge profit for these companies and a certain amount of economic bias will always be involved.


“The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices,

(ACIP) a group of individuals hand picked by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), recommends which vaccines are administered to American children. Working mainly in secret, ACIP members frequently have financial links to vaccine manufacturers. Dependent on CDC funding, state vaccination programs follow CDC directives by influencing state legislatures to mandate new vaccines. Federal vaccine funds can be denied to states which do not “vigorously enforce” mandatory vaccination laws. Conversely, the CDC offers financial bounties to state health departments for each “fully vaccinated” child” 3 

The Medical Sentinel, 1999

 The past decade has seen a number of books and articles written which challenge the practice of vaccinations, mostly on the grounds of the potential side effects and long term latent effects of the vaccine.

These topics are certainly a factor in the vaccination debate, but the real issue is whether or not vaccines actually produce lasting immunity that is at least equal or superior to immunity that is obtained via natural exposure. This article provides the last scientific evidence in answering that particular question. 

Fundamentals of the Immune System 

The Immune System is the name of a collection of molecules, cells, and organs whose complex interactions form an efficient system that is usually able to protect an individual from both outside invaders and its own altered internal cells, which lead to cancer. 

The immune system is comprised of the lymphoid tissues and organs of the body. Lymphoid tissues are widely distributed. They are concentrated in bone marrow, lymph nodes, spleen, liver, thymus, and Peyer’s patch scattered in the linings of the GI tract.

The lymphoid system is encompassed by the system of mononuclear phagocytes (equivalent to the reticuloen-

dothelial system or RES) Lymphocytes are the predominant cells, but macrophages and plasma cells are present also. Lymphocytes are cells, which circulate, alternating between the circulatory blood stream and the lymphatic channels of the body.

 The immune system is divided into two components, non-specific, also referred to as innate or non-adaptive immunity and specific which is also known as acquired or adaptive immunity. The breakdown into non-specific and specific is for classification purposes only as there is a constant and complex interaction, coordination and communication between all parts of the immune system. The majority of the immune resistance occurs in the non-specific components.



“The non-specific defense system responds immediately to protect the body from all foreign substances, whatever they are. The non-specific system reduces the workload of the specific defense system, by preventing entry and spread of micro-organisms throughout the entire body” 4


Essentials of Anatomy and Physiology



“In the 1980’s Paola’s team at the Pasteur Institute in Paris showed that 98% of the immune response triggered at the early stages of infection is non-specific. 5


Nature Medicine, April 2000


Lines of Defense

1st lines of defense are the physical barriers which include the skin, mucosal membrane, tears, ciliary elevator, and urine. Chemical barriers include sebum sweat, stomach acid and lysozymes. 

2nd lines of defense are the macrophage system, complement, fever, interferon and inflammation. The macrophage system attacks and consumes pathogens by engulfing them, a process known as phagocytosis.

Complement cooperates with macrophages by attaching to foreign cells and initiating the ingestion of the cells by phagocytosis. Interferons are a class of proteins; activated by fever that prevent viral replication in surrounding cells and also inhibit the growth of cancer cells.

The antiviral action of interferon provides a major host defense against viral infections” 6

Essentials of Medicine

 Fever is a powerful part of the immune system, as it interferes with pathogen growth, inactivates many pathogen toxins, and facilitates a more intense immune system response. Many physicians now recommend allowing fevers to run their course.

 “Fever is a systematic response to infection. It is generally agreed that moderate elevation of body temperature improves the body’s disease fighting capacity” 7

Human Physiology

When tissue injury occurs, whether caused by bacteria or viruses, etc, substances such as bradykinins, complement, and histamines are released. This process is called inflammation and it strongly activates the macrophage system to remove damaged cell tissue. Inflammation is a vital part of the healing and repair process of the immune system and when it is delayed or inhibited, healing and repair is incomplete.


“Inflammation is one of the most important mechanisms of host defense since it marshals the attack on the injurious agent and leads to repair of the affected tissue.” 8

The Cell Biology of Inflammation

3rd lines of defense are the specific system also known as acquired or adaptive immunity. The specific system consists of B cells (humoral), and T cells (cell-mediated). These cells have mechanisms for selecting a precisely defined target and for developing memory to the antigen, so that subsequent exposures will result in a more efficient and effective response.

Definition of Immunity  

Immunity; 1. Protection against infectious disease by either specific or non-specific mechanisms. 2. Pertaining to the immune system or immune response 9

Dorland’s Medical Dictionary

Every standard definition of immunity involves the overall competence of both the non-specific and specific components of the immune system to recognize, isolate and eliminate foreign pathogens. This competence also involves the ability of the immune system to be able to distinguish between self and non-self. Immunity is the body’s ability to establish and maintain molecular identity. There is a huge difference between true immunity and the absence of symptoms of disease.

Theory and Practice of Vaccines


Vaccines are suspensions of infectious agents used to artificially induce immunity against specific diseases. The aim of vaccination is to mimic the process of naturally occurring infection through artificial means. Theoretically, vaccines produce a mild to moderate

episode of infection  in the body with only minor side effects. They are said to work by causing the formation of antibodies, which are proteins that defend the body from an invasion by harmful germs. 

Vaccines are grouped into three different types:

 Attenuated microbes, in which the antigen is diluted or weakened. Attenuated vaccines include those to prevent measles, mumps, rubella, polio and chicken pox. Killed organisms, fragmented organisms, or antigens produced by recombinant DNA technology. Examples of these include pertussis, Hib, Hepatitis-B, and many of the experimental HIV vaccines. 

Toxoids, which are comprised of the toxins of particular infections such as tetanus or diphtheria and have been partially detoxified by heat or chemical treatment. Vaccines contain chemical preservatives such as mercury, formaldehyde, and aluminum, which prevent contamination. Mercury has been linked to numerous central nervous system and developmental disorders.


“The Center for Disease Control recognizes a “small but statistically significant association between cumulative mercury from vaccines and neurological disorders, such as autism, tics, attention deficit disorder, language and speech disorders, and other neurological development delays” 10

Portals of Entry

The human body is designed to be able to defend itself against foreign invaders, much like a castle or a fortress with outer and inner walls and then interior perimeter barriers. The majority of pathogens that enter the body do so via the mouth and nose. The upper respiratory area is packed with powerful defense mechanisms designed to combat and filter these foreign invaders. Every possible portal of entry in the human body is lined with mucous membrane, a defense mechanism loaded with powerful secretory IgA.

“IgA is the key defender against viral infections”11

Essentials of Medicine 

Natural immunity happens only after actually recovering from the actual disease. When naturally exposed to pathogens, the organism has to pass through the body’s natural defense systems in the body before it ever reaches the bloodstream. A tremendous amount of biological events are triggered which are essential in developing true immunity long before the pathogen  ever comes into contact with the bloodstream. 

Vaccination by direct injection into the bloodstream bypasses much of the normal defenses of the immune system, which produces only partial immunity. There is a greater quantity of biological communication in the human body than all of the man made communication systems in the world combined. Signaling is essential to the development of immunity.  

“No one could survive without precise signaling in cells. The body functions properly only because the cells constantly communicate with each other 12

Scientific American, June 2000

Cytokines are low-molecular weight proteins that control, coordinate, and regulate various immune or inflammatory responses. The importance of cytokines in the host response to infection cannot be overstated. Full protection against disease requires the involvement of many different systems of the body and it is the cytokines that coordinate them. Vaccines inhibit the normal function of cytokines, and in fact new vaccines specifically target cytokine activity. 

Recently, gene therapy and DNA vaccination has been used to produce memory against a number of cytokines that promote inflammation. Antibodies to the product of each inserted gene were produced. These antibodies were found to prevent the effects of the cytokines”  13

Immunology, 1998

Vaccine and Antibody Production 

The clinical evidence for vaccines is their ability to stimulate antibody production in the recipient, a fact that is not disputed. What is not clear, however, is whether such antibody production produces immunity. The most predominant forms of life are viruses, bacteria and fungi, each with countless numbers of varieties and strains. When the weight and number of these organisms are multiplied together, they are the greatest biomass in existence on earth.

“Infection with viruses does not always result in disease.  In fact, a great majority of virus infections remain asymptomatic.  Even before the introduction of poliovirus vaccination, about 98% of infected humans developed only minor flu-like illness or no illness at all.  Of 45,000 U.S. military personnel inoculated in 1942 with a yellow fever vaccine inadvertently contaminated Hep-B virus, only about 900 developed clinical hepatitis and only 33 had severe disease.” 14

New York University Medical School

 Scientific evidence questioning the role of antibodies in disease protection can be found in research performed by Dr. Alec Burton, published in a study by the British Medical Council. The study investigated the relationship between the incidence of diphtheria and the presence of antibodies.  The purpose of the research was to determine the existence or nonexistence of antibodies in people who developed diphtheria and in those who did not.  The conclusion was that there was no relation whatsoever between antibody count and incidence of disease. The researchers found people who were highly resistant with extremely low antibody counts, and people who developed the disease who had high antibody counts.  

Dr. Burton also discovered that children born with a-gamma globulinemia (inability to produce antibodies) develop and recover from measles and other infectious or contagious disease almost as quickly as other children.15 

“Natural Immunity is a complex phenomenon involving many organs and systems. It cannot be duplicated by the artificial stimulation of antibody production” 16

Dispelling Vaccine Myths

 There exist a finite number of immune system cells that are able to respond to foreign antigens. Once a specific immune cell responds to a particular antigen it becomes committed to that specific antigen and is unable to respond to any other pathogen. Vaccination results in a greater commitment of specific immune cells that would be utilized in natural exposure, which may actually weaken the repertoire of immune cells.

Cause of Long Term Immunity

Recent research by Dr. Rafi Ahmed and his colleagues has shown that the stable maintenance of total memory cells may be dictated by the principle of homeostasis. Models suggest that the total number of cells in the immune system is constant and the long-term maintenance of cellular immunity may be regulated by competition for space by memory cells. As an individual is exposed to new pathogens, some memory cells may need to make way for new ones. Since the total number of memory cells can be very large, the immune system is normally capable of maintaining immunity to many pathogens at once. The impact of new pathogens could govern the loss of existing memory cells, and might explain the loss of memory to certain viruses. 17

Emory Vaccine Research Center

The ability to remember and respond to invading organisms, even years later, is one of the fundamental features of the immune system. Traditionally, it was thought that memory cells were developed after initial exposures, but new research demonstrates that multiple exposures are required to develop T cell memory


Scientists figure out how immune system remembers

Reuters-media: Scientists have figured out how the immune system “remembers” enemies it has encountered in the past. A report in the journal Science shows that so-called memory T cells are extremely slow learners. Scientists knew that one particular type of T cells, known as CD8 cells, could either become vicious attackers that immediately kill invaders, or could become “memory” cells that help to quickly flag invaders if they ever show up again. Scientists at the University of Chicago found that the process by which memory cells are made are excruciatingly slow. They found that several generations of the cells must be exposed to the troublemaker before some of them can become memory T cells specific for it. “This finding suggests that the basic approach to vaccines is not likely to produce the desired result” said Phillip Rickhardt, one of the researchers. 18

 Lasting Immunity

The notion that vaccines create a life-long immunity that is equal or superior to natural immunity is not even claimed in medical literature. They only claim that vaccines reduce the symptoms of diseases.

“The practice of DPT vaccination has played a major role in markedly reducing the incidence rates of cases from each of those diseases.”  19

Connaught Labratories

“It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines. Whereas immunity from disease often follows a single, natural infection, immunity from vaccines occurs only after several doses.” 20

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

“One problem with inactivated influenza vaccines is that the immunity generated is only partial. In the presence of a strong adjuvant, antigens can stimulate B cells and induce a good humoral response, however, there is little cell-mediated immunity generated by a killed product. This means that the difference between disease and protection or at least a more rapid recovery from disease. Also, the immunity provided by a killed product is short lived.” 21

Center for Biologics Laboratory

“The antigens contained in many injectable vaccines will not produce an immune response sufficient enough to confer protection against infection. Of the 23 vaccines currently in routine use, 20 are delivered by injection and stimulate only systemic immunity”  22

Avant Immunotherapeutics

If it cannot be demonstrated that vaccines create lifelong immunity by strengthening the immune system, then they must achieve their objective of reducing case numbers of disease by actually weakening or suppressing the normal function of the immune response. The idea that vaccines work by subtle immune suppression is receiving rapid support within the scientific and research community

It is dangerously misleading and indeed the exact opposite of the truth to claim that a vaccine makes us “immune’ or protects us against an acute disease, if in fact it only drives the disease deeper into the interior and causes us to harbor it chronically, with the result that our responses to it become progressively weaker and show less and less tendency to heal or resolve themselves spontaneously” 23

Dr. Robert Moskowitz, Dissent in Medicine


Over time, the term vaccine has evolved to include all preparations used to generate protective immunity to microbial pathogens or their toxins. More recently, the definition of vaccine has been further expanded to include antigenic materials used to tolerate or turn off antigen-specific immune responses to prevent or treat immune mediated diseases. A variety of approaches are being pursued to induce T cell tolerance. These include blocking the activation of T cells by antigen presenting cells focusing on the interactions of the T cell receptor (TCR) with peptides presented by the major hisocompatability complex

(MHC). Other strategies target costimulatory pathways in T cells, or the interaction of cell surface adhesion molecules and their counter ligands. Some of these experimental therapies are currently being developed as vaccines 24


American Autoimmune Research Association


“The later part of the 20th century has witnessed an unprecedented rise in the number of individuals with impaired immunity. There is considerable experience with most vaccines in those with impaired immunity” 25

 Clinical Microbiology Review, Jan 1998

 Recent vaccine research and development has focused on recombinant DNA vaccines as a way of duplicating natural immunity, but the findings demonstrate that they work by suppressing the immune system as well.


 Could DNA Vaccines Undermine Immunity?

DNA vaccines consist of a bit of DNA containing a gene for a marker from the pathogen. The idea is that when the DNA is injected into the muscle tissue, it works it way into cells where it is incorporated into cellular DNA. The body “learns” to recognize the pathogen and mount a strong defense to it in the future.

But research published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, shows that instead of being immunized to the protein encoded by a DNA vaccine, it actually learns to tolerate it. In fact, when later injected with the same protein, no antibodies were developed at all. This finding raises the possibility that a DNA vaccine could convert someone who normally would be able to clear a pathogen-albeit they might get sick first, to someone who would be unable to clear it at all. 26

 Science, 1996


Symptoms and Disease 

The paradigm shift in health care is gradually moving from a symptom based model, to one in which the function, performance and innate healing potential of the human body is maximized. With this change in understanding comes the concept that not only are many diseases normal and natural, they may actually benefit the body by strengthening the immune system. 


Through the process of developing and then conquering infection, the child gets rid of acquired toxins and poisons from the body and receives a boost to the immune system”27    


Healing Arts Press


“Whenever the immune system successfully deals with an infection, it emerges from the experience stronger and better able to confront similar threats in the future. Our immune system develops in combat. If at the first sign of infection, you always jump in with antibiotics, you do not give the immune system a chance to grow stronger” 28


Andrew Weil, MD


Several studies have shown that the incidence of asthma and allergies tend to rise in countries where childhood immunization rates are high. This has prompted researchers to suggest that certain infections may trigger immune changes that protect children from developing asthma and allergies later. Preliminary studies have shown a protective effect of measles and infections with intestinal parasites. 29


Science News, 1997


With the rise of vaccines and antibiotics, people in developed countries have experienced fewer childhood diseases than ever before and scientists suspect that an immune system with no serious work to do is likely to become a renegade army, attacking whatever it encounters30


Newsweek, 1997


In a study of 58 children under the age of 16 with insulin dependant diabetes and 172 non-diabetic controls, infection during the 1st year of life was associated with a reduction in diabetic risk. Infection during the first year of life may have a protective effect by modifying the lyphocytic response to subsequent immunological challenges. A link with decreasing early exposure to common infectious disease could account for the increased risk of diabetes over the past thirty years. 31


Archives of Childhood Disease, 1997


The science of immunology is on a fast track due to recent advances in molecular biology and genetics research. However, there is still much to be learned, it is become evident that artificial immunity, stimulated by vaccination is not even close to duplicating immunity received from natural exposure and may actually work in an immune suppressive fashion. Pressed by advancing technology and consumer demand, health care is slowly changing its focus from disease treatment to performance enhancement. Accompanying this will be an increased emphasis on nutrition, exercise, and structural integrity of the human frame, all of which maximize the body’s innate healing power


1.        Plagued by Cures, The Economist, Nov 22, 1997 v344 p.95(3)

2.        Regush, N. “The Vaccine Machine” ABC News

3.        Schafly R. “Official Vaccine policy Flawed” The Medical Sentinel,

1999, 4(3) 106-108

4.        Marieb, E. Essentials of Anatomy and Physiology, WB Saunders, 2000, Philadelphia

5.        Degrave W. “A B-cell mitogen from a pathogenic trypanosome is a novel eukaryotic proline racemase” Nature Medicine,Aug 2000 p.890

6.        Andreoli, A. Essentials of Medicine, WB Saunders, 2001 Philadelphia

7.        Moffett, D. Human Physiology, Mosby Medical Publishing, 1993,

         2nd edition,

8.        Weissman, G. The Cell Biology of Inflammation, Biomedical Press

1980, Amsterdam

9.        Ingelfinger, F.  Dorland’s Medical Dictionary  Saunders Press, 1999

10.     Delegal J. “Childhood Vaccines” Florida Union Times  Nov.8, 2000

11.     Andreoli, T. Essentials of Medicine, WB Saunders, 2001, Philadelphia

12.     Scott J. “Cell Communication, the inside story” Scientific American,  June 2000 p. 73

13.     Roitt, Brostoff, Male Immunology, Mosby Publ, 1998 London

14.     Wimmers E “Defense Against Viral Infections” NY Med-Uni 1999

15.     Null G. Vaccines: A Second Opinion, 2000

16.     Philips, A  Dispelling Vaccine Myths Feb 5, 1998

17.     Korschun H. “Causes of Long Term Immunity” The Emory Report,

Mar. 22, 1999  Volume 51, no. 24

18.     Reuters News Media, “Scientists figure out how immune system remembers, March 12, 1999

19.     Connaught Labs, Vaccine Warning Insert, 2000

20.     Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia,

21.     Foley P. “Development and use of a highly attenuated vaccine virus”

Center for Biologics, 1999

22.     Choang K Avant Immunotherapeutics

23.     Moskowitz R. Dissent in Medicine Contemporary Books, 1985 p.142

24.     Plaut, M. “Vaccines for Immunological Disease”

25.     Pirofski L. “Use of licensed vaccines for active immunization of the immunocompromised host” Clinical Microbiology Review Jan 1998

26.     “Could DNA Vaccines Undermine Immunity” Science, Dec 20, 1996

27.     Hayfield, R. The Family Homeopath Healing Arts Press, 1994

28.     Weil, A. Spontaneous Healing Random House, 1995

29.     Raloff, J. “Childhood Vaccinations” Science News  Jan 25, 1997

30.     Underwood, A. “Why Ebonie cant breathe” Newsweek,  May 26, 1997

31.     Phillips, D. “Early infection and subsequent insulin dependant diabetes”  Archive of Childhood Diseases, Nov, 1997 77; 384-385


About the Author: Keith Wassung is a nationally known author and speaker in the field of health education and research. He is available for speaking engagements and can be contacted at Riverhorse Publishing, 104 Berkeley Square Lane, Ste 6 Goose Creek, SC 29445, (866)642-0916,

You can visit his site at

By Christopher C. Barr

A tale of two citizens

The Oscar winning ‘Amadeus’ told the tale of a jealous, musically inferior Antonio Salieri attempting to suppress the acclaim of now legendary musical genius Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

Success for Salieri over Mozart in such a tale would have left the world a lesser place and missing out on a great body of music.  Much beauty would have been lost to the world.

This tale was told again a century later but this time the jealous, inferior Salieri character succeeded in being lifted up high over the superior genius of the Mozart character.

This latter tale was played out not in concert halls of music but rather in the halls of medicine and science.

In this decidedly non-fictional tale the Salieri role was filled by Louis Pasteur and the Mozart role more than ably filled by Pierre Jacques Antoine Béchamp.

The Salieri-like Pasteur character’s success at achieving legendary fame over the Mozart-like Béchamp character’s genius and beauty have had quite literally grave results.

Much life has been lost to the world and needless suffering dramatically increased with this world left a much lesser place missing out on a great body of work.  All of this is due to the dastardly deeds of Louis Pasteur triumphing against truth and Antoine Béchamp.

Taxing day ahead

A day of great sadness and loss is observed by millions every year on 4/15 due to that famed IRS deadline day.

An ever greater loss on that date was the death of the great and noble scientist Antoine Béchamp almost 100 years ago before the 16th amendment, income taxes or the IRS came to be.

That gentle giant of science and medicine established the keys to healthful living. It is humanity's greater loss that he and his work are almost completely unknown.

Who's WHO?

Only days ago a World Health Organization (WHO) agency released a report projecting cancer to more than double in about 20 years.  Lifestyle changes are noted as a key to prevention and success against cancer.

Dr. Antoine Béchamp noted the importance of lifestyles as the key to prevention and success against all diseases almost 150 years ago! He backed it up with thorough scientific precision, as a practicing physician and researcher who was degreed in and a university professor of chemistry, biology, physics and pharmacy. It took eight pages of the French national science journal Moniteur Scientifique just to list the titles of his scientifically published works in 1908.

The sound conclusions of Béchamp for lifestyle changes such as wholesome nutrition and environmental, hygienic cleanliness were ignored in favor of other "solutions" that profited industry and required "heroic" medical interventions.

The whitewashing of Antoine Béchamp from history was so thorough as to assign credit for his works to others such as Louis Pasteur.

Béchamp died in 1908. That same year the Nobel Prize was awarded to a German, E. Buchner, for his isolation of the fermentation factor in yeast and identification of it as an enzyme in 1897. This was a duplication of work that Béchamp had done more than half a century before. Buchner even used the same terminology that Béchamp suggested decades before.

Dr. Béchamp also postulated chromosomes long before anyone else.

Antoine Béchamp was the foremost pioneer of science, medicine, nutrition and genetics all at once. The lack of recognition for this is a literary loss to history, and has resulted in tremendous physical loss to humanity for generations.

Taking responsibility

Béchamp noted the importance of taking care of one's self for prevention of disease. He was a champion of self-responsibility. He noted that germs abounded in unhealthy environments but were notably checked in healthful ones.

As people at this time are filing last minute returns it is time that we returned to being responsible for the health and welfare of our own bodies.

Dislike the waiting time for your refund?

The Moniteur Scientifique noted upon the death of Béchamp, "Those of his acquaintances who cared for him and were about him know that he never doubted that one day justice would be rendered him."

The English international science journal Nature was already a prestigious journal then as now. Its obituary noted that Dr. Béchamp was ensured "an honourable place among the founders of biological chemistry".

Next year will mark 100 years since his death. It is way past time that justice, history, and humanity were served by the recognition of Dr. Antoine Béchamp and his honourable, timeless work.

Christopher C. Barr writes Naturally Speaking from Arkansas: The Natural State … naturally! You may write him c/o P. O. Box 1147, Pocahontas, Arkansas 72455 or by e-mail at .




Back to page