Lie No. 1 : Pasteur is a Benefactor of Humanity

Lie No. 1 : Pasteur is a Benefactor of Humanity - from 'The Ten Biggest Lies
about Vaccines' by Sylvie Simon

Translated by Emma Holister from 'Les 10 plus gros mensonges sur les
vaccins'

"Each and every problem we face today is the direct and inevitable result of
yesterday's brilliant solutions." Henry Bergman

Praise for Pasteur is heard across the world and he is considered to be
one of the most prestigious heroes of humanity, a reference to be reckoned
with.

Although the story of vaccination began at the end of the 18th century
when the English doctor Edward Jenner undertook to inoculate with cowpox, a
disease specific to cows, in order to protect humans from smallpox, it is
Pasteur (1822-1895) who remains the father of vaccination and it is with him
that the long string of lies begins.

This clever, brilliant, hard-working man was an expert communicator and
kept up to date with the work of his peers. His tactics never changed; he
knew how to recognise good ideas but would begin by openly criticising them,
then would shamelessly appropriate them to himself, claiming to be the
discoverer. It is in this way that he became the benefactor of humanity and,
above all, an untouchable myth.

And in April 2005, during a television programme that clearly illustrated
the decline of information and cultural standards, he was represented as
second only to Charles de Gaulle amongst the "greatest Frenchmen of all
time". Adding yet another to the lies surrounding Pasteur, Prof. Axel Kahn,
member of the National Consultants Committee on French Ethics, Director of
Research at Inserm and one of Pasteur's most faithful supporters, didn't
hesitate to affirm that it was thanks to Pasteur that women no longer died
of puerperal fever during childbirth. In reality this discovery belonged to
the Hungarian doctor Ignace Semmelweis, who had observed that women no
longer died when those assisting took hygiene precautions such as washing
their hands. It is worth pointing out that he provoked ridicule amongst his
colleagues and was unable to convince them despite clear evidence. They
claimed that the statistics he'd published were false and faked and he was
suspended. And it would seem that women in childbirth may possibly have been
infected in an attempt to discredit the truth of this observation. A
despairing Semmelweis committed suicide. His work, published in 1861, was
only given recognition in 1890 and this delay cost lives. Revolted by the
behaviour of Semmelweis's colleagues, another doctor, this time a writer,
Louis-Ferdinand Céline, hotly defended him in publishing his biography in
1937. Evidently Axel Kahn has not read it. It is clear therefore that the
myth of Pasteur persists on a foundation of totally false assumptions, but
that the public at large blindly believes it because they 'saw it on the
television'.

However, numerous facts reported in perfectly authenticated texts, coming
from those who were close to him or from historians such as Dr Lutaud, Dr
Philippe Decourt, Dr Xavier Raspail, Adrien Loir, Ethyl Douglas Hume, Emile
Duclaux, Gerald Geison and others, should suffice in pushing him from his
pedestal. But the Pasteurian dogma is so deeply rooted in people's minds
that nothing yet has been able to shake it and the French continue to
idolise an imposter. It is forbidden, under pain of excommunication, to lay
a finger on the man who vanquished rabies. And to date, as Pasteur is no
longer here to pillage the work of his peers, it is others who pillage in
his name.

The subject of vaccines is no different from the case of Pasteur: there is
no end to the lies that are unveiled. I can therefore only suggest to
readers that if they want to learn of them all, they should refer to the
authors cited above and to Eric Ancelet's book 'Pour en finir avec Pasteur'
('To Finish with Pasteur'), which masterfully reveals what is hidden behind
Pasteur's character, in stark contrast to the idealised image that is
portrayed officially.

Pasteur doctored the results of experiments that turned out unfavourably for
him, in the manner of a true forger, with the aid of his accomplices. And in
order to gain honours and glory, he appropriated to himself various works of
other researchers, including Antoine Béchamp (1816-1908), one of the
greatest scientists of the nineteenth century, doctor, biologist,
naturalist, professor in medical and pharmaceutical chemistry at the Faculty
of Montpellier and professor of bio-chemistry and physics at the University
of Paris, as well as Dean of the Free Faculty of Lille. Béchamp proved the
veracity of Claude Bernard's views on the importance of the bodily terrain
of each individual and was the first to understand the microbial cause of
infectious pathologies.

However, his work is virtually unheard of these days, because it was
systematically discredited and falsified to the profit and personal
interests of Pasteur.

In June 1865, Pasteur was nominated by the government to study silkworm
diseases, whereas Béchamp had already determined and published on the
parasitic origin of pébrine (silkworm disease). Pasteur criticised the work
of Béchamp, affirming that it was a matter of constitutional disease, that
the small bodies (as they called microbes in those days) that Béchamp
considered to be exogenous parasites, coming from the exterior, were only
the diseased cells of the worm itself. In a letter addressed to a minister,
Pasteur wrote: "It is an error to say that this disease is simply parasitic
and not constitutional. In fact, I believe that these people (Béchamp and
his co-worker) are insane. An unfortunate madness indeed that so compromises
Science and the University with such culpable nonsense."

In 1868, Pasteur realised that Béchamp was right - and since that time the
'parasitic' theory has been recognised universally - But Pasteur declared to
the Academy of Science and to the Minister of Agriculture that he had been
the first to demonstrate the parasitic origin of pébrine that was "entirely
unheard of before my research". An unparalleled impudence.

In 1870 he published an article on silkworm diseases that he dedicated to
the Empress, as he had for a long time been cultivating relationships within
the Imperial Court which allowed him to forge useful friendships with
ministers and official representatives of foreign countries.

At that time, Pasteur pronounced himself strongly "pro-Napoleon", but after
the fall of the Empire and the arrival of the Republic, he did an
about-turn, as the 9th February 1983 edition of the journal Impact Médecin
pointed out. He obtained via the Republican physiologist Paul Bert, a member
of the budget commission, approval from the National Assembly of a payment
of a 'national reward' in the form of a yearly salary of 12 000 francs -
later raised to a salary of 25 000 francs - for having saved the silkworm
industry.

Indeed, Paul Bert, all-powerful at the time in government, ardently wished
to be admitted to the Institute, which did not want in its ranks a man
openly declaring his revolutionary and atheist ideas. According to Paul
Bert, Pasteur sought him out and offered him a deal: he used his influence
in the Academy of Science in order to get Paul Bert nominated, who in return
guaranteed him the award of his salary. Which was effected, to the detriment
of Davaine, for whom the chair at the Academy had been intended, and who
consequently died, apparently of grief. Davaine, a friend and protector of
Pasteur, also saw Pasteur attribute to himself part of his work.

Pasteur was thus rewarded for his lie on 'parasitic' theory, so stripping
Béchamp of a part of his work. He then plotted to make his adversary lose
his post at the University.

The 'soluble ferments' affair, that gave rise to a controversy in 1878 that
lasted more than 18 months, between Pasteur and the chemist Berthellot,
reveals a similar imposture, as Pasteur refused to recognise the evidence
and held fast to his belief in the theory of spontaneous generation.

PASTEUR'S RABIES

At school we are taught that Pasteur "saved the little Joseph Meister,
bitten on the hand by a rabid dog". In fact, it was uncertain as to whether
or not the dog was actually infected with rabies; no other bite had been
reported. Furthermore, even had it been, the risk for the young Meister
would have been small, as an animal that is genuinely infected with rabies -
which is extremely rare - transmits the disease in only 5 to 15% of cases.

The rabies affair is a perfect example of Pasteur's lies being repeated and
introduced by his admirers into the collective memory, to the point of
becoming truth to the average mortal. Contrary to what we are taught, the
anti-rabies vaccine was not created by Pasteur but by Henri Toussaint,
professor at the Veterinary School of Toulouse, and whose name has not left
its mark on history. This man succeeded in reducing the virulence of the
virus by heating the preparation and adding to it an antiseptic.

Pasteur's vaccine, based on dessicated marrow, was very dangerous and was
soon abandoned, and the young Meister was very fortunate to have escaped it.
Moreover, Pasteur's collaborator, Emile Roux, had surmised that the
application of the Pasteur vaccine was too dangerous and he refused to be
associated with the first trials of the so-called "intensive-treatment",
consisting of several injections over a period of twelve days.

The most characteristic aspect of Pasteur's and his collaborators'
dishonesty was the story of a twelve-year-old child who died from the
effects of the vaccination adminstered by Pasteur. The young Edouard Rouyer
was bitten on 8th October 1886 by an unknown dog. Pasteur inoculated him
with his vaccine using the intensive method and on 26th October the child
died. A legal enquiry was opened to determine the cause of his death and
Professor Brouardel was put in charge of it. This man, a high-ranking
official richly endowed with titles, was a friend of Pasteur's.

In Emile Roux's laboratory, they inoculated a part of the child's brain stem
into rabbits' brains and, several days later, the rabbits died of rabies.
But Brouardel, in agreement with Roux, decided to submit a false witness
statement before a justice, to hide the truth. It was a question of avoiding
official recognition of a failure that would entail, as Brouardel put it,
"an immediate jump backwards of fifty years in the development of science",
as well as the dishonouring of Pasteur, as Philippe Decourt recounts in "The
Undesirable Truth, the Case of Pasteur". The report submitted to the
procurer contained a monumental lie:

"The two rabbits are today, 9th January 1887, in good health, that is to say
forty-two days after the inoculations. The negative results of the
inoculations performed with the brain stem of this child allow us to dismiss
the hypothesis that the young Rouyer succumbed to rabies." Pasteur declared
that the child had died of uraemia.

Not satisfied with falsifying the facts, Pasteur and his two accomplices,
Roux and Brouardel, set about silencing their opponents who knew the truth.
Brouardel even went so far as to affirm that of the fifty people treated
with the intensive inoculations, no one had died.

In 1886, in France as abroad, the deaths officially counted amongst the
failures of Pasteur's method had already risen to seventy-four: forty
foreigners and thirty-four French people. Some died showing symptoms of
classic rabies, others succumbed to a new condition that was called
"laboratory rabies". These showed symptoms of a rabid form of paraplegia
that had been observed in rabbits being used in the culture of the
Pasteurian virus (La Méthode Pasteur contre la rage par le Docteur Xavier
Raspail 1888). Moreover, Pasteur himself pointed out that during the period
of 9th November 1885 to 30th December 1886, out of the eighteen vaccinated
of those infected, nine died within the three weeks following the bite.

In the month of March 1886, Pasteur declared to Dr Navar "From now on I
will not permit the questioning of my theories and my method; I will not
tolerate anyone coming and overseeing my experiments." Thus Pasteur
initiated the now institutionalised scientific lie, proffered with impudence
by men of science haloed with an usurped prestige.

History has noted only the success of this vaccine, but neglects to mention
that it had multiplied the deaths from rabies. In fact, far from triumph, it
was a failure, because no one was ever able to prove its efficacy; first of
all because it was practically impossible to demonstrate proof that the
accused dogs were ill with rabies and second, because the number of those
vaccinated who died was too high for anyone to want to take register it.
Léon Daudet told of the dreadful deaths of six Russian land labourers bitten
by a wolf and then vaccinated by Pasteur (Souvenirs des milieux littéraires,
politiques, artistiques et médicaux de 1880 - 1905). On this issue, the
writer protested at the time against what he called "la nouvelle morticoli"
(French play on words, 'the new death') and wrote a series of articles on
the subject.

As for Prof. Michel Peter, of the Academy of Medicine, he angrily criticised
Pasteur's methods and wrote to Dr Lutaud, editor-in-chief of the Journal de
médecine de Paris: "I agree with you on all points: the medication of Mr
Pasteur, the so-called protector from rabies, is both an error and a
hazard." For this eminent member of the Academy of Medicine, it was for
reasons "little to do with science" that Pasteur was going to such pains to
make people believe in the frequency of rabies. Indeed, Pasteur then
conjured up hundreds of cases of rabies that could put lives in mortal
danger.

"Now, rabies in humans is a rare disease, very ra I have seen two cases
of it in thirty-five years of hospital and civil practice, and all my
hospital colleagues, in the town, as in the countryside, can count in single
units and not in dozens (less still in hundreds) the cases of human rabies
that they've observed. In order to exaggerate the benefits of his method and
to mask his lack of success, Mr Pasteur has a vested interest in making
people believe that there is a higher rate of mortality in France from
rabies. But this is in no way in the interest of truth." This procedure
based on fear would be taken up again later by the laboratories
manufacturing vaccines and by their accomplices.

In addition, before his peers at the Academy, Prof. Peter accused Pasteur
not only of having increased the incidence of rabies but of having "provoked
cases of paralytic and even convulsive rabies", rather than having made it
disappear completely, as he had pompously announced. "The method of Mr
Pasteur could not be less considered from the viewpoint of anaylsing the
cases of death, the clinical analysis indicating that a certain number of
these fatal cases are due to the Pasteurian inoculations, which explains the
rise in deaths from rabies in humans." Prof. Peter concluded: "Mister
Pasteur does not cure rabies, he spreads it!"

THE VACCINE AGAINST ANTHRAX

It was in such a way, thanks to countless lies, that rabies became Pasteur's
first great triumph, but before that there was the vaccine against anthrax,
a disease that was ravaging livestock.

At the time, Pasteur firmly set up his theories in opposition to those of
Henri Toussaint, who had discovered the inoculable nature of anthrax and the
possibility of vaccinating against this disease with weakened cultures.
Pasteur claimed Toussaint's procedure was ineffective and dangerous, and
that his own vaccine was superior. In order to prove it, he authorised an
experiment which took place on 28th August 1881 at Pouilly-le-Fort, near
Melun.

Fifty sheep were selected of which only twenty five were vaccinated. All
fifty were inoculated fifteen days later with the virulent strain of
anthrax. Pasteur affirmed that the non-vaccinated sheep would die and the
others would survive.

On the day of the experiment Pasteur confided in his collaborators that he
was going to use, not his vaccine, but Toussaint's, which contained an
antiseptic that reduced the virulence of the anthrax bacteria.

For a long time Pasteur had tried in vain to obtain this reduction using
oxygen from the air. The sheep received the vaccine that Toussaint had
developed to which potassium bichromate had been added, a powerful poison
that kills microbes, but which induces cancer. Evidently no one was going to
worry about the cancers that the sheep would later develop. As predicted,
the twenty-five sheep who had received the vaccine diluted by potassium
bichromate survived. It was a triumph for Pasteur and everyone believed once
again that it was 'his vaccine' and not Toussaint's antiseptic that had
saved the sheep.

Pasteur's own nephew, Adrien Loir, reported these facts in detail in a work
entitled 'In the Shadow of Pasteur' but few people have read it and even
fewer today know that the Pouilly-le-Fort experiment was nothing more than a
lamentable confidence trick.

Prof. Peter judged the anthrax vaccine quite as severely as the rabies one
and reported to Dr Lutaud the results of the vaccinations used from 10th
August 1888 at the Odessa Institute of Bacteriology where "following Paris'
example, the vaccine is made in accordance to Mr Pasteur's model". Indeed,
an anti-anthrax vacine, made in Odessa and sent to Kachowka in central
Russia, consequently brought about no fewer than 3,696 deaths out of the
4,561 sheep vaccinated and amongst the 1,582 ewes inoculated, 1,075 were
killed by the inoculation, that is, 61%.

Prof. Peter comments also on another inoculation used on the flocks at the
Spendrianow farm: "The first flock consisted of neutered sheep aged between
1, 2 and 3 years old, a total of 1,478, and the other 1,058, younger and
older. . . Out of 4,564 sheep vaccinated, only 868 survived the inoculation,
that is, 19%. This is what they are calling 'preventive inoculations'!"
which could be added to the list of Pasteur's customary hoaxes. His methods
were always the same. While denouncing the methods of others, he'd finish by
appropriating them to himself and so manage to crown himself with glory.

In a 250-page thesis on Antoine Béchamp, Marie Nonclercq, doctor of
pharmacy, explains the clear advantage that Pasteur had over Béchamp: "He
was a falsifier of experiments and their results, where he wanted the
outcomes to be favourable to his initial ideas. The falsifications committed
by Pasteur now seem incredible to us. On deeper examination, however, the
facts were in opposition to the ideas developed by Pasteur in the domain of
bacteriology . . . Pasteur wilfully ignored the work of Béchamp, one of the
greatest 19th-century French scientists whose considerable work in the
fields of chemical synthesis, bio-chemistry and infectious pathology is
almost totally unrecognised today, because it had been systematically
falsified, denigrated, for the personal profit of an illustrious personage
(Pasteur) who had, contrary to Béchamp, a genius for publicity and what
today we call 'public relations. . .'"

An American historian of science, Gerald Geison, from the University of
Princeton, for twenty years studied Pasteur's laboratory notes, until that
date kept secret on the orders of Pasteur himself. He eventually
communicated the result of his research to the annual Congress of the AAAS
(American Association for the Advancement of Science), and the English paper
The Observer published it on 14th Februrary 1993. The following week, the
medical magazine Science denounced what it called "The Pasteurian Deception".

If this bickering between scientists had little consequence, one might
consider it of only relative importance, but it was a far more serious issue
for that era, for the industrial revolution was under way and opening up a
matter of considerable economic stakes: that of the vaccine industry.

Between 1869 and 1872, Pasteur expounded three erroneous basic postulates
that are still used today as the foundation of vaccination. The first put
forward that asepsis reigns amongst our cells: the cell is clean, all
microbes are exogenous (they come from outside) and attack it, and these
germs have an existence that is independent from living organisms. The
second is that each illness corresponds to a specific agent, microbial or
viral, against which one can protect oneself, thanks to vaccines; the
illness has one cause alone, therefore one remedy alone. Finally, immunity
is aquired by the production of antibodies in response to the introduction
of antigens via the vaccine and these antibodies give protection.

It has been well known for some time that these postulates are false, the
latest discoveries in immunology contradict them totally. However, the
vaccinators feign ignorance of these studies. If each germ provoked an
illness, life on Earth would be long gone. Pasteur was wrong, but in this
case he is forgiven, it was a simple case of human error.

What was less forgivable was his animosity towards Béchamp, the founder of
enzymology, who was able to identify minute corpuscles smaller than cells,
microzymas. These microzymas are the elements that are truly responsible for
life, whether human, animal or vegetable. Microzymas can span centuries but
are also able to evolve throughout time. In humans, their form varies
according to the general state of the terrain they inhabit and from which
they feed. They are as constructive as they are destructive, capable as they
are of transforming, mutating and evolving. Had this theory of polymorphism
been recognised it would have shaken to its foundation our perception of
health and disease. When an imbalance disrupts the normal functioning of
microzymas - malnutrition, poisoning, physical or emotional stress - the
microzyma transforms into a pathogenic germ, in other words a microbe, and
illness follows. From this perspective, all that is necessary is to
reinforce the health of the person in order for the internal pathogenic
germs to regain their original form and their protective function.

Thanks to his theory, Béchamp was able to take census of bacteria that were
several million years old. The polymorphism of microzymas can therefore
transform them into viruses, bacteria, mycelium, prions or other, as yet
unknown, organisms. But they can also set off the opposite process and
transform back into basic microzymas. This research prompted Béchamp to
judge vaccination as an outrage, because "It neglects the microzymas' own
independent vitality within the organism."

In brief, for Pasteur the microbe is the origin of disease, for Béchamp it
is the disease that permits the microbe to express itself. This duality of
standpoints has lasted officially for more than 100 years. On his deathbed,
Pasteur was said to have affirmed that it was Claude Bernard who was right,
that the microbe was nothing and the terrain was everything. Indeed, if the
microbe were the only agent responsible, how could it be explained that
nurses treating tuberculosis were not contaminated whilst other people who
were far less exposed to the bacillus rapidly fell ill? Claude Bernard, in
pondering this question, came to develop the idea of receptivity to disease,
admitting that there must be an innate or acquired tendency to develop
certain pathologies.

And Prof. Jean Bernard is not far from adhering to this theory when he asks
the question: "If, in the fight against cancer, we have not advanced as fast
as in other domains, it is probably because we have been too attached to the
theories of Pasteur. . . These viruses, are they really outside ourselves?
Might they not in fact come from our own damaged organisms?"

In his work 'The Crack in the World', André Glucksmann attempts to explain
the Pasteurian illusions: "The vanity of Pasteurism reveals - more than a
certain science and less than an effective art - a religion. Pasteur has
transposed into terms of biopower the constitutive equation of modern
nations, cujus regio, ejus religio." (As goes the country, so goes the
religion.)

"john" wrote in message
...
Lie No. 1 : Pasteur is a Benefactor of Humanity - from 'The Ten
Biggest Lies about Vaccines' by Sylvie Simon

Translated by Emma Holister from 'Les 10 plus gros mensonges sur les
vaccins'

"Each and every problem we face today is the direct and inevitable
result of yesterday's brilliant solutions." Henry Bergman


I suppose you could draw that conclusion. My guess is that you would
rather die of the black plague like millions did for centuries. Have no
fear, if it were possible to eradicate all vaccines it wouldn't take
more than 10 years and all these disease would come back with a
vengeance. No doubt that would make your day as no human, destroyer of
all that is green, should die anyhow. Right?

"Peter B." wrote in message
...



I suppose you could draw that conclusion. My guess is that you would
rather die of the black plague like millions did for centuries. Have no
fear, if it were possible to eradicate all vaccines it wouldn't take more
than 10 years and all these disease would come back with a vengeance. No
doubt that would make your day as no human, destroyer of all that is
green, should die anyhow. Right?


what, like scarlet fever?

and remind me of the plague vaccine, I seem to have missed that one