Bechamp was right all along

Recent exchange of thoughts at Josh’s blog reminded me of great accomplishments of another overlooked genius, prof. Antoine Béchamp. I already wrote about him, but during these last few weeks, I realized how obscure knowledge of his discoveries and research is. This post is dedicated to all those ingenious men, who dared to probe the mainstream, profit-oriented medical racket and tried to tell the whole truth about their findings.

Béchamp is the man, who brought the process of fermentation to understanding. He is also one of those ingenious people, who got almost deleted from the history of medicine and biology for bringing to life the theory of pleomorphism and clearly showing that Pasteur’s germ theory is superficial half-truth at best. While the latter is huge mainstream profit making business, Béchamp’s life-long research was almost obliterated, while deleted from biology school books and turned into heresy by the gutless majority of modern-day biologist, too scared for their position and status to admit being wrong for already more than 150 years. You may wonder, as I do, what brought biology and medicine science to ridicule and ignore such magnificent findings as discovered by Béchamp and later upgraded by a handful of his followers. Why is it that only a handful of scientists think or dare to talk loudly about Antoine Béchamp, Raymond Rife, Günther Enderlein, Archie Kalokerinos or Gaston Naessens and their findings? How can it be that vast majority of lay people know close to nothing about these people, while Pasteur is eternally glorified for his half-truth theory?

In my perception of this issue, it is very likely that the science of biology and consequently medicine were left in the dark on purpose. Who has the benefits for suppressing a larger truth is almost a rhetorical question. If you follow the money, the culprits are obvious: approximately one third of three largest pharma corporations (Pfizer, Merck and Johnson & Johnson) is owned by Vanguard funds, Blackrock and State Street Corp. I could not stomach researching about other big pharma businesses and their owners, as it would most likely turn out to be the very same as already shown by Miles Mathis in one of his important papers  – our global corporate world is privately owned by a few institutions (such as Blackrock and Vanguard), serving as a front for Phoenician trillionaires. In fact, I dare to say that the entire fields of science of both biology and consequently medicine were hijacked and fudged in the same manner as physics or history, as proven by the great research opus of Miles Mathis himself.

 

“The microbe is nothing: the terrain is everything.”

(Attributed to Louise Pasteur)

It is extremely disappointing to realize that even as Pasteur was dying, he would not give credit for the demonstration of this fact to whom it was due – Antoine Béchamp.  The germ theory was proven to be wrong on many aspects already 150 years ago, but you may know this only if you were really lucky enough to learn differently.

Any medical professional, bioscientist, health care practitioner or lay person for that matter, who wishes to gain insight into the origins and nature of infectious and chronic illness, must consider Antoine Béchamp[1].

Let me repeat the essence of his life-long research as put forward by Ethel D. Hume. Firstly, he demonstrated that the air is filled with microscopic organisms capable of fermenting any suitable medium on which they happen to land. He showed, that the chemical change is carried out by a soluble ferment produced by the organism and this ferment is analogous to the digestive juices of the stomach. Thus, he identified fermentation as a digestive process.

Secondly, the most profound conclusion to which Bechamp’s research led him is, that there is an independently living micro anatomical element in the cells and fluids of all organisms. This element precedes life at the cellular level, even the genetic level and is the foundation of all biological organization. What originally piqued Antoine’s procreative curiosity was the discovery, somewhat by accident, that pure chalk from geological deposits at least 11 million years old would liquefy starch and ferment sugar solutions, while man-made chalk would not. After years of work tracking down the cause (fermentation was not understood at the time), he attributed the action to the living remains of organisms long dead. He called this tiny living element a “microzyma”, or small ferment.

Thirdly, he claimed that microzymas routinely become forms normally referred to as bacteria and that bacteria can revert or devolve to the microzymian state. (This is the principle of pleomorphism, which is central to understanding the appearance of “infectious” and degenerative disease symptoms in the body).

Fourthly, he explained that atmospheric germs are not fundamental species, but are rather microzymas, or their evolutionary forms, set free from their former vegetable or animal habitat by the death of that “medium”.

As Bechamp explained[2]: “The microzyma is at the beginning and end of all organization. It is the fundamental anatomical element whereby the cellules, the tissues, the organs, the whole of an organism are constituted.” He referred to microzymas as the builders and destroyers of cells. The quotation emphasizes the constructive aspect of microzymian activity and purpose, but it is the destructive aspect, or the “end of all organization”, which concerns us in disease. He always found microzymas remaining after the complete decomposition of a dead organism and concluded that they are the only non-transitory biological elements. In addition, they carry out the vital function of decomposition, or they are the precursors of beings (bacteria, yeasts and fungi) which actually do so. Thus, he clearly presented the idea that the physical life of higher biological forms arises from, is dependent upon, and is recycled by microscopic beings. Simple, immediate proof of dependence is the indispensable bacterial population in the human GI tract. And it adds piquancy to the whole matter to consider that our digestive and metabolic associates are plants. The crucial “catabolic” aspect of microzymian behavior enters the picture when the body becomes diseased, for, according to Bechamp – in a state of health, the microzymas act harmoniously and our life is, in every meaning of the word, a regular fermentation. In a condition of disease, the microzymas, which have become morbid, determine specific changes in the organism . . . which leads alike to the disorganization of the tissues, to the destruction of the cellules and to their vibrionien evolution during life.

To simplify all above, the basis of life is not the cell, but a living “gene” that he called a microzyma. Microzymas can evolve with changes in the nutritional environment to become viruses or bacteria, harmless or harmful and although apparently specific bacteria and fungi can be reproduced as similar organisms, this is only true if specific environmental conditions exist. Under other conditions evolution into other bacteria and fungi can take place.

In the same way an infection can be exogenous, it can also be endogenous – evolving by a process of microzymian evolution. The fallacy of vaccines is thus explained and the importance of the nutritional environment of the cell understood.

The extensive research done by an American biologist and microscopist Raymond Rife is the most profound confirmation of pleomorphism, for which he was nearly obliterated from history. His story was told in an impressive piece of work called “The Rife Report” by investigative reporter Lynes[3]. It has been published in book form as “The Cancer Cure That Worked!”, which is highly recommended for its revelations about Rife’s research and technology (which would be astounding for these times, never mind for the late 1920’s to mid-1930’s). The mentioned book also features notes on many pioneering figures in biology and is a must-read for anyone interested in a deeper understanding of where medicine has gone.

Rife’s microscope was his own engineering marvel and was described as out-of-this-world piece of equipment[4], where reportedly his Universal microscope “far surpasses the theoretical limitations of the ordinary variety of instrument…”. Most importantly, his engineering masterpiece enabled clear views of living subjects with great detail and clarity, with 31,000 diameters resolution. Ironically, Rife’s genius in constructing an “impossible” microscope later contributed to his chronic lack of credibility.

univlarge

In 1920 Rife began doing research in the electronic treatment of “disease,” specifically to find a way to destroy the tubercle bacillus by means of radio frequency (r.f.) radiation. Attempts to do so were trial and error because the organism’s resonant frequency was unknown. Lynes[5] tells us that when the frequency was finally found and the bacteria killed, the subjects (poor guinea pigs!) died of toxicity. Rife reasoned that there was a viral form in the bacteria that survived the beam because it had a different frequency. But the virus was beyond the reach of his current microscope, which relied on chemical stains. Through an intuitive flash, he “conceived first the idea and then the method of staining the virus with light”. The idea was based on the principle of resonant frequency. Each microorganism has its own fundamental frequency of light, something Bechamp apparently took advantage of with his polarimeter. Rife arrived at the conclusion that light could be used, instead of fatal chemicals, to “stain” the subject. This was brilliant. Equally brilliant was its execution. A brief, partial description of the instrument, taken from the Journal’s review, is irresistible:

“The entire optical system-lenses and prisms, as well as the illuminating units-are made of block-crystal quartz. The illuminating unit used for examining the filterable forms of disease organisms contains fourteen lenses and prisms, three of which are in the high-intensity incandescent lamp, four in the Risley prism, and seven in the achromatic condenser, which incidentally has an aperture of 1.40. Between the source of light and the specimen are subtended two circular, wedge-shaped, block-crystal quartz prisms for the purpose of polarizing the light passing through the specimen, polarization being the practical application of the theory that light waves vibrate in all planes perpendicular to the direction in which they are propagated. When light comes into contact with a polarizing prism, it is split into two beams, one of which is refracted to such an extent that it is reflected to the side of the prism, without, of course, passing through the prism, while the second ray, bent considerably less, is enabled to pass through the prism to illuminate the specimen. When the quartz prisms on the Universal Microscope, which may be rotated with vernier control through 360 degrees, are rotated in opposite directions, they serve to bend the transmitted beams at variable angles of incidence while, at the same time, since only a part of a band of color is visible at one time, a small portion of the spectrum is projected up into the axis of the microscope. It is possible to proceed this way from one end of the spectrum to the other-infra-red to ultra-violet. Now, when that portion of the spectrum is reached in which both the organism and the color band vibrate in exact accord with one another, a definite, characteristic wavelength is emitted by the organism. In the case of the filter passing form of the Bacillus typhosus, for instance, a blue light is emitted, and the plane of polarization is deviated plus 4.8 degrees. … A monochromatic beam of light corresponding exactly to the frequency of the organism is then sent up through the specimen and the direct, transmitted light, enabling the observer to view the organism stained in its true chemical color and revealing its own structure in a field which is brilliant with light.”

Recall that Bechamp said, that chemists would identify microzymas by their function. Their evolved forms would also have a chemical function, or in this case, a signature.

The Journal then explains that instead of light rays from the specimen passing through the objective and converging, they pass through a series of special prisms, which keep the rays parallel:

“It is this principle of parallel rays in the Universal Microscope, and the shortening of projection distance between the prisms, plus the fact that three matched pairs of ten-millimeter, seven-millimeter and four-millimeter objectives in short mounts are substituted for oculars, which make possible not only the unusually high magnification and resolution, but which serve to eliminate all distortion as well as all chromatic and spherical aberration….The coarse adjustment, a block thread screw with forty threads to the inch, slides in a one and one-half inch dovetail which gibs directly onto the pillar post. The weight of the quadruple nosepiece and the objective system is taken care of by the intermediate adjustment at the top of the body tube. The stage, in conjunction with a hydraulic lift, acts as a lever in operating the fine adjustment. A six-gauge screw having a hundred threads to the inch is worked through a gland into a hollow glycerin-filled post, the glycerin being displaced and replaced as the screw is turned, allowing a five to one ratio on the lead screw. This, accordingly, assures complete absence of drag and inertia. The fine adjustment being seven hundred times more sensitive than that of ordinary microscopes, the length of time required to focus ranges up to one hour and a half.”

Rife’s major focus was on cancer and he was able to show that these non-cellular particles derived from cancerous tissue, could reliably induce a comparable cancer when injected into an otherwise healthy animal. This was a highly controversial finding. But more importantly, by studying the motility of the colloids he isolated from malignant tissue, Rife was able to develop an electronic method to suppress their activity – with the hope of destroying the associated cancer. A major upshot of Rife’s work was his ability, through several pleomorphic stages, to transform a virus he found in cancer tissue into a fungus, plant the fungus in an asparagus-based medium and produce a bacillus E. coli, the type of microform indigenous to the human intestine. This was repeated hundreds of times. By this accomplishment, Rife showed that the pleomorphic capacity of microforms goes beyond the bacterial level to the fungal level.

Lynes tells us that Rife found himself in the path of Morris Fishbein, the Hitlerian ruler who headed the American Medical Association (AMA) from the mid1920’s until 1949, when he was forced from his position by a revolt among doctors. In Chicago, Fishbein had gotten wind of a clinic in San Diego using Rife’s beam-ray method of eliminating cancer symptoms. When refused a buy-in, he used his influence to bring the manufacturing company down in court for operating without a license. This blow to medicine in the late 1930’s was a major step in suppressing the knowledge of pleomorphism, the mind-boggling Rife Universal Microscope, and the amazing radio frequency beam instrument used in the clinical setting.

In the second wave of suppression, the establishment Food and Drug Administration (FDA) literally attacked a factory established in the 1950s by Rife and associate John Crane to manufacture the beam ray instrument. Everything was destroyed, records confiscated, and every practitioner possessing a unit was pursued and forced to surrender it as illegal.

Powerful microscope (the Somatoscope) developed by Gaston Naessens of Quebec, Canada is another example of great engineering by another supporter of pleomorphic theory. Gaston’s incredible device reaches magnification levels of 20,000 to 30,000 diameters – well above the 2,500 diameter limit of conventional microscopes. The sheer magnitude of the difference in performance gives the appearance of either a gross violation of the laws of physics. What Rife accomplished optically in the 1930s with his Universal Microscope, Gaston Naessens accomplished with a combination of optics and electronics in the 1940s in his Somatoscope.

Its radical departure in performance from optical and scanning electron microscopes registers this as a truly great discovery. Unfortunately, in most fields of science, a great deal of effort is put forth into listing why something will not work instead of attempting to duplicate the results. This in turn creates a situation where what was once science, turns into a religion, where the orthodox dogma is to be taken on faith and that who defies dogma is to be persecuted as heretic.

Establishment of a dogma slows down the rate of new discoveries as they are made. In the medical fields, slow acceptance of new ideas can cause many needless deaths. This is the case with the supermicroscope and the discoveries of Bechamp, Rife and Naessens.

Günther Enderlein was the last of the old pleomorphists and has done the most exhaustive and comprehensive compilation and study of this information to date. The basis for Enderlein’s work was the book by Béchamp, titled “Mycrozymas”. Enderlein devoted the bulk of his scientific work which stretched for more than 40 years, to the com⇑⇑⇑⇑plex question of pleomorphism, symbiosis and cyclogeny (the cycles organisms go through) of microorganisms.

He saw the healthy host as filled with primitive life forms, which he called – Colloids of Life or Protits. These reside in the red cells, white cells, in plasma and all other body fluids and tissues, are 0.01 micron in radius (about the size of a virus) and the larger forms of these can be seen under any microscope’s high power, oil immersion lens, as tiny dots, rolling, always moving. They are seen best with a dark-field microscope as tiny shining, moving points. They are visible because they move.

According to Enderlein, all microbes go through a species-specific cycle, which standard bacteriology quite naturally accepts in the case of malaria, but which it continues to resist in the case of bacteria and fungi – even though there is not, in all of nature, an exception to the law of eternal change, nor to the unity of the macrocosm and the microcosm[6].

Enderlein observed in blood and in tumors three types of organisms: bacterial rods, mycelia and Chondrits or Symprotits. He considered the latter to be the most primitive developmental stage of microorganisms. In his seminal work mentioned above “Bakterien-Cyclogenie” [Bacterial Cyclogeny], dating to 1925, he described his discovery that viruses, bacteria and fungi are nothing but alternating manifestation forms of a particular microbe. They had been considered to be different species only, because in the short incubation times normally used, only one Phase of the microbes would have time to develop. If one were to brood the culture of a certain bacterium for a longer time, then one could observe the bacteria developing, over various intermediate steps, into a fungus (previously thought erroneously to be due to “contamination“).[7]

The triggering energy for this process comes, according to Enderlein, from increasing acidification (falling pH) of the nutrient medium by bacterial metabolic products. In an alkaline environment, the fungal phase would immediately revert to a primitive phase. This closed circular upward and downward development of the microorganisms (what he termed Cyclogeny) is reversible thus:

reversible

The major difference between Enderlein and Rife was Enderlein’s discovery of isopathic regression as a natural, down-regulating mechanism for the pathogenic phases of pleomorphic variation. In the absence of this knowledge, Rife developed electronic methods to destroy the activity and vitality of the underlying particles, and clearly demonstrated the elimination of the disease conditions that depended upon them.

 


Most doctors worldwide are today extremely hostile to anything that even remotely questions the germ theory, that is to say “germ theory” as defined by Pasteur. They react to any probing of pasteurian germ theory as a religious fanatic would to proselytization. I did some research on this matter and fingers keep pointing to one man – Abraham Flexner. Abraham Flexner, despite lacking a medical degree or any health related qualification of any kind, was 100% convinced, that the germ theory as interpreted by Louis Pasteur was the only way forward for medicine. He was so fanatical, that he refused to visit any physiotherapy establishment and stated, that the practitioners thereof should face criminal trial.

Before Flexner’s report was implemented, people in America had a choice what medical theory to follow to become a doctor. After Flexner, you could only legally call yourself a doctor and hold the MD degree if you had trained in germ theory medicine and germ theory medicine alone. Prior to Flexner there were schools of eclectic medicine all over the USA. These schools did not reject the germ theory. They taught germ theory medicine as well as physiotherapy, electrotherapy, osteopathy, etc. As the US government started to enforce the 1910 Flexner report, one by one these eclectic medical institutions were shut down. Since America was the most influential country on Earth it wasn’t long before other countries toed the line.

 

.

 


Footnotes:

[1] “Who Had Their Finger on the Magic of Life – Antoine Bechamp or Louis Pasteur?”, Robert O. Young, Int J Vaccines Vaccin 2016, 2(5), https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/653a/6f9328c04fdd3ce6207d2809f6492e35b9c4.pdf

[2] “The Blood and its Third Anatomical Element”, Antoine Béchamp, http://rexresearch.com/bechampmicrozymes/bechamp.html

[3] (https://archive.org/download/LynesBarryTheCancerCureThatWorkedTheRifeReport/Lynes-Barry-The-Cancer-Cure-That-Worked-The-Rife-Report.pdf

[4] Journal of Franklin institute (Vol. 237, issue 2, February 1944, p., link

[5] “The Rife Report”, pdf, as linked under [3]

[6] https://www.alexapharma.dk/upload/100604/doc/20086-Professor-Günther-Enderlein–Doctor-o f.pdf

[7] ibid

15 thoughts on “Bechamp was right all along

  1. Hello Vexman
    Thank you for this most interesting post. I had no idea. So many of us simply have no idea.
    The link to Mr Mathis’ paper was also very helpful.

    I used to believe that I was well-informed. Boy was I mistaken!
    I’d reblog the post but I have only a handful of followers

    Liked by 1 person

        1. … especially as these recent events are being used to manipulate us using this false foundation. Thi anti-social distancing idea is used to atomise potential dissent and as a byproduct trash the economy. We’ll be peons forever more

          Like

        2. I did ask him actually as I was curious but he didn’t reply. Is it simply something he doesn’t know about nor takes any interest in? I’m really grateful for many of his posts but even he has blind spots I guess. This is a Biggie if so

          Liked by 1 person

  2. It really was not that long ago that the “medical priesthood” arose and like so many other projects really took off in the 1960’s. MARCUS WELBY M.D. first aired in 1969 and may have been the first TV Show dedicated to “Medicci’ne” exclusively, although the “Doctor” had been promoted in TV Shows pretending that even back in the 1800’s people were desperate to get to a “Doctor” for all sorts of things which simply was not true at all. Here is a link to the Trailer for MARCUS WELBY M.D. SEASON 1 on DVD. In the Trailer, the character

    Like

    1. I remember in UK we had Emergency Ward 10 first a film (1958?) then 10 yrs soap; very popular also was Dr Finlay’s Casebook, set in Callandar, Scotland

      Also we had Dr Kildare, the Richard Chamberlain vehicle from US early 60s

      Like

  3. Very detailed and informative post, Vex, as usual. Thank you for all your hard work here! It’s coming together, all the story, slowly but surely! 🙂

    Like

  4. I’m really surprised that so few comments, views especially in view of how things are. Fauci et al pushing their fake science agenda and nobody challenges it. It must be a comment on how little reasoning power people have, they’re just so dumbed down and distracted by work/ family /news /medication. I simply can’t believe it as it is now

    Like

Leave a Reply to nickweechblog Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s