Bacteria vs. virus: the contagion question.

Here is an interesting web discussion about Pasteur, Bechamp and contagion, bacteria and toxic waste. Can disease be transferred from person to person?

“As we are all aware, without bacteria there would not be life. They are omnipresent. They are ever present like the blowfly, quite often not seen until the need arises when they then fulfil their role to lay the maggots in the rotting flesh which they then consume.”

“Pasteur took Bechamp’s theories and turned them upside down claiming that the germ (bacteria) was the cause of the disease and not a part of or concomitant with it.”

QUESTION: How does Natural Hygiene explain that many people who’ve recently come in contact with someone who’s got a certain disease often actually develop *that same disease* too, if, as NH claims, diseases aren’t contagious at all?

ANSWER BY DR. FIELDER: The whole question of contagion is very much related to our understanding of the role bacteria play, also the part that what we commonly call disease (acute) has in our lives.

* Firstly, let us look at the role of bacteria. In the 19th century a French scientist, Professor Antoine Bechamp postulated the theory that the smallest living particle of matter was what he termed microzyma, or the minute ferments of the body. They were and are an integral part of the human organism which, when the required circumstances arose, evolved into what became known as bacteria.

The required circumstance for their involvement was the excessive accumulation of the waste matters of metabolism over and above what could be handled by the normal channels of elimination, such as the lungs, skin, kidneys and bowels.

When these circumstances presented themselves the microzyma evolved into bacteria which then become involved in the process of dealing with this excessive accumulation and which could then be identified by the microscope. In the early stages of disease they cannot be so identified as they have not evolved at that stage. It is only as the disease develops that they are observable.

Now all of this was outlined by Professor Bechamp. Pasteur was a contemporary of his, who took Bechamp’s theories and turned them upside down claiming that the germ (bacteria) was the cause of the disease and not a part of or concomitant with it.

* Secondly, that disease (acute) disease is the organism in action, the action being that of healing itself. It is well established that our bodies are self-reparative organisms. Given the right conditions we heal ourselves. In the case of a broken bone we may physically realign it so that it will heal in its natural alignment, but the healing (repair of the bone and other involved tissue) is a normal and natural part of the bodily process.

This process of healing may well involve inflammation, suppuration and fever Any action that we take to reduce the inflammation, suppuration or fever outside of supplying the body with its natural needs, only suppresses the function of and healing of our bodies thus laying the basis for the development of chronic disease, such as arthritis, and/or terminal conditions including cancer.

In the suppression of the acute (cleansing and healing) condition we bring about the storage and accumulation in the organism of the waste matters of metabolism. This is also exacerbated by the using up of the latent energies which are held in reserve by the healthy body for dealing with all eventualities and emergencies.

With the type of lifestyle we live along with the continual ingestion of medications even though they may be considered as relatively harmless i.e. the propriety drugs such as aspirin, along with which we have the social drugs of tobacco, tea, alcohol, coffee etc., we are continually depriving our bodies of sufficient energy to carry out normal and natural maintenance. Add to that the stress of daily life in today’s society, life in the “fast” lane, and we have a scenario well placed requiring the help of our friends the bacteria, to which we could also add “virus”.

Given the above scenario it can readily be observed that the average person is bordering upon requiring to be healed (acute disease) almost every day. That it requires only a very gentle push to bring this about. And this push is referred to as “contagion”

We are organisms that absorb from our surroundings. And if those surroundings are loaded with toxic waste matter being thrown off by another human being, then we will tend to absorb it. In the case of a healthy body it will, in the beginning at least, deal with it through its normal channels of elimination. If, as occurred during the plagues of the past, we are surrounded by it for extended periods of time, then we too will require to develop the acute phase of disease(healing) to deal with this eventuation.

In the past they had “Infectious” Disease hospitals. In these hospitals the nursing staff were being continually rotated and changed because if they were not they too would succumb. The poor old germ was and still is, blamed for this. Yet in reality his role is to help in the process of clearing up the condition.

* A further insight into germs is that they are according to the medium and do not cause the medium. If you change the medium then the bacteria change to conform to the new medium. The same bacteria, different medium. We could refer to them as chameleons.

* Another consideration is the people we live with. We may be a non-smoker, but if we live with a smoker we too are a smoker. And so it goes on. If our partners are toxic and we are not then we become toxic through the process of osmosis. It can readily be seen how dangerous it is for a person who is living,or endeavouring to live, a simple natural life to have as partner somebody who isn’t. Remember it is usually the passive smoker who dies, not the smoker.

QUESTION: Thank you for your replies and comments, they were both clarifying and thought-provoking. Unfortunately, they haven’t straightened out my wrinkled forehead completely… for instance, I wonder, Dr Fielder, you said “Add to that the stress of daily life in today’s society, life in the “fast” lane, and we have a scenario well placed requiring the help of our friends the bacteria, to which we could also add “virus”.” *Hm*, in the NH articles I’ve read, it’s stated that viruses are debris of spent (body?) cells; (encapsuled?) RNA and DNA from these cells, and that they’re dead and toxic, like other waste material. In other words, they’re not at all living and helpful friends, like the bacteria, they’re the opposite. IYO exactly what are viruses?

Also, judging by what you said about absorption and about toxic people’s requiring only a very gentle push to develop disease, plus the thought, that we never get in touch with perhaps 90% of other people’s waste it seems so strange that one often develops a disease right after having just hugged or kissed a sick relative or even a stranger, but very seldom develops a disease right after having breathed in pollutions during a visit to town, or after having drunk, let’s say, an Irish coffee, I mean, the two last-mentioned exposures ought to dump *a lot* of more toxins in one’s system than the first-mentioned!

Lastly, this is the pattern in my family: Me, my husband and our son (14 months, still breastfeeding in addition to solids) all have quite different amounts of food intake, and our “menus” differ from each other more than they resemble each other. Also, my son gets more fresh air/sunshine than me and my husband gets much more fresh air/sunshine than us other two. As for emotional stress, the levels are different too. (None of us takes medications of any kind.) In spite of these differences, we always get ill at the same time all three of us! First one of us gets a runny nose, and then a day or two later, we all have the cold, with more or less the same symptoms. Since our son was born, we’ve had two or three cold episodes like that. During the last few days, though, we’ve had the gastro-intestinal flu instead of a cold; all three of us had nausea, diarrhea and vomited (*yuck!*). Now I wonder, why do we get the *same* diseases at the same time all of us, why don’t, for instance, one get the respiratory flu, while another one gets the gastro-intestinal flu, while the third one gets the febrile flu… or the measles… or scarlatina… or whatever?

ANSWER BY DR. FIELDER: This is becoming contagious !! Thank you all for your response(s) to my comments. Herewith my further comments:

1. Bechamp did not say that bacteria originate in the toxic waste. As we are all aware, without bacteria there would not be life. They are omnipresent. They are ever present like the blowfly, quite often not seen until the need arises when they then fulfil their role to lay the maggots in the rotting flesh which they then consume. The bacteria also fulfil a similar role in the body when the need arises.

2. Perhaps Bechamp was right with regard to microzyma (minute ferments) and maybe he was wrong. Just because they have not been observed with the electron microscope only proves that we have not as yet been able to observe them. It does not prove they do not exist.

3. On the question of the absorption of toxic waste from others I think as with the benefits of raw foods and a simple natural lifestyle, we will mostly discount such an occurrence until we have experienced it for ourselves. I have seen enough for me not to have any doubts. And I assure you it has nothing to do with the germ theory.

4.The mutation into “dangerous forms” of bacteria and virus are, so I believe, the outcome of the “destruction of the innocent triggers” as you have so well said, but instead of mutating “into dangerous new forms”, mutate into stronger forms to deal with a much more lethal situation..

5. We must always keep in mind that at all times “scientific truth” is really only the currently held scientific theory with regard to any particular situation. Today’s truth becomes tomorrows error. This also goes for all theories, mine, yours, anyone’s. They are the hypothesis upon which we build. And as long as they work we stay with them, when we observe error we replace them with another.

6. There are so many factors involved in the reaction of each individual to a given situation to define exactly why one person will become ill from exposure to certain circumstances and another not, requires that we abstract ourselves from that situation and try and take a dispassionate view. Although we may be born of the same parents we are genetically (except in the case of identical twins) quite different. We all act and react differently to the same stimuli. Yet under certain circumstances our reaction (actions) will be similar enough to be considered to be the same, as in epidemics. But of course not everyone succumbs in an epidemic.

7. Where a mother is breastfeeding we must always consider them as one person. The toxic waste of the mother can, and are transferred to the infant via the mother’s milk. What effects the mother effects the child. In fact when the child is almost exclusively breastfed, we treat the mother, not the child, for as the mother recovers, so will the child.

8. The condition mentioned of the whole family experiencing the same symptoms even though they do live slightly different lifestyles is of interest to note as this is not unusual. The opposite is also to be observed, where the different members experience different symptoms. Where they are the same it would appear that they are similar enough genetically and in lifestyle, to react similarly, along with the fact that they are all exposed to the same or similar environmental conditions. Bear in mind the fact that changing weather patterns can, and often do, as the triggering agent.

9. Under no circumstances would I wish to belittle the role that the psychological factors have in our health and the development of disease. We must always keep before us the fact that although we may be doing everything else right, we can still kill ourselves with our thoughts. My favourite saying is: ” Always do the best you can, And what you can’t do, Don’t worry about’ Because the worry will kill you any way ”

10.The skin is considered to be both the third lung, and the third kidney. Anything which stops the skin excreting causes illness and ultimate death. The skin is a permeable membrane. If you doubt its ability to absorb, ask a friend to place a clove of garlic in your shoe, I guarantee that within thirty seconds you will taste it within your mouth.

11. The effects of a shared bed can be minimised by instead of making the bed as is usual, but by taking the bedding and hanging it to air, preferably in the sunlight.

12. Exercising in an air-conditioned building may be little better than a polluted street. On the other hand I have always been able to find many urban streets all round the world where I can walk and exercise away from the worst of the exhaust fumes. In fact I walked for close on two hours through urban Los Angeles, and other cities in the US and Canada, as well as in the UK and hardly saw a vehicle. As I have mentioned on previous occasions, the early Greeks found that there was ten times the benefit to exercising in the fresh air and sunlight to that indoors in their Gymnasia.

13.The detoxification crisis that occur after festive occasions such as Xmas etc., are certainly coincidental to their cause, the overeating that occurs at these times, whether it be good food or otherwise.

In friendship, John

CONTINUED ANSWER BY DR. FIELDER: Some further comments on Professor Bechamp and his theories.

1.In 1997 Stanley B. Prusiner, professor of neurology at the University of California was awarded the nobel prize in medicine for his discovery of prions, which are described as tiny protein molecules that seem (and I emphasize the word seem) to cause a variety of slow acting – and inevitably fatal – diseases in animals and humans; the name is an acronym for proteinaceous infectious particles”

2. The German microbiologist, physician and researcher Prof. Dr. Gunther Enderlein was able to prove through his studies that microorganisms in the human body can develop upward from apathogenic form via physiological early phases into pathogenic (?) agents. In his research he looked at fresh blood under a darkfield microscope. He demonstrated that it was exclusively the patients milieu interieur (internal environment) that was responsible for the formation of viral, degenerative, and even bacterial diseases. Modifying this milieu in the direction of physiological conditions (he said), is thus the way to counter most infectious and bacterial diseases.

3. Dr Werthmann, Pediatrician and GP in Salzburg, Austria, author of medical books on gastrointestinal diseases in children, and articles in medical journals on this subject and allergy related conditions travels the world conducting workshops demonstrating with the aid of Darkfield Live Blood analysis, the authenticity of Bechamp’s and Enderlein’s thesis which is supported by the findings of Prof. Prusiner.

4. This thesis is further supported by the research of Dr’s Archie Kalokaneros and the late Glen Dettman in Australia. With their own funds they privately published one of Bechamps books, “The Blood”, considering it necessary to do so to ensure that this important work was not lost to posterity.

In friendship, John.


Leave a Reply