Twentieth century medicine was heavily influenced
by the debate triumph of a man whose name has been famous and
celebrated but that we know today was a at least partly a fraud.
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) admitted on his deathbed that Claude
Bernard (1813-1878) had been right but he forbade his family
to publish the documents that would have proved the rumor true.
Upon the death of Pasteur's grandson in 1975, 10,000 pages
of laboratory notes became public—and it became clear
that an entire century of medical history would have been different
had the facts been presented as we now know them to have been.
For me, the ramifications of the debates are
nothing short of numbing, but when I first wrote something
on Pasteur, I had, for only the second time in my life, had
an article rejected by a publisher. He did not believe what
I wrote, but we know better now.
The 20th century honored Pasteur and gave
him the dubious title of "Father of the Germ Theory of
Disease." How accurate is the theory? According to what
we have learned and how the grant money and research were directed
in the last century, the germ was "everything." It
was necessary to identify it—the little alien organism—and
to attribute to it all the pathological consequences that people
suffer when they are ill. To eradicate disease, we needed bigger
and bigger cannons to shoot tinier and tinier microbes.
Claude Bernard, professor at the Sorbonne
and member of the Academy of Science, maintained that the "terrain" is
everything. Neither man, Bernard, a physiologist, and Pasteur,
a chemist, denied the existence of microorganisms. The question
is how the organisms behave and whether or not they invade
from outside (Pasteur) or are mainly life forms that behave
in different ways depending upon the circumstances, organisms
that may not be pathogenic in some conditions.
this theory had been accepted, the curriculum in medical schools
would have been different as would have been the strategies
for treating illness. Medicine would have sought relief for
suffering by healing the patient rather than attempting to
destroy the disease. It is truly the debates in Paris that
precipitated the lamentable medicine that is still not sufficiently
questioned even by those who admit its limitations.
The crux of the terrainist argument is that
microbes change depending on the environment in which they
exist. The school of medicine that derives from this theory
accepts pleomorphism rather than the static view of microorganisms
that prevailed in the 20th century. Pleomorphists study live
blood rather than blood that has been stained and fixed for
use in electron microscopes. If one observes movement and change,
diseases do not appear to be "carved in stone" the
way they do when something is frozen in a moment of time. It
is therefore not surprising that the thoughtforms that surround
such theories are also more flexible.
For me, the tragedy of Pasteur and his public
relations victories can only be measured in terms of life:
the countless lives of animals that have been sacrificed because
of residuals of fear probably tracing back centuries to the
Bubonic Plague . . . and humans who have also suffered from
the injection of morbid substances into their bodies and the
compromised immunity that comes from tampering with the immune
system in this manner.
I realize that if one has never thought about
such matters before, what I am writing now sounds like the
ranting and raving of an iconoclast, but I am not crazy and
Pasteur's contributions to medicine have been overcelebratde.
The destiny-altering debate was with Antoine Bechamp who died
without being able to set the records straight. Bechamp felt
that disease begins from within and that the conditions inside
the body determine how the microbes will adapt to the "terrain." Physiological
conditions are derivative of the pleomorphic processes: change
the terrain and the symptoms and disease also change. Countless
studies prove that pleomorphism is correct. The conclusive
studies are those involving bacteria and viruses. If one has
viruses and uses a filter, the bacteria would not be able to
pass the filter (because they are larger than viruses) so what
has been filtered can only contain viruses, but this is not
the case. Bacteria appears despite the care taken to remove
it, proving that viruses mutate into bacteria and vice versa
depending on the environment.
None of this would be important except that
it provides another way of looking at cancer and incentive
for those who so choose to expend as much effort on inner
healing as on cytotoxic protocols.
For those who are new to this school of
thought, I might make reference to inner conditions I have
seen clairvoyantly. I have often seen cells that are choked
or grimy. Sorry not to use a more technical term, but I
see cells that are complaining of the environment in which
they are living. They express difficulty breathing.
We know that cancer cells are anaerobic.
Whereas normal cells use oxygen, cancer cells subsist on
fermentation. The site where they are is acidiic, which
is why diagnostic devices such as thermography are effective.
Many of the destroy tactics involve yet more heat: irradiation
and its counterpart in the alternative field: hyperthermia.
There have also been efforts to induce fevers deliberately
using weakened bacteria such as Coley's toxins or malaria;
and some have used poisonous herbs.
I know this is absolutely unscientific,
but I have "interviewed" some of "cancerous" cells.
They are gagging and desperate for more wholesome conditions
in which to live. This is what Bernard called the environment.
Like many who dare to think outside
the box, Dr. John Christopher, a naturopath and prolific
writer, subscribed to a theory of terrain. He explained
that just as flies do not cause garbage, but garbage attracts
flies, tumors may be scavengers. There may, in fact, be
such types of tumors. There may also be tumors that had
the misfortune of getting caught in biological sludge.
When the cells present themselves to my inner vision, they
are as pathetic looking as a bird found in an oil slick.
They look and behave normally after getting a proper bath.
I have used a combination of aromatic, bitter, and sponging
herbs to cleanse. Aromatic herbs neutralize toxic gases
and make breathing more congenial. Bitter herbs are cleansing
and alkalizing. They also arrest fermentation. The sponging
herbs soak up the debris. Such cleansing formulae can be
used both internally and externally.
Other people, historic and modern,
may see different pictures of the inner life of cells.
Hildegard of Bingen said that people with spiritual sight
could see miniature organisms that died when they licked
her violet salve. Tibetan doctors of the same era, roughly
800 years ago, said that cancer is caused by a tiny copper
colored organism that can be seen by those who know how
to meditate. My visions come and go; and, at the time of
this writing, I have not personally seen anything similar
to that described by either Hildegard or the Tibetan doctors.
As suggested, what I have seen is best compared to a toxic
As the years go on, it will be interesting
to see how these insights unfold. Thus far, many damaged
cells appear to have the capacity to return to normal. When
consulted, they display anger over efforts to destroy them
instead of healing them. This must be very hard to understand,
but it seems our bodies are host to countless sentient microcosms!
I have reflected on the fact that the thymus
is the primary site of immune response. It is related to
the heart. The heart does not want to use violence to attain
peace. This is an anachronism to the heart. Likewise, part
of the difficulty in "fighting" cancer is that
the immune system does not attack cells that it regards as
part of the host, not foreign at all. The cells I have interviewed
definitely express a desire to be healed.
I will continue looking for proper protocols for treating
cancer, but for the present, I favor approaches that are
less aggressive because they resonate better with my experience
and understanding. When working psychologically and spiritually,
almost everyone, especially cancer patients, seek peaceful
means for resolving issues. Therefore, it makes no sense
to me to use violent physical therapies when the esoteric
treatments used to harmonize the subtle components of our
being are gentle!
Copyright by Ingrid Naiman
2000 and 2005