On essential contaminations by exogenous microorganisms

“Pasteur was a researcher addicted to fame acting on false assumptions and “he misled the world and his fellow scientists about the research behind two of his most famous experiments,” as the journal The Lancet stated in 2004.

(Judson, Horace, The Great Betrayal. Fraud in Science, Harcourt, 2004, p. 65)
(McCarthy, Michael, Lies, Damn lies, and scientific research (Rezension des Buches The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science von Horace Judson, Harcourt, 2004), Lancet, 6 November 2004, p.1657)

In his downright fanatical hate of microbes, Pasteur actually came from the ludicrous equation that healthy (tissue) equals a sterile (germ-free) environment.

(Verner, Robinson, Rational Bacteriology, chapter 56: Four False Dogmas Of Pasteur, H. Wolff, 1953)

He believed in all earnestness that bacteria could not be found in a healthy body, and that microbes flying through the air on dust particles were responsible for all possible diseases.

 (Moschocwitz, Eli, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, Charles Pfizer, 1958, pp. 17 – 32)
(Langbein, Kurt; Ehgartner, Bert, Das Medizinkartell: Die sieben Todsiinden der Gesundheitsindustrie, Piper, 2003, p. 27)

At 45 years of age, he “was basking in his fame” as bacteriologist, Paul de Kruif writes in his book Microbe Hunters, “and trumpeted his hopes out into the world: ‘it must lie within human power to eliminate all diseases caused by parasites [microbes] from the face of the earth.”‘

(de Kruif, Paul, Mikrobenjager, 1941, Institut Orell Fiissli, p. 949)

On essential contaminations by exogenous bacteria
Flaws in Pasteur’s theories were shown long ago in the first half of the 20’h century by experiments in which animals were kept completely germ-free. Their birth even took place by Cesarean section; after that, they were locked in microbefree cages and given sterile food and water-after a few days, all the animals were dead. This made it apparent that “contamination” by exogenous bacteria is abolutely essential to their lives.

(Verner, Robinson, Rational Bacteriology, chapter 39: The Biont Cycle, H. Wolff, 1953)

In the early 1960s, scientists succeeded for the first time in keeping germ-free mice alive for more than a fews days, namely for several weeks. Seminal research on these germ-free rodents was performed by Morris Pollard in Notre-Dame, Indiana.

(Pollard, Morris, Germ-Free Animals and Biological Resarch, Science, 17 July 1964, pp. 247 – 251)

However, this does not undermine the fact that germs are essential for life. Mice under natural conditions have a life span of three years, which is much longer than the average life span of these germ-free lab animals.

(O’Brien, Catheryn, The Mouse, Part 1, ANZCCART News insert, Winter 1993, p. 1)

The ability to keep germ-free animals such as mice or rats alive for a longer time requires highly artifical lab conditions in which the animals are synthetically fed with vitamin supplements and extra calories, conditions that have nothing to do with nature. These specially designed liquid diets are needed because under normal rearing conditions, animals harbor populations of microorganisms in the digestive tract.

(Wostmann, Bernard, Qualitative adequacy of a chemically defined liquid diet for reproducing germfree mice, Journal of Nutrition, May 1970, p. 498 – 508)

These microorganisms generate various organic constituents as products or byproducts of metabolism, including various water-soluble vitamins and amino acids. In the rat and mouse, most of the microbial activity is in the colon, and many of the microbially produced nutrients are not available in germ-free animals. This alters microbial nutrient synthesis and, thereby, influence dietary requirements.

Adjustments in nutrient concentrations, the kinds of ingredients, and methods of preparation must be considered when formulating diets for laboratory animals reared in germ-free environments or environments free of specific microbes.

(National Research Council, Nutrient Requirements of Laboratory Animals, fourth revised edition, National Academy Press, 1995, p. 4)
(Wostmann, Bernard, Nutrition and metabolism of the germfree mammal, World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics, 1975, Vol. 22, pp. 40 – 92)

One important target by administering these artificial diets is to avoid the accumulation of metabolic pruducts in the large intestine. However, it has been observed that already after a short time the appendix or cecum of these germ-free reared rodents increased in weight and eventually became abnormally enlarged, filled with mucus which would normally have been broken down by microbes.

(Wostmann, Bernard, Development of cecal distention in germ-free baby rats, American Journal of Physiology, December 1959, pp. 1345 – 1346)

Furthermore, in germ-free conditions rodents typically die of kidney failure-a sign that the kidneys are overworked in their function as an excretion organ if the large intestine has been artificially crippled.

(Recessive Hairlessness: The “True Hairless” Rat, The Rat & Mouse Club of America, April 2003)

In any case, it shows that germ-free mice would not be able to survive and reproduce while staying healthy in realistic conditions, which can never be duplicated by researchers, not even approximately.

The Microbe Hunters Seize Power
Apart from this, it is not clear that these germ-free animals have been truly 100% germ-free. Obviously not all tissues and certainly not every single cell could have been checked for germs. Nobody can know that these animals are absolutely germfree, especially if one keeps in mind that germs such as the Chlamydia trachomatis may “hide” so deeply in the cells that they persist there even after treatment with penicillin.

(Snyder Sachs, Jessica, Are Anitbiotics Killing Us?, Discover, 10/10/2005)

Furthermore, even if the specimens of so-called germ-free animals are maintained under optimum conditions-assumed to be perfectly sterile-their tissues do, nevertheless, decay after a time, forming “spontaneous” bacteria. But how do we explain these “spontaneous” bacteria? They cannot come from nothing, so logic allows only one conclusion: the bacteria must have already been present in the socalled “germ-free” mice (in any case, mice said to be bacteria-free are apparently not virus-free; this was demonstrated in 1964 in the Journal of Experimental Medicine by Etienne de Harven who observed, by electron microscopy, typical so-called retroviral particles in the thymus of germ-free Swiss and C3H mice; of course, these viruses may be endogenous retroviruses which sometimes are expressed as particles-but of endogenous origin).

(de Harven, Etienne, Virus Particles in the Thymus of Conventional and Germ-Free Mice, Journal of Experimental Medicine, 1 November 1964, pp. 857 – 868)

If nature wanted us bacteria-free, nature would have created us bacteria-free. Germ-free animals, which apparently aren’t really germ-free, can only exist under artificial lab conditions, not in nature. The ecosystems of animals living under natural conditions-be it rodents or be it human beings-depend heavily upon the activities of bacteria, and this arrangement must have a purpose.

Louis Pasteur deliberately lied, even in his vaccination experiments, which provided him a seat on the Mount Olympus of research gods. In 1881, Pasteur asserted that he had successfully vaccinated sheep against anthrax.

But not only does nobody know how Pasteur’s open land tests outside the Paris gates really proceeded, but he had in fact clandestinely lifted the vaccine mixture from fellow researcher Jean-Joseph Toussaint, whose career he had earlier ruined through public verbal attacks.

(Langbein, Kurt; Ehgartner, Bert, Das Medizinkartell: Die sieben Todsiinden der Gesundheitsindustrie, Piper, 2003, pp. 21 – 33)
(Geison, Gerald, The Private Science of Louis Pasteur, Princeton University Press, 1995)
(Langbein, Kurt; Ehgartner, Bert, DaS Medizinkartell: Die sieben Todsiinden der Gesundheitsindustrie, Piper, 2003, S. 22)

And what about Pasteur’s purportedly highly successful experiments with a rabies vaccine in 1885? Only much later did the research community learn that they did not satisfy scientific standards at all, and were thus unfit to back up the chorus of praise for his vaccine-mixture….”