It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Disease Theory

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Research I’ve done for other threads has led me to start this thread.

On more than one occasion I have seen a reference to Louis Pasteur admitting on his deathbed that it’s not microbes that are causative in infectious disease, it’s the terrain – meaning that we don’t “catch” diseases – instead: the health of our bodies determines how we are affected by microbes.

My understanding is that there was a physician by the name of Antoine Bechamp (1816 – 1908) who had opposed Pasteur but lost out in the competition for recognition by the establishment. There is a chart that illustrates the differences between Pasteur and Bechamp called “Pasteurian Germ Theory vs. Bechamp Cellular Theory” by Walene James that I think is helpful.

There is a book entitled Bacteria, Inc. by Cash Asher that was published in 1949. The third chapter of this book, “Cimex Lectularius,” is online and it details the story of Dr. Charles A.R. Campbell, of San Antonio, Texas, who clearly showed that smallpox is not contagious but is caused by the bite of an infected bug – usually the bedbug. Furthermore, the state of health of the person bitten determines whether the person gets sick, or how sick the person gets. Other research I’ve done points to the treatment for smallpox causing the horrible site people think of when they think of smallpox, and that alternative treatments for smallpox have been suppressed. Other research I’ve done also points to the official story of smallpox eradication by vaccination as being untrue.

There is a German virologist and molecular biologist by the name of Dr. Stefan Lanka who seriously questions the official story about HIV – supposedly a “retrovirus.” He has concluded after thorough research that retroviruses – as well as other viruses which are claimed to be dangerous – in fact do not exist at all. In this interview of Dr. Lanka, he says that AIDS should more properly be called “Acquired Energy Deficiency Syndrome,” because its true cause is the breakdown in the delivery of oxygen to the blood and/or body tissues.

The last thing I have at this point is information about a book published in 2008 entitled Virus Mania: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense by Torsten Engelbrecht and Claus Kohnlein. In the Product Description for the book on Amazon.com it states that alleged contagious agents are actually particles produced by the cells themselves as a consequence of stress factors such as:

1. drugs
2. malnutrition
3. pesticides
4. heavy metals




posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Great post, you seem to have done your research on these people, but lets not forget, all diseases act differently, they all have different methods of entering cells. A common misconception is that people are infected with AIDS, but what most dont realize, AIDS is a syndrome, or status you get after your T-CELLS reach a certain point, i think its >50 load per mL, a person is infected with hiv, witch is a virus that injects its own homemade rna into the nucleus of a cell, and then hijacks and turnes that cell that was once used for destroying viruses and turns it into a hiv factory.

much like a computer hacker will inject malicious code into a software program, then distribute it to everyone he knows, then in turn all those people distribute it to their friends, and this program will infect the end users computers and further propagate.

I really do beleive medicine, treatments and cures have been supressed, and when people say "your crazy for thinking that" remind them, a person with HIV will have to take atleast at the minimum one pill that costs $80 each pill, everyday, for the rest of their life, where they trust the pill doesnt have any extra chemicals unrelated to their disease. These pills will cost about $2800 a month, thats $33,600 a year, lets say this person has 40 years left in his or her life, thats, $1,344,000, for ONE PERSON!!!!!!

If half united states took this medicine that was infected, and conservatively it is estimated that one million people are infected, lets say half of them actually take this medicine, that is $672,000,000,000 of revenue.


CHACHING!



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Medical, health and interactions between the body and environment are complex taking many different scientific disciplines to understand it. Much progress has been made but there are still parts requiring further study and research to fully understand. It is good you are looking into it and drawing your own conclusions from the vast amounts of material available. Here is another recent link that looks into the causes of some recent diseases www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by sicksonezer0
AIDS is a syndrome, or status you get after your T-CELLS reach a certain point, i think its >50 load per mL, a person is infected with hiv, witch is a virus that injects its own homemade rna into the nucleus of a cell, and then hijacks and turnes that cell that was once used for destroying viruses and turns it into a hiv factory.


Dr. Lanka talks about T-cells in relation to cancer and AIDS in the interview I referenced in the OP. That interview appears on the virusmyth.com website and is entitled "INTERVIEW STEFAN LANKA - Challenging BOTH Mainstream and Alternative AIDS Views." It is an interview conducted by Mark Gabrish Conlan of a publication called Zenger's,Dec. 1998.

The excerpt about T-cells:


Zenger's: In other words, cancer occurs when the cell is programmed to behave like a cell very early in fetal development and just divide like crazy.

Dr. Lanka: That's it. An embryonic cell goes into a unicellular state. It behaves like a unicellular organism, like a bacterium. It loses the ability to stop replication when coming into contact with other cells. So knowing about evolutionary biology, you are able to explain everything.

In order to explain failure to find a retrovirus that directly caused cancer, they claimed to be able to measure the immune system. But this is ridiculous. In the Journal of the American Medical Association, August 28, 1981, it was published that it makes no sense to measure lymphocytes in the blood because only a few of them are in the blood. The immune system is carried out, not in the blood, but in the tissues. Only rarely and accidentally do we see some of them in the blood. We've already carried out thousands of studies which have proven no correlation between disease or health, in old or young, in T-cells; and even less, of course, in T-cell subsets.

But, even though they knew that these T-cell tests had not meaning, they were selling them to the market. Beginning in 1977, starting in the United States, it was possible to patent biological entities or biological techniques, so people started to make money out of biological ideas.

This is the definite turning point when modern medicine and modern biology lost their 'Unschuld', their innocence. That's it. The immune surveillance theory of cancer -- the belief that if you measure the strength of the immune system, then you could see when you are going to develop cancer -- was the basis of AIDS, the thinking about AIDS. They said if your immune functions are weak, you are going to develop all viral forms of opportunistic infections and all forms of cancer. And this never happened, as a matter of fact. In AIDS we never have seen opportunistic infections. We have never seen all viral forms of cancer; only one form of cancer, KS [Kaposi's sarcoma].


Also, I want to post a second article showing Dr. Lanka's reasoning entitled "Rethinking AIDS - Collective Fallacy," which appeared in Continuum magazine Sept/Oct 1996, pages 44-45.
edit on 01/16/11 by Mary Rose because: Grammar



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

The last thing I have at this point is information about a book published in 2008 entitled Virus Mania: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense by Torsten Engelbrecht and Claus Kohnlein. In the Product Description for the book on Amazon.com it states that alleged contagious agents are actually particles produced by the cells themselves as a consequence of stress factors such as:

1. drugs
2. malnutrition
3. pesticides
4. heavy metals


I'm reading this book right now. I highly recommend it. Something I just read made me remember this thread. From pages 216 - 217:


Arnold Relman, Harvard professor and former Editor in Chief of the NEJM [New England Journal of Medicine] says that, "The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice, but also in terms of teaching and research."


That very succinctly states the problem in "healthcare" today.










posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
You're confusing two very different concepts, Mary Rose. The contagious agents themselves are NOT produced by the host cells: we can culture contagious agents from inanimate objects, from the air, etc.

What IS produced by cells, and what often causes/worsens a disease's pathology, are inflammatory agents. The microbe itself may not be capable of doing much damage, but the inflammation caused by your own immune system can.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Please quote what I've said on the thread that you are referring to, specifically.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


No problem.


contagious agents are actually particles produced by the cells themselves as a consequence of stress factors


This isn't true. At all. Most contagious agents are independent organisms capable of reproduction outside of the body, thus they aren't "produced by the [host] cells themselves".
edit on 2/21/2011 by VneZonyDostupa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


The book Virus Mania cites exhaustive research showing that microbes have been branded as scapegoats without sound scientific proof. Yes, microbes reproduce outside the body, but this book is saying that it's not microbes that cause disease conditions. The Bechamp Cellular Theory also says that microbes are normal in the human body, and only become a problem when the health of the body is compromised. This would include the stress factors drugs, malnutrition, pesticides, and heavy metals.

The book is saying that blaming viruses is highly profitable for the pharmaceutical industry. I agree with this, and I think it's the reason Bechamp's theory was shoved aside and Pasteur's theory was championed.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


So, you have ONE book, which you think invalidates hundreds of thousands of studies and over two centuries of supporting observations and research, all of which is validated on a daily basis by basic logic?

How do you explain things like EVERY PERSON that suffers viral pharyngitis has a viral infection in their throat, but NO ONE without vial pharyngitis has this?

Doesn't that seem like a logical contradiction to your book's "theory" (though I hesitate to use the word, as it suggests some level of evidence)?



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Arghh!!

This is just a bit too simplistic to be true.

Let's keep it real guys and gals...

Diet is one factor of the "problem" as is a "faulty" immune system as is various pathogens,toxins etc etc....

The issue is certainly not simple enough to look at one factor and say, "bad" .. LOL!!!

Even if someone has an outstanding diet and low toxic load, it may depend on individal genetic susceptabilities interacting with specific pathogenic characteristics to bring about a diseased state.

K.I.S.S. .... But not that simple



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
This is just a bit too simplistic to be true.


What is?

The OP lists four major factors.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Hmmm how do these all combine into one....

How did I reason it was much more complex than our "terrain"

Not interested in playing games with you.

The reasoning is bunk in the OP.

You've been had is all.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
How did I reason it was much more complex than our "terrain"


No, it's not. Terrain meaning a person's state of health. The ability to cope with toxins.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I recommend to people a related thread: "Natural Hygiene."



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
An article I'm reading this morning made me recall this thread.

It is a transcript of a radio interview that took place in 1993 and the host is Gary Null. The title of the article is "Oxygen Therapy." It is about an alternative treatment for AIDS - ozone therapy.

The following passage is heart-breaking. It highlights an issue I've seen a lot when researching mainstream medicine - which is the suppression of remedies that threaten the profits of the powers that be. The person speaking in this passage is investigative journalist Sue Ann Taylor:


There were 19 HIV-positive people there, five of whom had full-blown AIDS. Over the course of about three weeks I watched the patients, or participants as they preferred to be called—six of whom were in pretty bad shape—I watched them go through some pretty remarkable transformations and I saw it happen before my very own eyes. There's no amount of journalists or medical people who can tell me that what I saw I didn't see. I saw people who were unable to walk, be able to walk again. I saw people who were very, very ill just get considerably better, and all of the treatment was cut short by a raid by the government.


Earlier in this interview Gary Null made these statements about HIV:


Is HIV the cause of AIDS? HIV has never been found in any scientific studies any­where in the world to be the sole cause of AIDS. No one can prove it. It is speculation. It is political and economic. The man who said in 1984 that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS (instantly it became dogma that it was)—did he also inform the public he was the primary beneficiary of a test for HIV, that he owns the patent and that millions of dollars have gone to him and his associates? No.

Did the press vigorously explore all the allegations of fraud and corruption? No. The alternative press did. We're the ones that brought you that information. They tell you don't challenge orthodoxy. . . .


In general, owning patents and the profit motive is in conflict with the establishment of the truth about the true causes of diseases.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I recommend the following link for people who are interested in information about how the powers that be stay in their position of power in relation to profits derived from treatments for disease/health care:

Persecuted doctors, health professionals



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
My understanding is that there was a physician by the name of Antoine Bechamp (1816 – 1908) who had opposed Pasteur but lost out in the competition for recognition by the establishment. There is a chart that illustrates the differences between Pasteur and Bechamp called “Pasteurian Germ Theory vs. Bechamp Cellular Theory” by Walene James that I think is helpful.


In Dr. Saul Pressman's "The Story of Ozone," I've come across another reference to the differences between Pasteur's and Bechamp's theories, saying the same thing with different wording:


PASTEUR GERM THEORY

1. Disease arises from micro-organisms originating outside the body.
2. Micro-organisms should be guarded against and destroyed to prevent disease.
3. The appearance and function of specific micro-organisms is constant.
4. Every disease is associated with a particular micro-organism.
5. Micro-organisms are primary causal agents.
6. Disease is inevitable and can 'strike' anyone at any time.
7. To prevent and cure diseases, it is necessary to 'build defenses' and to destroy pathogens.

BECHAMP TOXICITY THEORY

1. The susceptibility to disease arises from conditions within the body.
2. Micro-organisms are beneficial and life-sustaining if the body is kept clean of toxins.
3. The appearance and function of specific micro-organisms changes when the host organism is injured, either mechanically, biochemically, or emotionally.
4. Every disease is associated with a particular condition of toxic buildup.
5. Micro-organisms become associated with disease only when the cells become toxified.
6. Disease arises from conditions of increased toxicity.
7. Preventing or curing disease consists of cleaning toxicity harmlessly.


I think we should discard Pasteur's theory and adopt Bechamp's.






posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Here is another quote from Dr. Saul Pressman, from "The Owner's Manual for the Human Body," which is revolutionary, and true, in my opinion:


The so-called 'bad' bacteria and viruses that modern medicine fights with its huge arsenal of synthesized pharmaceutical drugs are in reality the germs of life. These germs live in a symbiosis with the nutritive medium that constitutes our body, allowing it to be built up and later decomposed, to be metamorphosed and recreated. These germs are pleiomorphic shape-shifters that are controlled by the medium in which they live. Germs are not something separate, isolated, unfriendly and coming from outside, but rather, the foundation of life. Without germs, there is no life. Their number is infinite. Their function is varied. They can change shape, join together, separate again and return to their primitive condition. Viruses, bacteria and fungi are various developmental forms of germs, rather than different species. The nutritive medium on which these germs thrive determines the type of development they will undergo.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join