The following is new to me, though surely not to our astute readers, so please humor me. It is a long tract taken from the 1995 book Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth, by Walene James. (Mine is the second edition.) Reading the following passages this morning, I finally came to understand Bechamp’s “microzymas.”
Enjoy, as I did. It was fascinating reading for me.
“Every creative act in science, art, or religion involves a new innocence the perception liberated from the cataract of accepted beliefs. (Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers)
The “New Biology”
““You see,” the Rock Forest biologist told the journalist, “I’ve been able to establish a life-cycle of forms in the blood that add up to no less than a brand-new understanding for the very basis for life. What were talking about is an entirely new biology.” He went on to say that ultramicroscopic entities that he had discovered in the blood of animals and humans – as well as in the saps of plants – were “precursors of DNA.” This means that they supply “missing link” to our understanding of the molecule that has been considered the irreducible building block of the life process.
It is not only the missing link to our understanding of the molecule: it is the missing link between the living and the nonliving, according to Gaston Naessens, the Québec biologist being interviewed. These ultramicroscopic, subcellular, living and reproducing microorganisms, which Naessens calls somatids (tiny bodies), are autonomous and indestructible. They have survived 50,000 rems of nuclear radiation (far more than enough to kill any living thing), been totally unaffected by any acid, found impossible to cut with a diamond knife, and resisted carbonization temperatures of 200°C and more! Like other microorganisms, they are pleomorphic, evolving into different forms that reflect their nutrient ambience. These different forms are responsible for both building biological structures and disintegrating them (reducing them to their component elements). Does this sound like Bechamp’s microzymas?
When Naessens came across a description of Bechamp’s work, he immediately recognized microzymas as “cousins” of somatids. I’m inclined to think they are the same, but Naessens’s more technologically advanced microscope – which he invented himself – allowed him to see details that Bechamp’s more primitive microscope couldn’t. For instance, Naessens observed that the somatid goes through a 3-stage pleomorphic cycle necessary for its reproduction, and if the immune system of the host organism (animal, human, plant) is weakened or destabilized, it grows through an additional pleomorphic 13-stage pathological cycle.
By studying the cycle, as seen in the blood of human beings suffering from various degenerative diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, cancer, and most recently, AIDS, Naessens has been able to associate the development of the forms of the pathological cycle with all of these diseases. Moreover, he has been able to predict the eventual onset of such diseases long before any clinical signs of them appear. In other words, he can “prediagnose” them.
But early in his career Naessens made a costly “mistake.” He applied what he had discovered to alleviate human suffering, developing highly effective biological treatments for various degenerative diseases, including, and perhaps most spectacularly, cancer and AIDS. At 1st, he treated only a relative and friends of friends who had terminal cancer, but the word spread of their remarkable recoveries, and many others contacted Naessens, requesting his help. News of the successful treatments precipitated the attention of the French medical “authorities,” which began for Naessens a life beset with harassment, immigrations, arrests, imprisonment, trials, hearings, and confiscation of most of his equipment (though he managed to preserve his precious microscope). His story is compellingly told by Christopher Bird in his book The Persecution and Trial of Gaston Naessens. In spite of his difficulties with the medical establishment, Naessens’s treatment has arrested and reversed over 1000 cases of cancer (many of them consider terminal) as well as several dozen cases of AIDS. This is particularly remarkable when we realize that the only way people had of learning about his treatment was “through the grapevine.”
What are some of the implications of the “new biology” for the prevention and treatment of disease? Why are these ideas in their application so fiercely resisted by medical officialdom? This will become evident as we proceed.
- Disease is one. This is been called the unitary theory of disease (as contrasted with the pluralistic theory of disease), meaning that all diseases are expressions of an underlying, common dysfunction. Naessens discovered that the degenerative diseases was treating had a common functional principle, bird tells us, and were not separated, unrelated phenomena as orthodox medicine regards them.
- Disease arises first from within. A compromised immune system causes the somatid to enter the pathological cycle, sometimes called the macrocycle. The focus, then, is the “whole terrain,” that is the health of the host organism, not just the microorganisms evolving within it. Therapy, therefore, is directed at restoring the health or integrity of the host organism, not destroying microorganisms that are merely “indicators” (Naessens’s term) of its condition.
- The basis of life is electrical. Somatids are essentially electrical in nature, concentrations of energy, Naessens said. During a 1991 symposium Sherbrooke, Québec, he said he believed somatids to be “a link between the material realm in the realm of cosmic energy… a primary manifestation. ”
- Nature heals cyclically. Naessens administers his treatment in a series of “shots” this product is derived from a camphor, a natural substance produced by the East Asian tree of the same name. When properly injected – not intravenously or intramuscularly but intralymphatically – into the lymph system (via a lymph node or ganglion in the groin), this product has “in over 75% of cases, re-stabilized, strengthened, or otherwise enhance the powers of the immune system which then goes about its normal business of ridding the body of disease.” The new biology – and by implication, the new immunology – will focus on strengthening the immune system, not on strategies to destroy “enemy” microorganisms (or “enemy” cells).
- Health and healing are holistic. They involve both lifestyle – for example, nutrition, exercise, recreation, rest – and “thinkstyle,” which in include beliefs, attitudes, emotions. With respect to lifestyle, Naessens treatment involves a dietary regime – fresh fruits and vegetables organically grown, whole grains, and some fresh fish and corn fed chicken. With respect to thinkstyle, the importance of mental and emotional health is implied in the discovery that the source of trauma that initiates pathological somatid cycle may be physical (such as radiation), chemical (such as pollution), or psychological (such as depression).
During the 1991 symposium in Québec, referred to earlier, in erudite, articulate microbiologist/immunologist, Walter Clifford, spoke on his own work, which supported the somatid theory. He discovered, for instance, that killed bacteria that were “recoverable” after exposure to extraordinarily high levels of radiation and heat. The suggestion was that they might be reverting back to their somatidian state, which Naessens has said can withstand such abuse and still be culturalable. Again, even bacteria, which are altered forms sofmatids, are apparently imperishable!
But of particular interest to us is what Clifford said about antibiotics, radiation, and cancer because this has a direct bearing on the probable effects of vaccination upon somatids, shedding still another light on the connection between vaccination and degenerative disease. He said that “antibiotics, rather than killing anything, cause form-changing behavior, probably driving the bacteria cell-wall deficient and then into the Somatid macro-cycle! He called radiation “an absolute disaster.” One reason for this statement is that, like Naessens, he regards cancer as a general condition that localizes, not a local condition that generalizes, as orthodox medicine regards it. Couldn’t we see this for all diseases, that they are a general condition that localizes – or expresses – in different ways with different people and conditions?
The idea is not new of course. It is a tenet of classical naturopathy. From Hippocrates to the Amerindian Medicine Man, the idea of the various manifestations of illness as expressions of an underlying disharmony or discord within the self and its relationships – including the self’s relationship with the natural world – is perennial. What is new is the technology and terminology that allow greater focal clarity and verbal precision.
Is the new biology really know? If we think of the new biology is based on the idea of (1) an independent, indestructible living element that is the origin of all life, or biological organization, (2) this element taking different forms that have different functions, and (3) these forms and their functions indicating the condition of their ambience (environment), this idea is not strictly new. Bechamp discovered it a century ago. But if we take this idea one step further – as did Naessens – and say that it is a primary manifestation, a concretization of energy, and a link between the material realm in the realm of cosmic energy, of most of the world’s great religions for example, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and esoteric Christianity, which maintains that there is a primordial, intelligent energy out of which arises the material world and into which it will return. This idea is also suggested by modern physics in both the law of conservation of energy and the equivalence of matter and energy. Again, this idea – intuited and experienced by sages and mystics down through the ages – is now being rediscovered by intuitive scientists of the 19th and 20th centuries. It does apparently require some kind of intuitive development or, at least, special microscopic and perceptual skills to see this life particle because so many scientists are able to see it not every scientist can.”