Re: Bacteria: Pathogens or Agents of Decay?

carole <hubbca2003@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:f835dcad-01f0-4365-86a7-1b3da69f0aec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Mar 21, 5:27 am, Steelclaws <tenquidn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 20, 4:54 pm, "carole" <hubbca2...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Bacteria: Pathogens or Agents of Decay?: An Ecological Approach to
Heal
th
by Adeha Feustel
(From the Permaculture Activist Magazine, #45, March 2001)

[major snip]

Pasteur Recants

Ironically and perhaps tragically, Pasteur himself, on his
deathbed, re
canted: he confessed his belief that
"The terrain is everything; the bacteria nothing." (Hume, Ed.
Pasteur e
xposed: the false foundations of modern
medicine. Australia: Bookreal, 1989, as quoted from Beyond
Antibiotics,
Schmidt et al., p.14)

I've seen this claim made by germ theory denialists several times,
but they all appear to quote each other. I wonder which one of them
invented the story?

This is what Pasteur's biographer René Vallery-Radot says:

"The last week in September he was no longer strong enough to leave
his bed, his weakness was extreme. On September 27, as he was offered
a cup of milk: "I cannot," he murmured; his eyes looked around him
with an unspeakable expression of resignation, love and farewell. His
head fell back on the pillows and he slept; but, after this delusive
rest, suddenly came the gaspings of agony. For twenty-four hours he
remained motionless, his eyes closed, his body almost entirely
paralyzed; one of his hands rested in that of Mme. Pasteur, the other
held a crucifix.

"This, surrounded by his family and disciples, in this room of almost
monastic simplicity, on Saturday, September 28, 1895, at 4:40 in the
afternoon, very peacefully, he passed
away."http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
/comment/pasteur.htm

No recanting, and frankly, the recanting story sounds just as made up
as the very similar Lady Hope story creationists tell of Darwin
recanting evolution on his deathbed. And just as plausible.

Besides, since after Pasteur science has proven over and over again
that germs do cause diseases, it would not even matter if Pasteur had
recanted. Unlike the basically fundamentalist mindset that imagines
that a theory remains frozen ever after just like its discoverer left
it (homeopathy really has done this, and it is one of the hallmarks
of pseudoscience), science takes the theory and builds on previous
knowledge.

[rest snipped]

For a good critique of germ theory
denialism:http://www.sciencebasedmedic
ine.org/?p=6444

Whatever Steelclaws.
The fact is in years to come, when the validity of the soil theory
over the germ theory becomes more apparent, the pasteur supporters
will then be wanting to say "yes, he may have recanted at some time"
to caste him in a better light.
So scoff all you like because the condition of the terrain or internal
milieu is more important than the germ who only feed off the crap that
accumulates within the body. I'd hang onto that article if I were you,
and keep checking because the theory it explains, will one day be so
apparent that looking back on the germ theory will be like the dark
ages.

Sorry, I do NOT operate on faith, as you ask me to do. Present valid
evidence and then we can talk (and if you don't see the blatant
religious-type fervour in what you wrote above, then you must be blind).

That article you posted had nothing in the way of evidence, not a shred.
All it had was a bunch of suppositions, arguments by assertion,
antiquated hypotheses by Beauchamp and Bernard, complete
misunderstanding of human and bacterial biology, wishful fantasies,
arguments by antiquity, the big pharma conspiracy theory (which I took
apart very recently, remember?) and a VERY marked lack of anything that
resembles critical thinking. Really, that article cannot argue its case
out of a wet paper bag.

Try again, and in the meanwhile, take a look at
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6444

If you find something you do not agree with the article I linked to,
argue your case, but use valid arguments - not wishful thinking and
logical fallacies.

--
The true-believer syndrome merits study by science. What is it
that compels a person, past all reason, to believe the
unbelievable. How can an otherwise sane individual become so
enamored of a fantasy, an imposture, that even after it's
exposed in the bright light of day he still clings to it --
indeed, clings to it all the harder? -- M. Lamar Keene
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pasteur confessed to his lie and con.
    ... Pasteur gained control of the French Academy of Science and the ... The first germ theory was published by M.A. Plenciz in 1762. ... that disease germs were unchangeable. ... patients while the allopaths killed their patients by the millions? ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Pasteur confessed to his lie and con.
    ... Pasteur was a very poor scientist. ... The first germ theory was published by M.A. Plenciz in 1762. ... that disease germs were unchangeable. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Pasteur confessed to his lie and con.
    ... Pasteur gained control of the French Academy of Science and the ... The first germ theory was published by M.A. Plenciz in 1762. ... that disease germs were unchangeable. ... patients while the allopaths killed their patients by the millions? ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Pasteur confessed to his lie and con.
    ... Pasteur gained control of the French Academy of Science and the ... The first germ theory was published by M.A. Plenciz in 1762. ... for the germ theory of disease. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Pasteur confessed to his lie and con.
    ... Pasteur was a very poor scientist. ... The first germ theory was published by M.A. Plenciz in 1762. ... that disease germs were unchangeable. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)