And Béchamp was right. Any takers?

Just did some quick background... What makes you think Béchamp was right in advocating the pleomorphic theory (that bacteria are the result of a disease and not the cause of it)?

Considering the fact that we can introduce bacteria into a person's body that isn't sick in order for them to become immune to the disease, I'd say that's incredibly solid evidence that Pasteur was right.

Edit: Pleomorphic theory is actually more along the lines of "disease causes healthy cells to change into the bacteria." I realized after posting that it sort of sounds like I was saying that the bacteria came out of nowhere. This differs from the idea that bacteria of a constant form are what cause disease.

This post was edited by bentherdonethat on Mar 24 2011 09:01pm

Pleomorphic theory has been proven to be false. Continuing to believe in it is like clinging to the belief in spontaneous generation.

Logic.


This statement is the complete opposite of my first answer.


Pleomorphism is actually more along the lines of "The climate of the body determines the state of the cells. Change ph and you change the cells."

Actually no it hasn't. You should do a little reading: http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/history/biographies/louis_pasteur.htm

That link should be a good place for starters. And yes, I certainly expect people to cling to old dogma, change is a bitch.

I'm not reading your link, number one. Number two, it's not old dogma. You can observe the activities described by Pasteur under a microscope Enjoy

When doctors look at blood under a microscope it is first "stained" which kills everything on the plate. How is it fair to the arguement to look at blood in a dead state when it is in a living state inside the body? You cannot use apples to argue about oranges. However, if you use dark field microscopy you can see the truth of Pleomorphism for yourself.

Check out bacteria under a scanning electron micrograph. Have a good day.

Cited from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_microscope#Disadvantages

"Scanning electron microscopes usually image conductive or semi-conductive materials best. Non-conductive materials can be imaged by an environmental scanning electron microscope. A common preparation technique is to coat the sample with a several-nanometer layer of conductive material, such as gold, from a sputtering machine; however, this process has the potential to disturb delicate samples."

I highly doubt covering a sample in gold is going to give you an accurate view of living blood. I am attempting to be scholarly in this debate. You however have been misleading in all of your statements.

Oh, it's trolling. Got it.

That wasn't trolling. You asked a simple question and got a simple answer. If you are looking for something more specific then you need to be more specific. Ad hominem will get you nowhere.