“Bernard was right; the pathogen is nothing; the terrain is everything.” — Louis Pasteur’s deathbed words
Winifred found an excellent source of background info about that quote on the Wellness Directory of Minnesota website. They devote an entire page to this fascinating bit of medical and cultural history. Here are some excerpts:
“…UNESCO proclaimed 1995 as “The Year of Pasteur.” Just prior to that, Pasteur’s family proudly released his notes and research. Gerald Geison, a science historian, was among the first people to thoroughly review those notes. In 1995, The Year of Pasteur, Geison wrote an article in the New York Times proclaiming that Pasteur had lied about his research on vaccines and germs and that most of his ideas had been plagiarized from his contemporaries. His article, “Pasteur’s Deception” claimed that Pasteur was, in the end, a fraud…”
“…In researching medicine, following the money has always led to the truth. The money, in Pasteur’s case, has led to unnecessary and mandatory vaccination programs. Wouldn’t we all like to own a company that gets support from a government that will enact laws to make the purchase of our product mandatory?
Where to begin? Well, let’s begin with the Germ Theory.
As discussed in The Lost History of Medicine, the Terrain is more important than the Germ.
Pasteur described germs as non-changeable. We know today, from the use of Darkfield Microscopes that microorganisms are pleomorphic, that they can change and often do. A virus can become a bacterium which can mutate into a yeast or fungus. Modern medicine has yet to acknowledge this because it would turn the pharmaceutical interests on their backs like a helpless tortoise. Again, we follow the money….”
“…It was Bechamp who discovered the pleomorphic nature of germs, and later on Bernard described the “milieu” or environment that affected/caused those changes. Bernard is the one responsible for our theories today on pH and how the nature of the microorganisms change as the body moves from an alkaline pH to an acidic pH. (This is covered in depth in our article The Lost History of Medicine.)
On his deathbed, Pasteur recanted, saying that Bernard was right; the Terrain is everything, the Germ is nothing.
However, since the Germ is so profitable, the medical world has written off his final statements as the madness of a dying man. We should all be so mad.
Another problem with the Germ Theory of medicine is discovered when we look at Koch’s Postulates:
- The germ which causes a disease must be found in every case of the disease under the conditions which could explain the disease.
- The germ must not be found in other diseases or healthy people.
- The germ could be isolated and used to induce an experimental disease in animals which resembles the original disease in humans.
Pasteur never quite fulfilled all the rules. He was not able to find the germ in all cases of a disease, and this is where his research became fraudulent. Additionally, many so-called pathogenic germs are often found in healthy people. And finally, when Pasteur passed a germ from one animal to another to cause the disease, he did not pass the germ alone, but took some blood with it. Injecting toxic blood from one animal to another will guarantee the receiving animal becomes sick….”
“….Pasteur instructed his family never to release his lab notes. After his grandson died in 1975, they were finally released. This was when Professor Gerald Geison got a hold of them and presented his findings in 1993 to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The New York Times, seeing how UNESCO had named 1995 the Year of Pasteur, felt that this would be the proper time to release Gerald Geison’s research. Don’t you just love a good drama?<
The Myth of Pasteurization
One more thing before we go. Our second reference above makes this statement: “Pasteur developed ‘pasteurization’, a process by which harmful microbes in perishable food products are destroyed using heat, without destroying the food.”
This is not entirely true. Pasteurization does NOT kill ALL harmful microbes in milk and it DOES harm the milk.
In her book, The Medical Mafia, Dr Lanctôt debunks pasteurization with a one-two punch:
- The temperature is not high enough.
- The temperature is too high.
First off, Dr Lanctôt points out that germs that bring us typhoid, coli bacillus, and tuberculosis are not killed by the temperatures used, and there have been a good number of salmonella epidemics traced to pasteurized milk.
Secondly, the heating process injures the milk. She points out that pasteurization destroys milk’s intrinsic germicidal properties, not to mention healthy enzymes. She goes on to state that 50% of milks calcium is unusable (the body cannot assimilate it) after pasteurization. So much for all those milk commercials.
Here’s something we found online that was drawn up for a Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors concerning outbreaks from pasteurized milk:
1997, 28 persons ill from Salmonella in California, ALL FROM PASTEURIZED MILK.
1996, 46 persons ill from Campylobacter and Salmonella in California.
1994, 105 persons ill from E. coli and Listeria in California
March of 1985 19,660 confirmed cases of Salmonella typhimurium illness FROM CONSUMING PROPERLY PASTEURIZED MILK. Over 200,000 people ill from Salmonella typhimurium in PASTEURIZED MILK
1985, 142 cases and 47 deaths traced to PASTEURIZED Mexican-style cheese contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. Listeria monocytogenes SURVIVES PASTEURIZATION!
1985, 1500 persons ill from Salmonella infection
August of 1984 approximately 200 persons became ill with a Salmonella typhimurium from CONSUMING PASTEURIZED MILK
November of 1984, another outbreak of Salmonella typhimurium illness from CONSUMING PASTEURIZED MILK
1983, over 49 persons with Listeria illness have been associated with the consumption of PASTEURIZED MILK in Massachusetts.
1993, 28 persons ill from Salmonella infection
1982, 172 persons ill (100 hospitalized) from a three Southern state area from PASTEURIZED MILK.
1982, over 17,000 persons became ill with Yersinia enterocolitica from PASTEURIZED MILK bottled in Memphis, Tennessee.
It is the author’s conclusion that pasteurization is simply a quick fix that allows large cartels to profit from the sales of milk. Instead of relying on safe, sterile handling procedures of raw milk (which would make the costs of milk much more expensive), we’ve incorporated this quick fix, which might or might not work, but certainly helps the cartels profit….”
Read the whole article here on the Wellness Directory of Minnesota site.

19 Comments
October 22, 2008 at 2:10 pm
It may be of interest to have a few words on the process of pasteurization. I think so, thus I am including the link for an explanation of pasteurization on Wikepedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization. I am certain there are better sources that discuss the various ins and outs of pasteurization (a concept, ironically, that the prosecuting lawyer in Micahel’s Contempt of Court trial, Dan Kuzmyk used but was unable to define when asked by his witness, Ms. Wood), but for an initial explanation on the matter, this is perhaps good enough. An interesting section is found at the end of the article on the effectiveness of pasteruization, which I include herewith. How interesting wouldn’t you agree? Hmmmm.
Effectiveness of pasteurization (according to Wikepedia)
Milk pasteurization has been subject to increasing scrutiny in recent years, due to the discovery of pathogens that are both widespread and heat resistant (able to survive pasteurization in significant numbers).[2]
References
1. ^
2. ^ Irene R. Grant et al, “Effect of Commercial-Scale High-Temperature, Short-Time Pasteurization on the Viability of Mycobacterium paratuberculosis in Naturally Infected Cows’ Milk”, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, February 2002, p. 602-607, Vol. 68, No. 2
So…do you think pasteurizing dirty milk, from countless unknown farms, and collected in holding tanks; is better than a farmer who takes meticulous care of his cows, their milk, and the terrain in which the said cows graze, and passes this milk directly to his patrons in glass bottles. Hmmm, again …. I know my choice.
December 19, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I am a medical historian and a qualified medical microbiologist. This is the most egregious bullshit that I have read in a long time. The author of this claptrap should be ashamed. Bacteria and fungi are phylogenetically distant and do not mutate into one another. Viruses are not even living things. Milk can be contaminated by poor handling practices after pasteurization of course. To blame the pasteurization process is simply ignorant. Good luck proving raw milk is safe.
August 4, 2009 at 7:17 am
Thanks for your comment.
I’m researching the pro’s and con’s of potentially producing raw milk cheese, and the preponderance of disingenuous quote mining and shabby science on the “Raw” side of the argument is, well, concerning to say the least.
August 10, 2009 at 9:54 am
“Viruses are not even living things.” Thanks for showing yourself to be a fraud right there, as scientists are still DEBATING whether or not a virus is a living thing. Most seem to believe it is at this point, since it is classified as such.
I’ve seen enough claptrap passed through official channels in the name of “science” that I’m willing to at least entertain strange ideas because I haven’t seen them disproven. Great, you read books and look at germs under microscopes. That tells us nothing about the whole scope of your work, what you’ve looked at, and what you’ve proven or disproven. My guess is you’re a lab monkey for some big corporation. They turn out bad science too.
January 28, 2009 at 12:20 pm
With your medical background, Dr. Dave, why resort to inflammatory language? Choose one or the other Simply state what you know and how it affects your belief system. What you end up doing is using your medical qualifications to bolster the emotional side of your argument. The ranting doctor must be right. If ’safe’ is the word to describe pasteurized milk, then Raw milk is also safe. Both drinkable, not lethal. There are documented problems with pasteurized, I haven’t heard of an outbreak from raw milk. Raw milk has been ingested for centuries. Balanced biosis through careful nutrition in the cow certainly would contribute to healthy milk products. Fear of the germ causes oversight of more profound understanding of health
August 4, 2009 at 7:34 am
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1508307&pageindex=1
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu/articles/1138/Raw_Milk_Outbreak_Table.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10340367
You might want to be careful where you point those broad generalizations.
Take a look at the sources of all of the glowing praises that you see heaped on raw milk.
They come from about 4 sources. westonprice et al, Mr Mercola, Schmid, and maybe one more.
I’m a farmer, I drink raw milk every day, but I’m also aware that it is, in the wrong situation, potentially lethal.
Please, let’s actually critically examine scientific evidence from both sides before making claims that could affect peoples lives.
August 5, 2009 at 1:03 am
This is one of only a few level-headed comments made by a raw milk supporter on this site. skepticalgoatfarmer is right that raw milk can be produced in a way that either is or is not dangerous. It’s not so much about raw or processed milk being healthy or not, it’s really about the bigger picture — from the cow’s health (grass-fed happy cows, or cows on antiobiotics eating other than grass), to the practices of the farm and motives of the farmer (cleanlieness and wise traditions for the purpose of good health, or factory-style big production for the purpose of making more profit), to the cow’s genes (are they the $2 really-red-huge-but-not-the-sweetest strawberries, or the locally-grown-sweeter-smaller-better $4 ones?)… it’s a BIGGER picture than just “raw milk is better”. The raw milk idea is part of better health, but it’s not the answer to all our problems, it’s only a piece of the larger picture .
“Please, let’s actually critically examine scientific evidence from both sides before making claims that could affect peoples lives.”
I’m a supporter of raw milk, but in passing I’ve noticed mistakes made by many involved in this movement… for instance, who has any ACTUAL evidence that Pasteur recanted on his deathbed… we need to be careful not to throw out statements that cannot be backed up by actual verifiable proof, otherwise it makes us look silly at best.
There is no substitute for evidence.
Let’s be critical with ourselves folks, otherwise we’re just going to make ourselves look foolish.
Bold statements need to have strong evidence to back it up, and I suspect people like Dr. Dave would not be so mad at the ideas presented on this site if every statement was made with solid verifiable (referenced!!) evidence. The lack of such would and should tick anyone off, including myself.
Look at the top-right of this page for example:
“Bernard is right; the pathogen is nothing; the terrain is everything.” — Louis Pasteur’s deathbed words
Where is the proof that Pasteur actually said this? (forget for a moment about whether or not the germ theory is or is not exclusively correct) — is this statement about his deathbed words ACTUALLY true? Are we sure? REALLY SURE?
There are many examples like this on this site — stuff that “might be true, and certainly we’d like it to be true, but, well…” we don’t have verifiable evidence if challenged on it.
I’m not disagreeing with the movement.
I am calling for accuracy, reliability, and verifiable sources for ALL claims made.
Interestingly, if you Google Pasteur’s deathbed words, you’ll find that there is no substantial evidence that he said such a thing, only rumors and speculation. I’m not saying he did or didn’t recant — I’m saying there’s no proof! And without proof, no argument should be posted on this site, otherwise we damage ourselves and our mission to make the raw milk movement a well known and respected movement for change.
Stop making respectable people angry with unsubstantiated claims!
August 10, 2009 at 9:57 am
Water is potentially lethal in the wrong situation too. Hey! Let’s ban that!
Level Headed thinks we shouldn’t accept any information EVER unless it’s verifiable. There goes 99 percent of human history. Nobody had cameras, nobody had sound recording and none of us from today can go back in time to verify. All we’ve got is–oops–the written record. That means exactly diddly squat.
March 5, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Dr. Dave
I sincerely doubt you are a doctor. You have provided nothing but insults and your own narrow views. I think you may want to go back to medical school and get your reasoning and intellect, that you left when you graduated, if you even did graduate.
July 13, 2009 at 11:15 am
[...] some of the ping backs and discovered something interesting. And bizarre. There is a group of pro- raw milk folks who are set on trashing Louis Pasteur. Not sure how I feel about that. I always marveled at the [...]
July 22, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I agree with Dr. Dave. I am a food scientist and viruses cannot changes to bacteria, bacteria to yeast etc. If anyone can prove that – good luck. This the first tip as to what kind of “references” you are using for your claims. Why do you believe our life expectancies have gone from 45 to 75? So many people were ill because of unknown causes, some of which was most definitely food poisoning. Others have been because we now have vaccines to treat illness (which you also bash in this site).
No matter how you treat the cows, there will ALWAYS be bacteria in the milk, but the dairy industry has standards to ensure poor quality milk is not used to for milk consumption (the PMO – Pasteurized Milk Ordiance).
Pasteurization is not perfect, but it does knock out any of the big food safety threats – E.Coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter etc. There is such a thing as sterilized milk, that you can buy if you are worried about the food poisoning cases stated above (however, I highly doubt these were researched by anyone on this site with credible sources). Most likely it was post pasteurization contamination from bad handling that caused the outbreaks. I don’t quite understand why you bring up food poisoning cases when you want to eat something that is inherently filled with bacteria.
Also – I am not sure why you dedicate a page to Pasteur when he had nothing to do with the development of pasteurization. He did discover microbes etc and some of the nutrients they require to survive. He was the first microbiologist and there is no need to hash one of the greatest scientists of modern science.
July 27, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Pleomorphism, as applied to bacterium, as originally understood, has never been documented. I defy anyone on this website to find a peer reviewed journal source that can document bacterium changing shape to have extremes in physical differences and shapes, even from generation to generation (that is how it was applied to bacteria in the early 20th century). Currently pleomorphism as applied to bacteria involves variations within shape of cellular structure but not of the extremes that were once thought possible; and certainly this “mutating” into viruses or vice versa or “mutating” in to fungi and plants, etc has never been documented by a verifiable, peer reviewed source. If it has, please provide that peer reviewed source. E. coli will always remain e. coli and will always look and act like e. coli. If it evolves other forms and features and physical characteristics, it is no longer e. coli. However, it will still remain bacterium, not a fungus or virus or plant. The statements made in this article either demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of principles in biology, including evolutionary, genetic and microbiological concepts or an egregious attempt at misstatement or misrepresentation of those principles and are at best misleading to the average internet reader who more likely than not has no detailed understanding of biology.
August 10, 2009 at 9:59 am
Current thinking on mitochondria and chloroblasts indicates they most likely evolved from bacteria in symbiotic relationships with their host cells. It would certainly explain why mitochondria always have different DNA than the rest of the cell they reside in.
If enough people think an idea is bunkum they will not make an effort to explore the idea. I’ve seen this happen and I’m a layperson! So, lack of proof does not constitute disproving.
August 12, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Dana says she’s a layperson. Great, nice to hear from yet another one, but I’d like to hear more than JUST a layperson’s opinion.
Blogs attract thousands of laypeople who publish their various opinions (everybody’s got a voice), and that’s great, but without a professional to clear the confusion and help us through, such as someone who is actually a biologist and chemist with both laboratory and real world experience, we are just going to swim in a sea of laypeople comments… that might make a blog exciting, but it fails to answer the core questions posed in the comments here about Pasteur and his germ theory.
A true professional limits their bias to allow for truth to overcome their bias.
Unlike the layperson’s (who usually makes many unverifiable claims), the professional’s claims are verfiable and make sense. The layperson is able to test some of the professional’s arguments to see if they are true, as the professional’s arguments will testify whether or not they actually know what they’re saying.
More laypeople like Dana giving various biased opinions on Pasteur and his germ theory will not help.
Truth is verifiable. If you don’t believe that, then you might as well not believe anything can or is right or good or best, because if truth is not verifiable, then what’s the truth about truth — maybe it doesn’t exist. Maybe you don’t either. Maybe you’re living in the matrix.
But if truth is verifiable, then it exists, and then we can use logic to discover truth via the scientific method of guess, test, until proven true or false.
If most things are unverifiable as Dana claims, then don’t bother with going for the benefits of raw milk, because the Weston A. Price foundation bases all of their research on verifiable information — truth. Check out their powerpoint on raw milk and notice how they provide evidence for their claims about the health of raw milk. REAL, VERIFIABLE, EVIDENCE. Truth.
But some choose to be tossed around with every new conspiracy theory out there. Each to their own I suppose.
August 4, 2009 at 1:41 pm
rhazi,
Your comment:”If it has, please provide that peer reviewed source. E. coli will always remain e. coli and will always look and act like e. coli. If it evolves other forms and features and physical characteristics, it is no longer e. coli.”
Doesn’t the theory of pleomorphism and bacteria(generation time :20 minutes)look a lot like the theory of evolution regarding macroscopic life only condensed into a very short time frame?In the theory of evolution, don’t large organisms change “form,features and physical characteristics”?Of course,when lizards evolve into birds,we don’t still call them lizards,but does that deny that they changed over many generations into birds?The driving force behind pleomorphism or evolution is the same: the struggle to survive in a changing environment.The principle behind both is that the environment determines the form(over many generations).
August 10, 2009 at 10:02 am
Bacteria trade DNA like little kids trade Pokemon cards. They’re downright shameless about it. E. coli is just a label people tacked onto bacteria that look a certain way.
I’m not saying I believe bacteria turn into viruses but hey, maybe they do. Until someone makes the effort to figure it out, they can hardly dismiss the idea.
I’m not convinced lizards evolved into birds, though. I do think birds evolved from reptiles, but lizards are a specific type of reptile. It’s like saying people came from monkeys or chimps, which isn’t correct either. Our relationship with chimps is similar to that of cousins–one did not descend from the other.
August 12, 2009 at 11:51 am
Isn’t it common knowledge that viruses are robotic and created in laboratories?
October 1, 2009 at 2:17 pm
I agree completely and have read that death bed statement numerous times. Many doctors practice medicine using Gerard’s ideas and are successful. Many people also drink raw milk with no problem- the cows have to be healthy- not the type we grow today- they have to be outdoors and living a normal life.
I just reread the quote in Oliver Sack’s book, Awakenings, and wonder if there is a source for it, as I just got into a discussion about it and there was a bit of hostility. Thanks, Sue
October 12, 2009 at 10:40 am
[...] Pasteur [...]