Pleomorphism Versus Monomorphism I

Samuel Smith


"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell

Many a learned folk are cognizant of the man Galileo Galilee -Italian physicist and astronomer who, with German astronomer Johannes Kepler, initiated the scientific revolution that flowered in the work of English physicist Sir Isaac Newton. [i]

But sad to say, many are not in the known of the inhuman inquisitorial sanctions he had to endure in his science career. How he was prosecuted for teaching true science remains latent in the obscure pages of history. Scattered in the dark annals of our world is the overwhelming evidence of how a powerful minority has always sort to control the ignorant minority. This fact is well documented, and the regime of one world governance is not far from now.

The following is a liberal discussion of the subject at the head of this paper. Why don’t we teach pleomorphism in our textbooks- A long standing controversy seizing grave and serious health implications on the general human populace of our world.


Etymologically, the word pleomorphism has a mid-19th century origin from the Greek pleiōn meaning ‘more’ and morphē meaning 'form'. The encyclopedia Britannica has this definition: The existence of irregular and variant forms in the same species or strain of microorganisms.

According to this theory, microorganisms can change from virus to yeast to fungus to mold to bacteria to large bacteria, and back again. They can also change into an indestructible, dormant form that Antoine Béchamp, a contemporary of Pasteur, called a microzyma (a so-called living dust particle, also named a somatid by Naessens and a protit by Enderlein). In this form they do not eat or cause harm. However, UNDER MORE ACIDIC CONDITIONS microzyma mutate into organisms that cause disease. Ultimately, in death, they break down the body and return it to "dust".

On the contrary, Mono-morphism argues that once a germ is a particular germ it always stays that way. According to this way of thinking a streptococcal germ is always a streptococcus. It only has one (mono-) form, it doesn't change into anything else. Modern medicine is founded on the idea of Mono-morphism. "Claude Bernard, argued that disease was caused by variations in the host’s internal milieu, or "terrain," to which the microbes responded by changing form in order to survive.

"According to this theory, the vitality of the host was the principal factor in disease. Relatively small changes in the internal environment made the "terrain" attractive and hospitable to different types of invading organisms: a weak host not only "invited" invading organisms to take up residence, but actually cultured them, inducing their changes into pathological forms.

"A strong and vital host, on the other hand, was inhospitable and would keep pathological organisms and disease at bay. This is the pleomorphic terrain theory of disease." Be it as it may, both views are radically contrasting, and have serious biological and ultimately health implications- I mean the general health of the human populace, considering that monomorphism is the foundation of our modern conventional health care system.

If pleomorphism is another outlook of life science and eventually an alternative to health, wellness and the general lifestyle of man, why don’t we find pleomorphism in our textbooks?


In our concept of the atom, - the so-called smallest particle of matter- we are taught to understand that the idea of the atom itself has undergone varied, if not radically controversial stages of developments. Considering the contributions of Dalton, Joseph John Thompson, Earnest Rutherford, Neil Borh, and the recent 20th century Albert Einstein, it is without controversy that varied views have been adduced.

It is without controversy that the ruling concept today is the quantum theory (the so-called electron-cloud model). Yet in our textbooks, we are made to study all the other models of the atom, some of which are ridiculously controversial if not radically opposing. The plum-pudding model for instance, by the famed Joseph John Thompson deviates abruptly from the ‘nucleus’ idea foundational to the quantum theory.

I could also mention the famous Charles Darwin for his infamous ideas of evolution, which radically contradicted the popular creationism- the idea of a designer- of his day. Yet Darwin’s anti-creationism made its way into our text books and today every student in our schools is made to study the gradual evolution of all life forms from the simple cell protoctist to complex life forms.

The list could perpetuate unabated, including capitalism versus socialism, Protestantism versus Catholicism, and many others space will not permit mention of. In almost all cases, these controversies have resulted in major world revolutions.

This is where my dilemma lies. Why is it difficult if not almost impossible to find anything on pleomorphism in our so-called encyclopedias? My only conclusion is a deliberate suppression, and an intelligent exclusion. I am not into conspiracy theories but, somehow this subject has been designedly excluded and I feel it necessary to awaken minds to this very lifesaving science.

Physicist, Beverly Rubik Ph.D., Director of the Centre for Frontier Sciences at Temple University in Philadelphia wrote: Perhaps the greatest obstacle that frontier scientists are unprepared for but inevitably face is political - the tendency for human systems to resist change, to resist the impact of new discoveries, especially those that challenge the status quo of the scientific establishment ... ... "Science" has become institutionalised and is largely regulated by an establishment community that governs and maintains itself…


When Louis Pasteur (1822 - 1895) went public with his Germ Theory of disease, Europe continued to be ravaged by waves of infectious plagues, including Cholera, Typhus, Pneumonia (‘consumption’) and Tuberculosis; not to mention the not-too-distant memory of the Black Death. Pasteur’s discovery was due to the invention of the microscope.

The officials and public of the era were ripe for a simple and direct explanation from the emerging world of the Natural Sciences for these tragic and decimating diseases. However, at the time Pasteur was formulating and publicizing his work, a quiet, much more qualified and experienced researcher, Pierre Jacques Antoine Béchamp, was also looking at the new frontier-world of microbes, and came up with a more complex, but thorough, understanding of these miniature marvels.

Béchamp first worked in Strasbourg as a Professor of Physics and Toxicology at the Higher School of Pharmacy, later as Professor of Medical Chemistry at the University of Montpellier and, later still, as Professor of Biochemistry and Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Lille, all in France. [ii]

While laboring on problems of fermentation - the breakdown complex molecules into organic compounds via a "ferment" - Professor Béchamp, at his microscope, seemed to be able to visualise a host of tiny bodies in his fermenting solutions. Even before Béchamp’s time, other researchers had observed, but passed off as unexplainable, what they called "scintillating corpuscles" or "molecular granulations". It was Béchamp who, able to ascribe strong enzymatic reactions to them, was led to coin a new word to describe them: microzymas, or "tiny ferments".

In carefully controlled experiments he found that when chemically pure calcium carbonate, CaCO3, was added to his sugar solutions, no inversion took place, but when ordinary chalk, even which chipped from the native rock without access of air, was used, inversion always occurred.

On heating the common chalk to 300 degrees, he found that it lost its powers of fermentation, and on examining more of the unheated common chalk under the microscope, he found it contained some "little bodies" similar to those found in prior observations, and which he found did not exist in the chemically pure CaCO3, nor in the chalk that had been heated. [iii]

He advised Dumas of his discovery of living organisms in chalk in December 1864, and later, on September 26, 1865, he wrote a letter which Dumas had published. He stated: "Chalk and milk contain already developed living beings, which is proved by the fact that creosote, employed in a no coagulating dose, does not prevent milk from finally turning, nor chalk, without extraneous help, from converting both sugar and starch into alcohol and then into acetic acid, tartaric acid, and butyric acid". [iv]

Which of course was ample proof that there was a ferment, a living organism, present in both milk and chalk. Professor Béchamp went on to study microzymas located in the bodies of animals and came to the startling conclusion that the tiny forms were more basic to life than cells, long considered to be the building blocks of all living matter. Béchamp thought the microzymas to be fundamental elements responsible for the activity of cells, tissues, organs, indeed whole living organisms, from bacteria to whales, and larks to human beings. He even found them present in life-engendering eggs, where they were responsible for the eggs' further development while themselves undergoing significant changes.

Most incredible to Béchamp was the fact that when there occurred an event serious enough to affect the whole of an organism disturbing the natural balance, the microzymas within the organism would begin working to disintegrate the organism totally converting themselves to bacteria and other microbes, while at the same time continuing to survive. As proof of such survival, Béchamp found them in soil, swamps, chimney soot, street dust, even in air and water. These basic, and apparently ‘eternal’, elements of which we and all our animal ‘relatives’ are composed survive the remnants of living cells in our bodies. So seemingly indestructible were the microzymas that Béchamp could even find them in limestone dating back 60 million years. They are to be considered the seeds of life.

According to Béchamp, the microzyma, which was critical in supporting the life of cells, could be triggered into pathogenic states, depending on specific changes in the state of the internal (particularly the blood) environment. Therefore, the bacteria and other micro-organisms, such as viruses and fungi, that were being blamed as the cause of disease, were viewed by Béchamp as being part of nature’s ‘clean-up crew’, breaking down sick tissue and ultimately decomposing a no-longer-occupied body. Béchamp also viewed these micro-organisms as ‘changing forms’ (pleomorphic) — from seed to bacterial, viral and fungal states, rather than being seen as discrete species unto themselves.


The controversy between the two scientific views is easily settled when we examine the reports from these two researches submitted to the French Academy of Science. The reason Béchamp was mainly ignored and Pasteur elevated to hero status is to be found in the different personalities and the lure of commercial success. Professor Béchamp was a dedicated scientist and researcher, but he had no skills at politics and lobbying. Pasteur, on the other hand, was an expert at both. He ingratiated himself with the rich and powerful, and even became a favorite of French royalty. The world still works the same way today.

Instead of incorporating Béchamp’s discoveries to bring about a health revolution and save countless lives, greedy and power-hungry industrialists decided to ostracize his work and put their dollars behind Louis Pasteur’s ‘germ theory’, because it was a way for them to build a colossal and profitable pharmaceutical/medical empire. No pharmaceutical company in the world today cares one iota about curing disease. They want to control disease and focus on symptom suppression so they can make huge profits by getting you to become a lifelong user of their products. That’s why they go to war against disease with all their "anti" this and "anti" that medications, and their ‘wars’ and campaigns against diseases, instead of addressing the inner condition of a patient and re-establishing homeostasis in the body.

In fact, it is reported that Pasteur himself recanted his so-called germ theory in his private journal, writing the famous words which were revealed many decades after his death: "It is not the germ that causes disease but the terrain in which the germ is found."

His dispute with Pasteur led to efforts to have his work placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (the index of books prohibited by the Catholic Church). Béchamp retired under this cloud in 1886, briefly ran a pharmacy with his son, and ultimately moved to Paris, where he was given a small laboratory at the Sorbonne. He died at the age of 91, his work having faded into scientific obscurity and Pasteur's version of germ theory dominant.

In 1932 E. Douglas Hume, a woman who seized a male name to get her book published: Béchamp or Pasteur? A book is still in print today, chronicles a contemporary of Pasteur, Antoine Béchamp, the most respected researcher and teacher in France at the time, department head at the University at Lille.

Professor Béchamp according to Hume was too busy to be bothered with conventions and awards and politics. He was a professor and a researcher, and that took every moment of his time until his death. It was Béchamp’s view that it was not the germ that caused disease, but rather the condition in which germs lived. Disease happens when an imbalance causes some of the more pathological that is, bad, bacteria to take over. What causes that? Low resistance and weak immune system. Seems like such a simple idea, but that is really the foundation of the whole controversy all along. In the end, everyone, even Pasteur, agreed that bugs - bacteria and viruses - do not alone cause disease.

"Had it not been for the mass selling of vaccines, Pasteur's germ theory of disease would have collapsed into obscurity." - E. Douglas Hume


[i] Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[ii] Wikipedia

[iii] The Dream & Lie of Louis Pasteur (originally Pasteur, Plagiarist, Imposter 1942) by R. B. Pearson

[iv] ibidem

Prince Tete Kwame