Louis Pasteur versus Antoine Béchamp
Our garden song thrush, singing away beautifully . . .
Hi everyone, it is a glorious summer afternoon here in the UK, all this vibrant greenery and sunshine makes me feel fully energized. With this newfound energy, I will return to my first career love, that of science. As usual I don’t mean the mainstream science, I mean the relegated science, the science that modern philosophy would like to forget because it does not fit the narrative.
The identification of great thinkers and their separation into two groups – acceptable and unacceptable – is not a modern phenomena, it has been going on for centuries and means much of the education we receive today may be inherently flawed. One of my personal goals is to uncover these distorted landscapes, hear the opposing arguments and reach my own conclusions based on my experience of life. Does it have to agree with anyone else’s? Thankfully not, my advice to anyone is do your own research, reach your own conclusions, that’s why you are blessed with an inquisitive mind and free will.
My destination today is an area of science we have taken as gospel for over a 100 years, germ theory.
Our current understanding of germ theory is rooted in the incredible work of two great minds of the 19th century, Louis Pasteur and Antoine Béchamp. The mainstream winner of the scientific discussion as you probably all know, was Louis Pasteur, famous for his discovery of germ theory, which asserts that disease is caused by environmental microorganisms. This theory underlies the vast majority of our medical theories in modern times and it is easy to forget that it was not the only explanation of disease in the 19th century.
The alternate view, held by Antoine Béchamp, is something called terrain theory, which has been marginalized to the point of being almost unheard of in the modern age. Terrain theory asserts that germs are unable to cause disease unless the conditions within the body allows it. A healthy body, with a healthy immune system, can repel and neutralize pathogenic organisms to maintain balance, whilst a weak or unhealthy body cannot and so is more susceptible to disease.
From a modern scientific perspective, there does not appear to be as much clear water between the two theories as there was at the time, however, only one theory was preferred by the political elite of the time and the church, which branded some of Béchamp’s work and writings as heretical. Bear in mind the church had a great deal of influence upon the development of scientific theories and could encourage those that aligned with its views as well as squash those theories that didn’t. Needless to say, it encouraged the views of Pasteur as being acceptable and not those of Béchamp.
The very subtle but clear difference between the two theories leads to a large difference in approaches to personal health; for germ theory, everything must be kept clean, sterile if possible and protected from external exposure to microorganisms to ensure and maintain health; for terrain theory, the health of the individual is maintained through diet and healthy activities rather than protecting the individual from exposure. We now know that we are more microorganisms than we are human cells, both inside and out, which doesn’t leave much room for germ theory in the practical world and yet it is still strongly adhered to regarding approaches to our health and well being. The number of TV adverts for disinfectant spray in the home illustrate how pervasive this thinking is.
Pasteur’s view was an easy one for the lay person to understand, different microorganisms could invade the human system and lead to disease, you simply had to be exposed to it in an appropriate way. From this mindset, the microorganism causes the disease state and is described as a monomorphic approach, a specific microorganism, or bacteria, enters the system, replicates itself and this burden on the system causes a specific disease.
Béchamp’s view was that a change in the body “terrain” or ecosystem, causes a change in the form of the microorganism as it adapts to the new conditions. The microorganisms or bacteria are already present in the system in a balanced state, the disease in the system causes them to change form and so these different appearing microorganisms are associated with disease in the system. This led to the theory of pleomorphism, that microorganisms and bacteria can exist in multiple states in response to their environments.
First germ versus terrain theory and then monomorphism versus pleomorphism – would they ever reconcile their differences? Unfortunately not in their lifetimes and they remained fixed in their separate views. The practice of sterilizing surgical implements was a clear argument that disease (infection) can be introduced though bacteria and so should be avoided. Staunch terrain theorists argued that the patient was already in a weakened state which is why this was necessary. You can see how hard it was to separate the two views.
The argument regarding monomorphism and pleomorphism was answered 20 years after both Pasteur and Béchamp had passed away, with the demonstration in the Newer Knowledge of Bacteriology and Immunology that bacteria can take on different forms throughout their lifespan in response to a changing environments. It is not simply the presence of bacteria that is required for disease but the form that they take, which in turn depends upon their environment.
Our current understanding of disease is a combination of both approaches, we know the risks posed by certain bacteria and pathogens, a risk which is mitigated by our own health and well being. Eating a healthy, varied diet and living a healthy lifestyle are understood to be key approaches to preventing disease. Whilst Louis Pasteur gets all the credit for our understanding of disease through germ theory, through the wonders of hindsight we know he wasn’t right. Béchamp’s terrain theory is better understood now and may one day be given the credit it truly deserves as being a more holistic understanding of disease. I believe it is the clash of their theories that gives us the broader understanding we hold to today and will continue to inspire scientists of opposing views to dig deeper and to investigate further.
It is not in our lifetimes we see the truth behind any theory, sometimes it can take generations of research, it is in the asking of the question that we start down the road to a broader understanding.
