Pasteur or Bechamp? Pleomorphic Organisms

Introduction by Ivor Hughes

The article which follows is an indictment of a blinkered Scientific Community. Shades of the phlogiston theory ! We need another Lavoiser,  but this time to sanitize (pasteurize) biology and it's offspring.

The implications of the article are such, that it is highly unlikely that any kind of debate will take place. If Bechamp and those that followed up on his research, are correct,  then one of the greatest medical disasters of all time will stand revealed.

I refer of course to the Vaccination policy which is in place around the globe. If Pleomorphic organisms are a reality, and not the figment of a fevered imagination. We have an explanation, as to why millions of people have immune deficiency symptoms. It will also explain, why an annually increasing number of our children are being born with genetic and allergy problems. It will also explain the great tide of disease which is flooding the Western system of medicine.

When human beings are born with, or acquire an allergy to their environment, then that is unnatural. I refer of course to such substances as pollen, dander and animal hair, etc. It will also be understood that our food chain is also heavily contaminated with man made noxious chemicals, all of which place an intolerable strain upon our already overworked immune systems

Many of those people that work in the life sciences are aware that we have a serious problem. But they like most of us have families to raise and mortgages to pay. To raise their voice in protest is to commit economic Hara-kiri, it is difficult to eat ones principles, although I suspect, they may be more nourishing than our chemically produced food.

The response of powerful vested interest, in the form of the Pharmaceutical/Chemical industry and the institutionalized organs of the medical profession, has been to pour millions of dollars into political lobby groups and to suborn the media with fat advertising budgets. The thrust of that subversion has been to blame the victims, in order to justify the next money making wheeze. One may clearly see that they make billions of dollars by providing the fix to fix the fix that went wrong. We need our heritage in the form of our medicinal herbs to start us back on the slow road to holistic health.

150 Years of Hidden Knowledge

by Christopher Bird 1991
Nexus Magazine April 1992


"At the heart of science lies discovery which involves a change in worldview. Discovery in science is possible only in societies which accord their citizens the freedom to pursue the truth where it may lead and which therefore have respect for different paths to that truth,"

John Polanyi, Canadian Nobel Laureate (Chemistry); commencement address, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, June 1990 

What follows is an attempt to provide a brief overview of astounding findings made by a band of intrepid and heretical searchers in a field of knowledge that deals with the very smallest forms of life.

Hard as it is to believe, these findings, made over more than a century ago, have been consistently ignored, censored by silence, or suppressed throughout all of that time by ruling "opinion-makers", orthodox (R1) thinkers in mainstream microbiology.

Instead of being welcomed with excitement and open arms, as one would a friend or lover, the amazing discoveries have been received with a hostility unusually only meted out to trespassers or imposters.

To try to present the vastness of a multi-dimensional panorama, is a little like trying to inscribe the contents of thick manuscript onto a postage stamp, or reduce the production of an hour-long drama into a few minutes of stage time.

Involved on the one hand is not only the sheer volume of material, but with books on the subject being hard to obtain, it is also not easily accessible and is sparsely referenced in ordinary bibliographical sources.

On the other hand, the protagonists in what amounts to a gripping saga were, more often than not, completely isolated from one another in space, time or both. They, and their parallel work and research, were consequently often unknown to their potential colleagues and natural allies. It was as if they were adventurers who, thinking themselves to be the sole explorers in virgin territory, were actually all opening up various parts of the same terra incognita.

Furthermore, as we have already said, the reports of the discovery of a whole "New World" by these many "Columbus's" were unwelcome, "Old World" cartographers had already made their maps and were satisfied with them.

Therefore, since maps of this territory are sketchy at best, or nonexistent at worst, outsiders seeking to penetrate it should remember the Buddhist saying: "The only trails are those that are made by walking" And the ones upon which they set foot will be not so much selected by intention as stumbled upon by chance.

It is for such reasons that, when I thought about how I might approach this subject today, I decided to eschew the formality of any academic approach in favour of telling the tale of my own foray into the little known land of Pleomorphic organisms as it actually unfolded. Unlike other speakers at this symposium, I am neither a scientist, an academic or a health professional, but a writer who, for some 20 years, has roved the "frontiers" of science.

I am certain that if any of you have been propelled by some similarly strange twist of fate to go on the same quest, you have taken a different trail from mine. Yet, as they say, "all roads finally lead to Rome."


My first exposure to the world of Pleomorphic organisms - though I did not recognise it at the time - came in 1969 when, after returning to the United States from a stint as a foreign correspondent, I was asked by Peter Tompkins, an established author, to help him research a biography on the life and work of a "maverick" scientist, the late Wilhelm Reich M.D.

If "maverickness" is a quality attributable to innovators unafraid of developing new ideas and inventions - and often unscorched by the brand of any formal education into the subjects of their research - then that term suits Reich to a "T'.

After first making his mark in psychoanalysis as Freud's prot�g� and leading collaborator, he abruptly broke with the International Psychoanalytic Movement to take up an independent career in an aspect of what today has come to be called biophysics. When he bolted the Freudian "herd" in the mid-1930's, most of his colleagues became his bitter enemies.

Exiled from central Europe to Norway, he began working with an unusual microscope equipped with special lenses that could magnify living organisms to 2 - 3000X their normal size, well over twice the magnification achievable with the ordinary microscopes of his day.

Among his extraordinary discoveries were "vesicles," minuscule fluid containing bladder-like sacs, that appeared in infusions of hay and other substances such as animal tissue, earth and coal.

After much experimentation during which he noted a marked increase in the number of vesicles that could be cultured when the preparations containing them were boiled, he concluded that the strange forms he had discovered were "transitional" one lying midway between the realms of the animate and the inert.

To these heretofore unrecognized elementary stages of life, he gave the name: Bions.(1)

Most microbiologists, not to speak of other life-scientists, undoubtedly looked upon Reich's new creatures as if they had come straight out of Walt Disney's old film, Fantasia. If so, they were in for an even ruder shock. For when Reich poured some of his boiled preparations onto nutrient culture media, the cultures began to generate peculiar looking bacteria and amoebae, creating, as it were, well-known life-forms, at least forms akin to them.

There was, of course, the possibility that the newly generated "animacules" - as Leuwenhock, inventor of the microscope called them when he first viewed them - could have invaded the cultures from the ambient atmosphere or that they could have appeared because the culture media had been improperly sterilized. To rule these out, Reich superheated his bion cultures to find that the ostensibly "dead" mixtures still gave rise to the higher microbic forms.     

This led to the further conclusion that bions, as preliminary stages of life, were embodiments of an indestructible life force that defied death. This life energy he called "Orgone."

So apparently outlandish a discovery as that of a new "life energy" could not but rile biologists who had long sought to dispose of "vitalistic theories" such as those of the French philosopher, Henri Bergson, who postulated an elan vital, or the German biologist, Hans Driesch, who, borrowing the term from Aristotle, referred to entelechy. Biology was coming increasingly under the cold sway of a physics which adamantly rejected any "mystical" notions such as those of a "primal creator" or a "force of life", and therefore dutifully took its cue from the branch of science considered "first among peers."

Were all his disclosures not already so heretical as to alarm orthodox, or "correct opinion-making" science, to them Reich next added that microbial bion structures could also be detected in, and cultured from human blood, which, then as now, was and is considered to be sterile, an unchanging doctrine still taught in medical schools.

This, in turn, next led him to examine blood samples taken from persons suffering from cancer in which he saw extremely tiny bacterial forms that he connected to that lethal disease process. He therefore labelled them T - bacilli, the T standing for Tod which in Reich's native German means "death."

It seemed to Reich that there was something unaccountable going on in the bodies of the cancer-afflicted, a degeneration causing healthy life-promoting bions to develop into a death-dealing T-bacilli. Since he had also found these "death bacteria" in the excreta of healthy people, he assumed that they were able to dispose of cancer causing particles, and that disposition to cancer was determined by a level of biological resistance to putrefaction.

It is at this juncture that I shall ask a leading question that only came into my mind many years after I had, via Reich, begun to delve into Pleomorphic bacteriology and its connection with cancer and other degenerative diseases. I ask it because I later found that researchers working in this pioneering field who discovered microbes associated with cancerous states - to which each gave his or her own special nomenclature, thus creating a kind of "Tower of Babel" - instead of looking upon the appearance of the alien forms as an "alarm signs" or "warning light", that is an indicator of an incipient disease state, held them to be the cause of the disease.

The question, a central one in this discussion, therefore is: "Could germs appearing in the body be the result rather than the cause of afflictions, if not always, at least often?" It may be that they are both.

Reich's life ended tragically. For his pains, he was submitted anew to viciously virulent attacks for questioning sacred dogmas of medical science in general and cancerology in particular. The story of this towering, often cantankerous, scientist ended when he was brought to trial and sentenced to a term in a U.S. Federal penitentiary where, in 1964, he died.

The government of our American free republic also ordered that all of Reich's publication on which they could lay their hands - including a privately printed journal, Journal of Orgonomy - be destroyed in a New York City incinerator. That order was carried out less than 20 years after the Nani government in Germany had ordered all of Reich's then existing publications burned on an enormous pyre in downtown Berlin.(R3)


For many reasons, our biography was never written (R4). Yet the two years spent researching it was hardly wasted, because it was through the opportunity given to delve into Reich's fascinating research that I first fell, like Alice down the hole or through the looking glass, into a wonderland of scientific "no-no's."

In many ways it was a thrilling, yet troubling experience. Disturbing because, as one long trained to accept things as they supposedly "were", I was brought face to face with an investigative world in which those same things actually "were not". As I went along my trail, I also found that there were many other "were note" and "are nots" that were and are!

One question was especially rankling: What was preventing new discoveries from being recognised for what they were? Was this because "established" researchers, comfortable with orthodox scientific thinking, or "received knowledge", could not change their mind-sets, in Dr. John Polanyi's words, their "worldview" to accommodate innovative thinking, or "vanguard knowledge?"

How was it that, in the precincts ruled by the "arbiters of knowledge", the evidencing of "unknown" things, instead of being viewed with excitement, was often castigated as "illusory" or tabooed as "fantasy"?

In 1965, I came across an article that more than just attracted my writer's attention in that, in 1944, it was published in, not just one, but two prestigious journals, that of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C. and that of the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia.

One third of its contents was devoted to the new electron microscope just put on the market by the Radio Corporation of America, the other two thirds, the lion's share, to a "Universal Microscope" that had been designed and developed in the 1920's by a Californian autodidact, Royal Raymond Rife.

The electron microscope, I knew, while capable of attaining magnifications surpassing 500,000X at excellent resolution, was incapable of examining living things because its radiation killed them.

But, as dearly stated in the article, Rife's instrument was able to view living matter at unheard of magnifications reaching at least 60,000X, also at excellent resolution (R5).

With this extraordinary device, Rife could easily view a family of microbes in the blood of sick people which seemingly miraculously transformed, under various conditions, one into the other, like so many caterpillars metamorphising into so many butterflies. Sixteen stages in all, the same number in Gaston Naessens' somatid cycle.

As a result, he came to the independent conclusion - to which as we shall see, others had come independently both before and after him -that, depending on its inner state, germs arose within the the body itself that, in Rife's opinion, were not the cause but the result of disease states.

That single conclusion completely overturned everything I had learned about bacteriology and disease during a four year course at general biology at Harvard.

Barely able to believe what I had read, and recalling what I had learned during my studies of Reich's bion research, I dropped a book (R6) I was working on to spend two months at the National Library of Medicine trying to track down everything I could on Rife and his superscope. Not only was there precious little printed on the subject but the microscope itself seemed to have vanished from the surface of the earth.

The story of my fruitless search has been told elsewhere (3), so here, I will simply say that my library research showed that for several decades up to 1930, a now all but forgotten, if not entirely lost, school of microliologists had maintained that, far from holding everlastingly to one shape, bacteria could be caused, under the right conditions of culture, to metamorphose into forms small enough to pass through filters capable of blocking any microbe smaller than a virus.

Because of their sharp disagreement with a camp of orthodox bacteriologists known as non-filtrationists", these rebels were known as "filtrationists".

One of the earliest members of this school was a Swedish Ernst Bernhard Almquist, who, because he was also an Arctic explorer had islands off the north Siberian coast named after him.

Almquist made hundreds of observations of pleomorphic bacteria in his laboratory as did researchers in France, Italy, Germany, Russia and the United States and probably other countries. In 1922, after two long decades of work, Almquist came to the conclusion that "nobody can presume to know the complete life cycle and all the varieties of even a single bacterial species. It would be an assumption to think so."

The furor unleashed in the microbiological world microscopic discoveries, as well as by his subsequent electromagnetically-based cure for cancer and other diseases, being put, like Reich, to trial by U.S. medical authorities. The trial proved so traumatic to the highly sensitive inventor that it led, first to a total nervous breakdown, then to alcoholism (R7).

The opposite fates of two microscopes, the electron and the "Universal", have ever since continued to plague my mind, incessantly pricking it with a philosophical question: How was it that the first, able to see only inert, inanimate matter was universally adopted in the world's laboratories while the second, able to view animate organism as they lived and breathed, went into universal limbo?

What did the triumphant success of the one, and the sad demise of the other, have to say about the basic 20th century outlook in the biosciences supposedly dealing with life?

While asking that question, let us add a few more. What is it about the "politics of science" that led two scientific titans - or three, if, by anticipation, we include our host, Gaston Naessens - men who were self-trained experts in microscopy, and cancerology, to be brought to trial?

How is it that the discoveries of all three have been put on an "Index" as bogus and worthless? What explains their being denounced, all three of them, as deceivers and charlatans in the United States, France and many other countries?

It would take a moment of silence to contemplate the answer to these questions." (R8)


From where it had first led to Reich, thence to Rife, my trail next took me, surprisingly enough, to Rock Forest, a small village in that portion of Quebec, just north of Vermont, that is called L'Estrie in French, and The Eastern Townships in English.

I was tipped off to the existence of Gaston Naessens by Eva Reich M.D., Wilhelm Reich's daughter. Since part of the story of my initial meeting, and 12-year association, with him has been told in the first chapter of my book, I shall not repeat it here.

What I can, and should say, is that if my studies of Reich's research had opened a narrow vista onto the world of pleomorphic microbiology, and those of Reich's work had greatly widened it, then what I came to learn as result of my encounters with Naessens began to afford me a view of the whole horizon beyond it.

My first visit to see Gaston Naessens was in 1979, ten years after a footlocker of Reich's writings had been handed to me by Peter Tompkins for study. During the next half decade I was to learn, through my own experience, the help of friends and particularly through hundreds of hours spent with Gaston Naessens and his wife, a great deal more about what he has discovered in his fascinating research life than is reported in my book. And to learn about the many vicissitudes he has gone through as a result.

As time went by, one of the main things that became most shockingly clear to me was the unwillingness, or the inability of many scientifically trained people to accept or believe what they were seeing through Naessens' microscope.

Instead of heralding the somatidic forms as excitingly brand new, they simply wrote them off as artifact, something not naturally present but introduced in error." (R9).

A whole essay could be written about how such beliefs spring, within seconds, into the minds of so called "competent" observers the most authoritarian of whom pass along as "certainties" to their followers. All such observers - and they are the vast majority - have, if they have ever heard it, forgotten Reich's dictum for scientific work: "Do not automatically believe in anything , especially what you are told. Convince yourself of something by observing it with your own eyes. And, after having perceived a new fact, do not loose site of it again until it is fully explained" (emphasis added)

If, in this connection, it appears that the aphorism, "seeing is believing", does not necessarily hold true, one may add that the same is the case for the reverse: "believing is seeing".

During one trip to Europe with the Naessens' in the mid 1980s, we were privileged to meet a Swedish physician, Erik Enby MD. who had experience working with what I learned was one of the earliest, and most talented, pioneers in the field of pleomorphic microbial research.

This was a German zoologist of whom we shall say more of in a few moments.

It was because of the language barrier - Enby's spoken English was halting and Enderlein's publications were in German, a language I neither speak nor read - that I could not subsequently penetrate that part of the terra incognita where the German scientist had laboured, at least not until 1990.

The peaks in a mountain chain of discoveries made by Naessens have been reviewed in part one of my book. In retrospect, given the whole "patchwork quilt" or other discoveries in this field made by a small platoon of researches, I would say that his crowning find was to have traced the whole cycle back to its origin, the tiny form he calls the somatid and to show how that form not only is all but indestructible, but through experimentation, how it acts something like a "DNA precursor" (R10).

All this and more, raises the question as to whether Naessens, in addition to everything else he has done, including the development of a promising approach for the alleviation of degenerative disease, has not come as close as anyone to unravelling the skein within which lies hidden the very mystery of the origins of life that has for so long continued to confound science, as it still continues to confound it. I use the qualification "as close as" because the next twist in my trail was to confront me with the realization that another French scientist of rare genius might have been unravelling the same skein a century before Naessens began to take up the task.

Part Two Here.