/Nexus - 0216 - New Times Magazine/pages/0025/image.png)
Page Content (OCR)
OCTOBER -NOVEMBER 1993 In the summer of 1934 iii California, under the auspices of the University of Southern California, a group ?f.leading American ba?teriologists and' doctors conducted the fIrst successful cancer cllmc. 'The results showed that: a) cancer was caused by a micro-organism; b) the micro-organism could be painlessly destroyed in terminally ill cancer patients; and c) the effects of the disease could be reversed. The technical discovery leading to the cancer cure had been described in Science maga zine in 1931. In the decade following the 1934 clinical success, the techn010gy and the subsequent, successful treatment of cancer patients was discussed at medical conferences, disseminated in a medical journal, cautiously but professionally reported in a major news paper, and technically explained in an annual report published by the Smithso.nian fu.stitution. However, the cancer cure threatened a number of scientists, physicians, and! financial interests. A cover-up was initiated. Physicians using the new technology were coerced into abandoning it. The author of the Smithsonian article was followed and then was shot at while driving Ihis car. He never wrote about the subject ag~. All reports describing the cure were censored by the he.ad of the AMA (American Medical As.sociation) from the major medical journals. Objective scientilic evaluation by government laboratories was prevented. And renowned researchers who supported the technology and its new scientif ic principles in bacteriology were scorned, ridiculed, and called liars to their face. Eventually, a long, dark silence lasting decades fell oyer the cancer cure. Ill! time, the CJlfe was labelled a 'myth'-it never happened. However~ documents now available prove that the Cl!Ie did exist, was tested successfully in clinical trials, and in fact was qsed secretly for years afterwards---continuing to cure cancer as well as other diseases. BACTERIA AND VIRUSES In 19th century France, two giants of science collided. One of them is now world renowned-Louis Pasteur. The other, from whom Pasteur stole many of his best ideas, is now essentiafly forgotten-Pierre Bechamp. One of the many areas in which Pasteur and Bechamp argued concerned what is today known as pleomorphism--the occurrence of more than one distinct form of an organism in a single life cycle. Bechamp contended that bacteria could change forms. A rod shaped bacterium could become a -spheroid, etc. Pasteur disagreed. In 1914, Madame Victor Henri of the Pasteur Institute confit'ffred that Bechamp was correct and Pasteur wrong. But Bechamp went much further in hiS argument for pleomorphism. He cont!;nded thaJ bacteria could 'devol've' into smaller, unseen forms-what he called miCrQzyIRa. In other words, B.echamp developed--on the basis of a lifetime of ,research--a theory that micro organisms could change their essential size as well as their shape, depending on the state of health Of the organism in which the micro-organism lived. This directly contradicted what orthodox medical authorities have believed for most of the 20th century. Laboratory res.earch in recent years has provided confitmation for Bechamp's notion. This seemingly esoteric scientifIc squabble had ramifIcations far beyond academic insti tutions. The denial of pleomorphism was one of the cornerstones of 20th century medical research and cancer treatment An early 20th century acceptance of pleomorphiSm might have prevented million.s of Americans from suffering and dying of cancer. In ,a paper presented to the New York Academy of Sciences in 1969, Dr Virginia LiviQgston and Dr Eleanor Alexander-lackson declared that a single cancer micro-organ ism exists. They said that the reason the army of cancer researchers couldn't fInd it was NEXUS-2S