It is a rather serious matter to attack the reputation of a famous man, one who has posed and
been accepted as one of the world’s greatest scientists. For many years, Pasteur has been
looked upon as a founder and leader in serology; but it is always pertinent to look into the
beginnings of any subject on which there is a difference of opinion, with the hope of finding
the truth in the matter.
The writer has made an effort in his prior books and pamphlets to show that the germ theory
is false, and that illness was practically always due to errors of diet or manner of living, the
germs being present solely as scavengers of dead and waste tissues and foods, and not as the
cause of the disease.
However, the erroneous belief that germs cause disease and must be controlled or eliminated
before it can be cured is so widespread as to close the minds of many people to any other
ideas on this subject.
For this reason it seems that a thorough investigation of this idea, the grounds on which it is
based, and even the bona-fides of those who started it on its way, is necessary before any sane
ideas as to the proper treatment of disease can be widely promulgated.
When Miss Ethel Douglas Hume brought out Bechamp or Pasteur? in 1923, it appeared to be
just the thing that would fill this gap and end the use of serums and other biologicals forever.
But it is now 19 years since that book, which should have marked an epoch in the healing arts,
appeared. It did not receive the attention it deserved in medical circles and, though it is now in
its second edition,* the medical profession are pushing biologicals harder than ever.
Hence it seems appropriate to go over the subject in order to show the truth regarding the
falsity of Pasteur’s ideas and claims to fame, and the fraudulent basis on which the germ
theory rests, as was so well shown by Miss Hume in B«champ or Pasteur?, and to add other
facts and statistics that support the idea that the germ theory is false, in the hopes that it may
receive wider circulation and more general attention, and possibly lead to a complete
overhauling of the question of the treatment of disease, especially regarding serology.
The translations from the French, and other material in chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5 not otherwise
credited, are from Beauchamp or Pasteur? by Ethel Douglas Hume.
In closing, I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to the Reverend and Mrs Wilber Atchison
of Chicago for many suggestions and valuable assistance in the preparation of the manuscript.
Miss L. Loat, secretary of the National Anti-Vaccination League of London, has also been
very kind, responding to every request for information with more than could be used, some of
it being especially compiled at the cost of considerable effort.
R. B. Pearson
January 15th, 1942
