Antoine Béchamp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kusername (talk | contribs) at 10:11, 10 December 2011 (Moving some information for better organisation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Antoine Béchamp
Antoine Béchamp
Born(1816-10-16)October 16, 1816
Bassing, Moselle, France
DiedApril 15, 1908(1908-04-15) (aged 91)
Paris, France
Nationality (legal)French
Known forIdentifying parasites of silkworm diseases, innovating dye production, developing first organic arsenical drug
Scientific career
FieldsBiology, chemistry, pharmacy

Pierre Jacques Antoine Béchamp (16 October 1816 – 15 April 1908) was a French biologist, chemist, pharmacist, and nonpracticing doctor of medicine who served as professor at the University of Strasbourg, the University of Montpellier, and the University of Lille.[1]

Béchamp identified what he called microzymas. With fellow researcher Alfred Estor, and later through experiments and observations with his son Joseph, the two Béchamps and Estor came to regard microzymas as the builders and operators of cells, plants, and animals—elementary and immortal units of organisms.

Biography

Béchamp was born, soon after the Napoleonic Wars, on 16 October 1816 in the town of Bassing, in the Lorraine region of France, where his father owned a flour mill.

At age 11, with the consent of his parents, he was taken to Bucharest, the capital of Romania, by his mother's brother who was French consul to Bucharest but died a few years later. Béchamp then became assistant to a chemist, in Bucharest, who enrolled Béchamp at the university, where Béchamp obtained in 1833 a diploma in pharmacy. Still under age 20, Béchamp returned to France, and, while working under chemist in Strasbourg, obtained from the University of Strasbourg a degree in chemistry.

In the town Benfeld, in the Alsace region of France, Béchamp met and married Clémentine Mertian, daughter of a retired tobacco and beet-sugar merchant, and she bore four children. After becoming professor of chemistry, he earned both the degree doctor of medicine and the degree bachelor of science and letters at the University of Strasbourg, where he was nominated professor at the School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science.

A great rivalry

Béchamp is often called "Pasteur's rival",.[2] or "Pasteur's great rival".[3] Pasteur start in pure chemistry and switch to applied biology—then switching courses of applied research—has been noted,[4] and contrasted with the tenacity, particularly in basic research, of Béchamp.[5] Odent (2007) explains that by comparing the researches of the two, the contributions of Béchamp become clear.[5]

Chemistry

Dye

During the period of mauveine's discovery, aniline was an expensive laboratory compound.[6] Its prohibitive cost limited its commercial application, yet in 1852 Béchamp developed an inexpensive method to produce aniline. Soon it was prepared "by the ton".[6] The new method, in use from 1854 into the early 20th century, enabled Germany to build its great aniline dye industry. Although the Bechamp reduction is now mostly replaced by direct reduction with hydrogen, it was long the dominant method of aniline production.[7]

Enzymes

On 16 May 1854 Béchamp began in the laboratory of the School of Pharmacy a series of experiments that concluded on 3 February 1855. On 19 February 1855 in Report of the French Academy of Science Béchamp reported data attributing fermentation to microorganisms airborne.[5] Béchamp explains, "Cold water can only change cane sugar if mould can develop these elementary fungi acting as fermentation agents.[5] Pasteur published work on fermentation in 1857—not mentioning Bechamp.[5] As Pasteur was a professor of chemistry in the same city as Béchamp in 1854 when Béchamp also covered for Pasteur—away in Paris—it is unlikely that Pasteur was unaware of Béchamp's research.[5]

It has been indicated that Eduard Buchner in 1897 merely repeated data reported by Béchamp 1857.[8] Yet, without yeast cells, Buchner used yeast zymase and reported alcoholic fermentation, whereas Béchamp—also without yeast cells and using what he, too, called zymase—reported sugar inversion yet no alcoholic fermentation.[9] According to K.L. Manchester,[10] what Béchamp called "zymase" was invertase.

Pharmacy

In 1859, to address the great toxicity and yet low effectiveness of inorganic arsenical drugs Béchamp developed the first organic arsenical drug, and called it atoxyl.[11] In 1908, Paul Ehrlich and Sahachiro Hata modified atoxyl and developed the first syphilis treatment widely considered adequately safe and effective—salvarsan.

Biology

Pasteur's microbian theory refuted Béchamp's microzymian theory—what refuted cell theory and then microbian theory too.

Cell theory

Cell theory is attributed to Theodor Schwann, Matthias Jakob Schleiden, and Rudolf Virchow.[12] All three were pupils of Johannes Peter Müller, who emphasized the similarities between plant cells and animal cells.[12] In 1838 Schwann—partly upon stimulus through conversation with Schleiden—offered cell theory to explain animal structure, and in 1839 Schleiden offered cell theory for plants.[12]

Pearce (1914) explains,

Certain views of Schleiden and Schwann were, as knowledge of the cell increased, abandoned, but their conception of all tissues as composed of cells was the incentive to the detailed investigations which followed. The view that cells arose from a homogenous cytoblastema or matrix, by a process analogous to crystallization, gave way to the knowledge that all cells are derived from preexisting cells as expressed in Virchow's maxim omnis cellula e cellula, and also the views of the importance of the cell wall and of the cell cavity gave way later to the knowledge that the nucleus is the essentially important part of the cell.[12]

Microzymian theory

On 5 December 1866 The Lancet reported,

Strange as it may appear, M. A. Béchamp, one of the most celebrated of French chemists, alleges that chalk contains an abundance of minute living cellular organisms, and in proof of this assertion, he points to the known fermenting power of chalk, and offers also microscopic evidence of the presence of these minute bodies. Chalk is known to contain fossil foraminifera in such large quantities that 100 grams would furnish as many as 2,000,000 specimens.

But, says, Béchamp, in addition to these, chalk undoubtedly contains other organisms more minute than any of the infusoria, and these, though perhaps millions of yeas old, are still living. Take, he says, from the centre of piece of chalk a portion of the substance, crush it, and mix it with pure distilled water, and examine it with a high microscropic power, and you will see numerous minute brilliant points exhibiting a peculiar trembling movement. That this movement is not what is termed Brownian, M. Béchamp considers to be proved by the facts: (1) that these particles, when isolated, act as powerful ferments; and (2) that when analyzed they are found to consist solely of carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen.

We must confess that M. Béchamp’s views startle us, and we should like to see them corroborated. All microscopists are familiar with peculiar trembling movements of the particles of matter contained in in the cavitites of crystals. Further, we should like to know how M. Béchamp contrived to separate these wonderful organisms, which he terms microzyma crelae, from the organic remains of the surrounding foraminifers. A living organism as old as the chalk formation is certainly an 8th wonder of the world.[13]

A 1911 English translation of Béchamp's final book is inscribed There is nothing but what ought to be (Galileo). Nothing is created, nothing is lost (Lavoisier). Nothing is the prey of death; all things are the prey of life (Béchamp).

Microbian theory

Spontaneous generation?

Pasteur had already developed the conviction that spontaneous generation was false, and when his experiments supported spontaneous generation, Pasteur ignored those results.[14] Béchamp did not maintain that bacteria arise from nothing—yet that they arise from microzymas. To the extent that this resembled spontaneous generation, however, Pasteur's claim took sway.[3] Garrison (1927) explains,

When Béchamp, Pasteur's great rival, elucidated his theory of microzymes, he hit upon a view of things for which his own period was not ripe but which may make its fortune later, namely, the concept of an intermediate or transition stage between [nonliving] substance and [living] form. He conceived of microzymes as discrete, particulate organized ferments"—entities with enzymatic action—"arising de novo in the tissues and capable of functioning as disease germs or of originating them. But inasmuch as this bizarre notion of the origin of bacteria implies adherence to the old doctrine of spontaneous generation, Pasteur won out all along the line. Béchamp's ideas were submerged in the ensuing general triumph of the bacterial theory of specific infections, and what was really significant in his line of thought was ignored or forgotten. As with the atom in physics, the microbe or disease germ was supposed to be the smallest particle of living matter capable of functioning as an individualized organism.[3]

Microzymes survive Béchamp

Watkins (1912) explains, "Béchamp has demonstrated that the microzymas are the constituent and physiological basis of all anatomical life. Starting with this premise it would follow that the microzymas are the constituent of the liver, lungs, bones, cells, and the blood, and are therefore the basis of the work the hematologist".[15] Watkins (1912 & 1913) demonstrates their presence in the chicken egg[15] and in blood.[16]

Hypothetical units

A 1920 dictionary of scientific terms in biology, botany, zoology, anatomy, cytology, embryology, and physiology includes microzymas as an entry under "hypothetical units", describing similar elementary units of organisms proposed by many other researchers.[17] Couch (1922) explains,

Reflection made it clear that the evidence demands the existence of a unit of living matter smaller than the cell but larger than the physicist's molecule. This was first suggested by Henle in 1841, and has been accepted by most cytologists. A number of names for a hypothetical ultramicroscopical vital unit have been proposed: physiological units (Spenser), gemmules (Darwin), pangens (De Vries), Plasomes (Weisner), micellæ (Nägeli), plastidules (Häckel and Elssberg), inotagmata (Englemann), biophores (Weismann), bioplasts (Beale), somacules (Foster), idioblasts (Hertwig), idiosomes (Whitman), biogens (Verworn), microzymas (Béchamp and Ester), and gemmæ (Haacke). Of the terms listed above, one is of especial interest to students of chemical terminology. The term 'micellæ' proposed by Nageli in 1877 has been employed by the botanists. Today it holds an important place in colloid chemistry as the name for the ultimate colloidal particle. It is destined to even greater importance for it is being used as a base upon which is constructed the newer theories of life and death, of disease, immunity, and anaphlaxis, of development, growth, and inheritance. The 'micella' is not only the ultimate particle of colloidal matter—it is the ultimate living thing.[18]

New science of "debris"

Bacterial pathogenicity

Recoverable from infected tissues and influenced by environmental factors, membrane vesicles—exhibiting biochemical and functional properties—emerge from growing bacteria, and play roles in establishing colonization niche, transporting and transmitting virulence factors into host cells, and modulating host defense and response.[19] Membrane vesicles that emerge from bacteria determine bacterial virulence and modulate the host's immune response.[20]

Stem cell action

Although bone marrow stem cells are standardly held to constantly divide under command by their DNA genomes, it is now understood that when deprived of microvesicles from exhausted and injured tissues, marrow stem cells in laboratory culture go dormant.[21] Apparently, in the living human, microvesicles traffic to the bone marrow, enter stem cells, reprogram them, and—riding the stem cells back to their native tissues—transform the stem cells into the microvesicles' own native cell type, thus replenished.[21] Ideological and research-funding barriers had been erected against this data,[21] at last published.[21] Microvesicles from injured tissues appear required to operate the marrow stem cells.[22]

Microvesicles from stem cells were found carrying RNA sequences—sometimes absent from their originating cells after microvesicle exit—mediating cell differentiation, cell survival, multiorgan develeopment, and immunity.[23] Stem cell actions might depend on the microvesicles.[23] The microvesicles induce transcription of specific genes.[24] No longer considered "inert cellular debris", microvesicles transfer cell receptors, proteins, microRNA, and messenger RNA, and appear to continuously modulate the stem cell population.[25] Microvesicles from stem cells in turn can induce body cells that survived injury to dedifferentiate, reenter cell cycle, and help tissue regeneration.[25]

Placenta formation

Embryogenesis

Cancer

Degenerative disease

Most diseases under today's research focus seem mediated by membrane vesicles that emerge from and traffic information between cells.[26] At 30 to 1000 nm (0.03 to 1 μm), the largest are the size of some classical bacteria cells.[26]

Germ theory

The concept of contagion long predated the intellectual synthesis of France's Louis Pasteur and Germany's Robert Koch, whom germ theory is often attributed to.[27] Germ theory's prediction was that each disease historically defined clinically—by physician observation of the case's signs and symptoms—had a necessary and sufficient cause, in other words a cause both required and complete, which would be identified as a specific species of microorganism. Germ theory attributed disease solely to the "invading" microorganism attacking the "injured host".[27] Koch never quite set forth Koch's postulates, and the posulates can be traced to Koch's teacher's, Henle. Béchamp held that "microbian theory of disease" was silly because, upon natural exposure to microorganisms, host factors would mediate their actions and perhaps transform the microorganisms.[28]

Béchamp: Silkworm diseases

Béchamp independently researched the two silkworm diseases—flaccidity and pebrine—blighting France's silk industry to great economic consequences.[5] In spring 1865 Béchamp reported to the regional agricultural department that pebrine was a parasitic disease and indicated how to keep the silkworms healthy.[5] In June 1865 Pasteur began study of silkworm diseases.[5] On 20 May 1867 Béchamp reported to the Academy of Sciences that flaccidity hinged on infection with mycrozymas bombycis, and the local newspaper Le Messager Du Midi reported it on 22 May 1867.[5] On 29 May 1867, though not mentioning Bechamp's name, Pasteur remarked on pebrine, "Its essential character is precisely in its constitution...what an audacious lie it is to say that these microscopic things are outside the eggs and the worms. I think those people are crazy...".[5] In 1868 Pasteur took Béchamp's view.[29] In letters to prominent members of French society, Pasteur announced that Pasteur had figured out the silkworm diseases.[5]

Pasteur: veterinarian vaccinology

Pasteur's first two vaccines—chicken cholera in 1880 and cattle anthrax in 1881—were veterinarian. As Pasteur was not a physician, nor even trained biologist, it was highly controversial when in 1885 Pasteur first tried rabies vaccine on a human, young Joseph Meister.

In 1850 Casimir Davaine had visualized a bacillus and postulated it as the agent of anthrax.[30] Yet in 1876 Robert Koch first obtained pure cultures of it, identified its spore stage—it dormant form occurring in soil—and used it to demonstrate anthrax in laboratory animals.[30] In 1877 Louis Pasteur while aware of Davaine's and Koch's work—as well as work newly begun by veterinarian Henry Toussaint—began competing with Toussaint to develop an anthrax vaccine, though many doubted that vaccines could be developed systematically.[30] In 1879 Toussaint isolated bacteria associated with chicken cholera and, admiring Pasteur, named its genus Pasteurella.[31] In 1879 Pasteur left a culture of it out, exposed to air, while away from his laboratory a couple of days, and found its virulence attenuated.[32]

Pasteur: Cattle anthrax vaccine

On 12 Jul 1880 the Academy of Science published Toussaint's report of protecting dogs and sheep from anthrax by vaccination with anthrax bacillus attenuated though chemical modification.[31] Pasteur declared that chemical modification could not work.[31] On 5 May 1881, in the town Pouilly-le-Fort, Pastuer began the first public experiment of anthrax vaccination—on 24 sheep, 6 cows, 1 goat—and on 17 May the animals were revaccinated.[30] A control group—24 sheep, 4 cows, 1 goat—were unvaccinated.[30] On 31 May both groups were inoculated with virulent anthrax from spores that Pasteur had since 1877.[30] By 2 June the unvaccinated goat was dead, 21 sheep were dead, 2 died before the spectators' eyes, and the other died by day's end.[30] The cows—much larger animals—survived but had developed disease.[30] All vaccinated animals seemed unaffected.[30] Although Pasteur, in his communications with the Academie de Medicine, intentionally withheld conflicting data on degree of protection, Pasteur was triumphant, having demonstrated that new vaccines could be developed at will in the "scientific laboratory", ushering in a new era in vaccine development.[30] Pasteur used Toussaint's method in the public experiment and in his Paris laboratory producing anthrax vaccine for commerce.[31]

Koch: The tubercle bacillus

Tuberculosis was considered a constitutional disease, inherited, as well as a disease poets and the melancholy, and symbolized the Romantic era's departure from severe rationalization—the Age of Enlightenment and the industrial revolution.[33] In 1882 Koch identified the tubercle bacillus, tuberculosis transformed as if overnight into mere contagion under government control through quarantine and medicine, and both Koch's medical acclaim and the germ theory were cemented.[33]

Pasteur vs Koch: Microbe hunting

In 1883, in response to a cholera outbreak in Alexandria, Egypt, the Emile Roux led the first Pastorian mission—an overseas venture of Pasteur's colleagues to discover the involved microorganism—yet the French team failed when Germany's Robert Koch discovered the bacillus, a reason that Pastorian research changed direction.[34]

Rabies vaccine & Pasteur Institute

In 1886 the New York Academy of Medicine for the first time invited laymen to its Annual Discourse, where Dr W H Draper, discussing germ theory, exclaimed, "To the sanitarian it is the revelation of the new gospel. It gives a pith to the principle of cleanliness, which commands a respect that has never been secured by its supposed contiguity to godliness".[35] On 14 November 1888 the Institut Pasteur was inaugurated—Pasteur its first director.

Pasteur & Loir: Modern biowarfare

By 1882 Pasteur and nephew Adrien Loir had ideas to use microorganisms to artificially create infections and cull unwanted populations of organisms.[36] In 1887, with some crops overrun by rabbits, Australia offered a large reward for a solution, whereupon Loir and Pasteur ventured to Australia after first successfully testing the biowarfare to help a French winemaker depopulate her property of rabbits.[36] Digging into the wine cellar of Madame Pommery in the city Rheims, rabbits would dislodge stones, falling and smashing champagne bottles. Pasteur sent an assistant with a culture of the bacteria involved in fowl cholera, and three days later 32 rabbits were dead and the rest vanished.[37] The project wound up an utter failure in Australia,[37] though in 1888 Pasteur and Loir began plans for a Pasteur Institute in Australia.[34]

Colonial & tropical medicine

The idea that Pasteur's science was univeral developed around the researches on microbial virulence and the rabies vaccine—which led to the Pasteur Institute's consecration in 1888—developments "hand in hand with the near total belief in the treatment or prevention of infectious diseases, of which the colonies offered a wide range".[34] In 1891 the first overseas Pasteur Institute opened and was led by Albert Calmette—a French physician in the Corps de Sante des Colonies—in the French colony Cohin-China.[34] A century later—in the independent countries of Indochina—its influence remained.[34]

Tuberculin: Koch & biomedicine

In late 1890 at the Tenth International Congress of Medicine, in Berlin, an audience heard Koch's announcement of a tuberculosis treatment, called tuberculin, exciting the medical community and the public.[38] Koch had sought attain financial independence from government officials by commerce in tuberculin.[39] Although tuberculin remains in use over a century later in diagnosing mere infection with the microorganism, over the following months tuberculin was found ineffective as treatment.[38] In 1891 Koch's plans were derailed and Koch accepted the Ministry of Culture's offer to direct, in Berlin, the Institute for Infectious Diseases, a prestigious position but not the kind of institution that Koch had sought.[39]

Germ theory: Successes & failures

Germ theory failed to overtake the United Kingdom, however, where physicians understood pneumonia to require host and environmental factors—such as dampness, dustiness, coldness, lung irritation, and inflammation—beyond infection, and knew pneumonia as old man's friend for bringing quick, mostly painless death to the elderly and ailing.[40] Tuberculin use in England brought the discovery that some 9 of 10 individuals were infected with the tubercle bacillus, and yet only about 1 in 10 of infected individuals ever developed the disease respiratory tuberculosis.[41]

Pleomorphism controversy

In 1900 a clinical bacteriology textbook, translated into English for American publication, acknowledges, "The question as to the existence of pleomorphic bacteria of varied form has not been decided yet with certainty".[42] Many types of pleomorphism were reported. Some reported small variations in size and shape, or switch of strains, or switch of species, or switch from bacteria to fungi, or switch to virus and back to bacteria. Besides multiplication by binary fission, some reported sexual reproduction, sporulation, budding, and cyclogeny—an entire reproductive cycle of forms.

"Koch's bacteriology"

In 1878 Koch reported having always observed constant form and function in his bacterial cultures—the principle monomorphism.[43] French bacteriologists under Louis Pasteur's leadership, however, always reported variability.[44] By 1881 Koch acknowledged bacterial classifications as not natural but practical.[44] Yet in 1881 Koch's colleague Georg Gaffky—who felt it unquestionable that variability was due to overgrowth of a minority bacterial population—proposed the strictest monomorphism.[44] Monomorphism remained doctrine upheld not by Koch—who by 1890 readily admitted variability—but by Koch's avowed followers.[44]

American bacteriology

Till about 1875 scientific or medical research were effectively absent from America, alike a colonial outpost to European direction, leadership, culture, and scholarship.[45] American physicians were inspired by Pasteur's accomplishments about medicine's potential, yet traveled for training to Germany, rather, to learn "Koch's bacteriology".[46]. In 1908 an aging Koch visited America and found the American medical community, although massively celebrating Koch, unwilling to revise its native ideas.[47]

By the 1910s German and Austrian bacteriologists generally accepted moderate pleomorphism, as French bacteriologists always had.[48] In 1921, reviewing the European, Russian, and American literature published from 1838 to 1918, Felix Löhnis explained that monormphism as proposed was "utterly untenable".[49] And yet many American bacteriologists argued that any variation were either "overgrowth" of fitter random mutants, "contamination" of their pure cultures, or cellular damage called "involution".[49] They presumed that each bacterium was progeny via binary fission from an identical progenitor cell in an evolutionary lineage, determined by natural selection of fit random variants, branching into an orderly phylogenetic tree of species and strains, and they refused to accept refutation.[49]

In 1912 a microbiology textbook by a Cornell University professor, however, says,

The early observers of bacteria did not recognize distinct genera and species among them. [...] For instance they did not believe that a micrococcus necessarily always remained a micrococcus but that it could change into a bacillus, a vibrio, and later return to the spherical form of the micrococcus. Pleomorphism is no longer recognized in bacteriology. The subject matter of the whole discussion by the earlier writers may be summed up [as] pleogeny, [namely] mutability of function, and [as] pleomorphism, [namely] mutability of shape. We now recognize the definite taxonomic value of such terms as micrococcus, bacillus, spirillum, and the like.[50]

Griffith's report: Transformation

Though the UK's Lister modified some statements, made upon use of mixed cultures, with the introduction of pure culture, in 1873 Lister had remarked that strict monomorphism was "entirely untrustworthy".[51] Going into the 1920s British bacteriologists generally lacked strong stance either way.[51] In January 1928 bacteriologist Fred Griffith at the pathological laboratory of the UK's Ministry of Health published a report on Streptococcus pneumoniae—commonly called pneumococcus for its role in lobar pneumonia—which Griffith through many experiments observed to transform from one strain to another, even switching antigenic type, and back and forth.[52] Griffith's report arrived at The Rockefeller Institute "exploding a bombshell in the field of pneumococcal immunology",[53] and called for revision of pneumonia epidemiology.[52]

Filtration controversy

By the 1920s the pleomorphism controversy in America had settled around one aspect—whether a bacterium could transform into a filterable virus and switch back into a bacterium. Filtrationists, for instance Arthur Isaac Kendall, professor of bacteriology at Northwestern University's medical school, and Edward C Rosenow at the Mayo Foundation, said yes. Nonfiltrationists, for instance Thomas Milton Rivers, director of the virology laboratory at the Rockefeller Institute, and Hans Zinsser, bacteriologist at Harvard University, asserting monomorphism, said no.

K medium

Arthur Kendall had earlier done international work on behalf of The Rockefeller Foundation[54] and was author of a bacteriology textbook in its second edition when in 1931 Kendall developed a new bacterial culture medium, called K medium, to culture filterable forms of bacteria.[54] Standard culture media used degraded proteins, whereas Kendall used intact human proteins.[55] Thone (1931) explains,

Giving germs human proteins to eat is the key to the revolutionary experiments by which Professor Arthur I Kendall, of the Northwestern University Medical School, has made invisible germs visible and caused visible ones to vanish into filterable viruses. This work, hailed as the greatest stride that bacteriology has taken since the days of Pasteur, indicates that many, possibly all, the germs we know can change from visible to invisible and back again, according to what they feed on.[55]

Observing filterable viruses

In 1890, at Northwestern University, the medical fraternity Phi Rho Sigma had been formed by medical student Milbank Johnson,[56] who became a prominent physician, attorney, corporate executive, and community leader in Southern California where in 1931 he was administrator at Pasadena General Hospital. Milbank Johnson and pathologist Alvin G Foord offered space in the hospital's pathological laboratory to San Diego resident Royal Raymond Rife—who had engineered an innovative microscope—supplied with tissue samples from cancer cases to search for a unique virus.

In 1913 the American Society for the Control of Cancer (ASCC), promoting early detection and treatment, formed with a mission statement to not seek cancer's cause.[57] UK government took the other approach, and in 1925 its team William E Gye and J E Bernard reported the cancer virus in The Lancet.[58][57][59] Gye was biologist, and Bernard brought imagery technique, indirect since microscopes—magnifying only 1500 times—could not visualise so tiny an entity.[59] Gye explained that the virus was necessary but not sufficient—requiring a hormonal cofactor and preexisting cell damage.[57][59] Noting bacteria were usually present, Gye presumed monomorphism and inferred them "contaminating", though some other researchers regarded them as different forms of the virus.[60]

ASCC said it foresaw the discovery via The Rockfeller Institute's breakthroughs in bacteriology, but that the virus must be confirmed in every single cancer case.[57] After calling its first international summit, ASCC had its George Soper travel throughout Europe with $10,000 cash, donated by Rockefeller Jr, persuading its various cancer research leaders to attend.[61] It concluded that a virus was not involved.[61] Gustave Roussy added that cancer's tie to inflammation was misguided.[61] In 1926 Roussy became director of France's new cancer institution.[62]

In November 1931 Kendall traveled by railway to Southern California with his K medium. Using Rife's microscope, at last Kendall clearly observed the filterable form of Bacillus typhosus (now Salmonella enterica enterica serovar typhi).[63] At the time Mary Mallon, commonly called Typhoid Mary, was quarantined, under effort by George Soper, against her will in New York City as a subclinical carrier of the bacteria after she had refused to obey public health authorities' orders, resumed working in the cooking industry, and deaths were attributed to her.

Kendall's Hopkins lecture

On 12 January 1932 Kendall gave the De Lamar Lecture at the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health.[64] (In 1913 Rockefeller philanthropy undertook to overhaul public health practice, and in 1916 founded the Hopkins public health school as a new model, with William Welch as its first dean, and in 1921 Rockefeller philanthropy gave $1.785 million to endow such public health school at Harvard University.)[65][66] In attendance, Welch showed some interested, yet Rivers, in his own later words, "in essence called the fellow a liar", whereupon Zinsser launched in a lengthy and vehement tirade berating Kendall. Kendall published the De Lamar Lecture in the 18 March 1932 issue of Science.[64] Zinsser published in Science the assertion that bacerial filtration was a step backward for bacteriology. A couple of years later pure microbiologists were still endeavoring to dispel monomorphist dogma, stunting advances in understanding of bacteria, as they undoubtedly exhibited pleomorphism.[67]

L forms of bacteria

In 1935 Emmy Klieneberger-Nobel in London at the Lister Institute reported that she could not free cultures of a particular bacterial species, Streptobacillus moniliformis, of filterable entities—what she called L1—yet held uncertainty whether it was a symbiont or a filterable form of S moniliformis.[68] All other researchers reported them as forms of S moniliformis, not a symbiont, and Klieneberger-Nobel acknowledged the same.[68]

When the bacterial cell wall is destroyed, an L form develops from 10% to 80% of the time.[69] Using special media and modified technique on L forms harvested from blood and egg yolk—free from mature bacteria—obtained from normal healthy chickens, Buxton and Phllips (1980) found that most of the L forms reverted to classical staphylococci.[70] L forms can be considered undifferentiated cells that, depending on the stimulus and environment, can transform along several different pathways, and, evading immune survellience, integrate with host cells' organelles.[71]

Modern virology

In 1933 Shlessinger first isolated a virus—as known in the modern sense of the word—TMV. In late 1936 it was resolved that TMV was composed of RNA and protein: ribonucleoprotein (RNP). With the electron microscope at last viruses were visualised.

Genomic era

One century after Koch's developmentof bacteriology, 1976 Penn and Dworkin (1976) explain recitals of praise over anthrax, cholera, and tuberculosis have removed Koch's accomplishments from their historical context, especially in relation to Koch's contemporary microbiologists not performing medical research yet performing basic research.[72] Bacteria have particular tendencies, and classifications remain useful, yet bacteria are quite pleomorphic.[72] Koch's pure culture method enabled systematic study of bacteria by reductionist approach, as bacteria exhibit pleomorphism in mixed culture.[73] Ror similar reason mycology—study of fungi—adopted pure culture.[73] Yet bacteria in nature occur in mixed cultures and can transform into any other microorganism.[73] Today bacteriology is an applied science—medical microbiology.[74]

Blood sterility

A 1900 clinical bacteriology textbook says, "Bacteria are ubiquitous: they are found everywhere; only the internal organs of the human and animal body not in communication with the atmosphere are free from them".[75] The 2009 textbook Comprehensive Medical Assisting echoes, "Occasionally a patient will need to have blood collected for culture. The culture will determine if the patient has pathogens in the blood. Normally blood is sterile".[76]

Once the 1980s brought in the genomic era, pure microbiologists accepted that as many as 99% of microorganisms in certain environments cannot be cultured by standard means.[77] Pleomorphic bacteria naturally occur in the blood of healthy humans.[78] The National Institutes of Health estimates that some 90% of cells in a human are microorganisms.[79] A human can be considered a superorganism.[79]

"Stealth pathogens"

In a medical journal Onwuamaegbu et al (2005) note that pleomorphic bacterial forms, known for over a century, occurr naturally or after artificial induction, and that many reports associate these "atypical" forms with disease.[80] In the manner of evidence-based medicine, they searched a database of medical literature with specific search terms, but conclude that the evidence for "clinical significance" is "not compelling".[80] Lida Mattman's textbook Cell Wall Deficient Forms: Stealth Pathogens explains that the disease manifestations, when the pleomorphic variants are not adequately regulated, are extremely diverse.[81] Pleomorphic bacteria redirect expression of the host cell genome and perhaps thereby underlie autoimmune diseases.[79]

Origin of life

Molecular darwinism

Nanovesicles

Somer et al (2004) explain, "Nanobacteria or living nanovesicles are of great interest to the scientific community because of their dual nature: on the one hand, they appear as primal biosystems originating life; on the other hand, they can cause severe diseases.[82] Their survival as well as their pathogenic potential is apparently linked to a self-synthesized protein-based slime, rich in calcium and phosphate (when available)".[82]

Sommer and Pavláth (2006) explain that the nanobacteria, some 60 to 300 nm, are best described as nanovesicles.[83] Nanovesicles collect calcium and phosphate to form apatite, adhere to cells, or invade cells—processes mediated by a slime based on primordial proteins—and their minimal structure yet versatility gives them unique survival potential.[83] Identified in humans, animals, wastewater, and the stratosphere, nanovesicles were perhaps present on the primitive Earth.[84] When exposed in vitro either to polarised white light or to laser light at low, nonthermal levels, the nanovesicles exhibit clearly accelerated replication in a dose-dependent manner to the white light, yet not to the laser light.[84] This suggests that they are alive and could harvest sunlight for their own development and to mediate biomineralization.[84] They could have a role in photoreceptor mechanisms in organisms, and astrobiological as well as evolutionary theories are implied.[84]

Urbano and Urbano (2007) effectively indicate, however, that nanobacteria conceptions rest more on fantasy than on fact, as the nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) extracted from some was evidently "contamination".[85] Raoult et al (2008) characterised the nanobacteria as lifeless mineral-protein complexes.[86] Young et al (2009) add that they replicate in serum when calcium is added, regenerate after exposure to harsh chemicals and gamma irradiation, and yet seem to lack nucleic acid.[87] Thus they conclude that although the nanobacteria are alike entities reported by microbiologists for over 100 years—variously called microzymas and somatids—they are "remnants of physiological processes", perhaps like membrane vesicles that exit cells to mineralize bones and teeth.[87] Young and Martel (2010) acknowledge that the entities exhibit roles in pathophysiology, yet announce "The rise and fall of nanobacteria".[88] Kim et al (2011) acknowledge their reports yet maintain that Raoult et al and Young et al were unable to show that the nanobacteria are not pathogenic microorganisms, and find the molecular methods—recognising the nucleic acid earlier reported—still useful to determine nanobacteria proliferation in humans.[89]

In 2011 a team of applied physicists at Harvard, Princeton, and Brandeis showed that clay can form semipermeable vesicles, a semiprotected environment that perhaps hosted the first protocells.[90] Cleland (2007) explains, "The very theory that all kinds of life on Earth have been characterized has been questioned, because most life, to begin with, is effectively invisible, and the present technology of molecular biology"—extracting DNA or RNA sequences—"simply could not detect other forms of life".[91] Greener (2008) explains that we do not even know how life originated, which components of organisms came first, or even what life is—that we simply categorise our own observations.[92]

Viruses

Symbiosis

Virions can fuse with pleomorphic bacterial cells.[93]

Signs of immortality?

Persister cells

In 1944 bacterial persister cells were identified.[94] Most infections in the modernised world occur via biofilm formation by bacteria, and, within biofilm, persister cells forfeit multiplicaton yet exhibit extreme tolerance of the chemical assault, for instance antibiotic drugs.[94][95] Under 0.1% of the population but unlike either ordinary cells or even drug-resistant mutants, the persister cells are difficult to isolate and culture, yet exhibit dormancy-growth-proliferation and maintain the stability of the microbial community's structure.[96]

Ancient bacteria

Data in 2007 indicated that some frozen bacteria, rather than survive by dormancy, have continued cell metabolism and DNA repair for half a million years.[97][98][99]

Sporelike cells

In 2001, in mammalian tissues, sporelike cells were identified that survive boiling, extreme freezing, and, in the brain, oxygen deprivation for a week, such that when cultured they transform into normal host cells.[100][101]

L form durability

Classical Escherichia coli cells subjected to boiling or autoclaving—sterilization method use in hospitals—can transform into L forms that survive.[102] This seems to call for revision of conceptions of sterilisation.[102]

Living water?

Seibert (1923) explains, "Although Hort and Penfield clearly showed that water, sterile, chemically pure, and injected immediately after distillation will not produce a fever, they still leave open the question as to what the occasionally found fever-producing substance is, where it comes from, and how it develops. They called it a pyrogenic substance, showed that it develops on standing, is filterable, and suggested that it is of bacterial origin".[103]

Once they have developed traits like resistance to lethal stresses, killed cultures of intestinal bacteria can pass the traits to microorganisms later entering their environment.[104] Rowbury (2003) says, "This phenomenon is so widespread that it is clear that it has significance for enterobacterial survival in natural waters, in foods and in food production, in the domestic, commercial, and hospital situation, and in the animal and human body".[104]

Tale of two legacies

Pasteur's gift to history

When Pasteur died in September 1895 respects were paid at the Cathedral of Notre Dame where Raymond Poincaré—France's Minister of Public Education and later France's President—remarked, "Humanity, which you have helped, will surround your glory in unanimous and imperishable cult".[105]. As did any individual, however, Pasteur had dectractors.[105] Martínez-Palomo (2001) explains, "Pasteur never backed down before them. On the contrary, he strengthened his arguments, exercised his formidable powers of rhetoric, and was always able to overcome criticism in order to continue to progress in his career".[105] Colleagues, successsors, and many family members, too, actively bolstered Pasteur's legend.[106]

Pasteur bequeathed his laboratory notebooks to history—lodged at France's Academy of Sciences—yet ordered that they be opened to research 100 years after his death.[107] An heir of Pasteur left his laboratory notebooks to the Bibliotheque Nationale, in Paris, which opened the notebooks to scholars in the mid 1970s.[108] Historian of science Gerald L Geison examined Pasteur's 102 notebooks and explains in The Private Science of Louis Pasteur (1995) that Pasteur's accomplishments in biology and medicine were mediated mainly by deception.[108][14][109] Boussaingault (2011) explains, "Part of his genius was to seize the discoveries of his colleagues to explain and to file patents, without naming any names"[107] Pasteur obtained from Béchamp the information on silkworm diseases, from veterinarian Henry Toussaint the anthrax vaccine, and from veterinarian Pierre-Victor Galtier the protocol of rabies vaccination.[107]

Recalling Béchamp

British Medical Journal's 1908 obituary opens, "Professor Béchamp, who was probably best known in this country as a critic and rival of Pasteur, died recently at the age of 92".[2] Two sentences later it closes, "His name is associated with bygone controversies as to priority which it would be unprofitable to recall".[2] Odent (2007) explains that published documents in libraries throughout the world show it undeniable that Béchamp's work often preceded and suprassed that of Pasteur, who was continually aware of yet feigned ignorance of Béchamp's work and maneuvered to suppress it.[5] A century later Béchamp's name is sometimes noted by individuals using or offering heterodox healthcare while indicating that Béchamp's indications were correct.[110] Christopher Bird, coauthor with Peter Tompkins of The Secret Life of Plants, explains that one Gaston Naessens, also French, although Naessens did not know of Béchamp, had in effect confirmed Béchamp's theory of biology.[111]

Academic record

  • Master of Pharmacy
  • Doctor of Science
  • Doctor of Medicine
  • Professor of Medical Chemistry and Pharmacy at Montpellier
  • Fellow and Professor of Physics and Toxicology—Strasbourg Higher School of Pharmacy
  • Professor of Chemistry at Strasbourg
  • Professor of Biological Chemistry and Dean of Faculty of Medicine of Lille
  • Chevalier of the Legion of Honour
  • Commander of the Rose of Brazil

References

  1. ^ "Antoine Béchamp and Victor Cornil Memento for Romanian pharmacy, chemistry, and medicine". Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi. 2008 Apr-Jun;112(2):560-6. PMID 19295038. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  2. ^ a b c "Obituary. Professor Béchamp". Br Med J. 1908 May 9;1(2471):1150. PMC 2436492. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  3. ^ a b c Garrison FH. "Bacteriophagy and the theory of ultrascopic viruses". Bull N Y Acad Med. 1927 Apr;3(4):217-24. PMC 2393624. PMID 19311565. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  4. ^ Latour B, The Pasteurization of France (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), ch 2 "You will be Pasteurs of microbes!", p 68–70.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Odent M, Primal Health (East Sussex UK: Clairview Books, 2007, repr 2007), "Historical note: Pasteur, an adventurer in well-charted territory?", p 163-5.
  6. ^ a b Perkin, William Henry. 1861-06-08. "Proceedings of Checmical Societies: Chemical Society, Thursday, May 16, 1861." The Chemical News and Journal of Industrial Science. Retrieved on 2007-09-24.
  7. ^ McKetta, John J. (1989). "Nitrobenzene and Nitrotoluene". Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing and Design: Volume 31 - Natural Gas Liquids and Natural Gasoline to Offshore Process Piping: High Performance Alloys. CRC Press. pp. 166–167. ISBN 9780824724818.
  8. ^ Milton Wainwright, "Early history of microbiolgy", Advances in Applied Microbiology, 2003;52:333-55, esp pp 341-342: "Our textbooks, however, erroneously tell us that Buchner was the first to extract an enzyme from yeast, and call it zymase, a 'breakthrough' that was achieved in 1897, some 35 years after Bechamp's experiments!"
  9. ^ Antoine Béchamp, Les microzymas, Centre international d’études A. (Paris: 1883, repr 1990), pp 286-288
  10. ^ Keith L. Manchester : " Antoine Béchamp: père de la biologie. Oui ou non? ", Endeavour, Vol. 25, n° 2, 1 juny 2001, pp. 68-73; Keith L. Manchester : " Louis Pasteur, fermentation, and a rival ", South African Journal of Science, vol. 103 (2007), online.
  11. ^ Steverding D. "The development of drugs for treatment of sleeping sickness: A historical review"—sec "Arsenicals". Parasit Vectors. 2010 Mar 10;3(1):15. doi:10.1186/1756-3305-3-15. PMC 2848007. PMID 20219092. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link).
  12. ^ a b c d Pearce RM. "A brief historical sketch of some of the early studies of the finer structure of plant and animal tissues". Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp. 1914 Feb;25(276):51-7, notably p 55. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  13. ^ "Living (?) organisms in chalk". Med News. 1867 Feb;25(290):29–30. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  14. ^ a b Wolpert L, "Experiments in deceit", New York Times, 7 May 1995.
  15. ^ a b Watkins RL. "The microzymas in the hen's egg". Med Times. 1912 Oct;40(10):292–3. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  16. ^ Watkins RL. "Blood examination". Health Culture. 1913 Jun;19(6):289-90. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  17. ^ Henderson IF & Henderson WD, A Dictionary of Scientific Terms: Pronunciation, Derivation, and Definition of Terms in Biology, Botany, Zoology, Anatomy, Cytology, Embryology, Physiology (New York: D Van Nostrand, 1920), “Hypothetical units”, p 143.
  18. ^ Couch JF. "The evolution of chemical terminology. III. The micella". Am J Pharm. 1922 Jul;94(7):470-7. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  19. ^ Kuehn MJ & Kesty NC. "Bacterial outer membrane vesicles and the host-pathogen interaction". Genes Dev. 2005 Nov 15;19(22):2645–55. PMID 16291643. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  20. ^ Ellis TN & Kuehn MJ. "Virulence and immunomodulatory roles of bacterial outer membrane vesicles". Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2010 Mar;74(1):81–94. PMID 20197500. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  21. ^ a b c d Quesenberry PJ, Dooner MS, Aliotta JM. "Stem cell plasticity revisited: The continuum marrow model and phenotypic changes mediated by microvesicles"—sec "Cell-cycle status of marrow stem cells". Exp Hematol. 2010 Jul;38(7):581-92. doi:10.1016/j.exphem.2010.03.021. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  22. ^ Quesenberry PJ, Colvin G, Dooner G; et al. "The stem cell continuum: Cell cycle, injury, and phenotype lability". Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007 Jun;1106:20-9. PMID 17360803. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  23. ^ a b Collino F, Deregibus MC, Bruno S; et al. "Microvesicles derived from adult human bone marrow and tissue specific mesenchymal stem cells shuttle selected pattern of miRNAs". PLoS One. 2010 Jul 27;5(7):e11803. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011803. PMC 2910725. PMID 20668554. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  24. ^ Aliotta JM; et al. "Microvesicle entry into marrow cells mediates tissue-specific changes in mRNA by direct delivery of mRNA and induction of transcription". Exp Hematol. 2010 Mar;38(3):233-45. PMID 20079801. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  25. ^ a b Deregibus MC, Tetta C, Camussi G. "The dynamic stem cell microenvironment is orchestrated by microvesicle-mediated transfer of genetic information". Histol Histopathol. 2010 Mar;25(3):397-404. PMID 20054810. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  26. ^ a b Anderson HC; et al. "Role of extracellular membrane vesicles in the pathogenesis of various diseases, including cancer, renal diseases, atherosclerosis, and arthritis". Lab Invest. 2010 Nov;90(11):1549–57. PMID 20805791. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  27. ^ a b Board on Global Health, Antimicrobial Resistance: Implications for Global Health & Novel Intervention Strategies, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (U S A), 6-7 Apr 2010.
  28. ^ Béchamp A, The Blood and its Third Anatomical Element (Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1911), "Preface", p 50.
  29. ^ Cadeddu A. "The heuristic function of 'error' in the scientific methodology of Louis Pasteur: The case of the silkworm diseases". Hist Philos Life Sci. 2000;22(1):3–28. PMID 11258099. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  30. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Plotkin SA, Orenstein WA, Offit PA, Vaccines, 5th edn (China: Saunders, 2008), p 3.
  31. ^ a b c d Chevallier-Jussiau N. "Henry Toussaint and Louis Pasteur. Rivalry over a vaccine". Hist Sci Med. 2010 Jan-Mar;44(1):55-64. PMID 20527335. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  32. ^ Plotkin SA, Orenstein WA, Offit PA, Vaccines, (2008), p 2.
  33. ^ a b Krause RM. "Koch's postulates and the search for the AIDS agent". Public Health Rep. 1984 May-Jun;99(3):291-9, paragraphs 1–4. PMC 1424581. PMID 6429728. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  34. ^ a b c d e Guénel A. "The creation of the first overseas Pasteur Institute, or the beginning of Albert Calmette's Pastorian career". Med Hist. 1999 Jan;43(1):1–25. PMC 1044108. PMID 10885131. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  35. ^ James G. "Can we solve our growing problem in urban health?". Bull N Y Acad Med. 1964 Apr;40(4):241–55, p 242. PMC 1750589. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  36. ^ a b Dubos RL, Louis Pasteur: Free Lance of Science (New York: Da Capo Press, 1950, repr 1960), p 310-1.
  37. ^ a b Clark DP, Gibson G, Maczulak A, Schoemaker PJH, Schoemaker JA, Germs, Genes, and Bacteria: How They Influence Modern Life (Upper Saddle River NJ: FT Press, 2011), sec "Germ warfare against rabbits".
  38. ^ a b Kaufmann SH. "Koch's dilemma revisited". Scand J Infect Dis. 2001;33(1):5-8. PMID 11234978. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  39. ^ a b Gradmann C. "Money and microbes: Robert Koch, tuberculin, and the foundation of the Institute for Infectious Diseases in Berlin in 1891". Hist Philos Life Sci. 2000;22(1):59–79. PMID 11258101. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  40. ^ Condrau F & Worboys M. "Epidemics and infections in 19th century Britain". Soc Hist Med. 2009 Apr;22(1):165–71, esp paragraphs 14 & 15. doi:10.1093/shm/hkp002. PMC 2663978. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  41. ^ Condrau F & Worboys M. "Epidemics and infections in 19th century Britain". Soc Hist Med. 2009 Apr;22(1):165–71, esp paragraphs 17 & 18. doi:10.1093/shm/hkp002. PMC 2663978. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  42. ^ Klemperer F & Levy E, Elements of Clinical Bacteriology for Physicians and Students, 2nd edn (Philadelphia: W B Saunders, 1900), p 24.
  43. ^ Löhnis F. "Studies upon the life cycles of the bacteria. Part I. Review of the literature, 1838–1918". Mem Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1921;16(2):1–335, notably bottom half p 11.
  44. ^ a b c d Löhnis F, p 11-12.
  45. ^ Ludmerer KM. "The medical schools of New York and the national enterprise of biomedical research, 1850–1987"—sec "Rise of biomedical research in US: 1850–1925". Bull N Y Acad Med. 1988 Apr;64(3):216–36, p 217. PMC 1629324. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  46. ^ Gossel PP. "Pasteur, Koch, and American bacteriology". Hist Philos Life Sci. 2000;22(1):81–100. PMID 11258102. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  47. ^ Maulitz RC. "Robert Koch and American medicine". Ann Intern Med. 1982 Nov;97(5):761-6. PMID 6753684. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  48. ^ Löhnis F, upper half p 10.
  49. ^ a b c Löhnis F, sec "Conclusion", p 88.
  50. ^ Moore VA, Principles of Microbiology: A Treatise on Bacteria, Fungi, and Protozoa Pathogenic for Domesticated Animals (Ithaca: Carpenter & Co, 1912), p28.
  51. ^ a b Löhnis F, very top p 9.
  52. ^ a b Griffith F. "The significance of pneumococcal types". J Hygiene. 1928 Jan;27(2):113–59. doi:10.1017/S0022172400031879. PMC 2167760. PMID 20474956. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  53. ^ U.S. National Library of Medicine, "The Oswald T. Avery Collection", Profiles in Science, 31 Jan 2007.
  54. ^ a b "Medicine: K medium", Time, 3 Aug 1931.
  55. ^ a b Thone F. "Science News. Filterable and non-filterable bacteria". Science. 1931 Jul 31;74(1909):10-2. doi:10.1126/science.74.1909.10. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  56. ^ Wenstrand DEW. "Address at Founder's Day Banquet in Chicago". J Phi Rho Sigma Fraternity. 1916 Jan;13(1):13-5. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  57. ^ a b c d Triolo VA & Shimkin MB. "The American Cancer Society and cancer research origins and organization: 1913–1943"—sec "Towards support of fundamental research", subsec "Initial attitudes". Cancer Res. 1969 Sep;29(9):1615-40, specifically p 1622-3. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  58. ^ "Medicine: Cancer", Time, 27 Jul 1925.
  59. ^ a b c Vischer P. "A romance of the microscope: The amazing story of how fate, three men, and a hobby discovered the cancer germ". Pop Sci. 1925 Oct;107(4):13-4. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  60. ^ Hess D, Can Bacteria Cause Cancer?: Alternative Medicine Confronts Big Science (New York: NYU Press, 1997), p 55.
  61. ^ a b c "Medicine: Cancer", Time, 4 Oct 1926.
  62. ^ "Through the years: 1921-1949", Gustave Roussy Institut de cancerologie, 2011 Oct 12 (Web: access date).
  63. ^ Kendall AI & Rife RR. "Observations on Bacillus typhosus in its filterable state: A preliminary communication". Cal West Med. 1931 Dec;35(6):409-11. PMC 1658030. PMID 18741967. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  64. ^ a b Kendall AI. "The filtration of bacteria. Studies in bacterial metabolism CIII" (PDF). Science. 1932 Mar 18;75(1942):295-301. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  65. ^ Fee E & Bu L. "Models of public health education: Choices for the future?". Bull World Health Organ. 2007 Dec;85(12):977-9. doi:10.2471/BLT.07.044883. PMC 2636307. PMID 18278268. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  66. ^ "Rockefeller gives Harvard $1,785,000 for heath school", New York Times, 22 Aug 1921.
  67. ^ Kritschewski IL & Ponomarewa IW. "On the pleomorphism of bacteria. I. On the pleomorphism of B Paratyphi B"—sec "Summary". J Bacteriol. 1934 Aug;28(2):111–26. PMID 16559732. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  68. ^ a b Dienes L & Weinberger HJ. "The L forms of bacteria". Bacteriol Rev. 1951 Dec;15(4):245–88. PMC 180721. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  69. ^ Makemson CJ & Darwish RZ. "Calcium requirement and magnesium stimulation of Escherichia coli L-form induction". Infect Immun. 1972 Nov;6(5):880–882. PMC 422624. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  70. ^ Buxton A & Phillips JE. "Isolation of staphylococcal L-phase variants from the blood and egg yolks of normal chickens". Res Vet Sci. 1980 Jul;29(1):51-6. PMID 7192878. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  71. ^ Domingue GJ. "Demystifying pleomorphic forms in persistence and expression of disease: Are they bacteria, and is peptidoglycan the solution?". Discov Med. 2010 Sep;10(52):234–46. PMID 20875345. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  72. ^ a b Penn M & Dworkin M. "Robert Koch and two visions of microbiology". Bacteriol Rev. 1976 Jun;40(2):276–83. PMID 786252. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  73. ^ a b c Paracer S & Ahmadjian V, Symbiosis: An Introduction to Biological Associations, 2nd edn (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), ch 1, subch 1.3, sec "Bacteria as multicellular organisms", p 10.
  74. ^ Kaufmann SH. "Robert Koch, the Nobel Prize, and the ongoing threat of tuberculosis". N Engl J Med. 2005 Dec 8;353(23):2423–6. doi:10.1056/NEJMp058131. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  75. ^ Klemperer F & Levy E, Elements of Clinical Bacteriology for Physicians and Students, 2nd ed (Philadelphia: W B Saunders, 1900), p 25.
  76. ^ Lindh WQ, Pooler M, Tamparo C, Dahl BM, Comprehensive Medical Assisting: Administrative and Clinical Competencies (Canada: Delmar Cengage Learning, 2009), p 1162.
  77. ^ Singh J; et al. "Metagenomics: Concept, methodology, ecological inference and recent advances". Biotechnol J. 2009 Apr;4(4):480–94. PMID 19288513. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  78. ^ McLaughlin RW; et al. "Are there naturally occurring pleomorphic bacteria in the blood of healthy humans?". J Clin Microbiol. 2002 Dec;40(12):4771-5. PMID 12454193. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  79. ^ a b c Proal AD, Albert PJ, Marshall T. "Autoimmune disease in the era of the metagenome". Autoimmun Rev. 2009 Jul;8(8):677-81. PMID 19393196. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  80. ^ a b Onwuamaegbu ME; et al. "Cell wall-deficient bacteria as a cause of infections: A review of the clinical significance". J Int Med Res. 2005 Jan-Feb;33(1):1–20. PMID 15651712. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  81. ^ Mattman L, Cell Wall Deficient Forms: Stealth Pathogens, 3rd ed (Boca Raton FL: CRC Press, 2000), chapter 6 "Disclosures by electron microscopy", p 47.
  82. ^ a b Sommer AP; et al. "Functions and possible provenance of primordial proteins". J Proteome Res. 2004 Nov-Dec;3(6):1296-9. PMID 15595742. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  83. ^ a b Sommer AP & Pavláth AE. "Nanobioaerosols—reconsidering agricultural irrigation in a warming world". J Environ Monit. 2006 Mar;8(3):341-6. PMID 16528417. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  84. ^ a b c d Sommer AP, Hassinen HI, Kajander EO. "Light-induced replication of nanobacteria: A preliminary report". J Clin Laser Med Surg. 2002 Oct;20(5):241-4. PMID 12470452. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  85. ^ Urbano P & Urbano F. "Nanobacteria: Facts or fancies?". PLoS Pathog. 2007 May 25;3(5):e55. PMID 17530922. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  86. ^ Raoult D, Drancourt M, Azza S; et al. "Nanobacteria are mineralo fetuin complexes". PLoS Pathog. 2008 Feb 8;4(2):e41. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.0040041. PMC 242841. PMID 18282102. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  87. ^ a b Young JD, Martel J, Young D; et al. "Characterization of granulations of calcium and apatite in serum as pleomorphic mineralo-protein complexes and as precursors of putative nanobacteria". PLoS One. 2009;4(5):e5421. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005421. PMC 2673041. PMID 19412552. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  88. ^ Young JD & Martel J. "The rise and fall of nanobacteria". Sci Am. 2010 Jan;302(1):52-9. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0110-52. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  89. ^ Kim TH, Kim HR, Myung SC. "Detection of nanobacteria in patients with chronic prostatitis and vaginitis by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction"—sec "Discussion". Korean J Urol. 2011 Mar;52(3):194-9. doi:10.4111/kju.2011.52.3.194. PMC 3065132. PMID 21461284. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  90. ^ PhysOrg.com, "Clay-armored bubbles may have formed first protocells", PhysOrg.com, 2011 Feb 7.
  91. ^ Cleland CE. "Epistemological issues in the study of microbial life: Alternative terran biospheres?". Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2007 Dec;38(4):847-61. PMID 18053938. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  92. ^ Greener M. "It's life, but just as we know it". EMBO Rep. 2008 Nov;9(11):1067-9. doi:10.1038/embor.2008.195. PMC 2581846. PMID 18978806. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  93. ^ Citovsky V; et al. "Animal viruses are able to fuse with prokaryotic cells. Fusion between Sendai or influenza virions and Mycoplasma". J Biol Chem. 1988 Jan 5;263(1):461-7. PMID 2826447. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  94. ^ a b Lewis K. "Persister cells and the riddle of biofilm survival". Biochemistry (Mosc). 2005 Feb;70(2):267-74. PMID 15807669. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  95. ^ Dawson CC, Intapa C, Jabra-Rizk MA. "'Persisters': Survival at the cellular level". PLoS Pathog. 2011 Jul;7(7):e1002121. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1002121. PMC 3145784. PMID 21829345. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  96. ^ Long DY, Hu SP, Chen XC; et al. "Persisters and their effects on microbial biofilm tolerance: A review [in Chinese]". Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao. 2010 Oct;21(10):2707-14. PMID 21328964. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  97. ^ Brown S, "Ancient microbes repair DNA: Bacteria trapped in permafrost breathe and repair their DNA for more than half a million years", The Scientist, 27 Aug 2007.
  98. ^ Johnson SS, Hebsgaard MB, Christensen TR; et al. "Ancient bacteria show evidence of DNA repair". Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007 Sep 4;104(36):14401–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.0706787104. PMC 1958816. PMID 17728401. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  99. ^ Lewis K, Epstein S, Godoy VG, Hong SH. "Intact DNA in ancient permafrost". Trends Microbiol. 2008 Mar;16(3):92-4. PMID 18291656. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  100. ^ Vacanti MP, Roy A, Cortiella J; et al. "Identification and initial characterization of spore-like cells in adult mammals". J Cell Biochem. 2001;80(3):455-60. PMID 11135375. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  101. ^ Shmilovici A. "Mammalian spore-like cells—a reservoir of spare parts for old-age?". Med Hypotheses. 2007;68(4):767-9. PMID 17056185. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  102. ^ a b Markova N; et al. "Survival of Escherichia coli under lethal heat stress by L-form conversion". Int J Biol Sci. 2010 Jun 9;6(4):303–15. PMID 20582223. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  103. ^ Seibert FB. "Fever producing substances found in some distilled waters". Am J Physiol. 1923;67:90–104. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  104. ^ a b Rowbury RJ. "How killed enterobacterial cultures can activate living organisms to resist lethal agents or conditions". Sci Prog. 2003;86(Pt 3):157–78. PMID 15079995. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  105. ^ a b c Martínez-Palomo A. "The science of Louis Pasteur: A reconsideration". Q Rev Biol. 2001 Mar;76(1):37–45. PMID 11291570. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  106. ^ "Book review: The Private Science of Louis Pasteur (Princeton Univ Press, 1995)". Soc Hist Med. 1996;9(1):136–7. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  107. ^ a b c Boussaingault G, "Louis Pasteur: Génie ou imposteur?", TV Magazine (France), 29 Mar 2011.
  108. ^ a b Altman LK. "Revisionist history sees Pasteur as liar who stole rival's ideas". New York Times. 1995 May 16:C1,C3. PMID 11647062. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  109. ^ Anderson C. "Pasteur notebooks reveal deception". Science. 1993 Feb 19;259(5098):1117. doi:10.1126/science.259.5098.1117-a. PMID 8438162. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  110. ^ Manchester KL. "Antoine Béchamp: Pere de la biologie. Oui ou non?". Endeavour. 2001 Jun;25(2):68–73. PMID 11484677. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  111. ^ Bird C, The Persecution and Trial of Gaston Naessens (Tiburon CA: H. J. Kramer, Inc., 1991), p 7.

Béchamp publications

The papers on silkworm diseases can be downloaded online.

Articles by Béchamp:

  • Béchamp, Sur l’innocuité des vapeurs de créosote dans les éducations de vers à soie, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences, 1866, tome 62, p. 1341-1341.
  • Béchamp, Réponse aux observations faites par M. Pasteur au sujet d’une Note relative à la nature de la maladie actuelle des vers à soie, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences, 1866, tome 63, p. 425.
  • Béchamp, Recherches sur la nature de la maladie actuelle des vers à soie, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences, 1866, tome 63, p. 311-313.
  • Béchamp, Recherches sur la nature de la maladie actuelle des vers à soie, et plus spécialement sur celle du corpuscule vibrant, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences, 1866, tome 63, p. 391-393.
  • Béchamp, voir l’article Réponse aux observations faites par M. Pasteur au sujet d’une Note relative à la nature de la maladie actuelle des vers à soie, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences, 1886, tome 63, p. 427.
  • Béchamp, Réponse aux observations faites par M. Pasteur au sujet d’une Note relative à la nature de la maladie actuelle des vers à soie, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences, 1866, tome 63, p. 425-428.
  • Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences, 1866, tome 63, p. 552.
  • Béchamp, Note sur le siège du parasite dans la maladie du ver à soie appelée pébrine, et sur la théorie du traitement de cette maladie, en réponse à une Note de M. Joly, du 24 septembre, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences, 1866, tome 63, p. 693-697.
  • Béchamp, Note sur le siège du parasite dans la maladie du ver à soie appelée pébrine, et sur la théorie du traitement de cette maladie, en réponse à une Note de M. Joly, du 24 septembre, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences, 1866, tome 63, p. 696.
  • Béchamp, Extrait d’une Lettre accompagnant l’envoi d’un opuscule sur la maladie des vers à soie, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences, 1866, tome 63, p. 1147-1148.
  • Béchamp, Physiologie – sur le corpuscule vibrant de la pébrine, considéré comme organisme producteur d’alcool, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences 1867, tome 64, p. 231-232.
  • Pasteur, Sur la nature des corpuscules des vers à soie, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences, 1867, tome 64, p. 835-836.
  • Béchamp, Physiologie – Faits pour servir à l’histoire de la maladie parasitaire des vers à soie appelée pébrine, et spécialement du développement du corpuscule vibrant, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences, 1867, tome 64, p. 873-875.
  • Béchamp, Physiologie – Faits pour servir à l’histoire de la maladie parasitaire des vers à soie appelée pébrine, et spécialement du développement du corpuscule vibrant » Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences, 1867, tome 64, p. 875.
  • Béchamp, Lettre adressée au président au sujet de la communication faite par M. Pasteur le 29 avril dernier, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences, 1867, tome 64, p. 1042-1043 et 1043-1045.
  • Béchamp, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences, 1867, tome 64, p. 1045 et voir aussi p. 1185-1186).
  • Béchamp, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences, 1867, tome 64, p. 1045.
  • Béchamp, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences, 1867, tome 64, p. 1043 et 1185.
  • Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences, 1859, tome 48, p. 552-573.
  • Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences, 1859, tome 48, p. 616.

Bechamp's books:

  • Antoine Béchamp, Recherches sur la pyroxyline, Thèse de chimie, éd. Imprim. G. Silberman (1853)
  • Antoine Béchamp, Analyse qualitative et quantitative de l'eau minérale alcaline gazeuse de Soultzmatt, éd. Imprim. Huder, (1853)
  • Antoine Béchamp, Essai sur les substances albuminoïdes et sur leur transformation en urée, éd. Imprim. Silberman (1856)
  • Antoine Béchamp, Les microzymas, éd. J.B. Baillière et fils (Paris) (1883) (reprint by "Centre international d'études A. Béchamp" (1990))
  • Antoine Béchamp, Recherches sur les modifications moléculaires ou états isallotropiques de la matière amylacée, éd. Imprimerie L. Daniel (Lille) (1884) Book free downloaded on site of « Bibliothèque nationale de France (BNF) » - Gallica
  • Antoine Béchamp, The Blood and its Anatomical Third Element

Marie Nonclercq's Antoine Béchamp, l'homme et le savant offers a bibliography on Bechamp.

Books in English mentioning Béchamp:

  • Bechamp An Appreciation, CW Daniel Company, Saffron Walden, UK
  • Gerald L. Geison, The private science of Louis Pasteur, éd. Princeton University Press (1995) (ISBN 0-691-03442-7)
  • Hector Grasset, Bechamp - an appreciation : Being a translation of L'Oeuvre de Bechamp (Pierre-Jacques-Antoine)
  • E.Douglas Hume, Béchamp or Pasteur, Essence of Health (1923), SA
  • Julio Ximenes Senior, Béchamp Against Pasteur (Their Ideas And Their Fights), Gráfica Comércio E Indústria Ltda (1963), Library of Congress reference, Q143.B4X53
  • Charles G. Walters, Fertility from the Ocean Deep (2005) (ISBN 0-911-31179-3)

Books in French mentioning Béchamp:

  • Eric Anselet, Pour en finir avec Pasteur, éd Marco Pietteur (1999)
  • Antoine Béchamp, Les microzymas, éd. ? (1883), (reprint by le Centre international d'études A. Béchamp, (1990))
  • Philippe Decourt, Les vérités indésirables, éd. Les archives internationales Claude Bernard (1989)
  • Douglas Hume, Béchamp ou Pasteur ? (1948), Aurore Valérie.
  • Julio Ximenes Senior, Béchamp Contre Pasteur, Gráfica Comércio E Indústria Ltda (1960)
  • Louise L. Lambrichs, La vérité médicale, éd. Robert LAFFONT (1993) (ISBN 2-221-06594-8)
  • Pierre-Yves Laurioz, Louis Pasteur, la réalité après la légende, éd. De Paris (2003) (ISBN 2-85162-096-7)
  • Adrien Loir, A l'ombre de Pasteur - souvenirs personnels, éd. Le mouvement sanitaire (1938)
  • M. Nonclercq', Antoine Béchamp, l'homme et le savant, éd. Maloine (1982) (ISBN 2-224-00854-6)

Template:Persondata

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antoine_Béchamp&oldid=465097847"