top of page

The Infectious Myth Busted: The Germ Duel.



As a defensive tactic, often defenders of the germ “theory” of disease will challenge those who oppose their views that are borne of a “hundred years of pseudoscientific experimentation” to subject themselves to what they believe may be a “pathogenic agent” in order to disprove contagion, according to Mike Stone of ViroLIEgy.


Mike terms this a “Germ Duel” which he discusses in another article where he busts the infectious myth!


The Infectious Myth Busted: The Germ Duel.


By Mike Stone- originally published in ViroLIEgy’s Antiviral Substack.


In the early 1900s, there was a Canadian doctor who experimented with millions of the so-called deadly pathogenic bacteria of diphtheria, typhoid, pneumonia, meningitis, and tuberculosis. Anywhere from 50,000 to several millions of these bacteria were contained within the cultures that were ultimately swallowed by the volunteers. However, not a single one of them ever came down with disease over the course of the five years of experimentation.


Having satisfied himself of the fraud of the germ “theory” of disease, the Canadian doctor set out a challenge to the rest of the scientific community to prove that microbes can cause disease through similar experiments. While his challenge was largely ignored, a doctor from Minnesota eventually responded by issuing a challenge of his own to the Canadian doctor, wanting him to subject himself to further experiments. Thus, a germ duel was set where the person with the positive claim regarding the existence of so-called deadly pathogenic microbes wanted the one who challenged this belief to prove it wrong by experimenting directly on himself.


Often times when dealing with the defenders of the germ “theory” of disease, we are challenged to similar “germ duels” where, in order to maintain our honor and support our challenge to their positive claim (which they mistakenly believe has been satisfied due to a hundred years of pseudoscientific experimentation), we must demonstrate a willingness to “risk our lives” for it while they get to sit back on fraudulent evidence that they feel is sufficient. We are supposed to subject ourselves to various so-called “pathogenic” agents in order to disprove “infection” and “contagion.” This is a defensive tactic that is employed once the germ “theory” defenders realize that they have no scientific evidence on their side supporting their belief in invisible “pathogenic” boogeymen.


Thus, it somehow becomes “logical” in their minds to demand that we jump through ridiculous hoops in order to satisfy their outlandish scenarios in place of their having to provide experimental evidence that validates the positive claims that they make. It’s an attempt to logically fallaciously shift the burden of proof onto us so that they do not have to defend their position with scientific evidence. Personally, I’ve been told to get bit by a rabid dog, sleep with someone who has an STD, inject myself with HIV-positive blood, sit inside a tuberculosis ward, and take care of an Ebola patient without adequate protection.


Ironically, I can actually cross one of those scenarios off of the list as I personally lived inside a small two-bedroom apartment with my mother-in-law who was said to be in the active and “infectious” phase of the tuberculosis disease for over a month. According to the Mayo Clinic, TB spreads when a person ill with the disease coughs, sneezes or sings, releasing tiny droplets with the germs into the air that another person breathes in, allowing the germs to enter the lungs. The disease is said to spread easily when people gather in crowds or when living in crowded conditions. However, despite the fact that it should have been easy for us to “catch” the disease, neither myself, my wife, my son, nor any of the various relatives and visitors who came to see my mother-in-law during that time ever came down with the tuberculosis disease or even tested positive for it. This was a major turning point that had me questioning the concepts of “infectiousness” and “contagiousness.”


While I may not personally be able to cross the other challenges regularly issued to me off of the list, these kinds of scenarios and experiments have been done before. Take, for instance, when Dr. Robert Wilner injected himself with the blood of an HIV positive patient on live TV (starts at around the 40-minute mark). Dr. Wilner remained fine, never testing positive for HIV or developing AIDS. He eventually died of a heart attack.




As far as sleeping with someone with an STD, while investigating whether or not one can “catch HIV” from an “infected” partner, Nancy Padian’s 1996 study followed 175 discordant couples (1 HIV positive and the other negative) for 10 years. These couples regularly slept together and had unprotected sex. There were no HIV transmissions from the positive partner to the negative partner during the entirety of the study:


Heterosexual Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in Northern California: Results from a Ten-year Study


We followed 175 HIV-discordant couples over time, for a total of approximately 282 couple-years of follow-up (table 3). Because of deaths as well as the break-up of couples, attrition was severe; only 175 couples are represented in table 3. The longest duration of follow-up was 12 visits (6 years). We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study.


“At last follow-up, couples were much more likely to be abstinent or to use condoms consistently, and were much less likely to practice anal intercourse (p < 0.0005 for all). Nevertheless, only 75 percent reported consistent condom use in the 6 months prior to their final follow-up visit. Forty-seven couples who remained in follow-up for 3 months to 6 years used condoms intermittently, and no seroconversions occurred among exposed partners.


“In general, we estimate that infectivity for male-to-female transmission is low, approximately 0.0009 per contact, and that infectivity for female-to-male transmission is even lower.”


“While lack of transmission in our prospective study may in part be due to such unidentified protectivefactors, we also observed significant behavior change over time. In previous reports (8, 14, 29), the proportion of couples who used condoms at their last follow-up prior to analysis was 100 percent; the 75 percent reported here is the lowest proportion that we have observed.


The proportion of couples who would use condoms if the study were continued beyond 10 years remains unknown. Nevertheless, the absence of seroincident infection over the course of the study cannot be entirely attributed to significant behavior change. No transmission occurred among the 25 percent of couples who did not use condoms consistently at their last follow-up nor among the 47 couples who intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up. This evidence also argues for low infectivity in the absence of either needle sharing and/or cofactors such as concurrent STDs.


With regard to being bitten by a rabid dog, according to leading Louis Pasteur researcher  Gerald Geison, there is a very high degree of uncertainty in the correlation between animal bites and the subsequent appearance of rabies-even when the biting animal is certifiably rabid. He also stated that most victims of rabid animal bites could forego treatment without experiencing disease in the future. These statements are backed up by a report by physician and surgeon Millicent Morden titled Rabies Past Present in Scientific Reviewwherein it is reported that many instances of bites by rabid dogs over many decades resulted in zero cases of rabies amongst those who were bitten, and the vaccine itself was to blame for so-called rabies deaths:


“Dr. Matthew Woods, another contemporary of Pasteur, then a leading member of the Philadelphia Medical. Society, wrote much on the subject of rabies. He stated, “at the Philadelphia dog pound, where on an average more than 6,000 vagrant dogs are taken annually, and where the catchers and keepers are frequently bitten while handling them, not one case of hydrophobia has occurred during it’s entire history of twenty-five years, in which time 150,000 dogs have been handled.”


“The records of the London Hospital, a few years ago, showed 2,668 persons bitten by angry dogs. None of them developed hydrophobia.”


St. George’s Hospital, London, records 4,000 patients bitten by dogs supposed to have been mad. No case of hydrophobia.


Dr. Dulles, previously referred to, has said, “I might cite my own experience in the treatment of persons bitten by dogs supposed to be mad, which has furnished not a single case of the developed disease in thirty years. And I have probably seen more cases of so-called hydrophobia than any other medical man.” Dr. Dulles was lecturer on the History of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Consulting Surgeon to Rush Hospital and Manager of University Hospital.”


“There are over 3,000 deaths on record in reports from the Pasteur Institute, of persons bitten by dogs. All died after treatments. On the other hand, the record of the London Hospital, a few years ago, showed 2,668 persons bitten by angry dogs: not one of them developed hydrophobia and not one had been treated by the Pasteur method.”


In the case of being exposed to Ebola, a researcher accidentally injected herself with the “deadly” Ebola “virus” during an outbreak in 2009. While she was said to be “saved” from experiencing the disease due to an experimental vaccine she received that was never before tried on humans, the case can easily be made that she was in no danger at all of ever developing disease even had she never taken the experimental injection. In 2014, a woman took care of 4 family members without using adequate personal protective equipment, relying instead on a raincoat and trash bags, and never contracted the disease. In another example, researchers of a 2016 study on an Ebola outbreak hotspot in Sierra Leone used antibody testing on 187 participants who had been previously quarantined due to sharing a public latrine with a confirmed case or based on a confirmed case living with them. Of the 187 who had direct contact with Ebola patients, 14 were said to have been “infected” at some point in time, even though 12 reported no symptoms whatsoever, while the other 2 reported remembering only having a fever at the time. In other words, despite what the fraudulent antibody results showed, none of the 187 who had direct contact with Ebola patients actually became sick with the disease, even while living with them:


Ebola Might Not Make Some People Sick, Study Finds


In at least one village in Sierra Leone, it seems that up to a quarter of those infected may never have known it.


“Our data indicate that 25 percent of Ebola virus infections may have been minimally symptomatic,” an international team of researchers writes in the Public Library of Science journal PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases.”


“They chose the village of Sukudu in the diamond-rich Kono District. Richardson had been working there with the charity Partners in Health. The collected blood from 187 people who had been quarantined after they shared latrines with known Ebola patients.


They found 14 with antibodies to Ebola, something that suggested they’d been infected. Twelve of the 14 said they did not remember ever having had a fever or being sick during that time.”


Health workers had kept a close eye on villagers, so the researchers believe it’s unlikely the people hid their illness.


“Our data suggest that a significant portion of Ebola transmission events may have gone undetected during the epidemic,” the team wrote.



These are but a few examples of instances where people were exposed, either deliberately or unknowingly, to so-called “pathogenic” microbes and the expected disease did not occur. This evidence should be enough to show that the germ duel challenge that is regularly proposed by the germ “theory” supporters as a defensive mechanism is dead-on-arrival. No matter how many pseudoscientific studies they throw out in an attempt to support their position, there is plenty of evidence that contradicts and completely demolishes any claims of “infectivity” and “contagiousness.”


However, in honour of the proposed germ duel between the doctors of the north from Canada and Minnesota in the early 1900s, I want to share many other instances throughout the formative years of the germ “theory” of disease where people exposed themselves (and others) to so-called pathogenic microbes in natural ways. Some did so with the intention of showcasing the fraud of the germ “theory” of disease. Others were attempting to prove it or use it to their advantage. What will be clear after examining these additional cases is that, even though the germ “theory” duellists are the ones issuing the challenge, we have all of the ammo, and they have nothing but blanks to shoot in return.




























Dr. John Thresh. Perhaps his marvellous moustache filtered out the “deadly” typhoid bacterium. 

This first instance of self-experimentation was of the accidental variety as presented from The Germ Theory of Disease by Dr. Herbert Snow. It is stated that, upon testifying in front of a jury, Dr. John Thresh related a story about his accidentally drinking a pure culture of typhoid bacillus. He remained completely fine without any ill health effects.


“Dr. Thresh, the well-known Medical Officer of Health, told the jury in the Malvern Hydro Citse, that be had accidentally swallowed a wineglassful of the “pure culture” of virulent typhoid bacilli without the smallest ill-consequence.”


From the same source, it is shared that Dr. Emmanuel Edward Klein did not believe that Robert Koch had actually discovered the true cause of cholera. In order to prove this, he drank a wineglassful of a pure culture of comma bacilli without experiencing any ill effect:

“Dr. Klein, who was about to proceed to India to investigate the origin of that disease, did not believe in Professor Koch’s statement and experimentally drank a wine-glassful of comma bacilli in “pure culture.” No effect followed; and Dr. Klein remains alive and well to this day.”


This account can be verified by the 2010 paper 1885 Cholera Controversy: Klein versus Koch:


“According to Waller, on this occasion Klein made the first microbiological auto-experiment by drinking water infected with comma bacillus to prove its uncontagiousness, which was soon repeated by Max von Pettenkofer.”


As noted, Klein’s experiment was also performed by Max von Pettenkofer, considered the greatest authority on cholera, and who was another critic of Robert Koch. At the age of 74, he ingested a pure culture of comma bacilli. While he experienced a light diarrhea, it was not considered to be reflective of the cholera disease. Two other students attempted the same, and while they were said to develop a “severe cholerine” (which is defined as mild diarrhea), the experiments ultimately showed that clinical cholera “was certainly not an inevitable consequence of ingesting virulent cholera bacillus.”


Pettenkofer Revisited


“Pettenkofer was so convinced that the organism alone was insufficient to cause illness that he resolved to carry out the “experimentum crucis” on his own person. This famous event occurred on October 7, 1892 when he was 74 years old. He obtained a fresh culture of cholera vibrio isolated by Prof. Gaffky from a patient dying of cholera. A transfer was made into bouillon and he swallowed 1.0 cc on an empty stomach after neutralizing the acidity with sodium bicarbonate. No symptoms developed except a “light diarrhea with an enormous proliferation of the bacilli in the stool.” Of this experiment Pettenkofer wrote:


“Even if I had deceived myself and the experiment endangered my life, I would have looked Death quietly in the eye for mine would have been no foolish or cowardly suicide; I would have died in the service of science like a soldier on the field of honor. Health and life are, as I have so often said, very great earthly goods but not the highest for man. Man, if he will rise above the animals, must sacrifice both life and health for the higher ideals.” (from Ref. 1)


I am told by Prof. Eyer, current Professor of Hygiene at Munich, that Pettenkofer undoubtedly had had cholera himself during the epidemic of 1830, so that little immunity probably persisted. (Personal communication at Munich, Aug. 1972). Several of Pettenkofer’s students followed their master’s example. Two of them were not as lucky (or as immune) so that a severe “cholerine” developed but there were no deaths. These experiments showed that clinical cholera was certainly not an inevitable consequence of ingesting virulent cholera bacillus.”






















According to the book The Illusion of Viral Contagion_Scientific and Philosophical Review, Dr. Rudolph Emmerich, who was Dr. Pettenkofer’s disciple, injected himself with cholera on stage in front of an audience and survived. His experiments with injecting cholera is verified as well in his 1914 New York Times obituary.


“He performed this on a stage in front of an audience of over a hundred people and survived. Emmerich carried out a number of experiments on himself by injecting several strains of cholera bacilli into his body the results of which proved that cholera is less virulent when contracted from a human being in contradistinction to that from drinking contaminated ground water.”



According to the book Immunity: How Eli Metchnikoff Changed the Face of Modern Medicine, Russian-born zoologist Ilya Metchnikoff and his fellow researchers drank “glass after glass of water mixed with cholera germs from the Seine, from the stools of sick people, from a fountain on one of the squares in Versailles.” While one volunteer nearly died, Metchnikoff and another volunteer remained perfectly healthy.


“Which brings us to 1892. A cholera epidemic was sweeping in France, and Metchnikoff was struggling to understand why the disease struck some people and not others. To do so, he sucked down a drink full of cholera. He never got sick, so he let a volunteer drink some as well. When that volunteer failed to get sick as well, Metchnikoff offered the drink to a second test subject. That man, however, didn’t fare so well. He got cholera and nearly died.”



Ironically, the most damning evidence against the cholera bacillus actually came from Robert Koch himself. After failing to “infect” and reproduce the disease in animals, Koch tried to “infect” himself by drinking pure cultures. Like Pettenkofer, Koch had a mild case of diarrhea that was not reflective of the disease, and the unfavorable result was ultimately used to ridicule him.


In order to fulfill the criteria laid down in the remaining two of his postulates, Koch tried to infect animals with pure cultures of the organism with little success. He rightly concluded that the animals were not susceptible to cholera and took recourse to the extreme step of infecting himself by drinking pure cultures. However, he came down with only a mild episode of diarrhoea, an outcome which was later on exploited by his opponents to ridicule him.”













While the above examples about the inability to reproduce both typhoid and cholera through the ingestion of pure cultures by various researchers is compelling evidence against the germ “theory” of disease, these next examples are absolutely damning. In 1901, Dr. Matthew Rodermund deliberately subjected himself to a smallpox patient by opening the wounds and smearing the pustules all over his face, hands, beard, and clothes. He then went home to have dinner with his family and returned to his office afterward. He met up with a reverend friend whom he exposed, as well as many patients he saw as he touched their faces with his hands. Dr. Rodermund then went to a Business Men’s Club where he played poker with other men, exposing them all. He slept at home with his family and then traveled to Green Bay the next morning by train to eat breakfast and work with 27 patients. He did not wash himself or change his clothes throughout the entire time.


By the next day, reporters had found out about this experiment and asked Dr. Rodermund about the affair. He told them the truth and was eventually quarantined by the police. However, Dr. Rodermund broke quarantine and traveled to Chicago, to Terre Haute, Indiana, and then back home, exposing more people before he was finally arrested. The authorities attempted to trace cases of smallpox to Dr. Rodermund, who, by his own estimate, exposed over 50,000 people throughout his journey, but they were unable to find even a single case of smallpox resulting from the doctors actions to pin on him.


Dr. Rodermund’s Experiment


“Then to show them that this was true, I broke open several of the large pustules on her face and arms and took the pus out of them and smeared it all over my face, hands, beard and clothes, and at the same time remarked that I would now go home to dinner.


I mentioned nothing of the affair to my family during the meal and went directly to my office without telling anyone.”


“The reader can imagine the state of my mind at that time, as none of them had an inkling that I was at that very time covered with smallpox pus, and that the cards we were playing with were being loaded with this poison. Still, I never once mentioned my visit to them. Further, I would never have gone to the club-rooms if I had had the least idea that my actions would ever be known, as I knew the sentiment of these gentlemen and I also had too much respect for them and myself, to impose upon their feelings, even if I did know that their belief was a foolish superstition. I have done similar acts dozens of times during the past fifteen years and have in each instance watched the results and not the slightest harm has ever been done to anyone.


To return to our subject, after leaving the club-rooms that evening I went home, slept with my family, and the next morning took the train to Green Bay, without washing my hands or face, and wearing the same clothes.”


“The sanctimonious frauds and deceivers of the public (doctors) tried in every way, shape and manner, to trace a case of smallpox to my actions, but with no avail. Even after I had exposed 50,000 people, and rubbed my pus-covered hands over thirty-seven faces, they could find nothing against me. In the near future I will publish a few similar incidents which have happened to me the past years, and which are far more interesting than this one.”



Dr. Rodermund later wrote about further experiments that he performed where he attempted to “infect” seventeen people with consumption, scarlet fever, smallpox or diphtheria by spraying the germs into the throat and nose, or having them breathe the germs into the lungs. He repeated these experiments every one or two weeks for months, and none of the subjects became ill.


“I wanted to be so absolutely certain that I was not going to spring a question of so much importance upon the public which could not stand the test and brunt of any investigation that it might be subjected to. I made the experiments upon seventeen people between the ages of fifteen and thirty years, but in no instance could a case of consumption, scarlet fever, smallpox or diphtheria be produced.


These experiments were made in the following manner: I sprayed the poisons of diphtheria, small-pox, scarlet fever, or consumption into the throat, nose, or had them breathe them into the lungs, repeating the experiment in most cases every one or two weeks for months, with the result that no disease could be developed. Of course, I could not let the patients know what I was doing. I was supposed to be treating them for catarrh of the nose or throat.”



In another instance of self-experimentation, according to a paper from December 1896, it was announced that Dr. Thomas Powell had experimented on himself with all manner of “pathogenic microbes.” He was confident in his results and had written various scientific articles about the topic:


A NEW CURE-ALL. A Patent Sanitarium to Be Located in Los Angeles. COLUMBIA. Mo., Dec. 4.—Dr.


“Thomas Powell of Columbia, claims to have learned hnw to inoculate the human system so as to render it impervious to disease genus. As vaccination prevents smallpox, so this discovery will ward off scarlet fever, consumption, diphtheria, and every other disease caused by germs. So confident is Dr. Powell of the truth of his discovery that he has written largely for scientific journals on the subject and has himself tested it practically by exposing himself to ail manner of diseases. He entered this week into an agreement with California capitalists by which he is to be paid $9000 for a one-third interest in the discovery.”































In a Los Angeles Herald article from November 1897, details of Dr. Powells experiments were provided. It was stated that Dr. Powell exposed himself over a period of ten years to the germs of the deadliest diseases in order to shatter the theory of the transmission of contagious disease from one person to another. Dr. Powell not only survived, but he never experienced any ill effects from the undertaking of his experiments. His results were considered conclusive as they were achieved in the presence of two well-known physicians who corroborated the findings. Dr. Powell stated that his experiments proved that germs are the result of, and not the cause of, disease and that they are beneficial to achieving and maintaining health. So convinced was he of his results, Dr. Powell also used family members and other volunteers in his experiments along with himself. He cultured the typhoid, diphtheria, and glanders bacteria to the point of there being no doubt about their “virulent nature,” and he experienced no ill effects beyond a sore arm from the injection. Dr. Powell stated that his greatest trial occurred in the presence of 25 physicians where he took both the typhoid and diphtheria bacteria into his system and, upon examination, it was determined that no ill effects had occurred. In order to ensure that there could be no doubters, Dr. Powell performed the same experiments on two patients who also experienced no ill effects. Dr. Powell was confident that the germ “theory” of disease was fraudulent and challenged anyone to bring forth the most “virulent” bacteria so that he could ingest them. The physicians who witnessed these results firsthand were dumbfounded.


DEADLY GERMS


How Dr. Thos. Powell Has Swallowed Them


BACILLI IN HIS SYSTEM


HE LAUGHS AT THE THEORY OF CONTAGION


Gives to the World the Story of His Ten Years’ Defiance of the Death-Dealing Bacilli


Men have done strange things and taken desperate chances in the interests of science, but none has been stranger or more desperate that the act ot Dr. Thomas Powell, a physician who about a year ago took up his residence in this city, and who has actually taken into his system during the past ten years the germs of the deadliest diseases, for the specific purpose of shattering the time-honored theories regarding the transmission of contagious complaints from one person to another. Incredible as it may seen, Dr. Powell has not only survived the desperate experiments that he has undertaken, but has never shown the slightest signs of any ill effects resulting from them. The evidence regarding the truth of his claim is conclusive. His own written statements are backed up by the testimony of well-known physicians in whose presence Dr. Powell has taken the germs into his system during experiments that he has been secretly making during the past ten years.


Dr. Powell has decided that the time has come for giving to the world the result of his experiments, which he claims have been a complete and unqualified success. Here is the doctor’s statement of the result of his defiance of the power of germs:


“Before going into the details of my experiments with the germs of virulent diseases. I want to preface my statements with the explanation that I do not declare the germs to be harmless in all cases. What I do say is that a person to whom the germs of a particular disease are likely to prove dangerous must have a predisposition towards that particular disease, such predisposition being either hereditory or acquired. Given a man or woman with no such predisposition, and I claim that the deadliest germs are powerless to harm them. They can enter the sick chamber without fear of contracting disease, or even do as I have done, take the living germ into their system and suffer no harm. My experiments have proved the truth of my theory. “I claim that disease germs are utterly incapable of successfully assailing the tissues of the living body; that they are the results and not the cause of disease; that they are not in the least inimical to the life or health of the body; that, on the contrary, it is their peculiar function to rescue the living organism, whether of man or beast, from impending injury or destruction. They’accomplish this by bringing about the decomposition of that obstructing matter which constitutes predisposition to disease, and cause it to be passed out by tlie blood.


“For ten years I have worked on this theory, and the results achieved I now give to the world. I determined in the first place to experiment by inoculating, not an animal whose hold upon life is exceedingly feeble, as is that of the rabbit or guinea pig, but the human body. I made the experiments upon myself, then upon members of my own family, and lastly upon such patients as were within the range of safe experimentation. I inoculated myself with the most virulent typhoid bacilli obtainable, having first eradicated from my system any predisposing cause for the disease. The result was entirely satisfactory, no evil ensuing beyond the usual soreness as in vaccination. Then I took into my system the typhoid bacilli, and no typhoid fever making its appearance, I repeated the experiment with diphtheria germs, without the least perceptible effect.


“In order to make the experiments still more complete, I cultivated the germs of diphtheria and glanders until there could be no doubt of their virility and took them into my system in the presence of two reputable physicians. The outcome was (illegible) the same as before.

“Then I made the greatest trial of all. In the presence of twenty-five physicians I took, first, the bacilli of typhoid into the stomach enclosed in gelatine capsules; and, second, the bacilli of diphtheria by both the vaccination method and subcutaneous inoculation.


“Examinations were afterwards made by the physicians referred to of the pulse, the temperature and of the respiration, and it was unanimously declared that these inoculations produced no greater effect upon me than might have been expected from a like quantity of water.


“In order that there should be no possibIlity of doubting Thomases declaring that the experiments were successful only in my case and that I had in some way been made contagion-proof by nature, I singled out from among my patients two who appeared to be fit subjects for similar experimentation: and, with their consent, put them through the same course as I had undergone, with less virulent diseases. The outcome proved that my calculation were well founded, no evil resulting in their ease any more than in mine.


“I am progressing towards a climax in my opposition to the greatest delusion of the world’s history, which will consist of the most astounding and conclusive demonstration ever made in the establishment of a scientific proposition. So confident am I that the scientists of the world are at fault in their germ theories that I challenge anyone to bring to me the bacilli of any disease known to the medical profession, and I promise to take into my system, in the presence of any jury of physicians that may be selected, germs that have been cultivated into deadly activity by ths usual processes. All I ask is that I may be given time to eradicate from my system any predisposition to the disease that the germ represents.”


The physicians in whose presence Dr. Powell has made the experiments have been completely dumfounded by the ease and facility with which he has uprooted medical landmarks and smashed the chilled-steel theories of science. While admitting that there is no room for doubting the truth of his statements, they are not willing to admit that the theories can be applied generally.


The matter is of so much importance, however, that they are arranging to have a great and convincing test made by Dr. Powell and anyone who is willing to submit to the same inoculation as he has done, in order to settle forever the great question of whether or not a supposedly contagious disease can be transmitted from one person to the other by the medium of germs. The whole world will await the outcome with interest.


DR. THOMAS POWELL



Similar experiments to those done by Dr. Powell were carried out by Dr. John B. Fraser, as reported in his article “Do Germs Cause Disease?” published in the Physical Culture Magazine for May 1919. The excerpt below is reprinted from Dr. Herbert Shelton’s 1939 book The Hygienic System. In his experiments, Dr. Fraser utilized millions of the highly “virulent” germs of diphtheria, pneumonia, typhoid, meningitis, and tuberculosis and fed them to volunteers in various ways. In all instances in over 150 experiments conducted over a 5-year period, no disease ever occurred in any of the volunteers.


“The first experiment made was taking fifty thousand diphtheria germs in water, and after a few days suspense and no sign of the disease it was considered that the danger had passed.  


In the second experiment one hundred and fifty thousand diphtheria germs were used in milk, and again no signs of diphtheria appeared.  


In the third experiment over one million diphtheria germs were used in food without producing any sign of the disease.  


In the fourth experiment millions of diphtheria germs were swabbed over the tonsils and soft palate, under the tongue, and in the nostrils and still no evidence of the disease was discernible. As these results were very satisfactory it was decided to test out some other kinds of germs.  A series of tests were made with pneumonia germs in which millions of germs were used in milk, water, bread, potatoes, meat, etc., and although persistent efforts were made to coax them to develop absolutely no sign of the disease appeared.

 

Another series of experiments were carried out with typhoid germs, special care being taken to infect distilled water, natural milk (not pasteurized) ; bread, meat, fish, potatoes, etc., etc., with millions of the most vigorous germs that could be incubated, and but for the knowledge that they had been taken, one would have known nothing about it.  


Another series of tests were made with the dreaded meningitis germs, and as the germs are believed to develop mainly in the mucous membranes of the nostrils, special pains were taken to swab millions of the germs over the floor and sides of the nostrils, into the turbinated sinuses, over the tonsils, under the tongue, and back of the throat. In addition to these tests other tests were made in food and drink–millions of germs in each case, and yet no trace of the disease appeared. The experiments with the tuberculosis germs were carried out in a different way–more time was given between the experiments so as to allow the germs to develop; for clinical evidence has shown that this disease may remain latent, or imperfectly developed for months.  Consequently it meant months of watching and waiting before one could be positive that the germs would not develop.  


Here again millions of germs were used in water, milk, and food of various kinds; every variety of food and drink was concerned; and as almost five years have elapsed since the experiment with T.B. began and no evidence of the disease has appeared I think we are justified in the belief that the germs are harmless.  In addition to those experiments combinations of germs were used, such as typhoid and pneumonia, meningitis and typhoid, pneumonia and diphtheria, etc., etc., but no evidence of disease followed. During the years 1914-15-16-17-18 over one hundred and fifty experiments were carried out carefully and scientifically and yet absolutely no signs of disease followed.”  


Dr. Fraser provided further explanation in an article published in The Canada lancet: Vol. 49, no. 10 (June 1916), where he pointed out that bacteria are never found when they should be, which is at the beginning of the disease process. The bacterium follows after the disease has developed. Dr. Fraser highlighted his own experiments ingesting diphtheria, typhoid, and pneumonia bacteria. At no time did any disease develop in Dr. Fraser or any of the subsequent volunteers.




































While Dr. Rodermund, Dr. Powell and Dr. Fraser’s experiments are damning in and of themselves, there will be those who may be put off by the results of anyone working with the intention of disproving the germ “theory” of disease. Thus, let’s look at an example where a person very badly wanted the germ “theory” of disease to work out, and the fact that it didn’t ultimately blew up in his face. In 1916, dental surgeon Arthur Waite married the daughter of a very successful pharmaceutical businessman by the name of John Peck. Wanting to seize Peck’s vast fortune for himself, Waite decided to kill John, his wife Hannah, and his sister Catherine.


To do so, Waite attempted to poison them with what he thought were deadly germs that he had accessed from laboratory cultures from sources such as the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research and the Cornell Medical Center. Waite began by trying to poison Peck’s sister Catherine when he added the bacteria cultures to her soup. Once he realized that his plan had failed to bring about disease, according to his own testimony, Waite stated that he gave her “repeated doses of germs, then some arsenic, and after that some ground glass.” He also recalled that he had “injected live germs into a can of fish before presenting it to her.”


Fortunately for Catherine, she survived the attempted murder, and she was ultimately saved from further assault when Hannah Peck came to town and became the center of Arthur Waite’s attention. According to Waite, he started poisoning Hannah from the very first meal after she arrived. He gave her six assorted tubes of pneumonia, diphtheria, and influenza germs in her food and nasal spray. He also injected cultures into her mouth during a dental procedure. He recalled that “when she finally became ill and took to her bed, I ground up 12 five-grain veronal tablets (a barbiturate) and gave her that, too.” Ultimately, it wasn’t the germs that killed Hannah. It was the toxic veronal tablets, and possibly arsenic according to this report, that Waite had used to finish her off. She ultimately was said to have succumbed to kidney failure, which can be a side effect from both barbiturate and arsenic poisoning.


After successfully murdering Hannah Peck and then convincing the family to quickly cremate her body in order to cover up the evidence of poisoning, Arthur set his sights on the grieving husband and father. Acting as a caretaker, Waite testified that he used chlorine gas in his father-in-law’s room in an attempt to make his throat more sensitive to the germ cultures. He would drive Joseph Peck around with open windows while keeping them raised in his bedroom as well during the cold winter nights in an unsuccessful bid to give the elder man pneumonia. After his failure to cause disease in John Peck with bacterial cultures and frigid winter air, Waite placed arsenic in his soup, tea and eggnog. Oddly enough, this measure also failed to kill John Peck. Thus, Arthur Waite resorted to chloroform and a pillow to finally suffocate him to death.


Fortunately, Arthur Waite did not get away with murder. While he tried once again to get the body swiftly cremated, his attempt was ultimately unsuccessful when a relative, who had spotted Waite going around town with a mistress, alerted the family to have an autopsy performed due to his suspicious behavior. The coroner found arsenic in John Peck’s body, and it was revealed that Waite had tried to bribe the embalmer to put arsenic in the embalming fluid. Arthur Waite was convicted of murder and put to death by electric chair on May 25th, 1917. Had the germ “theory” actually worked as theorized, Waite would have easily gotten away with murder.


Poisoning the Pecks: New book details infamous 1916 Grand Rapids murder case


“Once married, Waite began extensive attempts to poison the Pecks by first dosing mother-in-law Hannah Peck’s food with a mixture of diphtheria and influenza germs. The scheme worked and the elderly woman fell ill and died in January 1916.


John Peck had a tougher constitution and Waite’s attempts to dose him with illness-causing germs fell short. Finally, in March 1916, Waite resorted to arsenic-laced eggnog and finished his father-in-law off by suffocating the man with a pillow.


The plot occurred largely in New York, where Waite was using Peck family money to lead a double life with mistress Margaret Horton.


Had Waite successfully infected John Peck with an illness virulent enough to cause his death — he tried diphtheria, tuberculosis, typhus and influenza — he likely would have gotten away with the murders. But he couldn’t get virulent enough germs and preserve them in a way that kept them dangerous, Buhk said.


Waite also tried to kill Peck’s sister, Catherine, with germs.


“The depth of Waite’s deception was shocking to people,” said Buhk. Newspaper accounts of the time referred to the man’s “tissue of lies.”


Waite tried to have John Peck’s body cremated quickly in order to destroy the evidence of arsenic poisoning. He’d managed it with Hannah Peck, but a friend of the family got suspicious after having watched both Pecks die in Waite’s posh Manhattan apartment.”




While the spectacular failure of Arthur Waite to use “deadly germs” to kill his victims is compelling evidence, that is not the most incriminating demonstration against the germ “theory” of disease. In what is likely the most (in)famous failed attempt to prove the germ “theory” of disease, during the height of the most deadly “virus” of all time with the Spanish flu, researcher Milton Rosenau attempted to prove how the disease spread as well as identify a causative agent. To do so, volunteers at Gallops Island in Boston were subjected to one strain and then several strains of Pfeiffer’s bacillus by spray and swab into their noses, throats and eyes. When these attempts failed to produce disease, new volunteers were inoculated with mixtures of other organisms isolated from the throats and noses of influenza patients. These attempts also failed, so the researchers used the blood from influenza patients and injected this into volunteers. When that failed to produce disease as well, thirteen volunteers were taken into an influenza ward and exposed to 10 influenza patients each. True to form, this final attempt also failed to produce disease. These same experiments were conducted on the other side of the continent at Goat Island in San Francisco, and the researchers obtained the exact same results. This left Rosenau confused, stating that they entered the experiments believing that they knew how disease spread from person to person. However, afterward, the researchers were left admitting that they knew absolutely nothing at all.


Experiments to Determine Mode of Spread of Influenza Milton J. Rosenau, M.D. Boston


“Now, we proceeded rather cautiously at first by administering a pure culture of bacillus of influenza, Pfeiffer’s bacillus, in a rather moderate amount, into the nostrils of a few of these volunteers. These early experiments I will not stop to relate, but I will go at once to what I may call our Experiment 1.


As the preliminary trials proved negative, we became bolder, and selecting nineteen of our volunteers, gave each one of them a very large quantity of a mixture of thirteen different strains of the Pfeiffer bacillus, some of them obtained recently from the lungs at necropsy; others were subcultures of varying age, and each of the thirteen had, of course, a different history. Suspensions of these organisms were sprayed with an atomizer into the nose and into the eyes, and back into the throat, while the volunteers were breathing in. We used some billions of these organisms, according to our estimated counts, on each one of the volunteers, but none of them took sick.


Then we proceeded to transfer the virus obtained from cases of the disease; that is, we collected the material and mucous secretions of the mouth and nose and throat and bronchi from cases of the disease and transferred this to our volunteers.”


“In this particular experiment, in which we used ten volunteers, each of them received a comparatively small quantity of this, about 1 c.c. sprayed into each nostril and into the throat, while inspiring, and on the eye. None of these took sick. Some of the same material was filtered and instilled into other volunteers but produced no results.”


“Now, thinking that perhaps the failure to reproduce the disease in the experiments that I have described was due to the fact that we obtained the material in the hospitals in Boston, and then took it down the bay to Gallops Island, which sometimes required four hours before our volunteers received the material, and believing that the virus was perhaps very frail, and could not stand this exposure, we planned another experiment, in which we obtained a large amount of material, and by special arrangements, rushed it down to Gallops Island; so that the interval between taking the material from the donors and giving it to our volunteers was only one hour and forty minutes, all told. Each one of these volunteers in this experiment, ten in number, received 6 c.c. of the mixed stuff that I have described. They received it into each nostril; received it in the throat, and on the eye; and when you think that 6 c.c. in all was used, you will understand that some of it was swallowed. None of them took sick.”


“We used nineteen volunteers for this experiment, and it was during the time of the outbreak, when we had a choice of many donors. A few of the donors were in the first day of the disease. Others were in the second or third day of the disease. None of these volunteers who received the material thus directly transferred from cases took sick in any way. When I say none of them took sick in any way, I mean that after receiving the material they were then isolated on Gallops Island. Their temperature was taken three times a day and carefully examined, of course, and under constant medical supervision they were held for one full week before they were released, and perhaps used again for some other experiment. All of the volunteers received at least two, and some of them three “shots” as they expressed it.


Our next experiment consisted in injections of blood. We took five donors, five cases of influenza in the febrile stage, some of them again quite early in the disease. We drew 20 ‘c.c. from the arm vein of each, making a total of 100 c.c, which was mixed and treated with 1 per cent, of sodium citrate. Ten c.c. of the citrated whole blood were injected into each of the ten volunteers. None of them took sick in any way. Then we collected a lot of mucous material from the upper respiratory tract, and filtered it through Mandler filters. While these filters will hold back the bacteria of ordinary size, they will allow “ultramicroscopic” organisms to pass. This filtrate was injected into ten volunteers, each one receiving 3.5 c.c. subcutaneously, and none of these took sick in any way.


The next experiment was designed to imitate the natural way in which influenza spreads, at least the way in which we believe influenza spreads, and I have no doubt it does—by human contact. This experiment consisted in bringing ten of our volunteers from Gallops Island to the U.S. Naval Hospital at Chelsea, into a ward having thirty beds, all filled with influenza.”


“I may say that the volunteers were perfectly splendid about carrying out the technic of these experiments. They did it with a high idealism. They were inspired with the thought that they might help others. They went through the program in a splendid spirit. After our volunteer had had this sort of contact with the patient, talking and chatting and shaking hands with him for five minutes, and receiving his breath five times, and then his cough five times directly in his face, he moved to the next patient whom we had selected, and repeated this, and so on, until this volunteer had had that sort of contact with ten different cases of influenza, in different stages of the disease, mostly fresh cases, none of them more than three days old.


We will remember that each one of the ten volunteers had that sort of intimate contact with each one of the ten different influenza patients. They were watched carefully for seven days—and none of them took sick in any way.”


“Dr. McCoy, who with Dr. Richey, did a similar series of experiments on Goat Island, San Francisco, used volunteers who, so far as known, had not been exposed to the outbreak at all, also had negative results, that is, they were unable to reproduce the disease. Perhaps there are factors, or a factor, in the transmission of influenza that we do not know.


As a matter of fact, we entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.




As can be seen, there are numerous examples of researchers and volunteers (both willing and unwilling) who demonstrated the truth that pure cultures of so-called “pathogenic” bacteria did not live up to the deadly disease-producing reputation. However, even in the face of insurmountable evidence that the germs can not cause disease, some people are unwilling to give up their preconceived beliefs in order to look at the evidence logically.

Thus, even though the proof against the germ “theory” was provided, they still feel the need to try and shift the burden of proof away from themselves to provide evidence supporting pathogenic bacteria in an attempt to place it on to those who have successfully challenged said claim.


This is what happened to Dr. John Fraser, who is the Canadian doctor that was discussed at the start of this article. Even though he had over 5 years and 150 experiments demonstrating the inability of bacteria to cause disease, he was challenged to provide even more evidence supporting his claims. This came via a Minnesota doctor by the name of H. W. Hill who wanted Dr. Fraser to subject himself to even more experiments to prove his claims against germ “theory.” At the time, Dr. Fraser was on vacation, and so in his stead, another doctor from Minnesota by the name of H.A. Zettel stepped up to take his place. However, Dr. Zettel challenged Dr. Hill to having them both submit to inoculation with the germs of typhoid, tuberculosis, diphtheria, meningitis, smallpox, and leprosy. During the challenge, Dr. Zettel would use only diet and general hygiene for “protection” while Dr. Hill would use anti-toxins and vaccines. Thus, a proper germ duel was established. Sadly, Dr. Hill did not accept the challenge, and the germ duel was never settled.


Beyond recounting these events, the article reprinted below has some rather startling admissions:


  1. There was a lack of success of the medical profession in trying to prevent and cure disease by treatments based on the germ “theory.”

  2. The number of people who depended on drugless healing had been rapidly increasing.

  3. At the time, thirty-five million peopIe in the United States depended upon some form of drugless healing when sick.

  4. The average mortality from disease would not have been over 7 percent without any medical treatment, while the mortality under the treatment of some physicians was 12 percent.

  5. Mortality from the Spanish flu was 10 to 20 percent when treated by medical professionals, whereas it was less than 1 percent when people relied on natural healing.

Thus, it can be seen that it is not the germs, but rather the treatments themselves that lead to disease and death.


LET’S GET AT THE TRUTH


A few months ago Dr. John B. Fraser of Toronto published ‘an article describing extensive experiments which he had made to determine if germs cause disease or not, his conclusion being that they do not. He ended by challenging the medical profession to make similar experiments to test the germ theory. The matter was taken up by Dr. H. W. Hill of Minneapolis, who challenged Dr. Fraser to submit himself as the subject of the experiments. Dr. Fraser being then on his vacation, the challenge was accepted by Dr. H. A. Zettel of St. Paul, who suggested that both he and Dr. Hill should submit to inoculation with the germs of typhoid, tuberculosis, diphtheria, meningitis, smallpox and leprosy. Dr. Zettel was to rely on diet and general hygiene for protection against these diseases, while Dr. Hill would use anti-toxins and vaccines. Dr. Hill, however, did not accept the challenge and the “duel” still hangs fire. Legal experts say that if the plan were carried out and one of the doctors should die the other would be legally guilty of murder.


While the circumstances of this “germ duel” are rather amusing, it brings up a subject of vital importance, the correctness of the germ theory, according to a physician. As a result of the lack of success of the medical profession in trying to prevent and cure disease by treatments based on the germ theory, the number of people who depend on drugless healing is rapidly increasing. In an article in a medical magazine, Ely G. Jones, M. D., M Buffalo, recently said: “As physicians we have failed in our duty to the sick; we have failed to find a definite treatment for the diseases common to our country. As a result of this sad state things there are thirty-five million people in the United States that depend upon some form of drugless healing when they are sick. It is said that ‘the average mortality from disease in this country would not be over 7 percent without any medical treatment.’ The mortality under the treatment of some physicians is 12 percent. From this it will be seen that the public would be better off without them. If we as physicians are to be of any real benefit to the public the mortality under our treatment must be below 7 percent.”


It might be mentioned in connection with the above statement that the mortality from the flu during the epidemic was from 10 to 20 percent when treated by the regular medical methods, whereas it is claimed drugless methods of treatment resulted in a mortality of less than 1 percent.


It would seem that more conclusive proof of the germ theory is required than has yet been produced. For the benefit of humanity as well as in the interest of science, the medical .profession should perform experiments similar to Dr. Fraser’s and those made by the government last winter when unsuccessful attempts were made to cause the flu by inoculation and voluntary exposure to contagion. If the germ theory is right the results of such experiments will prove it. And if it is wrong the sooner the world knows it the better.


-From the Rocky Mountain News, Denver, Colo., October 13, 1919, and Chicago Evening Post, October 21, 1919.



While Dr. Hill ultimately cowered in the face of the germ duel, even if he had accepted it, those in charge of keeping the germ “theory” narrative intact had a plan to discourage it from ever taking place. Had the challenge been accepted, it was decided that if anyone died as a result of the duel, the other participant would be charged with murder. This was obviously used to keep both men from participating in what would have most assuredly been another dark stain left upon the germ “theory” of disease.


MURDER CHARGE IF DUEL OF GERMS PROVES FATAL


St. Paul Doctor’s Challenge Has Not Been Answered Yet, However.


ST. PAUL, July 17. Death, resulting from injection ot disease germs in the body, whether experimentally or otherwise, would be murder. Thls was the opinion to-day of Harry Peterson, assistant prosecuting attorney, regarding the “threat” of two physicians to inoculate each other with disease and use different methods of attempting to cure themselves.


Dr. H. W. Hill, who challenged Dr. John B. Fraser ot Toronto, said he had heard no more from the latter. In the meantime Dr. H. A. Zettel of St. Paul offered to take Dr. Fraser’a place, but was refused by Dr. Hill.”




Albert Einstein once said that no amount of experimentation could ever prove him right, but a single experiment could prove him wrong. Those defending the germ “theory” of disease should take heed of his words. It does not matter how many papers filled with pseudoscientific experiments with unnatural exposure routes that they put forward. All it takes is a single well-done scientific experiment using natural exposure methods to falsify the hypothesis that germs cause disease.


Unfortunately for those defending the germ “theory,” there has not been just a single experiment that falsified the underlying hypothesis supporting the “theory,” but a multitude of them that have shown that the most “deadly and dangerous” microbes cannot cause illness when healthy subjects are exposed. Thus, while the germ duel was not officially accepted by Dr. Hill in 1919, it had already been settled before the duel had ever begun. Due to the brave work of various researchers willing to question the authorities and the rising dogma, the germ “theory” of disease had been fatally shot down in a blaze of glory.


Comments


bottom of page