Talk:Antoine Béchamp/Archive 1

Bechamp

I think that the paragraph in the Introduction section which begins "people follow bechamp ..." is extremely biased. Could it be changed / removed? User:ickleshellybear 17:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it was there it could be, but it does not appear to be there, nor to have been removed. Further and better details needed. Midgley 16:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the paragraph I was refering to: "Latterly, Bechamp's name and work have been misused by multi-level marketers and anti-vaccinationists in efforts to construct plausible-sounding alternatives to current scientific theory and reality which would allow their financial or meta-medical schemes to be possible of effectiveness."

User:ickleshellybear 11.22, 03 May 2006

Welcome to Wikipedia Ickleshellybear Contribs. Other things than bias may be better to look at there. It might be worth looking for some other items in WP that interest you, and considering whether any of them could be improved. There is no rule against having only one interest, but it doesn't tend to substantiate remarks about something being biased. Midgley 00:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't quite understand. Are you saying observations and remarks on wikipedia are weighted by the quantity of the author's past contributions? If so, I don't see what your comment has brought to the discussion, how it helps Ickleshellybear, or indeed how it encourages him (or her) to make any more contributions to Wikipedia. If you don't agree with Ickleshellybear, isn't it customary to say: "No, I don't agree with that because ..."? --Splidje 16:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Bechamp or Béchamp? <K F> 14:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually meant to be Béchamp, but of course it's become Bechamp on the net because no-one can be bothered (myself included) typing in special characters, especially into search engines and the like. So Bechamp it is... Dminoz (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pleomorphists and Pleomorphism

Wilhelm Riech had some wacky ideas about bacteria, but I didn't see pleomorphism in that article.

Is it possible that this is actually the beginning of an article about pleomorphism, since there isn't one yet, mentioning somehting about Bechamp as a guy who thoguht it up, and telling us whether he died still thinking it?

At that, it looks like a footnote or box for Microbiology "abandoned incorrect theories" or "people offering different ideas at the time pasteur sorted it out" perhaps, rather than a set of biographies. DId anyone do anything becuase of this theory, or not do anything, and did it kill many people or did they just die anyway? Or was it just talk?

Midgley 12:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking whether the theory of pleomorphism has had any adherents other than Bechamp? There are many, and some are important. Two notable ones are Naessens and Rife. There is a good case for a section on "other work on pleomorphism".

As for "Pasteur sorting things out"... is there a wiki page on Pasteur as a fraud yet? Dminoz (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also W Ford Doolittle http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10539-012-9358-7 Also Lida Mattman and Gerald J Domingue. Pleomorphism is basically a reality.

Books: ISBN needed

The reference to the Australian anti-vaccinationist is interesting - does the book really indicate that he is a practicing doctor doing aboriginal healthcare who doesn't believe that antibiotics are useful because he doesn't believe bacteria cause disease? Risky thing to say about most doctors, unless it was true. Midgley 12:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time, when we thought the world was flat...

but actually this turns out to be an underpinning for some fringe stories about the world (their proponents and I would be as one in not describing them as "theories" but for different reasons.) And here is a refernece: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/311/7008/811/b

Definitely, a box. (Or perhaps the odd bit of actual biography...)

which bits?

"much of what Pasteur had postulated were derived from the work and publications of Bechamp."

Science does work by people building upon each other's work, but I suspect this is an attempt to provide support for assorted odd theories by making out, as anti-vaccinationists and otehr fringe theorists tend to, that the people credited with discoveries were despicable. Midgley 09:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For an historical view of work of Bechamp, see article about Bechamp in french site on wikipedia. Pasteur took many ideas from Bechamp. Al7 17:41, 12 December 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.65.148.88 (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Midgley, you might find Hume's "Bechamp or Pasteur?" interesting. That book details and gives references for the many instances in which Pasteur plagiarised and distorted Bechamp's work. Pasteur's bad acts are well documented. Dminoz (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete some bibliography

I would like to know why someone has deleted some books in the bibliography : those talk about Bechamp... Al7 16 December 2006

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the book of Decourt deleted ?

The book of Decourt was more than once deleted from the list of French books about Béchamp. Why ? Decourt is viewed by G.L. Geison as a "valuable critic" of Pasteur, and his book contains a detailed rehabilitation of Béchamp. Marvoir (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing today. Marvoir (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical process?

If anyone can dig out the name of the chemical process he developed (and wiki link it, or write an article), I'd love to know more...
~ender 2008-10-05 5:58:AM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.15.52 (talk)

Other pleomorphists...

I am new to this page and have come here from the work I have been doing on Robert Young's(author) page. With the permission of the contributors to this article, I will add his name as one of the other pleomorphists since Bechamp. If you have any questions about references supporting this claim please see his article.[Robert Young author]Honest Research (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not heard any response from anyone about adding Robert Young so I will do it.Honest Research (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Lida Mattman, Gerald Domingue and W Ford Doolittle 20 February 2016(UTC)

Pleomorphism is basic science

Public debates hinge on general agreement, though public belief can be entirely incorrect, while a scientific theory with a wealth of research support can be dismissed by a general audience ["Scientists and the marketplace of opinions". EMBO Rep. 2005 May;6(5):393–396. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC129931]. The popular if naive view of medical science is that it portrays the natural world as it really is ["Importance of philosophy of science to the history of medical thinking". Croat Med J. 1999 Mar;40(1):8-13. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9933889]. “Yet medical journals often contain poor science. Basic scientists who work in biology and chemistry are regularly scornful of the, mostly, applied science that appears in medical journals” [”The trouble with medical journals”. J R Soc Med. 2006;99:115-9. http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/99/3/115].

It is basic science—microbiology—that bacteria are pleomorphic. The variants are known as L forms, L-phase variants, cell wall-deficient variants (CWDV), spheroplasts, protoplasts, small-colony variants, and so on ["Bacterial L-forms". Adv Appl Microbiol. 2009;68:1-39. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19426852]. These are dramatic changes in form (morphology) and function (physiology): size, shape, metabolism, strain, species, and reproductive mode, sometimes switching from binary fission to budding, or even reproducing from nanostructures.

The pure culture methods, developed by Robert Koch, still prevail in the applied science called medical microbiology ["Bacteriology: Chapter 2: Culture and identification of infectious agents". Microbiology and Immunology On-line. University of South Carolina School of Medicine. 15 Feb 2010. http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/fox/culture.htm]. The pure culture methods were useful for a reductionist start, yet limit the pleomorphism that bacteria show in nature, whereby they can become any other type [Subchapter 1.3 "Symbiosis in all forms of life", section "Bacteria as multicellular organisms". Symbiosis: An Introduction to Biological Associations, 2nd Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), p 10. http://books.google.com/books?id=OmZ6CfHQIZ8C&pg=PA10] ["Observations suggesting the development of streptococci from pleomorphic filamentous gram negative bacteria". Yale J Biol Med. 1971 Jun;43(6):337–50. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2591747].

Kusername (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is irrelevant unless tied to Bechamp. Your expansion of the article based on shaky sources and your own interpretations was rightly reverted. This article is not here to promote Bechamp's views (and your own support of his views). Fences&Windows 19:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antoine Béchamp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061008190715/http://www.pmf.ukim.edu.mk/PMF/Chemistry/reactions/bechamp.htm to http://www.pmf.ukim.edu.mk/PMF/Chemistry/reactions/bechamp.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]