Antibiotics Introduction
Antibiotics History
Antibiotics Classes
All Antibiotics Classes Table
Types of Antibiotics
Indications for Antibiotics
Antibiotic Pharmacodynamics
Alternatives to Antibiotics
   - Some Alternatives
   - Natural Alternatives
   - Homeopathy Alternatives
   - Antibacterial Essential Oils
Antibiotic Resistance
  - Antibiotic Resistance History
  - Antibiotic Resistance Introduction
  - Signs of Antibiotic Resistance
  - Resistant Organisms
  - Bacterial Mechanisms
  - Causes of Antibiotic Resistance
  - Combating Antibiotic Resistance
Antibiotic Side Effects
   - Antibiotics Allergies
Antibiotics and Alcohol

Antibiotics for Age

Antibiotics Ages - New Age Antibiotics
A New Age - Antibiotics to Probiotics

The coming of age of Antibiotics

Origins of antibiotic drug discovery are frequently traced to 1929 when Alexander Fleming recognized the antibacterial activity of a substance secreted by Penicillium notatum on a contaminated culture plate. However, the subsequent development of penicillin as a therapeutic agent was not realized until the early 1940s, after a consortium of academic and pharmaceutical scientists from England and the United States developed sufficiently advanced fermentation technology to produce high-purity penicillin in large enough quantities for medical supplies. It was at this time that the antibiotic era was truly successfully launched. During the following decade, unprecedented antibiotic research and development emerged in academic laboratories and the pharmaceutical industry, resulting in identification of most of the antibiotic classes currently used therapeutically. This short historical commentary describes some of these early events, beginning with a conference held at the New York Academy of Sciences in 1946, the first conference to focus entirely on the latest science related to the identification and characterization of antibacterial substances produced by microorganisms.

The Post-Antibiotic Age

It was great while it lasted: The "Age of Antibiotics". Sure came and went in a hurry, though, didn't it? Left me with a few questions:

  • How did antibiotics run their course already in just 50 years?
  • How did we get so sick?
  • Where does all the money go?
  • Why aren't we making any progress?
  • What's going to happen now?
  • These are the questions for which you can almost never get a straight answer. Unless you look beyond Newsweek, beyond the San Francisco Chronicle, beyond 20/20, or Ted Turner, beyond the media which year by year seem to cater to an ever-dwindling level of literacy and awareness.

    Questions like these involve some famous people: Pasteur, Bechamp, Koch, Bernard, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Fleming, all of whom we'll mention. But before we launch off into all that, let's turn back the clock for a moment and go back to 1350 A.D. Place: the European continent.

    In less than two years' time, the BubonicPlague wiped out half the population of Europe. Fleas bit rats and then bit man, but no one knew it. An estimated 25 million people died in 14 months. Some individual cities had a mortality as high as 90%. Bodies were piled into carts and dragged away to be burned in common graves. It was a most grotesque way to die: bleeding and screaming and having one's organs literally liquefy. From infection to death took perhaps one week. Prior to that outbreak, bubonic plague had been absent for nearly 1000 years. Scholars of the day attributed the cause of the plague to evil spirits, divine retribution, etc. All this time, even up to the present, other scientists have been asking the question: why did some die and some survive? What made the difference? Today we know the answer.

    Go forward now a few centuries to France in the 1870s. Three scientists were conducting experiments in the area of chemistry, particularly having to do with fermentation, yeast, and the new discovery of little organisms called bacteria. All were involved in similar research but there was much competition and "borrowing" of discoveries, always with the undercurrent of politics and influence, as usual. The men were Louis Pasteur, Antoine Bechamp, and Robert Koch, a German. These men were not colleagues, but worked independently. They all knew they had entered a whole new area of human discovery and the race was on to influence the medical world.

    It was Pasteur who won the race of politics and influence so that today students memorize that Louis Pasteur "discovered" the GermTheory. Not only is this not accurate, and not only is the Germ Theory itself unsubstantiated even today, but Pasteur himself in one of the most quoted deathbed statements perhaps of all time, recanted the Theory and admitted that his rivals had been right, and that it was not the germ that caused the disease, but rather the environment in which the germ was found: "Bernard acail raison; le terrain c'est tout, le germe c'est rien."

    What exactly was this Germ Theory? Very simply, the Germ Theory stated that there were separate diseases and that each disease was caused by a particular microorganism. It was the job of science, then, to find the right drug or vaccine that would selectively kill off the offending bug without killing the patient.

    That would be great, but nature rarely is so black and white about things, ever notice that? For one thing, bacteria and viruses tend to be "environment-specific." That's why some people get colds and others don't. That's why some survived the Bubonic Plague. That's also why some doctors and nurses seem to be immune to disease even though they're surrounded by it every day. The Germ Theory has as many holes as a Swiss cheese, and it is likely that Pasteur knew it. But a little research shows us that Pasteur had a gift for PR. He rarely let his research keep him away from an opportunity to address royalty or medical society in the most prestigious university settings. He was quoted and published and offered practically every honorary title and chair in Europe. The records however not only cast suspicion, but seem to establish fairly clearly that Pasteur "borrowed" the research for some of his most famous discoveries, and then capitalized on the celebrity of being there first.

    Before he died, Pasteur instructed his family not to release some 10,000 pages of lab notes after his death. Not until 1975, after the death of his grandson, were these "secret" notes finally made public. An historian from Princeton, Professor Geison, made a thorough study of Pasteur's lab notes. Geison presented his findings in an address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston in 1993. Dr. Geison's conclusions: Pasteur published much fraudulent data and was guilty of many counts of "scientific misconduct," violating rules of medicine, science, and ethics. Like Koch, Pasteur was very motivated by money. In the race for a vaccine for anthrax, for example, not only did Pasteur not test it on animals before using humans; it was also established that Pasteur actually stole the formula from a colleague named Toussaint. Unable to prove his claim at the time, Toussaint died a few months later of a nervous breakdown.

    The same was true with the earlier work on fermentation, which supposedly formed the basis for the Germ Theory. Fermentation means changes in living matter, like souring milk, rotting meat or fruit, or making wine. It turns out that much of these research findings were lifted from another contemporary, AntoineBechamp. Proof for this is quite clear and was the subject of a book published in 1932 that is still in print: Bechamp or Pasteur? This book was written by E. Douglas Hume, who it turns out was actually a woman who had to disguise her name as male to get the book published. Antoine Bechamp was the most respected researcher and teacher in France at the time, department head at the university at Lille. But Bechamp was too busy to be bothered with conventions and awards and politics. He was a professor and a researcher, and that took every moment of his time until his death at 93. Bechamp's view was that it was not the bug that caused disease, but rather the condition, or the terrain, in which bugs lived. Disease happens when an imbalance allows some of the more pathological that is, bad, bacteria to take over. What causes that? Low resistance, weak immune system. Seems like such a simple idea, but that is really the foundation of the whole controversy all along. In the end everyone, even Pasteur, agreed that bugs - bacteria and viruses - do not alone cause disease.

    A little research uncovers the following amazing possibilities about Pasteur, which the reader is encouraged to further investigate:

  • Pasteur had no training or credentials in either medicine or physiology; he was a chemist
  • Pasteur very likely created the disease known as "hydrophobia," rather than found a cure for it.
  • Pasteur initiated the practice of vivisection with horrific animal experiments. Hundreds of thousands of laboratory animals have been needlessly killed by atrocious experiments in the ame of "science," not only at Pasteurian Institutes, but pervasively throughout the entire empire of medical research laboratories worldwide, even to the present time
  • Rather than protect the human race from disease, Pasteur was directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people who were inoculated with unproven vaccines and injections, and directly or thousands more in whom disease was introduced by the administration of unproven pasteurian procedures
  • Pasteur may be seen more as a merchant than a scientist, with his frequent reporting of false test findings and data, which had two designs: self-promotion and profiteering from the sale of drugs and vaccines that were often made mandatory by legislators
  • Pasteurian treatment for a disease he did not even have actually killed Alexander, the King of Greece
  • Pasteur did not work on naturally diseased subjects, but instead introduced the idea of inducing sickness by giving morbid (diseased) injections into healthy subjects
  • As far as his Germ Theory goes, there was much opposition to it among many researchers of his own time. In a lecture given in London on 25 May 1911, M.L. Leverson, MD stated:

    The entire fabric of the germ theory of disease rests upon assumptions which not only have not been proved, but which are incapable of proof, and many of them can be proved to be the reverse of truth. The basic one of these unproven assumptions, wholly due to Pasteur, is the hypothesis that all the so-called infectious and contagious disorders are caused by germs.

    The discoverer of the cell theory, Rudolf Virchow, with respect to the Germ Theory, commented simply:

    "Germs seek their natural habitat."

    Virchow felt that the presence of germs identified the tissue as diseased, but was not the cause of disease. A weakened or diseased tissue may be a target area for microorganisms, a hospitable environment in which they can set up shop. But that's quite different from germs having caused the weakened state.

    Bernard Jensen likens the germ theory of disease to his "rat theory of garbage." Rats do not cause garbage; they are attracted by it, in quite the same way as opportunistic bacteria are attracted to weakened tissues.

    Source -

    Antibiotics Dictionary

    Antibiotics for Acne
    Antibiotics for Acute Otitis Media
    Antibiotics for Abscessed Tooth
    Antibiotics for Abortion
    Antibiotics for Abdominal Infection
    Antibiotics for Acid Reflux
    Antibiotics for Acinetobacter
    Antibiotics for Acidophilus
    Antibiotics for Actinomyces
    Antibiotics for Adults
    Antibiotics for Adenoids
    Antibiotics for Advantages
    Antibiotics for Aerobic Anaerobic
    Antibiotics for AECB
    Antibiotics for Aeromonas
    Antibiotics for Agriculture
    Antibiotics for Agar
    Antibiotics for Age
    Antibiotics for Aggressive Periodontitis
    Antibiotics for AIDS(HIV/AIDS)
    Antibiotics for Allergies
    Antibiotics for ALS
    Antibiotics for Alpacas
    Antibiotics for Alzheimer's
    Antibiotics for Amoebiasis
    Antibiotics for Amoeba
    Antibiotics for Aminoglycosides
    Antibiotics for Ammonia
    Antibiotics for Anthrax
    Antibiotics for Animal Bites
    Antibiotics for Anemia
    Antibiotics for Ankylosing Spondylitis
    Antibiotics for Angular Cheilitis
    Antibiotics for Anorectal Abscess
    Antibiotics for Anorexia
    Antibiotics for Antifungal
    Antibiotics for Antineoplastics
    Antibiotics for Antiviral
    Antibiotics for ANUG
    Antibiotics for Anxiety
    Antibiotics for Aortic Insufficiency
    Antibiotics for Appendicitis
    Antibiotics for Arthritis
    Antibiotics for Arthroscopic Surgery
    Antibiotics for Aspiration Pneumonia
    Antibiotics for Asthma
    Antibiotics for Aspergillus
    Antibiotics for Asplenia does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
    ?2011, All rights reserved.