—  The Somatid  —

An Ultra-microsopic Subcellular Living and Reproducing Entity !!!

Which can prediagnose degenerative diseases by up to eighteen months !!!


Foreword     Preface     Chap 1     Chap 2     Chap 3 – 15 Selected Quotes     Chap 16     Chap 17     Chap 18     Appendixes


The Persecution and Trial of Gaston Naessens

By  Christopher Bird
Coauthor of the International Best–selling
"The Secret Life of Plants" and "Secrets of the Soil"

The True Story of the Efforts to Suppress an Alternative Treatment for
Cancer, AIDS, and Other Immunologically Based Diseases.

© 1991   Published by H. J. Kramer Inc.
P.O. Box 1082
Tiburon, CA   94920
ISBN 0–915811–30–8

[ "To our readers:   The books we publish are our contribution to an emerging world based on cooperation rather than on competition, on affirmation of the human spirit rather than on self-doubt, and on the certainty that all humanity is connected.   Our goal is to touch as many lives as possible with a message of hope for a better world." ]

( This book was not in print when I checked March, 2004 — Tommy C )

[ Gaston Naessens won several court cases defending the validity of his work. ]
[ The Issue is being able to see what you desire to control. Then, you can study it. Naessens's microscope could do this. ]


The Earthshaking Discoveries of Gaston Naessens:

  • A MICROSCOPE that permits practitioners to view living matter at degrees of resolution far greater than state–of–the–art microscopes currently available.

  • THE SOMATID, an ultramicrosopic subcellular living and reproducing entity, which many scientists believe is the precursor of DNA and which may be the building block of all terrestrial life.

  • THE SOMATID CYCLE — visible in the blood of every human — which, when properly interpreted, can prediagnose degenerative diseases by up to eighteen months.

  • 714–X,  a compound that has restored the perfect health of 750 out of 1,000 cancer victims and that has had equally dramatic effects with AIDS patients.

( This book and its Appendixes comprise important reading material that will help you understand "The Life Processes Here on Planet Earth". — Tommy )


Foreword     Preface     Chap 1     Chap 2     Chap 3 – 15 Selected Quotes     Chap 16     Chap 17     Chap 18     Appendixes


Foreword

Few individuals in their lifetimes have the privilege of so impacting established views that they are ridiculed, threatened, and vilified. Few individuals have the courage and intestinal fortitude to pursue truth, as they know it in the face of withering attacks by those without vision – those who, even though they have eyes, do not see.

Fortunately for the world, there are a few rare mavericks like Gaston Naessens who understand the wisdom of the words of Orville Wright: "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true really is true, there would be little hope of advance."

Fortunately for the world, there exists Gaston Naessens, who exemplifies a perception of Felix Marti-Ibanez: "Great men, men who struggle alone for a great cause, are like great rivers. Debris may block their waters, but it never stops them from flowing."

This book is about a great river of human energy known by the name of Gaston Naessens – a name readers of this fascinating work by Christopher Bird will never forget.

Hugh Desaix Riordan, M.D. Director, Olive W. Garvey Center for the improvement of Human Functioning, Inc, Wichita, Kansas.


Foreword     Preface     Chap 1     Chap 2     Chap 3 – 15 Selected Quotes     Chap 16     Chap 17     Chap 18     Appendixes


Preface

"Most secrets of knowledge have been discovered by plain and neglected men than by men of popular fame. And this is so with good reason. For the men of popular fame are busy on popular matters."

Roger Bacon (c. 1220 – 1292),   English philosopher and scientist


This book is about a man who, in one lifetime, has been both to heaven and to hell. In paradise, he was bestowed a gift granted to few, one that has allowed him to see far beyond our times and thus to make discoveries that may not properly be recognized until well into the next century.

If a "seer's" ability is usually attributed to ephemeral "extrasensory" perception, Gaston Naessens's "sixth" sense is a microscope made of hardware that he invented while still in his twenties. Able to manipulate light in a way still not wholly accountable to physics and optics, this microscope has allowed Naessens a unique view into a "microbeyond" inaccessible to those using state-of-the-art instruments.

This lone explorer has thus made an exciting foray into a microscopic world one might believe to be penetrable only by a clairvoyant. In that world, Naessens has "clear seeingly" descried microscopic forms far more minuscule than any previously revealed. Christened somatids (tiny bodies), they circulate, by the millions upon millions, in the blood of you, me, and every other man, woman, and child, as well in that of all animals, and even in the sap of plants upon which those animals and human beings depend for their existence. These ultramicroscopic, subcellular, living and reproducing forms seem to constitute the very basis for life itself, the origin of which I has for long been one of the most puzzling conundrums in the annals of natural philosophy, today more sterilely called "science".

Gaston Naessens's trip to hell was a direct consequence of his having dared to wander into scientific terra incognita. For it is a sad fact that, these days, in the precincts ruled by the "arbiters of knowledge," disclosure of "unknown" things, instead of being welcomed with excitement, is often castigated as illusory, or tabooed as "fantasy." Nowhere are these taboos more stringent than in the field of the biomedical sciences and the multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical industry with which it interacts.

In 1985, Gaston Naessens was indicted on several counts, the most serious of which carried a potential sentence of life imprisonment. His trial, which ran from 10 November to 1 December 1989, is reported in this book.

When I learned about Gaston Naessens's imprisonment, I left California, where I was living and working, to come to Quèbec and see what was happening. I owed a debt to the man who stood accused not so much for the crimes for which he was to be legally prosecuted as for what he had so brilliantly discovered during a research life covering forty years. To partially pay that debt, I wrote an article entitled "In Defense of Gaston Naessens," which appeared in the September – October issue of the New Age Journal (Boston, Massachusetts). That article has elicited dozens of telephone calls both to the magazine's editors and to Naessens himself.

Because the trial was to take place in a small French-speaking enclave in the vastness of the North American continent, I felt it important, as an American who had had the opportunity to master the French language, to cover the day-to-day proceedings of an event of great historical importance, which, because it took place in a linguistic islet, unfortunately did not made headlines in Canadian urban centers such as Halifax, Toronto, Calgary, or Vancouver, not to speak of American cities.

When the trial was over, Gaston Naessens asked me, over lunch, whether, instead of writing the long book on his fascinating life and work that I was planning, I could quickly write a shorter one on the trial based on the copious notes I had taken. He felt it was of great importance that the public be informed of what had happened at the trial.

I agreed to take on the task because I knew that a great deal was at stake, not the least of which are the fates of patients suffering from the incurable degenerative diseases that Naessens's treatments, developed as a result of his microscopic observations, have been able to cure.

The tribulations and the multiple trials undergone by Naessens will come to an end only when an enlightened populace exerts the pressure needed to make the rulers of its health-care organizations see the light.


Foreword     Preface     Chap 1     Chap 2     Chap 3 – 15 Selected Quotes     Chap 16     Chap 17     Chap 18     Appendixes


Chapter 1

Discovery of the World's Smallest Living Organism

"When the great innovation appears, it will almost certainly be in a muddled, incomplete, and confusing form ... for any speculation, which does not at first glance look crazy, there is no hope."

Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe


Early in the morning of 27 June 1989, a tall, bald French-born biologist of aristocratic mien walked into the Palais de Justice in Sherbrooke, Quèbec, to attend a hearing that was to set a date for his trial. On the front steps of the building were massed over one hundred demonstrators, who gave him an ovation as he passed by.

The demonstrators were carrying a small forest of laths onto which were glued, stapled, or thumbtacked placards and banners. The most eye-catchingly prominent among these signs read:  "Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Medical Choice, Freedom in Canada!"  "Long Live Real Medicine, Down With Medical Power!"  "Cancer and AIDS Research in Shackles While a True Discoverer is Jailed!"  "Thank you, Gaston, for having saved my life!"  And, simplest of all:  "Justice for Naessens!"

Late one afternoon, almost a month earlier, as he arrived home at his house and basement laboratory just outside the tiny hamlet of Rock Forest, Quèbec, Gaston Naessens had been disturbed to see a swarm of newsmen in his front yard. They had been alerted beforehand – possibly illegally – by officers of the Suretè, Quèbec's provincial police force, who promptly arrived to fulfill their mission.

As television cameras whirred and cameras flashed, Naessens was hustled into a police car and driven to a Sherbrooke jail, where, pending a preliminary court hearing, he was held for twenty-four hours in a tiny cell under conditions he would later describe as the "filthiest imaginable." Provided only with a cot begrimed with human excrement, the always elegantly dressed scientist told how his clothes were so foul smelling after his release on ten thousand dollars' bail that, when he returned home, his wife, Françoise, burned them to ashes.

It was to that same house that I had first come in 1978, on the recommendation of Eva Reich, M.D., daughter of the controversial psychiatrist-turned-biophysicist Wilhelm Reich, M.D. A couple of years prior to my visit with Eva, I had researched the amazing case of Royal Raymond Rife, an autodidact and genius living in San Diego, California, who had developed a `Universal Microscope" in the 1920s with which he was able to see, at magnifications surpassing 30,000-fold, never-before-seen microorganisms in living blood and tissue.*

*"What Has Become of the Rife Microscope?," New Age Journal, (Boston, Massachusetts), 1976. This article has, ever since, been one of the Journal's most requested reprints. It is reproduced in this book as Appendix A. Developments in microscopic techniques have only recently begun to match those elaborated by Naessens more than forty years ago

Eva Reich, who had heard Naessens give a fascinating lecture in Toronto, told me I had another "Rife" to investigate. So I drove up through Vermont to a region just north of the Canadian-American border that is known, in French, as "L'Estrie," and, in English, as `The Eastern Townships." And, there, in the unlikeliest of outbacks, Gaston Naessens and his Quèbec-born wife, Françoise (a hospital laboratory technician and, for more than twenty-five years, her husband's only assistant), began opening my eyes to a world of research that bids fair to revolutionize the fields of microscopy, microbiology, immunology, clinical diagnosis, and medical treatment.

Let us have a brief look at Naessens's discoveries in these usually separated fields to see, step by step, the research trail over which, for the last forty years – half of them in France, the other half in Canada – he has traveled to interconnect them. In the 1950s, while still in the land of his birth, Naessens, who had never heard of Rife, invented a microscope, one of a kind, and the first one since the Californian's, capable of viewing living entities far smaller than can be seen in existing light microscopes.

In a letter of 6 September 1989, Rolf Wieland, senior microscopy expert for the world-known German optics firm Carl Zeiss, wrote from his company's Toronto office: `What I have seen is a remarkable advancement in light microscopy. ... It seems to be an avenue that should be pursued for the betterment of science." And in another letter, dated 12 October 1989, Dr. Thomas G. Tornabene, director of the School for Applied Biology at the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), who made a special trip to Naessens's laboratory, where he inspected the microscope, wrote:

Naessens's ability to directly view fresh biological samples was indeed impressive ... Most exciting were the differences one could immediately observe between blood samples drawn from infected and non-infected patients, particularly AIDS patients. Naessens's microscope and expertise should be immensely valuable to many researchers.

It would seem that this feat alone should be worthy of an international prize in science to a man who can easily be called a twentieth-century "Galileo of the microscope."

With his exceptional instrument, Naessens next went on to discover in the blood of animals and humans – as well as in the saps of plants – a hitherto unknown, ultramicroscopic, subcellular, living and reproducing microscopic form, which he christened a somatid (tiny body). This new particle, he found, could be cultured, that is, grown, outside the bodies of its hosts (in vitro, "under glass," as the technical term has it). And, strangely enough, this particle was seen by Naessens to develop in a pleomorphic (form-changing) cycle, the first three stages of which – somatid, spore, and double spore – are perfectly normal in healthy organisms, in fact crucial to their existence. (See Figure)

— The Somatid Cycle —
The Somatid Cycle 
 
Credit: Courtesy of Gaston Naessens


Even stranger, over the years the somatids were revealed to be virtually indestructible! They have resisted exposure to carbonization temperatures of 200º C and more. They have survived exposure to 50,000 rems of nuclear radiation, far more than enough to kill any living thing. They have been totally unaffected by any acid. Taken from centrifuge residues, they have been found impossible to cut with a diamond knife; so unbelievably impervious to any such attempts is their hardness.

The eerie implication is that the new minuscule life forms revealed by Naessens's microscope are imperishable. At the death of their hosts, such as ourselves, they return to the earth, where they live on for thousands or millions, perhaps billions, of years!

This conclusion – mind-boggling on the face of it – is not one that sprang full-blown from Naessens's mind alone. A few years ago, I came across a fascinating doctoral dissertation, published as a book, authored by a pharmacist living in France named Marie Nonclercq.

Several years in the writing, Nonclercq's thesis delved into a long-lost chapter in the history of science that has all but been forgotten for more than a century. This chapter concerned a violent controversy between, on the one side, the illustrious Louis Pasteur, whose name, inscribed on the lintels of research institutes all over the world, is known to all schoolchildren, if only because of the pasteurized milk they drink.

On the other side was Pasteur's nineteenth-century contemporary and adversary, Antoine Bèchamp, who first worked in Strasbourg as a professor of physics and toxicology at the Higher School of Pharmacy, later as professor of medical chemistry at the University of Montpellier, and, later still, as professor of biochemistry and dean of the faculty of medicine at the University of Lille, all in France.

While laboring on problems of fermentation, the break-down of complex molecules into organic compounds via a "ferment" – one need only think of the curdling of milk by bacteria – Bèchamp, at his microscope, far more primitive than Naessens's own instrument, seemed to be able to descry a host of tiny bodies in his fermenting solutions. Even before Bèchamp's time, other researchers had observed, but passed off as unexplainable, what they called "scintillating corpuscles" or "molecular granulations." Bèchamp, who was able to ascribe strong enzymatic (catalytic change-causing) reactions to them, was led to coin a new word to describe them: microzymas (tiny ferments).

Among these ferments' many peculiar characteristics was one showing that, whereas they did not exist in chemically pure calcium carbonate made in a laboratory under artificial conditions, they were abundantly present in natural calcium carbonate, commonly known as chalk. For this reason, the latter could, for instance, easily "invert" cane sugar solutions, while the former could not.

With the collaboration of his son, Joseph, and Alfred Estor, a Montpellier physician and surgeon, Bèchamp went on to study microzymas located in the bodies of animals and came to the startling conclusion that the tiny forms were far more basic to life than cells, long considered to be the basic building blocks of all living matter. Bèchamp thought them to be fundamental elements responsible for the activity of cells, tissues, organs, and indeed whole living organisms, from bacteria to whales, and larks to human beings. He even found them present in life-engendering eggs, where they were responsible for the eggs' further development while themselves undergoing significant changes.

So, nearly a century before Gaston Naessens christened his somatid, his countryman, Bèchamp, had come across organisms that, as Naessens immediately recognized, seem to be "cousins," however many times removed, of his own "tiny bodies."

Most incredible to Bèchamp was the fact that, when an event serious enough to affect the whole of an organism occurred, the microzymas within it began working to disintegrate it totally, while at the same time continuing to survive. As proof of such survival, Bèchamp found these microzymas in soil, swamps, chimney soot, street dust, even in air and water. These basic and apparently eternal elements of which we and all our animal relatives are composed survive the remnants of living cells in our bodies that disappear at our death. So seemingly indestructible were the microzymas that Bèchamp could even find them in limestone dating to the Tertiary, the first part of the Cenozoic Era, a period going back sixty million years, during which mammals began to make their appearance on earth.

And it could be that they are older still, far older. Professor Edouard Boureau, a French paleontologist, writes in his book Terre: Mère de la Vie (Earth: Mother of Life), concerning problems of evolution, that he had studied thin sections of rock, over three billion years old, taken from the heart of the Sahara Desert. These sections contained tiny round coccoid forms, which Boureau placed at the base of the whole of the evolutionary chain, a chain that he considers might possibly have developed in one of three alternative ways. What these tiny coccoid forms could possibly be, Boureau does not actually know, but, from long study, he is sure about the fact they were around that long ago.

When I brought the book to Naessens's attention, he told me, ingenuously and forthrightly: "I'd sure like to have a few samples of moon rocks to section and examine at my microscope. Who knows, we might find somatid forms in them, the same traces of primitive life that exist on earth!"

Over years of careful microscopic observation and laboratory experimentation, Naessens went on to discover that if and when the immune system of an animal or human being becomes weakened or destabilized, the normal three-stage cycle of the somatid goes through thirteen more successive growth stages to make up a total of sixteen separate forms, each evolving into the next. (See diagram of the somatid cycle).

All of these forms have been revealed clearly and in detail by motion pictures, and by stop-frame still photography, at Naessens's microscope. Naessens attributes this weakening, as did Bèchamp, to trauma, brought on by a host of reasons, ranging from exposure to various forms of radiation or chemical pollution to accidents, shocks, depressed psychological states, and many more.

By studying the somatid cycle as revealed in the blood of human beings suffering from various degenerative diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, cancer, and, most recently, AIDS, Naessens has been able to associate the development of the forms in the sixteen-stage pathological cycle with all of these diseases. A videocassette showing these new microbiological phenomena is available. Among other things, it shows that when blood is washed to remove all somatids external to the bloods red ceils, then heated, somatids latently present in a liquid state within the red blood cells themselves take concrete form and go on to develop into the sixteen-stage cycle. "This," says Naessens, "is what happens when there is immune system disequilibrium." It is not yet known exactly how or why or from what the somatids take shape. Of the some 140 proteins in red blood cells, many may play a role in the process. The appearance of somatids inside red blood cells is thus an enigma as puzzling as the origin of life itself. I once asked Naessens, "If there were no somatids, would there be no life!" "That's what I believe," he replied.

Even more importantly, Naessens has been able to predict the eventual onset of such diseases long before any clinical signs of them have put in an appearance. In other words, he can "prediagnose" them. And he has come to demonstrate that such afflictions have a common functional principle, or basis, and therefore must not be considered as separate, unrelated phenomena as they have for so long been considered in orthodox medical circles.

Having established the somatid cycle in all its fullness, Naessens was able, in a parallel series of brilliant research steps, to develop a treatment for strengthening the immune system. The product he developed is derived from camphor, a natural substance produced by an East Asian tree of the same name. Unlike many medicinals, it is injected into the body, not intramuscularly or intravenously, but intralymphatically – into the lymph system, via a lymph node, or ganglion, in the groin.

In fact, one of the main reasons the medical fraternity holds the whole of Naessens's approach to be bogus is its assertion that intralymphatic injection is impossible! Yet the fact remains that such injection is not only possible, but simple, for most people to accomplish, once they are properly instructed in how to find the node. While most doctors are never taught this technique in medical school, it is so easy that laypeople have been taught to inject, and even to self-inject, the camphor-derived product within a few hours.

The camphor-derived product is named "714-X" – the 7 and the 14 refer to the seventh letter "G" and the fourteenth letter "N" of the alphabet, the first letters of the inventor's first and last names, and the X refers to the twenty-fourth letter of the alphabet, which denotes the year of Naessens's birth, 1924. When skillfully injected, 714-X has, in over seventy-five percent of cases, restabilized, strengthened, or otherwise enhanced the powers of the immune system, which then goes about its normal business of ridding the body of disease.

Let us for a moment return to the work and revelations of Antoine Bèchamp. As already noted, with the fairly primitive microscopic technology available in Bèchamp's day, it was almost incredible that he was seemingly able to make microbiological discoveries closely paralleling, if not completely matching, those of Naessens nearly a hundred years later. We have already alluded to the fact that the microzymas in traumatized animals did not remain passive, as before, but, on the contrary, became highly active and began to destroy the bodies of their hosts, converting themselves to bacteria and other microbes in order to carry out that function.

While the terminology is not exactly one that Gaston Naessens would use today, the principles of trauma and of destruction of the body are shared in common by the two researchers. Had Bèchamp had access to Naessens's microscope, he, too, might have established the somatid cycle in all the detail worked out by Naessens.

So what happened to Bèchamp and his twentieth-century discoveries made in the middle of the nineteenth century? The sad fact is that, because he was modest and retiring – just like Gaston Naessens- his work was overshadowed by that of his rival. All of Pasteur's biographies make clear that he was, above all, a master of the art of self-promotion. But, odd as it seems, the same biographies do not reveal any hint of his battle with Bèchamp, many of whose findings Pasteur, in fact, plagiarized.

Even more significant is that while Bèchamp, as we have seen, championed the idea that the cause of disease lay within the body, Pasteur, by enouncing his famous "germ theory," held that the cause came from without. In those days, little was known about the functioning of the immune system, but what else can explain, for instance, why some people survived the Black Plague of the Middle Ages, while countless others died like flies? And one may add that Royal Raymond Rife's microscope, like that of Naessens, allowed him to state unequivocally that "germs arc not the cause but the result of disease!" Naessens independently adopted this view as a result of his biological detective work. The opposite view, which won the day in Pasteur's time, has dominated medical philosophy for over a century, and what amounted to the creation of a whole new worldview in the life sciences is still regarded as heretical!

Yet the plain fact is that, based on Naessens's medical philosophy as foreshadowed by Bèchamp and Rife, up to the present time, Naessens's treatment has arrested and reversed the progress of disease in over one thousand cases of cancer (many of them considered terminal), as well as in several dozen cases of AIDS, a disease for which the world medical community sadly states that it has as yet no solution what-so-ever. Suffering patients of each sex, and of ages ranging from the teens to beyond the seventies, have been returned to an optimal feeling of well-being and health.

A layperson having no idea of the scope of Naessens's discoveries, or their full meaning and basic implications, might best be introduced to them through Naessens's explanation to a visiting journalist. "You see," began Naessens, "I've been able to establish a life cycle of forms in the blood that add up to no less than a brand new understanding for the very basis of life. What we're talking about is an entirely new biology, one out of which has fortunately sprung practical applications of benefit to sick people, even before all of its many theoretical aspects have been sorted out." At this point, Naessens threw in a statement that would startle any biologist, particularly a geneticist: "The somatids, one can say, are precursors of DNA. Which means that they some-how supply a `missing link' to an understanding of that remarkable molecule that up to now has been considered as an all but irreducible building block in the life process."*

*Intriguing is a recent discovery by Norwegian microbiologists. On 10 August 1989, as Naessens was preparing for trial, the world's most prestigious scientific journal, Nature (United Kingdom), ran an article entitled "High Abundance of Viruses Found in Aquatic Environments." Authored by Ovind Bergh and colleagues at the University of Bergen, it revealed that, for the first time, in natural unpolluted waters, hitherto considered to have extremely low concentrations of viruses, there exist up to 2.5 trillion strange viral particles for each liter of liquid. Measuring less than 0.2 microns, their size equates to the largest of Naessens's somatids. Much too small for any larger marine organism to ingest, the tiny organisms are upsetting existing theories on how pelagic life systems operate.

In light of Gaston Naessens's theory that his somatids are DNA precursors, it is fascinating that the Norwegian researchers believe that the hordes upon hordes of viruses might account for DNA's being inexplicably dissolved in seawater. Another amazing implication of the high viral abundance is that routine viral infection of aquatic bacteria could be explained by a significant exchange of genetic material. As Evelyn B. Sherr, of the University of Georgia's Marine Institute on Sapelo Island, writes in a sidebar article in the same issue of Nature: "Natural genetic engineering experiments may have been occurring in bacterial populations, perhaps for eons." What connection the aqua-viruses may have with Naessens's somatids is a question that may become answerable when Naessens has the opportunity to observe them at his microscope and compare them with the ones he has already found in vegetal saps and mammalian blood.

If somatids were a "missing link" between the living and the nonliving, then what, I wondered aloud in one of my meetings with Françoise Naessens, would be the difference between them and viruses, a long debate about the animate or inanimate nature of which has been going on for years?

There was something, was there not, about the somatid that related to its non-reliance and non-dependence upon any surrounding milieu needed by the virus, if it were to thrive.

"Yes," agreed Françoise, "to continue its existence, the virus needs a supportive milieu, say, an artificially created test-tube culture, or something natural, like an egg. If the virus needs this kind of support for growth, either in vivo or in vitro, a `helping hand,' as it were, the somatid is able to live autonomously, either in a `living body,' or `glass-enclosed.' This has something to do with the fact that, while the virus is a particle of DNA, a piece of it, the somatid is, as we've already said, a 'precursor' of DNA, something that leads to its creation."

To try to get to the bottom of this seemingly revolutionary pronouncement, I later asked Françoise to set down on paper some further exposition of it. She wrote:

We have come to the conclusion that the somatid is no less than what could be termed a concretization of energy. One could say that this particle, one that is "initially differentiated," or materialized in the life process, possesses genetic properties transmissible to living organisms, animal or vegetal. Underlying that conclusion is our finding that, in the absence of the normal three-stage cycle, no cellular division can occur! Why not? Because it is the normal cycle that produces a special growth hormone that permits such division. We believe that hormone to be closely related, if not identical, to the one discovered years ago by the French Nobel Laureate Alexis Carrel, who called it a trephone.

The best experimental proof backing up this astounding disclosure, Françoise went on, begins with a cube of fresh meat no different from those impaled on shish kebab skewers. After being injected with somatids taken from an in vitro culture, the meat cube is placed in a sealed vessel in which a vacuum is created. With the cube now protected from any contamination from the ambient atmosphere, and anything that atmosphere might contain that could act to putrefy the meat, the vessel is subsequently exposed during the day to natural light by setting it, for instance, next to a window.

Harboring the living, indestructible somatids as it does, the meat cube in the vessel will, thenceforth, not rot, as it surely would have rotted had it not received the injection. Retaining its healthy-looking color, it not only remains as fresh as when inserted into the vessel, but progressively increases in size, that is, it continues to grow, just as if it were part of a living organism.

Could a meat cube, animated by somatids, if somehow also electrically stimulated, keep on growing to revive the steer or hog from which it had been cut out? The thought flashed inanely through my mind. Maybe there was something electrical about the somatid? Before I could ask that question of her, Françoise seemed to have already anticipated it.

"The `tiny bodies' discovered by Naessens," she went on, "are fundamentally electrical in nature. In a liquid milieu, such as blood plasma, one can observe their electrical charge and its effects. For the nuclei of these particles are positively charged, while the membranes, coating their exteriors, are negatively charged. Thus, when they come near one another, they are automatically mutually repulsed just as if they were the negative poles of two bar magnets that resist any manual attempt to hold them together."

"Well," I asked, "isn't that the same as for cells, whose nuclei and membranes are, respectively, considered to have plus, and minus, electrical charges?"

"Certainly," she replied, "with the difference that, in the case of the somatids, the energetic release is very much larger. Somatids are actually tiny living condensers of energy, the smallest ever found."

I was thunderstruck. What, I mused, would the great Hungarian scientist Albert Szent-Györgyi, winner of the Nobel Prize for his discovery of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and many other awards, have had to say had he, before his recent death, been aware of Naessens's discoveries? For it was Szent-Györgyi who, abandoning early attempts to get at the "secret of life" at the level of the molecule, had predicted, prior to World War II, when still living and working in Hungary, that such a secret would eventually be discovered at the level of the electron, or other electrically related atomic particles!*

*For more recent discoveries relating to the electrical basis for life, readers are also referred to two fascinating books by Dr. Robert O. Becker, The Body Electric (New York: Quill, William Morrow, 1985) and Cross Currents (Los Angeles: J. P. Tarcher, 1990).

Probing further into the world of the somatid and its link to life's basis and hereditary characteristics, I asked Françoise if Naessens had done any experiments to show how somatids might produce genetic effects on living organisms.

"I'll tell you, now, about one experiment we have repeated many times," she answered, "whose results are hard for any orthodox biologist to swallow. Before describing it, let me add that it is our belief-as it was also Antoine Bèchamp's – that each of our bodily organs possesses somatids of varying, as yet indescribable, natures that are specific to it alone. But the whole ensemble, the `family' of these varying forms, collectively circulates, either in the circulatory or the lymph system. On the basis of this experiment, we hold that, as a group, they contain the hereditary characteristics of each and every individual being."

As described by Françoise, the experiment begins by extracting somatids from the blood of a rabbit with white fur. A solution containing them is then injected, at a dose of one cubic centimeter per day, into the bloodstream of a rabbit with black fur, for a period of two weeks running. Within approximately one month, the fur of the black rabbit begins to turn a grayish color, half of the hairs of which it is composed having turned white. In a reverse process, the fur of a white rabbit, injected with somatids from a black one, also begins to turn gray.

Astonishing as this result, with its "genetic engineering" implications, might be, the effect of such "somatid transfer" from one organism to another also, said Françoise, produces another result offering great insight into the role played by the somatid in the immunological system. "When a patch of skin," she continued, "is cut from the white rabbit and grafted onto the empty space left after cutting a patch of similar size from the black rabbit, the graft shows none of the signs of rejection that normally take place in the absence of somatid transfer." What this might bode for the whole technique of organ transplant, attempts at which have been bedeviled by the "rejection syndrome," we shall let readers – especially medically trained readers – ponder.


Foreword     Preface     Chap 1     Chap 2     Chap 3 – 15 Selected Quotes     Chap 16     Chap 17     Chap 18     Appendixes


Chapter 2

Gaston Naessens's Life and Work

"Is it not living in a continual mistake to look upon diseases, as we do now, as separate entities, which must exist, like cats und dogs, instead of looking at them as conditions, like a dirty and a clean condition, and just as much under our control; or rather as the reactions of a kindly nature, against the conditions in which we have placed ourselves?"

Florence Nightingale, 1860 (seventeen years before Pasteur announced his germ theory), cited in Pasteur: The Germ Theory Exploded by R. B. Pearson


Even a single discovery as striking as those made by Naessens in the five interlinked areas detailed in the previous chapter could, by itself, justifiably be held remarkable. That Naessens was able to make all five discoveries, each in what can be termed its own discipline, might seem to be a feat taken from the annals of science fiction.

And that is exactly the point of view adopted by the medical authorities of the province of Quèbec. Worse still, those same authorities have branded Naessens an out-and-out charlatan, calling his camphor-derived 7 14-X product fraudulent and the whole of his theory about the origin of degenerative disease and the practice of its treatment, not to add the rest of his "New biology," no more than "quackery."

Spearheading the attack was Augustin Roy, a doctor of medicine, but one who – like Morris Fishbein, M.D., for many years "Tsar" of the American Medical Association -actually practiced medicine for only a brief period of his life.

How did a researcher such as Gaston Naessens, endowed with genius, come to land in so dire a situation? Let us briefly review some of the story of his life and work, about which, during repeated trips to Rock Forest from the United States, I came to learn more and more.

Gaston Naessens was born on 16 March 1924, in Roubaix, in northern France, near the provincial capital of Lille, the youngest child of a banker who died when his son was only eleven years old. In very early childhood, Gaston was already showing precocity as an inventor. At the age of five, he built a little moving automobile-type vehicle out of a "Mechano" set and powered it with a spring from an old alarm clock.

Continuing to exhibit unusual manual dexterity, a few years later Gaston constructed his own home-built motorcycle, then went on to fashion a mini-airplane large enough to carry him aloft. It never flew, for his mother, worried he would come to grief, secretly burned it on the eve of its destined takeoff.

After graduation from the Collège Universitaire de Marcen Baroeul, a leading prep school, Gaston began an intensive course in physics, chemistry, and biology at the University of Lille. When France was attacked and occupied by Nazi forces during World War II, young Gaston together with other fellow students was evacuated to southern France, where, in exile near Nice, he had the highly unusual opportunity to receive the equivalent of a full university education at the hands of professors also displaced from Lille.

By the war's end, Gaston had been awarded a rare diploma from the Union Nationale Scientifique Française, the quasi-official institution under whose roof the displaced students pursued their intensive curriculum. Unfortunately, in an over-sight that has cost him dearly over the years, Naessens did not bother to seek an "equivalence" from the new republican government set up by General Charles de Gaulle. He thus, ever since, has been accused of never having received an academic diploma of any kind.

Inspired by his teachers, and of singular innovative bent, Gaston, eschewing further formal education – "bagage universitaire" as he calls it – set forth on his own to develop his microscope and begin his research into the nature of disease. In this determination, he was blessed by having what in French is called a jeunesse dorèe, a gilded childhood – "born with a silver spoon in his mouth," as the English equivalent has it. His mother afforded him all that was needed to equip his own postwar laboratory at the parental home.

His disillusion in working in an ordinary laboratory for blood analysis spurred Gaston into deciding to go free-lance as a researcher. Even his mother was worried about Gaston's unorthodox leanings. She clearly understood that her son was unhappy with all he had read and been taught. As he was to put it: "She told me what any mother would tell her son: `It's not you who will make any earth-shaking discoveries, for there have been many, many researchers working along the same lines for decades. 'But she never discouraged me, never prevented me from following my own course, and she helped me generously, financially speaking."

Gaston Naessens knew that there was something in the blood that eluded definition. It had been described in the literature as crasse sanguine (dross in the blood], and Naessens had been able to descry it, if only in a blurry way, in the microscopic instruments up to then available to him. What was needed was a brand new microscope, one that could see "farther." He thought he knew how to build one and, at twenty-one, he determined to set about doing so.

In the design of the instrument that would open a vista onto a new biological world, Naessens was able to enjoin the technical assistance of German artisans in the village of Wetzlar, in Germany, where the well-known German optical company Leitz had been located before the war. The artisans were particularly helpful in checking Naessens's original ideas on the arrangement of lenses and mirrors. The electronic manipulation of the light source itself, however, was entirely of Gaston's own private devising. When all aspects of the problem seemed to have been solved, Naessens was able to get the body of his new instrument constructed by Barbier-Bernard et Turenne, technical specialists and military contractors near Paris.

Readers may fairly ask why Naessens's "Twenty-first-century" instrument, which has been called a "somatoscope" due to its ability to reveal the somatid, has never been patented and manufactured for wide use. To understand the difficulty, we should "fast forward" to 1964, the year Naessens arrived in Canada. Hardly having found his footing on Canadian soil, he received a handwritten letter, dated 3 May, from one of the province's most distinguished physicists, Antoine Aumont, who worked in the Division for Industrial Hygiene of the Quèbec Ministry of Health.

Aumont, who had read about Naessens's special microscope in the press, had taken the initiative of visiting Naessens in his small apartment in Duvernay, near Montreal, to see, and see through, the instrument with his own eyes. Aumont wrote:

Many thanks for having accorded me an interview that impressed me far more than I can possibly describe.

I have explained to you why my personal opinions must not be considered as official declarations. But, after thinking over all that you showed, and told me, during my recent visit, I have come to unequivocal conclusions on the physical value of the instrumentation you are using to pursue your research.

As I told you, if my knowledge of physics and mathematics can be of service to you, I would be very glad to put them at your disposition.

It can be deduced that Aumont's enthusiasm for what he had seen caused a stir in the Quèbec Ministry of Health, for, on 17 July, Naessens received an official letter from that office stating that the minister was eager to have his microscope "officially examined" if its inventor would "furnish in writing details concerning this apparatus, including all its optical, and other, particularities, as well as its powers of magnification, so that experts to be named by the minister can evaluate its unique properties."

In reply to this letter, Naessens's lawyer sent a list of details as requested and stated: "You will, of course, understand that it is impossible for Monsieur Naessens to furnish you, in correspondence, the complete description of a highly novel microscope which is, moreover, unprotected by any patent." Then, to explain why no patent had yet been granted, he added a key phrase: "since its mathematical constants have, up to the present, not been elucidated in spite of a great deal of tiresome work performed in that regard." In other words, it seemed that Aumont and his colleagues had been unable to explain the superiority of the microscope in terms of all the known laws of optics and it still seems that, so far, no one else has been able to do so.

There have been interesting recent reports on new microscopes being developed that apparently rival the magnification powers of Naessens's somatoscope. It would seem, however, that the 150 angstroms of resolution achieved by Naessens's instrument has not yet been matched.

The Los Angeles based World Research Foundation's flyer, presenting its autumn (1990) conference "New Directions for Medicine ... Focusing on Solutions," announces the development of an Ergonom – 400 microscope, used by a German Heilpraktiker, or healer, Bernhard Muschlien, who paid a visit to Naessens's laboratory in 1985. While his microscope is apparently capable of achieving 25,000-fold magnification, its stated resolution is 100 nanometers (1000 angstroms), or several orders of magnitude less than the 150 angstroms developed with the somatoscope.*

*One nanometer is one-billionth of a meter; one angstrom is ten-billionths of a meter, or one-tenth of a nanometer.

In the July 1990 issue of Popular Science, an article, "Super Scopes," refers to an extraordinary new technology in microscopy engineered at Cornell University under the direction of Professor Michael Isaacson, and also in Israel. The technology uses not lenses but apertures smaller than the wavelengths of visible light to achieve high magnification. Isaacson is quoted as saying: "Right now, we can get about 40 nanometers (400 angstroms) of resolution," though he hopes to heighten that "power" to 100 angstroms "down the road." The 150 angstroms capacity built into Naessens's microscope over forty years ago still seems to lead the field.

Returning to the biography of Naessens, during the 1940s, the precocious young biologist began to develop novel anti-cancer products that had exciting new positive effects. The first was a confection he named "GN-24" for the initial letters of his first and last names, and for 1924, the year of his birth. Because official medicine had long considered cancerous cells to be basically "fermentative", in nature, reproducing by a process that, while crucial to malting good wine from grape juice, produces no such salutary effect in the human body, Naessens's new product incorporated an "antifermentative" property. The train of his thinking, biologically or bio-chemically speaking, will not be here elaborated lest this account become too much of a "scientific treatise." What can be mentioned is that the new product, GN-24, sold in Swiss pharmacies, had excellent results when administered by doctors to patients with various forms of cancer.

As but one example of these results, Naessens cited to me the case of his own brother-in-law, on the executive staff of the famed Paris subway system, the Mètropolitain. In 1949, this relative, the husband of a now ex-wife's sister, was suffering through the terminal phase of stomach cancer and had been forced into early retirement. After complete recuperation from his affliction, he returned to work. Only recently, Naessens, who had lost contact with him for years, was informed that he was alive and well.

Another 1949 case was that of Germaine Laruelle, who was stricken with breast cancer plus metastases to her liver. A ghastly lesion that had gouged out the whole of the left section of her chest had caused her to go into coma when her family beseeched Naessens to begin his treatment. After recovering her health, fifteen years later, she voluntarily came to testify on behalf of Naessens, who, as we shall presently see, had been put under investigation by the French Ordre des Mèdecins (Medical Association). She also allowed press photographers to take pictures of the scars on the left side of her breast-denuded chest. In 1969, twenty years after her initial treatment, she died of a heart attack.

Seeking a more imposing weapon against cancer, Naessens next turned in the direction of a serum. This he achieved by hyper-immunizing a large draft horse as a result of injecting the animal with cancer-cell cultures, thus forcing it to produce antibodies in almost industrial quantities. Blood withdrawn from the horse's veins containing these antibodies, when purified, was capable of fighting the ravages of cancer. It proved to have therapeutic action far more extensive than that obtained by GN-24, and led to a restraint or reversal of the cancerous process, not only in cases of tumors but also with various forms of leukemia. Many patients clandestinely treated by their doctors with the new serum, called Anablast (Ana, "without," and blast, "cancerous cells"), were returned to good health.

One patient, successfully so treated, was to play a key role in Naessens's life. This was Suzanne Montjoint, then just past forty years of age, who, in 1960, developed a lump the size of a pigeon's egg in her left breast, which, over the next year, grew to become as large as a grapefruit. After the breast itself was surgically removed, Montjoint underwent a fifty-four-day course of radiation that caused horrible third-degree bums all over her chest. Within six months, she began to experience severe pain in her lower back.

Chemical examination revealed that the original cancer had spread to her fifth lumbar vertebra. More radiation not only could not alleviate the now excruciating pain, but caused a blockage in the functioning of her kidneys and bladder. When doctors told her husband she had only a week or so to live, Suzanne said to him, "I still have strength left to kill myself ... but, tomorrow, I may not have it anymore."

Summoned by the husband, one of whose friends had told him about the biologist, Naessens began treating Madame Montjoint, who, by then, had lapsed into a semicoma. Within four days, all her pains disappeared and she had regained clarity of mind. By April 1962, after an examination of her blood at his microscope, Naessens declared that the somatid cycle in Suzanne Montjoint's blood had returned to normal. As she later told press reporters, "My recovery was no less than a resurrection!"

When these successful treatments, plus many others, came to the attention of French medical authorities, Naessens was twice brought before the bar of justice, first for the "illegal practice of medicine," next for the "illegal practice of pharmacy." On both occasions, he was heavily fined, his laboratory sealed, and most of its equipment confiscated, though, happily, he was able to preserve his precious microscope.

With all the harassment he was undergoing, while at the same time saving the lives of patients whose doctors could afford them little, or no, hope for recovery, Gaston Naessens was almost ready to emigrate from his mother country and find a more congenial atmosphere in which to pursue his work, with the privacy and anonymity that he had always cherished and still longs for. An opportunity to do so came when he was invited by doctors in a community that, if it was not a foreign country, might, like Quèbec in North America, seem to be one. The locale in question was the Mediterranean Island of Corsica, whose inhabitants speak a dialect more akin to Italian than to French. With a long history of occupation by various invaders before it actually became part of the French Republic, its population has ever since been possessed of a revolutionary streak that, on occasion, fuels an urge toward secession from the "motherland."

In Corsica, Naessens established a small research laboratory in the village of Prunette, on the southwest tip of the island. What happened next, in all its full fury, cannot be told here. Reported in two consecutive issues of the leading Parisian illustrated weekly Paris-Match, the story would require, for any adequate telling, two or more chapters in a much longer book.

Suffice it to say that, having developed a cure for various forms of degenerative disease, Naessens saw his ivory tower invaded by desperate patients from all over the world who had learned of his treatment when a Scots Freemason, after hearing about it during a Corsican meeting with international members of his order, leaked them to the press in Edinburgh. Within a week, hundreds of potential patients were flying into Ajaccio, the island's capital, some of them from as far away as Czechoslovakia and Argentina.

The deluge immediately unleashed upon Naessens the wrath of the French medical authorities, who began a long investigation in the form of what is known in France as an Instruction – called in Quèbec an Enquête prèliminaire – a kind of "investigative trial" before a more formal one.

All the "ins and outs" of this long jurisprudential process, thousands of pages of transcripts about which still repose in official Parisian archives, must, however regretfully, be left out of this narrative. Its denouement was that Gaston Naessens, together with key components of his microscope preserved on his person, left his native land in 1964 to fly to Canada, a country whose medical authorities he believed to be far more open to new medical approaches and horizons than those in France. His abrupt departure from the land of his birth was facilitated by a high-ranking member of France's top police organ, the Suretè Nationale, whose wife, Suzanne Montjoint, Naessens had successfully treated.

Hardly had Naessens set foot on Canadian soil than he was faced with difficulties, in fact a "scandal," almost as, if not just as, serious as the one he had just left behind. During the French Instruction proceedings in 1964, one Renè Guynemer, a Canadian "war hero" of uncertain origin and profession, had accosted Naessens in his Paris domicile to beg him to come to Canada in order to treat his little three-year-old son, Renè Junior, who was dying of leukemia.

Though puzzled about a certain lack of "straightforwardness" in the supplicant, Naessens, ever willing to help anyone in distress, and with the approbation and assistance of the Canadian ambassador to France, immediately flew to Montrèal, where he hoped, as agreed by Guynemer père, to be able to treat fils in complete discretion. Upon his arrival at Montrèal's Dorval Airport, however, Naessens was aghast to see a horde of representatives of both the printed and visual media, creating, in anticipation of his arrival, what amounted to a virtual mob scene.

The Quèbec "Medical College" had, at the time, agreed, for "humanitarian" reasons, to allow the treatment of the Guynemer child, in spite of the fact that Anablast had not been licensed for use in Canada. Various tests, lasting for several weeks, were made on the product at Montrèal's well-known microbiological Institut Armand Frappier to confirm the presence of gamma globulin in it, the presence of which purportedly thorough French examinations had failed to detect.

Virtually at death's door, the Guynemer child was said to have been given nine injections of Anablast. Naessens himself was never given official confirmation that the injections had actually been administered. Nor was he permitted to make any examination of the little patient's blood at his microscope, or even to meet him face to face. After the little boy succumbed, the Quèbec press exploded with stories that, in their luridness, matched the ones that had been appearing all over France after the Corsican "debacle."

Some of the mysteries of the "Guynemer connection" will likely never come to light. Only later did it become clear that the true name of the leukemic child's father was actually Lamer, a man who had claimed that, in past years, he had been an officer in the Royal Canadian Air Force and a "secret agent" attached to the French "underground" during World War II. To the Naessenses, the question has always remained: If he was an "agent," then for whom, or for what?

In the spring of 1965, Naessens journeyed to France for his trial. When he returned to Quèbec in the autumn of that year, he retired from the public scene to live incognito in Oka, a Montrèal suburb, with a newfound friend, Hubert Lamontagne, owner of a business selling up-to-date electronic devices, whom he had met while looking for electrical components for his microscope in 1964. As a person skilled in electronics, Naessens was able to be of great assistance to his host, who also operated a large "repair shop" throughout the winter and the following summer, when, on tour with a troop of comedians, he was put in charge of solving all the acoustical problems in the many provincial cabarets and theaters hosting the troop's performances. Deprived, for several years, of any support to pursue his life goals, Naessens was constrained to utilize his skills as a "Mr. Fixit," able to repair almost anything from automobile engines to rectifiers.

In 1971, Naessens had a stroke of luck, perhaps the most important of his career, when, through another friend, he was introduced to, and came under the protective wing of, an "angel" who saw in Naessens the kind of genius he had for a long time been waiting to back.

That "angel" was the late David Stewart, head of Montreal's prestigious MacDonald-Stewart Foundation, which for many years had funded, as it still continues to fund, orthodox cancer research. Despondent about the recent death from cancer of a close friend, and in serious doubt that any of the cancer research he had so long supported would ever produce any solution, Stewart's guiding precept and motto was "In the search for a remedy for cancer, we shall leave no stone unturned." The philanthropist therefore decided personally to back Naessens's research. But after setting up a laboratory for the biologist on the Ontario Street premises of the well-known MacDonald Tobacco Company, which Stewart's father had inherited from its founder, tobacco magnate Sir William MacDonald, David Stewart came under such violent criticism by leaders of orthodox cancerology that he advised Naessens to move his research to a low-profile provincial retreat.

Having, by that time, established a "liaison" with his bride-to-be, Françoise Bonin, whose parents lived in Sherbrooke, Naessens was, by 1972, able to take over the elder Bonin's summerhouse on the banks of the Magog River in Rock Forest, "winterize" it, and establish a well-equipped laboratory in its basement. And there, the Naessenses, who were married in 1976, have ever since been located. Of his wife, Naessens has said to me, "She was persuaded from the very start about the intrinsic value of my research and at once saw the truth of it. Just as then, so now, years later, she continues her loyal assistance to get this truth out. Some ask if it's moral support. Yes, it could be called that. We have the same kind of attitudes about things. Both of us, for instance, believe that if something new produces good results, it's got to be pursued to the bitter end. This is not ambition, but moral honesty. When one gets to know her, one realizes that she doesn't just repeat the things I think and say, but is convinced about them because of what she has seen and experienced."

Because legal restrictions applying to foundations and their grants prevented David Stewart from transmitting monies directly to Naessens, the foundation director arranged for them to be funneled via the Hôtel Dieu – a leading hospital affiliated with the Universitè de Montreal that specializes in orthodox cancer treatment and research. Accused by Augustin Roy as a "quack," Naessens has consequently had his work modestly funded by checks made out by a hospital at the heart of one of Canada's cancer establishment's most prestigious fund-granting institutions. No more anomalous a situation exists anywhere in the worldwide multibillion-dollar cancer industry.

Given the importance of the foundation's assistance, it is all the more curious that Augustin Roy had not made the slightest mention of the foundation's loyal support of the biologist over the years. Instead, at a press conference held after Naessens's arrest to present traditional medicine's case against Naessens, Roy, perhaps unknowingly, demonstrated the "Catch-22" that any "alternative" medical, research, or "frontier" scientist faces. Roy stated that if Naessens were a "true" scientist he would have long since submitted his results to proper authorities for check, but when asked by journalists whether the Quèbec medical community had thoroughly investigated the biologist's claims, Roy inscrutably replied, "That's not our job." In answer to another reporter's query about the assertions of many cancer patients that the Naessens treatment had completely cured their affliction, Roy added, "I just can't understand the naivety and imbecility of some people."

To get a more complete idea of the full impact of Roy's attitude with respect to a brand new treatment and patients benefiting from it, we here excerpt some of his additional statements made during an interview on McGill University's Radio Station in the summer of 1989.

When, to open the interview, Roy was asked his opinion about what the interviewer termed a "remarkable new anticancer product, 714-X," the medical administrator replied, "I have been aware of Monsieur Naessens for twenty-five years. In 1964, he arrived from France with a so-called cancer treatment, Anablast, the very same medicinal he's now using under another name – 714-X."

That anyone in a position as elevated as Roy's could publicly propagate so obvious an error is surprising. For Anablast, which, as we have seen, is a serum, has nothing to do with 714-X, a biochemical product. Yet here was the head of the Quebec medical establishment falsely stating that 714-X, developed over thirteen years in Canada, was nothing but the older French product bearing a new name, a statement tirelessly, and erroneously, repeated by journalists in the press.

As for Naessens himself, Roy told his radio audience: "That man's professional knowledge is equal to zero! You should know that he has, behind him, in France, an imposing, even `heavy,' past involving serious judicial procedures and condemnations." It seems truly amazing that a doctor who, over a quarter of a century, had never met Naessens, or once visited his laboratory, or taken the trouble to investigate why hundreds of cancer patients had survived because of his new treatment, could so peremptorily reduce the biologist's knowledge to nil.

Was Roy really being impartial when he said, "I've got to be a bit careful because Naessens is currently under legal prosecution. ... But the fact remains that he was in serious trouble with the French legal authorities. Let's just say he's a 'slick talker,' one who knows how to address an audience. But, I ask you, why is it that he's been working in secret for so long?" In asking this question, Roy was obviously not in the least ashamed to be adding a second error to the one he had already propagated. For the truth was, and is, that Naessens, far from having worked "in secret," has at all times – as I have repeatedly witnessed over the years – kept his laboratory open to "all comers" and has stood ready to discuss his research with any of them. "It's so obvious," Roy disparagingly continued, "that all this man's affirmations and allegations just don't have a leg to stand on. ..."

"But," ingenuously interrupted his young interviewer, "haven't there been several people who have testified in writing, or on TV, that they've been cured by 714-X?"

Roy's unhesitating answer was breathtakingly categoric: "No one's personal testimony has any value whatsoever! All such testimonies are purely suggestive and anecdotal. Let's show a little common sense, after all !  Common sense indicates that if Naessens had a real treatment for a malady such as cancer, it would have been criminal not to put it at the disposition of the whole world! I don't understand what he's up to, and I have even less understanding of those who go about publicizing his reputed treatment, which is pure quackery." Given the hyperbole on Roy's part, one could well wonder what hope there might be for any kind of new discovery in the health field ever to become authorized, or even known. For years, Naessens had been assiduously, but unsuccessfully, trying to "put his discovery at the world's disposition."

Unabashed by the weight of her interviewee's authority, the interviewer was not loath to press in on Roy again: "There have, however, been certain doctors who have been most surprised at how terminal patients have been brought back to good physical shape with 714-X. Would that not make anyone eager to verify the facts with respect to those recovered patients?"

"Not at all!" Roy's rejoinder was a virtual explosion. "It's not my job, or that of the Medical Corporation, to check on pseudocures of that kind! So what, if two, three, four, or half a dozen doctors, in their isolation, have something good to say in support of it? No matter where they come from, their statements are worthless!"

To get a countervailing idea of what Naessens might have said in rebuttal in Roy's presence, we shall next excerpt part of an interview with the biologist, by the same interviewer on the same radio station a few days later.

Interviewer:  "Gaston Naessens," she began, "is your 714-X really effective?"

Naessens:  Absolutely! It builds up the immune system so that all the body's natural defenses can regain the upper hand. I don't make the claim in a void, because there are a lot of people around who were gravely ill with cancer who can now state they have gotten well due to my treatment.

Interviewer:  If your product really works, why hasn't Dr. Roy been interested in doing an in-depth study of it? Does he know you at all?

Naessens:  Many people have asked me both those questions. If you ask him the latter question, he will pull out a thick file on me and hell tap it, and say, "Sure, I've known him since 1964." But the fact is he has never met me in person, never visited my lab, and never investigated my work!

So, he is absolutely incapable of making any judgment whatsoever on whether that work has a solid foundation, or not!

In his lengthy reply, uninterrupted by the fascinated interviewer, Naessens, after a brief pause, began to reveal the essence of the difficult situation in which he had been placed over the years:

Naessens:  Let's get to the heart of this matter! The medical community, on the one hand, and I, on the other, speak completely different languages. That anomaly connects to the important fact that all approved anticancer therapies are focused only on cancer tumors and cancerous cells. The reigning philosophy, medically speaking, is that a cytolitic (cell-killing) method must be used to destroy all cancer cells in a body stricken with that disease.

But I, on the contrary, have developed a therapy based on what has been called the body's whole terrain! To understand that, you have to realize that, every day, our bodies produce cancerous cells in no great amount. It's our healthy immune system that gets rid of them. My 714-X allows a weakened, or hampered, immune system to come back to full strength, so that it can do its proper job!

If medical "experts" pronounce my product worthless, it might even be admitted that, in terms of their own scientific philosophy, they are making some sense. This is largely because, when they examine my product for any cytotoxic effect it might have, they find none!

Interviewer:  Is the Medical Corporation interested in sitting down and talking with you, or running tests to verify your product?

Naessens:  No! Because they firmly believe that any success it might have is due to some kind of "psychological" effect, and they say that the product itself contains nothing that could possibly be of benefit.

Interviewer:  Where did they get that idea?

Naessens:  It seems that, with officialdom, it's always a case of misinformation, or of bad faith. If this whole affair were limited to patients I've successfully treated, patients who might have remained silent, I would still have small hope that my research will one day be recognized. But, now, a crucial turning point has been reached. I'm back in the international limelight. My arrest, incarceration, and indictment are important if only because, immediately following them, people "in the know" have begun to take action on my behalf. That being so, the medical community's negative reaction is no longer the only, or the dominant, one! It may be too bad that all this has to be thrashed out not in a scientific forum, but in a court of law. But that's the way it is. In my upcoming trial, many of my patients' cases will be examined, one by one, and exposed in full detail, in the courtroom! So the medical "authorities" will no longer be the sole judges.

After continuing on with this theme for several minutes longer, Naessens came to a firm conclusion: "I wouldn't want you to think that I'm even trying to boast when I say that my work represents a brand new horizon in biology! I have found a successful way of adjusting a delicate biological mechanism. I have no pretensions beyond that! If I can be of service to anyone, my laboratory is always open."    ( More about 714-X )


Foreword     Preface     Chap 1     Chap 2     Chap 3 – 15 Selected Quotes     Chap 16     Chap 17     Chap 18     Appendixes


Selected Quotes from Chapters 3 through 15


Gaston Naessens – born March 16, 1924 – Roubaix France – Moved to Canada 1964.


"[F]or no great discovery has ever been immediately accepted. Rather, in medicine it seems that the reverse is true, and everyone must go through a period of trial and even censure before what seems the obvious truth is recognized generally. ... But such slow acceptance prevents the real discoveries from being known and widely accepted earlier and many lives are thus sacrificed needlessly."

Frank Slaughter, Immortal Magyar:
Semmelweiss, Conqueror of Childbed Fever   Page 48


The nitrogen is carried to tumor cells so avid for the element they have been called "nitrogen traps." By flooding the body with nitrogen and thus sating the cancerous cells, the same action also suppresses a secretion (by the cancer cells) that, as Naessens discovered, paralyzes the immune system.   Page 54


A question sprang into my mind as soon as those words were out of the surgeon's mouth: If they don't know ... the doctors ... then why don't they find out? Before passing something off as worthless, something they have never taken a minute, let alone an hour, to investigate, why don't they take the trouble to look into it? Are they not interested in, or at least curious about, brand new methods of diagnosis?   Page 60


Mycelial infection – When attacked by fungi-like forms, a patient becomes ill enough to exhibit septicemia (a bacteria-induced infection of the blood). This state is detectable only by culturing fresh blood in a medium, in vitro.

The main point was that ... most doctors are wholly unaware that these mycelia are forms in the somatid cycle that have evolved in the blood itself, that is, within the body. If they do see them in the blood, in a "knee-jerk" reaction based on the Pasteurian dogma, they conclude that, if they produce serious states of fever or infection, they must have come from somewhere outside the body.   Page 63


... a general attitude ... that only research that "toes" an orthodox "line" is acceptable in mainstream medicine. It is also connected to what can be called the "NIH Syndrome," which has nothing to do with the United States' National Institutes of Health (also called NIH) in Washington, D.C., but to the slogan "Not Invented Here," though assuredly a connection between the two identical acronyms might be made. ... "Look here, Monsieur, you should clearly understand that if I, with my 120 in-house scientists, haven't found a specific anticancer drug, then it's because it simply doesn't exist!"   Page 69


Kelectomine, a word fashioned from Greek roots meaning to "sever beyond," had, in fact, been developed by Naessens over the years 1965 – 1966, and a long film had been made on its use on rats. When injected into a section of one of the limbs of a rat – or any other mammal – it almost miraculously causes that section, and the whole portion of the limb below it, painlessly and antiseptically to drop off the body within about three days. If for example, a whole limb – an arm or a leg – requires amputation, the product is accordingly injected into the upper arm or the thigh such that the limb falls off, either at the shoulder or the hip joint. If injected lower down the limb, say in the lower arm, or the calf, what falls off is that portion of the leg below the knee joint, or the arm below the elbow. This is because the product cannot affect any part of the limb above the next joint below which it is injected due to the fact that it cannot penetrate, or pass through, a membrane, located in each mammalian body joint, known as a perimysium.   Page 79


Peer review is widely seen as the modern touchstone of truth. Scientists are roundly drubbed if they bypass it and "go public" with their research. ... The first limitation of peer review is that nobody can say quite what it is. ... A more pernicious danger is that peer review may reject the important work. As Charles W. McCutchen, a physicist at the National Institutes of Health, has put it, peers on the panel reviewing a grant application "profit by his success in drawing money into their collective field, and by his failure to do revolutionary research that would lower their own ranking in the profession. It is in their interest to approve, pedestrian proposals."

Jonathan Schlefer, Editorial, Technology Review, October 1990   Page 83


... what the Naessenses wanted determined, with lab equipment and methods more sophisticated than those available to them in (their home town) Rock Forest, was, first of all, the exact chemical composition of the somatids, to reveal the connection with DNA, a finding that, if confirmed, might be as important to science as the discovery of the nature of DNA itself, reported many years ago in John Watson's scientific thriller The Double Helix (New York: Atheneum, 1968).

Second, the Naessenses were looking for help in identifying the growth hormones that proliferates in the blood as a result of the onset of the pathological extension of normal somatid cycle, to see whether or not it did, in fact, correspond to what Alexis Carrel had named trephone, as well as in identifying toxins emitted by cancer cells to which they had given the name the "Cocancerogenic K Factor".

Third, the Naessenses were confident that, had the work been correctly performed, their firm conclusion that degenerative diseases, such as cancer, can be prediagnosed long before their clinical signs appear, would have been recognized years ago. That, in turn, together with a recognition of the effectiveness of their treatment, might have by now resulted in a steep drop in new cases of cancer, which each year have grown in numbers.   Page 96


Dr. Beverly Rubik – The Jacques Benveniste affaire illustrates dramatically the reception that new ideas and findings sometimes receive in science today. Despite the fact that "science" exists to reveal new data, discoveries considered anomalous or incomprehensible [like Boivin's "whole new world"] by current scientific understanding are not warmly received by the contemporary scientific establishment. In fact, throughout the history of science, truly novel discoveries and ideas contradicting those of the establishment [such as those of Gaston Naessens] were often dismissed, or ignored.

Kepler was accused of introducing occultism when he proposed that the moon controls the motion of the tides. Lord Kelvin held that X-rays were a hoax. Barbara McClintock toiled in isolation most of her long life with little support, unraveling the mysteries of the transposition of genes, until recently when she was finally awarded the Nobel Prize.   Page 117


To cut straight into the heart of the matter, the difference between the approach of thousands of orthodox cancerologists – or oncologists, as they are more technically known – to healing, and the almost diametrically opposed approach of one individual, Gaston Naessens, Fabre began with an analogy, as simple as it was apt. Likening the appearance of cancer cells in the body to the appearance of a swarm of mosquitoes in an outdoor locale, the doctor said that traditional medicine sought only to destroy offending cells – through surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy – just as one might attempt to get rid of the mosquito swarm by spraying it with insecticides.* This was a hopeless task, Fabre continued, because, just as mosquitoes come out of a swamp favorable to their breeding and generation, so cancerous cells develop in a bodily milieu, or terrain, favoring such development. It was therefore Naessens's aim, not to seek to annihilate the mosquitoes (the cancer cells) one by one, but to eradicate the swampy conditions that had led them to engender in the first place. Chronic disease was closely linked to a morass-like condition in the body.

* To return to Louis Pasteur, – (a pathologist) – whose "germ theory" of disease gained ascendancy for nearly a century: Pasteur was reported to have said, on his deathbed, with reference to the ideas of the eminent French physiologist Claude Bernard, who championed the notion that the terrain was more significant than germs in the onset of disease: "Bernard a raison ... le terrain is tout! Le microbe n?est rien!" (Bernard is right ... the terrain is everything! The microbe is nothing!) This confession, unfortunately, was not heard beyond the bedroom walls.   Page 120


Another case brought up (before the court) by Dr. Michel Fabre was particularly important because it illustrated how 714-X can be successfully used to treat intractable degenerative diseases other than cancer. It dealt with a thirty-year-old woman with an advanced case of multiple sclerosis – known colloquially as "M.S." – from which she had suffered since 1978. Since being under 714-X treatment, the woman, said Fabre, had been making remarkable progress toward health.*

*In the early 1980s, I myself was personally introduced to 714-X's effectiveness in reversing an advanced case of M.S. The patient in question, a close friend and a Connecticut dental surgeon in his mid-fifties, had been confined to a wheelchair, where he sat helplessly and incontinently, unable to feed himself or to talk. Within ten days after 714-X treatment began, the dentist was able, for the time in two years, to stand unsupported and take a few steps. By the end of a twenty-one-day treatment, he was able, unaided, to walk around a table, only occasionally abetting his progress by placing his forefinger on it to assure his balance. His ex-wife, who had accompanied him to Canada, where she loyally took care of him during treatment, looked upon his recovery as a "miracle."   Page 123


Francois Wilhelmy (Judge and French Ambassador) "That such treatments, as Naessens's 714-X, are not publicly available is more than distressing. Why do they have to be hidden? After all, in our society, any of us would make any and all attempts to rescue, to save, a drowning man, woman or child, ... so why not a victim of cancer?"   Page 145


Jean-Hubert Eggerman "We're not living in Stalinist Russia, or Nazi Germany, after all! We're in Canada! When am I, and all the rest of us, going to win the right to be treated (for diseases) as we see fit?"   Page 169


Then she asked the biologist: "Isn't it a bit simplistic to tell someone: 'you have a precancerous condition and I'll give you 714-X, and you'll recover from it'?"

"That's quite right," Naessens replied, "But isn't prevention much easier than cure? Patients have come to me in states of fatigue, been treated, and begun to feel in tip-top shape again. I'm certain that many of them were precancerous. Obviously, there is no traditional way of verifying that. But we can point to cases of cancer, which were substantiated by hospital tests, so that the conditions of patients could be compared before, and after, treatment. In any case, my theories differ completely from traditional ones. Conventionalists say that cancer is a local affliction that becomes generalized.   I say: "Cancer is a general systemic illness that becomes localized."   Page 178


"I'm going to fight no matter what they do, because I believe I'm doing the right thing. I believe that this is our obligation to the people. If you find something that's valuable, you must continue, and I believe we've found something that may be able to save lives." Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D., Burzynski Clinic, Houston, Texas.   Page 182


Jan Merta: "I want you to know, Chris," he said solemnly, "that, with regard to what I have told you, I have not been exaggerating. It has been my central aim in life to search for valid information, that is, for truth, no matter how unacceptable or premature it may be considered by the 'orthodox', no matter how upsetting to the 'reigning paradigm'. For man's judgment is only as good as the information available to support it."   Page 201


"At the heart of science lies discovery, which involves a change in worldview. Discovery, in science or the arts, is possible only in societies which accord their citizens the freedom to pursue the truth where it may lead and which therefore have respect for different paths to the truth."   John Polanyi, Canadian Nobel Laureate (Chemistry), from his commencement address at McGill University, Montrèal, June 1990   Page 204


"The history of many innovations, both in medicine and in other areas of endeavor, indicate that the innovators are often erratic, unsystematic, and difficult to deal with. The quality controllers often regard the work as of poor quality and not worth publishing or noting. ... The only problem is that the quality controllers, while exquisite in their crossing of t's and dotting of i's, rarely discover anything that matters. The improvement of research quality over the past years is not gain if it has occurred at the expense of innovation." David F. Horrobin, D.Phil., "The Philosophical Basis of Peer review and the Suppression of Innovation," Journal of the American Medical Association, March 9, 1990   Page 224


Foreword     Preface     Chap 1     Chap 2     Chap 3 – 15 Selected Quotes     Chap 16     Chap 17     Chap 18     Appendixes


Chapter 16

Breakout From Quèbec

The history of many innovations, both in medicine and in other areas of endeavor, indicate that the innovators are often erratic, unsystematic, and difficult to deal with. The quality controllers often regard the work as of poor quality and not worth publishing or noting. ... The only problem is that the quality controllers, while exquisite in their crossing of t’s and dotting of i’s, rarely discover anything that matters. The improvement of research quality over the past years is not gain if it has occurred at the expense of innovation.

David F. Horrobin, D.Phil., “The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 9 March 1990


As well done as they were, the Fusion articles, both of them, seemed to skirt, or miss, the overridingly most important of Naessens’s discoveries, the “jewel in their crown”: the discovery of the somatid, along with its extraordinary properties and fascinating implications for biological and medical science.

The first medical recognition of the importance of that tiniest of microbiological entities came to me in a letter from the United States written by Karl Maret, M.D., trained in the “anthroposophic” tradition of Austrian scientist and clairvoyant Rudolph Steiner. Maret, who is also an engineer, heads the Metanoia Group in San Diego, California, which investigates areas indicated by Steiner as being of great interest for “future science.”

Among Steiner's clairvoyant feats was his coming to conclusions, a few years before Gaston Naessens was born, about the true nature of cancer. Included with Maret's letter was a paper written by a German physician, which opens with the sentence: “As early as 1920, Rudolph Steiner described the malignant tumor as a disease of the organism as a whole.” This is exactly the philosophy adopted by Gaston Naessens – who had never heard of Steiner or his conclusion – over the course of his years-long independent research.

The German doctor next observed that, more than seventy years ago, Steiner tried to “direct attention away from the abnormal single cell environment, to extra-cellular space, and thereby to the permeable fluid continuum of that organism.” And, amazingly enough, this is also what Naessens, who, using classical Greek humors to refer to “extra-cellular space,” has tried to do all along, only to be vilified by a “cancer community” as ignorant of Steiner’s reflections as if he had never existed, and as hostile to Naessens as if he were the foe, rather’ than the friend, of true medical science.

It seems odd, indeed, that Steiner’s clairvoyant conclusions have not been heralded with avid interest by cancer specialists and that the truths he foresaw and proclaimed have not been recognized, especially since they have now been fully objectified by Naessens, who was born the same-year Steiner died.

In his letter, Dr. Maret went on to ask a number of pertinent questions about the somatid, and other aspects of Naessens’s research that not a single Quèbècois doctor or scientist seems to have mustered the curiosity to ask. This is hardly surprising. While the whole range of Steiner’s scientific insights – what has been called a whole “Science of the Invisible" create a revolutionary new vision in many disciplines, and thus require those studying them to think for themselves, orthodox medical teaching and training demands not personal and original inquiry, but largely rote learning. This is why brand new approaches are castigated, as they were in the Naessens’s trial by Dr. Haché, as “marginal.”

Let us set down some of Maret's questions and try to answer them in order to give some idea of what the medical community in Quèbec and elsewhere, and the popular science press, might, were they both “awake,” also have been asking.

Question:  How is it determined that somatids have electromagnetic negativity, and repulse one another?

Answer:  They are easily seen to be repulsing one another at the microscope, just as if they were miniature equivalents of negatively charged billiard balls, which, on the green baize of a pool table surface, would never come in contact, or carom off one another, and thus make billiards an impossible game to play. Furthermore, they are attracted to the field of the positive pole of an ordinary magnet placed close to the blood sample on a slide.

Question:  Is there information on the complete sixteen-stage life cycle of the somatid, published or written up in more detail (than provided in the book)?

Answer:  While a “full-dress” scientific paper on this subject remains to be written, a videocassette film is readily available, over half an hour long, which shows most of the forms in the sixteen-stage cycle developing before one’s eyes in the blood. The same film also includes still photographs of great interest to a comprehension of the functioning of the cycle.

Question:  Have somatids, and other forms in the cycle, actually been seen in microscopes, but not been recognized?

Answer:  Yes, most definitely. Over the years, many forms in the cycle have been observed by researchers in Europe and North America during a period stretching back to the 1920s, and beyond. A fascinating history of these observations remains to be written. A main difficulty, here, is that most of the observers were left puzzled by what they were seeing, either because they had found only some of the forms – usually the bacterial ones – but were unable to relate them to the rest of the cycle, and especially to the originating form, the somatid, which existing microscopes could not reveal. Or, because fellow bacteriologists simply dismissed the forms as “artifact,” or dross, unwittingly or carelessly introduced into the milieu, and therefore not a natural part of it. This latter conclusion particularly applies to the sixteenth stage form, the empty thallus.

Question:  How does Naessens’s work relate to Dr. Virginia Livingston-Wheeler's – and others – on filterable bacteria?

Answer:  Here Dr. Maret refers to a veteran physician, cancer researcher, and microbiologist who, before her recent death, operated a clinic in San Diego, California. Her conclusions about certain microbes she discovered and described seem to differ from those of Naessens mainly because – she ascribes a cancer – inducing effect to them while Naessens insists that the sixteen-stage cycle is not a cause, but an indicator of disease, no different from a flashing light warning someone of incipient danger.*

*See Appendix A for more on “filterable bacteria.”

The cancer-causing role of forms in the bloodstream derives from the old Pasteurian legacy that "germs" invade the body from without. Only a short time after Maret wrote to me, I received a paper, written by a Florida pathologist Dr. P. B. Macomber and printed in the British journal Medical Hypotheses, a leader in its field. The article, brought out in its first 1990 issue, summarizes years of research on anomalous microbes in the blood, but, once again for lack of knowledge of the somatid – originator of the whole process – it hews to the idea that microbes are causes for degenerative diseases, rather than their heralds.

Macomber’s original interest in researching and writing his article came after his wife’s death from cancer, which conventional therapy, in his words, “did not help at all ... in fact I think it hastened her demise.” When he was introduced to Livingston-Wheeler’s research, he was flabbergasted. “I was,” he continued in a letter to me, “upset, to say the least, that I had never heard of any of the concepts about cancer that she was developing even though, as a pathologist, I was reasonably familiar with most of the current research. No textbook on oncology has even brushed on the subject.”

No statement can better characterize the abyss that yawns between orthodox philosophies on cancer and its treatment, and nearly a century of “new” knowledge, which, because it runs counter to those outlooks, has persistently been ignored. Nevertheless, the receipt of the two communications, the one from a “Steiner” doctor, the other from a ranking pathologist suddenly brought face-to-face with a whole “new world,” seemed to promise that some people, somewhere, were at last beginning to throw a span across the abyss of ignorance.

By the summer of 1990, as a result of limited dissemination of the English version of the Canadian-published book abroad, more international support for Naessens’s work was shown by members of the international medical community outside Canadian territory, support that more than matched the goodwill and true interest evinced by the questions, mostly of a theoretical nature, posed by Dr. Maret.

In Tijuana, capital of Mexico’s Baja California state, Mildred Nelson, a registered nurse and director of the Bio-Med Center on Avenida General Ferreira, had read the Canadian edition of this book given her by Kim Lalancette, a young Quèbecer who, like Bernard Baril and other young AIDS victims, had recovered from his affliction after treatment by Naessens’s remedies. Leafing through its pages, Nelson, a veteran battler for alternative cancer cures, grew increasingly excited.

As far back as the 1930s, the Tijuana clinic director had become chief assistant to Harry Hoxsey, a Texan oil millionaire who had developed a formula made up of seven herbs,* plus potassium iodide, the earliest version of which his great-grandfather had first concocted in the mid-nineteenth century after watching a cancerous horse seek out special meadow plants, the ingestion of which led to recovery.

*For another enthralling historical account of a Native American herbal remedy successfully used on cancer victims, and its suppression by the U.S. and Canadian medical authorities, see ESSIAC: An Herbal Treatment of Cancer (A Special Report), by Tom Valentine, Associated Partners West, P.O. Box 3048, Iowa City, Iowa 52244. Unpublished is the testing of still one more herbal concoction obtained from the head-shrinking Jivaro Indians by the late Pino Turolla, an Italian explorer, and author of Beyond the Andes (New York: Harper & Row, 1980). Tested on cancer-infested mice in a Seattle, Washington, laboratory for over two years, it proved ninety-eight percent effective in stopping their cancers.

Used on hundreds of cancer victims, the Hoxsey formula’s results were so promising that the American Medical Association (AMA) made its inventor a stingy offer to buy all rights to it. The offer, made in 1924, was flatly turned down by Hoxsey, who, as a result, became the object of a relentless AMA persecution, which, lasting for thirty-five years, was to lead to his repeatedly being charged with practicing medicine without a license and to his being sentenced to several jail terms.

Only Hoxsey’s personal fortune, gained through his oil and gas ventures, allowed him to meet the legal costs of his extensive court battles and to continue to treat suffering cancer victims. In 1949, he carried his fight into enemy territory by suing the AMA.

The cake of his victory against America’s most powerful medical authority was frosted when both the judge presiding at the trial and the AMA’s own lawyer declared that there was no doubt that Hoxsey’s formula really did cure many cases of cancer. Yet, in spite of all this, and as incredible as it may seem, the AMA, with unbounded viciousness, kept hounding Hoxsey as a quack. Exhausted by his struggles, Hoxsey finally closed his clinics and moved his operation to Tijuana, where, since his death, Mildred Nelson has presided over it.*

*A prize-winning film, "Hoxsey," available on videocassette, was made by Ken Ausabel and can be obtained by writing to him at Box 1644, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504.

Once she had finished reading my book about Naessens, Mildred Nelson immediately decided to send one of her five staff physicians to Rock Forest to learn Naessens’s intralymphatic injection techniques for 714-X. In early June 1990, Al Espinosa, M.D., a handsome pure-blooded Olmec Indian in his mid-thirties, whose education from grade school all the way through medical school had been financed by Americans living in Guadalajara for whom Espinosa’s mother worked as a housemaid, came to Naessens’s laboratory. During the whole of an afternoon, he was shown the injection techniques, which were recorded on videocassette. He was further so well coached on the techniques in Montreal that, within two days, he had completely mastered them, and was skilled enough to be able to teach them to doctors and nurses in his Tierra del Sol homeland.

While it may seem strange that first evidence of intent to put 714-X treatment to practice had to come from an “alternative medicine” clinic, and from “south of the border,” rather than from a leading hospital in the United States, it must be realized that, for American doctors to be able to use it, various “political” moves leading to legal “action” must be made for 714-X to somewhere acquire official status. Even if in Mexico it does not yet enjoy that official status, 714-X is nevertheless “tolerated” by state and medical authorities just because its non-toxicity and salubrious effects are recognized, a "tolerance" much to be desired in the fifty states of the American Union. But at least there is a clinic where Americans will be able to get the Naessens treatment while waiting for it to become available in their own country.

As Nelson was beginning 714-X treatment in Baja California, dozens of letters and telephone calls were pouring into the Naessens’s house on Rue Fontaine from patients in the United States. They were advised that, since 714-X was legally exportable from Canada, it could be sent to them as soon as an American doctor mailed or faxed a written prescription for it. By mid-June, Françoise's log of prescriptions already sent was rapidly expanding. On 16 June, my own diary read: “Yesterday I traveled to a little Vermont post office just over the border to mail envelopes with instructions for the use of 714-X.”

It is heartening to be able to write that Dr. Espinosa is not the only North American physician to have shown active interest in making 714-X available to patients. Lawrence Taylor, M.D., director of the U.S. Medical Research Foundation in San Diego, made his own trip to Rock Forest in early May 1990 to attend a reception celebrating the appearance of the Canadian edition, held for over two hundred Naessens partisans in Sherbrooke’s new Delta Hotel. At the reception, Taylor rose to take the microphone and to congratulate Naessens graciously on his achievements on behalf of Taylor's American medical colleagues.

At the same reception, Naessens himself addressed the throng, and in moving words stated, not a little sardonically, that, myself excepted, “no scientifically trained observer had found any useful reason to monitor and relate all the details of my trial.” My book, he added, “went far beyond the sterile polemics broached by persons who have no eyes to see, even less to understand, new approaches being advocated by various scientists in the domain of fundamental biological research.” The book was “a trumpet blaring to awaken people out of their torpor, people who are well-intentioned but mired down in a system tainted by the attractions of money and power, a system which seems endlessly to snuff out new initiatives that could offer benefits for humanity.”

As if he were chorusing the words of John Polanyi, cited at the beginning of the previous chapter, Naessens complained: “Man has almost completely lost the right to think, or to create, outside the norms established by a scientific dictatorship. For over a hundred years, this scientific hegemony, become a trillionaire, has taken deep root throughout the world to the detriment of the health of its populations. This aberrated status in present-day scientific thinking, resisted by a growing number of conscientious researchers, will be overcome only if people as a whole, ‘men in the street,’ begin to work, peacefully yet with conviction, to smash a medical ‘Berlin Wall’ erected by vested interests.”

The words of Naessens’s address, and the nobility of their expression, could well have merited exposure in the Quèbec press, but it seemed there was not a single journalist willing to put them to print. Yet, at the end of their uttering, Naessens was given a standing ovation.

When the English version of the Canadian edition of my book, which had begun to circulate in the United States, came into the hands of Robert Atkins, M.D., author of two best-sellers on “alternative” health and medical director of the Atkins Center for Complementary Medicine in Manhattan, this widely known physician resolved to do an interview with me on his weeknight radio show, “Design for Living,” which is heard by an audience of thousands in an area stretching from New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania to southern New England.

Atkins began: “Friends, well, tonight we have something very special! Very special! Because we’re going to talk about the treatment of cancer, and of other illnesses, by a scientist, a biologist, whose name is Gaston Naessens. We are going to learn about his science and about the results that have been achieved with this remarkable therapy, based on his remarkable discoveries.”

It is too bad that the airwaves carrying Atkins’s voice could not have reached – in French translation – into Quèbec province itself, even right into the office, home, or car radio of Augustin Roy himself.

During the interview, Robert Atkins went over with me the highlights of Naessens’s findings and their meaning for a new medicine and biology. When I explained that the essence of Naessens’s approach was to strengthen the immune system so that it could take care of the body’s afflictions, he significantly added: “That’s most interesting, because everyone I’ve ever interviewed, every system I’ve ever seen that is successful in the treatment of cancer, says just that! Don’t destroy the cancer ... but support the immune system!” What an effect, I thought, would those trenchant words have had if Atkins had been able to speak them at Naessens’s trial! And Atkins did not limit himself to supportive commentary. “I’m planning,” he announced to his large radio audience, “to go up to Quèbec and learn his technique. I know I just have to do that because I’m so happy to know that it exists!”

The feedback to the Atkins radio show was impressive. The following day, at the offices of the American Society of Dowsers, in Danville, Vermont, where my book was stocked for sale by mail, over 150 calls were received from a dozen states, asking that it be sent as quickly as possible. Over half a dozen of the calls came from doctors of medicine, among them a physician with his own “alternative” clinic in Norman, Oklahoma, who said he had been invited to go to Los Angeles to be interviewed for a position as a “medical expert” host on a West Coast radio show that goes out all across the nation. If he won the appointment, he said, he wanted to do a second interview with me on Naessens.

Atkins was as good as his word. Within two weeks, he drove, with his attractive Russian wife, Vera, from New York City to Rock Forest, where he spent the weekend with the Naessenses, learning everything he could about their science – viewing their blood at the microscope and the film made through it – and mastering the technique of injecting the 714-X into the lymph system. Before he left, he told the Naessenses that he wanted to get started on tests with cancer patients.

Upon his return to New York, Atkins devoted a second hour of “Design for Living” to his visit with the Naessenses in Canada. His introductory words could not have been more laudatory:

I’m here to give a report on what might well be the most exciting development in the history of medicine. Gaston Naessens is surely one of the greatest scientists of the twentieth century. He deserves not just one but several Nobel prizes for his lifework. He probably won’t get them, however. Like many other pioneers of alternative cancer cures, he probably will be discredited.

From the southeast tip of the United States, another call came from Roy Kupsinel, M.D., an Ovideo, Florida, physician who edits and publishes Health Consciousness, a magazine with the engaging subtitle “A Forum for Accent in Credible Medicine,” which goes out all over the world. In a follow-up letter, Kupsinel informed me that he had earlier received my article “In Defense of Gaston Naessens,” published in New Age, and had been “mighty tempted” to get my okay to reprint it. Instead, he said, he prevailed upon Viktor Penzer, a Polish-born physician and dental surgeon now in his seventies who likes to say that his third diploma – in nutrition – was received from “Auschwitz University,” where he had miraculously survived for three long years, to read my book. As a result, Penzer told Kupsinel that he couldn’t wait to go up to Rock Forest and interview Naessens for an article in Health Consciousness.

Meanwhile, back in Quèbec, although no doctors had come forward to back Naessens with any declarations as positive as those made public by Atkins and Kupsinel, it nevertheless seemed that a few “waves” were beginning to appear on the French-speaking province’s medical waters.

None other than L'Actualité Medical (A.M.) (The Doctors’ Newspaper), had, unbeknownst to Naessens, published a front-page March 1990 article entitled “Alternative Medicine: Where Do Doctors Stand?” This article credited Naessens with having been the main stimulus causing the pot of that debate to start boiling again after a long period of quiescence.

In an interview, the head of the Québec Holistic Medical Association (Q.H.M.A.), Dr. Gilles Vezina, made no bones about a situation in which the potential recognition of the merits of alternative medicine was pitted against the determined resistance of the “medical world,” an odd euphemism for the medical establishment, particularly its “crowned heads.” “Anything new is seen as threatening for those at the apex of medical power,” said the president. “Their excuse for their not recognizing alternative medicinals is that there is no scientific proof for them. But the reality is that they just don’t want to take the trouble to investigate.”

Far more shocking was the president’s revelation in A.M. of the lengths to which the Quèbec Medical Corporation was going to prevent and block any growth of so-called “holistic medicine.” When doctors – and patients – called the corporation’s offices to ask how to get hold of the Q.H.M.A., full documentation on which the corporation had been provided, they had been told that no such organization existed! It seemed that, just as in the case of Naessens, the medical establishment believed that lying to the public was no sin, certainly not a crime. That this attitude is also prevalent in the United States will be documented in the final pages of this book.

Another aspect of the Medical Corporation’s “blocking tactics” was revealed when Vezina told the “Doctor’s Newspaper” that his formal request that Q.H.M.A. be listed in the corporation’s Annuaire Medical a thick handbook listing the names and addresses of all Quèbècois physicians, as well as all medically affiliated organizations – had been summarily denied.

And even that was not the worst of the situation with regard to the promulgation of alternative medicine in Quèbec, added Vezina. Speaking for the panel, he made clear that young medical students, avidly interested in alternative medical treatments and techniques, were being offered no help or encouragement whatsoever in their search to obtain information about them.

When, for instance, second-year med students at the University of Sherbrooke's Medical School had asked of its dean that they be allowed to organize on campus a colloquium on “Complementary Medicine,” they were categorically refused access to meeting halls, audiovisual equipment, and financial support. The only reason given for the rejection was that the colloquium had nothing to do with the medical school’s “teaching curriculum.” Unabashed, the students went on to organize the colloquium off campus, by themselves, to organize it, in Vezina’s words, “from A to Z”. And they were planning another colloquium for the fall of 1990, which, the Q.H.M.A. president was happy to report, this time had won the benediction of the Department for Family Medicine.

It is strange that, by midsummer 1990, neither Dr. Vezina nor any of his Q.H.M.A. adherents had dared to visit with, or even to call, Gaston Naessens. One can only assume that the pressure of the Quèbec Medical Corporation was effectively blocking any such initiative.

In contrast to that reticence, however, Naessens was most pleased in July to receive a call from Ontario saying that three doctors affiliated with the national Canadian Holistic Medical Association (C.H.M.A.) – all of them young women – would be driving the following day all the way from Toronto to pay him a call. With them, they brought a specialist in “dark-field microscopy” who had trained with a master of that technology in Detroit.

During a whole afternoon, much of it spent by the foursome in looking at blood specimens through Naessens’s microscope – in an act of curiosity up to then unmatched by any Quèbècois doctor – the group received a virtual “blitz education” in recognizing things they had never seen or been taught to see.

A letter written by one of the members of the group, Carolyn F. A. Dean, M.D., provides an account of how a young open-minded physician reacted to what amounted to one of the most unusual experiences of her life.

“I never thought I would see such a microscope,” Dean wrote:

She went on to write: The microscopist in our group told us that the somatids, and the other new forms that Naessens had discovered, were considered by most specialists to be artifacts. But he had no trouble whatever in convincing me, and the rest of us, that they were real microbiological entities. I have seen, and worked with, many microscopes and Naessens’s is the most impressive apparatus for viewing live specimens I have ever experienced.

If his microscope were put to wide use, we would be able to identify when a person’s immune system was slowing down and take measures to bring it back to normal. The whole world is talking about the immune system without knowing what to do about it. Monsieur Naessens has given us enormously important insights into this process.

As a result of the visit of the C.H.M.A. group, the following day I received a telephone call from Kingston, Ontario, where, that weekend, the C.H.M.A. was scheduled to hold its annual meeting at the local university. There I met its president, Leonard Levine, M.D., who graciously found a place for me in the speaking program, so that I could present some of Naessens’s story to the assembled audience of physicians and nurses.

What will be the result of this is presently impossible to foretell. The Naessens story is still unfolding, much like the stories told on television, multi-episode dramas, during which audiences are compelled to wait a day, a week, or even longer to see what will happen. As the Italian song has it, “Che Sera Sera.” And we can only hope that the Naessens “situation” – comic or tragic, as one might view it – will, in either case, have a triumphant ending. Surrounding this situation, as we have seen, has been a cloud of deceit, and now it is time to take that cloud's larger dimensions and to speculate on whether it can be “busted” out of the sky to admit the sunshine of truth that lies behind it.


Foreword     Preface     Chap 1     Chap 2     Chap 3 – 15 Selected Quotes     Chap 16     Chap 17     Chap 18     Appendixes


Chapter 17

Medical Dissent

Medical students never get to the stage of asking questions. Let them ask one and see what happens. My local university library is divided into two main sections: the medical library where medics can consult authoritative textbooks on all branches of medicine; and the general library for everybody else. Significantly, all works relating to the sociology of medicine, the critique of medicine, or medical history belong to the general library, where medical students will not have to be exposed to the possibility of reading books that might actually question the premises of the system in which they are being trained.

Dr. Denis MacEoin, “The Myth of Clinical Trials,”
Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, August 1990


We recall that Fusion editor Maher Jahjah concluded his second article with the words that cancer specialists were now beginning to admit that chemotherapy treatments were “expedients that destroy the health of patients.” Was this really only a parochial reference to a lamentable situation existing in his home province where no doctor, thus far, has directly admitted anything of the sort?

A full seven years before Jahjah penned his words, in 1984, a remarkable, now all-but-forgotten conference, the first of its kind, was held in Chicago. At that conference, explicitly entitled “Dissent in Medicine,” nine eminent physicians from all over the United States spoke to an auditorium packed with their colleagues – as well as the press and public – on rank abuses running rife in their profession.*

*For a complete transcript of the conference, see Dissent in Medicine: Nine Doctors Speak Out (Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1985).

The central theme addressed at the conference was the propensity of the nation’s medical hierarchy to lie to the public. In his opening remarks, Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn, president of the New Medical Foundation, which encourages and supports “innovative forms of medical education,” put his finger on why, how, and where that propensity is given birth. “Doctors are trained from their earliest days in medical school not to share full information with the public,” said Mendelsohn. “They learn that if they tell the public the truth about drugs that are being prescribed, people will not take those drugs. Of course, they’re right!” How could anyone have put the matter more bluntly?

Equally blunt was Alan S. Levin, M.D., a distinguished professor of immunology at the University of California (San Francisco) Medical School, who rose to protest against the lies being perpetrated with respect to cancer treatments. Laying the shocking truth, as he saw it, right on the line, he said acerbically: “Practicing physicians are intimidated into using regimes which they know do not work. One of the most glaring examples is chemotherapy, which does not work for the majority of cancers.”

Had Levin said as much at the trial of Gaston Naessens, one might well have wondered what reactions to his words would have been evoked in the press, or in the minds of the president of the Quèbec Medical Corporation or the three cancer specialists who, at their press conference, slammed the door on Naessens's promising treatment. But Levin did nut stop there. Going further he added: ‘Despite the fact that most physicians agree that chemotherapy is largely ineffective, they are coerced into using it by special interest groups which have vested interest in the profits of the drug industry!’*

*Full documentation to back up Levin’s almost heartrending statement has now been supplied in a thick book, The Cancer Industry (New York: Paragon Books, 1990), written by Ralph W. Moss, who resigned from his job as assistant director of public affairs at Sloan-Kettering, one of the world’s largest cancer research and treatment centers, to lay the facts before the public.

On the drug industry’s control of cancer therapies, and on its total lack of concern as to whether remedies forced on patients were effective or not, Mendelsohn was even more explicit. “The only proven factor in orthodox therapies: he stated, “are their adverse reactions. Doctors not only admit this but are proud of it. According to Eli Lilly, head of the huge drug company which bears his name: 'Any drug without toxic effects is not a drug at all.'

Lilly could well have been speaking about Gaston Naessens’s 714-X, the completely nontoxic effects of which, as we have seen, have been proven beyond shadow of doubt, as has its effectiveness on hundreds of cases of cancer or other diseases.

As the conference proceeded, it became clearer and clearer that drug dispensers were focused on company profit rather than on the succor of patients. It was a distressful fact that “cancer therapies are being oversold,” said Dr. George Crile, head of the famed Cleveland Clinic, and that, if appropriate studies were made, doctors “would be led to completely abandon many radical therapies they now use!”

What is blocking such “appropriate studies:” one might ask, particularly one of 714-X by the Canadian Health Ministry or any other official body?

It was Samuel Epstein, M.D., professor of occupational and environmental medicine at the University of Illinois Medical Center, who gave not only an answer to that question but provided recommendations as to what helpless citizens, whether cancer victims or not, might do to turn the tide.

Characterizing the whole of the multibillion dollar “phony war” against cancer, declared way back under the presidency of Richard Nixon, as only a “useful paradigm in failed decision making,” he was not afraid to state that hundreds of thousands of Americans had died of cancer over the intervening years chiefly due to policies promulgated from on high. His “considered view,” added this doctor, was that “there have been no major advances in the treatment of cancer!” Far from any battle, not a single skirmish had been won in the war.

Why then, asked Epstein, were legislators in the U.S. Congress uninterruptedly allocating, and justifying, the increasingly immense sums being spent futilely on cancer warriors?

His answer? Because they were continually being lied to by the “high command”!  And Epstein was not loath to target the leading culprits, to single out the “command posts”: the American Medical Association, the National Cancer Institute, and the American Cancer Society.

Epstein did not mince words about their actions: “As the public tax dollar has gone to swell their budgets, over the past decade in particular, these institutions have perpetrated a hoax about our ability to treat and cure cancer and, at the same time, have fought hard against increasing attention to prevention. We know a great deal about cancer, particularly about how to prevent it. It is my view that what we need now is to take responsibility for policy making in cancer prevention away from the institutionalized basis. ... Instead, decisions should be made with the involvement of the citizens at large of this country. ... We need a National Citizens’ Commission to inquire into the failures of the institutions. We need to politicize this issue and remove it from the hallowed corridors of scientific authority!”

Epstein’s was not the only voice calling not just for dissent, but for action. Echoing that call in the strongest terms, Dr. Levin, in his own closing remarks, felt that only a grassroots political movement could ever overcome the outright prevarication disseminated by the medical dictatorship.

As if he were talking specifically about Gaston Naessens's 714-X treatment, Levin held that ordinary doctors, no less than their patients, were in a “fix” that only a populist mass movement could remedy. His appeal to all laypeople in the Chicago auditorium was a paragon of simplicity: “Your family doctor is no longer free to choose the treatment he or she feels is best for you, but must follow the dictates established by physicians whose motives and alliances are such that their decisions may not be in your best interests.”

“You the taxpayer, the voter, the consumer, can help stop this corruption. Support your physician if he tells you the truth about drugs considered to be the ‘standard of practice’ in the treatment of a given disease. Support your doctor when he uses unconventional modes of treatment which you feel have improved your health. Recognize that he is risking his livelihood and his personal freedom for your well-being!”

Could not Dr. Levin have been talking about any physician of the stamp of Michel Fabre, the only doctor in the world to come to testify on Gaston Naessens’s behalf in the courtroom drama of 1989?

What was the way out of the mess of authoritarian rule in medicine? Here it is, as Levin proclaimed it over the microphone: “Write to your congressperson or your senator. If your doctor appears to be harassed by the local medical board or the police, remember that that doctor would rather help you than comply with the edicts of the health industry. With your support, he or she can join the ever increasing number of physicians who have repudiated the tyranny of the health industrial complex!”

“Help you ... rather than comply” – as I typed those words, they seemed, as literally as figuratively, to characterize the whole of Gaston Naessens’s lifelong effort, and to suggest for him an honorary doctorate in medicine so that he could take his place in the ranks of that “ever increasing number of physicians” repudiating “tyranny.”

“Thy banners make tyranny tremble ...” – so runs a line in the patriotic song “Columbia, Gem of the Ocean,” learned by most American schoolchildren.

If in 1984 Dr. Levin had raised his banner on high against what he so incisively defined as tyranny, another banner of larger dimensions was unfurled at the start of the last decade of this millennium. Emblazoned with the title “Cancer Manifesto: 1990s,” it calls for the overthrow of the “organized, monopolist, autocratic, murderous tyranny known as ‘orthodox medical treatment of cancer.’”

Sixteen pages long, it was published in the Winter 1990 issue of the Newsletter of the Bio-Electro-Magnetics Institute, a new organization founded by John T. Zimmerman, Ph.D., which has two medical doctors on its board of directors and three more on its advisory board. The author of this remarkable document is Barry Lynes, a science writer who has written three important books on the cancer cover-up.

The new document takes its cue not from the famous Communist Manifesto proclaimed over a century ago, which itself brought about changes as revolutionary as any ever seen in this world, but from a more modern politically inspired one signed by 240 courageous men and women. Issued on 1 January 1977, this manifesto was circulated underground throughout Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia to prospective supporters as “dissident” with regard to their country’s enslaved status as Dr. Levin and his eight fellow speakers were “dissident” with regard to the present enslaved status of the practice of medicine.

Detailing facts about medical skullduggery that can make anyone’s hair stand on end, the manifesto enjoins “all those convinced of an evil comparable to totalitarian communism in the form of a medical mafia, particularly in the treatment of cancer, to form a civic society in which free citizens take responsibility for their actions.”

In so doing, it takes the recommendations of the medically dissenting doctors in Chicago one giant step farther by opening an avenue for people everywhere to express themselves no less decisively than the six women and five men on Gaston Naessens’s jury expressed themselves with their ringing verdict.

Lynes feels strongly that, however long it has taken Americans to recognize the horror of what has been going on in its cancer wards, many of them with “human radar tuned to the nightmare that is cancer” are becoming awakened and can be mobilized into a countervailing force.

That a lone individual can contribute to this force is exemplified in Lynes’s manifesto by the case of a man who recently took out a full-page advertisement in his local newspaper attacking the cancer establishment. A letter, one of dozens, received by this man, gives an idea of the very horror of the “system” that is cancerology:

My best friend died of breast cancer four years ago. She was, of course, subject to the same scenario you have portrayed. Her last months were spent being herded, with others, like cattle through radiation treatments, where women were lined up without privacy and “zapped” by the machine. She was then started on chemotherapy, which made her last days sheer hell. As she lay dying, a directive came from a doctor requesting a scan and other expensive tests, all to be performed within the last six hours of her life. At that point, her husband ordered everyone away from her and let her have her remaining time in peace, no longer just a human experiment.

Which of us, reading these lines, cannot believe that the woman had entered a torture chamber as ghastly as any that can be conceived? Or compare, in his or her mind, the descriptions of a “peaceful dying” provided earlier in this text, when patients given 714-X, even if they could not be saved, were allowed to pass away in tranquility?

What is the nature or substance of the “killing instinct” of doctors who continue to administer treatments that, as Dr. Levin put it, "they know will not work”? As I was writing these lines, I received a call from an associate in California, one of whose close friends had just been “put to death” by zealots operating a radiation device. The really sad part of this talc is that the man, diagnosed with lung cancer, had begun to take Naessens’s 714-X and was seen to be responding most positively to the treatment. Yet radiation, in what turned out to be a massive overdose, was nevertheless continued. It caused such terrible burns on his body that, unable to recover from them, he died. My associate was told by one of the doctors on the hospital staff, who could not prevent the radiation from taking place, that it alone was responsible for the man’s death. He never had a chance to find out if, like so many others, his life could have been extended by Naessens’s product.

It is because of hundreds of cases similar to the two just described that Lynes writes in his manifesto: “Let us never again permit such unrestrained power to abuse innocent patients or scientific innovators.”

What can the individual do? Here is Lynes’s answer: “On a personal level, what is asked of you is very little. The next time you go into a hospital cancer ward or a cancer clinic and witness the bottles suspended from hooks above patients’ heads, sending poisonous liquids into their bodies, recognize you are in buildings created by criminals.”

“Next time you hear such titles as the Mayo Clinic (Minnesota), the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (New York), the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center (Texas), or any of the many others, or the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Board of Quality Assurance, or your own local medical society, don’t just silently let the conversation proceed about the way cancer is conventionally treated. Stop it right there, and challenge it! That’s your moment of truth. Be political, be outspoken. Stand up!”

“Inform people around you about the crimes initiated and still supported by those in charge of all such institutions and their ilk. Even if you are resented by your friends for disturbing their comfortable world, no matter. Keep in mind that what you are denouncing is no less than a ‘party headquarters’ of a tyranny no different from the one being dismantled in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.”

Confident that his “call to arms” will succeed, Lynes ends with Winston Churchill’s dictum that “the United States of America is the mightiest force in the world and can remain so. When that nation is united in a righteous cause, it will prevail over all evil interests.”

If some would regard Barry Lynes’s “Cancer Manifesto,” as utopian, they might nevertheless warm to a prediction that, due to what amounts in our country to a medical crisis of increasing proportions, orthodox medical hegemony will be forced to abdicate its throne as a result of its no longer being able to cope with its responsibilities.

This is the view of Dennis Stillings, director of the Archaeus Project in Saint Paul, Minnesota, which promotes new concepts in biomedicine such as “cyberbiology,” or the effects mind can have upon body that are crucial to self-healing. In July 1990, Stillings spoke before the annual meeting of the U.S. Psychotronics Association, of which he was, at the time, president. Referring to an appalling increase in degenerative disease, Stillings stressed that the current situation in that regard has become so desperate as to now be ushering the notion of rationing into the field of health care. “We have reached a state wherein medicine, as traditionally practiced, is in a near state of collapse because of its astronomically rising costs,” said Stillings. “Part of the problem is not to be laid at the feet of overworked doctors but at the door of ecological systems, both outer and inner, those of the earth itself and of the organisms that walk upon it, that are under mounting invasion by a host of enemies, recognized and unrecognized.”*

*At the Chicago conference, Dr. Epstein, anticipating Stillings, referred to the twentieth century as being one of “major threats to society, which stem from ‘runaway technology’ in the hands of expert ‘idiot savants,' whose rate of progress has been so rapid as to outstrip the capacity of social control mechanisms. One of these threats is the chemical industries’ role in ‘carcinogenizing’ our environment with a wide range of toxic chemicals, thus contaminating our air, water, food, and workplaces, as well as hazardous waste dumps all over the country.” He might have well added the soil itself, in which most of our food is grown (see Secrets of the Soil by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, New York: Harper & Row, 1990).

If, due to the expanding breakdown in immune systems, the medical profession has to confess an inability to cope with a tidal wave of patients, Stillings was of the opinion that its rulers will necessarily have to forfeit the right to dictate to people what kind of medical care they are allowed to have, or not allowed to have. And, as he saw it, this will, in turn, open the way to the inevitable erosion of power of medical “associations” and “corporations” of all kinds, as well as that of such regulatory bodies as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and all the rest of the authoritarian organizations listed by Lynes in his manifesto. At that point, “alternate” medical approaches could become as legally valid, and competitive, as orthodox ones.

Stillings sees the “Naessens Affair” as vitally central to this issue. As he wrote to me: “I want to pay special attention to Naessens’s ongoing story since, up to now at least, it represents the model of an ‘outsider’ going against mainstream medicine with a demonstrably effective treatment. Such an apparently clear-cut case is rare.”

Will the “cancer tyranny” have to cede its ground to new brilliant approaches such as those of Gaston Naessens, as implied in Stillings’s scenario? Opinions differ, and there are some that are hardly optimistic. One dour conclusion is that of Frederick I. Scott, Jr., a veteran commentator on “frontier science” who has for years written hard-hitting editorials on that topic for the widely distributed magazine American Bio-technical Laboratory. Devoting one of his editorials to Naessens and his work in the August 1990 issue of that magazine, Scott positively began:

While the courtroom may be the last place one expects to find scientific enlightenment, dramatic challenges to scientific dogma played out there can profoundly influence the course of science in application and teaching. This is particularly true in the case of so emotionally laden a disease as cancer. The trial of Gaston Naessens in Quèbec, Canada, from November to December 1989, may prove to be of such profound influence for it broaches issues of fundamental perceptions in microbiology and microscopy.

Even though he knew nothing about it, Scott thus seems to support Canadian attorney Peter Weldon's assessment of the Naessens trial.

However, in the conclusion to his piece – which masterfully presents the Naessens saga to his scientifically trained readers – Scott turns less sanguine. Expressing strong doubts that any “people power” can ever break a “scientific paradigm” that bars the existence of fundamentally new ideas into its practice, he writes:

There is little basis for that belief. We simply cannot afford it. We have livelihoods and long-standing prestigious careers invested in what exists. These are in control of what, in that paradigm, is to evolve. Nothing in our training or circumstances provides any mechanism by which we can examine or implement such ideas without devastating personal, professional and, more importantly, financial consequences.

And a further communication from bacteriologist Walter Clifford, in a single of many possible examples, illustrates why Scott may have every right to be so pessimistic. Clifford writes to the director of an organization that gives a prestigious annual international award to individuals who have substantially contributed to rewrighting (as in “shipwright”) our disrupted ecologies, inner and outer, everywhere.

“I am honored to offer comment concerning the work of Gaston Naessens,” he begins. Then, in no uncertain terms:

You are quite correct that there are numerous quarters, which would rise in revolt if an award were presented to this gifted and noble scholar. However, their ignorance and bigotry do not negate the truth nor the value of Naessens’s contributions. I recall an occasion before I met Naessens when a respected pathologist sat with me at the microscope so that he might be shown the peculiar microbiology of the blood. After nearly an hour of looking at a specimen of his own blood, he arose and walked out of my office. When I called out to him as to why he was so upset, he indicated that he did not believe what he had seen!

And Clifford ends with a “punch line” that may well justify Scott’s black outlook: “His last comment was to the effect that if he were to acknowledge what he had seen, his professional colleagues would turn against him and cause him to lose a valuable practice. So much for professional objectivity.”

Given this report, how can Scott, and many, many others, not have deep misgivings that the yearnings of all people will eventually overcome the selfish motivations confronting them? Can Scott be right in so lugubrious a conclusion? In other words, is the paradigm Thomas Kuhn described, in the medical sense, secure? Or can personal commitment, as called for by Barry Lynes, finally shift, or break, that paradigm? Are human cultural developments basically outside human control, leaving us at the mercy of an evolutionary juggernaut, the course of which is predetermined by influences about which we have neither any real knowledge or mastery?*

*Readers given to pondering such questions should consult one of the few books that has left a permanently disturbing imprint on me since I read it many years ago. Wholly displeasing to those who purportedly believe they are “in charge” of our destiny, and purport to be able to “run” our affairs, The Science of Culture (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1969), by anthropologist Leslie White, maintains that human “culture,” in its widest aspects, is a “creature” with a life of its own, totally unresponsive to human desires and, therefore, control. The book asks a fundamental question, the very one asked by Thomas Kuhn: “Do changes take place at a time propitious for their changing?” Or, as Shakespeare put it: “There is a tide in the affairs of men, when taken at the flood, leads on. ... to victory. ... “How much longer will the vessel of Gaston Naessens’s discoveries have to wait for “flood tide”?

Just as I was finishing this book in early September 1990, I had the opportunity to address the 18th Annual Convention of the Cancer Control Society in Pasadena, California. The society is a citizens’ group made up of cancer victims – many of them who have recovered due to “alternative” treatments that shore up deficient immune systems, such as that of Gaston Naessens – enlightened medical doctors, and lay-people. In addition to delving into nontoxic cancer therapies and nutritional approaches to the prevention of cancer, the society also provides valuable information on legal aspects of the rights of individuals to choose what they consider best for themselves in the field of medical treatment.

Before giving the audience a rundown on Naessens’s discoveries and achievements – including his smashing court victory, which has put him in the world spotlight – I couldn’t resist citing some passages from a book that had come to my attention the day before. Among others, the book quotes a congressman from the state of Iowa who announced: “The medical monopoly is not only the meanest ever organized, but one of the greatest dangers that has ever menaced a free people.”

If members of the audience could easily have believed those words might have been printed in either the transcript of the 1984 Chicago “Medical Dissent” meeting, in Barry Lynes’s “Cancer Manifesto 1990s," or in Ralph Moss’s new book, The Cancer Industry, that impression was further reinforced by another of the book’s statements: “The medical doctor’s craft has become a complete tyranny and the public put into its permanent slavery which is enforced by the power of state and federal law.”

Most exciting to the audience, however, was one of the same book’s ringing predictions: “Of late, various drugless healing systems have become so numerous and strong, and the old school of medicine has been suffering the loss of people’s confidence to such an extent that it is only a question of a very short time and the old medical camp will be completely deserted.”

The audience sat rapt as they heard that prediction seemingly promising victory in a virtual “civil war” in the medical field and imminent emancipation for the “slaves.” Unable to stand the suspense, one man heaved himself out of his chair to ask me for the title of the book containing the passages I had just read.

“Can you, or anyone else here, guess the names of the book’s title and its author?” I countered.

Several contemporary books on the question of the treatment of cancer and the “politics” surrounding it were mentioned.

“It may come as a disappointment to you,” I said, almost impishly, after the guesses had been made, “but I have to tell you that the title of the book in question which runs nearly six hundred pages, is The Medical Question: The Truth About Medicine and Why We Must Have Medical Freedom. It was written by a Dr. A. A. Erz, a naturopath and chiropractor, and published by another doctor, Benedict Lust, in a Florida town called Tangerine. Its date of publication – 1914, or nearly seventy-five years ago!”

That being the case, it might seem that Frederick Scott, Jr.'s gloomy prognostics are not so far off the mark.

Yet what are all of us to do in the face of this injustice? Are we simply to become resigned to a status quo, or an existing “paradigm”? Or do we take the same kind of action that the Quèbec Committee for the Defense of Gaston Naessens took in the summer of 1989, action that mobilized provincial, national, and international backing for a literally unknown pioneer, action that may well have tipped the juridical scales in his favor?

This is a question that was squarely posed in a communiquè received two days following the Cancer Control Society’s conference. It was issued by the research institute run by a physician and biochemist Stanislaw Burzynski, in Houston, Texas. The institute’s claim is to have discovered certain bio-chemical compounds and derivations in the human body that, when administered intravenously or orally, are capable of restoring cancer cells to normalcy.

The effectiveness of the treatments is exemplified by the case, reported in the communiquè, of a little eight-year-old boy, Jimmy, diagnosed with terminal brain cancer, whose mother was told that nothing more could be done to save him. At her wit’s end, she brought her son in a wheelchair to Burzynski’s clinic on 4 January 1990. By mid-August, the patient had abandoned the wheelchair and was, in the communiquè’s words: “very close to complete remission.”

Then, in a cry of alarm, the same communiquè reported on a concerted effort by three separate bodies – the U.S. government (Justice Department), the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, and, strangest of all, the insurance behemoth Aetna – to close down Burzynski’s treatment center.

This latest effort was only the most recent in a long series of harassments designed to put the Texas doctor out of business. One such attempt, in 1983, mounted by the Federal Food and Drug Administration, resulted in a court ruling that he could continue his practices only if they were limited to the state of Texas and not exported beyond its borders. In the interim, Burzynski provided the FDA with so much documentation on the success of his treatments that, if piled in a single stack on the floor, it would reach higher than the topmost hair on the head of a person six feet tall.

So now, it turned out, the Texas medical “rulers,” joined by the U.S. government and insurance interests, were resolutely trying to plug the “loophole” through which a United States court had allowed Burzynski to practice, at least in his home state.

The new action, as the communiquè made horrifyingly clear, was taken not just against a doctor and his research institute, but against patients who, because ninety percent of them sought Burzynski’s help only after they had been told they had no other options, stood to lose more than Burzynski himself.

“Our government’s action is literally against Jimmy, and many others like him,” wrote Le Trombetta, the research institute’s director for public information, who told me over the telephone that Burzynski's legal fees had been running over $100,000 a month!

Explaining that the latest tactic of the U.S. Justice Department was to indict Burzynski criminally on mail fraud charges, Trombetta, bringing Barry Lynes’s general recommendations into specific focus, continued: “We have the power to generate the two things that government agencies most fear: a congressional investigation, and adverse publicity. Our strength is in our numbers and in the truth behind what we’re doing.”

Trombetta listed a number of pointed questions to help Burzynski’s would-be supporters formulate exactly what they should ask representatives in Congress to look into. Among them were:

Whom does the government claim to be protecting in its action?

If the protection is not for patients, since they have not requested it, then is it for a private interest group, and at the risk of those patients’ lives?

Who are the key players, inside or outside the government, pushing to close down Burzynski’s operation?

What do they stand to gain by eliminating his nontoxic treatment?

We have seen that questions of this kind were, in the main, answered in Naessens’s case, by the trial reported in this book. Whether Burzynski’s own trial will provide answers remains to be seen. And it may be that only a trial can provide them.

A fifty-page chapter, “The Fiercest Battle,” on the Burzynski case, in Moss’s The Cancer Industry, provides other interesting parallels between the outlooks of the Texas doctor and the Quèbècois biologist and the methods used to distort and dismiss their findings.

To his attackers, writes Moss, “Burzynski is a clever opportunist, exploiting a mysterious and ineffective cancer ‘cure’ of his own imagining. His treatment is bizarre, expensive, useless and also possibly dangerous.” Were not these the same allegations and accusations made with respect to Naessens by the Quèbec Medical Corporation and the three cancer specialists who held the press conference in Montreal?

Moss continues: “But to his patients and supporters, Burzynski is a gentle physician who has saved or prolonged hundreds of lives with his innovative approach. ... In addition, he really cares about their well-being in an old-fashioned way rarely seen in today’s oncology clinics.” This is no less than what Naessens’s own patients and members of his defense committee have said about the biologist both in public and in court.

There is still another tie between the two cases, a tie suggesting that Canada, far from becoming more liberal in its attitude toward promising cancer treatments, only reflects the rigid opinions of the cancer hierarchy in the United States. As far back as 1982, two Toronto doctors were named by the Ontario Medical Association to go to Texas and investigate Burzynski’s treatment. Though their travel to Houston took the better part of a whole day, their review of his voluminous records lasted no more than two hours, or not even as long as the short time Dr. Jolivet had spent with Naessens.

In their highly critical report, they accused Burzynski of keeping the nature of his products “secret,” which was no more or less than what Augustin Roy had repeatedly said of Naessens. But far from being secretive, Burzynski, says Moss, attempted to explain all his production techniques to the two doctors in great detail. Just as Naessens had and has explained his to Dr. Jan Merta de Velehrad and anyone else who would listen.

Furthermore, Moss notes that Burzynski was given time to show the visiting doctors records of only nine cases before they decided to leave. Of the nine, six had obtained complete remission of cancer and two nearly complete remission.

And, as in the case of Naessens’s 714-X, the doctors also tried to dismiss the effectiveness of Burzynski’s treatments by alleging that it had been made only after the patients had been treated by orthodox means. In fact, only one of the nine cases had received radiation and chemotherapy.

When Burzynski urged the two Canadians to look at more cases, they refused. And when he suggested they take a pile of them back to Canada and examine them at their leisure, they also refused. “They were,” said Burzynski, “very anxious to leave the clinic as soon as possible.” Yet, when they returned to Canada, they were able to write a report saying they had not a single positive thing to say about Burzynski’s treatment. And, going one step further, they strongly recommended against any insurance reimbursement for treatments at his clinic.

Most significant in all this is Moss’s statement that the comments of the two Canadian doctors, widely circulated not only in Canada itself, but in the United States, “soon became the touchstone of opposition to Burzynski.”

Whatever the outcome of Burzynski’s forthcoming trial, his public relations director, Le Trombetta, recommended in her communiquè that, in the case of her boss, the “time had come to investigate the investigators.” Since this could only be done by Congress, she urged Byrzynski’s adherents to mobilize as many letters as possible to their state representatives in Washington, D.C., as well as to Burzynski’s own congressman and to members of both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. “We must ask the question Jimmy’s mother has asked,” she concluded: "How do they dare?"

Was all this just “whistling in the dark”? Or can actions by citizens turn a tide? It is left to readers of this book to decide and, if the answer to the second question is yes, to act.

As for Le Trombetta, she closed her communiquè with an opinion offered by the renowned anthropologist and author, Margaret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it’s the only thing that ever has.”*

*Another example of au initiative taken by a private citizen is that of Conrad LeBeau, owner of Vital Health Products, in Muskego, Wisconsin. LeBeau has started a movement to end fifty years of government-controlled medical monopoly by unleashing the power of the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This little known amendment reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” LeBeau has issued a “Ninth Amendment Legal Defense Kit,” the use of which, he maintains, can lead to practical steps to win freedom of choice in medicine and health care, one of the rights retained by the people under the amendment.

LeBeau has also reprinted an interesting book, The Forgotten Ninth Amendment: A Call for Legislative and Judicial Recognition of Rights Under Social Conditions of Today, by Bennett B. Patterson of the Texas Bar (Indianapolis, Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill, 1955). Mr. Patterson writes in his conclusion: “The Ninth Amendment to our Constitution is a guarantee of our individual personality. ... May all of us be humbly grateful to a Creator who has endowed us with a soul, and a constitutional government which guarantees to us the right to own it.” (The materials can be obtained from Vital Health Products Ltd., Box 164, Muskego, WI 53150).


Foreword     Preface     Chap 1     Chap 2     Chap 3 – 15 Selected Quotes     Chap 16     Chap 17     Chap 18     Appendixes


Chapter 18

Epilogue:  An “Enemy of the People”

Now, as the lights dim in the universities and much of the most exciting intellectual activity goes on outside of academe, the time seems right to recognize, and encourage, independent scholarship. ... Where do new ideas come from, which ignite thousands, sometimes millions of people! Most often, they come from the work of one independent, brilliant, driven thinker or investigator.

Ronald Gross, Independent Scholar’s Handbook


As the summer solstice grew closer and the daylight hours were becoming the year’s longest, the Montreal Gazette announced the screening of one of “the best teledramas made over the last twenty years,” a new production of Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen’s masterpiece An Enemy of the People. In that stage play, written over a hundred years ago, the only doctor in a small coastal community discovers that the waters in its highly lucrative spa, visited by countless wealthy clients, have been contaminated with a lethal form of bacteria.

When the doctor alerts the community leaders to the danger, his warning is venomously rejected by all of them, including the mayor, the doctor’s own brother. To suppress the truth, they begin a concerted campaign to destroy the doctor’s reputation and credibility. By the time their campaign is over, not only has the physician become a reviled outcast in the society he has so loyally served, but his wife and children find themselves ostracized by their friends, neighbors, and playmates. As I watched the stirring story unfold, it came to me that Ibsen’s theme was just as valid today as it was when he addressed it a century ago.

If Naessens had been branded in his own community as a people’s enemy, there were hopeful signs that many of those “people” were solidly behind him. When the biologist came to the Baron Hotel to deliver some materials to me, several persons, attending a rock concert in its garden, surged out of a large crowd to shake his hand and offer congratulations, as did passers-by in the streets and shops of Sherbrooke.

As if they had read and been inspired by Barry Lynes’s manifesto, patients who had completely recovered their health following 714-X treatment were engaged in various “political” strategies. One young man, who had put Hodgkin’s disease behind him, took the trouble to call Marc Yvan-Côtè, Quèbec province’s minister of health, to say he owed his life to Naessens.

To his surprise, instead of rebuffing the former cancer victim, the minister entertained a long conversation with him, during which he asked the caller what he thought should be done to change the medical climate in the province. When the patient replied that, first and foremost, legislation to make alternative medical practices permissible, and available, should be enacted, the patient was startled to hear the minister at least partially agreeing with his suggestion.

On the other hand, the case of the wife of a prominent Quèbècois political leader, as it relates to Frederick Scott’s gloomy conclusions, reveals how “careerism” controls individuals in the most desperate straits. In the final stages of lung cancer, this woman, though aware that 714-X might be her salvation, refused to have it clandestinely administered for fear that, were her treatment with the product to become publicly known, it might gravely injure her husband’s political career, even bring it to an end.

But, at the same time, Gerald Godin, whose brain cancer seemed, at the very least, to have been arrested in its progress, was heard by thousands of Quèbècois citizens, during a summer television interview, to declare that he had “nothing but respect” for Gaston Naessens.

If certain tokens of popular support seemed to be heralding a rosier future for Naessens, truly significant evidence that his fortunes were changing for the better began to manifest in the waning days of August. Mounting professional interest, not only in his treatment modes but in the whole of his Nu biology, began to appear as suddenly as a sun breaking through a heavy layer of clouds. Into the darkness shrouding Quèbec poured light rays from Europe and the United States.

One searchlight penetrating the gloom was Christoph Gisler, Ph.D., a biochemist who heads up Bio-Galenic, named for the famous Greek physician Galen, a “Center for Biomedical and Orthomolecular Information” in Geneva, Switzerland, which publishes Orthomed-Letters.*

*For many years, Gisler was scientific director for the Upjohn laboratories.

As explained in one of Gisler’s broadsides, the word ortho, in Greek, means “adequate,” “fitting,” “correct,” or simply “good.” Why Gisler, who had read a copy of the Canadian version of this book, had made the long journey to Rock Forest is revealed by a passage in the same broadside: “Ortho-molecular medicine derives from well-established biomedical research and uses therapeutic techniques and preventative practices. It can be summed up as: a comprehension of bio-chemical mechanisms in the body and the utilization of nontoxic substances, harmless to the body, to create conditions of optimal health.” Was it any wonder why the Swiss biochemist was excited by 714-X, which, if anything, was certainly “orthomolecular”?

The handsome and affable Gisler was in no mood to waste time. He began with a visit to the Canadian publisher of this book to order two hundred copies for display at an international exposition of orthomolecular medical products sponsored in Geneva in October 1990 by Aquarius, a French-language publishing house with which Gisler’s center has affiliation.

During a day’s conversation with the Naessenses, Gisler told them that orthomolecular practice was burgeoning so fast all over Europe – largely due to popular demand for it – that pharmacists were in a race to offer their customers effective new products exactly like 714-X, and drug companies were gearing up to make them available. Gisler knew what he was talking about, if only because his contacts in the pharmaceutical field include Georges Marti, father of Gisler’s pharmacist wife, Françoise, who is owner of Galencia S.A. in Zurich, the largest pharmaceutical firm in Switzerland.

Before he left for the airport to return home, Gisler signed an agreement for the exclusive right to distribute Naessens’s intralymphatically injected medicinal in his own country as well as in France, Italy, Germany, and Austria, with options for the Iberian peninsula and the United Kingdom.*

*Those with international connections, which many American and Canadian researchers lack, are apparently making “end runs” around a virtual dam blocking the development and distribution of new medical products in North America. While confronting a pincer movement designed to immobilize him in Texas, Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski has been able to get a Swiss pharmaceutical firm to export his anticancer product for trial in Japan, after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration not only tried to discourage the Japanese from testing it, but refused to allow its export from the United States.

On 12 September, Gisler declared in writing that his collaboration had three aims: to spread the news on the benefits of 714-X (and other products developed by Naessens); to make them easily accessible to doctors, so that patients could profit from them; and to advance Naessens’s research on all fronts.

If Gisler’s visit was for Gaston Naessens the equivalent of a sunrise in the east, shortly after the departure of the Swiss, more “suns” seemed to be peeping over the southern horizon. A flurry of phone calls from south of the border testified that American medical men and women who had learned of Naessens, through publicity circulating ever more widely about the Canadian edition of this book, had, to use Gerald Godin’s words, “nothing but respect” for the biologist’s achievements.

Taken aback by the surge of interest and the broad scope of questions coming in over their telephone line, the Naessenses, realizing that they could not handle the queries on a one-by-one basis, decided to organize an impromptu seminar in Rock Forest so that all concerned could convene there to hear, and compare notes on, what would be presented at it.

Over the first weekend in September, a group of medical practitioners made the long journey to the Eastern Townships. Among them were five M.D.s from Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and California; an optometrist from Florida; two chiropractors from Virginia and Pennsylvania; and a dentist from Connecticut; as well as a man practicing nutritional medicine from Ohio and two nurses from unspecified American cities.

Most of them had been mobilized by microbiologist Walter Clifford, who constantly travels around the whole of the United States to consult with medical practitioners. His own remarks at the meeting brilliantly introduced the whole group to the significance of Naessens’s discoveries. The rest arrived as a result of their having independently heard of Naessens’s work through the “grapevine” and consequently having called him to get more information.

Proceedings got underway on a Friday, in an auditorium at Sherbrooke's Delta Hotel, where, with the help of a professional interpreter Daniel Tessier, Naessens gave a long “retrospective” of his life work, going all the way back to the development of his first cancer products in France. Various articles, both in French and English, were read aloud in their original versions or in translation, and interrupted by many questions from the fascinated visitors.

Particularly interesting to the assembled crowd was one written by John W. Mattingly, inventor of the world-famous “Water Pik,” a water-pressured “toothbrush” for home use, and an adjunct professor of the philosophy of science at Colorado State University. The paper outlined in detail the whole history of the Pasteur-Bèchamp controversy and decades-long attempts by researchers to understand the nature and effects of polymorphic organisms in the blood, all the result of Mattingly’s extended and devoted independent study of the topics.

Present at the seminar was expert microscopist Dr. Bernard Grad, a retired professor of biology at McGill University, who had learned his microscopic art during his student days from none other than Dr. Wilhelm Reich, at whose research center, Organon, in Rangeley, Maine, Grad had spent hundreds of hours in training. A few months prior to the seminar, Grad had visited Naessens’s laboratory to spend several hours observing various specimens through the microscope, during which time I heard him declare that he was viewing structures in detail that he had never before seen, a professional opinion he also shared with the seminar’s participants.

The next day, Saturday, the whole group, enlarged to a total of twenty-five with the arrival of several of Naessens’s relatives and guests, crowded, like a herd of horses in an undersized corral, into the small house and even tinier laboratory, virtually packing the latter from wall to wall. There, for the first time in their lives, the American visitors were able to view somatids in their own blood and many of the aberrant pathogens in the sixteen-stage cycle in the blood of a cancer patient, all through Naessens’s somatoscope. One could easily say that, over the course of Naessens’s long career, never, in a single day, had so much been seen by so many medical specialists.

The general consensus, as expressed by several doctors present, was that all of them had seen a body of work providing a completely new direction in science and in medicine, and had been privileged to hear, for the very first time, a fully coherent presentation of the complexities of the cycle of microbes in the blood, especially because it incorporated a lucid explanation of how that cycle originated with the somatid. That “coherence” had been, for the most part, achieved by the screening on television of Naessens’s thirty-eight-minute film made at the microscope and his “voice-over” commentaries. Many of the doctors asked for copies of the cassette to show to their colleagues when they returned home.

The properties of the somatid and its apparent effects on genetic systems, as well as its ability to block rejection of skin grafts in animals, were highly startling to the assembled medicos, for whom most of Naessens’s findings amounted to “brand new territory.” Over the telephone, I received comments from three of them, which ran as follows:

It was just tremendous ... the whole scope of it ... to be able to see so many new things and talk to people who had had firsthand experience with 714-X, which seems almost like a “magic bullet.” I’m most excited about what I saw, and heard, and have read in your book, a copy of which I bought when I was up there in Quèbec. I'm certainly going to recommend that book to many people and I’m going to recommend the treatment to people I know who need it.

Every member of the group was nothing short of awestruck! How one man has been able to place in total human perspective things that most people are literally unable to conceive. I believe Gaston Naessens should receive a Nobel Prize in science and another for peace, as well, because of what he has done for the welfare of humanity. Now the task is to get the “news” out in “low-key” fashion, which will bring Gaston the recognition he so richly deserves.

I was really impressed with Naessens’s knowledge and the scientific evidence I saw to back it up. So impressed that I immediately ordered a $20,000 Zeiss research microscope so I could see some of the things he has been seeing. In his microscope, I saw many things I’ve never before seen and I have done microscopic work for a long time. I think it may be a long time before Gaston's findings are accepted, because they’ll be resisted to the end by those who don’t believe, or don’t want to believe, them. But there are a lot of “freethinkers” out there and if we can get them to use Naessens’s technology, that will be a way to win acceptance for him.

The seminar, it turns out, may be a harbinger of many more to come, inasmuch as many of its participants, before taking their leave, suggested to Naessens that they had colleagues just as avid as they themselves to see and hear everything to which they had been exposed. And, almost every day, Naessens and his wife are receiving more calls from the United States to inquire when they can come to Quèbec to visit him. It is becoming clear that the next symposium may well attract over two hundred persons. To prepare for it, Naessens is envisioning the publication of an illustrated handbook presenting the entire substance of his research and answering the kinds of questions asked at the first seminar.

Another no less interesting result of the seminar was a change in course in Naessens’s thinking with respect to the future development and distribution of his unique microscopic technology. While, prior to the time of the seminar’s convening, the biologist had planned to improve his existing instrument and make it available at a cost of some $100,000, he was led to alter this view. Recognizing that doctors, such as the ones who had made the effort to come all the way to Rock Forest, were in need of an affordable microscopic tool, he became convinced that he could adapt standard “dark-field” microscopes, with which most of them are familiar, so that these can clearly reveal all phases of the somatid cycle.

If this can, in fact, be done, it will allow for instruments costing in the neighborhood of only $10,000 to be placed in the hands of biomedical scientists unable to afford a microscope costing ten times that amount. In this way, the whole array of Naessens’s findings could become widely disseminated, and his years-long isolation brought to an end.

It was indeed fortuitous that all this European and American support came when it did. For Naessens’s troubles with the law are still not over. The Rock Forest researcher is awaiting another trial for “illegal practice of medicine.” This time the case involves two medical double agents, or “spies,” working for the Quèbec Medical Corporation. In 1989, they visited Naessens under assumed names with “phony” complaints. When he was kind enough to examine their blood and inform them that they could not have the afflictions they said they had, their only thanks was to report him for having performed a “medical service” contravening established statute, which led to his citation. Naessens knew beforehand what might be afoot, because one of the spies was so unprofessional in her undercover work that she wrote, under the rubric “Home Address” in his daybook, the address of the Quèbec Medical Corporation itself.

The good news in this regard is that the third trial, scheduled for May 1991, may not take place. This is because legislation currently pending in Quèbec’s parliament, if passed, will prevent the Medical Corporation from continuing its base practice of using agents to spy on private citizens. Naessens’s defense lawyer, Conrad Chapdelaine, is hopeful, even fairly confident, that the charges will be dropped, in which case Naessens may never again have to tread the steps of a courthouse.

Yet it also appears that the Medical Corporation is by no means giving up its malicious campaign against Naessens. In fact, it is extending it to assault his allies. In September 1990, just prior to the seminar, the biologist received an overseas call from Dr. Michel Fabre in France, who had had the courage to appear at his 1989 trial as the only doctor of medicine willing to testify in Naessens's defense. Incredible as it may seem, Fabre reported that an investigation of his activities had begun in France at the demand of the Quèbec Medical Corporation, which had asked the French medical association to launch it. The investigation centered on whether Fabre might be “psychologically unbalanced,” given his testimony at the trial at which, reported the Quèbec Medical Corporation to its French counterpart, Naessens had been found guilty! Partly due to that bald-faced lie, Fabre was threatened with suspension of his medical license. But he affirmed to Naessens that he had no intention to stop treating patients with 714-X and that Christoph Gisler’s Bio-Galenic center in Switzerland had entered the fray to support him.

Given all these new developments, positive and negative, pro and con, what does the future hold for Gaston Naessens? One thing is nearly certain: Naessens is out in the limelight to stay. And he does not necessarily relish that kind of prominence.

His chief aspiration is to establish a research body to repeat objectively all of his experiments and get them written up in language acceptable for publication in journals of science. This will require the full-time assistance of several bright, young “postdoc” specialists – as able and eager as Daniel Y. E. Perey – in a number of disciplines. Naessens also hopes that his new assistants will be able to answer many questions about aspects of his discoveries that have so far eluded explanation.

Work already done must be pushed farther. To take only one example, the exchange of somatids from one animal to another must be studied. Not only do the effects of this exchange open a virtual “Pandora’s box” in the science of life, but if it can be determined that such exchange would permit organ transplants without rejection syndromes, that, in itself, would be a biomedical finding of staggering proportions. The facts are there for all to see. Surely there are young researchers who have the vision.

To attract backing for the research program as just outlined, the Naessenses have set up a Foundation UNIVERS (Universe Foundation), the capitalized French acronym standing for the “National Union for Investigation, Validation and Experimentation in Scientific Research.” It hopes to raise several millions dollars.

Finally, while his new assistants are working on the validation of his former research, Gaston Naessens wants to liberate himself from all other responsibilities to the point where he will be able, as before, to begin brand new research based on long formulated, and more recently formulated, ideas. To have, in Canadian Nobel Laureate Polanyi’s words, “the freedom to pursue truth wherever it may lead.” Or, as Dr. Jan Merta de Velehrad put it: “to get on with life’s central aim, the search for valid information.”

All people of goodwill wish Gaston Naessens well in his aspirations. They are asked for their help, and that of their friends and associates: help for the discoverer of the somatid, not an “enemy,” but a true friend, of the people.


Appendixes from: "The Persecution and Trial of Gaston Naessens"
Second Printing


Foreword     Preface     Chap 1     Chap 2     Chap 3 – 15 Selected Quotes     Chap 16     Chap 17     Chap 18     Appendixes


Ultra Microscopes and Cure Rays
The Suppressed Cancer Research of Royal Raymond Rife

The "Ergonom Series" of Modern Light-Source-like Ultra-Microscopes
— Capable of Viewing the Somatid and Cancer Causing Viruses —

The Art of Healing Ourselves

Using Hydroponics to Understand the Earth's Life Processes
On the Atomic Level

Tommy's History of Western Technology

Site Link List

The Tortoise Shell  "Science of Health"  Newsletter
— Putting an End to Disease on Our Planet —

Tortoise Shell Life Science Puzzle Box – Front Page

View this page Full Frame