Alternative to germ theory:
Bechamp recognised that the microbes were present in people before, during and after the disease period and thus it was incorrect to think that simply 'killing germs' would end disease.
We have more microbial cells on our body than we have of our 'own' (non microbial) cells (cells that contain specific genetic information about the human form, rather than about the microbial form). Bechamp alluded to this reality, though he was unable to demonstrate it at that time in full.
Pasteur: "Each disease is caused by its own infecting microbe, therefore coming from outside."
Consequence: Kill the germ and avoid contamination.
Bechamp: "Disease is caused by the nature of the soil (the cellular environment of the individual human carrier), the microbes are always there." (E.g. The presence of diseases related to microbes is reliant on the underlying health of the human.)
Consequence: 'Address the soil' - Look at the nutrition, water, physical living conditions, physical stress/relaxation and toxins/sanitation affecting the person to eliminate microbe related disease.
Which Paradigm Was Adopted?
Clearly, Pasteur's version of reality was more widely adopted into life and this is partially due to the idea that 'someone else made you ill' is more psychologically palatable than the idea that you, through your own inadequate action or life conditions caused the disease yourself.
These events took place during the industrial revolution, when people were moving into cities and living in cramped conditions. It was far easier for the wealthy 'establishment' to deal with the idea that people were making each other ill than that the illness was due to poor nutrition, lack of food and other sanitation issues.
In other words, the Pasteur version of reality was more CONVENIENT to those who claimed 'authority'.
Despite the reality that we now know that disease related microbes can be carried by most/all of us without us getting ill (Flu, Mumps, Chicken Pox & Fungal infections being examples of less dangerous forms), Bechamp's message that the overall health of the individual is the determining factor regarding whether disease manifests or not - is still not widely understood.
Cellular Immune Response
Dr. Merrill W. Chase & Dr. Karl Landsteiner (nobel laureate winner) discovered in the 1940s that in addition to the antibody component of the immune system, there is a cellular component too. It was shown that in many instances the cellular components are more important than antibodies.
People who have an inability to produce antibodies are still able to heal from disease organisms, however, without cellular immunity they are far less able to.
If antibody response (the realm of vaccines) were the most important aspect of immunity, we would have far more effective vaccines than we do. Antonio Coutinho, Director of Immunology Research at institutes in France (CNRS) and Portugal (IGC) states that:
Centuries after Jenner's 'vaccination' and more than 100 years after Louis Pasteur's principle of 'attenuated' vaccines, we are still totally devoid of vaccines against chronic infections and against a large number of acute infections.
Several decades of 'DNA technology' and 'biotechnology' have failed to produce the new effective, 'no risk' vaccines that were expected.
Most vaccines used today are of the 'conventional' type, many of which were discovered when we had: 'little knowledge of immunology' and 'absolutely no information' on the sells and molecules of the immune system.
Obviously, the lack of clinical success means that our understanding of the immune system, despite decades of intense research, still remains elusive...
European Molecular Biology Organisation (EMBO) Reports 2003
Despite a vast number of studies and papers being published on immunology, constantly - the results and improvements are minima