REPLY TO DOCTOR FABIO FRANCHI FROM ALESSIO ANGELERI

Written by Angelo

Categories: Healthcare

February 13 2024

FOREWORD BY ANGELO ROSSIELLO:

I allow my friend Alessio to also deal with these current affairs but which do not bring any economic benefit to the companies I manage and of which Alessio is a collaborator, because this is exactly the spirit that pervades and has pervaded this blog since its inception: research spasmodic of the "truth"... Truth that we have never claimed to possess...

It is important to continue with this spirit and inspiration... We must never lose the strong motivations that brought us to where we are now.

END PREMISE

Dr. Fabio Franchi decided to write a reply to my interview with Dr. Mark Bailey:

ALESSIO INTERVIEWS MARK BAILEY: THE FANTASIES OF GERM THEORY

Here is the link to Dr. Franchi's reply:

https://drive.proton.me/urls/NHP1KNS7H4#kHaAaj5WCpzu

At this other link you can listen to the first debate between the two:

https://t.me/evolutamente/22248

Let's try to respond in turn, extrapolating the salient points:

  • “Eng Alessio Angeleri enters the debate on the “germ theory” and thinks he can give the definitive judgement, after having interviewed Dr Mark Bailey.”

Nobody wants to make a definitive judgment, but only question dogmas and ask for scientific evidence to support the hypotheses that are presented. The burden of proof obviously lies with the person proposing the hypothesis. If I propose that unicorns exist, the burden of proof is on me and not on those who must prove that they do not exist.

  • “The reference is to what was claimed by an Italian doctor who worked for many years in an infectious disease department and who thinks he can speak based on his anecdotal experience without providing any evidence”. Who could it be?"

“I don't think this is my case, given that I report my fair experience - spanning decades - from a privileged observatory. And I'm a observer qualified."

He said it well: OBSERVER!!! Observation...otherwise observational studies would be the golden standard of scientific research, instead of being rightly relegated to tools for generating hypotheses.

  • “To this small difficulty is added another: since the germs in question are ubiquitous and often present in the environment and on the respiratory mucous membranes of subjects to whom they do not cause any discomfort, how would one distinguish and separate the two groups? One can be a healthy carrier today and not be one tomorrow (and vice versa). “

At this point here is the triple jump that brutally rapes logic, violating the principle of causality, i.e. a contempt of the scientific method:

The fact that bacteria are widely present and ubiquitous, and even "healthy" individuals are full of them, falsifies the hypothesis from the start, violating Koch's first postulate: The microorganism must be present in abundance in all sick subjects, but must not be present in healthy subjects.

So, instead of thinking that the hypothesis is false, an unfalsifiable alternative is created, namely the concept of “healthy carrier".

Then, with a further somersault, it is said that in particular conditions the bacteria transform from Doctor Jekyll to Mr. Hyde and begin to cause damage by making the unfortunate victim ill. Too bad the doctor wasn't able to propose a mechanism for this. 

  • “Bailey says: “there are diseases without bacteria and bacteria without disease”. It's an obvious fact that has already been discussed too much. It is well known. It is part of the theory that they persist in opposing, even though it is the same as theirs in this aspect.”

After the unscientific hypothesis of "healthy carriers", the other condition is even more disconcerting: presumed diseases of bacterial origin that do not show the presence of the phantom bacteria that are accused of causing the disease. It's falsification TOTAL of the germ hypothesis (yes HYPOTHESIS, as it cannot be defined as THEORY).

  • “We have to hear the tired refrain again: “correlation does not mean cause”.”

Too bad the scientific method and basic logic require essential requirements which the doctor cannot satisfy.

  • “It is at the very least a strong indication, to be considered seriously, especially if there are no other explanations, especially if repeated countless times. “

In fact, he admits here that he only has clues; a clue is not proof-validation of a hypothesis and even if better explanations are not found it does not mean that the hypothesis is correct. Furthermore, there are plenty of plausible explanations, but the doctor really doesn't want to consider them."

  • “True, but in practice the alternative explanation is unavoidable, especially for the doctor.”

Well, then why failed to propose a mechanism by which Can bacteria transform from symbiotic commensals to dangerous killers?

  • “The doctor must make a choice, he cannot remain idle waiting: is there a better intervention or not?”

No one said that we should never intervene, here we are merely discussing the logical-scientific basis underlying the germ hypothesis. Interventions always depend on the risk-benefit ratio.

  • “They say the burden of proof lies with the proponents of the theory. They are evidently unaware of having proposed alternative hypotheses: an unspecified and evergreen intoxication, the dead tissues (which ones?) on which germs proliferate with the task of street cleaners or firefighters, poor nutrition, pollutants and so on. But they feel exempt from providing not just adequate demonstrations, but even any shred of demonstration. “

Nobody said they had the truth in their pocket, on the contrary! However, the fact that there is no final proof of the alternative explanations does not necessarily make the current one true. Furthermore, the mere fact that other plausible and logical explanations exist should give us serious pause.

  • “What's more, they even blame the sick person: 'if you're sick it's your fault', it's your fault!”

No one has ever said "what's your problem"...and the conclusion that people shouldn't be helped is purely the fruit of their imagination...even if...certainly, many get sick through their own fault; it is no coincidence that most of the "victims" of the elusive protagonist disease of recent years are characterized by obese and/or highly inflamed people... if someone is suffering from metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, obese and inflamed, it is the fault of a presumed pathogen , of malignant genetics, of bad luck or of a diet and lifestyle alien to human physiology?

His "MITOCHONDRIAL TRAINING” is explained perfectly why the mitochondrial dysfunctions (coincidentally, most likely, mitochondria are actually organelles of bacterial origin!) are the common denominator of "inflammatory" diseases and alleged "bacterial" and "viral" "infections".

https://shop.evolutamente.it/prodotto/mitochondrial-training-allenamento-mitocondriale/

  • “Antibiotics act as anti-inflammatories.” How come they don't have it when they are not targeted according to the antibiogram? Why are meningitis not resolved at the beginning when only anti-inflammatories are used? If that were their most important effect, there would be no difference in using one or the other, they would all work without distinction. Furthermore, multiple bacterial resistances would not constitute a problem for the same reason.”

Different molecules have different effects, they turn off different biochemical pathways (regulation of numerous cytokines, etc.); It's no coincidence that there are tons of anti-inflammatories, why? According to his reasoning, then, there should only be a small number of “all-purpose” molecules.

Why is it that in living beings there is a plethora of molecules that induce thousands and thousands of different metabolic pathways?

In any case, once again, we need to have reliable and appropriately controlled scientific studies in hand.

The effects induced by the various molecules should be the ABC of medicine…

Meningitis is not resolved immediately, perhaps precisely because the body needs time to "heal" and self-regenerate; it is no coincidence that the famous saying: "with antibiotics he recovered in a week and without in seven days...".

The scientific method requires you to isolate and work on A VARIABLE at a time!!

Unfortunately, as long as there are no solids RCT, are just unscientific speculations based on personal conditioning.

In fact, in some cases, when randomized controlled trials are carried out, the famous effectiveness of the "miracle" molecules begins to falter1,2.

But let's play devil's advocate, let's admit that in some cases they can be interesting thanks to their anti-inflammatory properties3,4,5 or for other more or less known or proposed mechanisms.

Inflammation is a fundamental process of the body, to regenerate tissues, remove waste and toxins, etc. It must have a trigger phase, a peak and a resolution.

In our sick society, unfortunately, inflammation becomes chronic, making people fragile and incapable of managing acute events (see obese and inflamed). Therefore, it may be that some bacterial metabolites, as waste substances, can fuel the inflammatory loop, exacerbating the symptoms and in some cases intoxicating the organism6.

If we want to play devil's advocate further, we can hypothesize that antibiotics, in some cases, can "work" in suppressing the symptom precisely because they kill the bacteria. But even this is not evidence that supports the hypothesis that they are the triggering cause. In fact, it is possible that the reduction of inflammation exacerbated by bacterial metabolites gives the body "breathing room" while it carries out the healing and regeneration processes.

It is not scientific to assert that the presence of bacteria is a necessary and sufficient condition to define the cause of the disease.

In this regard, the example of Daniel Roytas of Humanley fits perfectly:

“In the human body, the role of bacteria is to decompose dead and dying tissue. Their job is to clean up. If the tissue they are decomposing is toxic, their metabolic waste products will also be toxic.

Think of bacteria as a waste disposal and cleanup crew. Imagine a truck carrying harmless waste overturning on the highway. The team arrives to clean up the area, placing the debris in bags (metabolic waste). When people come into contact with the bags, nothing happens.

A week later, another truck overturns while carrying barrels of toxic substances containing petrochemicals and heavy metals. Once again, the cleanup crew arrives and places the debris in bags. When some citizens come into contact with it, they get sick.

No one blames the cleaning crew as the cause of the problem. They were simply there doing their job. It's exactly the same thing for bacteria. They are not the cause of the problem, but the consequence or response to the problem.”

Then the doctor says: “why does the disease only disappear when the bacteria disappear? "

Here is another alternative explanation to his: “Antibiotics lower inflammation and bring it to non-dangerous or lethal levels, while the body repairs itself after a few days and the bacteria leave because they no longer have food to feast on".

Obviously it all needs to be demonstrated, but it is more than enough to highlight that there are convincing alternative explanations and that to demonstrate the correctness of one of the many proposed mechanisms it is necessary to follow the scientific method and not rely on mere observations, speculation and personal conditioning.

Now, the doctor likes meningitis because he feels particularly expert on the topic, but let's remember the many cases of "recurrent infections"; after a while the bacteria return in large numbers to the presumed "crime site", not because they are bad criminals or mutated and "resistant" chimeras... the best explanation logic, plausible and it is peaceful that the “Plot” offer them a lot of food (cellular degradation, toxins, etc…).

Let us remember that the famous "viral infections" are often treated in parallel with antibiotics to avoid "opportunistic bacterial infections"... another correlation: genetic material produced by cellular degradation, cytopathic effect (see Stefan Lanka's control experiment) associated with the "rave party" bacterial.

  • “Antibiotics do not guarantee immortality. But that "they never did anything" is a statement made by him alone. “

No one ever said they never did anything! Dr. Bailey actually points out that antibiotics can “work” in improving symptoms (inflammation) in some cases due to their anti-inflammatory effect.

Finally, speculation begins about Bailey's meningitis when he was a boy...but who knows what happened to Bailey 40 years ago on the other side of the world? This digression is totally useless and unproductive for the purposes of scientific debate.

  • “They accuse me, erroneously, of using circular speeches, not realizing that it is they who are making them.”

At this point, he seems not to have noticed the analogy with virology that he himself has courageously been questioning for years:

VIROLOGIST: “Viruses caused the disease because by giving antivirals the patient recovered”!

FRANKS: “The bacteria caused the disease because by giving antibiotics the patient recovered.”

Why is the criticism only valid for virology?

To conclude, Dr. Franchi he did not bring any scientific evidence to support his hypotheses and observations.

That said, no one wants to diminish his value, his work and career, and the interventions he performed during his medical practice.

This was just meant to be a constructive scientific debate regarding germ theory (or rather hypothesis).

In any case, it is necessary to specify and reiterate that regardless of what the basic mechanisms may be, we have no intention and it is not our competence to criticize or discourage any medical intervention, which OBVIOUSLY is the responsibility of the assigned staff.

The purpose of the debates is only to ask constructive questions.

For further information on the "contagion theory", please refer to the text "ELECTROMAGNETISM: THE BASICS OF LIFE".

https://shop.evolutamente.it/prodotto/elettromagnetismo-le-basi-della-vita/

Alessio Angeleri 

REFERENCES

Recent articles ...

GAMMA WAVES AT 40Hz AND ALZHEIMER'S

GAMMA WAVES AT 40Hz AND ALZHEIMER'S

GAMMA WAVES AT 40Hz AND ALZHEIMER'S The studies of the MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, we are practically talking about...