In 1867, Dr. Passavant published a startling report in Archiv für Dermatologie und Syphilis (Vol. 11, pp. 317–319), claiming psoriasis was cured through an animal-only diet, “the principal—and indeed radical—remedy…” in two chronic cases. One patient had suffered for 25 years and the other for decades—both achieved remission with meat, fat, and marrow alone, after all conventional treatments failed.
The Vegetable Crusade
Passavant diagnosed psoriasis not as an isolated skin condition, but as a “vegetable crisis”—a nutritional breakdown caused by plant-heavy diets. His theory clashed with the rising anti-meat sentiment of the time. Industrialization made meat more common, but moral reformers, hygienists, and early vegetarians insisted meat was unclean, immoral, and unhealthy.
In Germany, Gustav Struve promoted vegetarianism as moral progress. Across Europe, plant-based societies gained traction as part of social reform movements. Meat, once a symbol of power and vitality, was being rebranded as a source of disease and moral decay.
Sound familiar? Today, plant-based diets are again framed as virtuous—this time for climate, chronic disease, and animal rights. The language changed, but the campaign never stopped.
Suppression by Sentiment
At the time, Passavant’s work was publicly dismissed by Professor Ferdinand von Hebra, a leading dermatologist. Not for lack of evidence—but because the cure violated emerging dietary dogmas. It wasn’t scientific, they said. It wasn’t civilized.
The report was never followed up. No replication. No trials. Just a quiet burial. And yet today, even platforms like MEATrition.com are rediscovering his claims—alongside hundreds of anecdotal reports from patients trying similar protocols.
The Same Battle, 150 Years Later
Now flip to 2025. Johns Hopkins Medicine recommends plant-rich diets and reduced red meat intake for psoriasis. The standard advice? Eat more greens, whole grains, and omega-3s. Avoid arachidonic acid from red meat.
Meanwhile, meat-based protocols like the carnivore diet are dismissed as fringe—lacking RCTs, feared for cholesterol, or branded pseudoscience. The ridicule hasn’t changed. The science just got better at hiding behind PR.
What Changed—and What Didn’t
In 1867, Passavant was mocked for claiming meat could cure disease. Today, you’re mocked for the same thing. Back then, meat was condemned as vulgar and unspiritual; now it’s labeled inflammatory and unsustainable. Then it was Struve and the hygienists. Now it’s dietitians and climate czars. The institutions have changed clothes, but not positions. The medical class still avoids nutritional causes. The cultural elite still sees meat as dangerous. And anyone who heals without a prescription still gets ignored.
What Everyone’s Missing
Passavant’s theory wasn’t just clinical—it was metabolic. He believed that psoriasis, eczema, and even bronchitis could be dietary, stemming from plant-based irritation of epithelial tissues.
He lacked labs and imaging. But he had results. That alone should demand investigation—not suppression.
Final Word
The meat cure didn’t fail. It got erased.
Buried under rising vegetarian moralism in the 19th century. Ignored by pharmaceutically aligned medicine in the 20th. Now, in the 21st, maybe it’s time to dig it back up.
Meat didn’t just build civilization. It might still be what saves it.
If meat is medicine, BeefMaps.com is your local pharmacy—connect direct, skip the cartel.
0 Comments