Poll: Do you believe in Germ Theory?

[heathergirl67]

Included is Wikipedia's description of Germ Theory, as well as a website from someone who rejects Germ Theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease
http://www.unhinderedliving.com/germtheory.html

[tanyalynn]

Although the 2nd website says that it rejects germ theory, to me it looks like they're splitting hairs.

The first link says... (my bolding)

The germ theory of disease, also called the pathogenic theory of medicine, is a theory that proposes that microorganisms are the cause of many diseases.

Cause seems like the important word there.

Both fundamentally agree that microorganisms exist and spread between people (someone let me know if I misinterpreted the 2nd link), and I think it's well-recognized in mainstream circles that some people become sick when exposed to a virus and others do not. Having one kid in a family become ill and another not doesn't negate the validity of germ theory.

Maybe I'm not understanding the 2nd link, but to me their main argument is that microorganisms spreading isn't the most important part of why people get sick or don't, and so focusing there is missing the point.

[xmasbaby7]

I can't get the second link to open, but what did load looked really suspicious to me as a website.

I always thought that when people on this board dissed germ theory, it was because of the vast unknown regarding the function of an individual's immune system; why each individual can have a unique response to pathogens.

My own opinion on this is that this is another battle on this board where one side wants to believe that everything is black and white fact why the other side leaves room for what we don't understand. I think any educated person would acknowledge the limits of germ theory, though, right?

So no offense, but this poll of a yes and no sort of speaks to weakness in thinking here. The human body and our understanding of it is just not that simple.

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by xmasbaby7

My own opinion on this is that this is another battle on this board where one side wants to believe that everything is black and white fact why the other side leaves room for what we don't understand. I think any educated person would acknowledge the limits of germ theory, though, right?

Agreed. I declined to answer because there was not an "OTHER" option.

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by xmasbaby7

I can't get the second link to open, but what did load looked really suspicious to me as a website.

I always thought that when people on this board dissed germ theory, it was because of the vast unknown regarding the function of an individual's immune system; why each individual can have a unique response to pathogens.

My own opinion on this is that this is another battle on this board where one side wants to believe that everything is black and white fact why the other side leaves room for what we don't understand. I think any educated person would acknowledge the limits of germ theory, though, right?

So no offense, but this poll of a yes and no sort of speaks to weakness in thinking here. The human body and our understanding of it is just not that simple.

I noticed the same thing, that there are points on which they agree. I'm thinking that the Germ Theory one is saying that diseases are caused by germs and that they can infect anyone, no matter how previously healthy. In the second link they seem to be saying that germs can cause disease, but only if your body's pH is off. So one could be immune to all diseases by keeping their body at the correct pH level. At least that's what I got out of it. Neither is an official site, just ones that I thought would be good examples of the theories. I'm sure there's better ones out there...

[Deborah]

I didn't vote either. I think there are some diseases where it is quite clear that a microorganism plays a direct role: syphilis is a good example.

I think there are other diseases where the presence of the germs at the same time as the symptoms may not have a huge bearing on what is going on.

Let me see if I can think of an example...

how about influenza? There is this new theory floating around that influenza occurs mainly in the winter because Vitamin D levels are lower when days are shorter. And that dosing people with Vitamin D is an effective way to keep them from succumbing to influenza.

If this theory is correct, then influenza viruses are not the primary cause of the illness, Vitamin D deficiency is.

Putting aside the theory for the moment, every winter millions of people are exposed to influenza. Only a small percentage actually get sick, an even smaller percentage get seriously ill and a very tiny group die. If it were just the virus, then there wouldn't be all that variation. Everyone who got exposed would get sick. And the degree of sickness would not vary so much.

To return to syphilis, if you get exposed you get sick. The cycle of the illness is fairly predictable--I mean one person may succumb faster than the next, but without treatment everyone who catches it is doomed to die from it (barring death by other causes in the meantime).

IMO many more diseases and illnesses fall into the wildly variable camp than the clear and predictable camp. The interaction of human beings and our microbes is pretty darn complicated.

This is why vaccines for stuff like Hib and Pneumoccocal (Prevnar) turn out to have some surprising long-term consequences. Because human beings are pretty well adapted to toting around various kinds of these bugs. They are part of our normal ecology. Illness arising is the strange and unusual event, not the norm. Most of us, exposed to one or another of these bugs just shrug and go right on doing what we were doing.

So the whole process of running around identifying every bug that "makes" people sick and trying to destroy or block them seems like a losing game. Going around trying to find out what opens human beings to illness and supporting their ability to use their immune system to either block the illness or to go through it without problems makes more sense.

I see some bugs as worth focusing on because they are so extreme: Ebola. Syphilis. Stuff like that.

[Jugs]

Other. Its not that I don't "believe in" the Germ Theory, I just think its too simplistic and virtually ignores the immune system's role of protection against disease. I tend to subscribe to Bechamp's Cellular Theory, myself.

[Deborah]

Nicely relevant article here.

[caned & able]

Please do some research on the discourses of Pasteur and Beauchamp before you jump to any conclusions.

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by caned & able

Please do some research on the discourses of Pasteur and Beauchamp before you jump to any conclusions.

What conclusions?

[lovebug]

for the most part i agree with it.

[ema-adama]

I did not vote as I do believe there that bacteria and viruses are real. However, I do not believe they are the only factor when it comes to getting sick.

When I looked into Hib, the disease and the vaccine, I was struck by how little was known about how Hib becomes invasive and how it was assumed that the best preventative measure was the elimination of the bacteria through mass vaccination (although to be fair, that was not the original goal. It was an unexpected outcome. Originally the goal was to protect individual children from Hib. No one expected the bacteria to disappear from circulation).

From the Pink Book on Hib

Risk factors for Hib disease include exposure factors and
host factors that increase the likelihood of exposure to Hib.
Exposure factors include household crowding, large house*
hold size, child care attendance, low socioeconomic status,
low parental education levels, and school-aged siblings.
Host factors include race/ethnicity (elevated risk among
African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans—possibly
confounded by socioeconomic variables that are associated
with both race/ethnicity and Hib disease), chronic disease
(e.g., sickle cell anemia, antibody deficiency syndromes,
malignancies, especially during chemotherapy), and possibly
gender (risk is higher for males).
Protective factors (effect limited to infants younger than 6
months of age) include breastfeeding and passively acquired
maternal antibody.

In my understanding this shows evidence that there are more factors involved when it comes to who gets invasive Hib than just Hib being present. Prior to the vaccine the vast majority of children were not at risk for Hib meningitis. Host factors were something I found more relevant to my decision that exposure factors (for this disease)

Add to that, in the case of protection against Hib, breastfeeding seems to offer protection, protection that lasts longer than the breastfeeding period.

I have learned so much reading up about comensals and their role in disease and health. I really do think it is naive to see pathogenic bacteria and viruses as the only factor when it comes to who gets sick.

I do not believe that bacteria and viruses are the only causative factor when it comes to people becoming ill. And I do not believe that vaccination is the ultimate practice of preventative medicine.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Jugs

Other. Its not that I don't "believe in" the Germ Theory, I just think its too simplistic and virtually ignores the immune system's role of protection against disease. I tend to subscribe to Beauchamp's Cellular Theory, myself.

yup.....me too

[catinthehat]

Long before Pasteur and others, the Chinese had a way of explaining why people got sick. They believed that external pernicious influeneces were responsible for illness. There is more then one way to skin a cat, kwim?
Here is link explaining.


http://alternativemedicine.healthcom...cm/cause.shtml

[amnesiac]

Please remember that discussion in this forum should remain focused on the issue as it pertains to vaccination. General disease related discussion is hosted in Health & Healing.

[caned & able]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

What conclusions?

You seem to be pointing to some conclusions here.

Do you know anything about the controversy about the germ theory and its history? Coming here and post a simplistic poll about a complex subject matter is not going to shed light on either side of the question.

[PancakesMancakes]

Yup. I believe it

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by caned & able

You seem to be pointing to some conclusions here.

Do you know anything about the controversy about the germ theory and its history? Coming here and post a simplistic poll about a complex subject matter is not going to shed light on either side of the question.

What conclusions am I pointing to?

I never claimed to be trying to shed light on anything, BTW.

[moxygirl]

I haven't read all the info on the varying theories. I believe that germs contribute to specific diseases. I don't think they CAUSE them. I think that the immune system not ridding the body of the pathogen is what causes a disease and there are many ways of strengthening the immune system to do its job. I don't believe in universal vaccinations in general as a way of promoting better health.

As a specific, I think it's interesting that one of the gut reactions of vaccinating parents - I've heard it many times - is "but if you don't vaccinate, your baby could get polio and die!!!!!!!" Polio is highly contageous but in around 95% of people it causes absolutely no symptoms. In most of the rest of the population in causes minor symptoms such as nausea, stiffness, fatigue, and fever. Less than 1% of infected individuals will experience paralysis - leading to permanent muscle weakness in 2/3 of the case - and rarely death. I'm not vaccinating my child againsts polio based on these statistics. One of the vaccination side effects is Guillain-Barre syndrome which causes, oddly enough, paralysis.

I think there's way more to understanding the dangers of germs than just "if you don't vaccinate, you could get some horrible disease".

[rhiandmoi]

I think there might be some confusion as to what Germ Theory is in 2010.

Some things to look into for more information:

Molecular Koch's Postulates
Virulence Factors
Immunological Factors