Article: Germ Theory Debunked
|
Download PDF >>>>>>
|
| ||
The Germ Theory of Disease-- Debunked
includes Koch's Postulates & More
includes Koch's Postulates & More
The most important material element of our lives must be our health.
It is strongly affected by what we believe about it, and how we learn to treat our bodies.
One might assume that the science behind germ theory is firm, well- proven and true. It isn't.
Medical practice has been a for- profit deal from its beginnings, perpetuated and pushed to the top as go-to in health care by profiteers. Its prominence and dominance is not due to any vetting, voting, or any superiority over other methods whatever. Rather, it is due to the zeal of promoters.
Its never been proven that germs and what we call viruses are the cause of illness. (The definition of a virus reads, in part, inert, dead matter.) Scientists, medical practitioners, doctors and even a High German court have said that diseases are not caused by bacteria or viruses. Contagion is also an unproven assumption. Numbers of people have also been seen to have fallen ill in a specific location due to soil, air or other pollution, electrical disturbances, common conditions and food supply, and many other reasons.
Could there be something incomplete in germ theory or perhaps something else beyond it? The answer is a resounding “Yes!”
Read Companion Article: Contagion
Germ theory (note it is a theory, not a fact.) It is so pervasive that questioning it, to most people, is like saying the earth is flat. They may label the questioner as nuts or worse. We’re told that we can “catch” “bad” germs from others and vice versa through direct or indirect contact which causes illness.
This idea-- germ theory-- is foundational to the Western medical system. This belief is so persistent that public health measures have been used to enforce treatments on an unwilling population, violating the right to sovereignty over our own bodies. (aka mandated vaccination).
Germ theory and other medical premises are incomplete, some say even completely off base. Its foundational premise has never actually even been fulfilled by any so-called germ, virus, bacteria or infectious agent.
Early on, germ theory was paired with a scientific model for its proving. If germs really did cause disease, then certain conditions had to exist in order to prove it. If those conditions did not hold true, then the theory was not true, logical or scientific. The four criteria to be met were called Koch’s postulates. They have never been shown to prove that germs are the cause of disease. *
It is strongly affected by what we believe about it, and how we learn to treat our bodies.
One might assume that the science behind germ theory is firm, well- proven and true. It isn't.
Medical practice has been a for- profit deal from its beginnings, perpetuated and pushed to the top as go-to in health care by profiteers. Its prominence and dominance is not due to any vetting, voting, or any superiority over other methods whatever. Rather, it is due to the zeal of promoters.
Its never been proven that germs and what we call viruses are the cause of illness. (The definition of a virus reads, in part, inert, dead matter.) Scientists, medical practitioners, doctors and even a High German court have said that diseases are not caused by bacteria or viruses. Contagion is also an unproven assumption. Numbers of people have also been seen to have fallen ill in a specific location due to soil, air or other pollution, electrical disturbances, common conditions and food supply, and many other reasons.
Could there be something incomplete in germ theory or perhaps something else beyond it? The answer is a resounding “Yes!”
Read Companion Article: Contagion
Germ theory (note it is a theory, not a fact.) It is so pervasive that questioning it, to most people, is like saying the earth is flat. They may label the questioner as nuts or worse. We’re told that we can “catch” “bad” germs from others and vice versa through direct or indirect contact which causes illness.
This idea-- germ theory-- is foundational to the Western medical system. This belief is so persistent that public health measures have been used to enforce treatments on an unwilling population, violating the right to sovereignty over our own bodies. (aka mandated vaccination).
Germ theory and other medical premises are incomplete, some say even completely off base. Its foundational premise has never actually even been fulfilled by any so-called germ, virus, bacteria or infectious agent.
Early on, germ theory was paired with a scientific model for its proving. If germs really did cause disease, then certain conditions had to exist in order to prove it. If those conditions did not hold true, then the theory was not true, logical or scientific. The four criteria to be met were called Koch’s postulates. They have never been shown to prove that germs are the cause of disease. *
The Germ Theory of Disease
The concept of contagion depends on the belief that the germ theory of disease is correct. That theory of disease is the reigning premise which justifies a tremendous network of modern medical procedures.
Simply stated, germ theory says:
Diseases are due solely to invasion by specific aggressive microscopic organisms; that is, a specific germ is responsible for each disease and such microorganisms are capable of reproduction and transportation outside of the body.
The germ theory was founded on the assumption that disease germs are specific and unchangeable in their biological structure and chemical characteristics. Dr. Rene J. Dubos (eminent modern bacteriologist and 1968 Pulitzer Prize winner) contradicted this assumption by showing that the virulence of microbial species is variable.
Bacteriophobia-- Fear of Germs
Although there have been many dramatic proofs that germs do not cause disease. the universal acceptance of the germ theory has become widespread, leading to fear of bacteria or bacteriophobia.
The present-day practice of killing germs (inside and outside the body) with poison drugs was initiated, resulting in more and more degeneration and iatrogenic (drug-induced) disease. Various programs were initiated to confer "immunity" against specific germs by means of vaccines and serums, resulting in the inoculation system.
Germ Theory Discovered and Discarded
The original proponent of germ theory, Pasteur (circa.1860) discovered facts which were not in accord with his previous conception that disease germs were unchangeable. He found that microbial species can undergo many transformations; this discovery destroyed the basis for germ theory. Since a pneumonia germ (coccus) for example, could change to a bacillus (typhoid germ) and back again-- and, indeed, since any germ could turn into another—and since their virulence could be altered, often at the will of the experimenter, the whole theory exploded.
Pasteur by then had changed his direction. His more mature conception of the cause of disease was that a germ was "ordinarily kept within bounds by natural laws, but when conditions change and its virulence is exalted, when its host is enfeebled the germ was able to "invade" the territory which was barred to it up to that time." This, of course, is the premise that a healthy body is resistant to disease or not susceptible to it. After the change in his outlook, and numerous experiments along this line, Pasteur was at last convinced that the presence of certain germs is not proof that they are the cause of a disease. So Pasteur finally reversed his position and acknowledge that germ theory was flawed.
So you see the originator of the rise of germ theory finally reversed his position and acknowledged that germs are not the specific and primary cause of disease, and he abandoned the germ theory. He is reported to have said on his deathbed, "Bernard was right. The seed is nothing, the soil is everything."
Although Pasteur abandoned his early immature theory of disease causation by germs, seeing it to be erroneous, Yet it was developed and fostered, and perpetuated by some who saw great profit in it. Later, they pushed its proponents to the forefront by pulling the strings of politics, regulation and so on. This all began around 1880, but the medical misnomers, misunderstanding and error continue today.
Note that trillions of bacteria live within us at all times, often serving as helpers and aids to physiological processes. Its been said that we may have more germs in us than there are actual cells of our bodies themselves. They're present in health as well as disease, yet this is no proof that they cause any illness whatever. Seen in disease, many researchers believe bacteria are vital aids to healing the illness and ridding us of disease- causing elements.
In short, in every research and record it is clear that the presence of specific germs is no proof that they are the cause of any disease.
Germ Theory Resurrected-- A Plausible And Tangible Basis For "Medical Science"
Medicine is now claimed to be a science. Before the discoveries and pseudo-discoveries of Pasteur, the field of medicine was a medley of diversified diseases and imaginary causes, treated symptomatically and empirically. Up to this time the evolution of medical thought was a slow transition from superstition. The profession groped blindly about in search of a tangible basis upon which to base their theories and practices.
"Pasteur gave the (medical) profession the germ. Here, at last, was a tangible and basic theory, however disproven, which could be developed without a limit. The microscope made it possible to visualize, differentiate, and classify the organisms. The medical profession seized upon this new theory, since which time practically all medical investigation has been carried on with the (discredited) germ theory of disease as its basis."
Note the more complicated a thing is, the more money- making opportunities it offers. Treating every disease differently, as in medicine, adds entire industries (eg., pharmaceuticals) and specialties to their number and more layers of profiteers. Its big business, don’t doubt it.
One Disease, One Basic Cure
If the cause and treatment of diseases such as inflammation in the elbow (bursitis) is different from that caused by sinusitis, appendicitis or nephritis, (inflammation of the sinuses, the appendix or kidneys) that suggests more specialties and more treatments as well. Yet if in fact, as natural health sees it, the disease is seen as inflammation or inflammation- related (eg., “itis”) in most every case, and the cure is also the same, then treatment is simple. The causes are one and the same with a few unique qualities that are easily adjusted for. The cure then, is one, beginning with the removal of causes, making allowance for the necessary body recovery processes to work unencumbered.
In natural health, disease is seen to have just one cause and that is the toxicity of body tissues. This, the unity of disease is not understood by medicine and even many practitioners of natural health. It is a unity that runs through all life, all science, logic and natural law. Those who insist on relating a specific germ to each disease miss it entirely. Thus we see the field of medicine burgeoning and continually diversifying its many offerings. With an unending supply of sick and disease- susceptible clients, the medical industry and its offshoots have together become among the most lucrative fields in the world.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Koch's Postulates
Pasteur finally realized that germ theory was flawed, He reversed his position, acknowledging that germs were not the primary cause of disease. Koch’s postulates were the clincher. They provided a clear basis for scientific testing of the theory, The German scientist, Robert Koch, (1843-1910) a bacteriologist, physiologist and one of Pasteur's contemporaries, laid out the proper testing procedure, which is still considered an excellent example of the scientific method. If you read them you will see that they make perfect sense.
Koch proposed four postulates to prove that for a specific bacteria to be the cause of a disease:
Pasteur finally realized that germ theory was flawed, He reversed his position, acknowledging that germs were not the primary cause of disease. Koch’s postulates were the clincher. They provided a clear basis for scientific testing of the theory, The German scientist, Robert Koch, (1843-1910) a bacteriologist, physiologist and one of Pasteur's contemporaries, laid out the proper testing procedure, which is still considered an excellent example of the scientific method. If you read them you will see that they make perfect sense.
Koch proposed four postulates to prove that for a specific bacteria to be the cause of a disease:
- The specific bacteria must be found in every case of that disease.
This is not found. - The specific bacteria must not be found when the disease is not present.
This is not so. - The specific bacteria must be capable of living outside the tissues.
That viruses and bacteria can live outside the body is unproven. - The bacteria must then be capable of reintroduction into the organism and producing that disease.
As has been repeatedly demonstrated, specific bacteria do not fulfill these requisites.
Thus, germs and viruses cannot be said to cause of disease.
___________________________________________________________________
Thus, germs and viruses cannot be said to cause of disease.
___________________________________________________________________
Koch's Postulates Dis- Proven – and Revised
The scientific method of confirming that a specific bacteria was the cause of a disease includes also satisfying the following four postulates as true. In the case of germ theory, this could not be done. The postulates were then revised. ( Postulate #4) However with the revisions the theory still defies the scientific method.
All Four Postulates are Disproven:
Postulate #1 Disproven
Scientists know that specific bacteria are not found in every case of a specific disease. The eminent Canadian physician, Sir William Osier (1849-1919) found that the diphtheria bacillus is absent in 28 to 40% of cases of diphtheria. Green's Medical Diagnosis says that tubercle bacilli may be present early, more often late, or in rare instances be absent throughout the disease condition. Koch's first postulate, "the specific bacteria must be found in every case of that disease" is not fulfilled in tuberculosis, diphtheria, typhoid fever, pneumonia, or any other disease. Specific bacteria are not found in every case of a specific disease.
Postulate #2 Disproven
Nor is the second postulate fulfilled, because it is a medically-known fact that bacteria are found in the bodies of humans and animals which exhibit no symptoms of any disease. Also, specific bacteria are repeatedly found when the specific disease is absent.
Postulate #3 Disproven
Further, bacteria are not capable of living outside the tissues; therefore, the third postulate is not fulfilled. Neither Pasteur nor any of his successors have ever induced disease by the inoculation of airborne bacteria, but only by injections from bodily sources. The reason is obvious: germs are dependent on human or animal organisms for their survival.
Postulate #4 Disproven
* Koch's Fourth Postulate originally read: Introducing germ cultures in a healthy body or organism will always produce signs and symptoms of the disease. This is not so.
Postulate #4 Revised--
To stretch the acceptance of germ theory, the postulates were changed. However, with the revisions (see Rivers) the theory still cannot fall into line with the scientific method. The primary revision was #4, which is changed to read:
“Introducing germ cultures in a susceptible body or organism produces signs and symptoms of the disease. When the condition of susceptibility is introduced, we’re back to the same point we have been emphasizing. Again, although germs are present in illness, that is no evidence that they have caused any disease. The condition of the host is of primary importance in the production of illness.
For more, see NOTES below-- Koch's Postulates-- Laboratory Proving Ground
_________________________________________________________
.
|
Download full article here >>>>>
|
| ||
______________________________________________________________________________________
Of Themselves, Germs Are Powerless To Cause Disease
"The germ alone could no more cause disease than a match alone can produce a fire. Just as the fire. If it is to have any part in causing disease, the microbe must find an organism that produces a suitable soil for its activities. We cannot avoid germs. We must be proof against them.
We can avoid disease only by keeping ourselves in the positive state of health such that bacteria are powerless against us." (February 1972, Dr. Shelton 's Hygienic Review),
Germs Are Not Enemies
Bacteria are ubiquitous—they are with us all the lime. Life on this planet would be impossible without them.
Specific "disease" bacteria are commonly assumed to be the primary cause of specific diseases. These much maligned microorganisms are, in truth, friends and scavengers that need nourishment to reproduce. They go into action immediately when there is a dangerous accumulation of toxic materials which is threatening body integrity. They perform the useful function of "cleaning up the mess" and then resume their more passive state, after their work is done.
There is no denying the importance of bacteria in the evolution of disease. But they are not the fundamental and primary causes, as so many people believe. Bacteria are intimately associated with many serious diseases. They contribute secondary or tertiary complicating factors and elaborate certain powerful toxins. They have factors which add to the primary causes.
It is the diseased body condition that creates an environment favorable to the mutation of bacteria into those associated with a particular "disease," an environment that is favorable to their proliferation and increasing virulence. The initial diseased body condition springs from improper living that begets toxicosis.
There is no denying that in the disease process the work performed by bacteria as scavengers is unpleasant and exhausting to the host. In the view of natural health, some or all of those bacteria are there to gather up the ravaged debris of a toxic body. Thus, they help in cleaning up and moving forward into health and restoration. They are thus necessary for the preservation of health and life. After the cleansing is complete, the organism again makes its energies available for normal activities.
Diseases Are Not Entities Traveling From One Person to Another
We hear about infectious diseases, contagious diseases. pandemics and communicable disease. But nobody has even seen a disease travel from one person to another. There is not an iota of evidence that this happens. In 1860, the world-famous English nurse, Florence Nightingale, published a refutation of the germ theory of disease, saying:
"Diseases are not individuals arranged in classes, like cats and dogs, but conditions growing out of one another. Ii is a mistake to look upon diseases, as we do now, as separate entities, which must exist, like cats and dogs, instead of looking upon them as conditions, like a dirty and clean condition, and just as much under our control. Rather they are the reactions of kindly Nature, coming up against the conditions which we have placed upon ourselves. I have seen with my eyes and smelled with my nose smallpox growing up in first specimens, either in closed rooms, or in overcrowded wards, where it could not by any possibility have been 'caught' but must have begun. Nay, more, I have seen disease begin, grow up and pass into one another. Now, dogs do not pass into cats.
"True nursing ignores infection, except to prevent it. Cleanliness and fresh air from open windows, with unremitting attention to the patient, are the only defense a true nurse either asks or needs The specific disease doctrine is a grand and twisted refuge of those as now rule in the medical profession.
There are no specific diseases; there are specific disease conditions."
Read Companion Article: Contagion
_________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
An Alternate, Natural Viewpoint--
The Cause, Nature and Purpose Of Disease
Disease is a process of physiological and biochemical changes within the body, producing certain signs and symptoms which we label as specific diseases. When diseases are categorized as communicable or infectious, it is not really meant that the disease, per se, is transmitted from one person to another. The concept actually is that an assumed cause of disease—virus, bacteria, etc.—is transmitted.
Disease is the result of many causes, most often due to the intrusion of toxins into the body by various methods-- eating, drinking, lack of sleep. exercise and the proper needs of life, etc. The actual process of disease (the fever, the inflammation, etc.) is the action initiated by the body to purge itself of toxic accumulations. But the causes, the processes, and the effects appear to be intermingled. Toxicity causes change in the processes of the body. These changes result in other changes as the body tries to cope. The situation becomes extremely complicated, with constant interaction between causes, processes, and effects.
The fundamental causes of disease, in the natural view, are a result of enervation. Enervation is body depletion and /or exhaustion due to the bankruptcy of nerve energy when the body has expended more than it is capable of regenerating. The general energy level diminishes and functional efficiency deteriorates. We evolve into a state which we call toxicosis—a condition of body saturation with toxic matters.
Toxicosis, from toxic conditions of the body, implies a disturbance of the blood and tissue fluids, and the accumulation of toxic byproducts of metabolism. In recent years, studies of biochemical pathology have shown this disturbance within the homeostatic mechanism of the body, caused by the accumulation of toxic substances.
Dr. John H. Tilden, a natural health pioneer, in his book, Toxemia Explained, (1926) presented "the true interpretation of disease." Habits of living that fail to supply our needs, that exceed our limitations—too much food, insufficent exercise, insufficient rest, and so on—produce inner stresses and a chemical burden the body cannot handle. The causes of disease are multiple and relate to all the facets of our existence—nutrition, exercise, rest mental and emotional factors, relationships with other people—all of life. The most significant causes are those that are related to our fundamental biological needs. Those relating to our fundamental and emotional life complete the total picture. Most of the causes of disease are within the control of the individual.
The Cause, Nature and Purpose Of Disease
Disease is a process of physiological and biochemical changes within the body, producing certain signs and symptoms which we label as specific diseases. When diseases are categorized as communicable or infectious, it is not really meant that the disease, per se, is transmitted from one person to another. The concept actually is that an assumed cause of disease—virus, bacteria, etc.—is transmitted.
Disease is the result of many causes, most often due to the intrusion of toxins into the body by various methods-- eating, drinking, lack of sleep. exercise and the proper needs of life, etc. The actual process of disease (the fever, the inflammation, etc.) is the action initiated by the body to purge itself of toxic accumulations. But the causes, the processes, and the effects appear to be intermingled. Toxicity causes change in the processes of the body. These changes result in other changes as the body tries to cope. The situation becomes extremely complicated, with constant interaction between causes, processes, and effects.
The fundamental causes of disease, in the natural view, are a result of enervation. Enervation is body depletion and /or exhaustion due to the bankruptcy of nerve energy when the body has expended more than it is capable of regenerating. The general energy level diminishes and functional efficiency deteriorates. We evolve into a state which we call toxicosis—a condition of body saturation with toxic matters.
Toxicosis, from toxic conditions of the body, implies a disturbance of the blood and tissue fluids, and the accumulation of toxic byproducts of metabolism. In recent years, studies of biochemical pathology have shown this disturbance within the homeostatic mechanism of the body, caused by the accumulation of toxic substances.
Dr. John H. Tilden, a natural health pioneer, in his book, Toxemia Explained, (1926) presented "the true interpretation of disease." Habits of living that fail to supply our needs, that exceed our limitations—too much food, insufficent exercise, insufficient rest, and so on—produce inner stresses and a chemical burden the body cannot handle. The causes of disease are multiple and relate to all the facets of our existence—nutrition, exercise, rest mental and emotional factors, relationships with other people—all of life. The most significant causes are those that are related to our fundamental biological needs. Those relating to our fundamental and emotional life complete the total picture. Most of the causes of disease are within the control of the individual.
Disease Is Body Action and is Self-Limiting
When the toxic level rises above a toleration point, the body takes remedial steps for defensive action and repair. Disease is body action and is limited to the time and effort necessary to rid the organism of injurious substances. Every cell in the body acts in unison with all the other cells for the preservation of the organism. When the work is done and order is restored, the disease symptoms dwindle and disappear, and the organism—although debilitated from the effort made necessary by its toxic condition—regains its powers.
This almost consistent cycle of effects is eloquent evidence that what we call disease comes from body action, often in defense or repair. It is by no means an attack by proliferating bacteria and viruses. The body’s defensive action may come with pain and abnormal conditions but that does not discount its restorative nature. All cases recover without any treatment If a healthy body is unable to resist an original attack by small numbers of microorganisms; if a healthy body can "catch" a cold, or influenza, due to exposure to cold germs or influenza germs, how then can that so debilitated body ever recover? If could not previously repel the illness, how can the subsequently weakened organism later recover from onslaughts brought on by proliferating trillions of microorganisms? If such reasoning were carried forward to its logical conclusion, the inevitable result would be the death of the organism. How can it be denied?
Yet when the body completes its defense work, the healing crisis is completed and recovery begins. Within the most intense phases of the healing crisis, the observable entity we call disease is often accompanied by painful conditions or symptoms. Curiously, this may serve as the body teaching a lesson, suggesting we not repeat whatever brought on the extreme condition. For it is our own action or inaction, not some mysterious caprice of the physique that has created the need for intense body defense and response.
Almost always, our bodies recover from colds, influenza and every acute disease. But when they are complicated by routine, often noxious medical treatments, when we medical methods short circuit the vital, intense reparations called forth by the body, we’re asking for trouble. When we use drugs or treatments to stop natural, restorative action, int the short run we may feel better. But what we’ve actually done just puts off that process. In the end it will be worse and you will feel worse going through it-- if you get through. The fact is, you just can’t thwart Mother Nature-- she will have her way with you in the end. Unfortunately, those who rely heavily on drugging and treatments turn off the body’s own warning systems. In the end, it comes back to bite them.
Under natural, healthy guidance (often intelligent noninterference) disease symptoms will disappear. Yet some who are been treated medically will still recover. However, they usually do so despite their treatments. Yet the complications brought on by said treatments often are much worse than the illness they originally had.
_______________________________________________________________________
NOTES
When the toxic level rises above a toleration point, the body takes remedial steps for defensive action and repair. Disease is body action and is limited to the time and effort necessary to rid the organism of injurious substances. Every cell in the body acts in unison with all the other cells for the preservation of the organism. When the work is done and order is restored, the disease symptoms dwindle and disappear, and the organism—although debilitated from the effort made necessary by its toxic condition—regains its powers.
This almost consistent cycle of effects is eloquent evidence that what we call disease comes from body action, often in defense or repair. It is by no means an attack by proliferating bacteria and viruses. The body’s defensive action may come with pain and abnormal conditions but that does not discount its restorative nature. All cases recover without any treatment If a healthy body is unable to resist an original attack by small numbers of microorganisms; if a healthy body can "catch" a cold, or influenza, due to exposure to cold germs or influenza germs, how then can that so debilitated body ever recover? If could not previously repel the illness, how can the subsequently weakened organism later recover from onslaughts brought on by proliferating trillions of microorganisms? If such reasoning were carried forward to its logical conclusion, the inevitable result would be the death of the organism. How can it be denied?
Yet when the body completes its defense work, the healing crisis is completed and recovery begins. Within the most intense phases of the healing crisis, the observable entity we call disease is often accompanied by painful conditions or symptoms. Curiously, this may serve as the body teaching a lesson, suggesting we not repeat whatever brought on the extreme condition. For it is our own action or inaction, not some mysterious caprice of the physique that has created the need for intense body defense and response.
Almost always, our bodies recover from colds, influenza and every acute disease. But when they are complicated by routine, often noxious medical treatments, when we medical methods short circuit the vital, intense reparations called forth by the body, we’re asking for trouble. When we use drugs or treatments to stop natural, restorative action, int the short run we may feel better. But what we’ve actually done just puts off that process. In the end it will be worse and you will feel worse going through it-- if you get through. The fact is, you just can’t thwart Mother Nature-- she will have her way with you in the end. Unfortunately, those who rely heavily on drugging and treatments turn off the body’s own warning systems. In the end, it comes back to bite them.
Under natural, healthy guidance (often intelligent noninterference) disease symptoms will disappear. Yet some who are been treated medically will still recover. However, they usually do so despite their treatments. Yet the complications brought on by said treatments often are much worse than the illness they originally had.
_______________________________________________________________________
NOTES
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Notes
Koch's Postulates in the Lab-- A Proving Ground
For the new Postulates to be proven scientifically
Notes
Koch's Postulates in the Lab-- A Proving Ground
For the new Postulates to be proven scientifically
- A culture of the specific bacteria must be taken from a diseased animal.
- It must then be grown in pure culture in a laboratory.
- The culture must then be injected into a susceptible* animal-- (originally this read "a healthy animal"
- It must then cause the same disease via a culture taken from the above animal.
